What Don't You Like About The Gay Community?

Hey now, you go too far, we have to keep some traditions alive and well.

 

Equal rights for minorities is not pushing the majority around. Rights are not a voting issue, The opinions of the majority does not matter. The majority getting to pick and choose who gets rights is the only pushing around that has happened.

 

That is not how rights work. You do not get to pick and choose who gets rights. Every gets them, or no one does. End of story.

 

What?

Why are some people so desperate to declare that those fighting for their rights are staging themselves as victims?

You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

And how is that relevant to gay people striving to ensure they possess equal rights?

Just because you're a "minority", that justifies you being discriminated against or abused? (I don't think so.)

 

I prefer tasteful displays as well. Even so, most protests are meant to be edgy in one or a few different ways. They aren't always 'nice'.

 

Sorry I am moving on to where I came from, I can take a hint.

 

the Constitution was designed to protect everyone, if it doesn't protect the ones many disagree with it protects no one

can you imagine if only favorable speech to the majority was protected or only the race of the majority, only the religion of the majority, is that what some want? a Constitution that does not apply to everyone

'one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all'

not

'one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for the majority'


.

 

No, educate people that LGTBs and transvestites are the superior race for which refusal to be submissive and do everything possible to please them exposed you to huge legal liabilities. You could lose everything you have and end up in prison if you are considered to have acted in a non-respectful way.

 

All I see in the above, is an expression of irrational animus.

Later.

 

It is not unjust to deny you government payments for a relationship not authorized by the government.
When I worked for an employer many years ago that provided bereavement leave for the death of parents, siblings, sibling and parent in-laws or children I pointed out that if my uncle were working there he would have 17 people on that list to mourn for while I would qualify for only 3 (since he was married with 4 children, 3 sister-in-laws, 2 parent in-laws, a mother, 6 siblings and wife while only my parents and grandmother would qualify. I had others in my life who were closer to me than my father was and his in-laws were quite distant from him.
Fairness I suggested would have each employee naming a fixed number of persons they care most about.
If these "marriages" now get the same payouts as traditional marriages, why can't single people name any friend or relative as their Social Security beneficiary?
Some dying single man could pick me and I'll be able to pay my debts with his Social Security benefits after he passes.

 

That would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage. GAY marriage on the other hand is UNequal by design for the benefit of the gays. Gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, while 50 states hold onto their Old Testament prohibitions against closely related couples marrying. You dont have a problem with picking and choosing who gets rights, as long as the homosexuals are picked.

 

As I understand Leviticus, the Jews were supposed to marry first cousins, second cousins only if no first cousin was available. It is probably anti-semitism that led to those legal restrictions.
The only reason the federal government has any concern about what a marriage is or is not is that it affects the government's tax laws.
I'm supporting my stepson in Trinidad, but because he's not in the US I can't claim him as a dependent.
He drains my income now more than when he lived with us, yet because he's not at home we also were above the level to qualify for government benefits though worse off than others that could.
There can never be real equality or fairness.

 

Several problems with that.
1; You are claiming that gay marriage plays a direct role in other forms of marriage being discriminated against, and yet Christians have always discriminated against them, with or without gay marriage being legal.

2; You are assuming that I personally have issues with incestrious marriage, which I do not, as long as all involved are consenting adults. I simply believe we should regulate childbirth in such relationships because of the dangers inbreeding on the overall gene pool. The defects it can cause can span generations, and be passed on even through non-incest couplings. Same sex incest should not be regulated at all.

 

I will opine that the Gay Community has plenty to offer to the world.

 

See, I wonder how well incest actually correlates with all these 'defects' and how much such a risk is exaggerate, how many generations it takes, and whether or not there is a better way to measure the risk. Why can't we use the tools of modern science to individualize and quantify the risk? Any couple nowadays can get genetic/DNA testing done and be assessed for risks of many of these congenital defects. Maybe it makes sense not to generalize about every brother and sister, and require that Donnie and Marie Osmond get genetic counseling prior to the issuing of a license and have some parameters in the statute for risk?

 

For parent/child, sibling, and nephew/neice-uncle-aunt incest, it's about 50/50 that a child will be defected. Defects come from the danger of a child getting two copies of the same DNA. A child is born with half of it's DNA coming from each parent. So, close relatives have the possibility of creating a child with both parents giving DNA they they themselves share. This duel dna is what causes most defects. This rate grows with future generations of inbreeding.

 

Yes that is the biological explanation, and it makes some sense, but I want links to the data to see if the actual risk has been exaggerated over the years, and I am hoping the numbers are not from a 'study' done in the Eisenhower era, because that is what an appellate court listening to a challenge of the statute, is going to want.

 

Does being gay make anyone a better fashion designer, ballet dancer or hairdresser?
i don't think so. people offer the world new and useful things if they stop thinking about sex and concentrate on something else long enough to produce something useful, or in the mundane tasks of sewing, masonry and manufacturing everyone has to do.
The success of many gays in certain professions you're probably about to boast about comes mainly from the one useful example they have given the world better than most minority groups: supporting each other's work even when it's not very good!
When straight white men try to support each other by hiring only each other and creating clubs for only each other, that's called discrimination.

 

"The gay community." Explain what that means.

 

There are curious back lashed and residuals to what's going on.

An example:
In Key West there is a small hotel, very old and completely fenced with an inner court yard with a pool, that is specifically for lesbians - though no sign out front or in the lobby saying so. Rather, the owner or person behind the counter has a practice of saying "all the rooms are taken" if there is a guy involved in wanting to get a room. The office also has pictures, slogans and so forth that make it clear this is a hotel specifically for lesbians. Since rooms booking out on weekends in Key West is common for all hotels, no one challenges if b eing told there are no available rooms is true.

The small court yard has a small bar, tables and chairs, and a pool. It is a nudist area for women only of course - and the reason they do not want men at the hotel.

Yet under anti-discrimination laws, refusing to allow someone to have a hotel room based on gender or orientation is illegal - essentially meaning that operation would be illegal if Florida or the city of Key West had a non-discrimination about GLTB law (which it does not). However, it is gender discrimination which is illegal.

Curiously, because that was their practices and we had arrived without reservations anywhere at the businesses holiday weekend of the year, it was the only hotel or motel in Key West with an available room. We suspected that there was guessing what was REALLY going on. Otherwise we would have had to drive across half a dozen bridges for a couple hours to even try to find one. Picking up on what was going on and talking it over, we did obtain a room. It was at a far corner literally with a separate exit to the street and I was to not enter the inner courtyard.

If this was Oregon? That owner could have been fined $400,000 and the hotel put out of business. Having a hotel only for women and specifically lesbians would be severely illegal.

Simply put, the principle of non-discrimination would make it illegal for there to be anywhere in the USA that a nudist location for women-only would be legal. There can be no gays-only clubs or activities, all group cohesion declared illegal. That seems absurd and highly oppressive. The non-discrimination crap has gone out of control attempting to erase all morality, all propriety, all group identities, and everything unique or personal - to instead try to make us all generic clones.

 

Your stats are FALSE

"The argument against first cousins marrying each other is that it causes a higher rate of birth defects. The reality of that is that the rate goes from 3-4 percent to about 4-7 percent (source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/humannature/2008/05/19/incest_and_delayed_motherhood.html).

However the rate of birth defects when the mother is "older"? Maternal Age at Delivery and Risk of Down Syndrome or Similar Chromosomal Birth Defect Maternal Age (Years) Chromosomal Birth Defect * 25-29 2% 30-34 3% 35 5% 36 6% 37 8% 38 10% 40 16% 41 20% 45 50%.

That's right.. a baby born to a 37 year old woman has a higher chance of having a birth defect, than a baby born to first cousins. Further, 50% of babies born to a woman aged 45 will have a birth defect."

http://www.experienceproject.com/qu...ding-Versus-Being-Born-To-Older-Women/1043731

So, why isn't it illegal for older women to have children with birth defect rates as high as 50%?

 

I suspect many cousins marry later in life after other options have failed them, so if you look at the age of cousins that reproduce the ages might be close to the overall age average.
One of my ancestors lived to be 93 and by then she had attended 4 weddings in which a grandson married a granddaughter. My greatgrandfather (descended from her through both parents) married a cousin descended from her through one parent, who was descended from her through both parents.
Grandma thought she was breaking out of that. She didn't know her husband was descended from her father!
The only defect that can be blamed on the DNA was her 2 deaf uncles.

 

Did I mention cousin? No. The argument is against CLOSE RELATIVE incest. I do not ccnsider cousin to really be close relativives. While there still a slightly higher defect rate than normal, you are right cousins are much lower incest with immediate family.

The reason older women are usually overlooked is because childbirth among them is rare. That study is about women in their late 40's to early 50's, who normally would have reached menopause already. A few women reach menopause later and can get pregnant later in life, and yes it can cause defects. When such defects do occur they pose the same dangers, but the fact is there are actully far more incest couples than there are women in their 50's still able to have children. There is far less chance of defects being passed on.

 

I don't blame them, homosexual sounds horrid.

 

The only thing I don't like about the gay community is that it's been utterly taken over by jewish lesbian thought police. I just feel sorry for the males.