bo shemmy3337;411435 wrote:I never said it should be illegal to be a racist or a homo-phobe. People are entitled to their own opinion but actions are a different story. By not allowing gays to make their own decisions you are acting on your opinion. Like I said before I am not gay nor will I ever be for multiple reasons but to each his or her own. I am not going to be responsible for limiting another human being for any other reason than a crime.

I know you didn't, my response was more for Fairwood, who thinks it should be wrong for his partner's parents to disagree with the gay lifestyle. They have every RIGHT to think that, and there actions of keeping you out of the hospital are not illegal, even if maybe not the most intelligent decision.

isadore;411733 wrote:It was very nice of you to bring up California. What do those votes show.
Ohioans passed a much more draconian law by a enormously larger percentage of the vote than California. That all parts of Ohio rejected giving gays the basic right of marriage or even of civil union. The elections were a definite sign of attitudes toward gays especially given the privacy guaranteed to the voters by Australian ballot. The elections were only a few years apart. While wide areas of California voted for gay marriage, no major area in Ohio did.
San Diego is so traditionally Democratic that Obama was the first Democratic Presidential candidate to win a majority in the county since World War II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_County,_California#Politics

How can a law that clarifies marriage be 'draconian' any more than a law that defines anything else? It's not like the law forbids homosexuality.

It absolutely does not speak to anything other than the fact that Ohioans only want marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Fine, SD is more conservative. Explain LA.

Though I'm not an employment lawyer, I'll echo LJ's post above that in Ohio, sexual orientation isn't a protected class, and my understanding is that gays aren't protected from adverse employment situations under those statutes.

I don't have strong feelings on gay marriage. Whether it's discriminatory is a matter of how you define basic rights (i.e., the right to marry anyone or the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is presumably open to gays and straights alike). Whether it's wrongfully discriminatory is a touchy issue--the state clearly can arbitrarily regulate matters of family life that affect the general welfare, which is why we have laws against bigamy, pedophilia, etc. 50 or 100 years ago, homosexuality was viewed by virtually everyone to be in the same camp, though attitudes are changing. I'm fairly agnostic on the issue and don't care much either way.

My best friend is gay. He and his partner face some challenges, but other than the tax code provisions, most of it is addressed by a handful of legal documents they've had drafted. That seems to be an easy way to resolve many of these issues, as was pointed out above.

Here's what is a little unclear to me: assuming that there is no rational basis for discriminating against gays in the workplace, and yet some discrimination exists, isn't that an arbitrage opportunity for gays? 50 years ago, rampant anti-semitism existed in law. So a number of Jews got together, started their own firms, and out-competed the WASP firms. Now many of the major law firms are descended from these upstart Jewish firms that found a way to leverage their skill set against the perceived discrimination. Why don't you start a gay-only business (or at least a gay-friendly business) and leach off all the gay talent that is undervalued by discriminatory owners? Shouldn't that give you a competitive edge in the marketplace?

Footwedge;412136 wrote:Going to a gay bar doesn't prove that one is gay. Nobody could possibly fire you for frequenting this place.

I hope not. I went to a gay bar Saturday night...wasn't that bad.

BCBulldog;412371 wrote:How can a law that clarifies marriage be 'draconian' any more than a law that defines anything else? It's not like the law forbids homosexuality.

It absolutely does not speak to anything other than the fact that Ohioans only want marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Fine, SD is more conservative. Explain LA.

Ohioans went well beyond what was needed to protect their hollow fears for the institution of marriage. It is draconian in the way the law goes to the extreme of not just forbidding gay marriage but also any form of civil union as compared to the California law which was accepting of it
Explain 87 counties in Ohio, homophobia run rampant.

That isn't close to draconian. 25 years ago the idea of gay marriage would be ridiculous in even the most liberal jurisdictions. The meme that was popular was tolerance and non-persecution, not acceptance and protected class status.

Protected class is a big deal to me, that is a Constitutional issue that has been debated for decades. To me protected class indicates something you are (as opposed to something you do in a private setting), a legitimate recent history of discrimination, and an effect on the ability to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Being gay fails on all 3 levels. It isn't the same thing as being black, or dealing with sexist bosses. One, no one needs to know who you sleep with at night....if it is a private matter, than it is fairly easy to keep it private. Two, although there may be difficulties internally with families, despite FairwoodKing's (BS) claims, there isn't a lot of discrimination out there....and to the extent there is, there is likely enough accomodation on the other end, there are businesses (for example Paris in Vegas) that actively go out of their way to court the gay community. Third, there isn't a historical hinderance on productibility....if I can find a study I'll post it but from what I understand gays are more affluent than hetero males.

My claims are not bullshit. Twelve years ago I lived in Houston. I had a boyfriend. Every time he and I had sex, we were breaking the state sodomy law. The law wasn't thrown out until two men got arrested and appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. The court said the law was discriminatory and overturned it. Had it been up to the voters in Texas, the law would still be in place. This is the type of thing we gays have to fight against.

Good luck man. Human beings should be able to have consensual sex with whoever they want but extra privileges should not be awarded to either gay or straight couples.

I will say this, people's tolerance of homosexuality has grown leaps and bounds over the past 20 years. If OhioChatter were around in 1989, I would venture that the majority of people would not have the same attitude as today. In fact, homosexuality was often mocked and at some level feared. Every stand-up comedian had gay jokes. Even regular schmoe's had gay jokes in their repetoire. Today, that would be bad form. People also believed back then you could catch a sexually transmitted disease even thorugh everyday contact. Today, people realize that is not the case.

My point is that I agree with Manhatten Buckeye. An employer would be comitting suicide if he were to fire someone because they discovered the employee was a homesexual. Not only woudl the terminated employee seek (and get) legal redress, it would quickly get around and people would boycott the business as well.

"The law wasn't thrown out until two men got arrested and appealed to the Texas Supreme Court."

Well Lawrence v. Texas is part of SCOTUS history, but you do realize that the entire reason for the case is that it was a domestic dispute among three men? Not homophobic zealots.

It was a situation that likely involved heavy drug use (another thread entirely), and a guy that passed away at a very young age.

Manhattan Buckeye;412532 wrote:That isn't close to draconian. 25 years ago the idea of gay marriage would be ridiculous in even the most liberal jurisdictions. The meme that was popular was tolerance and non-persecution, not acceptance and protected class status.

Protected class is a big deal to me, that is a Constitutional issue that has been debated for decades. To me protected class indicates something you are (as opposed to something you do in a private setting), a legitimate recent history of discrimination, and an effect on the ability to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Being gay fails on all 3 levels. It isn't the same thing as being black, or dealing with sexist bosses. One, no one needs to know who you sleep with at night....if it is a private matter, than it is fairly easy to keep it private. Two, although there may be difficulties internally with families, despite FairwoodKing's (BS) claims, there isn't a lot of discrimination out there....and to the extent there is, there is likely enough accomodation on the other end, there are businesses (for example Paris in Vegas) that actively go out of their way to court the gay community. Third, there isn't a historical hinderance on productibility....if I can find a study I'll post it but from what I understand gays are more affluent than hetero males.

25-30 years ago the idea of a black man being the president would still have been very difficult.

this is the thread that caused sleeper's meltdown?

i'm disappointed (in him).

I disagree. Jesse Jackson had a serious run in '88 in the DEM primary. He wasn't a great candidate but no worse than Dukakis or Gary Hart.

My point wasn't that. It was that just because something was or wasn't acceptable in the past has no bearing on whether it should be now.

Fair enough, but what is the goal? The gay rights lobby gained a lot steam with the DEMs, independents and libertarians with their argument that they just want to live their life privately...like anyone else. A strong argument in which I'm agreement.

But protected class status? That's a little tougher.

FairwoodKing;412667 wrote:My claims are not bullshit. Twelve years ago I lived in Houston. I had a boyfriend. Every time he and I had sex, we were breaking the state sodomy law. The law wasn't thrown out until two men got arrested and appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. The court said the law was discriminatory and overturned it. Had it been up to the voters in Texas, the law would still be in place. This is the type of thing we gays have to fight against.

You do realize most states that had sodomy laws on the books at the time of the supreme court's decision, applied to heterosexuals as well. I would say there was a lot of heterosexuals breaking their states sodomy laws as well.

As for homophobic Ohio. They were one of the first states to repeal their sodomy laws back in 1974. In fact 2yrs prior to your progressive state of Washington.

So this is why FK was always so damn dramatic over at JJ's. Makes perfect sense now.

THAT was deleted? Wow!

If you have a problem you can PM me

Why would I have a problem? I'm surprised, that's all...just based on some of the other stuff I've seen posted. I understand your job here puts you on the defensive as soon as someone mentions a deleted post. I'm not trying to start trouble with ya.

You don't need to take that lip LJ, PERMABAN HIM!!!

isadore;412509 wrote:Ohioans went well beyond what was needed to protect their hollow fears for the institution of marriage. It is draconian in the way the law goes to the extreme of not just forbidding gay marriage but also any form of civil union as compared to the California law which was accepting of it
Explain 87 counties in Ohio, homophobia run rampant.

It was the Issue that was put forward. If the homosexual community (or anyone else for that matter) want to change a law in Ohio, it is not that hard. Our constitution is damn near a dry-erase board. Sodomy laws are draconian, marriage laws are not. Why can't you understand that defining marriage as only between one man and one woman is not homophobic?

BCBulldog;413482 wrote:It was the Issue that was put forward. If the homosexual community (or anyone else for that matter) want to change a law in Ohio, it is not that hard. Our constitution is damn near a dry-erase board. Sodomy laws are draconian, marriage laws are not. Why can't you understand that defining marriage as only between one man and one woman is not homophobic?

Homosexuals think many if not most heterosexuals are "fearful" of homosexuality hence the term "homophobic." Truth is "homophobic" is just a cop out to deflect attention from practical realities (IE: The fact that marriage is between one man and one woman).

You want to live with and have sexual relations with a person of the same sex? You want legal status for that civil relationship? No problem.

Just don't force me by law to recognize your relationship as a marriage.

The latest attack on gay rights just came in Hawaii. Both houses of the state legislature voted for a law granting civil unions to gay and straight couples. The governor, a Republican, vetoed it. She says that the matter should be placed before the voters.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20100707_Lingle_vetoes_civil-unions_bill.html

FairwoodKing;414513 wrote:The latest attack on gay rights just came in Hawaii. Both houses of the state legislature voted for a law granting civil unions to gay and straight couples. The governor, a Republican, vetoed it. She says that the matter should be placed before the voters.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20100707_Lingle_vetoes_civil-unions_bill.html

What's wrong with that, exactly? Hawaii is, in general, a very liberal state.
If it goes to vote, it will probably pass faster than you might think.