Homosexuals, when will we become equal American citizens?

[??????????]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

[Barnes]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

Well, for one thing, I'm not calling myself a homosexual, but anyway, I digress.

For one thing, the right to marry anyone person you see fit. I'm not saying gays are being treated as second-class citizens, but they certainly aren't equal.

[??????????]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

Well, for one thing, I'm not calling myself a homosexual, but anyway, I digress.

For one thing, the right to marry anyone person you see fit. I'm not saying gays are being treated as second-class citizens, but they certainly aren't equal.

Where is marriage defined as a right?

[Scam of God]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

Well, for one thing, I'm not calling myself a homosexual, but anyway, I digress.

For one thing, the right to marry anyone person you see fit. I'm not saying gays are being treated as second-class citizens, but they certainly aren't equal.

Where is marriage defined as a right?

Where is theist monopolization of marriage defined as a right?

[Free Palestine]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

Marriage, adoption, the right to not be discriminated against in employment.  I was a newbie when you were here, States, but you should know that even though I may agree with you on the federal sphere (I assume you support leaving marriage to the states, StatesRights?), we may disagree regarding state matters.

[??????????]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

Well, for one thing, I'm not calling myself a homosexual, but anyway, I digress.

For one thing, the right to marry anyone person you see fit. I'm not saying gays are being treated as second-class citizens, but they certainly aren't equal.

Where is marriage defined as a right?

Where is theist monopolization of marriage defined as a right?

Do ten dollar words make you feel special?

[Scam of God]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

Well, for one thing, I'm not calling myself a homosexual, but anyway, I digress.

For one thing, the right to marry anyone person you see fit. I'm not saying gays are being treated as second-class citizens, but they certainly aren't equal.

Where is marriage defined as a right?

Where is theist monopolization of marriage defined as a right?

Do ten dollar words make you feel special?

Does avoiding the question make you feel ignorant?

[Barnes]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

Well, for one thing, I'm not calling myself a homosexual, but anyway, I digress.

For one thing, the right to marry anyone person you see fit. I'm not saying gays are being treated as second-class citizens, but they certainly aren't equal.

Where is marriage defined as a right?

I'm not even going to start, since this discussion is obviously not going to get anywhere.

[??????????]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

Marriage, adoption, the right to not be discriminated against in employment.  I was a newbie when you were here, States, but you should know that even though I may agree with you on the federal sphere (I assume you support leaving marriage to the states, StatesRights?), we may disagree regarding state matters.

Marriage and adoption aren't rights. Discrimination against homosexuals is very hard to prove and I imagine is particularly rare. Their are plenty of open homosexuals in my company and I don't work in the most "socially progressive" place in the country.

[??????????]

I'm not even going to start, since this discussion is obviously not going to get anywhere.

Thanks.

[Lunar]

\Their are plenty of open homosexuals in my company and I don't work in the most "socially progressive" place in the country.

That's a pretty impressive credential right there.

[MK]

So, I have been thinking all about Gay Rights and my eyes open up and "seen the light" so to speak. Before I came out to my parents, I really didn't care about Gay marriages or gay rights. I said it doesn't matter, but now that I am out and started to think about what's to come. Like dating guys, falling in love. Well that is where is stops. I can't get married, I can't have kids or at least not in most states. I have to worry about if someone will fire me for being gay, or if someone will beat me up for being gay. How they can sit there and call us f****ts and it not be a hate crime. I know it's a lot better then it use to be. But when do you think homosexuals will have the same rights and protection as everyone else? When will people wake up and see that what they are doing to homosexuals is the same as what they did to women and black people?

I think marriage rights will come in due time.

Far as the stuff about being fired or beatin up for being gay.. really?

Honestly I can take you to some places where its the str8 gay basher who gets robbed and beat up by the fags.   

[nhmagic]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

Marriage, adoption, the right to not be discriminated against in employment.  I was a newbie when you were here, States, but you should know that even though I may agree with you on the federal sphere (I assume you support leaving marriage to the states, StatesRights?), we may disagree regarding state matters.

Marriage and adoption aren't rights. Discrimination against homosexuals is very hard to prove and I imagine is particularly rare. Their are plenty of open homosexuals in my company and I don't work in the most "socially progressive" place in the country.

Hotel or airline?  Joking for the attacksters...

[k-onmmunist]

Be thankful. We don't have gay marriage ANYWHERE in the UK, and I'm pretty sure we won't be doing any time soon due to both Cameron and Brown being authoritarian dipsh*ts.

[Badger]

What equalities do you not already share with the rest of the general public? You have the right to vote, run for political office, you folks get the same benefits as straight individuals, no one forces you to use different restrooms, fountains, et al. To compare your "plight" to that of the civil rights movement is a hilarious joke. While I personally find your activities in the bedroom less then agreeable with my belief set, you have the right to practice your activities, no one is busting down bedroom doors, etc. Marriage isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right, so that stance is bunk, IMHO. Even in the "evil" south, no one bothers you in your own home. Are some people less tolerant then in NYC, sure, but not every person is the same in every region.

Great to have you back States

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That depends on the definition of 'equal citizen'. From one point of view (not one that I share) you are equal citizens already, and that what you're asking for is protected minority status. I would argue that this position is untenable because of the reality of persistent discrimination; in particular in the workplace and from various state and private bureaucracies (the lack of formal next-of-kin status has always struck me as being an especially monstrous manifestation of pointless petty vindictiveness), issues that much of the U.S still has a long way to go on - looked at from that point of view - of active discrimination - then you're probably dealing with a couple of decades. Equating 'equality' with 'gay marriage' then you'll probably have to add a few more decades on top unless the composition of the Supreme Court changes radically or social attitudes change remarkably.

But if by 'equality' you mean general social acceptance and all that... then the answer is almost certainly 'never'.

[k-onmmunist]

Why won't they have social acceptance? Homosexuality was socially acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome.

[Torie]

Why won't they have social acceptance? Homosexuality was socially acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome.

For certain kinds of man-boy relationships, mostly, where for the boy (the bottom) it was but a stage on the way to a hetero marriage. It was not considerable acceptable as a perma-partners life style.

[k-onmmunist]

Why won't they have social acceptance? Homosexuality was socially acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome.

For certain kinds of man-boy relationships, mostly, where for the boy (the bottom) it was but a stage on the way to a hetero marriage. It was not considerable acceptable as a perma-partners life style.

Actually, heterosexuality was considered to be neccesary only for the task of breeding. It was thought that the only way a man could be truly fulfilled was through homosexuality.

[Scam of God]

Why won't they have social acceptance? Homosexuality was socially acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome.

For certain kinds of man-boy relationships, mostly, where for the boy (the bottom) it was but a stage on the way to a hetero marriage. It was not considerable acceptable as a perma-partners life style.

To the contrary, among certain Greek polities - the Peloponnesians particularly - monogamous heterosexuality was actively frowned upon as a subordination of the stronger to the weaker sex, while homosexual partners would frequently have a long-term commitment to one another. This extended to the Macedonians, who were relatives of the Peloponnesians. Heterosexual relationships still happened, of course, but were not encouraged.

Homosexuality was even stronger amongst the ancient Persians, where "temple whores" were almost all transvestites and gay marriage with religious overtones commonplace.

[Torie]

Why won't they have social acceptance? Homosexuality was socially acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome.

For certain kinds of man-boy relationships, mostly, where for the boy (the bottom) it was but a stage on the way to a hetero marriage. It was not considerable acceptable as a perma-partners life style.

To the contrary, among certain Greek polities - the Peloponnesians particularly - monogamous heterosexuality was actively frowned upon as a subordination of the stronger to the weaker sex, while homosexual partners would frequently have a long-term commitment to one another. This extended to the Macedonians, who were relatives of the Peloponnesians. Heterosexual relationships still happened, of course, but were not encouraged.

That is interesting. I guess my impression on this comes from Athenian norms.

[Scam of God]

Why won't they have social acceptance? Homosexuality was socially acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome.

For certain kinds of man-boy relationships, mostly, where for the boy (the bottom) it was but a stage on the way to a hetero marriage. It was not considerable acceptable as a perma-partners life style.

To the contrary, among certain Greek polities - the Peloponnesians particularly - monogamous heterosexuality was actively frowned upon as a subordination of the stronger to the weaker sex, while homosexual partners would frequently have a long-term commitment to one another. This extended to the Macedonians, who were relatives of the Peloponnesians. Heterosexual relationships still happened, of course, but were not encouraged.

That is interesting. I guess my impression on this comes from Athenian norms.

I've already discussed the Athenians in a different context elsewhere. They were hardly 'normative' amongst Greeks, and, if we looked at them with an objective eye, we'd probably find them far more deplorable than their neighbors. So hated were they that even their allies, even their colonies, turned on them by the end of the Peloponnesian War.

You are correct, of course, in saying that the Athenians were the most heteronormative society in Greece; but they were not the norm in the era (and even then, they were vastly more tolerant than all but the most liberal of American states on the issue).

[John Dibble]

Probably not anytime soon. Which is really, really sad.

What rights do you not already have?

Well, for one thing, I'm not calling myself a homosexual, but anyway, I digress.

For one thing, the right to marry anyone person you see fit. I'm not saying gays are being treated as second-class citizens, but they certainly aren't equal.

Where is marriage defined as a right?

Better question - does it really matter?

I don't particularly care whether marriage is a right or not. What I do care about it equality under the law where it is reasonable to give it. If the government didn't recognize marriage for anyone it would be fine by me - a few good things might be given up, but it would certainly be equal. However, since the government does recognize civil marriage I can think of no good reason to deny civil marriage to gay couples so long as they are consenting adults.

So, do you have any secular arguments as to why we should not allow gays to marry in the civil sense?

[Fritz]

I have lived my life as an openly gay man for over 20 years now, and I can honestly say I have never been discriminated against for it.  I think things are pretty good for us gays in this day and age.  The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is on the horizon.  Gay marriage is already a legal fact of life in several states, and it will eventually be nation-wide- probably within your lifetime, Devilman.  Have patience, and fight for what is right.  Frankly, I think the fact that you tend to vote Republican won't help things any  

[k-onmmunist]

Why won't they have social acceptance? Homosexuality was socially acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome.

For certain kinds of man-boy relationships, mostly, where for the boy (the bottom) it was but a stage on the way to a hetero marriage. It was not considerable acceptable as a perma-partners life style.

To the contrary, among certain Greek polities - the Peloponnesians particularly - monogamous heterosexuality was actively frowned upon as a subordination of the stronger to the weaker sex, while homosexual partners would frequently have a long-term commitment to one another. This extended to the Macedonians, who were relatives of the Peloponnesians. Heterosexual relationships still happened, of course, but were not encouraged.

That is interesting. I guess my impression on this comes from Athenian norms.

I've already discussed the Athenians in a different context elsewhere. They were hardly 'normative' amongst Greeks, and, if we looked at them with an objective eye, we'd probably find them far more deplorable than their neighbors. So hated were they that even their allies, even their colonies, turned on them by the end of the Peloponnesian War.

You are correct, of course, in saying that the Athenians were the most heteronormative society in Greece; but they were not the norm in the era (and even then, they were vastly more tolerant than all but the most liberal of American states on the issue).

Ironically, it was only with the spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD that homosexuality became frowned upon altogether rather than just catamites. It began with an attempt by Phillip the Arab to ban gay prostitution and ended with Christian emperors proscribing the death penalty for homosexuality.

So not only does it oppose homosexuality now, it opposed it then too.