I think everyone should treated as equals, and not label people love is love.
I for one am gay and all my friends and family totally except it and don't treat me any differently (besides my dad and older brother making lesbian jokes every ten minutes)

You can love and have sex with who ever you want, don't believe it will destroy the world or ruin other peoples lives, especially if some stranger comes and says "you can't have sex with a another man, because it's a sin and your going to hell." That's just idiotic. Peace and love to you all.

I don't think anyone should be treated differently. I think everyone should be treated the same no matter what their sexuality is. Why does your friend think you and other gays/bisexuals should be treated differently and in what way?

MoblinGardens : He (wouldn't exactly call him my friend anymore) believes that since gays/bi's have different sexual preference, they shouldn't be allowed to vote, express their love in public or even get married because he says that when we allow that stuff to happen, than anarchy will start, and everything will fall out of balance. Of course, I think it's stupid. It's just the same as a normal couple getting married, nothing wrong with that.

Something about Bisexual erasure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual_erasure

Here is something also about the Kinsey Scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

Well...i really think Bisexuality shouldnt be considered as Homosexuality. If you love both genders...then it should be in between. But anyone should be treated as human beings. There shouldnt be a difference.

Equal people should get equal treatment within a domain. Unequal people should get unequal treatment within a domain. Hetero/bi/homosexuality doesn't determine if one can be a good employee or how fast you can run or you have more contiguous diseases. In most areas, sexual preference should be treated equally. However, people should not be treated equally in aspects concerning the difference. If my business had a job opening, I would probably not give it to the convicted criminal; the criminal is not equal to the other applicants. Similarly, if I was in charge of an adoption agency, I would probably not give a child to homosexuals because having both the father figure and mother figure is better, not equal, with having only father figures or only mother figures.

Absolutely not. 

Anyone who treats bisexuality as homosexuality is 100% incorrect. Look, if you honestly think that they're the same thing then you're a moron. Simple as that.

1. Bisexuality - The state of being attracted to both male and female genders

2. Homosexuality - The state of being attracted to one's own gender.

Now in terms of how you should TREAT people well that's a whole nother issue. People are people. That's it. That's literally all there is to the argument. People deserve the exact same rights regardless of sexual preference. The fact that this is still a f*ckin issue is completely ridiculous. Out of ALL the problems in the world, we decide to focus on this. Because for some reason so many (not all mind you) heterosexual people are incredibly concerned with their religion being infringed upon.

Do you really think that gay people are against christianity? Do you HONESTLY think that a group of people who want NOTHING more than to be treated equally are attempting to topple a religion that some of them appreciate and agree with? C'mon. Just LISTEN to yourself and you'll realize how ridiculous you are. 

The reason people treat different ideals that they disagree with (well the only reason that makes sense to me anyways) so negatively is because they don't want to be categorized with what they disagree with. Yeah, people are different so people shouldn't be treated the same, they should be treated differently but not in a bad way. Another thing: yeah people shouldn't treat different ideals negatively but people who react negatively in response aren't much better.

who cares what they are. They are the same as you and me. Nothing is more special than each other.

NVTaks :

Straights and gays and bis are all separate, but equal, right? Separate but equal? Nope. I'll treat them all as people because they're equally people, but the gay guy is not the same as the straight guy. It's illogical to treat two different things the same way.

Lets take it in the opposite direction. Lets say there is average joe and President Obama. Obama is president and is not equal to average joe. Obama needs to be treated unequally, with more importance, due to his position as President of the United States. However, if Obama steals from your home, Obama's position does not exempt him from the law. He is a person, and is equally under the law.

So, to bring it back to homosexuality, the gay guy and the straight guy are both equally people, but they are not equal in all aspects. In those aspects where the homosexual and heterosexual are different, the logical decision is to treat them according to their difference where it applies.

Regardless of your own personal values and morals, people of different ethnicity, religions and sexual preference should all be treated equally. (Referring back to the first post in this thread) it doesn't matter if you Bisexual or homosexual you should be treated equally as a fellow human being. Just because you don't agree with someones life style or sexual preference doesn't mean they should be treated lesser than someone of heterosexual preference.

(Sorry if I offended any user sensitive to labels such as homosexual or bisexual, I don't mean to offend I just wanted to use correct terminology)

Bisexuality is it's own thing,means you like both as bi implies.Homo means same.& people should be judged on their  actions,not sexuality,race,culture,& so on.

Txgangsta :
"because having both the father figure and mother figure is better"
And your evidence for this is...What exactly?

Txgangsta :

Normally I'd compliment you for a well thought out post and then proceed to dismantle your argument piece by piece, but I think I'm gonna skip the compliment part this time.

Because your argument made NO sense whatsoever. Not even a bit.

First of all "separate but equal?" Really? Do you live in some sort of cocaine induced fantasy world where all the gays live in Homoland and act like 10 year old girls with annoying lisps? Because whatever the heck you're talking about, it's sure as hell ain't reality. People aren't "separate" from each other they're DIFFERENT from each other. 

By your logic I should treat all black people differently. Why? Well they're different aren't they, therefore they don't deserve to be treated like white people because of a difference in themselves that they have absolutely no control over.

The fact that you would stoop so low as to blatantly say that not all people are created equal is disgusting. Some people are richer than others, some have more power, but they are all people. Equal in moral worth. Seriously dude, have you ever even read the Declaration of Independence? Remember that big bolded section that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN (and women) ARE CREATED EQUAL." Welcome to America.

Your argument also contradicts itself. You argue that Obama and an average joe are equal and therefore are treated the same under the law, but when you use this same formula to compare two average joes (one of which is gay) suddenly the situation takes a 180 and everything's different. 

You want to know what makes a gay man and a straight man different? Who they're attracted to. Not their intellect, social status, or ability to succeed. And to think that for any reason that attraction should in any way inhibit a man from enjoying all his GOD-GIVEN rights is sickening.

Now since this thread isn't about gay rights so much as it is about defining the difference between bisexuality and homosexuality I'll stop my tirade here. But if you honestly think you can even REACH my level of knowledge on this topic I suggest you think things through a little bit more thoroughly before saying anything so directly rude again.

thenumberone :

It's psychologically natural. Let me first give my unlisted concessions: some homosexual families are certainly better than some heterosexual families. If a kid was being abused, I'd soooo rather him be with two girls or two guys and escape the abuse. However, an all-male authority or all-female authority is not the best possible world for child rearing. Both women and men are useful in child psychology. To devoid a child of one gender affects their development. Homosexual couples are many times better than heterosexual couples, but having male authority and female authority as parents is beneficial to the child.

NVTalks :

I'm glad you're so open minded and rational. Calm, civil discussion such as yours is the mark of true wisdom.

...

First, I live in the Montrose area of Houston. All of my friends that do not go to my school are gay guys. My last two roommates were gay, and my recently deceased boss was gay. I'm not some sort of homo-basher. None of these guys are offended by my argument, and I think you're reading it wrong.

I don't mean that we should treat black people different from whites because their skin is different. Both are people. Both should be treated as people. Their skin color is different, and so things related to skin should be looked at accordingly. Lets say a whole bunch of people crash on an island - like Lost - and I need to ration out sunscreen. The whiteys are going to burn much worse than the blackies. The whiteys should get more sunscreen. It's not that blacks are "less than whites" and get less sunscreen because of their skin color, but, very simply, they're not going to burn as bad, if at all. Therefore, I would treat them differently because of their skin color. It doesn't mean I would treat them like sub-humans; all people should be treated as people. If I were distributing food on the same island with the same people, the smaller people would get slightly less than the bigger people. I no longer consider skin color, but I'm only concerned with how much food does this specific person need vs the amount of food I have to disperse.?

Second, the American constitution is a piece of paper I find outdated and abused. It holds nearly no merit in my eyes. It was amazing for its time, but needs to be completely re-written, not simply amended. Nevertheless, it is useful to prove where I think you misread. When it says "All men are created equal", it is addressing people in their people-ness. It means that kings are no better than slaves because both are people. This isn't something my argument disagrees with. Kings and slaves would get food based on need on the island. The fact that one guy is a king means nothing to how much food he gets; the king doesn't get to feast while others starve.

Let me change my hypothetical from the Lost island to medieval Europe so I can talk about the difference between King and non-king. Some guy has stolen tools from a farmer. He's proven guilty in court (the king is judge) and the King says the guy gets 2 months in jail and must give the tools back. Ok, done, all fine and dandy. If instead the thief is not brought to court and the victimized farmer ties the man up, throws him in his basement for 2 months, and takes his tools back, the farmer has kidnapped the thief and is unjust. What's the difference between King and the farmer? Political authority. The king can justly order a guilty man be thrown into jail. The farmer does not have that authority. The king is not super-human, he's just a man with authority; the farmer is not sub-human, he's just a man without authority.

So, let's bring this back to homosexuality. Should the gay guy and straight guy be treated the same? Yes, in so far that they are the same. In points where they are different, they shouldn't be treated the same precisely because they are different. The same thing works for men and women: should they be treated the same? Yes, in so far that they are the same. On points where they are different, we should treat them different. I'm not going to make a woman pee on a tree because that's what I would tell a guy to do.

Edit: my 2nd summons always fails...

Txgangsta : Thank you for the providing some additional clarity. I apologize for the rude tone I took in my last post and I had no intentions to offend, I just found myself swept up in the argument.?

In response to your new post I'd say I mostly agree, but I'm curious about one particular thing. You use a lot of analogies to prove your points, and while they do make sense, I'm struggling to see the connection.

For example in the first point you made about sunscreen. I actually think you've got that a bit backwards. I'm pretty sure that excess Melanin in their skin makes black people more vulnerable to UV rays. So you may want to rethink your sunscreen distribution policies. But in all seriousness, I get the point. You should spread around the sunscreen strategically so everyone can be protected. Got it.

Second point about the King. Again, I understand. Political authority gives him increased privilege and allows him to function outside of the law. Making his actions seem less criminal than those of an everyday farmer.

But again I find myself confused because homosexuality is not a physical, economic, or political condition. So here's my question. If you had one gay man and one straight man, how would you treat them differently and why? And you can't use comparisons in your answer.

NVTaks :

If there were just one straight man and one gay man, I wouldn't treat them any differently. Sexual preference has no impact upon my treatment of them. The only point where I may appear to be a bigot is in the case of adoption. If a husband and wife want to adopt and the two gay guys/girls want to adopt, I'd give the child to the straight couple first because of my beliefs on child psychology. However, If I had way too many children I needed to find homes for, I know it is better for a child to have a family rather than no family at all, the gay couples would also get children.

Also, that is the only example I can think of where sexual preferences plays a part of rational treatment without using morality. I'm a Christian and would want to promote Christian morality, but takes many, many more steps to achieve than what I'm trying to communicate now.

Again, if there were only the homosexual man and the straight man, there is no reason to treat one less than the other.

Txgangsta :
Heres the thing.
People don't oppose single parents having a child, people may think they will struggle, or they are too young to be responsible, but otherwise, they are regarded well, for having the strength to raise one alone.
People don't oppose a kid being raised by two brothers, or two sisters either.
But the point that the two guys, or two girls are a couple, people decide that its not appropriate. However, how is this different to two guys or two girls that don't have a relationship, raising them?
There are plenty of kids out there raised by gays, and you wouldn't know it unless they said. Despite what people say, you really don't think much about your parents as a couple when you're young.
And in your scenario of a straight couple and a gay couple wanting to adopt the same kid, there is one fundamental flaw.
There are far more orphans than adopters. If you asked a kid with no family, do you want to stay in the orphanage or live with two people of the same gender, I think you'd find almost all took the gay couple. The fact gay couples cant have kids is brilliant in regards to the number of kids with no one to care for them, it gives them the opportunity to be loved, and the couple the chance to have a family. The kids wouldn't care they were gay, because bias isn't something you are born with, its something you are taught.

According to sos-usa.org:

There are over 120,000 orphans in America, while another 400,000 children live without permanent families (HHS; AFCARS).
It is common for children in foster care to age out, leaving them with little financial or emotional support. 27,000 children age out of the system every year (AFCARS).
Almost 25% of youth aging out did not have a high school diploma or GED (University of Chicago).

More than 500,000 kids have no family. And 27,000 reach the leaving age (18 I assume), without ever having had a family. They now have to make their own home, find their own work, try to start a family when they have no idea of what a family is.


Every year around 120,000 children are adopted in the USA. This figure includes children adopted from other country's, like china. Around 25% according to this site:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/adoption-statistics/
The same site indicates single parents have been allowed to adopt.
Another interesting figure is that 1% of kids run away. It may seem small, but it indicates that at least some kids hate living in care.

Heres an interesting look at what happens to kids placed in foster care that age out in California:
http://www.childrenunitingnations.org/who-we-are/foster-care-statistics/%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank
65% have no place to live.
Less than 3% go to college.
51% (over half) have no job.
And heres a very interesting statistic:
"in any given year, foster children compromise less than 0.3% of the state's population, and yet 40% of persons living in homeless shelters are former foster children. A similarly disproportionate percentage of the nation's prison population is comprised of former foster youth."


Just concerning legally married, there are 92,000 same sex couples. Including civil unions, and unjoined couples, that number would undoubtedly be much higher. And due to biology, they are far more likely to want to adopt than a hetro couple.
As seen through the statistics, many kids are never adopted, and they are then more likely to become homeless, remain unemployed, and have a lesser education.
Would you say they would be worse off if a hetro couple adopted them?
You're argument was on a choice basis, does the kid go to a straight or gay couple.
But many go to neither.

wikipedia:
"As of 2012, approximately two million children in the United States were being raised by LGBT parents and unable to establish a legal relationship with both their LGBT parents.[3] According to the Williams Institute, as of 2009 "an estimated 20,000 same-sex couples are raising nearly 30,000 adopted children".

On the matter of gays being good parents:
"A consensus has developed among the medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents.[5] The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.[6] Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, the Third District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."

It also states a 2007 poll on gay adoption showed 57% of respondents thought they should be allowed to adopt.
The link if you want it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States