The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Famine]

How do you know that governments in Western Democracies, now known for bending over backwards to be politically correct, won't apply the same "affirmative action" philosophy to gay marriage. I can easily see, in the fuzzy world of goverment logic, a policy in Ontario that says, "Hey, married gay people can't get pregnant on their own so we're going to make a couple of changes in all fairness to the traditionally discriminated against gay population"

1. For lesbian couples, artificial insemination is now free of charge as many times as you want. After all it's not fair that heterosexual couples can impregnate at will and lesbians can't so we have to give them something that costs that taxpayers millions of dollars to make it fair.

2. All homosexual couples move to the front of the line for adoptions. After all it's not fair that heterosexuals can breed at will so gays should get the first shot at adoptions.

Hasn't happened yet of course, but it's not hard to imagine it happening, expecially in Ontario, and then it would affect heterosexual marriages and all taxpayers. You can't put anything out of the reach of any government that thinks that reverse discrimination, aka "affirmative action", makes any sense in an enlightened society.

How government would choose to further discriminate and deny rights is not an argument against how it should stop discriminating and denying rights in the first place...

 

[ScouserInExile]

.

An example in the UK are measures in place requiring businesses to hire a certain proportion of "ethnic minorities" for a job. In such a scenario, a black person might be given a job over a white person not because they're better qualified, but because the company needs to fill a quota from minority groups.
.

Can you quote any sources on that? I've done recruitment in the public sector for the best part of a decade and I'm yet to be given a quota of BME staff to hire.

 

[homeforsummer]

*Snip*

The difference is, affirmative action isn't needed when people are treated as equal citizens in the first place.

Affirmative action is just a half-assed measure to make up for areas in which people assume a particular minority group needs help.

If gay people can get married just like everyone else, there's no need to edge the concept in their favour. They already have the ability to do exactly the same as anyone else in that situation.

Can you quote any sources on that? I've done recruitment in the public sector for the best part of a decade and I'm yet to be given a quota of BME staff to hire.

There's a whole government act on it.

That said, it may be applied more subtly than it's inferred, which could explain why you've not heard anything on it. I've not checked, but it could also be upheld more strongly in areas with higher proportions of minority groups.

 

[Scaff]

Can you quote any sources on that? I've done recruitment in the public sector for the best part of a decade and I'm yet to be given a quota of BME staff to hire.

I've also had to fill positions for staff in companies I've worked for over a twenty year period and never come across it.

The link you provided (and I am posting on my phone right now) appears to cover legislation on discrimination, not on affirmative action.

 

[FoolKiller]

I apologize to Moglet and Foolkiller. Living with a transgender in today's day and age has made me rather sensitive, I suppose. I may have misread your posts. Well, very obviously, more to the fact, I have. I also never meant to offend if I have. This situation is not the easiest thing to live with. For all my open-mindedness, it is still difficult to accept that a parent isn't at all what you grew up idolizing as a child. I spent the whole of my adult life defended a man, that I soon forgot to whom I defended against. Ranman20 and TheeFrogmanlego had most definitely raised my ire.

It's the Internet. Misunderstandings happen. I assumed your reaction was a combination of it being a personal situation and just misreading what I wrote. I also factored in my late night posting as a cause of the confusion.

And honestly, I'm glad you are defending your dad. Around here a transgendered individual will likely be cut off from their family and friends.

How do you know that governments in Western Democracies, now known for bending over backwards to be politically correct, won't apply the same "affirmative action" philosophy to gay marriage. I can easily see, in the fuzzy world of goverment logic, a policy in Ontario that says, "Hey, married gay people can't get pregnant on their own so we're going to make a couple of changes in all fairness to the traditionally discriminated against gay population"

1. For lesbian couples, artificial insemination is now free of charge as many times as you want. After all it's not fair that heterosexual couples can impregnate at will and lesbians can't so we have to give them something that costs that taxpayers millions of dollars to make it fair.

2. All homosexual couples move to the front of the line for adoptions. After all it's not fair that heterosexuals can breed at will so gays should get the first shot at adoptions.

Hasn't happened yet of course, but it's not hard to imagine it happening, expecially in Ontario, and then it would affect heterosexual marriages and all taxpayers. You can't put anything out of the reach of any government that thinks that reverse discrimination, aka "affirmative action", makes any sense in an enlightened society.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried it. If it were the US I'd be shocked if it gained enough ground to be voted on in Congress.

Also, anyone who tried to pass that would have a long line of infertile heterosexual couples at their door. I think it would be political suicide to claim sexual orientation is a more important case of infertility than a medically diagnosed condition. It's hard to argue for affirmative action for a group who are incapable of reproducing over another group who is incapable of reproducing, particularly if the favored group is medically able to reproduce.

All that said, I won't be surprised if a homosexual couple sues a church that refuses to perform their wedding ceremony.

 

[ScouserInExile]

There's a whole government act on it.

That said, it may be applied more subtly than it's inferred, which could explain why you've not heard anything on it. I've not checked, but it could also be upheld more strongly in areas with higher proportions of minority groups.

I've just skim read that and I can't see where it says organisations must hire a certain percentage of people from the "protected groups". It says you can't not hire someone because they are from one of those groups, but that seems to be it.

I've done the official, government approved training on recruitment and selection, in a city with a high level of ethnic minority population and it was never mentioned.

In fact, in the public sector, job applications are anonymised to the point where there is nothing that could give away the gender, ethnicity or age of the candidate to the recruiting manager.

This idea that there are quotas to fill and non BME people are discriminated against seems to be a myth propagated by certain media outlets to further their agendas. Daily Mail, I'm looking at you.

 

[homeforsummer]

I've just skim read that and I can't see where it says organisations must hire a certain percentage of people from the "protected groups". It says you can't not hire someone from one of those groups, but that seems to be it.

Had a look through myself, and have to conclude that you're right. I've found, in more clarity and of more relevance, the govt's "diversity toolkit" site which explains positive action. Subtly but importantly different from positive discrimination, it seems.

However, I'd like to clear up that I was using the concept as an example in my original post on the matter. XoravaX posted this:

That the cook was ordered to make the food less good because it wasn't fair for the students in the other schools in the region who had worse food.
Equalisation. Yeah.

To which I responded:

What you have in the example above is positive discrimination or "affirmative action" - i.e. deliberately making it easier for those with traditionally fewer opportunities to have the same opportunities as others, at the expense of another group.

Inaccuracies about UK law aside, my point still stands: Changing something to benefit a minority group over that of the majority is affirmative action (/positive discrimination). Which is bad.

Giving identical rights to a minority group that don't affect anyone else (i.e. letting same-sex couples marry) isn't affirmative action. Which is good.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Had a look through myself, and have to conclude that you're right. I've found, in more clarity and of more relevance, the govt's "diversity toolkit" site which explains positive action. Subtly but importantly different from positive discrimination, it seems.


Inaccuracies about UK law aside, my point still stands: Changing something to benefit a minority group over that of the majority is affirmative action (/positive discrimination). Which is bad.

.

Well, that's a good example where actually yes, it is fine to say "we want someone from a specific background". That link you've provided is specifically talking about film. If you are producing a film about a minority group, then you would want writers, producers, researchers et al from that community. Saying "we want someone from x background" would break the law without this "positive action"

 

[homeforsummer]

Well, that's a good example where actually yes, it is fine to say "we want someone from a specific background". That link you've provided is specifically talking about film. If you are producing a film about a minority group, then you would want writers, producers, researchers et al from that community. Saying "we want someone from x background" would break the law without this "positive action"

I don't dispute this. But you're dragging things a little off-topic. I've explained why I brought up the example - did that bit make sense?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried it. If it were the US I'd be shocked if it gained enough ground to be voted on in Congress.

Also, anyone who tried to pass that would have a long line of infertile heterosexual couples at their door. I think it would be political suicide to claim sexual orientation is a more important case of infertility than a medically diagnosed condition. It's hard to argue for affirmative action for a group who are incapable of reproducing over another group who is incapable of reproducing, particularly if the favored group is medically able to reproduce.

All that said, I won't be surprised if a homosexual couple sues a church that refuses to perform their wedding ceremony.

Political suicide is nearly irrelevant these days. You can be a President and run up $6Trillion in debt and get re-elected. You can double the price of Hydro in my province in 5 years solely through a bunch of bogus and completely unnecessary "green" energy programs and get re-elected. If you had told me 10years ago my government would pass legislation that would allow a local arena to put up solar panels that generate $225,000 worth of electricity at market rates over 20 years, but will cost the Ontario taxpayers $5,000,000 to do so, I would have said that was impossible too.

I do believe in equal rights for everyone, gay, straight, whatever...but I can easily see homosexual couples in Ontario benefitting from "affirmative action" type legislation. I'd be more surprised if it didn't happen actually.

 

[Gonales]

Political suicide is nearly irrelevant these days. You can be a President and run up $6Trillion in debt and get re-elected. You can double the price of Hydro in my province in 5 years solely through a bunch of bogus and completely unnecessary "green" energy programs and get re-elected. If you had told me 10years ago my government would pass legislation that would allow a local arena to put up solar panels that generate $225,000 worth of electricity at market rates over 20 years, but will cost the Ontario taxpayers $5,000,000 to do so, I would have said that was impossible too.

I do believe in equal rights for everyone, gay, straight, whatever...but I can easily see homosexual couples in Ontario benefitting from "affirmative action" type legislation. I'd be more surprised if it didn't happen actually.

The affirmative action you're on about, won't happen (The part of artificial insemination etc.). Belgium has had equal marriage rights for 10 years, and no such thing exists. I know artificial insemination isn't cheap, and I feel sorry for those that weren't born as lucky as I was. I have had the financial possibility of having IVF, but I guess others won't. So, to make legislation to make it happen: I don't know... Maybe make adoption easier for such type of families...

However, Provinces and Municipalities have to employ minorities, as was stated before. They have a percent of their employers designated to be women, from another ethnic background etc etc... So this part of the topic does exist.

 

[homeforsummer]

Maybe make adoption easier for such type of families...

That would be affirmative action Adoption should be entirely based on parents' suitability for looking after children. Making it easier for same-sex couples would discriminate against mixed-sex couples.

However, Provinces and Municipalities have to employ minorities, as was stated before. They have a percent of their employers designated to be women, from another ethnic background etc etc... So this part of the topic does exist.

That's interesting. So even if it doesn't happen in the UK, it does elsewhere.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The affirmative action you're on about, won't happen (The part of artificial insemination etc.). Belgium has had equal marriage rights for 10 years, and no such thing exists. I know artificial insemination isn't cheap, and I feel sorry for those that weren't born as lucky as I was. I have had the financial possibility of having IVF, but I guess others won't. So, to make legislation to make it happen: I don't know... Maybe make adoption easier for such type of families...

However, Provinces and Municipalities have to employ minorities, as was stated before. They have a percent of their employers designated to be women, from another ethnic background etc etc... So this part of the topic does exist.

As you might be aware from the flag on the left, I don't live in Belgium. All kinds of crap goes on here that would normally make a rational person's head spin when it comes to wasting taxpayer's money. We have gay marriage here for years and it nothing like this has happened here yet either, I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the future. We just got our first gay (lesbian) Provincial Premier (leader quit so it was an internal party election, not a public vote yet) and it was a big ho-hum. Nobody cares what she does behind close doors, it's not even a story. Sure the fellas and I laugh about it and made a few jokes but it really is a non-issue and I'm kind of proud of my fellow Canucks that it is so.

Thank you for making my case for me. How easily you slide in "Maybe make adoption easier for such type of families" as this is exactly what I'm talking about. Adoption should be no easier or no more difficult for gay couples. They should head into the queue just like the rest of us equal citizens. If you get married as a gay couple you already are aware that you can't conceive naturally without adding a third person to the relationship or going the IVF route. As a taxpayer, I don't want my money to pay for a gay couple's IVF or change the adoption queue when gay couples get married, knowing full well their conception options are limited. That's part of the deal with gay marriage, take it or leave it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Political suicide is nearly irrelevant these days. You can be a President and run up $6Trillion in debt and get re-elected. You can double the price of Hydro in my province in 5 years solely through a bunch of bogus and completely unnecessary "green" energy programs and get re-elected. If you had told me 10years ago my government would pass legislation that would allow a local arena to put up solar panels that generate $225,000 worth of electricity at market rates over 20 years, but will cost the Ontario taxpayers $5,000,000 to do so, I would have said that was impossible too.

While I can't speak for Canadian politics, these are all the kinds of things you get from both parties in the US. If your crazy policy is just your version of your opposition's crazy policy you only affect the vote of the small percentage of independent voters. Your die hard constituency will defend you with "your guy did it too" arguments. But the kind of politician to push affirmative action is the champion of minorities. In this case they would be championing one minority over the other. They aren't losing any opposition votes that they didn't already lose by picking their party, but they will lose votes from people who would normally vote for them. A self-made "champion of women's health" picki g and choosing specific women goes from 95% of the female vote to 50%.

Plus, it wouldn't be affirmative action, by definition, anyway. Affirmative action makes up for past losses, such as requiring a certain percentage of minorities get hired into jobs because they used to be denied jobs on race alone. Maybe if there was a systematic policy of denying homosexuals artificial insemination (or a shortage of sperm - free porn and cash? There will always be available sperm). Adoptions would likely be different though, as that was a systematic block in the past.

I don't know... Maybe make adoption easier for such type of families...

I doubt that will happen. At least I hope not. Kentucky learned a lesson with expediting adoptions not too long ago. They tried expediting the process, but multiple problems arose. Some birth parents changed their minds and the adoptive parents were screwed when it went to court. There were also instances where it created too much work for the child services staff to maintain. Children were placed in abusive homes, the reduced checking of foster homes allowed some foster parents to not report a child that ran away so they could keep getting a support check.

Rushing anything when children's safety is at stake is risky.

That's interesting. So even if it doesn't happen in the UK, it does elsewhere.

Even when no laws exist they might as well. No company wants to have an entire staff that is full of young, white males when an inevitable discrimination lawsuit comes up, so many self impose some rules.

 

[Joel]

Just going to emphasize how ridiculous Ontario governments (municipal and provincial) can be. I went to a Catholic school that was publicly funded. That's right, publicly funded, "free" Catholic education. Complete with "gays are bad mm'kay", and anti abortion tirades. Funded by the government. And nobody thinks this is a problem. There's an outdoors show that has been run out of a Toronto owned city exhibition center for years, and recently it was banned from city property, it's a hunting and fishing show, and it was banned based on the city's gun free policy (it's since been reinstated by an exemption).

Governments in this province are out of touch and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if 5 years down the line we have accelerated adoption and IVF for homosexual couples.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Political suicide is nearly irrelevant these days.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Many high profile republicans who made some outlandish comments about women and rape that were polling very high (as well as being long term incumbents) got voted out of office by relative nobodies with far less funding.

 

[CSLACR]

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Many high profile republicans who made some outlandish comments about women and rape that were polling very high (as well as being long term incumbents) got voted out of office by relative nobodies with far less funding.

Depends on who.
You can always be a jackass, you just can't cross a few women and brown barriers.

As we deteriorate the rules this will only become more true.
Just wait till Obama runs for a third election. Rules? We have no rules.

 

[Daniel]

French MPs approve gay marriage bill.

France's lower house of parliament has approved a bill to legalise gay marriage and allow same-sex couples to adopt children.

President François Hollande's Socialists pushed the measure through the national assembly, carrying a vote by 329 to 229.

The assembly has been debating the bill and voting on individual articles in recent weeks. The bill now goes to the senate, which is also controlled by the Socialists and their allies.

Polls show most French support legalising gay marriage, though that backing softens when children come into play. There have been demonstrations in recent weeks by opponents of the bill.

Good to see that France has followed suit after the UK's recent vote 👍

 

[Lizard]

French MPs approve gay marriage bill.

Good to see that France has followed suit after the UK's recent vote 👍

For some reason I thought France already had legalised it.
Anyway this is good.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I'm so ashamed of my country....

 

[Johnnypenso]

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Many high profile republicans who made some outlandish comments about women and rape that were polling very high (as well as being long term incumbents) got voted out of office by relative nobodies with far less funding.

For every high profile politician that didn't get re-elected due to making some outlandish or politically incorrect statement, there were hundreds that mismanaged their city/county/province/state/country and did get re-elected.
Which is why I said, "nearly irrelevant", because political suicide is now mainly the reserve of those that commit aggregious errors in political correctness, as opposed to the little things like $10 Billion in useless windmills.

 

[Joel]

Just look at that Anthony Weiner situation. Dude sends a couple dick pics and is shamed out of Congress. Obama racks up trillions more in debt, and authorizes executions of US citizens, but that just gets brushed under the rug.

 

[arora]

we don't tolerate weener picks in these parts

There is something about wanting to be represented by someone of character, whether it influences their policy or capabilities to govern or not. The Clinton deal comes to mind, and maybe it does not mater who smokes his cigar, but he ended up lying to us under oath and argued the definition of 'is' is.

Someone said 3rd term? Clinton was often accused of wanting to try it, unfounded without any doubt but the tinfoils used to say "he will declare marshal law in order to stay in office."

Back on topic then, I do think there is a real possibility of some sort of reverse discrimination where homosexuals are concerned in this country. More likely just a bunch of laws that do nothing to support equality at all and simply make life more a pain in the ass for everyone.

 

[Joel]

More likely just a bunch of laws that do nothing to support equality at all and simply make life more a pain in the ass for everyone.

So wait, they're going to ban lube?

 

[Johnnypenso]

So wait, they're going to ban lube?

No they'll just put sand in it...make you think twice ....

 

[CSLACR]

we don't tolerate weener picks in these parts

There is something about wanting to be represented by someone of character, whether it influences their policy or capabilities to govern or not. The Clinton deal comes to mind, and maybe it does not mater who smokes his cigar, but he ended up lying to us under oath and argued the definition of 'is' is.

Someone said 3rd term? Clinton was often accused of wanting to try it, unfounded without any doubt but the tinfoils used to say "he will declare marshal law in order to stay in office."

Back on topic then, I do think there is a real possibility of some sort of reverse discrimination where homosexuals are concerned in this country. More likely just a bunch of laws that do nothing to support equality at all and simply make life more a pain in the ass for everyone.

But Obama already lied to get into office didn't he?

To my recollection Clinton did no such thing.
It may not be Obama, but it will be someone. Why not? Who will stop them? (insert answer) will they really?

 

[JAHHAJ]

I don't care for homosexuality, if people want to be gay then why not, it's their life let them live it how they want.

 

[JAHHAJ]

It is not as simple as that I am afraid, otherwise the the Tories would not be fighting like those in a war and they are more intelligent than the majority of the UK. It also depends on your religion as you can imagine.

I know, it's very complicated.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

It really shouldn't be, though.

 

[Joel]

I know, it's very complicated.

You can either restrict other people's freedom, or get out of their private lives. It isn't the slightest bit complicated.