Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Jerry James Stone
7541 Followers
Yummy Donut
3189 Followers
Yummy Donut
3189 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
murrabbitAug 9, 2010
Well it's no longer outright illegal to be gay and in general cops aren't raiding gay-bars just because it's a slow night and it's fun to bust on queers so. . . yeah I'd say there's been some advancement.
kornbred79Aug 9, 2010
Matthew Sheppard Act of 2009.
Not much, but its something.
airjazzAug 9, 2010
The "right thing" is purely subjective
drunkclamAug 9, 2010
Police in Texas regularly target gay bars for raids. Apparently its illegal in Texas to be drunk in a bar, they just choose to selectively enforce it.
chilidogsAug 9, 2010
It happened in ft. Worth not too long ago but I don't know about "regularly happening".
unbannedaccountAug 9, 2010
Sorry to break it to you, many, many, many states still have sodomy laws.
sugarazorAug 9, 2010
Uh... no they don't, the Supreme Court struck them down in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas. Sodomy laws are officially unconstitutional.
tgjerusalemAug 9, 2010
Even in places where 'sodomy' laws are still in the books, they were all struck down by SCOTUS in 2003. None of them are valid, and states can't make gay sex a crime even if they want to.
rickfrothinghamAug 9, 2010
I agree with most of your comment and am in general a huge proponent of equal rights for everyone, regardless of orientation.
Your comment about giving blood is misleading though and I felt I should address it for general knowledge of the board. The restrictions they have are around specific behaviors which are put people at a statistically significant risk for HIV contraction.
There are a few aspects that go into play here - although they test every sample of blood for HIV, the test does have a minor false-negative rate, and additionally the test is not considered completely accurate within 6 months or even a year of the contraction because it tests for antibodies (your immune system's response to HIV) rather than for the virus itself, and these antibodies take time to build up to testable levels. This means it is in the Red Cross's interest to not only screen the blood, but also to screen for statistically risky behaviors.
The requirements in that section can be found here:
http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-topic#HIV__AIDS
As you can see, there is absolutely no restriction for lesbians; the restrictions are around risk elevations due to male-to-male sexual contact, prostitution, use of intravenous drugs, and blood transfusions in certain countries.
If you'd like to do the statistical comparison yourself, check out the rates of contraction in the last year among Americans, based on the behavior which they contracted it from.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure
As you can see, M-M sexual contact accounted for 22,469 of reported cases, while M-W sexual contact accounted for 13,180 in the last year. I'm leaving out the possible injection drug use overlap category so we can analyze this conservatively in your favor. I've looked at a variety of studies that record the percentage of males who have engaged in M-M contact in the last year, and they report a range from 2-7%. I'll go with 7% for the sake of your argument. This means that while only up to 3.5% of the population have engaged in M-M contact (since half of us are women), it still accounts for 1.7 times the new cases than M-W contact.
According to the Kinsey Institute, approximately 90% of men and 86% of women have had sex in the past year (http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/FAQ.html). If we take 88% average for all people and subtract the 3.5% of us having M-M, we are left with 84.5% of us having M-W. This is a ratio of roughly 24 to 1 M-W vs M-M activity rates in the last year. Multiply that by the 22,469 to 13,180 ratio of new contractions, and it means that the yearly contraction rate for a M-M active person is up to 40 times higher than the rate for non-M-M, and that's using the most conservative estimates on each factor. This makes it an extremely statistically significant risk factor.
I'm all for changing our laws in favor of equal rights from the government (including marriage, benefits, etc) and in favor of sexual-orientation being a protected factor with regards to employment and hate crimes. This one area though is one of scientific risk analysis, and makes sense from a policy standpoint. And again, there is absolutely no restriction on lesbians.
cfuseAug 10, 2010
Whilst I generally concur with the prohibition on gay males donating blood (I am in Australia, and here it's 10 years without gay sex before you can donate. I am also a gay male, so I have a stake in that) I think the thing that upsets me (and so many other gay men) is that risk factors are not limited to male to male sex - from an epidemiological point of view it would be just as valid to reject donation from certain ethnicities, economic brackets, etc. But we all know that whilst it is A-OK to reject queer blood, if someone rejected black blood or jew blood or whatever there'd be a s**tstorm of epic proportions. Valid medical reasons are fine, bigotry and intolerance by proxy isn't.
rickfrothinghamAug 10, 2010
Follow me with their process though - I know its kind of just semantics, but they are screening for the behavior rather than the demographic. Its not being gay specifically, it's having male to male sex, which has been analyzed by them as an unacceptably risky cause of HIV infection based on the percentages of people who get it that way. When you look at the numbers above, its not hard to see why this behavior has been labeled so risky. Its not "queer blood" as you say above that they are rejecting, it is blood that has been exposed to a high-risk-behavior factor.
This is logically different than screening directly for a factor like race or socioeconomic class. Screening for homosexuals is what the Boy Scouts of America does, and it is completely disgusting that they do it because there isn't any good reason other than their bulls**t fear and ignorance. Screening based on this risk behavior factor is a logical way for the Red Cross to reduce the likelihood of infection through transfusion, which would be a huge strike for their entire mission.
cfuseAug 13, 2010
I understand the argument just fine, and I accept the statistical reasoning (although I consider it to be unrefined and blunt in its application in policy).
If this is about impartially addressing risk factors, then that is what it should do. I personally believe that political factors are preventing impartial policy, and that the RC finds it more expedient to reject gay donors than follow a purely statistical epidemiological model that would piss certain people off. At the end of the day they work in a governmental and bureaucratic environment, and they are forced to make concessions to that.
macbookformeAug 9, 2010
O M G
fabriciomAug 9, 2010
LOL!
miguel1990Aug 10, 2010
BBQ!
alanocuAug 9, 2010
The gay people who rioted at Stonewall really showed courage. They pushed back because officers of the state attempted to prevent them from assembling peacefully and associating with other people like us. They were standing up for their freedom. They wanted to be left alone to live their lives as they chose. As do I.
Hey Mr. speaker in the video: WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY SINCE THEN. Stonewall kicked off the modern day gay rights movement. Here's what has happened in those 40 years (the speaker in the video wouldn't know because he's an idiot): No states granted domestic partnership benefits. Nor did many corporations. No presidential candidate would meet with us. In fact, there were only a handful of gay political groups at the time. Now, there are LOTS AND LOTS appealing to the many different interests in the LGBT community
I don't like how this guy in the video makes us gay people out to be such helpless victims. Gay people don't need pity and we don't need special treatment and we don't need to handled delicately. The only the thing When I see these bitter queens who live in America complain because they "suffer" through their pitiful existence in Manhattan and West Hollywood, I want to show them photos of the gay men in Iran who have been executed in recent day. When you see those queens screaming "WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER, WE SHOP A BLOOMINGDALES, GET USED TO IT," tell them to STFU.
You do the best with what you have, right now. Life is short. Make every day count. Don't make a video like this and tell everyone your panties are in a wad and act as though every day you suffer. Does that guy look like he's hungry, homeless or unemployed?
joest23Aug 9, 2010
Words cannot sufficiently display how much I agree with you.
haptickAug 9, 2010
"Gay people don't need pity and we don't need special treatment and we don't need to handled delicately."
Right on, although, equal rights under the law would be nice.
pintomp3Aug 9, 2010
"But my happiness does not depend on the actions and approval of others." Unless it's social conservatives denying you the right to marry the one you love or serve your country without having to hide who you are.
elranzerAug 9, 2010
Watch out. He's also a far-right winger. Hardly an ally to American homosexuals.
rootsm3Aug 9, 2010
Amen, sister.
elranzerAug 9, 2010
Gay and republican?
dinglebuttAug 9, 2010
lies. glee is a popular show on the fox network.
unbannedaccountAug 9, 2010
Wow, when did the definition of "popular" become crap?
bladzalotAug 9, 2010
Who cares...
chilidogsAug 9, 2010
Gay people, the people who care about gay people and people who care about equal protection under the law and the constitution.
sqyarcAug 9, 2010
When your son turns out to be gay and gets his face kicked in on the streets. Perhaps then you'll decide that you care.
seokingAug 9, 2010
Let's move this along so we can give rights to others please.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Can't you gay people be happy that the earth makes your rainbows for free? The straight community doesn't get any entertainment like that.. :(
joshdareAug 9, 2010
You're welcome to our rainbows too, buddy.
fabriciomAug 9, 2010
That was good! lol! Ill take some of that free lovin... without the anal penetration please...
someologyAug 9, 2010
There's always oral
camilos007Aug 9, 2010
I took my kids to a park recently. Beside our bench, were 2 men with 1 small kid and 1 new born. It took me a couple of seconds to understand what I was seeing. That image never would have happened 40 or 30 years ago. I think their rights have advanced a lot since stonewall.
airjazzAug 9, 2010
oooor they were two buddies giving their wives the day off. eh? That happens too.
camilos007Aug 10, 2010
Its possible. I don't pretend to know how gay people act or look like, but If you would have seen them, you'd probably agree with me.
kornbred79Aug 9, 2010
Sure, a gay couple can raise children together an openly, but is it legally recognized by most states?
I live in Ohio. The state only recognizes a single parent adoption in cases of homosexual couples. Why is this important? My gay neighbors adopted an infant 12 years ago. When the child was 9, Joe, his legally recognized parent, died of prostate cancer. Although Joe's will specially stated that custody of Amy passes to Steven (his partner of 21 years), a local Evangelical Christian group challenged Steven's custody of Amy on the grounds that he would be unfit.
Now, it worked out in the end, but the entire ordeal lasted 2 years and resulted in Amy being placed in a foster home for a few months.
camilos007Aug 10, 2010
I currently live in Montreal, so yes, its legal here. Its unfortunate its not legal every where else.
unbannedaccountAug 9, 2010
I call bulls**t too. Adoption happens by $ and contacts, as are all private adoptions.
The government has done nothing to make private ($) adoption easier. Public, maybe but that is such a government, red tape clusterf**k that it probably is a moot point.
rootsm3Aug 9, 2010
Things are better, but not where they should be. Live in smalltown America like I do and you'll see just how uncomfortable people are with homosexuality. I have hope though. Today's youth are a scrappy bunch who seem ready to fight for their right to express themselves in any way.
paranoidmarvinAug 9, 2010
I'm incredibly lucky to be a young gay man in 2010 rather than 1970.
I really recommend the film Milk, if you want to see just how far things have come along
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1013753/
tdogg241Aug 9, 2010
If you haven't seen it, you should really check out The Life and Times of Harvey Milk too.
cam_86Aug 9, 2010
I think some of you are confusing societal norms, with legislative rights.
Yes, gays are accepted in modern culture in the US... but legally they are in the same place as they were in the 1970's.
Look at Canada, Israel, Spain, etc... during the same time frame. As far as i am aware, none of those countries had as powerful a gay movement or 'moment' as the stonewall riots. Yet all of them have advanced significantly, to the point of true equality. That simply isnt the case in america. An openly gay man can not join the forces. A gay couple can not file for a marriage license in most of the country.
This is crap that was sorted out in Canada 1 to 2 decades ago...
I understand some people here wanting to have a stiff upper lip, but acting like a tough guy and saying the tiny steps forward(in a totally subjective, social setting. Void of any legal basis) should be enough to shut this guy up, illustrates more nationalism that common sense. Being gay in america is better than most places, but its by no means as good as being a straight person. And aspiring to anything less than equality is giving up. If a gay Canadian/Swede/S. African/Spaniard/Israeli/etc... gets full equality, why shouldn't a gay american?
elranzerAug 9, 2010
Considering even South Africa has gay marriage kinda proves where the USA's puritan position towards homosexuality really lies.
fabriciomAug 9, 2010
f**k yeah!!! Spain rocks!!! LOL! world cup! tennis! F1 soon againg! AND GAY MARRIAGEEEEEE!!!
socialstacyAug 9, 2010
Socially the gay community is still not accepted no matter what people say, as a whole, people are still very uncomfortable with the idea of same sex relations. Legally the gay community has not advanced at all and I don't know if this will ever change. Every culture is based off of religion, let's face it, everything is almost based off of religion. We have all been conditioned to think and view things a certain way so I don't think anything has changed, at all. Same with prejudices against different races.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
You know we can't parade those things around now! You chaps claimed them. >:o
kultsAug 9, 2010
Are the gays being tazed on the streets or something? Have not noticed that.
I believe they have the rights everybody else have. The homophobes or anti-gay movements are fueled by gay's ambitions for *extra rights*. Special status under the law doesn't really ring equality, but make you wonder who else or at all should get the *extra rights*.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hetmanAug 9, 2010
What extra rights are they asking for?
kultsAug 9, 2010
Gay marriage for one. It's about the protection of unity under the law, but in my mind a widow and her mother for example should also have the right for a "marriage" to raise up a child etc. It should be more like a civil partnership not just gay marriage. I'm sure there's more interest groups that feel they should be accounted for.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hetmanAug 9, 2010
They can both be legall gaurdians of the child. Unless there is some reason they need to share assets I do not know why they would want to be in a marriage. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drunkclamAug 9, 2010
Marriage is a civil right and gays should have the right to marry. Thats equal rights not special rights, you're a real pos too.
kultsAug 9, 2010
Don't know if there's a term for it, but I was thinking of a scenario where grandma was the provider.
elranzerAug 9, 2010
Gay marriage is only an "extra right" under the eyes of the bigoted right winger.
sugarazorAug 9, 2010
I always love the "extra right argument."
Homophobe: "gays have equal rights, a gay man is welcome to marry a woman! They want extra rights."
Hey dips**t, if gay marriage was made legal, a straight man would be allowed to marry another man if he wanted. Where does the "extra" come in?
hordespawnAug 9, 2010
Gay people aren't asking for extra rights. They are asking to be able to serve in the military; They want their relationships legally recognized. There is no strong argument against either.
Other nations have integrated militaries and no major issues involving gay service people. Gay people, in America, however, are unable to serve (openly at least). Arguing to maintain this status quo is arguing that gay people should not have this right.
Legally recognized relationships are important as well. Two people who've had a one night stand have a relationship with more legal standing than a gay couple that has been together for 20 years. That's inequality no matter how you look at it.
melthornalAug 9, 2010
They do not have equal rights. When a man gets into a horrible car accident and is laying in a hospital bed in critical condition, a heterosexual partner can come in and talk to them. When a man gets into a horrible car accident and is laying in a hospital bed in critical condition, a homosexual partner is not allowed to come in to talk to them.
When a heterosexual couple sends in their taxes, they get a tax break. When a homosexual couple sends in taxes they do not get a tax break.
When a heterosexual couple is seen kissing in public, nobody cares. When a homosexual couple is seen kissing in public, people mock/attack/harass them.
When a heterosexual soldier in the military finds a person they find attractive, they tell their friends, brag, et cetera. When a homosexual soldier in the military finds a person they find attractive, they tell their friends and get kicked out of the military.
You cannot, in any honest manner, believe homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. Want to know a great way to test if people have the same rights? Here it is:
Person A can do X. Person B cannot do X. That means person B has fewer rights than person A. The only way for a person to have fewer rights in the United States are: A: have some sort of mental deficiency. B: Be convicted by a court of law.
If Person B has fewer rights than Person A and they: A: are not mentally deficient and B: The fewer rights are not due to convicted and sentenced in a court of law THEN Person B is having their Civil Rights infringed upon. Which, under the Constitution of the United States, is illegal.
unbannedaccountAug 9, 2010
Your such a dickhole, any reasonable comment wouldn't sink in with you. So I just won't bother.
seedypeteAug 9, 2010
Riiiight, because being able to openly serve in the military or get married or adopt children or even just have basic visitation rights in hospitals or any of the other millions of little things that we straight people take for granted on a daily basis count as "extra" rights now?
Idiot.
mrnaturalAug 9, 2010
I remember when "gay" meant happy and carefree.
hetmanAug 9, 2010
Well I remember when it meant you were an effeminate piece of s**t and people hated you and in some places people still feel that way.
hipmanAug 9, 2010
You mean being called "gay" isn't a derogatory insult in your area?.
hetmanAug 9, 2010
I guess I mean I just do not hear it used that much. Not nearly as much as when I was growing up and if you did anything that was not maculine you were called gay.
elranzerAug 9, 2010
I remember in the 1990s high schoolers used the term "that's gay" to mean "that's lame."
Some young people still say this. Stupid ones.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fabriciomAug 9, 2010
Thats gay yo!
haberman13Aug 9, 2010
Different times, because people aren't happy and carefree anymore, the word morphed... does that have to do with butt love? Doubtful.
:)
ventg4funAug 9, 2010
Yes, civil rights for gays have come a long way, but there's still a long way to go.
jmunjrAug 9, 2010
Gays haven't needed Congress or any government to do anything for them. They've accomplished so much without the government and they will continue to do so. They've done things they way it is supposed to be done. Other "minorities" also didn't need the government either, and imo the government forcing morality on the masses has led to unintended consequences as well and more tension that would have otherwise existed.
That tool in the video is whining as if laws are needed to protect his group from bullying, suicides and such. Bullcrap. That's life. The government should not step in in those circumstances. Bullying? What does he mean bullying? Bullying as in verbal abuse? That's not a crime and nor should it be. Bullying as in physical abuse? There are already laws protecting EVERYONE from that.
Each and everyone of us derive our rights as individuals and not groups, and as such laws should not exist to protect groups, whether they be gays, blacks, white, men, women, etc... Equal protection under the law has been thrown around a lot lately, yet laws exist that clearly are intended for specific groups. That's wrong. If existing laws were enforced there wouldn't be as much of an issue.
I didn't watch the whole video, but it is funny how the guy speaking complains about the lack of government intervention yet gays have more going for them today than they ever have. Heck, they are generally better off now than blacks who effectively have had numerous laws passed in their benefit.
It is amazing what can happen when people put in a lot of effort to accomplish something. I may not be a supporter of government intervention in the gay community but I applaud their accomplishments in the past 40 years, though their place in the media obviously has played the biggest role in that matter.
Basically I think it is wrong to legislate for groups. Legislate for individuals only as rights only apply to individuals...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
piieerrrreeAug 9, 2010
jerryjamesstone, do you have an account on basstalk?
fremontgroupAug 9, 2010
The reason why "the Congress of the United States has done almost nothing to further equality for LGBT Americans" is because conservatives want to leave this issue to the states, not the federal government...which should ring a bell because that's exactly what the conservative Democrats (a.k.a. Dixiecrats) supported back when black people couldn't go to the same schools as white people.
gkiltzAug 10, 2010
Congress HASN'T done anything!
It's not only gays. The constipated Congress started with Watergate.
So many other things are affected.
We managed to scrape together a health care system when we shouldn't have. There should have been legislation that never came.
Gay rights, however, have come a long way, whether Congress likes it or not.
The gay community needs to take a cue from the disabled. They have been able to assert their rights under the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. It has taken a long and circuitous road through the courts to do it, but handicapped people ARE now covered by civil rights laws!!
Gays can and should use those same laws, and the provisions in the body of the Constitution covering equal protection under the law. That's where they can win!
huggsandkissesAug 10, 2010
The fact that in 2010 people are still attempting legitimate arguments against providing a minority group with the equal civil rights they deserve is pathetic and downright criminal. Who cares what ignorant religious nuts think, no matter how many of these idiots there are in this country? Being an elected official shouldn't be a popularity contest, it's about doing what is right and just in the face of any challenge, even if that means sacrificing votes.
bladzalotAug 10, 2010
A. My kids are not boys, or gay
B. My kid would not get his face kicked in on the streets, I live in rural america
C. That is the most extremely uneducated assumption on the planet
D. Who cares means that me, and the people I associate with, are sick of hearing about gays
E. You are obviously gay and have been kicked in the face on the streets
F. Sorry about your beating
hyraxAug 15, 2010
Gay's can still get married. The government just would not recognize the certificate. I wish it was like that for all marriages. Government has no place in our lives.