What does "pro-gay-rights" mean?

[fated]

I saw this "word-phrase" in another question. So, I was wondering what "pro-gay-rights" means exactly. Many people like to join a "rights" bandwagon, but is it actually rights that are being sought?

I don't understand what right a gay person does not have that a straight person does have.

How does a country determine whether or not to offer rights to a person on the basis of whether or not they are attracted to people of the same sex?

Is it actually a search for "rights" or is it additional programs based on their sexual attractions?

 

[stan1980]

I saw this "word-phrase" in another question. So, I was wondering what "pro-gay-rights" means exactly. Many people like to join a "rights" bandwagon, but is it actually rights that are being sought?

I don't understand what right a gay person does not have that a straight person does have.

How does a country determine whether or not to offer rights to a person on the basis of whether or not they are attracted to people of the same sex?

Is it actually a search for "rights" or is it additional programs based on their sexual attractions?

I would assume it would mean gays should have the same laws applied to them in employment/marriage/age of consent etc as everyone else, and why should that not be the case is the question i'd ask?

 

[flicka]

It's equality, not special rights.

Marriage for example. Marriage comes with certain benefits, certain "rights". If you accept that homosexuals are normal, regular people then you must also accept that the legal rights granted to heterosexual unions should also be extended to homosexual unions. The alternative is that homosexuals are NOT normal, regular people and undeserving of the things heterosexuals take for granted.

I'm sure there is more but that's my understanding.

 

[fated]

I would assume it would mean gays should have the same laws applied to them in employment/marriage/age of consent etc as everyone else, and why should that not be the case is the question i'd ask?

It's equality, not special rights.

Marriage for example. Marriage comes with certain benefits, certain "rights". If you accept that homosexuals are normal, regular people then you must also accept that the legal rights granted to heterosexual unions should also be extended to homosexual unions. The alternative is that homosexuals are NOT normal, regular people and undeserving of the things heterosexuals take for granted.

I'm sure there is more but that's my understanding.

Marriage "rights" look like programs geared to those who ordinarily have children. And they are extended to all individual who wish to enter into the type of agreement that ordinarily produces children.

Perhaps we should split these programs away from marriage and offer them to people who have children, which would save money rather than giving more out (social security and other programs..)?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

We demand equal protection under the law. (in other words, the police cannot ignore the victim of a gay-bashing just because you assume s/he is gay.)

We demand equality in the workplace. (in other words, you cannot fire somebody just because you assume s/he is gay.)

We demand equality in housing. (in other words, you cannot deny an apartment or a home loan to somebody just because you assume s/he is gay.)

We demand equal access to all the responsibilities and benefits of marriage. (in other words, you cannot deny hospital visitation rights, social security survivor benefits, medical decision making, - - - [the list is over 1,000] - - - just because we are gay.)

We ask only for equality. There is not one single thing that we have asked for that you do not already have yourself.

ETA: The laws of this country are not based upon whether its citizens "ordinarily" have children.

 

[PassionFruit]

Pro-gay rights. I prefer to think of it as being pro-LGBT rights.

They don't have the same rights as heterosexuals. They don't have the right to get married, gays/lesbians/ bisexuals/transgendered people are discriminated against.

Homosexuality is still not recognized as being normal. Being able to have and adopt children.

It's not about having "special" rights.

 

[fated]

We demand equal protection under the law. (in other words, the police cannot ignore the victim of a gay-bashing just because you assume s/he is gay.)

We demand equality in the workplace. (in other words, you cannot fire somebody just because you assume s/he is gay.)

We demand equality in housing. (in other words, you cannot deny an apartment or a home loan to somebody just because you assume s/he is gay.)

We demand equal access to all the responsibilities and benefits of marriage. (in other words, you cannot deny hospital visitation rights, social security survivor benefits, medical decision making, - - - [the list is over 1,000] - - - just because we are gay.)

We ask only for equality. There is not one single thing that we have asked for that you do not already have yourself.

ETA: The laws of this country are not based upon whether its citizens "ordinarily" have children.

That's fine with me (though I would point out that "gay" people are allowed to get married, they do so all the time). Perhaps we should make "marriage" an institution, that is, a legal agreement that gives another person rights for another person.

It comes with various problems though, because the marriage system as we have it now, appears to be intended to strengthen the union of people who ordinarily have children, which are beneficial to society, especially when raised in a two-parent household.

Allowing more people get at these programs will cost lots of social security money and tax the legal system with regards to divorce.

Perhaps we should make the social security part (and other cash programs) of the law take regard to both if you are married and if you have children.

And make divorces more difficult to get. At least a waiting period if not a justification.

Sound reasonable?

 

[jamielindas]

Marriage "rights" look like programs geared to those who ordinarily have children. And they are extended to all individual who wish to enter into the type of agreement that ordinarily produces children.

Perhaps we should split these programs away from marriage and offer them to people who have children, which would save money rather than giving more out (social security and other programs..)?

having children or possibility of having children doesn't define marriage. This has been fully refuted about six hundred times on this forum alone.

 

[fated]

having children or possibility of having children doesn't define marriage. This has been fully refuted about six hundred times on this forum alone.

Children don't define marriage, but clearly divorce law revolves at least in part on this ordinary result of marriage... Thus post #7.

 

[fated]

Why should the government care about sexual orientation with regards to marriage law?

Can the government use obvious reproductive system differences to determine to whom programs can be open to?

 

[jamielindas]

Children don't define marriage, but clearly divorce law revolves at least in part on this ordinary result of marriage... Thus post #7.

The questions here are
1) what does marriage mean
and
2) what is marriage for (which is the same as saying why should the government support marriage)

My answers
1) Marriage is a commitment to care for another individual. It's about reciprocal support. (this is why a marriage of three is frowned on. The whole reciprocity of the situation deteriorates if it's not a one on one commitment). This commitment is why the rights mentioned earlier exist (e.g visitation rights, legal/medical decisions, etc). It is providing two people the exclusive rights to take care of each other.

2) The result of this is stability. Studies have shown that people in stable marriages are better off than single people (on average, statistically speaking, not every individual). Married men are less prone to violence than single men. Married women are less prone to depression than single women. and on and on. Marriage, a stable relationship, is good for the individuals involved. Secondly, stable relationships are good for children. (I'll skip the specifics on this one). Society and the government has a vested interest in making stability and stable relationships desirable. Packaging the commitment and stability into an government and society recognized relationship and giving it a few perks is a great way to ensure it's normalcy in society.

Notes: these are a present day 21st century look at marriage (as I see it). In the past, marriage was different in different times and different cultures. At some times in history woman are treated as property within a marriage, at other times marriage was a sort of business alliance between families. This is no longer true today

 

[LittleNipper]

I would assume it would mean gays should have the same laws applied to them in employment/marriage/age of consent etc as everyone else, and why should that not be the case is the question i'd ask?

Should this be the same with say a crazy person? Let's say you have a person who doesn't hurt anyone; however, he loves to eat garlic all the time, never washes, thinks lice make good pets and should not be harmed, will drink out of stranger's glasses in resturants, picks his nose publicly and wipes it on telephone poles, roots through people's trash looking for wasted food, listens to and dances to poka music whenever & wherever he chooses, starts conversations with anybody about the hats people are or not wearing, squirts soda out through his nose into the street, picks gum off the sidewalk and chews it, hands out free dollar bills he has once used to wipe his butt and then washed, wets on trees along the way because it helps water them, attemps to wash neighbor's windows using his tongue as a rag. Do you feel this person should be afforded the very same freedom to live this way and still get hired, still be able to move nextdoor to you, and basically move about the community unhampered?

 

[fated]

The questions here are
1) what does marriage mean
and
2) what is marriage for (which is the same as saying why should the government support marriage)

My answers
1) Marriage is a commitment to care for another individual. It's about reciprocal support. (this is why a marriage of three is frowned on. The whole reciprocity of the situation deteriorates if it's not a one on one commitment). This commitment is why the rights mentioned earlier exist (e.g visitation rights, legal/medical decisions, etc). It is providing two people the exclusive rights to take care of each other.

2) The result of this is stability. Studies have shown that people in stable marriages are better off than single people (on average, statistically speaking, not every individual). Married men are less prone to violence than single men. Married women are less prone to depression than single women. and on and on. Marriage, a stable relationship, is good for the individuals involved. Secondly, stable relationships are good for children. (I'll skip the specifics on this one). Society and the government has a vested interest in making stability and stable relationships desirable. Packaging the commitment and stability into an government and society recognized relationship and giving it a few perks is a great way to ensure it's normalcy in society.

Notes: these are a present day 21st century look at marriage (as I see it). In the past, marriage was different in different times and different cultures. At some times in history woman are treated as property within a marriage, at other times marriage was a sort of business alliance between families. This is no longer true today

I would say first, not second:
"Secondly, stable relationships are good for children. (I'll skip the specifics on this one). Society and the government has a vested interest in making stability and stable relationships desirable. Packaging the commitment and stability into an government and society recognized relationship and giving it a few perks is a great way to ensure it's normalcy in society."

But, otherwise:

My point is that many of these "rights and privileges" are actually social programs and their demographic is clearly made up of people who primarily have children. I think it would be an opportune moment to make these social programs line up with the tax laws of the country, especially for those not yet in or nearly in a stage of life where they will be using them.

The judicial divorce issue is one of prudence, and is good for the strengthening the second point as well, thus preventing abuse of the system.

 

[Ramona]

Should this be the same with say a crazy person? Let's say you have a person who doesn't hurt anyone; however, he loves to eat garlic all the time, never washes, thinks lice make good pets and should not be harmed, will drink out of stranger's glasses in resturants, picks his nose publicly and wipes it on telephone poles, roots through people's trash looking for wasted food, listens to and dances to poka music whenever & wherever he chooses, starts conversations with anybody about the hats people are or not wearing, squirts soda out through his nose into the street, picks gum off the sidewalk and chews it, hands out free dollar bills he has once used to wipe his butt and then washed, wets on trees along the way because it helps water them, attemps to wash neighbor's windows using his tongue as a rag. Do you feel this person should be afforded the very same freedom to live this way and still get hired, still be able to move nextdoor to you, and basically move about the community unhampered?

Worst analogy I've ever seen on this site, but yeah, I do.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I saw this "word-phrase" in another question. So, I was wondering what "pro-gay-rights" means exactly. Many people like to join a "rights" bandwagon, but is it actually rights that are being sought?

What rights? Equality

I don't understand what right a gay person does not have that a straight person does have.

Equality

How does a country determine whether or not to offer rights to a person on the basis of whether or not they are attracted to people of the same sex?

The same way they decide about rights based on religion or skin color

 

[LittleNipper]

Worst analogy I've ever seen on this site, but yeah, I do.

Not really. That is exactly how I view "gay" sex. So at least you are consistant, though I cannot imagine even you would not have a problem sitting on a bus next to someone like that daily..... Now I, on the other hand, would seek to get him washed and cleaned up and witness to him. I would not simply ignore him or not try to intervene. This is exactly why I attempt to debate on this forum. I'm not preaching to the choir. I'm trying to open people's minds thinking about GOD the Father, CHRIST the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT; and not cling to behavior patterns as rights to be desired throughout all eternity.........................

 

[BigBadWlf]

Marriage "rights" look like programs geared to those who ordinarily have children. And they are extended to all individual who wish to enter into the type of agreement that ordinarily produces children.

Perhaps we should split these programs away from marriage and offer them to people who have children, which would save money rather than giving more out (social security and other programs..)?

And a generation ago they were geared to ward people how were ordinarily of the same skin color. And they are extended to all individuals who wished to enter into the type of agreement so long as both parties were of the same race.


The argument used to discriminate against interracial couples is still being used to justify discrimination. it was sad and ugly back then and that hasn’t changed either

 

[fated]

And a generation ago they were geared to ward people how were ordinarily of the same skin color. And they are extended to all individuals who wished to enter into the type of agreement so long as both parties were of the same race.


The argument used to discriminate against interracial couples is still being used to justify discrimination. it was sad and ugly back then and that hasn’t changed either

I'm asking a question about changing marriage law to reflect the changing married demographic in the US.

It is one thing to discriminate based on skin color and quite another to award money to people who will most likely have children over those who won't.

You can make lots of points about marriage not being solely about children if you want to, but that won't change the reality of the demographics you are trying justify merging.

 

[flicka]

There are alot of issues with marriage laws right now, look at the older folks who choose to live together rather than marry and loose income, etc. I think it's good to revisit our laws from time to time a change them when they are causing problems. After all, they are there to work for us...not define how we live.

 

[BigBadWlf]

That's fine with me (though I would point out that "gay" people are allowed to get married, they do so all the time). Perhaps we should make "marriage" an institution, that is, a legal agreement that gives another person rights for another person.

Except in rather rare places same sex marriages are not legally recognized…thus the above mentioned inequality

It comes with various problems though, because the marriage system as we have it now, appears to be intended to strengthen the union of people who ordinarily have children, which are beneficial to society, especially when raised in a two-parent household.

Allowing more people get at these programs will cost lots of social security money and tax the legal system with regards to divorce.

If you were truly concurred about such money saving issues you would not be married yourself…thus removing the financial burden of your marriage from the rest of us tax payers

Perhaps we should make the social security part (and other cash programs) of the law take regard to both if you are married and if you have children.

And how would you get past the fact that would be discriminatory towards people unable to have children.

And make divorces more difficult to get. At least a waiting period if not a justification.

Sound reasonable?

That doesn’t even make sense