Sweeping gay rights laws have been upheld in Britain despite protests by faith groups.
The legislation, a cornerstone of Britain’s efforts to promote equal rights, would ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexuality in a similar way to laws banning sex and race discrimination.
Human rights experts say the legislation would bring British law closer to that of other nations.
Britain introduced civil partnerships for gay couples in December 2005, giving them the same rights as heterosexuals.
“Either we hold human rights to be universal or we do not” — is the question ignored by homophobes.
“Either we hold human rights to be universal or we do not” — is the question ignored by homophobes.” So tell us, which side of the issue do you come down on?
#2 – Pedophiles have victims, at least they do if they act on their sexual fantasies. Gays normally do not. Huge difference.
Politicians have no business legislating bedroom behaviors that have no victims.
Haven’t we seen by now the people who have the biggest problem with this kind of thing are usually involved in the same behavior they claim to abhor? Knock it off and let’s let this last “acceptable” form of bigotry go the way of racism and sexism.
Congratulations to Britain. A victory against the war on terror.
Clearly, fighting the British faction of the Christian Taliban is no easy feat. This is especially true with their US Republican based terrorist funding.
#2 .. The master plan is to treat pedophiles equally, but in due time.
Master plan:
– Treat gays as human beings for couple of years, then give equal rights. Lesbians are OK, because da’boys say that’s sexy. NOT DONE
– Bestiality is next. It will take a while but we start with sheep since that’s an old American tradition in the farm. Work our way to horses… Eventually, marriage. TBD
– Pedophiles. The plan is give that task to the Christian Church and GOP congressman. Work from the inside. PARTLY DONE
Why is anyone who is opposed to homosexuality labelled a “homophobe”? To be homophobic would imply being afraid of homosexuals, which is rarely the case. Would it be proper to label folks “heterophobes” who are pro-homosexual?
Marriage is an institution that exists to protect children within the confinds of their natural mother and natural father. Why is this something that homosexuals seek when their behavior, by default, will bare no children?
#9:
Marriage is defined (by you) as: “an institution that exists to protect children within the confinds of their natural mother and natural father. Why is this something that homosexuals seek when their behavior, by default, will bare no children?”
Typical response. “It’s all about the children.” And it’s a straw man, and it’s bollocks.
If it were about children, why can an infertile heterosexual couple be married? Why not have fertility tests before letting people get married?
If marriage was a sacred instituition, then divorce would be illegal, as the high rate of divorce in the US makes FAR more of a mockery of marriage than a few homosexuals marrying would ever do.
Denying two consenting adults the right to marry (regardless of gender) carries with it the same meaning as any previous denial of rights, like denying women/minorities a vote. Those who have the rights want to keep it to themselves, and deny rights to those they see as inferior. If the inferior people had all the same rights they do, then they’d be equals…and we can’t have that. If homosexuals could marry, or have all the same rights heterosexual people do, it would show a governmental stance that they’re all equal and deserving of the same rights. Which is really what this is all about.
1. What about necrophiliacs rights? If someone is already dead before the act you can’t call them a victim.
2. Conceptually I bet some of these groups don’t consider gays fully human, therefore making the “human rights” argument irrelevant. Hasn’t that type of thinking been used to justify some genocides in the past?
#6 – you missed a step that’s already happening. Some states that have passed civil unions for gays are now getting pressure to allow the same for bigamists, polygamists, polyandrists, etc. Also, people were “marrying” sheep long before American even existed.
The pedophilia thing is interesting, ’cause they sure did it in ancient greece and it was seen as victimless, and not a crime. What I want to know is when Apple (which made a big deal about giving domestic benefits to gays) is going to do the same for polygamy, which is of course the next victimless situation that will require human rights protection.
Okay, Pedro, you’ve convinced me. Pedophiles should have full rights to marry or “marry” or whatever to two-year-olds. Granting equal rights to gays (such as the right to visit their partners in hospitals or file taxes as couples, same as married heterosexuals) has nothing to do with keeping laws the hell away from the bedroom behaviors of consenting adults.
Sheesh.
#15:
Yet again with rediculous hyperbole. Calling homosexual marriage a “personality disorder” (essentially the same thing as calling homosexuality a “personality disorder”), shows your true bigotry.
I’ve heard the same perspective from religious fundamentalists when talking about people that believe in different faiths than they do. “My god is right, yours is wrong.” Why? Because they were told that their faith is right, so they believe it. They can’t question it, because to do so questions God. And in order to believe that their faith is right, they believe that all of the other faiths are wrong.
How did gay people hurt you so badly that you harbor such disdain of them? I’m not homosexual, by the way, just using logic — free of religious and cultural dogma.
I’m uncertain about this question of rights.
I suppose that marriage is not a right, but instead it is a privilage, no?
why else would the gov’t require a license to marry?
Actually, I agree about homosexual marriage, since marriage has a huge reservoir of religious belief inseparably connected to it. Calling it “marriage” just confuses the issue. What would make sense would be to call it what it is – a long-term, legally sworn mutual partnership in which each grants full family rights to the other. Legal implications (tax filings, hospital visiting, retirement benefits, etc.) same as for marriage. Religious and traditional social implications (God likes it, aim is to create more humans, etc.) completely absent.
As for it being a personality disorder, I think that’s a matter of scientific dispute (if “personality disorder” can even be called a scientific notion). In the spirit of “some of my best friends are gay,” a gay man I know says sex is just pleasurable physical friction and he doesn’t see why people get so excited about who does what to whom, as long as it isn’t coerced. Gotta say that sounds reasonable to me.
“Fighting for the right to divorce”? 🙂 The more I think about that the funnier it gets. I guess that’s the aim of traditional marriage, too. And you’re right, none of it makes any sense if you look too closely.
The main thing I’m getting at…is that if marriage was “sacred”, it’d be illegal to divorce. If it was a matter for religions to decide, a justice of the peace wouldn’t be able to do it. It’s a legal arrangement, that most religions add additional flavoring to, to suit their dogma. As a legal arrangement, gays should be able to enter into the contract as easily as anyone else. If a religion doesn’t agree, they can choose to not marry those people in their churches…but those couples can still go to a justice of the peace and have it done.
#18, you’re right…removing the “marriage” label is probably the best way to go about it.
Personally, I think that there should even be short-term (as opposed to permanent) contracts available as well. If a couple wants to have all of the legal privilages marriage grants, but aren’t sure it will “last forever” (statistics prove rather nicely that it rarely does), they can just enter into a 5 year “partnership contract” that’s renewable. If they renew, great. If not, they can go their separate ways with no legal intervention unless they can’t agree who gets to take the Wii.
I’d ask anyone who wants to talk about this subject to first define their definition of marriage.
That definition then has to stand as valid – and be applicable to marriage as it is known in the US and UK, and how marriage works in both as well (must include provisions for divorce, infertility, and the classic “for the money” motivation).
Once you can come up with that – we can then talk about how different sexualities, genders, and goals of couples will effect that definition.
Until then.. it’s all a little moot.
The biggest chuckle here — that is inside the Comments — is the crowd of parochial twerps who think morality must be defined by American christianity, e.g. some pedophiles convicted in the U.S. would not be liable for arrest in Japan; polygamy is the law of the land in any Islamic nation under Sharia; polyandry is the law of the land in Nepal, etc..
There are a number of American sexual, social and political hangups that are considered acceptable to the majority of folks on this small ball of mud.
That doesn’t make either side correct. Neither does it justify the assorted stretches rationalizing bigotry.
You’re quite correct, pedro — labeling homosexuality a personality disorder as a political act or a social statement would be the act of a bigot. In your case, it’s just ignorance — especially when you call upon some group within modern medicine that purportedly would endorse your claims.
#9, Marriage is an institution that exists to protect children within the confinds of their natural mother and natural father. Why is this something that homosexuals seek when their behavior, by default, will bare no children?
Comment by Daniel — 1/10/2007 @ 10:32 am
Then why allow sterile couples to marry. Or older women past menopause. Or divorced parents to new spouses. Or allow birth control with married couples if their whole reason for being is to procreate.
BTW, bare means no clothes, as in nude. I don’t think many homosexuals really want to take the clothes from children. Maybe you meant bear, as in give birth.
Pedro,
You have repeatedly called homosexuality a disorder or disease. It isn’t. Since 1974, the APA has removed all references to homosexuality as being a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
#7, pedophilia is seen as a disease with diagnosys & all. I remember homosexuality being labeled the same,
#12, The thing is a personality disorder.
#15, It is a personality disorder. One that we got to tolerate & live with without treatment for whatever the reason.
#21, #16 Homosexual marriage is not a personality disorder, homosexuality is.
Then your very own link to wikipedia confirms how wrong you are.
#24, The idea of homosexuality as a disorder has been renounced by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association and by the majority of mental health professionals.
From wikipedia
According to the psychologists I know, the gays used gestapo tactics in the two APA conventions to ramrod through removing homosexuality from disorder lists. It was not done with objective consideration but with intimidation.
They were pushing for banning any psychologist or psychiatrist from helping homosexuals who want out of the lifestyle. Fortunately, that was so repugnant to the psychiatrists and psychologists were able to organize to stop it.
See: “Homosexuality: can it be healed?” by Francis MacNutt
According to the psychologists I know
How many psychologists do you know?
the gays used gestapo tactics
Such as?
to ramrod through
Interesting choice of words.
Pedro –
If you had followed the link to “Reparative Therapy”, which was immediately “Homosexuality and Psychology” you would have seen this:
You are all still arguing about homosexuality when the post was about rights.
and someone please tell me, if marriage is actually a right, why do we need a license to marry?
You’re misusing that word, WokTiny.
A marriage “license” is more like a contract – it is not a permit to do something in the same sense that a driver’s license is.
#34
We don’t need one… You can declare yourself committed with fidelity to anyone you please.
The state’s fat nose is just stuck in there allegedly to protect certain legal rights you may have, but mostly its to screw you at tax time.
Unless your wife is some sort of housemouse or baby pump that needs to sponge off your company’s health care (assuming you are an American fortunate enough to get health care) rather than a get a job of her own like a real woman would, the only benefit of marriage is the ability to make medical decisions for the other… and even that can be arranged for with other contracts.
Marriage is a holdover from a primitive time (the 1950s 🙂 ) and it is time to abolish it.
As for the rights of homesexuals to marry, that is only denied by bigots and jackasses. There is no debate. Gays deserve the right, period. If you disagree, you are in the Klan. Its time to grow up and move beyond this amazingly stupid issue.
Please filter the exessiveness of my opinions to discover the more rational but progressive views buried beneath. I’m working through certain anger issues 🙂
#33, I’m glad we can find common ground occasionally. It gives more respect to when we don’t.
#36, Gays deserve the right, period. If you disagree, you are in the Klan.
My wife’s cousin is not in the Klan. He is a sympathizer though to their cause and a rabid homophobe. Does that count?
#35, #36… In this part of the USA, you need a license before you can get a gov’t-recognized marriage – not a contract, but in fact a permit. that makes it not a right , but a privilege. We got a marriage certificate after, but a license before. which word am I misusing?
as far as merely declaring fidelity, without gov’t recognition, well I suppose homosexuals can already do that.
I suppose then we could argue about what are basic human rights, and whether marriage is one of them, or of some under privileged class has to settle for merely mating.
but seriously, I genuinely want to know, from what law or document does anyone claim to have a *right* to marry?
#39 your use of the label “religious fanatics” implies you don’t look beyond the label “religious fanatics”
#38, but seriously, I genuinely want to know, from what law or document does anyone claim to have a *right* to marry?
It’s called common law equality. And basically, if you can do it I should be able to as well. If you are free to own a house, so should I. If you can marry your sweetheart, so can I. If you can sit in front of the TV in an undershirt with a beer, so can I.
#42 I am not a violent man but am moved to such feelings by your continuing unwillingness to concede and fear/hatred disguised as an opinion.
This gay man, who has never been violent, would punch you. I’d gladly spend some time in jail knowing I created an impression.
Were you living in the real world, you’d have no trouble understanding heightened suicide and depression rates in gays. It’s a result of being ostracised and the world’s continual reminders that homosexuality is a disordered state.
WordPress needs an ignor function. fudge