Equal rights?

[Tre H]

hope wrote:

<quoted text>
My thinking is black and white on the matter of the term marriage By taking the Marriage term away would effect more than just you, it would effect everyone. I was just saying that You could have Unions and we could have marriage but have them mean the same but have a difference in sexual orientation. Why should marriage be changed to straigh union, or whatever you suggested, to better fit you needs, it has been marriage forever. Not trying to be rude. Hell call it all marriage then, it is still going to be different.

I guess all of my points went right over your head. I don't believe there needs to be any distinction like "gay marriage" or "straight marriage." It's just marriage, with everything the same for everybody, minus the discriminatory gender restriction. What marriage means to anybody is between the two getting married. Other people being allowed the right to marry does not change anything for those already allowed to marry.

I could care less if they want to use a different word than marriage, as long as it's the same for everyone. Churches should retain the right to perform marriage ceremonies, or refuse to based on their beliefs, but "legal" or "secular" marriage should not discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation.

[Miguel]

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
If you believe that black people are just as smart and capable as white people and then look at minority enrollment in colleges without affirmative action policies, it becomes clear that minus affirmative action policies minorities are not being treated the same across the board.

So correct me if Im wrong. You believe the Government should treat everyone equal when it comes to Gay marriage but not Affirmative Action. Just trying to follow the logic and inconsistentcies.

[David DeSilva Reno NV]

Oh don't get me started on Affirmative Action. I was a union rep for many years and I never once saw a "non-minority" person assisted by AA. In fact, I saw many good "non-minority" employees sacrificed under the farce that is AA so that management could look politically correct because these days, it is PC to sacrifice a white person who is just as qualified as a minority. AA does not treat all people fairly and it never has. Although it's orginal intent was to "level the playing field" AA has failed completely. AA should be abolished in favor of a single law that states ALL people be treated equally. In practice, any time there is a white applicant, and a minority applicant for the same job and they both score the same on an interview or entrance exam, EEO policy dictates the minority be given the position. If the employer does not, they get sued. I have have worked for the Federal Government for 20 years and have seen it many times and even experienced it myself. AA has go to go.

[FedEXToo]

David DeSilva Reno NV wrote:

Oh don't get me started on Affirmative Action. I was a union rep for many years and I never once saw a "non-minority" person assisted by AA. In fact, I saw many good "non-minority" employees sacrificed under the farce that is AA so that management could look politically correct because these days, it is PC to sacrifice a white person who is just as qualified as a minority. AA does not treat all people fairly and it never has. Although it's orginal intent was to "level the playing field" AA has failed completely. AA should be abolished in favor of a single law that states ALL people be treated equally. In practice, any time there is a white applicant, and a minority applicant for the same job and they both score the same on an interview or entrance exam, EEO policy dictates the minority be given the position. If the employer does not, they get sued. I have have worked for the Federal Government for 20 years and have seen it many times and even experienced it myself. AA has go to go.

I experienced this same thing as a federal employee. It was such that if you did not promote a non-white, usually an African-American, you had to go explain your rationale to the head of the EEO Division. After having to go thru this once, I got in line and played the game to keep my sanity, but it made me bitter and resentful. The same thing happened with the promotion of women, and there was yet another manager to deal with when you passed on promoting a woman. In some cases, some real duds were promoted to make the program look successful.

[Miguel]

David DeSilva Reno NV wrote:

Oh don't get me started on Affirmative Action. I was a union rep for many years and I never once saw a "non-minority" person assisted by AA. In fact, I saw many good "non-minority" employees sacrificed under the farce that is AA so that management could look politically correct because these days, it is PC to sacrifice a white person who is just as qualified as a minority. AA does not treat all people fairly and it never has. Although it's orginal intent was to "level the playing field" AA has failed completely. AA should be abolished in favor of a single law that states ALL people be treated equally. In practice, any time there is a white applicant, and a minority applicant for the same job and they both score the same on an interview or entrance exam, EEO policy dictates the minority be given the position. If the employer does not, they get sued. I have have worked for the Federal Government for 20 years and have seen it many times and even experienced it myself. AA has go to go.

I agree and that was my point, that MAX is for the government treating all persons equally. That was your point right MAX? Equal treatment?

[Max]

But the playing field is not level. In a system where there is no AA blacks, women, and other minorities get overlooked for positions all the times. There are prejudices and biases all along the way in the interview and testing process. By the way, did you know that affirmative action policies use minority status only as a tie breaker? It's a myth that un-qualified minority applicants get promoted or hired over whites.
So yes, I do want equal treatment, I want affirmative action.

[Miguel]

Max wrote:

But the playing field is not level. In a system where there is no AA blacks, women, and other minorities get overlooked for positions all the times. There are prejudices and biases all along the way in the interview and testing process. By the way, did you know that affirmative action policies use minority status only as a tie breaker? It's a myth that un-qualified minority applicants get promoted or hired over whites. So yes, I do want equal treatment, I want affirmative action.

Max, you are dead wrong. Although I am 50% Hispanic, I always mark caucasion. I have tested for numerous government agencies and have minorities accepted over me. Even though I know my test scores were higher than theirs. Look at the goverment job fliers which say, "Minorities and Females strongly encouraged to apply". Its a bunch of bull sh** Max. Anyways, we have strayed off topic. I was only trying to point out an inconsistency in your belief that Government should treat everyone equal. Get my point.

[Liveitloud]

BUCK wrote:

<quoted text>There is one thing you can do, it is to go straight!

Buck you make that assumption from a skewed thought pattern. You assume that I chose to be gay. How about if I suggested that you turn gay. Could you do it??

[USC1]

Max wrote:

But the playing field is not level. In a system where there is no AA blacks, women, and other minorities get overlooked for positions all the times. There are prejudices and biases all along the way in the interview and testing process. By the way, did you know that affirmative action policies use minority status only as a tie breaker? It's a myth that un-qualified minority applicants get promoted or hired over whites.
So yes, I do want equal treatment, I want affirmative action.

I have a hunch Max wasn't around when affirmative action came into being. It was a point system. An employer hired based on the community make up. 60% black meant that your work force resembled those numbers. Female hiring and promotion also was tagged onto the program. It may of helped for a short time but it has long out lived it's usefulness to the point of creating more polarization.

[Hot Pink]

Liveitloud wrote:

<quoted text>
Buck you make that assumption from a skewed thought pattern. You assume that I chose to be gay. How about if I suggested that you turn gay. Could you do it??

This is disgusting to even think about for a straight male. It's like surrendering your manhood but if you don't possess a strong sense of it to begin with, I suppose poop chute might arrouse you.

[Imprtnrd]

Liveitloud wrote:

<quoted text>
Buck you make that assumption from a skewed thought pattern. You assume that I chose to be gay. How about if I suggested that you turn gay. Could you do it??

He claims to be an "ex gay". Had therapy. But he and whatever else name he goes by at the time, lives in this GLBT forum.

[Pink NOT Brown]

Imprtnrd wrote:

<quoted text>He claims to be an "ex gay". Had therapy. But he and whatever else name he goes by at the time, lives in this GLBT forum.

This is interesting. There are health services available to help restore the male compass of sexual direction, but no treatment to help you switch to gaiety, only to help you believe it to be OK when you have it.

[Rick in Kansas]

Pink NOT Brown wrote:

<quoted text>This is interesting. There are health services available to help restore the male compass of sexual direction, but no treatment to help you switch to gaiety, only to help you believe it to be OK when you have it.

That's only because some zealots still cling to the mistaken belief that sexual orientation can be changed through various forms of therapy. The only valid studies on the subject have proved that this is an extremely rare event (2-3%) with no real proof that such a change is going to be a permanent one. As long as there are people promoting that homosexuality is somehow sick, evil and immoral there will be those among us who buy into that sad notion and become desperate enough to seek such a change, whether it works or not. This is a big money industry with absolutely no concern for the damage they might be doing to the people they claim to be helping. It's the snake-oil of the 21st century, a cure for a disease that does not exsist. The reason that there are no such therapies to "make" people gay is that despite all the belief that it is a choice or a mental illness and all that good nonsense, nobody deep down actually believes you can turn someone gay. The reason that the gay affirmative therapies exsist is because of the same reason that the so-called repairative ones do. There are still people out there promoting the idea that being homosexual is somehow sick, evil and immoral and sometimes even the strongest of people can't help but being hurt by the constant bombardment of that message that causes you to question your very exsistence.

[glen]

Hick in a Kansas trailer wrote:

<quoted text>
That's only because some zealots still cling to the mistaken belief that sexual orientation can be changed through various forms of therapy..

Hick, you know that EVERY peer reviewed scientific study confirms the effectiveness of professional therapy for homosexuals who want to change.

w w w . n a r t h . o r g (remove spaces and see numerous studies!)

You chose to become a dissipated old pervert, alone and despised in a Kansas trailer.

Why not lot other homosexuals choose their own life?

[Vallejo Visitor]

Yes, I just tried it and feel GREAT!

[Rick in Kansas]

glen wrote:

....

What I know "glen" is that we have proved you to be a pathological liar in regards to these so-called studies you keep promoting. Your delusions aside, your false friends at NARTH are little more than anti-gay pseudo scientists preying on those that they claim to help but are doing far more harm than they ever have good. You can repeatyour silly lies all you want, but they'll never be any more true than they aren't already.

[Vallejo Visitor]

Vallejo Visitor wrote:

Yes, I just tried it and feel GREAT!

I see my old doppelganger has returned. The Oakland location for his server is a dead giveaway.

I'm sorry you're so ashamed of your sexual orientation that you feel the need to hide behind another poster's name. You might want to schedule an appointment with Dr. Fill for some guidance. He lives in your neighborhood as well... ;-)

[Vallejo Visitor]

Vallejo will have to fund more to the CVB due to the increase of Vallejo Visitors.

[Vallejo Visitor]

This is the only place I visit in Vallejo and feel safe after dark.

[Miguel]

Vallejo Visitor wrote:

<quoted text>
I see my old doppelganger has returned. The Oakland location for his server is a dead giveaway.
I'm sorry you're so ashamed of your sexual orientation that you feel the need to hide behind another poster's name. You might want to schedule an appointment with Dr. Fill for some guidance. He lives in your neighborhood as well... ;-)

Just wanted to say congratulations on your new appointment. I know you will do a wonderful job.