[sturm und drang]

Mav_Kiki beat me to the "yes, gays cannot adopt in certain states" refutement. And did it much more articulately than I ever could have.

kg_veteran wrote:

"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.

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."

Well this is a first: I have never heard anyone defend the legality of firing someone because they are gay. Do you think people should be fired because of their race? Is that fair? If I'm gay, is it right for my boss to find out and fire me simply because he or she doesn't agree with what I do in the privacy of my own home? By that token, can someone be fired because they're Jewish? Or Muslim? I think most people have huge problems with people being fired so capriciously, with no regard to job performance. And sexuality has NOTHING to do with job performance-- just as race doesn't. By your logic espoused above, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should simply be repealed, because no one should be protected from being fired because of their boss's philosophical/religious/political leanings and/or prejudices.

And marriage is a state-sanctioned benefit. Tax implications, next-of-kin implications, medical/insurance/Social Security implications... and an infinite host of other government-dictated benefits, it will cease to be. But until then... homosexuals are being excluded from one of the basic governmental benefits.

To madape: I've repeatedly denied ever calling you racist. I'll say it again. I do, however, think your language and implications today (and in the past) are homophobic and offensive. I've also received a number of PMs today from other members who agree.

Many members in the past have admonished people (rightly so) for using abrasive language that might offend others. After months of repeatedly reading such epithets-- "homo" and "fag" being wielded as the ultimate insult-- I came forward to say that I, for one, find this type language abrasive, needlessly derogatory and offensive. What you do with that input is your decision; your post today just finally compelled me to really gather my thoughts on the matter and speak up.