Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room A Decision

Steve

You kind of cut and snipped my post. That is like selecting passages from the bible.

I said that this is the Bibles version of it. I also said that Jolly expressed my feelings better than I could.

I expressed my opinion, you have the right to express yours. I did not in any way attack anyone for there opinion,thats kind of like breaking your neighbors furniture aint it. I also do not condemn anyone for their lifestyle, that is not for me to do.

I do not believe in glamorizing and legitimizing a sexual practice that has been abhored by every society and religion since the begining of time.

lb

Derick

I'm glad to see that this was your interpretation and it really wasn't what was actually said in the bible.

You said "I think they should pay a little more attention to their own sins before condemning someone else."

I have not condemned anyone. I stated my opinion on legitimizing homosexuality. You have the right to express yours as well. I have not attacked anyone for their opinion, I do not see why you have to attack other opinions to give yours credibility. As Steve said in his post, “ break your neighbors furniture to make yours look better”

I did not cloud this thread with feminism either. This thread is long enough, if you want to discuss feminism, you should start another thread

lb

You have posted some very funny stuff here George. I really have to hand it to you. Of course, these folks bring it on themselves when the use the Old Testament and Leviticus in particular to make their point. Much that is contained therein can only accurately be described as archaic. That being said, I can say that, for my part, I find homosexuality to be repulsive but that, in and of itself, is not enough to justify proscribing their lifestyle. There may be any number of things about my neighbor's life style that I may find repulsive (and they, mine) but as long as they do not cause harm (defined very narrowly) to society in general I am bound by the rules of civil society to tolerate their behavior.

George mentions equal protection and I have to agree that gay people should enjoy the same benefits under the 14th Amendment as all other Americans. However, it seems to me that some of the more activist members of the gay community are asking for a kind of "enhanced" protection. In other words, they seem to believe that they should be protected from all sorts of criticism or that people whose beliefs do not countenance homosexuality should, in some way, be legally censured. There are no other groups or individuals who enjoy such protection and it should not be extended to any particular group or individual. Certainly, if harm should come to them from others they should receive the same legal protections as anyone. However, there are people whose only "crime" is an outspoken belief that homosexuality is wrong and they should be entitled to their beliefs. Just as members of the gay community are entitled to their outspoken belief that such people are backward and wrong.

There has been much made of the murder of Matthew Shepard as far as a justification for hate crimes legislation. However, the two individuals who murdered Matthew Shepard were not some sort religious fanatics but lowlife scum. They have no more to do with religion than Charles Manson. What they did was murder and there are already laws against that. It seems that, in general, anything that is covered by hate crimes legislation that is not already outside the law amounts to legislating people's beliefs and that should not be tolerated in civil society.

Does equal protection extend to the realm of civil unions? It might. I can see there being a case to be made for the fact that people entering freely into a relationship are not accorded the same types of legal and financial benefits of ordinary married couples. I see no harm done to society in general in allowing gay people to enter into the same sorts of civil contracts as married people and enjoying the same benefits vs-a-vis the state. It is not as if some religious imprimatur is being affixed although, if it is allowed within the beliefs of a particular religion, there is no reason why that would be impossible.

This, of course, is the crux of the problem. When people think "gay" they think "sex activites" and that alone. The problem with this is that being gay is far more than what one does with one's body with another human being.

For a heterosexual man/woman, they find completeness as human beings with a member of the opposite gender. They find another human being with whom they can be soulmates, with whom they can speak their innermost thoughts and fears and doubts, they find a human being who they wish to share their life with, make plans with, grow old with. They are able to develop an intimate partnership -- mentally, emotionally, psychologically and physically -- with a member of the opposite gender that they cannot find with a member of their own. In short, the heterosexual man is made whole by his love for a woman and the heterosexual woman is made whole by her love for a man. This is what it means for a man and woman to be in love and we all know this.

When one sees a man and woman together in a life partnership no one thinks immediately of what they do in bed, or how they express their intimacy physically. No, they consider how the two of them struggle through life together, how they laugh together, cry together fight together and can be so intimately hurt by each other because they know each other so well. How they raise children together, share each other's interests. In short, how they love each other in a complete way. A straight man or woman cannot not find such fulfillment for who they are or for their humanness with a member of their own gender.

And yet, when a man is gay or a woman lesbian, the focus is soley on the sexual activites of these people. Dismissive comments such as we ave already seen on this thread are made "I don't care what they do in bed within the privacy of their own home" as if this is the totality of their partnership. But sexual expression is not the point.

The point is that gay men and lesbians cannot find fulfillment as human beings with a member of the opposite gender any more than a straight person could find it with a member of the same gender. The point is not about who arouses gay men and lesbians sexually. The point is who they need to have to complete their lives. Who are they drawn to to express their love -- in all of its forms, of which sex is simply an expression, not a basis.

Gay men and lesbians have long argued that their search for fulfillment of themselves with a life partner is the same as the straight person's search and their satisfaction when they find that one person is the same as a straight person's. And this is true.

When love is talked about between a husband and wife, it is not defined as sex. When love is talked about between two male life partners it is only defined as sex.

This is all gays and lesbians are really arguing for....recognition that they too have a right to be happy and to be accepted and to be condoned in their fulfillment with another human being in the same way that straight people are happy, accepted and condoned in their fulfillment with another human being.

Can any of us really condemn anyone for wanting to love and be loved? For wanting to be fulfilled as a human being and for fulfilling someone else as a human being? For seeking a partner and for seeking completeness in life? Or for being someone else's partner and giving that person completeness?

When we define a human being's drive to love and be loved simply in terms of a certain physical expression of that love, we deny the very humanity of that person. To deny their humanity is to deny the glory of the God who created them -- whether or not He/She created them gay, straight or otherwise -- the God who loves each of us so fully, so completely, so intimately because we are each His/Her creation.

Okay, I'm old and don't keep up on the language as much as I used to. I remember when gay meant light-hearted, happy, etc. Then, it was morphed into meaning homosexual, in a nice way, as opposed to queer, which morphed earlier to mean homosexual in a derogatory way. Now, I find out that it's morphed again to mean a male homosexual. All these constantly changing euphemisms are too much for a sane person to worry about. Plus, any labels are divisive.

DT-a straight, white, married, Euroamerican male Christian
(the most detested segment of society)

lb,

I rambled in my post and went from addressing you to talking about Jerry Falwell. So it was not my intention to imply that you were condemning anyone, rather Jerry Falwell, and others like him, are the ones that condemn.

The quotations I extracted from the bible were not meant to open up the feminism issue, they were merely meant to point out how utterly ridiculous many of the things said in the bible are.

I have a tattoo, I trim my beard, I get a haircut, I wear a gold chain (with a religious medal on it) a watch and a wedding ring. All of those things are forbidden in the bible. Yet people who quote the bible regarding homosexuality conveniently skip over those things that they do that are forbidden in the bible; shaving, wearing jewelry, getting a haircut, etc...

Derick

George - That was beautiful. Thank you. Jodi

I agree with you completely on this. No, gays should not have special rights and yes, they should have the same rights.

Most legislation that is proposed that is considered "pro-gay" is very simple. It simply says that one cannot be discrimated against because of sexual orientation. This type of legislation is then attacked as giving gays special rights. However....

Gays throughout this society are routinely fired frorm jobs simply because they are gay. Should we be surprised then that gays ask for legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else.

Gays throughout this society are denied the ability to rent or buy homes or are evicted from their homes simply because they are gay. Should we be surprised then that they seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

Gays who are in lifetime partnerships are often told they are not a "relative" of someone seriously ill or dying in a hospital and they are not allowed to visit or be with the one they have given their life to in a time of crisis. Should we be surprised then that they seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

Gays too often find that upon the death of their life partner, they have no immediate right to inheritance or to determine what happens to that person's estate or how that person is to be memorialized and interred. Should we be surprised then that they seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

Gays who have children love them as dearly as any straight parent. They need them in their lives as much as straight parents. And their children need the love and guidance of their gay parents as much as chidlren need the love and guidance of their straight parents. And yet, too often we read of a gay parent being denied custody or visitiation or any of the other rights a parent would have simply because they are gay. How wrenching to both the parent and the children this is! Should we be surprised then that gays seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

The Federal government and state governments have many statutes which treat heterosexual life partners in specific ways -- and often extend these benefits to common law marriages. Gays are simply saying that their life partnerships are as legally valid as any other life partnership and they seek to have them treated as such.

This is the type of thing that is happening all over the place in this society and gays are simply seeking to have legislation passed to ensure they are treated like all others in the same situation. The majority of gays and lesbians are not asking for special treatment, they are asking for equal treatment.

The actions of the society is the cause for gays seeking to be specifically identified in anti-discrimination legislation. If they were routinely given equal treatment in such areas as I have outlined above, there would be no need for such legislation.

When the Supreme Court of Vermont declared the states marriage laws as unconstitutional under the State's equal protection clauses, gays did not demand a change in the definition of marriage in Vermont. They were well satisfied with establishing a separate designation of civil unions for those outside of a state-defined marriage.

I do not believe the definition of marriage need be changed. But I believe all committed partnerships should be treated the same legally.

No, there should be no special treatment of gays. But if we need legislation to keep discrimination from occuring, then we need legislation.

I disagree with much of the radical gay agenda. I do not believe elementary students need be taught that a gay life partnership is"normal" since it clearly is outside of the norm. But I see no problem in children being taught that two people who love each other, are committed to each other and who bind their lives together are to be respected for the commitment they have made.

I do not believe there should be special gay oriented educational materials forced upon all children any more than there should be special religious or poltiical oriented materials forced upoin children. But I do believe such information should be made available -- be it on sexual orientation, religious viewpoints, political viewpoints or whatever -- to those children seeking it when it is age appropriate.

I do not believe that government run high schools should be required to have "gay" clubs. But I do believe that if they are going to have clubs based on common interests of the members, and if gay teenagers want to band together in such a club and meet the requirements of all other clubs, they should be allowed.

I do not believe that government run high schools should be required to have dances and proms and similar social events. But I do believe that if they are held and the kids can bring dates of their own choice, they should be allowed to bring the date of their choice -- be that person the same gender or a different gender

As far as hate crimes are concerned, I agree with you except.....

We have court decisions that allow for more severe penalties when there are "special circumstances." Indeed, for the death penalty to be applied, special circumstances must be shown. Crimes stemming from hate are an affront and an attack on the very freedom we hold dear in this country. They are an attack on our most basic values of equality. Because they attack the core of our political values, I have no trouble adding "hate as a motivation" as a special circumstance to allow for a more severe punishment. But I do not single out hate crimes against gays for this. I single out simply hate -- against anyone or any lifestyle or any belief system as a special circumstance.

There are radical gays who seek more than this and I disagree with them. I do not think they have any special rights. In the same way I do not think ethnic groups should have any special rights nor do I believe any group bound by common beliefs should have any special rights.

Perhap, one of these days, we as a society will actually begin to see people as people and will treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve simply as human beings and will no longer need laws to ensure equal treatment of all under the law. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. And so, as a freedom loving people, we need laws to enforce our most basic political values against those who would deny these political values.

yes, george, that was very beautiful. thank you for putting it so well.

George,

I can't really take issue with anything you have said here. We may disagree as to degree but on substance we are probably closer than either of us would have expected. I am opposed to enacting laws creating a new class or protected group as I believe existing law should apply to all with regard to discrimination or other such abuses. However, it is possible that there are some areas that are not adequately covered by existing law and I would not be opposed to addressing any such narrowly defined areas with legislation.

As far as hate crimes, if you are suggesting that hate as a motivation be introduced as an aggravating factor in sentencing, I am not opposed to that. I am frightened by proposed legislation that seems aimed at making the expression of an offensive point of view by itself a crime or used to magnify an otherwise mudane offense into a capital crime. I can see where abuses could result.

Agreed. Completely and totally.

And, JBryan, this scares me that we are agreeing so much! What is wrong with me? I must be slipping! LOL!!!

Sorry, I am opposed to what is called "hate" crimes.

For instance, is murder a crime or not? In my state we execute people for murder. Shall we kill them twice just because the perpetrator commited a crime against a certain select group of people? A crime is a crime is a crime and should be prosecuted no matter what or who the victim is.

Do you want justice, or does the mob just want an extra pound of flesh?

On another note - Do any of you actually hire and fire people? Or is this just so much hot air and posturing? You CAN'T fire someone just because he is gay. You can be compelled by law to furnish proof of why you would not hire a qualified gay job applicant. Just because someone is homosexual, does not mean that all discrimination laws do not apply to them. They have rights - the same rights as any other American.

Do you propose creating another "special" group of Americans to satisfy a vocal minority of the population? Do the words Balkanization mean anything to anybody?

Oh yes you can fire someone just for being gay.

Choose a career in the military and you are found out, goodbye. Any NYS employee can be fired JUST because they are gay.

I own a condo that I rent out. If I wanted to, I absolutely could refuse to rent to someone because they were gay.

FYI... I just did a quick search on NYS, gay and discrimination and came across this:

"Currently, it is perfectly legal in New York State to be fired from your job, evicted from your apartment, refused service in a restaurant, or denied a home loan simply because you are gay or perceived to be gay. The Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act would remedy this by amending the already-existing state human rights laws to include sexual orientation. The law already protects against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, and marital status for employment, housing, public accomodations, education, and credit."

Derick

George,
I just have to say that you said it way better than I could have. Truly excellent!

Jolly,
People ARE fired because they are in fact gay....including many teachers.

I know. Frightening isn't it.

i must say that i find it very gratifying that we are (with a couple of exceptions) finding unusual common ground on this topic. this is an issue that means a great deal to me personally and it might actually be just too hard for me to hang out with a bunch of known gay-bashers, so i am glad it turns out that most of us are pretty tolerant folks.

thanks for the dr. laura excerpt. i'd seen it before, but it fit perfectly here, and i'm glad someone sought to address the ludicrous "word of the bible" thing with some humor. i had to stop myself from writing something i might regret and i'm glad others stepped in with a lighter tone.

George and Derrik, et. al. you've all said everything so well, and I second pique's sentiment of thanks that you did so with humor and a level head. I wanted to respond last evening but knew myself well enough to wait at least a day.

From lb:
Am I correct in presuming the next time you have hiccups you'll realize the sillyness of it and choose to stop immediately. And, then I suggest you ask a person suffering with OCD how much choice he/she has over their behavior, or someone with turrets syndrone. There are lot's of things in life that are not choices.

Actually, some Native Americans (I wouldn't be surprised if there were others) considered homosexuality to be a gift from god.

Uh, Larry....

My original question stands. Who hires and fires?

I've got 32 folks I make the schedule and sign the payroll for. I have one that spends his leisure time as a drag queen. What he does on his time is his business. However, if his lifestyle or sexual preference, impinges on his ability to do his job, yes, he will be canned. For performance issues and no others.

I wish I had U.S. and State Labor Law in front of me right now to quote from, but I'll bet my next paycheck that if I did have to fire this person, it could not be on the grounds of sexual preference.

Yes, the military is different. Anything, and I mean anything that adversely effects unit cohesion, and the ability to kill the enemy cannot be tolerated. But that, folks is another thread.

Yes, where the heck IS Larry, anyway? I miss his colorful commentary. Jodi