Jetson wrote:
Postperson wrote:
I don't see it as homosexuals wanting equal rights, they want more. They already have more. Higher earnings, a notion of 'homophobia' which makes it illegal for anyone to criticize them. Straights and asexuals don't have this. I would like to belong to such a group, the extra priveleges would be nice! not to mention the money!
The point that you appear to be missing completely is that the rights gay people are seeking are the same ones you already have. The right to not get beat up by roving groups of drunk bigots. The right to not be fired without cause. The right to not get evicted without cause. The right to form a family unit, raise children, and inherit. There are actually three different sets of rights involved here. One is the so-called "protected grounds" which specifies types of discrimination that are illegal. Gay people wouldn't need "protected grounds" coverage if straight people would stop discriminating against them.... The second kind are "equality rights" which say that gays and straights should be entitled to equal treatment. Again, there wouldn't be any need to campaign for equality if it already existed.... These sound like the same thing, but in general terms the "protected grounds" protection applies where gays and straights mix in public or private life, whereas "equality rights" tend to apply where gays interact with government agencies. The difference is that in private life, discrimination is an overt act by one person intending to deny another "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (or employment, accomodation and freedom of association), whereas with government the discrimination usually occurs when the government creates an exclusive list of beneficiaries and discriminates against gay people by omission. One set of rights requires enforcement by the police agencies, while the other merely requires ammending some documentation. The third kind of right is really not a right, but a recognition that "herd mentality" can lead people to say and do things they wouldn't do if they were alone. Legislation that protects queers from "hate speech" isn't much different from the law that makes it illegal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre. It doesn't say that straight people can't criticise gay people, or vice versa, but says that the aims of society are not served when one bigot with a bullhorn (or web site or newspaper) can gather like-minded people in order to enjoy violent or dehumanizing entertainment at the expense of a minority. I welcome your criticisms (although I wish they were more in the form of argument and less in the form of personal character attacks).
I notice you seem to be perseverating on the topic of finances. Before you used to simply complain that gays earned more money and therefore weren't really members of a victim class. Now you seem to be implying that gays have an undeserved "right to earn more money" that straights don't enjoy. I don't know what the financial rules are like in Australia, but I've never heard of any place where gays have a statutory right to a higher income than their straight peers. Usually it works the other way around, as governments give tax breaks to heterosexual couples that aren't available to same-sex couples. I can think of two reasons why queer people, on average, have more money than straight people:
They earn more. In a white-collar environment queer people tend to work much harder than everyone else because they know that if their boss ever has to decide who to promote and who to fire, the queers who do the same quality work as everyone else will suffer, but the "super-achievers" may be valuable enough to keep their jobs, get some recognition, and sooner or later get promotions and raises in spite of their sexuality. In a blue-collar environment, the lower paying jobs are particularly unattractive to queer people because that's where the less educated (and therefore less tolerant) straight people end up. No body wants to spend their working life doing manual labour with Bubba and listening to him rant about fags. A lot of gay people I know have opted out of the straight workplace entirely and have started their own businesses. They have a lot of stress in their lives, but entrepreneurs are well rewarded if they have any skill.
They spend less. Heterosexuals tend to start having children in their early 20's (although that average age is climbing quickly in the last few decades). Children are an incredibly expensive and time-consuming part of a straight adult's life. There are a lot of gay couples who would love to adopt a child and experience the joys and pains and expense of raising kids, but in many countries they are prohobited from doing so. You can only spend so much money on cat and dog stuff (or in my case, bird food). It's worth mentioning that there is absolutely *nothing* preventing straight people from choosing to not raise a family, and thereby retain their income. In fact, the acronym "DINK" (double income, no kids) was created just for those people.
I disagree. You seem to be assuming that sexual preference has something to do with this stuff.
Well, let me tell you something. Altough I am straight, I'm still an aspie.
That means, at least in school,
1.Lots of abuse has been directed at me - in various forms.
2.Lots of aspies have been eivcted/ fired without just cause.
3.I am sure that if I looked through your entire post, I could find numerous examples that were you say homosexuals are striving for the same rights as hetrosexuals, I could replace 'homosexual' with 'aspie' and 'hetrosexual' with 'neurotypicial'
So don't you DARE lay that card down.
29 Jun 2006, 6:44 pm
