Re: Dutch football federation encourages gay players to come out of the closet

by FalcaoPunch Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:44 pm

I'm not stating rights as a homosexual. I'm merely stating that if you are a MAN or a WOMAN you have rights to begin with.

There is male and female.
As an individual man you have your own civil rights.
And as individual woman. Well at least here in the states.

And rights for homosexuals are expanding. But they've had rights to begin with. Their are specific things that like you mentioned but I doubt those will be there much longer.

Oh and here in the states. The don't ask don't tell policy is gone last time I checked. And you can be gay and serve in the country. Unless that changed again recently.

Now with other countries and death penalties that is very harsh. But I'm sure those same countries still stone and belittle woman as well. Why because they're still in a terrible and twisted mindset.

by RedOranje Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:21 pm

He's point was that homosexuals did not share the SAME rights as heterosexuals, not that they did not have rights at all.

On that point he is invariably and absolutely correct.

by BarrileteCosmico Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:51 pm

Phritz wrote: and even pre-christian Rome an overwhelming majority of societies condoned and even promoted it.

I agree with you on almost everything you've said in this thread, but this is wrong. While the Roman elite always looked up to the more civilized Greek one, the one aspect they were never comfortable with was their very prevalent homosexuality.

Treating LGBT members as any other member of the society (and thus not excluding them from rights they are entitled to) is a mark of a democratic society. It's not a democracy if there are citizens that are denied basic rights available to everyone else.

by FalcaoPunch Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:10 am

RedOranje wrote:He's point was that homosexuals did not share the SAME rights as heterosexuals, not that they did not have rights at all.

On that point he is invariably and absolutely correct.

Where am I claiming he's wrong?

by BarrileteCosmico Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:16 am

You say gay men shouldn't demand rights, because they already have them.

He says no they don't, they can't do this number of things that the common person has no problem doing.

After that I'm not sure what your point was.

by FalcaoPunch Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:08 am

All I'm saying is that rights are already established.
But there should be new ones based on orientation?

A majority of the rights I have read that are more than likely going to become available in the near future. It's a growing issue in the states that won't go away. And hopefully Obama and the nation goes forward in equality for all.

by RedOranje Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:02 am

ColoJunior wrote:All I'm saying is that rights are already established.
But there should be new ones based on orientation?

Here's where you're wrong, as full rights have NOT been established for homosexuals.

We've provide several instances already where rights that are established for the majority are NOT also open to homosexuals. No-one is suggesting they should get preferential treatment, we're arguing that they do not currently have receive EQUAL treatment. They DO NOT HAVE FULL RIGHTS.

ColoJunior wrote:A majority of the rights I have read that are more than likely going to become available in the near future. It's a growing issue in the states that won't go away. And hopefully Obama and the nation goes forward in equality for all.

You're right, it's a growing issue. Do you know why though? Because people are upset over the rights denied to them. Because people are not simply saying "the already have basic rights, so why should we work to expand those?" It's a growing issue because people are MAKING it an issue by raising concerns at all levels of the government. That said, there are also those that are working just as hard to DENY homosexuals certain rights... to remove rights that they already have in some cases. All that it takes for those people to succeed is for the rest to do nothing because "they already have rights, why should we give them more?"

by FalcaoPunch Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:37 am

I see what you're saying and you're 100% right.

But there will always be those working hard to deny those rights/and or accept them.
It's a given. And it's quite sad.
*Needless to say nothing will keep me away from Chick Fil A cheers

*

But then again that's always been the case with about anything even remotely controversial

by Yuri Yukuv Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:36 am

What rights does the general population have that homosexuals dont?

In the US Im guessing that this is related to marriage, tax treatment and adoption. The objection to the first two is cultural to the last it could have actual well grounded reasons. I see barring gay marriage in the same light as banning interracial marriage. For tax purposes however are not "rights", just like how a heterosexual unmarried couple is disadvantaged in the tax code anyways this is connected to first issue. I also dont see any reason for the institution of marriage to be state business or need state recognition.

We have seen attacks on actual rights like economic rights of chick a fila to be given same opportunity as any other commercial enterprise to open a store in Boston where mayor Menino used his political connections to bar them.

Here is another example of rights being attacked

We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It

Posted by Ilya Shapiro

Elane Photography, a Christian-identified business in Albuquerque, N.M., declined to photograph Vanessa Willock’s same-sex commitment ceremony based on the business owners’ personal beliefs. New Mexico law prohibits any refusal to render business services because of sexual orientation, however, so Willock filed a claim with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. She argued that Elane Photography is a “public accommodation,” akin to a hotel or restaurant, that is subject to the state’s anti-discrimination law.

The commission found against Elane and ordered it to pay $6,600 in attorney fees. Elane Photography’s owners appealed the ruling, arguing that they are being denied their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion (and a similar provision in the state constitution). Furthermore, New Mexico’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act defines “free exercise” as “an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief” and forbids government from abridging that right except to “further a compelling government interest.”

The state trial and appellate courts affirmed the commission’s order. Elane Photography v. Willock is now before the New Mexico Supreme Court, where Cato has joined UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter—who, like Cato, support gay marriage—in filing an amicus brief siding with Elane Photography on free speech grounds.

Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in Wooly v. Maynard that photography is protected speech—even if it’s not political and even if the photos are used for commercial value—and that speech compulsions (forcing people to speak) are just as unconstitutional as speech restrictions. The First Amendment “includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Moreover, unlike true cases of public accommodation, there are abundant opportunities to choose other photographers in the same area.

The New Mexico Supreme Court should thus reverse the lower court’s ruling and allow Elane Photography to be free to choose the work it desires.

by VivaStPauli Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:49 pm

In cases like the one in your quote, I'm actually with the right wing on this.

It's ridiculous. Just like the political views of the Chick Fil-A owner don't matter - Chick Fil-A still serves gay people, so who cares that their owner is a bigot?

And with the marriage photographers: I think it's kind of cheap, dumb, and a bit disgusting that they'd refuse to fotograph, but I'm on board that it's their right to be discriminating asses, and what I especially don't understand is suing someone, so you can get a gay-bashing bigot to photograph your gay wedding. That seems like a case of both sides being equally stupid.

That being said, gay people can't marry in a lot of states, and that should, imho, not even be a legal issue. Marriage should be open to all adult human beings anywhere. It's as private as it gets, nobody else should have a say.

The gay marriage thing is a huge issue, not just when it comes to tax, but mroe importantly when it comes to inheritance, being regarded as part of the family during hospital visits, and adoption.

If you're gay in a red state, and your spouse dies, you're pretty much cut off from their family, if one of you had a kid it can be even more complicated.

I probably wouldn't care as much about gay marriage, if marriage didn't tie into many of those circumstances.

by Bellabong Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:00 pm

The photo example is a poor example because it's a unique situation; like viva said, who wants a homophobic wedding photographer at a gay wedding?

If the photographer had been paid for and then showed up at the wedding, realized it was homo and left then I'd understand.

I wonder though if the author of that article would have the same of opinion if it was a case of racism and not homophobia.

by Yuri Yukuv Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:26 pm

Phritz wrote:The photo example is a poor example because it's a unique situation; like viva said, who wants a homophobic wedding photographer at a gay wedding?

If the photographer had been paid for and then showed up at the wedding, realized it was homo and left then I'd understand.

I wonder though if the author of that article would have the same of opinion if it was a case of racism and not homophobia.

No the point is that gays have right to marriage but they have no right to infringe on our rights of freespeech, freedom of commerce or right to assemble. I am for gay rights, but I find it frustrating I have to remind some homosexuals that their rights are not more than anyone elses.

by Bellabong Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:48 pm

Yuri Yukuv wrote:
Phritz wrote:The photo example is a poor example because it's a unique situation; like viva said, who wants a homophobic wedding photographer at a gay wedding?

If the photographer had been paid for and then showed up at the wedding, realized it was homo and left then I'd understand.

I wonder though if the author of that article would have the same of opinion if it was a case of racism and not homophobia.

No the point is that gays have right to marriage but they have no right to infringe on our rights of freespeech, freedom of commerce or right to assemble. I am for gay rights, but I find it frustrating I have to remind some homosexuals that their rights are not more than anyone elses.

Well would you feel the same if a black man was sueing a racist wedding photographer (or marriage rights)?

Even I find myself correcting my initial reaction of the gay couple sueing being ridiculous, because it's the same unfounded discrimination. Society has just made it impossible to be racist in such a manner and yet condones an identical form of discrimination due to the subtle and sometimes unintentional influences of the media and parents as well as the overt and dangerous indoctrination of the Abrahamic Religions.

by The Messiah Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:53 pm

Phritz wrote:
Yuri Yukuv wrote:
Phritz wrote:The photo example is a poor example because it's a unique situation; like viva said, who wants a homophobic wedding photographer at a gay wedding?

If the photographer had been paid for and then showed up at the wedding, realized it was homo and left then I'd understand.

I wonder though if the author of that article would have the same of opinion if it was a case of racism and not homophobia.

No the point is that gays have right to marriage but they have no right to infringe on our rights of freespeech, freedom of commerce or right to assemble. I am for gay rights, but I find it frustrating I have to remind some homosexuals that their rights are not more than anyone elses.

Well would you feel the same if a black man was sueing a racist wedding photographer (or marriage rights)?

Even I find myself correcting my initial reaction of the gay couple sueing being ridiculous, because it's the same unfounded discrimination. Society has just made it impossible to be racist in such a manner and yet condones an identical form of discrimination due to the subtle and sometimes unintentional influences of the media and parents as well as the overt and dangerous indoctrination of the Abrahamic Religions.

So it has gotten to this, when we draw comparison between an abnormal phenomena with an entire race.

by VivaStPauli Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:02 pm

The Messiah wrote:
So it has gotten to this, when we draw comparison between an abnormal phenomena with an entire race.

Makes sense, Europe has more gays than black people. /devil's advocate

by Yuri Yukuv Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:05 pm

Phritz wrote:
Yuri Yukuv wrote:
Phritz wrote:The photo example is a poor example because it's a unique situation; like viva said, who wants a homophobic wedding photographer at a gay wedding?

If the photographer had been paid for and then showed up at the wedding, realized it was homo and left then I'd understand.

I wonder though if the author of that article would have the same of opinion if it was a case of racism and not homophobia.

No the point is that gays have right to marriage but they have no right to infringe on our rights of freespeech, freedom of commerce or right to assemble. I am for gay rights, but I find it frustrating I have to remind some homosexuals that their rights are not more than anyone elses.

Well would you feel the same if a black man was sueing a racist wedding photographer (or marriage rights)?

Even I find myself correcting my initial reaction of the gay couple sueing being ridiculous, because it's the same unfounded discrimination. Society has just made it impossible to be racist in such a manner and yet condones an identical form of discrimination due to the subtle and sometimes unintentional influences of the media and parents as well as the overt and dangerous indoctrination of the Abrahamic Religions.

YES! The constitution protects your right of freespeech even if its value is to discriminate against "immoral" or "different" minorities or steal money from people through taxing them for purposes of "fairness". Or simply not to speak nicely about them.

by VivaStPauli Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:10 pm

But I'm actually with Yuri/Libertarians/Right-Wingers on this single issue: it makes that wedding photographer a huge douche, and I wouldn#t invite the dude to my wedding, BUT: if he wants to be a bigoted ass, it's his right to be an asshole.

Just get another wedding photographer. Just the same, I, even though I'm a white straight male, and thusly never discriminated against, would totally boycot anything that's anti-gay, racist, hell, I don't even contribute to religious charities.

by The Messiah Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:17 pm

VivaStPauli wrote:
The Messiah wrote:
So it has gotten to this, when we draw comparison between an abnormal phenomena with an entire race.

Makes sense, Europe has more gays than black people. /devil's advocate

Having sex in the anus, where human waste is supposed to come out from. Did we evolve so as to have sex in the anus and kiss flat ass hairy nipples...? What thy heck is wrong with you people? Is there even any natural lubricant in the anus unlike vegina or can we now impregnate one another through our anus.

Maybe we should start exercising our anuses by opening it up every morning with some lubricant like in the bruno movie, so it can eventually also evolve to become something else, just like how fishes eventually turned into humans or was it stones that turned into 5 fishes which was fed to 5 thousand men, who also drank water which changed from water into wine.

Which of this should I believe? Well, I know majority of wine are made out of liquid so I rather stick with that story, rather than waiting 5million years for our anus to evolve.

No offense, I just want to ask a question.

Do people also solicits their anus for sex and money?

by Bellabong Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:28 pm

Freedom of speech and expression is a very valid point. I guess just like racism the reasons for the prejudice needs to die a slow death.

Romans I, Verse 27b wrote:Men commited shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their sin.

Well S***.

Anybody got a way to stop Religion?

Lol@Idri, I wonder what ticked him off Wink

by RedOranje Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:53 pm

Human waste is also expelled through the urethra, which is part of the male reproductive system. So I fail to see how that argument makes any sense. Evolution/'god' being a piss-poor civil engineer and running a sewage system through a recreational area is not a justification for discrimination.

As for the second paragraph there I can only say one thing: Are you actually trolling? I cannot believe anyone is actually this absurdly ignorant.

by VivaStPauli Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:04 pm

I thought it was awesome how he mocked evolution and jesus simultaniously, can't say that I've seen that done often.

That being said, I'm pretty sure homosexuals aren't the only ones doing anal, Idri ^^

by Bellabong Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:13 pm

VivaStPauli wrote:I thought it was awesome how he mocked evolution and jesus simultaniously, can't say that I've seen that done often.

Schrödingers cat man, Schrödingers cat I tell you...

It all makes sense to me now...

by The Messiah Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:37 pm

Listen guys this is my last post for this topic.

Gay people are absolutely normal people, I will socialize with them the way I socialize with other people, if we also cross path I will also fight them the way I fight with other people. I will never confront a gay person and ask them to cease what they are doing, I will never scorn a gay person because he chooses to have sex in an anus that is not mine, I can have gay friends, I can help a gay person, laugh with them, fight along them, fight them, fight against them just like every other person.

BUT I WILL Never accept having sex in the anus is a normal phenomena, also because straight people also have sex in the anus doesn't also make it normal. It's an abnormal thing they choose to do, if it was normal humans will reproduce through that process and just because some people think sex is not Mainly for reproduction purpose doesn't necessarily mean they are right. Just because some people think reproduction for human race is not one of the most important thing in our survival as a species doesn't make it the truth.

Having sex in the anus is abnormal and wrong and its even more wrong when its done by 2 men, reason being that they can not reproduce that way and have no options, unlike when its done between a man and a woman, also there is too much pain and diseases involve in it, mentally and physically.

Full stop, you can believe what you like, this is what I believe.

by Bellabong Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:59 pm

And what if your beliefs are based on wrong assumptions?

"too much pain" sounds like more like you're talking from personal experience instead of thinking objectively and asking yourself why would people consent to anal if you think it feels bad?

And the diseases swipe is founded on hysteria from the 70's and 80's.

You say it's unnatural and wrong but if you follow the same line of reasoning then you would have to conclude that kissing is wrong - think of all the diseases that can be spread this way! Mouths were intended for eating! Or that fornication should only be committed for reproductive purposes.

by stevieg8 Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:41 pm

Two points to make: First off, people seem to be mistaking the difference between human rights and civil rights. Nobody is arguing for a human right to tax deductions or marriage. That's not what we're talking about. The discussion of civil rights, however, is applicable here. The argument there is that the law needs to apply in the exact same manner to all people. This was added to the constitution following the civil war.

The only way to consider discrimination against gays legal is by considering it an abnormality like The Messiah does. If you feel that it is a defect, similar to kleptomania, than it is something that can be legislated against. But if it is an inherent part of a person - similar to age, gender, or race - than the law has to apply equally. Denying tax benefits, or visitation rights, or any of those types of things to a community that has that distinction is unlawful. Civil unions, furthermore, have DIRECT precedent in the "separate but equal" system of segregation from the early 1900s.

Second point is just to say that freedom to be an asshole is a value shared across the political spectrum. Obviously there are hypocritical people everywhere, but look at the work groups like the ACLU have done with neo-nazis. I agree, they shouldn't be able to sue over this.

by VivaStPauli Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:40 am

"It all makes sense now: Gay marriage legalized on the same day as marijuana makes perfect biblical sense. Leviticus 20:13 "A man who lays with another man should be stoned". Our interpretation has just been wrong for all these years" - Katie Stephens

by Sponsored content