Just finsihed it, and you are all absolutely right. But tragically, this kind of hypocrasy and double standards will never cease until the MAJORITY of the people want it to, and righ tnow, no matter how hard we fight, or what we do, gay rights activists are viewed as nothing more than lapdogs for homosexuals, who are still regaqrded as a lower form of life than most mass murderers and terrorists by the "moral majority". My only hope is that I live long enough to see an end to this sexual segregation the way my parents (and even oldest siblings) saw an end to the racial segregation in the 1960s.

Sometimes the way to overcome is to gain the hearts and minds of the people. Sometimes, however, the right thing to do is just say 'Fuck the will of the majority' and just ram through every pro-gay change to the law we can get away with. It's true that there might be less racism nowadays if the civil rights movement had allowed things to resolve gradually instead of forcing change. On the other hand, I know I certainly couldn't look into a black man's eyes and say, 'Sorry, you won't be able to sit down wherever you want in a bus or restaurant for another ten or twenty years, because we prefer gradual, incremental change'. Fuck that. In the same way it's not fair to make gay people wait to get married or to adopt kids. For their sake, I say that anyone who's against them having equal rights can go leap in front of a train.

>>Sometimes the way to overcome is to gain the hearts and minds of the people. Sometimes, however, the right thing to do is just say 'Fuck the will of the majority' and just ram through every pro-gay change to the law we can get away with.

While I totally agree with the cause, I would never support that kind of methodology (forcing gay rights into the law). The greatest challenge facing sexual equality between gays and heteros is that there isn't even any semblance of equality between different groups of heterosexuals. How can we grant, or be granted equality when we don't even have a clue what equality is in this case? The norms for hetero sex and relationships vary so drastically worldwide. If you took examples of heterosexual rights and freedoms from say Tehran, Salt Lake City, San Jose, Osaka, and Amsterdam, which one would be the benchmark for heterosexuality?

Lets say you write a law to make it legal for two men or two women to marry. You have just excluded the possibility of three men from marrying each other. When polygamy finally has its run at acceptance, your law would impede their cause the same way the archaic definition of marriage currently hampers the gay marriage cause. As well, by some lack of foresight in the wording, the new law could fail to extend marriage rights to trans-sexual or trans-gendered individuals. The list of legal complications goes on... And if gay rights legislation is based on the wrong benchmark of equality, like the narrow-minded pious horseshit found in say Texas, you haven' done the gays any favor.

Legislating the fuck out of sexuality is not a wise move, and will most likely restrict people as much as it liberates them. The more laws, the more loopholes, exclusions, and loss of freedom. What we really need is one very simple law - "What happens between two or more consenting parties is nobody else's business".

It's like 20-after-midnight here and I haven't had my requisite caffine fix, so I hope what I said makes sense, and I do not find my foot in my mouth for it.

>If you took examples of heterosexual rights and freedoms from say Tehran, Salt Lake City, San Jose, Osaka, and Amsterdam, which one would be the benchmark for heterosexuality?

Whichever's freest. I'm guessing Amsterdam.

>Lets say you write a law to make it legal for two men or two women to marry. You have just excluded the possibility of three men from marrying each other.

Well, if we do then we'll come back to it later. This is a huge problem in and of itself: people who think laws have to remain set in stone forever. Laws ought to be flexible, changing to suit what society needs at a given time. There's absolutely no reason not to change the law now, then change it again later.

And frankly, I can't see any reason not to allow polygamous marriages anyway. Hell, polygamy's been the traditional form of marriage for MOST of human history.

>The more laws, the more loopholes, exclusions, and loss of freedom.

Which is why I prefer repealing bad laws instead of adding new ones.

>What we really need is one very simple law - "What happens between two or more consenting parties is nobody else's business".

If that were feasible, I'd wholeheartedly support it. In a perfect world, that IS all we'd need. But right now, we are in a country where the Evangelicals have a stranglehold on most of the laws, and it's necessary for us to fight them any way we can to ensure equal rights for all.

>>The more laws, the more loopholes, exclusions, and loss of freedom.

>Which is why I prefer repealing bad laws instead of adding new ones.

That there is exactly what I would like to see. Before we start adding more laws, more confusion, we need to do a whole lot of housecleaning. Remove the problem before you fix the damage - if we first start by removing existing anti-gay/les/bi legislation, and blocking any new bills of such nature, we would have an easier time establishing equality.

>If that were feasible, I'd wholeheartedly support it. In a perfect world, that IS all we'd need. But right now, we are in a country where the Evangelicals have a stranglehold on most of the laws, and it's necessary for us to fight them any way we can to ensure equal rights for all.

It is not the evangelists in politics you need be worried about, it's the evangelists in education. Politicians are short-term problems, by the very nature of political office, most of them fall between the ages of "relic" and "corpse". Whatever damage they do can be repealed by the following generations, but not if they corrupt the minds of our youth. Whether it's sabotaging the effectiveness of "sex ed" classes with their "abstinence only" horseshit, printing textbooks full of lies such as "creationism", or teaching kids that proven science is wrong, these are the ways that the "religious right" are impeding progress and equality.

They always say "children are the future", because it's true. The children growing up today are the ones who will shape the world tomorrow, and if bigotry is allowed to take root in yet another generation, our children and grandchildren will live with much the same problems we face. The church knows this, why do you think they're so panicked about the falling numbers of children in church and Sunday school? It all comes down to a game of numbers... There are more atheists today than there was fifty years ago, more open homosexuals, more liberals, more diversity. There are more people each generation who are being raised to accept and welcome difference rather than oppose it. And that's what we need, more people, a majority. No, we don't need the majority of people to be gay, it isn't some crusade to convert heteros into homos (which is exactly what the right-wingers believe and fear). We aren't trying to change their sexuality, just their comfort level with the idea of different strokes for different folks.

Ok, I'm rambling again. I shut up now.
: p

> if we first start by removing existing anti-gay/les/bi legislation, and blocking any new bills of such nature, we would have an easier time establishing equality.

Fuckin' AGREED.

>It is not the evangelists in politics you need be worried about, it's the evangelists in education. Politicians are short-term problems, by the very nature of political office, most of them fall between the ages of "relic" and "corpse".

Actually, I meant more the massive amounts of Evangelical voters. Which is pretty much what you go on to say.

>There are more atheists today than there was fifty years ago, more open homosexuals, more liberals, more diversity. There are more people each generation who are being raised to accept and welcome difference rather than oppose it.

God bless the internet. i *know* it's responsible for some of this. :)

>And that's what we need, more people, a majority. No, we don't need the majority of people to be gay, it isn't some crusade to convert heteros into homos (which is exactly what the right-wingers believe and fear). We aren't trying to change their sexuality, just their comfort level with the idea of different strokes for different folks.

Total, absolutely agreement. Right on! :)

>God bless the internet. i *know* it's responsible for some of this. :)

If I had to put some totally made-up statistics to this (wait... Aren't all statistics totally made up?), I would give a quarter of the credit to the feminist movement of the 60's, and a further quarter credit to MLK and other crusaders for racial equality. (I'm tempted to take back half of the feminist's credit due to the modern anti-man femnazis, as they cost us support by illustrating that some people are trying less for "equality", and more for total dominance) California gets ten points of credit for always pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior, and a bonus five percent for being the birthplace of Teh Interwebz. But the rest, which is more than half, is TOTALLY the internet's doing.

<impressed> I'd say that sounds like a pretty fair assesment. Also, don't forget to factor in old bigots dying off and younger generations rebelling against their parents by being more open and tolerant of stuff.

>Also, don't forget to factor in old bigots dying off

My attorney has advised me never to bring up the subject of dead bigots, and that I have no knowledge of any needle-puncture marks found in Jerry Falwell's neck. Aww shit! Am I incriminating myself again?

Why didn't you get Pat Robertson too, dammit!? ;)

Scheduling issues... The last time I had the free time to be "absolutely nowhere near the victim" was when I was setting up to "not do anything illegal" to Fred Phelps. The Westboro Baptist Church was coming to Canada to protest the funeral of Tim McLean (Greyhound beheading), and I had thought it a perfect chance to deal with the Bigotry Posterchild on my home turf. But, the Canadian border guards received orders that Phelps and the WBC are barred from entering Canada, and plans that I totally had nothing to do with went to shit.

Does Canada seriously bar the WBC from entering? Sweet. We should take a lesson from them.

Yep. As I heard it, Fred Phelps specifically is barred, and as an organization, the WCB is likewise forbidden entry. Don't know how that will apply to individual members, but any attempt to protest or picket like they do, will get them tossed out and barred from the country.

They should have a great big Anti-Phelps Deportation Cannon, so if anyone comes in, they can be launched from any point in Canada directly into the Detroit River.

Aw, come on... Doesn't Detroit have enough problems, what with being Detroit and everything? Lets up the cannon's range, and land their sorry asses in Havana. I'm pretty sure if we asked nice, Zombie Fidel would gladly eat their brains.

>If you took examples of heterosexual rights and freedoms from say Tehran, Salt Lake City, San Jose, Osaka, and Amsterdam, which one would be the benchmark for heterosexuality?

>Lets say you write a law to make it legal for two men or two women to marry. You have just excluded the possibility of three men from marrying each other.

Well, I think this isn't a very good argument. It's simple. Heterosexuals can't marry three people, so it's equal treatment if homosexuals also can't. The benchmark and the challenge is simple, you treat them both identically other than when you have to scribble out the word "wife" or "husband" and write the "wife #2" on some paper. Transexual and transgendered people still have an identifiable physical rela gender, so there isn't really an issue there other than a self-made psychological one. In the case of someone who feels they're the opposite gender, and if gay marriage is made to be totally identical to straight marriage, then it won't matter what they feel their gender is, because their certificate will simply say "married" and have two names on the certificate. It won't say "fag marriage" or "holy straight marriage", or at least I don't think it should. If it's legally the same, then gender identity wouldn't be relevant for the law.

Legistlating the fuck out of sexuality is probably the best thing to do. Even if it fails or people don't like it, what should we do? Sit around and take it in the ass (but in the kind of way we don't like, oh boy gay joke). Way back early in the history of the US, Thomas Jefferson tried to free the slaves through legislation, but it didn't pass. Blacks would have to wait about sixty years before they weren't being led around by whips and still 100 more years before Martin Luther King Jr. did something about the fact that slow gradual social changes were simply not good enough for black rights. It wasn't until Lawrence vs. Texas in 2003 that it became legal for gay people to do what gay people do best: buttfuck. Yeah, only seven years ago. Look at how wonderful slow gradual change worked, most people alive today who are gay could've gone to jail or even prison only *seven years ago*.

Fuck that. The law works better than waiting for bigots to stop being bigots, kind of like waiting for Christianity to stop being stupid, but they had about 2000 years and aren't doing a very good job.

Yes, exactly a republic is the way it is to prevent total mob rule. This is why officials are elected who according to the voters matches their ideals in the closest sense.

I mean the majority doesn't even vote in the first place to begin with.

I mean in the most ideal and perfect sense the best and most progressive government is a benevolent dictatorship led by the wisest and most educated individual and associates. Of course this form of government is pure fantasy. Everyone has to stand up for themselves because if you don't the Republic won't even consider your issues even exist.

That is some fucked up shit. (Although it does not work like this in Sweden, I think. I mean, one politician bought a snack bar and billed it for the government, then paid for it herself, but it still went all over the news what a horrible person she was... If someone of importance bashed on homosexuals? Oh yeah, he/she'd be fired...)

>I mean, one politician bought a snack bar and billed it for the government, then paid for it herself, but it still went all over the news what a horrible person she was...

Jesus Fuckballs. If THAT'S you guys' idea of a horrible politician, I wanna move there tomorrow. Here we have politicians who not only do everything in their power to take away people's rights and healthcare, but that's actually their campaign promises!!!

Well, our new government... is kind of trying to be America -.-*
"Free healthcare, who needs it?! Let's all try to mimic Americas insurance system which their president is fighting to escape!"
I hate those guys, but not as much as I dislike "Sverige Demokraterna", which are basicly a bunch of racists ("The muslim threat" etc. etc.), but they did get 5% votes, so they're in.....


Still, I do think we have it better here, if only for 4 years more. (Ok, this government might not fuck it all up, but if they do, I hope people remember that we had a nice system before this crap)

I'm just watching to see how much we can degrade before the current president's term ends. Tea Party movement adds to the list of things rich people apparently don't need/want as, "Free money for retirement so I don't have to work at age 70 with arthritis?! Who needs it! We can just retire on savings accounts when the majority of people work for minimum wage or close to it (which is in itself half or one-third the amount of other countries such as France [13 US per hour or so] and Australia [14 US per hour or so]!"

Actually, considering that Muslims really do want to take over Europe and get Sharia law enstated everywhere, having a couple of frothing racists in the government may be just enough to keep them at bay. ;)

Also, I'm sad to see that your country is trying to be us. Simply put, America is like a fat, bald, middle-aged man who does nothing but yammer on endlessly about his past accomplishments. If people wanna emulate past American ideals, fine. Our founders had some really good ideas. But now we're just a joke.

Oh, they just want that nice system which is so awesome, if you got loads of cash and never get sick, and somehow these guys push hard enough to get elected... (Well, the other, socialist party, have had majority for sooooo long, people might have just voted differently because they've forgotten how shitty things can get...)

I'm voting on the socialist party, because:
a) I know the kind of people who votes for the opposition (well, now they're the government, but the former opposition then ^^).
b) I do believe hospitals and pharmacies work best in the care of the government (just like "Systembolaget" which handles most alcohol. The new government has already sold the pharmacies, so they're well on their way to fuck shit up).
c) My parents have always voted for the socialists. I know, this might be stupid, but their opinion weights heavily with me, they've always been very sensible people ^^.
d) Part of the current government is a half-kind-of religious party. Who wants to ban "fight-dogs" because they're aggressive. Too bad they call ANY dog that attacks people a "fight-dog". (Funny thing is, REAL fight-dogs were bred to not attack humans, because they had a human referee in the fight who had to be able to control the dogs if the owners aborted the fight.)

I hate that guy so much. Seriously. I have 5 of those "fight dogs" and for the last decades this race have been bred towards nice-tempered dogs. They're so nice and friendly, even to complete strangers and other dogs (unfortunately, even to other dogs who wants to eat them, so I have to make sure our fucked up neighbours huge grand danoise won't kill them, because THOSE dogs are not "fight-dogs" but they want to kill everything... Literally, they've jumped out of their shitty kennel and chased me. I think 2 were put down, but they still got some of those beasts running around, trying to kill us -.-*).

>I do believe hospitals and pharmacies work best in the care of the government

Agreed. By agreeing, I'm not saying that I completely trust the government; only that I have A LOT MORE REASONS to mistrust big business. Given the choice between letting the government, or a large corporation, decide whether I live or die, I'll take the government any day.

>I know, this might be stupid, but their opinion weights heavily with me, they've always been very sensible people ^^.

No, that totally makes sense. It's one thing to go along with your parents because you fear what they'll do if you disagree with them. But agreeing with them because you trust their judgment is perfectly okay.

>Part of the current government is a half-kind-of religious party. Who wants to ban "fight-dogs" because they're aggressive.

<rolling my eyes> Goddammit, I hear this shit all the time on the news. Some local government's always trying to ban pit bulls. As if it's the dog breed's fault that humans train them to act a certain way! Local governments sure do love emotionally-based single-step solutions to complex problems...

>Goddammit, I hear this shit all the time on the news. Some local government's always trying to ban pit bulls. As if it's the dog breed's fault that humans train them to act a certain way! Local governments sure do love emotionally-based single-step solutions to complex problems...
Problem is not that they're trained to fight, it's that the owners buy them because "they're fight dogs" or abuse them until they snap.
But those are mostly mixed breeds with a little pitbull in them (a combo with our kind of dogs + doberman often makes for a big, insecure and short tempered breed, for example). The pure-bred ones, the ones they want to ban, are used for contests, shows and family dogs. Those are the ones they can ban, because they're pure-bred. The ones who stir shit up are mixed and those won't be banned! (who would pay 150$ when a mixed costs maybe 20-50$, if they plan on abusing it/don't know how to care for a dog? Only serious buyers would do that, they cost a lot! And 150 is just what you buy it for, not all other costs)

Also, I don't trust the government either, but at least they fear pissing people of too much (they can get fired too, or just not get re-elected). Companies who hide behind paperwork and lawyers become a lot more work to deal with if they mess you up. And messing you up is likely part of their business-plan.

And nothing was said of The Family.

Um... pardon?

The American Family Association. Not just douchbags in this country, They also strongly influence politics in 3rd world countries, Getting places like Ruwartha to criminalize homosexuality under penalty of death.

Well, fuck. Can we have them declared a terrorist organization and bomb them?

Most hiring in the US is done at-will, which means, unless the reason for being fired falls under a few specific cases (ie- sex, race, religion) then the company can fire you for pretty much any reason.

Government officials, however, are not at-will. They're either contractual or elected, and as such have clearly defined means by which they can be fired. Case in point: Low level government workers such as mail people have a very hard time getting fired as well.

While I agree that these two examples are despicable scum, the fact is, they cannot be at-will either because it will disenfranchise voters, or because it will breech contract.

If you truly feel that this is an unconscionable exception, then I suggest you start a movement to change the means under which government officials can be fired.

To add my own personal opinion, the worse part of this travesty is that elected officials step down for dingling their secretary, but not for calling for the death of gays. This is driven by public opinion, and tells us a whole lot about how the truly 'tolerant' majority of the US prioritizes gay lives against a house wive's sensitivities.

^this

>To add my own personal opinion, the worse part of this travesty is that elected officials step down for dingling their secretary, but not for calling for the death of gays. This is driven by public opinion, and tells us a whole lot about how the truly 'tolerant' majority of the US prioritizes gay lives against a house wive's sensitivities.

This was a huge part of my point. If either of these scumbags were ranting about blacks, we wouldn't be having this conversation. They'd be pressured to step down immediately. But America as a whole thinks hating gays is a more acceptable kind of bigotry.

>If you truly feel that this is an unconscionable exception, then I suggest you start a movement to change the means under which government officials can be fired.

A good point. Still, I'd prefer it if someone simply ran over these two douchebags with a forklift. :)

Forklift? I'd rather a steam roller with a giant gay pride flag painted on the barrel wheel.

I like how you think... ;)

Oh, you can totally be fired for sex, race, religion, or any other prohibited discrimination. All the company has to do is say they're firing you for no reason at all, and there's nothing you can do to touch them.

Yes, employer discretion. They simply fire you for an unrelated reason to the one they really are firing you fore.

Yes, but that's a whole other issue entirely. Employment discrimination is excruciatingly hard to prove. That said, it's still illegal to fire someone for being part of a protected class.

This is why I say laws aren't really the way to go. There's always a way around the law, but actually stopping kids from learning religion-sponsored prejudice and bigotry (which is TOTALLY a learned thing). Sure, it takes longer, but the results speak for themselves.

Like i said on the journal, there should simply be more homosexual education
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/vi....._stop_bullying

this is an example of what should be taught.

when I was younger, admittedly, i was blindly homophobic. I'll admit. That was, until I GREW UP. I realized that being homophobic is cowardly and full of bullshit.

I cant wait until i appeal to my principal next week for a Gay-straight Alliance at my school.

I want to know the look on your principal's face.

Also, speaking of schools: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/28/ar.....ss_igoogle_cnn

Actually, our principal's pretty damn awesome.

I think he'll be fine with it, if not at the least a little "eh", but i strongly doubt hell be outright against it, and make me have to fight for it. He's really cool.

HE'S RESIGNING!? FUUUUUUUCK YEEEEEAAHHHHHH!!!!

I love how 'sorry' he is in that article. He's only sorry because he was caught, and because his family got subjected to death threats because of his stupidity. And I love how he says he was subjected to a lot of "hate speech" over this. IRONY LOL!

I'm actually really happy about this; this is exactly what SHOULD happen; the public rises up and demands he resign, so he does. I'd said that this pretty much always happens in cases of racism, but not anti-gay stuff. I'm very glad to see that or society can do the right thing.I guess it just takes a few more days to get around to it when it comes to gays. ;)

>I cant wait until i appeal to my principal next week for a Gay-straight Alliance at my school.

FUCK YEAH! GOOD LUCK ON YOUR VENTURE, AMIGO! :D

thanks 8D
gonna go over to my boyfriends house and print out the stuff later today

Make out with him for me, dude. ;)

I just wrote a pro-gay marriage rights essay in English comp 1 and some religious fanatic in class who peer reviewed my essay was basically yelling OH MY GOD I DON'T EVEN I'M ONLY 12 AND WHAT IS THIS in class while reading my paper. I felt pretty awesome about it. At least it means my essay entices emotion! now if only my bitchy teacher gives me better than a C or I'll-

That is wicked awesome. Sometimes I wish I had a kid so I could send them to school on missions to upset the social order like this. :)