Ironworks Gaming Forum

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Gaynecticut (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77814)

Quote:

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:
Azred... It might be a non-issue for you. But it's NOT a non-issue for gays and lesbians. And many heterosexuals don't share your opinion about only your partners' sexuality mattering. Otherwise gay marrige would be legal and nobody would care.

It should be a non-issue for homosexuals. They may already obtain benefits through most employers, they may buy joint property, obtain joint financial acconts, etc. Homosexaul couples have everything that heterosexual couples can have except a marriage license; if your relationship is not validated without that particular piece of paper then you don't have a very strong relationship.

News flash--most people don't care.

Second news flash--the phrase "gays and lesbians" is not needed, because lesbians are gays. This is why I generally use "homosexuals".

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
This is misrepresenting the issue at hand. It is not about having sexual preference accepted. In fact, similiar lines of misrepresentation are often used by the people who would be quite happy having gays banned.

It is about having equal rights and priviledges under the law. This goal has not yet been achieved for all gay Americans, so while you may tire of hearing about it, it is not going away. It won't be going away either til equal rights are afforded to all American couples- regardless of their gender.

As I stated above, homosexuals already have equal rights, in case you didn't notice. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

Never forget that I already treat every equally. As a true elitist, I consider all other demographic groups to be inferior to mine so I do not discriminate in my discrimination. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by Azred:
As I stated above, homosexuals already have equal rights, in case you didn't notice. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

No, they don't- even if you state it again and again. ;) One example are the over 1,000 provisions in federal law alone that apply to a man/woman couple but do not apply to a man/man or a woman/woman couple. Equality in this case would be achieved when all coupled duos who seek out and attain a marriage-like living arrangment all have the same rights and priviledges, regardless of gender.

Just because some stuffy Federal laws don't say "man-man" or "woman-woman" means nothing. I should tell all those couples I know in the Metroplex that they don't have the same rights as Belle and I do--that should come as a shock to them. The only thing they cannot do that we can do is procreate biologically. Thus, homosexual couples have de facto equality and, as Timber suggests, they have legal equality under the 14th Amendment. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

::stiffens:: Funny. Ask any gay person in the country if they have equal rights, and your response will be some variation of "No."

Most people don't care?
They care!
I care!

Is this just an instinctive reaction amongst the gay community though Illumina or based on fact?

I'm quite ignorant in this area so do you have any examples of where gay people aren't treated equally under law? (asides from their union not being called 'marriage')

[ 04-23-2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:
::stiffens:: Funny. Ask any gay person in the country if they have equal rights, and your response will be some variation of "No."

So what? You could probably do the same thing for almost any group of people. Every major group out there can point to a law and go "This is some right that they have that I don't".

Quote:

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:
::stiffens:: Funny. Ask any gay person in the country if they have equal rights, and your response will be some variation of "No."

I have asked people--several couples, in fact. They told me in person that they felt they had equal rights. I will tend to believe first-person responses. Conclusion: homosexuals have equal rights. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Azred said:

Quote:

Just because some stuffy Federal laws don't say "man-man" or "woman-woman" means nothing. I should tell all those couples I know in the Metroplex that they don't have the same rights as Belle and I do--that should come as a shock to them. The only thing they cannot do that we can do is procreate biologically. Thus, homosexual couples have de facto equality and, as Timber suggests, they have legal equality under the 14th Amendment.

If that's true now, it may not be soon.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3145627

Quote:

April 21, 2005, 4:54PM

THE LEGISLATURE
Bill to ban gays as foster parents blasted
Critics say plan would deny homes to many children
By JEFFREY GILBERT
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - Over the past eight years, Eva Thibaudeau and Christina Rodriguez have been foster parents to about 80 children in Houston, including four they've adopted.

But under a measure adopted by the Texas House on Tuesday, the couple wouldn't be eligible to care for foster children. The amendment, added to a bill overhauling the state's Child Protective Services, could make Texas the only state to ban gays from becoming foster parents.

"This is really about the children in the system right now who need a safe and loving home," said Thibaudeau, a social worker. "This legislation serves to further reduce the number of eligible foster care parents, and there are already far too many children waiting for a home."

RESOURCES
HOW THEY VOTED

How the Harris County delegation voted on the amendment:
For ban
• Republicans: Dwayne Bohac, Bill Callegari, Joe Crabb, Gary Elkins, Joe Nixon, Wayne Smith, Robert Talton, Corbin Van Arsdale, Beverly Woolley
• Democrats: Al Edwards, Sylvester Turner
Against ban
• Republicans: John Davis, Peggy Hamric, Martha Wong
• Democrats: Alma Allen, Kevin Bailey, Garnet Coleman, Harold Dutton, Jessica Farrar, Scott Hochberg, Joe Moreno, Melissa Noriega, Senfronia Thompson, Hubert Vo
Absent: Republican Debbie Riddle

The couple, along with their four adopted children, gathered with gay activists and five Democratic legislators at the Capitol on Wednesday to protest the amendment, proposed by Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena.

The measure requires CPS to ask potential foster care parents if they are homosexual. If an applicant answers "yes," then he or she is to be immediately disqualified from consideration. Foster children currently in homes with homosexuals also would be removed. Currently, CPS does not ask about a foster care parent's sexual orientation.

"They (gays) are teaching something that is not conducive to our traditional families," Talton said Wednesday. "God created man, and he created woman, and he created marriage, and there is a reason for that. It's a tried and true method."

Challenges ahead
The CPS bill won final approval Wednesday from the House on a 135-6 vote and now will go back to the full Senate.

The Senate version of the bill, Senate Bill 6, passed earlier in the session and doesn't include Talton's amendment.

If the House version isn't adopted by the Senate, a joint conference committee involving members from both chambers will meet to work out the differences.

The Senate bill's sponsor, Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, said Talton's amendment may present challenges both legally and practically.

"It is not clear what investigative procedures would be used, what questions would be asked, what effect this might have on the willingness of individuals to go through the screening process, and, most importantly, how many children would it displace," she said.

The Texas State Employees Union said the gay foster ban would cost the state $8 million because it would "take resources away from the agency." It would cost money to search for new foster parents to replace existing gay foster parents who would be disqualified.

"CPS does not want to put children in harm's way and Mr. Talton obviously does," said Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas. "The truth is that a parent's sexual orientation has no negative consequence on the children that are raised in that home."

Ellis said between 2,000 and 2,500 children are currently in homes with homosexual parents and could be affected if this bill becomes law.

'Just absolutely hateful'
No other state has such a ban, said a representative with the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights project.

"I haven't seen Rep. Talton trying to figure out where children are going to have a home; he's just trying to deny a home to children," said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston.

"Quite frankly, it is just absolutely hateful."

The amendment was adopted 81-58 and voting was generally along party lines. Rep. Martha Wong, R-Houston, voted against the measure because people in her district voiced opposition, she said.

Wong, whose district includes Montrose, long the center of Houston's gay community, last week voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

"They are two separate issues," she said.

Part of that is actually not true from what I've read: Florida has this exact ban, and Mississippi bans gay couples but makes no distinction for an individual. Significantly, at least from the quoted material, note that our discussion of this is a bit more sophisticated than theirs lol. While we're debating broader equal rights, one camp is calling the others hateful, and the other is, in a very Hellen Lovejoy from the Simpsons way, saying "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!"

To me the issue of adoption is a separate one from the right to be a homosexual.

I'm all for the right to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, provided its between consenting adults.

However, homosexuality isn't something I 'approve' of or something I think should be flaunted in public. By allowing homosexuals to adopt children at a period when they're still impressionable must (at least to a certain extent) give them the impression that its socially acceptable and desirable.

It's one thing accepting that some people are homosexuals and not discriminating against them because of it. This any reasonable person should accept in my opinion. However, I see adoption of kids almost as encouraging it which I wouldn't support.

[ 04-23-2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Of course, no one presumes that homosexual households don't create a loving environment for children. However, many children won't understand why they have two fathers or two mothers instead of one each. Their classmates certainly won't understand and when they do they will be vicious in thier taunting of the child of a homosexual couple. Besides, when the other kids are attending some parent-specific function the child of a homosexual couple cannot attend, leading to feelings of alienation.

When the question of children arises, I won't support homosexuals raising children only becuase this will create too many emotionally destabilizing crises for the child. Homosexuality is for adults, not children.

[ 04-23-2005, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]