Human rights law passed- Gays, lesbians get protection

Cincinnati Post ^ | April 30, 2003 | Mike Rutledge

[nastypumps]

Actaully that is the very same excuse that was given to my friend's Black Dad in WWII when he was denied the right to serve in an all white company. The whites did not want to shower/sleep./fight/eat etc. with their inferior

[ladtx]

Don't compare racial discrimination to this. It denigrates the civil rights movement and our citizens who were discriminated against. You will find many African-Americans become quite livid about this comparison. You're comparing apples to oranges.

[nastypumps]

I forgot to mention...he served in an all Black company, was wounded in combat, and came home to discrimination from people who weren't good enough to wipe the blood from his army boots.
Perhaps you would not have wished to serve with him, I mean what with him being "disruptive" and all.

[nastypumps]

No, I'm comparing history to history. You are seeking to explain your own predjudices.

[nastypumps]

By the by, since you are so knowledgeable what exactly did/have/are you doing for civil rights? I fought bigoted cops and white only gangs in the streets of America, travelled into the deep South, and later successfully battled major corporations for 35+ years for equal pay for people of all races and for employment equality for men and women.

[Laurie S]

"People aren't allowed to marry their dogs either. Does that bother you too? If not who are you to judge whether a man-dog sexual relationship is better or worse than a man-man sexual relationship? Neither of these sexual relationships is for children, just for pleasure. Where are the rights of men who want to marry their dogs? They are second class citizens with **no rights**. "

LOL! No one's talking about non-human marriage. I think your argument classifies as 'strawman'? Do I have that right? LOL! No, whether you like it or not, gays and lesibans are human and under our constitution should have the same rights as heterosexuals.. something in the constitution about 'all men' being created equal and such. :)

God bless! :)

[savedbygrace]

homesexual = homosexual (but you knew that)

[ladtx]

Perhaps you would not have wished to serve with him, I mean what with him being "disruptive" and all.

Do not presume to know what I would do, you don't know me or my record. Don't try to place your own prejudices on me. My actions are proven by my military record and believe it or not, by my marriage.

[ladtx]

No, I'm comparing history to history. You are seeking to explain your own predjudices.

Once again your own presumptions and prejudices betray you.

[nastypumps]

What are you talking about? I asked what you are/have done in a specific area.

[ladtx]

By the by, since you are so knowledgeable what exactly did/have/are you doing for civil rights? I fought bigoted cops and white only gangs in the streets of America, travelled into the deep South, and later successfully battled major corporations for 35+ years for equal pay for people of all races and for employment equality for men and women.

For 20 years I served as a guardian of those civil rights. I've lived in the deep south and have not a racially prejudiced bone in my body. That has been taught to my three sons. I lead by example. My wife has been discriminated against because of her race, and that type of discrimination is totally different. You're barking up the wrong tree here. But then again you are trying to compare racial discrimination to life-style discrimination - again it's totally different.

[Kuksool]

{We should be encouraging monogomous relationships, not trying to discriminate who can be monogomous with whom.}

What about domestic partnerships for unmarried straight couples?

[First Amendment]

Don't compare racial discrimination to this. It denigrates the civil rights movement and our citizens who were discriminated against. You will find many African-Americans become quite livid about this comparison. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Not comparing one kind of fruit to another kind of fruit. It's like comparing fruit to s**t.

[First Amendment]

Well, then, what you're saying is that is would be more accurate to equate it to religious discrimination rather than to racial discrimination. OK.

No, discriminating on the basis of behavior is not the same as religious discrimination. Our country was founded on religious freedom, not freedom to perform sodomy or other perverse "sex" acts. Throughout civilized history, societies have had restrictions ("discrimination" - which is actually not always a bad word) - concerning sexual behavior. The reason is that sexual behavior is not neutral - it can be benefical, benign, or harmful. And the promotion of and FORCED acceptance of and GLORIFICATION of and TEACHING of homosexual and other unnatural sex acts in a society ruins the society by degrading the individuals in it.

If homosexuals just wanted to do their thing in peace it would be a whole different matter. They don't. They want to change the world into their vision of utopia. And if we let them, it will be our fault.

[steve-b]

Again, you simply confirm the analogy. Religious behaviour can be benefical, benign, or harmful (one need only consider the examples of John Paul II, the average undistinguished chruchgoer, and Osama bin Laden, respectively).

[scripter]

Under sexual orientation, those ordinances protect someone "based upon his or her imputed heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality."

A man whose sexual orientation is towards boys of the same sex falls under this definition and it is not a slippery slope to take that to its logical conclusion. This law would force me to rent to a man who told me he liked to have sex with boys. After all, that's his sexual orientation. When will the definition expand to include pedophiles or men who want to have sex with dogs? We're talking about a law based on sexual orientation.

Bisexuality is even harder to pin down. Let's say I own a business and fire someone, someone I've only seen with members of the opposite sex. They turn around and file a lawsuit stating I fired them because they were bisexual. It doesn't matter if I win the case or not, the damage in time and resources has been done. These types of laws are simply creating opportunities for more lawsuits and victims.

[scripter]

We seem to be getting a lot of liberal trolls here. No matter, they'll be zotted when the 2004 election comes around.

Yeah - they just can't help themselves and show their true liberal self at some point.

[Kuksool]

That's especially true when the election cycle is in full swing.

[usastandsunited]

boys of the same sex” is redundant. Pedophilia is a paraphiliac mental illness, not a sexual orientation. Statutory rape is a crime.
Replace "Pedophilia" & "Statutory rape" with "homosexuality" with your statement. Now turn back the clock 50 years. Why was one statement wrong then, and the other correct now ?