Mates rights and Gay rights

[LaurieAG]

Before the push to give gay couples the same equal rights that heterosexual couples enjoy gains further momentum, we should look at what forms of reverse descrimination will appear if we don't consider other non gay social relationships that form larger major parts of our social mores.

 

Put simply, I don't seriously think that a gay couple should be given extra benefits over a couple of mates (male or female, social or military) who have a similar relationship but only engage in heterosexual sex (with other partners).

 

I must be old fashioned for thinking that 'Mates don't have sex with their mates' wether they be male or female. Surely the sexual revolution didn't mean that we are all open to the abuse of sexual exploitation, en mass?

 

After all, it's always nice to know that your friends aren't your friends just because they want to have sex with you.

[InfiniteNow]

Before the push to give gay couples the same equal rights that heterosexual couples enjoy gains further momentum, we should look at what forms of reverse descrimination will appear if we don't consider other non gay social relationships that form larger major parts of our social mores.

 

Put simply, I don't seriously think that a gay couple should be given extra benefits over a couple of mates (male or female, social or military) who have a similar relationship but only engage in heterosexual sex (with other partners).

 

I must be old fashioned for thinking that 'Mates don't have sex with their mates' wether they be male or female. Surely the sexual revolution didn't mean that we are all open to the abuse of sexual exploitation, en mass?

 

After all, it's always nice to know that your friends aren't your friends just because they want to have sex with you.

 

Your post is a mixture of strawman, equivocation, and appeal to shame.

 

First, those who are of the same gender only wish to have the same rights as those where one relationship partner is genetically XX and the other relationship partner is XY... not "more" rights than an XX/XY pair.. aka "hetero."

 

Second, being friends with someone of the same gender does not necessitate a desire nor engagement in intercourse.

 

Third, you have yet to prove exploitation.

 

 

In sum, what the fu(k is your point, besides a bunch of baseless claims, false premises, and nonsense conclusions?

 

 

Nothing but love... ;)

[LaurieAG]

In sum, what the fu(k is your point, besides a bunch of baseless claims, false premises, and nonsense conclusions?

 

Hi InfiniteNow,

 

If you agree that friends are not for fu(king then you agree with me (and can call yourself old fashioned). Haven't you heard about 'booty calls' and 'friends with priveleges'?

 

The big problem will be the future fraud that non homosexual mates will have to undertake to get rights equal to homosexuals if these laws are passed in the future.

 

You should really discuss this with people from the military because this is where the core of mateship resides and where the real problems with the proposals will start to destroy society.

[InfiniteNow]

If you agree that friends are not for fu(king then you agree with me (and can call yourself old fashioned). Haven't you heard about 'booty calls' and 'friends with priveleges'?

Sometimes they are... sometimes they are not. It really depends on the relationship and circumstance. I cannot say that I agree since the issue is context dependent.

 

The big problem will be the future fraud that non homosexual mates will have to undertake to get rights equal to homosexuals if these laws are passed in the future.

What laws exactly? Be specific.

[modest]

LaurieAG,

 

For a homosexual person to have equal rights as a heterosexual person the homosexual must have the opportunity or liberty to: serve in the armed forces, marry a lover, adopt a child, share medical benefits or life insurance benefits with their spouse, make decisions for their spouse if their spouse is unable (without power of attorney), have spousal privilege in court, be de-facto next-of-kin in case of a spouse’s death, property rights and other such things.

 

You think that giving these rights to homosexuals will disfranchise or discriminate against heterosexuals who enjoy all of these liberties! What the hell? You equate homosexual marriage to heterosexual friends or acquaintances. WTF? Heterosexual ‘mates’ or friends or buddies have all of these rights! They can get married. They can share work benefits with their spouse. You and your heterosexual friend down the street already have far more rights and liberties than ANY homosexual in America.

 

Saying these things: “reverse discrimination”, “extra benefits for a gay couple”, “sexual exploitation, en mass” hurts people and helps discriminate against them.

 

You either believe what you are saying and your views are bigoted (that’s saying it nicely) Or, you don’t understand what you say and have never had friends or family affected by the government’s discrimination against homosexuals. These things are real no matter how unaffected by them you are or how conceptual they seem to you. What if your spouse had a stroke and had to go on a respirator and your spouse’s estranged stepfather showed up and decided to pull the plug against your wishes. Now you have to watch your spouse die and there’s nothing you can do. This is the law of this government for homosexuals. People’s happiness, their comfort, and their lives are destroyed every day because of this discrimination. And how do you make light of this? By comparing homosexual marriage to army buddies.

 

I would tell you the story of my cousin and her partner but it would sound convoluted and fake. I'll just say again that people really are being denied rights and it really does cause pain.

[DougF]

modest

I would tell you the story of my cousin and her partner but it would sound convoluted and fake. I'll just say again that people really are being denied rights and it really does cause pain.

I for one personally know this too be true

(hurts people and helps discriminate against them.)

I don't think it's right and I don't care if you're tall or short' date=' fat or thin,

black or white, you should still be able to vote, drive, work and have the same benefits with their spouse or significant other.

LaurieAG

Before the push to give gay couples the same equal rights that heterosexual couples enjoy gains further momentum,

:rant: :)

 

LaurieAG

Put simply' date=' I don't seriously think that a gay couple should be given extra benefits over a couple of mates (male or female, social or military) who have a similar relationship but only engage in heterosexual sex (with other partners).[/quote']

 

This sounds like a one night stand,

But were not talking about roommates ether are we?

[Pyrotex]

C'mon Laurie,

the whole idea behind giving equal (EQUAL, not MORE) rights to gays is based on the (pair of) gays having the equivalent of a committed relationship. Similar to a "marriage". This equal rights issue has nothing to do with "friends", "friends with condoms", "one-nighters", "fu)k buddies", "roommates", or any other form of casual relationship.

 

If Bill and Bob want to establish and commit to a permanent relationship, buy a house and live together, adopt children and name each other on their insurance policies, what do YOU care? It isn't going to take anything away from you or any other heterosexuals.

[Freddy]

Interestingly, today the RI Supreme Court ruled today that a gay couple who married in MA cannot obtain a divorce in RI because RI does not recognize gay marriage.

From the link:

 

"In our judgment, when the General Assembly accorded the Family Court the power to grant divorces from ‘the bond of marriage,’ it had in mind only marriages between people of different sexes.”

Anchor Rising: RI Supreme Court: Gay Couple CANNOT Divorce in Rhode Island

[LaurieAG]

C'mon Laurie,

the whole idea behind giving equal (EQUAL, not MORE) rights to gays is based on the (pair of) gays having the equivalent of a committed relationship. /QUOTE]

 

Hi Pyro,

 

Unfortunately, I don't think that the enlightened perceptions of this forum are the same for the majority of the US community.

 

I don't have any problems with equal rights for anybody, but with two shootings in the past week, there are alot of disaffected US young men who could quite easily change the direction of their frustrations against the wider gay community instead of their schools.

 

That would seem just right in these topsy turvy times, you gotta be kind to be cruel instead of being cruel to be kind.

[Buffy]

I don't have any problems with equal rights for anybody, but with two shootings in the past week, there are alot of disaffected US young men who could quite easily change the direction of their frustrations against the wider gay community instead of their schools.

 

That would seem just right in these topsy turvy times, you gotta be kind to be cruel instead of being cruel to be kind.

So you're advocating that they should start shooting gays? :)

 

I can’t sleep because my bed’s on fire, :)

Buffy

[LaurieAG]

So you're advocating that they should start shooting gays? :)

 

I can’t sleep because my bed’s on fire, :)

Buffy

 

Hello Buffy, speak for yourself,

 

NO!

 

I am just saying that the bad thing that is currently happening in US high schools could quite easily spread to the gay community if there was a perception held by those of extreme religious persuasions or even just redkneck jerks wanting to make a bang as they go out, that US gays are getting more than what they and their mates are getting.

[modest]

Unfortunately, I don't think that the enlightened perceptions of this forum are the same for the majority of the US community.

 

I don't have any problems with equal rights for anybody, but with two shootings in the past week, there are alot of disaffected US young men who could quite easily change the direction of their frustrations against the wider gay community instead of their schools.

 

That would seem just right in these topsy turvy times, you gotta be kind to be cruel instead of being cruel to be kind.

 

Or are you saying that we should deny gay rights otherwise disaffected youngsters will start murdering them?

 

It's like locking up the Japanese-Americans during WWII for "their own protection"

 

-modest

[LaurieAG]

I would tell you the story of my cousin and her partner but it would sound convoluted and fake. I'll just say again that people really are being denied rights and it really does cause pain.

 

Hi Modest,

 

You don't have to convince me about anything because I'm not going to shoot up anything due to a lack of self esteem.

 

There are equitable ways to be equitable, maybe there are other alternatives?

 

I once worked for a company that considered my immediate family did not include grandparents. Now I work for a company that grants bereavement leave if anybody in my family, including grandparents dies and also if anybody dies in the house I live in, related or otherwise. Sexuality doesn't even come into it.

[LaurieAG]

Or are you saying that we should deny gay rights otherwise disaffected youngsters will start murdering them?

 

Hi Modest,

 

My previous post referred to one equitable procedure where sexuality didn't even come into it.

 

Maybe you should start thinking about how to do things in truely equitable ways?

[Buffy]

I am just saying that the bad thing that is currently happening in US high schools could quite easily spread to the gay community if there was a perception held by those of extreme religious persuasions or even just redkneck jerks wanting to make a bang as they go out, that US gays are getting more than what they and their mates are getting.

So religious folks are more prone to violence than the rest of the population?

 

Actually the thing that seems to show up with rednecks and skinheads is that they like to talk the talk, but they can't walk the walk: You want to see real violence you've got to go to South Central LA which is considered a reliably Democratic district.

 

You're not serious about any of this are you? The only time we see violence against gays like what you're talking about is when gays mistakenly make passes at rednecks and since Matthew Shepard that's been a rare occurrence.

 

Heck, the extreme right is *defending* Larry Craig's right to tap his toes in the loo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjGu8D64cuE! :)

 

They tell me now that SpongeBob is gay. SquarePants is not gay. Tight pants maybe. SpongeBob Hot Pants? You go, girl! :)

Buffy

[LaurieAG]

So religious folks are more prone to violence than the rest of the population?

 

Hi Buffy,

 

The last time I looked at the cable fox was reporting that the body of the shooter was still in the foyer after the shooter was killed by the church security guard.

 

Is it just religious folk who have access to guns in the US?

 

What do you think the real problem is Buffy?

[Buffy]

The last time I looked at the cable fox was reporting that the body of the shooter was still in the foyer after the shooter was killed by the church security guard.

So? What point are you trying to make?

Is it just religious folk who have access to guns in the US?

Hardly. You try that in South Central and shooter would not have been just "shot by the security guard, he would have been chopped in half with Tec-9s....

What do you think the real problem is Buffy?

I have no idea what problem you're referring to! You seem to be making all sorts of wild assumptions about how "redneck Americans" will react to gay rights which not only don't have any justification, they don't make any sense at all!

 

Really, are you just yanking our chains?

 

I'd rather be black than gay because when you're black you don't have to tell your mother, :)

Buffy