Do Gays and Lesbians Need Legal Protection equivalent to race?

  • Free 3 Day Shipping on Orders $75+

Do Gays and Lesbians Need Legal Protection equivalent to race?

Dragon Dragon
Have you been following the legal case of Proposition 8 in California?

Proposition 8 was passed in Nov 2008 in the state of CA as a state constitutional amendment stating that a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. This is currently under appeal in US District court. (If I'm right we're on day 9)

Part of what the plantiffs are trying to prove is that Gays and Lesbians are subject to substantial discrimination and should be subject to the full protection of the courts including the ability to marry.

I'm not gay, but to me this is about equal rights... I hope they win and this goes further...
  • Buy 3 Items for $70
  • Buy 3 Items for $50
  • Buy 3 Items for $30
  • Save 20% on Luxury Toys
  • Pick Any 2 E-Stim Toys, Get 60% Off A Kit
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
Kynky Kytty Kynky Kytty
No, I have not been following such an issue. I do not have TV or read newspapers, and I'm Canadian, where it's already legal.

I know it looks like discrimination, but I think it's not just about seeing a gay or lesban couple get married. It's more about the stereotype of what a marriage is.

A lot of people see marriage as not only a way to prove the world that a couple is in love, but will also raise a family. At least that's according to a conservative point of view.

People don't see that adoption is available to homosexual couples and that a woman can be artificially inseminated without questions as long as she's got cash.

They already have access to parenting as heterosexual couples, but without the right to actually protect the rights of their children or partner in the case of a separation.

Maybe that will help some people see what's the reasons against gay marriage, but it also shows that most people in society are narrow-minded and are not adaptable to change.

I was always told that in order to be a good hostess, you had to keep your guests away from topics like religion and politics. Go figure why...
El-Jaro El-Jaro
O Canada!

Gunsmoke Gunsmoke
I'm ambivalent about the issue. Thousands of years of civilization have marginalized the gay life style. Is there a good reason for it - probably at one time. Dietary laws were meant to keep people healthy in an age before adequate sanitation. Are most of those strictures obsolete - yes, but many still follow them.

Has society today advanced enough to declare equivalency between gay and hetero unions - perhaps. To me this is a broader question.

If gay marriage is OK - can anyone explain why polygamy is illegal? Bestiality? Pedophilia? Murder? We justify the murder of the unborn - but penalize a doctor who helps terminally ill patience take their own life.

It's a fallacy that somehow society is 'fair'. Society makes judgments and discriminates in many things. If the measure is 'is anyone harmed' then polygamy and bestiality make the cut - but murder and pedophilia do not.

Society will continue to discriminate - sometimes for valid reasons - sometimes not. The good news is, as long as there are soldiers willing to sacrifice their lives to protect our freedom of speech, we can have this open debate.

Certainly this debate could not occur in China, N Korea, Iran - or in many places that do not share our open society.
Dragon Dragon
Actually, What I find about this case that's so interesting is that they are taking the issue of what I find to be the case itself - the legality of same sex couples getting married and they are trying to make a much wider case.

Society provides sufficient discrimination against homosexuality that the protection of the law is required.

This is the focus of their case. As far as I can tell, their case is not built on the legal or civil rights of the wedding/marriage but on discrimination itself. (Granted I'm following it primarily on the news radio...)
Sir Sir
There's discrimination with everything, and there are tons of different aspects to human beings that need protection because of the basis of discrimination. Will government reach all of these points? Of course not. But do I believe that people should be allowed to marry, if all parties are consenting? Of course. It should not matter, age, race, gender, creed, etc., whether two or more people should marry. I find it quite amazing how it is even questioned today, whether homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. We are in the year 2010, I sometimes wonder what the problem is.

Everyone should be substantially protected by the court, not just homosexuals because they are widely discriminated against. The best thing to do is to treat people like people, not even thinking of any of those minute details. It's not the court's business, to be fully honest, if someone is gay or lesbian. It's not their business to know if the person being tried enjoys sex/intimate relationships with a man or with a woman, if they prefer neither or both. It should not even come into play, and it should not even be questioned. A trial should be tried as a trial, and none of these other unimportant factors should matter.
Mp4 Mp4
Originally posted by Gunsmoke
I'm ambivalent about the issue. Thousands of years of civilization have marginalized the gay life style. Is there a good reason for it - probably at one time. Dietary laws were meant to keep people healthy in an age before adequate sanitation. ...
Sadly the law is often influenced by the constantly changing morals of a population uneducated on the subject which they vote on. I don't really see the big deal behind allowing gay marriage, it's really just fixing our current laws on marriage.

Trying to find where to draw the line on legality of certain issues can be very complicated. I believe that as in your example Polygamy and Bestiality should be legal. The fact that people don't agree with a certain lifestyle is NOT a reason to outlaw it. The law is here to protect and maintain order, not to restrict our life decisions without reason.

Amendment 14 in the US constitution states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Is it just me or are the laws against certain freedoms such as gay marriage, bestiality, polygamy, ect unconstitutional?

Being both gay and a Zoophile these issues are very important to me.
There's a pretty distinct difference between homosexuals being allowed equal marriage rights and bestiality and pedophilia. Huge. Animals and children can't consent to sex and marriage. Homosexuals and polygamists can.

The problem with trying to define marriage as being between one man and one woman is that it's based on religious values that not everyone shares. It then uses this 'holy' matrimony to justify giving rights and privileges to only heterosexual couples through the government. If we're a country that allows religious freedom, why is everyone being forced to follow the doctrine of a particular religious group? If we're suppose to not allow church to interfere with state government issues, why is the church being allowed to dictate who receives government benefits by their own laws?

Hell yes, homosexuals need equal protection under the law. Just like women and minority races need equal protection. Either homosexuals should be extended equal marriage rights as far as government goes (tax cuts, insurance breaks, having the ability to execute their partners will and medical desires, etc.) or those rights should be taken away from heterosexuals in order to allow for purely religious marital unions.
Total posts: 8
Unique posters: 7