A question of Equality or Invasion

1. 59

   Billjordanposted 13 years ago

   For the last couple of days the LGBT thing has been all over the forums on Hubpages. it seems most want to compare this to the civil rights movements of the 60's.Which makes it all about equality;but is a lifestyle choice the same as judging someone for their skin color.I can choose a lifestyle but I do no get to cry foul when others disagree with my choice this is not a question of equality this is a question of invasion. Gays want control they are like Hitler's Nazi Germany they are a small group who wants to dominate the world. The Civil rights movement was about all races of mankind being equal not all lifestyles of man being equal.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Dominate the world?
      
      Lol

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Or at least re-decorate it...

         replyreport
   2. 70

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      First off, let me clue you in on something. Equality and Equal Rights are NOT the same thing.
      In one aspect it could be the same, but it would be irrationally perceived. Other than that, No.
      I really wish you would learn to END your sentences with a period. You continually post run on sentences.
      
      Secondly, yes you can choose from the many different lifestyles available through out humanity. And, it's NOT "crying foul" because other people disagree. The problem you're not taking into consideration is individual rights and where YOUR authority ends with regards to them.
      This is false. Thus, making it a lie.
      Any and ALL lifestyles which are not detrimental to one's own life(or the life of others), with the exception of being a serial killer or mass murderer, should be left up to the individual and out of the business of others.
      
      It's a shame you lack the understanding of rights, even on the most basic level.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      ib radmastersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The LGBT is backed by rich and powerful people that know how to make politics and the US Constitution work for them.
      
      They need to use that power and knowledge to make Civil Unions equal in legal status to the implied legal status of marriage.
      
      But that won't give them validation for their lifestyle preferences, and that is what they really want from all their efforts today.
      
      Gay marriage also doesn't help all those couples that want to have long term cohabitation, but who don't want to get married.
      
      To solve the bigger problem here, I suggest that for legal equality that we employment a legal partnership. This partnership will eliminate the requirement or the need to get married. It would spell out all of the conditions and penalties of the relationship. And if and when the time came for a dissolution of the relationship, it would be a simple contract enforcement, rather than the ambiguous and vague divorce.
      
      Then marriage would not be a government issue.
      Remember today Marriage is a privilege, and it requires a license, similar to a drivers license.
      
      Marriage therefore is not a constitutional right, because a constitutional right cannot be restricted by a license. Additionally, it would be a national function and not one varying from state to state.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      ptosisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      How can that be when there are folks born with genital of both sexes? I'm real sure that folks didn't choose how they were born with both male gonadal tissue (testes) and female gonadal tissue (ovarian tissue).
      
      In the US, the babies 'sex' is altered but in other countries it's left alone. about 4% of the population. "An estimated 9 million Americans -- or nearly 4 percent of the total population -- say they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender ..." Gee - that's the same number! Duh!
      
      Please retract your statement about it being a life choice.
      
      BTW, why was Jesus - a Jew - allowed women into his fold?
      Could it be:
      
      

      replyreport
   5. 60

      Josakposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Utterly ridiculous, one of the dumbest things I have read in my life, all scientific evidence points to homosexuality not being a choice (or you know asking gay people does too) and people wanting equal rights is an invasion?

      replyreport
   6. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      On a serious note, using Nazi Germany as an analogy is massively inappropriate, given the fate of many homosexuals under that regime.
      
      "Gays want control"... geesh.

      replyreport
2. 68

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   Sexual orientation is as related to genes as skin color, so yes, it's the same.
   
   Even if it wasn't civil rights also includes religions, which is not genetic.
   
   What gays want is to not be controlled by other people for reasons of bigotry.  As is their right.

   replyreport
3. 84

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Well I read an article in the 90's that said only women can sweat blood.
   
   Have since seen this rebuffed....but there is a lot of mystery there....
   
   Is the one Jesus loved Mary? And if it's John, does this make Jesus gay?  Lot of mysterious stuff to go along with the other weird stuff in the Bible.

   replyreport
4. 81

   ptosisposted 13 years ago

   Please don't flag me but I'm going to be the devil's advocate here and ask a question that is definitely not politically correct:
   
   OK, here it is:
   4% are born inter-sexed, (in the US we 'fix' to one or the other sex)
   4% in US are LGBT ( pattern here)
   
   IF considered a birth defect then should have the same rights as other birth defects?
   
   (Howls of outrage here... yes I know...)
   
   Or: Should people with birth defects lose their rights to be on par with LGBT's?
   
   Remember: Historically, life was a brutally short and hard and Spartans left the 'unfit' to die from exposure.
   
   In the 1920's the USA had a traveling carnival show that was called "The Fit Family", disparaging Italians......
   
   SO: it seems that the only enlightened answer is to let LGBT's to marry just like folks who are born with no arms but have hands coming out of their  shoulders.
   
   (More howls of protest - please - I'm being very 'out there' right now.)
   
   So am I crazy to argue in this fashion?
   
   Are we going to balance the budget by killing all those older than 75, handicapped or just plain butt ugly?
   
   Or:
   
   Are we going to act as if the entire human population is unity - as if each person was a cell in a super-body-human-entity?
   
   Or should we just excise people out of existence like a malignant cancer? I'm pretty sure that each and every one of us are special - that we all have differences - seen and unseen....
   
   See: Easter Island bigotry between the 'long ears' (the royals) and the 'short ears'.  (peons)- Its a friggin' island folks, these people have interbred for generations!
   
   Quote of the day: Don't like LGBT's? Then blame the Heteros's, they are the ones who keep giving birth to LGBT's"

   replyreport
5. 61

   readytoescapeposted 13 years ago

   What’s all the HubBub Bub?
   This entire squabble and the “movement” is nothing more than a reoccurring political scheme that is orchestrated during every election cycle to garner votes for liberal progressives. Think about it really, what are “gays” denied?
   
   Are they prevented from Cohabitating? No
   Are they prevented from swearing an oath of allegiance to each other? NO
   Are they prevented from sharing wealth? No
   Are they prevented from bequeathing their wealth? NO
   Are they prevented from entering into an equity contract? NO
   Are they prevented from any of the individual liberties, protections or benefits allowed any other American? No
   
   I can think of only one thing in the governmental structure gays cannot obtain, an official registry of their union and thereby automatic entitlement to each other’s assets. So one must ask, why this piece of paper is so important? I can deduce only three reasons, all of them tied to the legality and entitlement of personal economics.
   
   The first item is employer provided insurance and benefit coverage extended to a partner, a non-governmental issue.
   The second is the assumption of a deceased partner’s governmental benefits.
   The third is legal entitlement to each other’s assets whether shared or not and court ordered monetary maintenance for the financially weaker partner in the case of a breakup.
   
   Of these reasons above, only one cannot be addressed by legally enforceable contract or personal choice, and that is governmental benefits. Benefits each partner is entitled to individually. 
   
   So why is this an issue for our government or the American People? Are there not more important issues that need to be addressed?

   replyreport