[kg_veteran]

First, let me say that being discriminated against and being a minority are two very different things. I said that homosexuals weren't minorities. You're talking about discrimination. But for purposes of our discussion, I continue...

Originally posted by: sturm und drang

Homosexuals are discriminated against because they are denied access to critical state-sanctioned benefits, such as marriage.

Marriage is a "state-sanctioned benefit"? Huh? Actually, "marriage" is defined as "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family." The dictionary defines it as a man and a woman. If you want to sleep with someone of your own sex, fine. That doesn't mean you have the "right" to be married.

Homosexuals are discriminated against because they can, in many states (including, of course, Texas) still legally be fired for their sexual orientation.

You mean your boss can fire you if he doesn't like who you sleep with? Horror of all horrors. Your boss can also fire you in Texas if he thinks you're ugly...or fat...or stupid. That seems discriminatory too, doesn't it? There are lots of ugly people out there, and lots of fat people as well. Lord knows there are a lot of stupid people. They shouldn't be fired because they're ugly, or fat, or stupid, any more than someone should be fired just because they're gay. But that doesn't mean we should make a law that says you can't be fired for being ugly.

Homosexuals are discriminated against because they do not enjoy many of the basic rights-- partner hospital visitation, some life insurance and Social Security benefits, partner medical insurance coverage and the right of adoption-- guaranteed by our government to its citizens. Is that a "widespread epidemic"? It seems so to me.

Since when is hospital visitation, medical insurance coverage, adoption, or life insurance guaranteed to the government by its citizens? If it is, then why are we always talking about how there's a health care crisis, and people can't get medical insurance coverage?

I've not heard that homosexuals were being denied the opportunity to visit their sexual partners in the hospital -- where is that happening? And even if it is, is that something the government should regulate?

As for medical insurance coverage, you should take that up with the insurance companies, not the government, eh? Life insurance, the same.

As for adoption, there's no law that prohibits gays from adopting.

I really can't say I agree with you on any of the above.

Obviously, it is the right of every American to sit back and judge for themselves whether they think homosexuality to be "perverse" and "disgusting". Likewise does your friendly neighborhood racist have the right to sit in his or her home thinking blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc. are inferior.

It's interesting how you imply that someone who finds homosexuality perverse or disgusting is judgmental.

It's also interesting how you equate a person who doesn't approve of homosexuality with a racist. I think there's a big difference in looking down on someone because their skin is a different color than yours and thinking that it's disgusting when two men have anal sex.

When the government corroborates this thinking with the above laws, however, I start to have a problem. Especially when both the thought and practice are so obviously rooted in the Bible; Sen. Frist's recent description of marriage as a "sacrament" are especially telling, I think. And I would disagree with you that a "vast majority" of homosexuals will never be physically or verbally assaulted for their sexuality. I've seen it happen with my own eyes, and I've known many gays who have experienced it. The one thing I do agree with you on is the inadequacy of the word itself. The semantics of it are strange; it really should be one of the infamous "ism"s. I wonder why it is a "phobia"?

I don't think the government is corroborating discrimination against homosexuals. They aren't a member of a constitutionally protected class, and the government doesn't have any obligation to pass laws to favor or protect them.

As for the contention that the "discrimination" is rooted in the Bible, marriage has been around longer than the Bible has. It's not solely a Christian institution. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., all get married. But the men in those religions don't, as far as I know. That's because marriage contemplates a man and a woman.

Also, how many gays do you know vs. the number of gays in the general population? For every gay that you've seen verbally or physically assaulted, I'm certain I've seen 100 that haven't been.

As for why it's a "phobia", I don't know, but it shouldn't be. Unless we're actually talking about fear, that is.