|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 30, 2020 6:28:18 GMT
What are they and how do they fit in with each other compared to straight rights?
|
|
|
|
Post by Schwarzwald Magnus on Dec 30, 2020 11:03:35 GMT
Did your cat step on the keyboard?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 30, 2020 13:50:26 GMT
Did your cat step on the keyboard?  Good analogy to this confounded and condescending noodle soup concoction.
|
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Dec 30, 2020 14:45:54 GMT
What is "I"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 15:35:17 GMT
Its a jigsaw puzzle of wondrous rainbow colored Joy is how they fit into each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 31, 2020 1:15:06 GMT
Intersex, it is congenital and one is born with both or partial girl/boy bits. Really hermaphrodite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 31, 2020 1:15:29 GMT
Its a jigsaw puzzle of wondrous rainbow colored Joy is how they fit in each other. Sounds gay if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
Post by TutuAnimationPrincess on Dec 31, 2020 1:19:53 GMT
As a lesbian, I've pretty much always had just as many rights as anyone else. If anything, I've probably had more thanks to "hot girl" privilege.  |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 31, 2020 2:57:51 GMT
How I see it is that there are straight white male rights and then there is everyone else and that many of those people don't have the same level of rights as straight white males.
Then there are the rich and powerful, who get special treatment because of their money and connections.
The degree of difference between the rights of different groups is up for debate and some groups seem to think that everyone being treated equally in every area is the same as equal rights under the law.
Everyone should be treated exactly the same as everyone else under the law, unfortunately that just isn't the way it is in reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 31, 2020 19:21:56 GMT
What are they and how do they fit in with each other compared to straight rights? Its not about what the rights are, or how they fit in with one another, but rather about the rights that are denied them just because they are LGBTQ. No rights have ever been denied anyone because they were not gay. Here's one example: Only married people can visit patients in certain hospitals. In places where the significant other is same sex that would disqualify them. There's lots of legalities that are covered by marriage for which same sex couples don't qualify. There's still a lot of institutionalized discrimination against them and, some churches still openly criticize same sex relationships as a mortal sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Dec 31, 2020 23:03:50 GMT
What are they and how do they fit in with each other compared to straight rights? Its not about what the rights are, or how they fit in with one another, but rather about the rights that are denied them just because they are LGBTQ. No rights have ever been denied anyone because they were not gay. Here's one example: Only married people can visit patients in certain hospitals. In places where the significant other is same sex that would disqualify them. There's lots of legalities that are covered by marriage for which same sex couples don't qualify. There's still a lot of institutionalized discrimination against them and, some churches still openly criticize same sex relationships as a mortal sin. There's a very very simple solution to that. Enact legislation which requires hospitals to recognize the rights of same-sex partners. It doesn't require that the ancient institution of marriage be changed by some 21st century government.
The state is not all powerful nor should it be. Be very wary of top down social change by a bunch of politicians.
Social change swells from the ground up and forces government recognition. Only 3% of gay couples have even married in the last ten years in jurisdictions where the government began trying to enact this same-sex marriage charade.
Nah, keep your marriage. Not interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jan 1, 2021 6:31:03 GMT
Intersex, it is congenital and one is born with both or partial girl/boy bits. Really hermaphrodite. Which is great and they should be proud to be wonders of nature. I suppose it would have its advantages.
But that has nothing to do with being gay or lesbian or bisexual. It's a different issue altogether.
I have too much testosterone and think with my dick and fight with my balls. No gender ambiguity here or among most of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jan 1, 2021 6:32:19 GMT
As a lesbian, I've pretty much always had just as many rights as anyone else. If anything, I've probably had more thanks to "hot girl" privilege. That might be objectification on the part of heterosexual males. Just sayin'. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 1, 2021 6:49:22 GMT
What are they and how do they fit in with each other compared to straight rights? Its not about what the rights are, or how they fit in with one another, but rather about the rights that are denied them just because they are LGBTQ. No rights have ever been denied anyone because they were not gay. Here's one example: Only married people can visit patients in certain hospitals. In places where the significant other is same sex that would disqualify them. There's lots of legalities that are covered by marriage for which same sex couples don't qualify. There's still a lot of institutionalized discrimination against them and, some churches still openly criticize same sex relationships as a mortal sin. It is about "personal" prejudices not rights. These things cannot be changed or forced and is only born out of individual attitude.
If a same sex couple were married, then a hospital CANNOT deny them the right to visit patients. If they do, they are breaking the law. That is the personal prejudice of the hospital administration. And that said, they are discriminating against "anyone" who isn't married from visiting patients.
A church cannot be relied upon to deal with their own bigotry and ignorant prejudices. These are just part of the corruption of the institutes. They have a right to their bogus beliefs too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 1, 2021 6:58:21 GMT
As a lesbian, I've pretty much always had just as many rights as anyone else. If anything, I've probably had more thanks to "hot girl" privilege. That is another topic. Females wanting equal rights that they don't feel they have compared to males, when it is just a distortion and delusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 1, 2021 7:01:58 GMT
Intersex, it is congenital and one is born with both or partial girl/boy bits. Really hermaphrodite. Which is great and they should be proud to be wonders of nature. I suppose it would have its advantages.
But that has nothing to do with being gay or lesbian or bisexual. It's a different issue altogether.
I have too much testosterone and think with my dick and fight with my balls. No gender ambiguity here or among most of us.
That is my whole point about this LGBTQI grouping thing. Sexuality as an inherent and organic dynamic is getting twisted around out of proportion to mean a myriad of different things if it is not heterosexuality. This has nothing to do with rights, but notions of straight superiority and making it out to be more important than what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jan 1, 2021 18:08:34 GMT
Its not about what the rights are, or how they fit in with one another, but rather about the rights that are denied them just because they are LGBTQ. No rights have ever been denied anyone because they were not gay. Here's one example: Only married people can visit patients in certain hospitals. In places where the significant other is same sex that would disqualify them. There's lots of legalities that are covered by marriage for which same sex couples don't qualify. There's still a lot of institutionalized discrimination against them and, some churches still openly criticize same sex relationships as a mortal sin. It is about "personal" prejudices not rights. These things cannot be changed or forced and is only born out of individual attitude.
If a same sex couple were married, then a hospital CANNOT deny them the right to visit patients. If they do, they are breaking the law. That is the personal prejudice of the hospital administration. And that said, they are discriminating against "anyone" who isn't married from visiting patients.
A church cannot be relied upon to deal with their own bigotry and ignorant prejudices. These are just part of the corruption of the institutes. They have a right to their bogus beliefs too.
Here's the real deal on the state's attempts to force monogamy on us through "gay marriage".
So it's been a canard that hospital rights were an issue here. Just more lies from the gay monogamists and their government backers.
It seems a bit silly to me, almost thilly if you talk with a lisp, that they try to make us believe we need to be married to have these rights. And if there is a problem with some state laws and hospitals, address that issue. Marriage has nothing nada zero to do with this right in particular and gay rights in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 2, 2021 7:15:56 GMT
It is about "personal" prejudices not rights. These things cannot be changed or forced and is only born out of individual attitude.
If a same sex couple were married, then a hospital CANNOT deny them the right to visit patients. If they do, they are breaking the law. That is the personal prejudice of the hospital administration. And that said, they are discriminating against "anyone" who isn't married from visiting patients.
A church cannot be relied upon to deal with their own bigotry and ignorant prejudices. These are just part of the corruption of the institutes. They have a right to their bogus beliefs too.
Here's the real deal on the state's attempts to force monogamy on us through "gay marriage".
So it's been a canard that hospital rights were an issue here. Just more lies from the gay monogamists and their government backers.
It seems a bit silly to me, almost thilly if you talk with a lisp, that they try to make us believe we need to be married to have these rights. And if there is a problem with some state laws and hospitals, address that issue. Marriage has nothing nada zero to do with this right in particular and gay rights in general.
Most things reported by the MSM are a canard and it is to stir s<>t in the dense who believe in all they hear is absolute truth. Headlines attract and then all sorts of stories will get made up.
I don't have an issue with the legality behind gay marriage, but marriage is marriage and same-sex marriage is not taken seriously regardless, because it is still perceived as something "different" away from traditional arrangement. It wouldn't even be referred too as 'gay' or 'same-sex' marriage if it was on equal footing. The inferior heteros have to have something for themselves even though it is a failed institution. Yes, let them f<>k themselves up even more and leave the homo out of it. I despise when sjw hets think they can talk for the homo as well when they haven't asked them too and have no frickin' clue.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jan 2, 2021 8:37:28 GMT
Here's the real deal on the state's attempts to force monogamy on us through "gay marriage".
So it's been a canard that hospital rights were an issue here. Just more lies from the gay monogamists and their government backers.
It seems a bit silly to me, almost thilly if you talk with a lisp, that they try to make us believe we need to be married to have these rights. And if there is a problem with some state laws and hospitals, address that issue. Marriage has nothing nada zero to do with this right in particular and gay rights in general.
Most things reported by the MSM are a canard and it is to stir s<>t in the dense who believe in all they hear is absolute truth. Headlines attract and then all sorts of stories will get made up.
I don't have an issue with the legality behind gay marriage, but marriage is marriage and same-sex marriage is not taken seriously regardless, because it is still perceived as something "different" away from traditional arrangement. It wouldn't even be referred too as 'gay' or 'same-sex' marriage if it was on equal footing. The inferior heteros have to have something for themselves even though it is a failed institution. Yes, let them f<>k themselves up even more and leave the homo out of it. I despise when sjw hets think they can talk for the homo as well when they haven't asked them too and have no frickin' clue.
They should start calling it "gay monogamy" because that's what it is. It's a social experiment to force gays to act like straights.
It's perceived as something different because it doesn't work. Square pegs in round holes. I've cited this stat before, but only 3% of gay couples actually get married when it's legalized in a jurisdiction. It's merely an attempt by liberals and the state to strip the gay community of its independence and turn it into a parody of heterosexuality.
Next up, "The Stepford Gays".
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 3, 2021 2:01:56 GMT
Most things reported by the MSM are a canard and it is to stir s<>t in the dense who believe in all they hear is absolute truth. Headlines attract and then all sorts of stories will get made up.
I don't have an issue with the legality behind gay marriage, but marriage is marriage and same-sex marriage is not taken seriously regardless, because it is still perceived as something "different" away from traditional arrangement. It wouldn't even be referred too as 'gay' or 'same-sex' marriage if it was on equal footing. The inferior heteros have to have something for themselves even though it is a failed institution. Yes, let them f<>k themselves up even more and leave the homo out of it. I despise when sjw hets think they can talk for the homo as well when they haven't asked them too and have no frickin' clue.
They should start calling it "gay monogamy" because that's what it is. It's a social experiment to force gays to act like straights.
It's perceived as something different because it doesn't work. Square pegs in round holes. I've cited this stat before, but only 3% of gay couples actually get married when it's legalized in a jurisdiction. It's merely an attempt by liberals and the state to strip the gay community of its independence and turn it into a parody of heterosexuality.
Next up, "The Stepford Gays". Although it is still a very small percentage of same-sex couples wanting to tie the knot, it is more about the legal right to do so if they so choose. If that is deemed as equality in the eyes of the law though, they really don’t have an inkling about what equality is, if it is something that can become an actuality and who the frick wants to be legally bound to someone in the first place. It is made up like religion.
|
|
