Married Sunday, fired Monday: next U.S. gay rights fight

more than 50 years after the Civil Rights Act

A person has no choice about their race, please don't compare the two.

@sensei258 A person has no choice about their sexuality neither.

Amazing that anyone in this day and age think people CHOOSE to be gay. Such ignorance. Such hate-justifying ignorance.

Enter the Jim Crow laws of the 21st century... :(

A person has no choice about their race, please don't compare the two.

Don't compare two things a person has no choice on? Why not?

"people living in states like Michigan, where a pediatrician recently—and legally—refused to treat a lesbian couple’s baby" - article

Gay rights aren't then some abstract. As reported: a doctor could refuse to treat a child because his objection to the sexuality of the parents.

Unsurprisingly, many will invent imaginary threats and persistent petulance.

Amazing that anyone in this day and age think people CHOOSE to be gay. Such ignorance. Such hate-justifying ignorance.

Oh I get it, you were born gay. That way, when you engage in that behavior, you don't have to take responsibility for your actions.

'Oh I get it, you were born gay. That way, when you engage in that behavior, you don't have to take responsibility for your actions'

Do you expect these people to live celibate lives because certain bigots don't approve?

Oh I get it, you were born gay. That way, when you engage in that behavior, you don't have to take responsibility for your actions.

What actions are you speaking of?

sensei258: Sexual-orientation is biological, not a choice. Being ignorant, however, IS a choice, and one that needs curing. Obviously a lot of Americans suffer from it and refuse to seek treatment.

Less than half of U.S. states have laws protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation

a Tennessee hardware store owner had every right to post a sign in his window declaring “no gays allowed” on Monday.

Come on America! If you try really hard you too can be part of the developed world.

Sensei258, perhaps you should learn some things about sexuality, as for race, there's only one, the human one. Let consonant adults live in peace and happiness, our species needs as much of these as it can get.

@sensei258 A person has no choice about their sexuality neither.

Tragically, poor unsuspecting Japanese students have no choice but to call certain individuals (using the term loosely) "sensei"

Let consenting adults... goddamn preemptive sext.

A person has no choice about their race, please don't compare the two.

Why would someone choose to become gay? So they could be hated by people like you? So, they could be denied the same rights as straight, married couples?

Please do explain. I'd love to know and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

sensei258:

A person has no choice about their race, please don't compare the two.

Why on earth would anyone want to choose to be gay if they then have to face the risk of being physically and verbally abused, spat upon, murdered, tortured, discriminated against, thrown off buildings and basically made to feel sub-human. Nobody would want that. Assuming you're not a self-hating closet-case, please tell me when you decided to be straight.

Perhaps what we need most in the world right now are:

Freedom and tolerance.

Sadly, these things seem to be fast disappearing.

"One is not simply and innocently born gay just as the rapist and the heterosexual pervert are not simply what they are" comments

Well played, pairing perversion and rapists as analogous to gayness. The contempt is really quite staggering. What a terrible set of acquaintances the gayness has. And the logic, one assumes is, gayness is no different from perversion. Really? Really?

Wow Noidall, impressive that you know more about gay people than they know about themselves. I assume you have se scientific basis behind that opinion and aren't just spouting off some crap you made up, right?

What many people forget is that unlike sexual orientation and gender identity, religion is a choice.

@sensei528 @MrNoidall

Your opinions on this issue may never be popular or accepted on this board, but you make very good points.

Hats off for expressing them despite the expected opposition and thumbs down you'll get.

This is why we may have to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. That way, LGBT people get Federal protection against overall discrimination, much more effective than state laws.

Indeed, I think the Democrats missed a chance in 2009-2010 when with majorities in both houses of Congress, they could have passed such a law and ended the whole same-sex marriage debate some six years ago.

Thanks for the compliment.

So where's this scientific basis behind your claims?

Or did you just make them up?

1 - "One is not simply and innocently born gay just as the rapist and the heterosexual pervert are not simply what they are" - comments

2 - "I didn't make those associations between gays, rapists, and perverts, you did!" - same comment source

It is very clear:

Statement #1, "gays are not innocently born gay, just as the rapist and the heterosexual pervert"

Statement #2, "I didn't make those associations"

Sounds like a parody of complete self-deception.

Either a rabid hatred for gayness has informed the opinions that place it in the category of rapists or perverts, or someone has no idea what they are basing their ideas on.

Some people will waste their time taunting the horror of gayness and never inform themselves of anything other than their own idiocy.

The burden of freedom. Putting up with the ignorant rantings of the most bigoted.

How terrible to wander the earth with so much hate in one's soul and with so much hate for other humans for feelings that affect no one but those who love one another.

Where's your Jesus now? Certainly, forgiveness for such ignorant hate is the only Christian path. Maybe some will return to Christ's teachings instead of their own perverse angry hatred based on nothing. How sad.

The gayness can certainly forgive the ignorant bigot, that seems far more Christ-like than the obsessional hatred for something that has no effect on anyone except the parties of a private sense of mutual affection.

Reminder that pedophilia isn't a choice, just like homosexuality. Pedophiles can't choose who they're attracted to. I'm sure homosexuals won't engage in double think though and shield pedophiles from discrimination, right?

How terrible to wander the earth with so much hate in one's soul and with so much hate for other humans for feelings that affect no one but those who love one another. Where's your Jesus now?

Whether you agree with him or not, Mr. Noidall said nothing even remotely hateful.

If you argue that guy people are "born that way," then you have to accept that people of all sexual proclivities are born that way. It's simply a logical extension of that belief. Rather than reacting in a huff, it would be better to address the logic of his argument.

"Rather than reacting in a huff, it would be better to address the logic of his argument." - comment

reposting:

Statement #1, "gays are not innocently born gay, just as the rapist and the heterosexual pervert"

Statement #2, "I didn't make those associations"

Sounds like a parody of complete self-deception.

What better to address the logic of some delusional argument?

The association, as I read it, was with being born a certain way causes certain behavior. If you accept a premise, you have to accept that it's true for all behavior, good or bad. A heterosexual pervert is usually defined by cultural norms. Since homosexuals have been (and still are in many places) seen as perverts, that's a perfectly apt comparison.

A rapist, on the other hand, requires a victim. So, while we can see a need to protect society from rapists, the believe that their behavior is predestined should also elicit some sympathy. Perhaps their imprisonment should be made as comfortable as possible for example. You can say, "Well, they didn't have to act on their urges. That was their choice." But then you are back to square one with homosexuality.

The argument really should be focused on people's actions, and whether they are unacceptable, acceptable, something to be tolerated, or something to be encouraged. Introducing the "born that way" argument is a bad idea, as it leads nowhere. People may be born with urges, but actions are usually a matter of choice.

As a boss, I will fire who I want and/or hire who I want based upon any reason that I want.

As a boss, I will fire who I want and/or hire who I want based upon any reason that I want.

As you can. But you may be opening yourself for liability as a result. In the US that can be dangerous - it could potentially bankrupt your company with the types of lawsuits they have there.

That's about the most ridiculous argument I've heard on the matter. "They're bigots because they're intolerant of our intolerance".

"A lot of the LGBT and their mob supporters: absolutely intolerant and scornful toward anyone who isn't zealous about homosexuality." - Noidall

What a clown. Now the LGBT are a mob of fascist homophiles. The article was named correctly: 'there's a whole lota homophobe go'in round.'

Where does the gay right movement end? When gays can marry? When gays can walk the streets without being called epithets or dealing with the threat of violence? When they won't be fired or dismissed from military service?

Yes.

Or does it end when every living being, plant and animal, supports homosexuality with zealotry?

No on ehas suggested that, and you're the only one saying it.

Arguments about whether gays are born or made are irrelevant. As human beings they have the right to paired relationships as heterosexuals. To paraphrase the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, people should have the right to do what they like so long as it does no harm to others. However that right should not extend in their case to having children as the abnormality of the upbringing could well disadvantage the children.

that right should not extend in their case to having children as the abnormality of the upbringing could well disadvantage the children.

1) Studies have shown that this sentiment is incorrect

2) Many of these kids would otherwise grow up without parents. You think no parents is better than two loving gay parents?

3) Such an upbringing is only abnormal because we haven't allowed it to become normal. Or in other words, there is nothing inherently wrong in two people of the same sex bringing up a child, it's just not the norm as the concept is a relatively new one

It's not normal but let's force it to be normal in order to match the agenda of a certain sector of the population.

No, it's not normal, because gay people have been oppressed and it hasn't been allowed to be normal.

Would you say black kids and white kids going to school together is normal? Well it wasn't before segregation, and it wasn't immediately after segregation was ended either. But it's normal today. And why was it normalized? Because it was the right thing to do.

Let's brand all of those who think it's abnormal as bigots, homophobes and whatnot

Well to be fair, they brand themselves through their bigoted actions. I'm just pointing it out.

Disregard their view that parents involve a mother and a father.

Yes, lets.

for gay couples to charade around under the guise of normalcy is disingenuous.

No it's not, it's treating others with equal rights.

If you're gay that's cool, but accept that humans haven't evolved to reproduce that way.

I'm not gay.

And your argument falls apart when you consider that some heterosexual partners raise kids that aren't biologically theirs, due to an inability to have children. It's already a right we give to those who cannot reproduce if they happen to be of different genders. Not allowing that for those who are the same gender is discrimination.

Forced integration of the public schools is not normal. I can tell you as a black kid I hated standing at the bus stop at 6 on a wintery morning just so the school bus could bring me to a school across town just to match some bureaucratic quota.

You are talking about two different things here. One is integration, the other is quotas. Quotas may have been born of integration, but they are not the same thing.

As far as integration not being normal, that would mean that if you walked into a school and saw black kids and white kids (and any other colored kids) in the same school, you'd be surprised, as that is not something you would normally see. But it is something your normally see, and therefore it is normal.

speaking as a member of the black community, most blacks didn't want integrated schools just equally decent ones.

Again, a different topic altogether.

What I was getting more at is the whole artificial insemination and surrogate mother thing which no heterosexual couple would opt for unless for a medical condition and so on.

Being born with an inability to conceive is not a medical condition. And some people are born without that ability. In such a case, many choose AI. So I disagree that no heterosexual couple would ever choose AI without a medical condition. And since gay people cannot conceive, it puts them in the same position.

I am saying is that people have a right to not be gay and a right to not agree with that type of lifestyle.

First off, it's as much a lifestyle as being black is. That is to say, it's not. Do you choose to live a 'black lifestyle'? No. You are black and you live your life. That doesn't make your lifestyle a black lifestyle, anymore than a gay person living their life is living a gay lifestyle. They are living their lives, and they happen to be gay.

Saying you agree with it is like saying 'I don't agree with people who live a white lifestyle'. So what should the white person do? How can they live any other life than the one they have? Should they go blackface and curl their hair as much as they can, and dye it black? Should gay people force themselves to be with someone of a sex they aren't attracted to, and have sex with someone who doesn't turn them on?

But you and others beating people over the head until they wave the rainbow flag is dogmatism and discrimination.

That's an extreme. I've never waved a rainbow flag. I didn't even change my facebook picture like half the rest of the world did. I've never been to a gay pride parade. I'm not pushing an extremist stance, I'm pushing equality. Let's go back to the quote earlier:

Where does the gay right movement end? When gays can marry? When gays can walk the streets without being called epithets or dealing with the threat of violence? When they won't be fired or dismissed from military service?

Yes.

Or does it end when every living being, plant and animal, supports homosexuality with zealotry?

No on ehas suggested that, and you're the only one saying it.

I think it was pretty clear. Gay people should be treated equally. That doesn't mean you have to be a gay crusader, nor does it mean you even have to like it. It means treating people equally because that's how they deserve to be treated.

You keep going on about not wanting to be an extremist, and wave a rainbow flag, and be a zealot - so don't. But not being a crusader/zealot doesn't mean that you should restrict their rights. Both of those are extremes. How about the middle ground where you live and let live, and if you don't like what they are doing, ignore it.

I am not a bigot if I don't openly support homosexuality.

I agree. You don't have to support it. Just don't oppress it either.

And I wasn't calling you gay.

That's fine. It's not something I take offense to, anymore than I would take offense to being called heterosexual.

Are gays born gay, do they become gay because of environment or personal choice?

Does it really matter?

Surely sexual preference is one thing people can decide for themselves, isn't it?

And if people are so bigoted as to put up a notice barring gays from their shops/restaurants, etc., let them.

There are plenty of other places to shop or eat.

Would you say then that the homosexual family totally depends on the broken heterosexual family?

Not at all. There are various reasons why, but a glaring one is that lesbians can get pregnant if they so wish.