U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook

[Happybunny]

I don't disagree with you on this viewpoint, but would like to know why some of the things I am losing, you are labeling as unfair advantages, but when another group are denied se of these same things, they are then re-termed and viewed as rights? Why when one group has them they are deemed as an unfair advantage but become a denied right when others pursue the same things.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I do think that I owe you an answer.

The short answer is that’s just the way it rolls. I am sorry but there is no quick and easy answer to your question.

Living in a democracy is the start, as various groups gain the vote and use it to their advantage, laws and attitudes change. When certain groups gain financial and economic power, business listens. It is how the world works, and you had better get used to it, because it’s not going to change stop anytime soon.

The TV program ‘Mad Men’ showed just a glimpse of how it once was. But I can with a clear heart, tell you that world has gone for ever here in the west. You are going to have to adapt, or life is going to get very difficult.

In the same sphere the USA must now more than ever, compete on a world market for jobs and natural resources. The days when the US said jump and the world asked “How High” have gone.

 

[squeakr]

I love how incest comes up anytime gay marriage is mentioned. They're not even remotely the same thing.

Also incest is frowned upon because it significantly increases the chance of genetic mutation. Look no further than Amish communities on this one. My neighbors growing up all had kids who were nearly blind and two that had disfigurements. This is why the "pay outsiders for sex" isn't a myth like most people think it is.

But the argument made was that gay marriage wouldn't affect another person's life it happened. Even if this genetic mutation so grossly occurred how would that affect your life any more than gay marriage affects mine??

Also I didn't propose that incest should be allowed. I simply stated that not all heterosexuals are allowed to marry the one they love and cited a specific example. How again is it possible for 2 adoptive children to have a greater propensity for genetic mutation when the only thing that makes them relatives is a legal adoption. Your singling out this group for no other reason than you think it sick or depraved is bigotry at its finest and nothing different than has been challenged of others against gay marriage within this thread. How again is this so different than other arguments?

Also why is it that bringing up "incest" is an invalid point and one of the things politicians do to sway their moronic voter base and defray the point at hand any different than the way that gay marriage was brought up here and is considered a valid argument when the topic of the thread relates to equal employment prptections but has been stretched to cover marriage. How is this sidetrack any more valid??

----------

I don't want to derail this thread, but I do think that I owe you an answer.

The short answer is that’s just the way it rolls. I am sorry but there is no quick and easy answer to your question.

Living in a democracy is the start, as various groups gain the vote and use it to their advantage, laws and attitudes change. When certain groups gain financial and economic power, business listens. It is how the world works, and you had better get used to it, because it’s not going to change stop anytime soon.

The TV program ‘Mad Men’ showed just a glimpse of how it once was. But I can with a clear heart, tell you that world has gone for ever here in the west. You are going to have to adapt, or life is going to get very difficult.

In the same sphere the USA must now more than ever, compete on a world market for jobs and natural resources. The days when the US said jump and the world asked “How High” have gone.

You still haven't answered the question as to why when it is something that I am losing it is considered a priveledge but when you gain it or want it, it automatically is classified as a right.


I agree that things are changing and I am old enough to not have to worry about the drastic changes that will come within my lifetime, my children on the other hand probably will. It still doesn't make it right that when I get encroached upon it is just life and accept it and move on, but when it happens to others we are supposed to take up arms and fight the injustice?

 

[G51989]

I wouldn't affect my life. I just don't agree with it that's all. If it's made legal fine then go ahead I won't campaign against it.

That is good, spread the word among your fellow religious folk to think the same way, its a good way to think.

Just so long as gay people realise that not everybody agrees with it.

I don't think anyone in the LGBT community cares about Christianity or its views on them, and they probably don't care weather you approve of them or not, and they probably don't care if religious folks like or dislike them, they are not after your approval or anyone elses, they are after the same legal rights as everyone else, and that is it.

And that's fine, I personally laugh internally whenever I see people go into the Mega Church on my way to work, but I keep it to myself and do not make fun of them for it. Its one thing to think one way, but another to act on it.

If they tried to force religions to allow gay marriage in church or wherever against their will or their teachings then I would campaign against that.

Don't worry, that is literally never going to happen. And no one has ever suggested it besides paranoid religious people .

I have a decent amount of gay friends, the majority of them stay the hell away from religion and intolerance, and don't care what the local church has to say.

 

[Happybunny]

You still haven't answered the question as to why when it is something that I am losing it is considered a priveledge but when you gain it or want it, it automatically is classified as a right.


I agree that things are changing and I am old enough to not have to worry about the drastic changes that will come within my lifetime, my children on the other hand probably will. It still doesn't make it right that when I get encroached upon it is just life and accept it and move on, but when it happens to others we are supposed to take up arms and fight the injustice?

I don't know how many more times I have to say this, there is no clear answer. It's just how society works, rights and privileges are in a constant state of flux. But by asking you show that you are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

I do think that you are confused, I personally gain nothing from all of this. I am a 68 year old hetro male, but my two daughters, and my granddaughters are set to reach for the stars.

For me this line of a question is finished, you either see it or you don't, it's not whether it's fair to you that matters, it's whether it's FAIR for EVERYBODY, that's what MATTERS.

 

[bandrews]

Unfortunately being a white male hetero in this day, I have to face some of the largest losses of my rights as other groups obtain so called "equal" or "same" rights. Affirmative action has caused members of my group to lose job offers in the name of affirmative action. Yet this was stricken down as discrimination in a court why? My group has been denied the same protections when charges of discrimination are filed, as the findings have been determined that there is no such things as "reverse discrimination". Why do they call it this special name? if race is a protected class, then why is the white race not a class, but the norm against how other classes should be judged? I have been to other countries and denied rights based upon my color, religious affiliation, and sex so I do know and have experienced discrimination but it wasn't called that since I was not considered a part of the protected class.

Wrong. You are not discriminated against - you just have to deal with the fact that out of a selection of 4 people in a job interview where one is a white, straight male, a woman, a black man and a gay man (or any combination of gender, race or sexuality), the job should go to the person who is most capable of the job. You cannot be discriminated against for being a white, straight man - if you were you would have equal cause to prosecute. Removing discrimination is different to positive discrimination where companies try to fill quotas to maintain, say an ethnically diverse workforce.
As for being "denied rights based upon my color, religious affiliation, and sex", I would argue that very few countries discriminate against men (please, name one) and as for the other factors, I suspect those countries were not renowned for being democratic states.

 

[alephnull12]

Getting government out of the 'business' of marriage, would require eliminating the public benefits of marriage. As a practical matter, I can't see enough people willing to gives those up.

In other words, this place is bunk and it's only getting worse.

Just another group of pigs wanting in on the government trough. We have millions of them. I totally get that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unscrupulous_diner's_dilemma

 

[squeakr]

Do you have anything to say that states otherwise? in short, the onus is on you to prove him wrong.

BL.

The statement was made and therefor shouldn't it be the responsibility of theater to defend their position? On other cases, it always is that way, that the person making the statement is always challenged with the burden of proof, so should it be in this case as well.

 

[Eraserhead]

Wrong. You are not discriminated against - you just have to deal with the fact that out of a selection of 4 people in a job interview where one is a white, straight male, a woman, a black man and a gay man (or any combination of gender, race or sexuality), the job should go to the person who is most capable of the job. You cannot be discriminated against for being a white, straight man - if you were you would have equal cause to prosecute. Removing discrimination is different to positive discrimination where companies try to fill quotas to maintain, say an ethnically diverse workforce.
As for being "denied rights based upon my color, religious affiliation, and sex", I would argue that very few countries discriminate against men (please, name one) and as for the other factors, I suspect those countries were not renowned for being democratic states.

I don't think *any* countries discriminate against men (except in terms of child access).

----------

In other words, this place is bunk and it's only getting worse.

Just another group of pigs wanting in on the government trough. We have millions of them. I totally get that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unscrupulous_diner's_dilemma

There will always be some state benefits of marriage (e.g inheritance tax).

 

[alephnull12]

I don't think *any* countries discriminate against men (except in terms of child access).

Surely you're joking! Nearly all of them do in a gazillion ways, including the one you live in.

 

[AppleFan360]

I love how incest comes up anytime gay marriage is mentioned. They're not even remotely the same thing.

Also incest is frowned upon because it significantly increases the chance of genetic mutation. Look no further than Amish communities on this one. My neighbors growing up all had kids who were nearly blind and two that had disfigurements. This is why the "pay outsiders for sex" isn't a myth like most people think it is.

You are so narrow minded it's comical. You do realize you sound just like the bigots you so love to point out. Of course incest is not same thing but once you re-define marriage, all other restrictions are out the window no matter how "frowned upon". Some people don't choose to love their sister or brother. It just happens just like what happened with you. Do you somehow have a problem with this concept?

The original concept of marriage is between a man and a woman. You want to change it to fit your lifestyle yet still leave out other groups whom you think don't apply to the redefinition. Boy does that sound familiar.

 

[squeakr]

Removing discrimination is different to positive discrimination where companies try to fill quotas to maintain, say an ethnically diverse workforce.
As for being "denied rights based upon my color, religious affiliation, and sex", I would argue that very few countries discriminate against men (please, name one) and as for the other factors, I suspect those countries were not renowned for being democratic states.

I have no issue or complaint with the best candidate receiving the job. It is when this "positive discrimination" ( how can it not be discrimination when you use the word in defining it, either it is discrimination or it isn't. You don't get to decide based on a specific set of circumstance and who is effected.) is the underlying issue. I thought the idea that we were discussing/ debating is about having a well qualified and equally treated employee pool and not a well diversified one, as those two theories are not mutually inclusive of the other. As for discrimination against men, the US is one of those countries. Men are not always afforded the same leave standards when it comes to child birth, and with more men becoming the primary care taker this should be equal. You could argue that the states and companies are the ones that create the discrepancy, but then wouldn't that be the same argument as it applies to marriage, and the proponents want the Feds to regulate. Also how come men aren't eligible for subsidies such as WIC to help take care of their child in utero, if they are not married to the woman yet the woman is. Since an inequality exists and their lives and the lives of their unborn child are affected this could and should be called discrimination as well. Also if I get divorced unless I can prove my wife to be a dangerous individual or she decides she doesn't want it, she will be given primary custody solely based on the fact that we believe the child is better off with their mother, and this is the case is the majority of the states.

Fair and equal are obviously two different issues. I am tired of hearing that it is "not fair deal with it", but then hearing it should all be equal. Well if it is all equal, then it would therefor also all have to be fair as no favoritism would exist.

 

[Huntn]

Learn your history friend.

You'll have to do better than that.

Regarding my previous post, it's not a matter of learning history (which I believe I am familiar) as much as it it understanding conservative morality. Why would I pick on conservatives? Forget about Dems vs Republicans, it's liberal vs conservative and as far as I know, there has NEVER been a law with a social benefit pushed by conservatives. It's liberals who push things like anti-discrimination, public education, minimum wage, and national health care. It's conservatives who kick and scream at the notion of helping anyone with their hard earned dollars and expect conformity with their religious views, while ignoring some of their religion's most important tenants. They are big into pull yourself up, don't expect my help while glossing over issues such as discrimination and an environment that allowed robber barons to proliferate at the expense of the working class. To them, that is the natural order. And now they perceive that slipping away, their leadership has lost most of their morality by adopting the end justifies the means, a means which primary consists of fabricating, misleading, and outright lying to achieve their objectives. This "love thy money" attitude extends past social issues to denial of science- "We don't want to pay for or even investigate the causes of global warming."

Your turn.

 

[chrono1081]

You are so narrow minded it's comical. You do realize you sound just like the bigots you so love to point out. Of course incest is not same thing but once you re-define marriage, all other restrictions are out the window no matter how "frowned upon". Some people don't choose to love their sister or brother. It just happens just like what happened with you. Do you somehow have a problem with this concept?

The original concept of marriage is between a man and a woman. You want to change it to fit your lifestyle yet still leave out other groups whom you think don't apply to the redefinition. Boy does that sound familiar.

I'm narrow minded because I want equal rights? Marriage has already been redefined throughout history. Not to mention if we want to play by those rules: Marriage used to also be between same sex couples but the church redefined it.

So we wouldn't be redefining anything, we'd be fixing whats already been redefined.

Why is it you have a problem with the equal rights concept? Just say flat out you hate gays for no reason.

 

[AppleFan360]

Why don't you just say you hate gays for no logical reason. That would put an end to this.

That's just silly. Who are you to dictate what logic is to someone else? I don't think any of us are qualified to judge each others logic no matter how smart we think we are.

 

[chrono1081]

That's just silly. Who are you to dictate what logic is to someone else? I don't think any of us are qualified to judge each others logic no matter how smart we think we are.

Its easy to tell you hate gays look at your posts. You think I'm an idiot for wanting equal rights. That speaks volumes about you.

 

[AppleFan360]

I'm narrow minded because I want equal rights? Marriage has already been redefined throughout history. Not to mention if we want to play by those rules: Marriage used to also be between same sex couples but the church redefined it.

So we wouldn't be redefining anything, we'd be fixing whats already been redefined.

Why is it you have a problem with the equal rights concept? Just say flat out you hate gays for no reason.

Hahahaha. Too funny. I was saying that all groups should have equal rights and you still make it about just your group. Time to start using the all powerful logic you claim to have.

----------

Its easy to tell you hate gays look at your posts. You think I'm an idiot for wanting equal rights. That speaks volumes about you.

So it all comes down to this. No matter what I say you will think that I think you are an idiot (which I never said) and assume I hate gays. Just too funny.

I'm done with you.

 

[squeakr]

To all of our Veterans out there, a Happy Veteran's Day to all.

We Vets might not agree with or like what is said sometimes but we defend to the death your right to say it. I have sacrificed and put my life on the line several times to defend the rights of all within this thread to state their minds as they see fit and live their lives whether they feel that they are being treated fairly, equally, and just ( and whether they are Americans or not).

Happy Veterans Day to all vets.

 

[chrono1081]

Hahahaha. Too funny. I was saying that all groups should have equal rights and you still make it about just your group. Time to start using the all powerful logic you claim to have.

----------


So it all comes down to this. No matter what I say you will think that I think you are an idiot (which I never said) and assume I hate gays. Just too funny.

I'm done with you.

It doesn't "all come down to me". We're talking about anti-descrimination for LGBT people and I fall into the G category.

And yes, you hate gays whether you want to admit it or not. You came up with nothing but illogical arguments on why I and other gays shouldn't be allowed to marry the one we love with the one life we were given.

 

[Eraserhead]

Surely you're joking! Nearly all of them do in a gazillion ways, including the one you live in.

How are men discriminated against then? Obviously excluding child access as I mentioned in my post.

 

[Michael Goff]

You really need to read better and open your mind. When anyone says anything that is contrary to your agenda, then you shut them down and try to force your bias and hatred on them.

I never compared homosexuality to anything. I just stated a contrary truth and fact to your statement that heterosexuals could always marry the ones they love. The argument presented is that homosexuals marrying is not impeding on any other person's rights or freedoms, as they are just two consenting adults living their lives. Since they are consenting adults should they not be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals? I was just stating that your blanket statement about all heterosexuals is not true and cited two examples to illustrate where your point is wrong. I am not saying it is right or wrong (and their are laws against this just as there are against homosexuality), but how is it that two consenting adults from the same family (and according to states the immediacy of family varies as to who can marry, 1st cousins might not be able to but 2nd can) can be not allowed to marry?

In both of my examples, consenting adults are involved, so how are they infringing upon rights of others? Are you not judging them and hating and bigoted against them just as you say others are against homosexuals because you don't agree with their rights and desires? Incest by definition can be two non blood relatives from an adoptive house hold. They are not from the same parents and share the same relatives only through adoption, so what is their marriage hurting anyone or the same if multiple people want to marry? If a government shouldn't be allowed to define a marriage as a single man and woman solely, then why should they be allowed to limit the number of parties involved?

If it's biological incest, it can cause damage to offspring. The same cannot be said about homosexuals, since children cannot be born of those two. However, and this is likely something that somebody will take and shiver in my face later, I don't know why it is considered incest when the people are adopted. Also, I said I have no real problem with polygamy. I don't know why it's illegal either.

 

[squeakr]

How are men discriminated against then? Obviously excluding child access as I mentioned in my post.

Why do we get to excuse this one issue like it is nothing. It means the world to several men to not have equality in access to children. Why are we writing it off? It just seems like the attitude is it is really nothing, like a sidebar note. It almost appears as if someone is saying "this never happens, except in this one case but that really doesn't matter so ignore it and just say that they are never affected like other classes are." As is claimed in this thread discrimination is discrimination when it affects someone else's life directly and this meets that criteria, so it should be a pursued issue as well.

The theme of this thread is a main way that men are discriminated against. Gay men aren't afforded equalities in the workplace and marriages according to this thread. Does the fact that they are gay no longer make them men? I think not, so therefor you have a prime example of how mean are discriminated against. Just because they have traits that make them also the member of another class, doesn't make them any less the member of another class/ group. Men, no matter the sexual orientation, color, religion, etc are still men and any discrimination against them is discrimination against men as well. See my post above for some further issues that affect men.

 

[squeakr]

If it's biological incest, it can cause damage to offspring. The same cannot be said about homosexuals, since children cannot be born of those two. However, and this is likely something that somebody will take and shiver in my face later, I don't know why it is considered incest when the people are adopted. Also, I said I have no real problem with polygamy. I don't know why it's illegal either.

But once again you have avoided the actual nature of our exchange, It was not to compare or contrast the groups as you are suggesting (I never said anything like that). but just to show proof that not all hetero groups have the ability to marry whom they love, like you stated as a defense. The other thing is, even if the child is grossly effected by a genetic mutation, then how again does this affect your life directly, just as gay marriage doesn't affects others by your claims as a reason not to deny it? Are you forced to rear this child, or even ever meet/ see this child? Probably not, but because states determined it was not legal, such as many states have done with Gay Marriage, you feel that this case of discrimination should be allowed?

I am not a proponent of either of these theories, just applying the logic that is so widespread and referred to in the other posts to the above situation. You obviously have issues with it, as others have with homosexual marriage, so does this automatically make you a bigot and you should be called out to declare your hatred for these types of relationships and people involved for no real reason other than you don't like or agree with them (and it is not your choice to agree with them or approve of their lifestyle when it doesn't affect your ability to live your life, correct??).

As for the postings in this thread quoting marriage throughout the history and how it has changed, in the monarchial times marriages were lots of times between relatives to keep the wealth centrally located and not dispersed among the masses. This is why several of our royalty classes of the time were stricken with horrible diseases, but that still shows that at the time, it too was acceptable (and yes genetic mutation can occur, but it can also result in a positive genetic outcome as it can strengthen a desired trait and remove an undesirable trait, hence why we interbreed animals and plants to create strains of better resistant species, of course when it goes wrong it generally goes horribly wrong).

 

[Huntn]

You are so narrow minded it's comical. You do realize you sound just like the bigots you so love to point out. Of course incest is not same thing but once you re-define marriage, all other restrictions are out the window no matter how "frowned upon". Some people don't choose to love their sister or brother. It just happens just like what happened with you. Do you somehow have a problem with this concept?

The original concept of marriage is between a man and a woman. You want to change it to fit your lifestyle yet still leave out other groups whom you think don't apply to the redefinition. Boy does that sound familiar.

For the sake of discussion, besides the genetic ramifications of incest (the reason incest is shunned, think of 18th century European royalty), is there a moral reason why a sister and brother should not get married?

Regarding the definition of marriage see
Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scholars' Op-Ed

Let's forget about the dna/incest ramifications of Adam and Eve, and forget this is a story created by and carried forward by men, it's not enough to say that because of the story of Adam and Eve, God only supports marriage between 1 man and 1 woman... this is what God reportedly did, not a standard he stated as the only standard. Witness polygamy in the Bible...

The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory, noted the scholars. They stated in their column that a primary example of this is the religious book's stance on polygamy, a practice that was embraced by prominent biblical figures Abraham and David. Furthermore, Avalos, Cargill and Atkinson point out that various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists.

 

[ElectronGuru]

In other words, this place is bunk and it's only getting worse.

Just another group of pigs wanting in on the government trough. We have millions of them. I totally get that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unscrupulous_diner's_dilemma

Sorry, don't mean to cause panic. There are many examples of challenges when people are working together. Here is another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

But these are 'always have, always will' natures of nature and do not themselves indicate a worsening of anything. Record keeping of births/deaths/marriages goes back many hundreds of years. That we still have them is a sign of stability, not instability.

Getting away from the challenges of cooperation would require getting away from cooperation itself. And that is a personal choice (you can leave whenever you like). But what wouldn't you be willing to give up, that was provided by others (food, safety, iPad, etc) to accomplish it?

Of course incest is not same thing but once you re-define marriage, all other restrictions are out the window no matter how "frowned upon".

So marriage is in some kind of legal clamp and once the clamp is loosened, anything goes?

We Vets might not agree with or like what is said sometimes but we defend to the death your right to say it. I have sacrificed and put my life on the line several times to defend the rights of all within this thread to state their minds as they see fit and live their lives whether they feel that they are being treated fairly, equally, and just

Thank you for your service.

 

[squeakr]

I don't know how many more times I have to say this, there is no clear answer. It's just how society works, rights and privileges are in a constant state of flux. But by asking you show that you are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

I do think that you are confused, I personally gain nothing from all of this. I am a 68 year old hetro male, but my two daughters, and my granddaughters are set to reach for the stars.

For me this line of a question is finished, you either see it or you don't, it's not whether it's fair to you that matters, it's whether it's FAIR for EVERYBODY, that's what MATTERS.

You too are confused as I stand to gain nothing from this either, like you so incorrectly assume I do (and I have never stated or inferred that I believe you have any dog in this fight). I am not part of the problem anymore than I believe you are, so stop placing blame.

I am trying to generally understand how you can claim if someone has had their "rights" denied that they are discriminated against, but if someone else has rights removed in the process of granting another their rights, the group that have had their rights infringed upon, haven't really been "affected" as they weren't really rights in the first place but privileges. It is like you change the way you describe them so it no longer becomes a right. According to the logical claims given here, when one affects the way that another lives then it is discrimination, and this would meet that claim. I just hate that for some reason the class being denied loses their protective status so it is not truly discrimination. It is like a two headed coin where you generally lose no matter what. Rights are specifically granted within the Constitution and this must be how we measure things as the proponents want things handled on a Federal level to insure equality across all the states. Where is it stated that marriage is a right within the doctrine? If it is not a right then it is a privilege and according to the argument it wouldn't be a discriminable offense as it was just actually a privilege that one class happens to hold at this time and if removed doesn't result in any type of discrimination just a change in society and loss of a long enjoyed privilege.