So how does everyone stand on gay rights? And why?

define gay rights

gay marriage, equal treatment under the law, hate crime laws, discussing homosexual sex in sex ed (if you support sex ed), etc

Gay people are people.

Ergo, they have rights and are privy to the full protection of the law.

In terms of marriage, I don't think it's the government's job to meddle in marriage at all, straight or gay. I think that's the business of the people who want to be married.

Hate crime legislation strikes me as unnecessary; the best way to protect all people, irrespective of minority status, from violent crime, is to actually enforce preexisting law. Make it clear that randomly assaulting any citizen for whatever reason isn't right or lawful and that you can be prosecuted for it and sentenced to the full extent of the law.

In terms of discussing homosexuality in a sex ed class, I'm not certain how that's a 'right.' That sounds like a curricular decision. It does seem only reasonable to discuss it if you're going to teach a class about sexuality.

Okay I do agree with you on marriage, but the fact of the matter is that legal documents are required for marriage. Do you feel that gays should be allowed to wed? Personally, I feel the same way. But I still support government allowed gay marriage as long as government allows any type of marriage officially.

And I think you miss the point of hate crime laws. Hate crime laws are used to sway people from targeting specific groups of people due to the fact that they are often targeted. It is to slow down and/or stop acts of violences of certain groups until the common person learns to accept said people. Previously, it was common with blacks (and really still is). They really aren't necessary as permanent fixtures, but they can help until people become more accepting. As they tend to do.

And I suppose you are correct... that's not really a right... I was just trying to think of other things to do with homosexuality that is often pushed for...

I don't believe gays need special rights, they have the same rights as everyone else already if they live in civilized countries.

And I think its you who missed the point on hate crime. Its no more a crime to murder a gay than a straight. The act is already illegal, making the hate involved is criminalizing thought. No thanks.

agreed hate crime legislation is BS, all it does is give minority groups special treatment, or are they trying to say killing a lesbian/black/woman is somehow worse than killing a straight/white/man ? murder is murder, no special laws needed.

To be fair, I don't think hate crime laws are designed to specifically protect minorities, although minorities are often the target of hate. It's just another motivation that is factored into weighing the severity of a crime. For example, whether a person accidentally hit someone with a car, or if it was because they were a Christian leaving a church.

IMO, if hate crime legislation wasn't color blind, it would need to be re-written. Laws shouldn't contain any specific references to people or groups (outside of the government).

This is also my position. I really can't add anything to that.

My arguement against specific hate-crime legislation would be that the prosecutor, judge and jury presiding over the case can already take into account the motives behind a crime when pronouncing a sentence. They always have. It doesn't require a specific law, unless you wish to undermine their respective roles in the judicial system.

What they are saying is that it is worse for someone to kill a minority because it also involves hate for that minority. Thought crime. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't special task forces of law enforcement officers dedicated to hate crimes. Thought police.

I think everybody should be gay about rights.

I find it funny that you can know what others are thinking by assuming their intent, when you make such a big deal about it as you have with me in the mutilation thread.

You have double standards. You can assume all you want but you jump on others for doing it when it isn't even their fault, but rather your imprecise cumminication skills or tactics.

LMAO. You win the thread.

Thanks!!If ya can't have fun with words, what can ya have?

Not sure how you got that. I've paid attention to the issue of hate crime legislation and listened carefully to what the proponents position is. That's how I know what others are thinking. If some individual here has incentives for supporting hate crime legislation than the generally accepted ones, so be it.

Hate crime laws correlate in many ways with positive discrimination strategies. They annoy the crap out some but are seen as necessary by many to re-adjust societies imbalances.

In other words, they are discriminatory based on sexual preference, skin color, etc. Something we don't need.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't fix the problem of discrimination with more discrimination. I could go on.

I'm glad you have knowledge of 'hate crime' laws. My post was referring to you saying you knew what others 'here' were trying to say when they haden't actually said it.

I see your point completely about the laws. Thanks!

Whose mind are you accusing me of reading?