Why are People Homophobic?

[Sociobiology]

actually the whole point of the section is that the US does not have the right to deny them marriage, this section is about the fact that the constitution dictates the limited areas that the government can infringe upon rights, the constitution does not define the scope of all the rights held by the people rights.
but really I'm waited for a Hermaphrodite to sue because their rights are infringed by both your and the general interpretation.

And my point is, if they want those right to be legally recognized, they'll have to make a case for it that shows how everyone's right is being denied. Either by displaying A) Everyone's right to marry the person they love is being denied, or B) Everyone's right to marry any person, regardless of sex, race, or other factors, is being denied. Either way, the U.S. does not currently recognize the ability to marry someone of the same sex as a right.

There are two types fo rights. Legal rights, and theoretical rights. Most of the arguments I've seen have been stating that denial of homosexual marriage is in violation of legal rights. It is not. This is what the majority of my posts have been about.

In the case of the !X Amendment, it is a theoretical right, and it must be proven to be real and violated.

which has been done in federal district court, thus overturning any same sex marriage bans in that district.
the fact that you cannot discriminate against sex makes it illegal, but the district court went for the more direct basic right approach.

[Sovereign Oppression]

And my point is, if they want those right to be legally recognized, they'll have to make a case for it that shows how everyone's right is being denied. Either by displaying A) Everyone's right to marry the person they love is being denied, or B) Everyone's right to marry any person, regardless of sex, race, or other factors, is being denied. Either way, the U.S. does not currently recognize the ability to marry someone of the same sex as a right.

There are two types fo rights. Legal rights, and theoretical rights. Most of the arguments I've seen have been stating that denial of homosexual marriage is in violation of legal rights. It is not. This is what the majority of my posts have been about.

In the case of the !X Amendment, it is a theoretical right, and it must be proven to be real and violated.

which has been done in federal district court, thus overturning any same sex marriage bans in that district.
the fact that you cannot discriminate against sex makes it illegal, but the district court went for the more direct basic right approach.

You can, however, discriminate against sex. Just not in the workplace. That argument has already been tried and failed.

And again, it is the Supreme Court that ultimately decides what is constitutional and what is not. One court's ruling does not decide this. So until the case, or one like it, gets brought to the Supreme Court, no, under U.S. law there is nothing which states it to be illegal. There is no legal right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

[Pauper Kings]

Are we to believe that every homosexual person is something like Peter Tatchell with a bad hangover then, is that the idea?

To some of you, the very idea that gender exists must be thrown away because ...well, you say so.

Why on earth would the fact that some homosexuals are small-minded jerks (as are some people anywhere) say anything about other gays? Most gay people don't particularly care that someone somewhere doesn't approve of what they're doing, you know; this is because they have lives?

Their most vocal advocates aren't doing them any favors then.

"Peter Tatchell" Obscure references to obscure people. Australia?..isn't the entire world.

[Sovereign Oppression]

Oh, wait, Sociobiology I'm sorry. I think I misread your post.

In the case of that case, yes, it was shown that there was a violation of theoretical rights. However, for it to become a legally protected right, it still has to make it's way up to the Supreme Court. Otherwise there is still nothing "illegal" about bans on homosexual marriage, and the rulings can switch back and forth.

[Polruan]

Their most vocal advocates aren't doing them any favors then.

Yeah, cos it's not like that doesn't apply to, oh, everyone else

"Peter Tatchell" Obscure references to obscure people. Australia?..isn't the entire world.

That's my point. You're acting as if every gay person is somehow part of a monolithic movement and has the same characteristics and beliefs. This doesn't make any sense.

[Sociobiology]

Oh, wait, Sociobiology I'm sorry. I think I misread your post.

In the case of that case, yes, it was shown that there was a violation of theoretical rights. However, for it to become a legally protected right, it still has to make it's way up to the Supreme Court. Otherwise there is still nothing "illegal" about bans on homosexual marriage, and the rulings can switch back and forth.

actually the law is overturned in that district as being in violation of the authority of the state, unless the state appeals the case and the appellate court overturns it.

[Pauper Kings]

That's my point. You're acting as if every gay person is somehow part of a monolithic movement and has the same characteristics and beliefs. This doesn't make any sense.

Exactly the way they present themselves. How can anyone tell otherwise? When they present a united front there is no reason to believe their beliefs differ significantly. If their opinions weren't being constantly put up front on the forum, whether in threads or not, nobody would give a damn.

[Pauper Kings]

Do you have any beliefs that actually matter to you, Polruan, or are you only a devil's advocate?

[EnragedMaldivians]

That's my point. You're acting as if every gay person is somehow part of a monolithic movement and has the same characteristics and beliefs. This doesn't make any sense.

Exactly the way they present themselves. How can anyone tell otherwise? When they present a united front there is no reason to believe their beliefs differ significantly. If their opinions weren't being constantly put up front on the forum, whether in threads or not, nobody would give a damn.

You know, if they had the right to marry, and weren't discriminated against in other forms, and consenting adults are not disparaged and denigrated for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms - maybe they'd stop making all that big fuss that annoys you so much.

[Sovereign Oppression]

Oh, wait, Sociobiology I'm sorry. I think I misread your post.

In the case of that case, yes, it was shown that there was a violation of theoretical rights. However, for it to become a legally protected right, it still has to make it's way up to the Supreme Court. Otherwise there is still nothing "illegal" about bans on homosexual marriage, and the rulings can switch back and forth.

actually the law is overturned in that district as being in violation of the authority of the state, unless the state appeals the case and the appellate court overturns it.

Oh, really? That's intriguing...that changes things. I never considered that.

[Pauper Kings]

Exactly the way they present themselves. How can anyone tell otherwise? When they present a united front there is no reason to believe their beliefs differ significantly. If their opinions weren't being constantly put up front on the forum, whether in threads or not, nobody would give a damn.

You know, if they had the right to marry, and weren't discriminated against in other forms, and consenting adults are not disparaged and denigrated for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms - maybe they'd stop making all that big fuss that annoys you so much.

#1. They have the right to marry the same sex in several states, and to adopt. More to come probably.

#2. Disparagement and denigration, among other people in those peoples' private, personal lives, and in their public opinion too, is not something that homosexuals can do much about. I guess even further hate crimes legislation is the answer to unfavorable opinions? As long as they aren't threatening or harassing them....

Discrimination in other forms barely exists.

[Ceannairceach]

You know, if they had the right to marry, and weren't discriminated against in other forms, and consenting adults are not disparaged and denigrated for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms - maybe they'd stop making all that big fuss that annoys you so much.

#1. They have the right to marry the same sex in several states, and to adopt. More to come probably.

Until it is legalized nationwide, I believe, homosexuals should and most likely will continue to protest for their rights, and rightly so.

[De Quay]

And from that the logical conclusion is that homosexuals are superior. Duh indeed . . .

Because all, or nearly all straight men consider rape perfectly acceptable, right?

Now you are starting to think correctly, I see. Unless you are just being sarcastic in order to dominate me, which *also* proves me correct.

[Republica Newland]

Just a little food for thought:

If being gay was actually a disease (as some homophobic people say),then,were it to be genetically-inherited,gay people would already be stamped out by now as they cannot have kids.

WHAT HAS BEEN SEEN CANNOT BE UNSEEN

[Ovisterra]

as they cannot have kids.

Where the fuck did you get that idea?

Also, kindly don't gravedig.

[Republica Newland]

as they cannot have kids.

Where the fuck did you get that idea?

Also, kindly don't gravedig.

Since when does buttsecks result in kids?

[Ovisterra]

Where the fuck did you get that idea?

Also, kindly don't gravedig.

Since when does buttsecks result in kids?

>Implying there's no such thing as lesbians
>Implying there's no such thing as surrogate parents

ಠ_ಠ

[Ralkovia]

Just a little food for thought:

If being gay was actually a disease (as some homophobic people say),then,were it to be genetically-inherited,gay people would already be stamped out by now as they cannot have kids.

WHAT HAS BEEN SEEN CANNOT BE UNSEEN

Implying gays can't ejaculate inside women.

Preference and ability are 2 different things.

I can walk to the store. But I prefer to take a car.

/thread

[North Stradia]

Seeing as how my last one was locked here we go again.
-
My Pisitin is that All People are open to their openion, But why do people hate LGB is what i want to know?


******
[modedit]An example of a better way to start this thread would be:

"Why are some people violently opposed to homosexuality? It doesn't seem to make sense when other people's sexual interests/orientation really doesn't concern anyone but those involved. I believe that all people are entitled to their opinions about what is and is not their preference, but why would anyone hate lesbians, gays or bisexuals?"[/edit]

Religion.

MODEDIT: Gravedig, locked