Are LGBT Rights/Equality Civil Rights?

[dbackjon]

Doing you consider the LGBT rights movement to bring equality to all Americans a civil rights movement?

[LostinVA]

1. Of course

Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

[Barack_America]

2. Of course. n/t

[terrya]

3. Damn right it is.

Contrary to what SOME believe, LGBT rights ARE civil rights. We're being discriminated against...you bet that LGBT rights are civil rights.

[no name no slogan]

4. YES

I think most Democrats feel the same way.

[jackson_dem]

5. Absolutely

[MadMaddie]

6. Absolutely!

[enlightenment]

7. Of course.

LGBT folks are human beings.

[stillcool]

8. Human rights...

[readmoreoften]

12. but also civil rights?

There's a difference.

[stillcool]

28. I wish it weren't...

It would be nice if it did not require legislation to 'give', or 'exclude' basic rights to any human being.

[MethuenProgressive]

160. Gay rights = Human Rights.

:kick:

[TomClash]

9. That's a no-brainer

Unfortunately many of our fellow citizens have no brains.

Why do you ask?

[madeline_con]

10. Absolutely! The sooner someone brings the case of

"civil union", "marriage", or whatever the hell you want to call it (meaning, the church, homophobes and self-appointed rule makers does NOT have a monopoly on the language involved!) the SCOTUS, the better!

[Fresh_Start]

11. YES without any question

equal treatment under the law.

[Mark Twain Girl]

13. Absolutely, without a doubt. nt

[Glorfindel]

14. Yes, certainly

But what a shame that the question need even be asked.

[bigwillq]

15. YES

YES YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES



YES

[Kucinich4America]

16. There should be no second class citizens in America.

Full equality for all.

[Maven]

17. Yup - in the words of Coretta Scott King

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people. Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."

What a wonderful woman and a huge loss to all those who fight for civil rights.

[Fresh_Start]

20. and US borne children of illegal immigrants

should not be denied their birthright citizenship no matter what laws their parents broke

[Maven]

23. Absolutely.

This is in the Constitution, and must not be tampered with.

[Fresh_Start]

26. some of the immigration reform sure as hell tried to redefine it

I think the GOP call them something like anchor babies.

[jackson_dem]

109. And wasn't Ron Paul one of the repukes pushing that?

[cboy4]

18. Not if you're able to pray away teh gay and leave the

chosen lifestyle.

:sarcasm:

[CyberPieHole]

19. No. It's an insult to the Civil Rights movement to equate the two...

The LGBTQ community need to be thrown under the bus.:sarcasm:

The LGBTQ is expendable to Obama, that is why he allowed McClurkin to Emcee that bigoted clown show for those bible thumpers.

[readmoreoften]

24. And that's why LGBT folks aren't listed under Civil Rights on Obama's website.

We're already under the motherfuckin' bus.

[CyberPieHole]

25. Like I said...Obama only cares about the civil rights that affect him...

the rest can go f*ck themselves. Anyone who thinks he's going to reach out to the GLBTQ community is blinded by the "change" sound~bite. It's "change" for him...for the rest its back of the bus if your lucky and under the bus if your not.

[KennedyGuy]

27. and THAT'S why he won't get my vote...

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Are any groups listed under that category?

:shrug:

[dbackjon]

157. It refere to racial and gender civil rights (i.e. black, women's pay inequality)

[alcibiades_mystery]

159. So if it refers to sexual orientation at all

would that invalidate the post?

[dbackjon]

163. If is was not buried. The others are bullet points, with details

I would love nothing better than for Obama and Clinton to give LGBT rights equal treatment.

[alcibiades_mystery]

164. Ahhhh

I agree that Obama's proposal to expand protections under hate crimes statutes and include sexual orientation in the Civil Rights Division purview of workplace discrimination should have been more explicitly foregrounded on that page.

The OP's claim that the actual location of these positions reduces them to private matters is, however, laughable. They are clearly public policy matters.

[superduperfarleft]

31. Give me a fucking break.

I think what Obama pulled with McCloset was disgusting and bigoted, but the HRC shills acting like they have the moral highground is rich. Or has she come out and said that she'll repeal DOMA and get rid of the BS "don't ask don't tell?" and nobody told me?

None of the "mainstream" Dem candidates support full marriage equality anyway, so I don't think Hillary supporters or Obama supporters have any right whatsoever to point fingers about who is more committed to equality for GLBT people.

[CyberPieHole]

33. I don't really care what you think, superduper...

I have every right to give Obama the finger for the McClurkin fiasco. But thanks for your concern...


*reaches for the iggy button*:hi:

[superduperfarleft]

39. Lame. n/t

[dbackjon]

38. And for those of us that are not Obama or Hillary or Edwards supporters?

This is not just about Obama's blatant disregard for the LGBT community - but all of the top 3 candidates that are weak in this area.


Obama just puts it out front and center that we are not important.

[superduperfarleft]

42. I agree.

Hence the Kucinich avatar.

I found the whole Mcclurkin thing disgusting enough that my ABH may soon evolve into ABHO, but I just like calling BS when I see Hillary supporters acting like they have any room to talk about their candidate. I'm not a single-issue voter by any means, but marriage equality is a serious deal-breaker to me.

[Bluebear]

41. What does this have to do with "HRC shills"??

'I think what Obama pulled with McCloset was disgusting and bigoted, but - - - '

Stop before "but" and you will be farther ahead! :)

[superduperfarleft]

43. How about this?

I think what Obama did with McCloset was disgusting and bigoted. One of many reasons I'm not supporting Obama.

I also think HRC supporters that act like their candidate has any room to talk are lying to themselves. One of the many reasons I'm not supporting Hillary.

[Bluebear]

47. Lovely.

:pals: lol

[FredScuttle]

59. I'm not supporting Clinton

and I'm royally pissed off that a Democratic candidate welcomed a bigot to headline his campaign event and has yet to apologize for that.

Got a pocket evaluation for me?

[Egnever]

67. I do

your a lunatic.

[Tektonik]

70. so welcoming bigots is a virtue?

[FredScuttle]

165. I'm not half as big a lunatic as an "ex-gay" clown

who declares in public that "God delivered (him) from homosexuality"

[LostinVA]

155. OMG -- I was already to attack you after reading your header!!!

Good post.

[bullwinkle428]

21. Yes...this is an issue that really shouldn't even be up for debate!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Cameron27]

22. Yes,

You'd think that question wouldn't have to be asked on DU, right? Unfortunately I know better.

[DURHAM D]

29. Yes of course.

I am sorry you had to ask - it is something you should never question.

[ExtraGriz]

30. yes yes

AND YES...it should be a given right and shouldnt need a movement...it should just be.

on that note, my brother is gay and he is absolutely fabulous!!! :hug:

[bigwillq]

35. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[dbackjon]

49. Welcome!!

[ripple]

32. Delete

I should have read through the thread before responding. I'll check it out myself. :hi:

[Maven]

34. No, I don't think he does

He presents GLBT issues as totally separate from civil rights on his website (as though it's a personal, rather than public concern) and said in 2004 that marriage is not a civil right. Problem is, the Supreme Court held that marriage is a civil right in Loving v. Virginia in the 1960s. I find it very hard to believe that a Harvard-trained civil rights lawyer doesn't know the holding of Loving v. Virginia.

BTW, he was also kind enough to repeat the phrase "marriage is between a man and a woman" about 5 times during the same 2004 debate, since we hadn't heard that enough times from Pat Robertson.

[ripple]

51. Everybody but Kucinich is going to say the same

In my view, marriage shouldn't be sanctioned by the government at all. The government should recognize civil unions only, as necessary to confer benefits. Leave it to churches or other entities to 'sanctify' such a union.

Interesting argument with Loving v. Virginia, though. I'll check it out. If it's any consolation at all, Obama's record shows him to be much more progressive than his current rhetoric indicates. That's the hazard of trying to appeal to such a wide swath of ideologies. The marriage thing sucks, but let's face it, no candidate will be elected in the general if they say they're in favor of gay marriage. This is largely due to the fear-mongering from the right that prompted many states to amend their constitutions to sanctify bigotry, but even so, it is what it is.

I definitely like that Obama at least elevates the conversation to a constitutional context (aside from the case you mentioned). I think he'll have a lot more success by appealing to the better nature of people than he will by playing tit-for-tat with the same arguments that have been used in the past. You obviously feel otherwise, but if you look beyond the rhetoric, maybe you will see what I see. I firmly believe that Obama 'gets it'. In fact, I suspect that he understands the dynamic to such a degree that he's willing to trick people into social awareness, without insulting them in the process. Considering the dwindling number of states that have yet to enshrine bigotry into their constitutions, I'm more than willing to try a new approach.

[FredScuttle]

57. "No candidate will be elected in the general if they say they're in favor of civil rights for blacks

But hey....why tilt windmills against bigotry, right? Let's be pragmatic!

And God forbid we "insult" bigots....we need the votes! :eyes:

[NMMNG]

61. They have a right to their "deeply held religious beliefs"

I mean, they can quote Bible passages to support subjugation of blacks and prohibition of interracial marriage. The Bible is always right. :sarcasm:

[FredScuttle]

62. The true Audacity of "Hope"

I hope to understand the bigot

I hope to reason with the bigot

I hope to have discourse with the bigot

I hope to give the bigot a platform to espouse his views

I hope to pander to the bigot

I hope to attract a lot of bigot votes in a key primary state where I'm trailing in black votes

I hope to minimize the fallout of an "ex-gay" clown bigot that I hired saying "God delivered me from homosexuality"

I hope no one remembers the name Donnie McClurkin

[Bishop Rook]

65. This is the best possible suggestion

The government shouldn't be--and never should have been--in the business of marrying people. We shouldn't be working to get gay marriage, we should be working to get straight civil unions. There would still be equality, government would be keeping its nose out of religion, and if you really wanted to go get married, you could find yourself a pastor/rabbi/whatever your fancy and do so.

We achieve our goals and nobody's forced to recognize or accept anybody else's beliefs.

Of course, the fundies will fight against that proposal just as much as they fight against gay marriage... In fact, they'll probably say "see, we told you the liberals wanted to destroy the institution of marriage!" Ah well. Their number is negligible, and they are stupid.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Very obviously it is

[NMMNG]

37. Hell, yes!

Buy it here!

[xchrom]

40. what made you ask the question? nt

[FredScuttle]

55. Whatever could it be? Hmmmmmm.......

[fightindonkey]

44. Yes. Duh. What a Stupid Question.

[dbackjon]

50. Democratic Presidental Candidates that don't feel that way.

[Yuugal]

45. Of course nt

[bunnies]

46. Im seeing an anti-obama thread in your future. nt

[dbackjon]

52. My hope is that Obama/Clinton/Edwards supporters

Make a stand with their chosen candidates, and let THEM know that this is an issue with you and other progressives. That LGBT Americans are just as important as any American, and deserve to be treated with equality.


I would much rather have 3 candidates that I could feel good about supporting, than to have to hold my nose and vote for one in the fall.


Obama/Clinton/Edwards supporters CAN make a difference with your candidate IF you let them know their lukewarm support is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

[mitchtv]

48. Out fishing?

:beer: :popcorn:

[FredScuttle]

54. Absolutely

No question, no dissembling, no evasion. If a Democrat is not for LGBT rights, he/she is in the wrong party.

[Kucinich4America]

158. So you'll be voting for Kucinich then?

Great. Glad to hear it. :)

[Occam Bandage]

56. Yes. Will there be an Obama thread forthcoming?

[FredScuttle]

58. Guilt, much?

n/t

[Hekate]

60. I always thought so. And I think most non-rural Americans are trending that way.nt

[IndianaJones]

66. heh. nt.

[Bishop Rook]

63. Of course. (nt)

[pigdog_infidel]

64. Which "Rights" are you talking about?

We have rights as individuals not as groups so I don't see how you can have LGBT rights.

[Maven]

68. LGBT people are individuals.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Welcome to DU.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaJones]

72. equal protection. nt

[JackBeck]

73. Well, the right not to be fired because we're gay.

To be included in already existing Hate Crimes laws that protect everyone else but us.

The right for our families to be treated equally under federal and state laws.

I could go on, but what else do you need me to clarify?

[pigdog_infidel]

76. Please go on.

The reason I am here is to understand some liberal positions. I'll try to explain my Libertarian positions for you and I hope you can return the favor.

Hate Crime Laws - I don't get the whole "Hate Crime" thing I would think all violent crimes are due to hatred of some kind. Can people get away with murdering a gay person? I don't think so.

Rights for families - Notice that family is a group not an individual. See the problem I have here is why do you want the government to define family at all? I have what might be called a "traditional" family. I have a wife and two kids. But it kind of pisses me off that I have to get a piece of paper from the state telling me I'm married. I would rather be able to write up a contract between my wife and myself and get married in our own way. I have no problem with you doing whatever you want with other people. But trying to get the state to recognize it seems like a step backwards.

[Bishop Rook]

86. I'll bite

Hate crimes--the issue with hate crimes is that they have a fundamentally greater scope than the "base" crime. You may simply be committing assault on a minority; but at the same time, the psychological message is sent to other minorities, watch your back, you may be next. I might get my buddies together to go burn a cross on the lawn of a local black business owner, and if you look at the actual crime being committed, it's nothing more than trespassing and probably violating some local fire ordinances. But the actual effect of that crime is to put all minorities--especially, but not solely, the direct victims of the crime--in a state of perpetual and mortal fear. We could, in fact, very aptly call it a form of terrorism, but we've conflated terrorism too much with the Middle East...

That's why they're different.

[pigdog_infidel]

92. I agree it would be real terrorism.

And are you saying a person couldn't go to prison for a long time if they did that to a gay person but they could if it was a racial minority?

[Bishop Rook]

96. Depends on the crime

Sexual orientation is not included in hate crime protection while race is; someone who is committing the terrorism of cross-burning could go to jail for a long time, while someone who committed a similar offense against an LGBT resident could not be charged in the same way.

Murder? Certainly, that'll put you behind bars for a long time no matter what the motivation. But there are far more hate crimes than just murder. The aspect that brings them all together is the terrorism aspect... There are primary victims of the offense, but there is also a large group of secondary victims, and very often the damage done to the secondary victims can be on par with the damage done to the primary victims, or worse, because the scope is so much larger.

[JackBeck]

89. I hope we can find some common ground.

Hate Crime Laws: these laws have existed in the United States since 1969. Recent attention given to Hate Crimes legislation has been organized by the LGBT community and our allies to add us to the protection afforded to other groups already protected by existing laws. We're not looking for "more rights", just to be protected under existing laws.

As far as families, state and federal government give "traditional families" over 1500 rights that LGBT families cannot access. Our families and relationships face higher social security inheritance taxes, we may be forced to testify against our partner in court...heck, we don't even get the "family discount" at our federal parks. You're already married and had obviously had no problems with it until the gay marriage thing came up, or you wouldn't have gone through the process in the first place. Why do you have issues now?

[pigdog_infidel]

100. Thanks for the response

See this is what I came here for. A nice civil discussion.

I agree that you should be protected just like anyone else. I hope you have a carry permit so you can defend yourself and your family God forbid. Do you see my point that by writing all of these laws based on group identity we are just perpetuating all types of bigotry?

As for the 1500 rights that LGBT families cannot access. I don't think you are wrong for wanting them. What I see as wrong is that "traditional families" get them in the first place. Why should I get a discount just because I'm married to a woman? By the same token why should families of any type get a discount? What if someone was asexual and didn't want or need a partner?

I actually am very thankful this whole debate came up because I didn't realize how many rights I was afforded that others were denied. But my goal is to find solutions that are based on the individual. And sometimes that might mean eliminating privlages to make us all equal.

[Bishop Rook]

112. Mostly with you

As for the 1500 rights that LGBT families cannot access. I don't think you are wrong for wanting them. What I see as wrong is that "traditional families" get them in the first place. Why should I get a discount just because I'm married to a woman? By the same token why should families of any type get a discount? What if someone was asexual and didn't want or need a partner?

I think you're on the right track, there. :)

I think there are cases where "special privileges" are warranted, but mostly just to reflect the practical nature of two or more people cohabiting and sharing a significant amount of property where it's difficult to determine sole ownership. And I think these special privileges ought to be extended to anybody living together--married straight families, unmarried gay couples, roommates, polyamorists, doesn't much matter to me--for that reason. But I definitely think, as I mentioned before, that government shouldn't be in the business of marrying people. If you want a piece of paper saying that you are "married" then ask your pastor, not a justice of the peace.

[Solon]

120. There are many types of rights that are given to couples and/or families, that only apply to them...

For example, spouses cannot testify against each other in court, can make medical decisions for each other when one of them isn't able to, and have priority, all things being equal, in gaining custody of each other's children in certain situations. This is in addition to inheritance rights, etc. I don't think you, or any other married couple in this country, would want to give up these rights that single people don't enjoy.

[Maven]

113. "But it kind of pisses me off that I have to get a piece of paper from the state"

If you're going to predicate all of your arguments on a world that doesn't exist ("Why can't we just write our own marriage contracts?") then there can be no convincing you of anything.

The fact is, in the world we live in, the ability to register your relationship with the state giving it legally recognized status is attached to hundreds and hundreds of other privileges in the private and public sectors. The fact is, regardless of your distaste for the system underlying civil marriage, you got that piece of paper and are enjoying privileges you may not even think about day to day because you're not denied them. The fact is, GLBT people who want to go about their lives just like you do are denied the same piece of paper and the rights that coincide with it.

BTW, not that this is germane to the subject of rights, but people have gotten away with (or practically gotten away with) countless murders of gay people in the past. The fact that violence against GLBT people is seen as acceptable by many people--putting that group at special risk--is reason enough to protect citizens by increasing the penalty for crimes whose victims were chosen based on their orientation. In addition, as others have already explained, the target of a hate crime--like the target of a terrorist act--is not merely the direct victim, but also all others like the direct victim. Hence, the intent behind the act itself is more heinous and the crime should be punished more severely.

[pigdog_infidel]

122. A world that doesn't exist

Well when I was 22 I didn't really think about it. I met my wife in high school and we got married after college. I am saying that today it kind of pisses me off to think that the state wrote that contract and not my wife and myself. How well can a one sized fits all fit?

As for people getting away with violence I can't even comprehend that mentality. My personal view is anyone that initiates the use of force is the scum of the earth.

[Bishop Rook]

126. Aha, I was right!

"My personal view is anyone that initiates the use of force is the scum of the earth."

You ARE a Randite! I had a suspicion. :P

[pigdog_infidel]

128. I already said I was a Libertarian

I consider myself more of a student of Harry Browne than Rand.

[Maven]

129. Then you're living a double-standard.

You're legally married so you have yours but we should wait until the whole system can be reformed to some libertarian ideal.

If you want to make the argument you're making with some integrity, get divorced and start drawing up contracts with your wife. Then start campaigning for the abolition of marriage as a legal institution and see how far we can get. Agreed?

[Bishop Rook]

74. But they don't have "rights" above what every American has

They have "rights" that are, in fact, below what straight Americans have.

Straight Americans in committed, long-term monogamous relationships can enter into a formal civil partnership that allows them numerous social and financial benefits. LGBT Americans in the same situation are not given that opportunity. It is patently discriminatory and violates the principle of equal protection under the law.

And nobody has to "accept" anything for LGBT rights to become a reality. Whether two consenting same-sex adults are able to file taxes jointly, buy a house together, share custody of their children, or visit each other in the hospital has no impact on any of the folks decrying gay marriage. Those opponents should not be able to deny a significant block of our population the exact same rights and privileges rewarded to everyone else simply because they personally disapprove of the practice.

[JackBeck]

75. Bravo.

:applause:

[pigdog_infidel]

80. I still don't see it.

I'm going to argue from the individual rights point of view here.

First off why the hell would you want to file joint taxes? I could save money on taxes if my wife and I were divorced. And why should the tax code be written that way at all? We are all people why should my association with anyone else have anything to do with my taxes?

You can buy a house with anyone you want.

Custody of children is a good point that I'll have to think about. If the person that is the child's guardian should be able to appoint anyone else they want to be a guardian it should be none of the states buisness.

As far as the hospital goes I am in the dark here. They don't let gay people visit in the hospital? How do they know?

[Redstone]

81. NOBODY can possibly be as dense as you pretend to be. Hope you enjoy your stay

here, because there won't be much of it.

Redstone

[pigdog_infidel]

84. Not cool.

Is this how you treat people who are trying to understand your point of view? Maybe if you communicate with me you will find we share the same goals?

[Redstone]

85. Pretending to be ignorant isn't communicating. 'Bye now.

Redstone

[Heidi]

90. Skinner explains it all perfectly right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374

If you object, or if there's anything else you want to know about progressive ideals, I'd suggest you PM him directly.

[Bishop Rook]

95. Let's all chill just a bit...

The important part of Skinner's post is right there at the end: "My goal is to create a place where we can discuss the issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect."

Our visitor has been respectful enough so far and seems to be willing to engage in dialog, so there's no need to turn him away.

[Heidi]

98. Suppport for gay rights, whether it's an individual gay person or gay people as a group,

is a DU litmus test. _That's_ the most important part of what Skinner said in that post. To suggest that homosexuals as a group should not be extended the same rights that the rest of us enjoy does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of respect and civility mandated by the DU Rules that we all agreed to upon registration.

Your mileage may vary, but I certainly hope it doesn't.

[Bishop Rook]

102. He didn't say he opposes gay rights

He asked why we do. I took it as a sincere question. We share a lot of ground on this issue with libertarians, there's nothing wrong with discussing and trying to explain our position, and perhaps bring somebody "into the fold" so to speak.

[pigdog_infidel]

110. I'm not going anywhere near your fold. ;-)

And you are right we share a love of civil liberty. That is why we are not talking about economics here. THAT would cause a problem.

But back to the issue at hand. I hope you can understand that what I am worried about is a piecewise solution. You would keep adding groups to those that get special rights. But there are always some people that don't fit into those groups exactly and they fall through the cracks. I'm tring to figure out a solution that eliminates groups all together. So we would all be treated equally under the law. So our goal is the same.

[ThomCat]

111. It's not a sincere question.

This is a common debate tactic used by homophobes. Nitpick our right to a group identity, and nitpick our right to group activism, and group recognition until we apparently have no right to be a group at all.

GLBT people are apparently supposed to be isolated as individuals with no right to band together to help each ourselves.

Straight people, on the the other hand, are only considered as individuals when it comes to avoiding responsibility. Nobody is responsible for homophobia unless you can prove that the individual has done something blatantly homophobic, and then it's only that isolated individual who's allowed to be held responsible. So there's immediately no institutional prejudice, no social bias, and at the end of that argument apparently homophobia ends up being something very rare and minor because you can't prove to his satisfaction that anyone is homophobic.

You're walking into a set of talking points we've seen over and over and over again. Don't be fooled.

[IndianaJones]

114. the "special rights" buzzword has come out...as I predicted. nt.

[ThomCat]

124. Of course.

This is a nice little dog and pony show he's constructing here, but it's predictable.

[Bishop Rook]

117. You seem to think I haven't dealt with homophobes before

You would be incorrect. I'm still not about to deny somebody the benefit of the doubt when they've been both perfectly courteous and apparently willing to listen to the opposition. We need to cultivate those qualities in ourselves and in those of other political stripes.

[ThomCat]

119. Knock yourself out.

It's your time to waste.

[pigdog_infidel]

127. Why can't you accept me?

I am not a homophobe. I can't stress this enough. What you do with your life is your own buisness. What I am trying to shed light on is that you are blind. You know something is wrong. You know that you aren't being treated justly. That is a very human trait to be able to see and feel injustice. Where you are blind is that you think that if you could just let the state recognize your family everything would be fine. But you have it completly backwards. You are the free ones. You can shape your relationship and live by your own rules. You and your partner can write up any legal contracts you want between you as you both see fit. Do you really want your relationship with the person you love defined by the government with a one sized fits all arrangement? The same government that can't seem to do anything right? What I want is for everyone to be free. And that means getting the state out of our bedrooms and lives as much as possible.

[ThomCat]

130. You're calling me blind

because you think your fantasy world is possible?

"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe in it, is still there."

Just because you fail to understand all the ways people are organized above the individual level doesn't mean people aren't organized into groups. Wishing them away doesn't make them go away.

[Bishop Rook]

132. Unfortunately, that isn't the case

You can write as many contracts between you and your gay partner as you like, saying that you won't testify against the other in court, saying that you'll take joint custody of the children, etc., but when it comes down to testing that contract... The court can still compel you to testify because you have no Fifth Amendment protection, and child services is still going to give the kids to their birth mom or grandparents.

You're accusing us of talking about a world that doesn't exist, but to some degree, so are you.

Anyway, I ought to have gone to bed two and a half hours ago, since I don't want to be a zombie at work tomorrow. I'll call it a night. PM me, this is interesting.

[pigdog_infidel]

135. Peace Brother

This was a nice discussion. Thank you for your time. I hope even with the injustice in the world you can find peace and love.

[Maven]

133. Like I said upthread, set the example.

Get a divorce from your wife and draw up those contracts, and then work to abolish the institution altogether.

[JackBeck]

137. You know, that's what ultimately gets to me.

Those that perpetrate this meme about civil unions and fighting for government out of the marriage business never thought about it until the gay marriage debate.

[pigdog_infidel]

141. Don't let it get to you be proud.

Listen there is a HUGE injustice here no doubt. But having a state marriage was so commonplace that I never even thought about those benefits until this was brought to my attention. And seeing this injustice I could say ok let's let gays get married. But logically it doesn't get rid of the injustice. Maybe we should first fight to get gay marriage and that will piss off the religious right so much that we can get rid of civil marriage completly? Just a thought.

[JackBeck]

146. But why wasn't this an issue when you got married?

Seems like it just became an issue with you when same-sex couples started asking for the equal rights.

Looking at your other posts, one would think you would have issues with state and federally mandated marriage licenses years before gay rights came into play. Being the libertarian you are, one would think that you wouldn't have put yourself in this position to begin with.

[pigdog_infidel]

147. I'm older now

I got married fresh out of college at 22 not knowing anything about the world. I tried on different philosophies for a while until I came across libertarianism. I'm an introverted engineer. So the reason and logic of it along with just wanting to be left along appealed to me. So I try to apply it different problems. I find myself aligning with Democrats on civil issues and Republicans (NOT neo-cons) on economic issues.

[ThomCat]

156. Right! If it's only good enough for other people

and they never, ever considered it for themselves then you know damned well it's separate and unequal. x(

[pigdog_infidel]

139. I don't think I'm that strong.

I wish I was that good of a person. I will keep working towards limiting the power of the state and getting it out of our lives.

[Maven]

142. Oh, OK.

Then you should support our right to be included in the institution until such time as it may be abolished. You have no business asking us to suffer the disadvantages of your own ideological battle.

[pigdog_infidel]

144. Good idea.

I just put this in another post but you may be on to something. If we can get gay marriage passed it might piss of the Religious Right so much that they would get on board with eliminating civil marriage entirely.

[JackBeck]

134. " You and your partner can write up any legal contracts you want between you as you both see fit. "

Yes we can, but that doesn't mean either of our families can challenge the validity of hose contracts...and win. We've recently incurred the legal costs of creating these documents, while being told they may not legally hold-up in the the long run. But at least we tried.

And how often do you travel with your marriage contract proving your legal status as married partners in case your wife's health takes a turn for the worse?

Marriage equality is the only way to win both governmental and familial discrimination when it comes to our relationships.

[Orsino]

154. Does all this talk come down to a suggestion that those seeking same-sex marriage rights...

...should just stop trying?

You are welcome to believe that that piece of paper we have from our governments isn't important. While I suspect you'd find plenty to complain about if most of the attendant rights were taken away from you, you are still free to denigrate them.

What I don't understand is your apparently willful refusal to understand that many people who don't have the same rights we do are fighting to achieve equal status under our imperfect governments. Or do I, perhaps, understand?

I'll believe that your interest in the matter is innocent when you begin lobbying married people to give up the rights that same-sex couples are currently denied. I would wish that you would take some of the same zeal you're displaying for the idea of equality, and lobby your governments to live up to that ideal. So far, you seem determined only to drag your feet along the way.

[pigdog_infidel]

105. I give my word I won't be rude.

Think of this as a good opportunity to probe the mind of a liberty loving individualist. I think you will find we all want the same thing. Plus we can at least agree the Religous Right and the Neo-cons are very dangerous. I'm trying to figure our a way to achieve the same goals as you in a different way.

[Heidi]

116. The most expedient way to achieve the goal of guaranteeing equal human rights,

and equal protection under the law for _all_ consenting adults, is to spell it out in the Constitution. If, as a Libertarian, you think it would be more just to do away with state-sanctioned marriage contracts, you've got a long row to hoe, because taking something away from a group of people will prove a great deal more difficult than extending something that all should have been guaranteed in the first place.

If would be very nice if we lived in a space where people weren't beaten/killed, fired from their jobs, denied marital benefits (like Social Security survivor benefits, hospital visitation by their same-sex next-of-kin, adoption rights, etc.) simply because of their sexual orientation. But the reality is that a large portion of our population has been treated as second-class citizens for waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long. Equal human rights NOW, not later.

[Bishop Rook]

91. What I posted wasn't a full list

It was quite a short one, actually. There are something like over a hundred financial and legal benefits that married couples get, which are denied to unmarried couples.

Certainly, there are a lot of cases where things should be different--for instance, I should be able to sign custody of my child over to my partner--but that isn't how things work. Typically the surviving birth parent and/or blood relatives are the ones who get custody.

There are lots of instances where hospitals will restrict visitation to "family only" which does not include unmarried gay partners.

[pigdog_infidel]

118. I agree those are wrong.

So to solve them why not try to fix the bad laws and policies?

Change the state laws so that a peson can give custody of their child to whomever they want.

Hospitals should be shamed into allowing patients to allow whomever they want.

Trust me I'm on your side on this one. But realise these problems you are having because you are gay happen to other people without any families at all. If we fix the stupid laws everyone will benefit.

[Bishop Rook]

125. That is indeed what I'd like to see!

Fixing the laws is a large part of GLBT activism. And even we can't entirely agree on how that should be carried out. As I said up-thread, I'd love to see the concept of civil marriage eliminated entirely, and replaced with civil/secular domestic partnership for all, which would serve only to help with the practicalities of cohabitation. Because living with somebody really does create unique problems--if you and your girlfriend get a cat, you can't evenly split it 50/50 if you break up, for instance.

While one solution would be to treat all forms of cohabitation as a contract and rely on the involved parties to negotiate their own terms, as another person in this thread pointed out, most people simply don't have the time or expertise to go through that much overhead.

[pigdog_infidel]

131. Not so different after all

I'm with you on getting rid of the civil marriage. As for the contracts you don't have to write your own. I'm sure if we eliminated the civil marriage every religious denomination would have a contract for their set of beliefs. Plus there would plenty of off the shelf ones. You could compare them in Consumer Reports!

Plus do you think that married people when they divorce it is a clean split?

[JackBeck]

94. Look at how much higher LGBT families are taxed

when it comes to inheritance.

Or, if I need to go this route, look at how the individual child pays more in taxes when they are inheriting their parent's social security. Pretty unfair, as far as individuals goes.

[pigdog_infidel]

136. Get rid of the inheritance tax.

They are just using that money for bombs anyway.

[JackBeck]

140. That's your response on how our families are taxed higher?

From you posts over the last few hours it looks like you'd prefer a society that had no laws or taxes. Good luck with that libertarian utopia.

[pigdog_infidel]

143. As little of each the better.

[JackBeck]

150. Less laws and taxes?

I hope you don't drive your car on any public roadway.

[pigdog_infidel]

151. Sorry

I promised I would stay on the civil liberties tonight.

[dbackjon]

161. Or the fact that my partner and I pay $5,000 a year more in income taxes

Than if we were married.

[Heidi]

78. Now that we know what progressive ideals you DON'T support,

why don't you tell us which progressive ideals you DO support?

Take your time. It's 7:30 a.m. here and I have all day. :hi:

[pigdog_infidel]

82. I am trying to understand the problem here.

My main problem is putting people into groups. It just doesn't work. It's the source of many of the worlds problems. Racism, sexism, homophobia, fear of terrorism, ect. I am trying to understand what the goals are here. I am all for letting people do what they want. But I would like to see it done for every individual. If you say this group has this right or that group has that right you are as bad as those racists and bigots who lump everyone together.

[Heidi]

88. First, welcome to DU. Skinner explains everything you need to know

right here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374

[ThomCat]

103. Don't be so disingenuous.

Why would you try to take GLBT people OUT of a group?

Do you refuse to consider other people as a group? Is there no such thing as nationality, ethnicity, or religion in your view? Do you never cheer for one particular team? Do you never identify with "us" versus "them."

The issue here isn't why GLBT people are considered a group. It's why you're trying to strip away group identify from some people.

This is a common debate tactic of homophobes, by the way. You're not fooling anyone.

[Bishop Rook]

121. Jumping to conclusions

"This is a common debate tactic of homophobes, by the way. You're not fooling anyone."

It's also a common belief in libertarian ideology. To cite from Wikipedia's page on Ayn Rand (much as it makes me shudder to do so):

The first principle derived in Objectivist politics is harmony of interests: Objectivism rejects the possibility of a long-term conflict of interest between two rational individuals under normal circumstances, though it may happen in emergencies, broadly defined as situations outside the scope of the trader principle (see the section on "Logic and errors of logic" in the article on Objectivist epistemology for discussion of contextual scope.) Rand then derives the principle of "non-aggression", or "non-initiation of force." It follows from these that it is a founding principle of all legitimate social institutions, and the only proper function of government, to assure that social rights, "moral principles that define and sanction the individual's freedom of action in a social context," correspond exactly to individual rights, "conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival."<5> For this reason, there is in the Objectivist view no such thing as a "collective right" that would go beyond what is required to maintain the individual rights of individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Politics:_Individual_rights_and_capitalism

[ThomCat]

123. I'm familiar with libertarian ideology, thank you.

If he was applying this to everyone, and denying everyone their group identify then maybe I wouldn't be so sceptical.

But (not so surprisingly) this ideology tends to get applied selectively, and always to reinforce prejudices.

I don't think I'm jumping to conclusions. I think you're missing the hand in front of your face.

[pigdog_infidel]

148. Heading to bed.

Wow I can't believe I've been up so long. I have to wake up in 3 hours. Good night all and God Bless. I hope your lives are full of peace and love.

[pigdog_infidel]

145. Good link

Thanks. That is much better than I can write at 3am. Take a look at Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work". That is more along my lines of thinking.

[pigdog_infidel]

138. I'm trying to build bridges here.

"Do you refuse to consider other people as a group? Is there no such thing as nationality, ethnicity, or religion in your view? Do you never cheer for one particular team? Do you never identify with "us" versus "them."

I wish I were that perfect but it is something I have to work on. It's very tempting to think of things as an Us vs. Them. But what I am doing here is learning more about the "Them". I have found out that the more you learn about the "Them" the less conflicts there are. Look at Bush. Either you are with Us or Them. That kind of stuff scares the crap out of me. If we spent more time talking to "Them" we might find out we all just want to be left alone to live our lives.

As far as this being a common debate tactic of a homophobe I wouldn't know. Maybe the people you call homophobes would be on your side if you took the time to talk to "Them".

[IndianaJones]

69. rights are withheld from groups and restored to groups all the time...

you know that. is this a special rights post?

[Redstone]

77. Thanks for clearing that issue up for us.

Redstone

[JackBeck]

115. Dude, I'm going for a smoke.

I'll be back in a few.

B-)

[puerco-bellies]

79. IBTL

:popcorn:

[ThomCat]

83. When people are denied rights as a group

or because of their membership in a group, then restoring those rights is not an individual matter. It has to be addressed as a group.

There are LGBT rights because straight people took rights away from all of us as a group.

[pigdog_infidel]

87. What did I do?

I'm straight. What rights did I take away from you? I want you to live and love however and with whomever you want.

[ThomCat]

93. Just because straight people deny GLBT people rights

doesn't mean that every straight person went out and individually denied every GLBT person some specific right. On a football team, not everyone is the quarterback, but the whole team plays the game.

Are you incapable of understanding group and social dynamics? Have you never heard of sociology? People conform to group expectations, so not everything happens at the individual level.

[pigdog_infidel]

149. You are assigning me blame

because I am apart of a group. See how thinking of people in terms of groups is biotry. Instead you should say some Mother Fucking Assholes have denied people who happened to be GLBT their individual rights. I'm in that fight baby.

[Inchworm]

97. what is LGBT?

sounds a lil iffy.

:hi:

[Bishop Rook]

99. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (nt)

[Inchworm]

107. I reckon I aint in that group

but I see it often

:D

[GoddessOfGuinness]

101. Unfortunately, the rights we have as individuals are not given to people in certain groups

and historically it's required legislation to remedy that, since people are generally loathe to give up their prejudices.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

104. oops

[GoddessOfGuinness]

106. Hmm...

tried to respond to pigdog_infidel's post, and it didn't work...

And now it does... :wtf:

[VotesForWomen]

153. Uh, some of us 'individuals' DON'T have rights; that's the problem. nt

[Capn Sunshine]

108. LGBT rights are human rights

It was actually Hillary that said that, before she sold her soul to Murdoch and company.

[VotesForWomen]

152. Are LGBT people human beings? 'nuff said. nt

[racaulk]

162. Of course they are. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

166. Yes, in my opinion