Respect people's vote
Bigot!! I hope St Peter is gay Yes, Rafael, and some day all of you will get a lesson about the country you live in when you learn that voting on and denying constitutional and civil rights of a specific group of individuals is not only unconstitutional...it is un-American. These marriage bans will, one day, be overturned and the people who supported them will have to explain to their children and grandchildren why they believed in excluding others from the same opportunities they enjoyed. Rafael, have you even read House Bill 1330, rather than taking mass media's word as gospel truth? The bill doesn't even mention same sex relationships, does absolutlely nothing to undermine the vote from last fall, and would benefit a lot of children in the state of Colorado should something happen to their single legal guardian. Maybe it isn't the representatives who need to learn to respect others. I seem to remember that most of the country was also for segregation, slavery, and against suffrage. Sometimes the people need to be reminded that equal rights truly mean equal rights. That being said, House Bill 1330 has nothing to do with declaring homosexuals as married. Rafael and his ilk speak of the people of Colorado who voted to deny equal rights to those they deem unworthy of lawful protection Just another round of Haggard-ism. The good old, faithful, Do as I preach you should do; but don't do as I do. (But if you do, don't get caught!) Seems as if there was a conference in Latvia recently, about Gay civil rights there. One of the typical Protestant crack-brain nut cult preachers went over and passed himself off as an "Accreditied Representative" of the Bush Administration, to meet with Latvian authorities. and pl;ug a totally anti-Gay adgeda. To make the plot thicker, he was received by the U.S. Embassy, who allowed him to meet with Latvian Ministers (Cabinet Secretaries) as if he actually was a U.S. Diplomat. Did it because he said he was sponsored by one of the "Faith Based" operations that Bush and Co. give tax dollars to, to bypass the Constitutional separation of church and state. Read it on Planet Out . com - my machine doesn't do hyperlinks - on the news page. Oh! Well! The Inquisitor and Torturer General got "confessions" from two of the detainees at Gitmo; so that's what really counts anyway. We can pass all the laws we want but we live under a constitution that will not allow discrimination and eventually all these laws fall. Nice to see the homofriendly group again. Seems we meet every time the opposition writes. Don`t we just prowl the postings looking for bigots? When I read the original letter I was fired up to post (one of the few times I actually get fired up), but it looks like you have all done a wonderful job of capturing my thoughts to this most biggoted of letters. Sham on the Rocky for even publishing such garbage. For the the "Christian Conservative" (such an oxymoron, don't you think?) bible quoters out there, how about the golden rule. Due to others as you would have them due to you. Fine, then I suppose you advocate "overthrowing" the tax benefits for married folks, or those with children? After all, you're "denying" or being "bigoted" towards unmarried people and those without children. Well? How is this any different? It isn't. It's legally sanctioned "discrimination" which provides benefits to some and not others. I don't agree with changing our laws to support gay marriage, and it has nothing to do with bigotry or hate. That's an easy copout. What I have a problem with is the attitude that has developed in this country- if I don't like something, I will sue or yell hatred until I get my way. In the case of marriage, it's simply not feasible to to legally recognize every lifestyle as marriage. There has to be a definition, which currently is one man and one woman, and there are going to be unhappy folks about it. Big surprise to the homosexuals- they're NOT the only ones "discriminated" against when it comes to marriage. They just feel that the exception should be made in their case, since they are somehow better or more acceptable. Also, as a last note, there is a BIG difference between rights and benefits. Fiesty, I agree. If we got marriage out of the legal realm (since all issues tangent to it have other legal recourses) and into the religious, it wouldn't be such an issue. So, you do advocate eliminating federal benefits to folks with children? And do you honestly believe that discrimination and restrictions are the same thing in all cases? If not, how do you distinguish when it's a case of true discrimination and when it's necessary restrictions? No... I wouldn't advocate eliminating benifits for people with dependants in the household. Those benefits are in place to help releive the tax burden of rasing family members who can not support themselves. But do you think people have children in order to obtain that benefit? I highly doubt it. Affirmative Action is discrimination. Where's the outrage? Face it, the government does not apply all benefits equally to all people. Marriage is not a fundamental right guaranteed in the constitution. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you are entitled to be married. I'm white, I'm not entitled to any affirmative action benefits. Do I sue and scream and call everyone else a bigot? Keep calling us bigots, let's see how many of us you can persuade to see it your way. If they can trample a bar owners rights and tell him he can't allow his patrons to smoke, they can trample other peoples rights in any other area of your life, gay marriage included. Put a stop to these rights violations altogether or get use to it. Your choice. It's all about getting employer paid health insurance. Everything else you can plan around. So who is entitled to be married... and why? If gays in Colorado don't like the fact that the people voted no on civil unions,I have the following suggestion. There is this huge airport east of Denver called DIA. It has a large number of flight per day going to places all over the country. I suggest all gay people who want civil unions or whatever buy a one way ticket to the states that civil unions or marriges are legal and quit your complaining. You can get married or have a legal civil union just not here in Colorado. The people have spoken. Bye Bye !! So the answer now is segregation? Amen! Bob nailed it. Gay or straight, I can buy real estate with anyone I please, I can grant power of attorney to anyone I please, and I can have anyone I want visit me in the hospital. Of course, the underlying agenda is that you've got a screw loose if you can't embrace someone else's behavior without question. "Equal rights," indeed.... But the question is... if something should happen to you, is the other party protected from the next of kin coming in and overturning everything you had spent time and money setting up? Baloney, John. Valid documents are honored in Colorado, and most elsewhere. The problems people have are when there are no documents. The question to ask is, "What is the state's interest in recognizing marriage at all?" The days of protecting the poor woman who couldn't vote and who couldn't work are over. The only answer is to have a stable environment for raising kids so they don't end up wards of the state. Instead of expanding marriages that states' recognize, restrict the state's recognition of marriage to only households with minor children. And, that would be true whether the parents are gay or straight. Good point Bob. Since we're creating a stable environment for children.. can we eliminate divorce as well? Eliminate the government from marriage altogether and let the churches decide who they think should be allowed to marry. Problem solved. John, YES! Great Bob. I truly enjoy blogging with someone who's open to discussing things through. Thanks! Me too. The fact is MOST young peole think it should be legal. In 20 years time the people against this will be looked back upon in discrace. PRISE GEZUS! Do any of you have children? Do you have problems explaining to them how something like segregation could remain legal just 50 years ago? What do you say? "Well, back then, we didn't think black people were really people, so it wasn't a problem," is about all I can think of to say? I ask because in 20 years, I'm going to have to have an answer to the question, "How come people hated gay people so much?" and I want to have something better to say than, "Well, we just didn't think gay people were people." Anybody have any advice? Grog, 1. While it has to do with hate for some, it's not true for all. Fiesty says, "Sexual activity is a choice." Really? What do you have to back that up? I'm sure you wouldn't just say something like that without having a valid source to cite, right? I'm sure when you were young, you had a long deliberation and decided that you were going to get boners when you look at chicks, just like I decided when I was 2 that I was going to only grow blonde hair. The real question is were you born homophobic, or did you choose to be scared of gays later on? Maybe you can't help it. Maybe your brain is missing the empathy part, and you're the victim. Or maybe, you find yourself looking a little too long in the shower at the gym, and talk tough to compensate. "Contrary to claims, [homophobia] is a choice, and [homosexuality] (for example) is not. The real question grog is what do YOU have to back up that gays are born that way? You can say the "psychologists and psychiatrists have determined" blather but aren't these the same docs who previously claimed it was a psychological issue? And if we accept that ones sexual orientation is ingrained then wouldn't it then be true of all sexual desires? Hence, gay or plural relationships are not of choice but a requirement preordained by nature. Wouldn't any other sexual desire also be attributed to being born that way whether it's rape, incest, child molesting or any one of a hundred different sexual desires? And if they're all born that way then wouldn't it be true that they have no control over this and are not responsible for their actions? You said it isn't their choice, right? KW, The doctors used to use "bleeding" and "purging" to "balance the humors", instead of anti-biotics to clear up infections. Shall we now go back to this, rather than accept penecillin? Same "reasons" for your position concerning rejecting current positions of psychology/psychiatry. Louis Pasteur raised a lot of "medical issues" when he advocated "anti-septic" surgery, etc., etc. But of course, we should not expect today's doctors to have changed from the old ways. Now should we? You, and all the others, who just lump any and all 'sex" into the same unstudied, and negatibvely prejudiced, category won't change, of course. After all, it would take some time - and perhaps even some effort - to learn how to distinguish; and time and effort are like "work", bad words. Those who don't want to learn, won't. Grog, to engage in sexual activity is a choice, and whether or not sexual orientation is is debatable. Distinguish between the two. Btw, an observation on the whole "choice" or "birth" argument. Just because someone is born with an inclination doesn't excuse acting on it. Ever heard of the double Y problem? It's men born with an extra Y chromosome, which results in unusual agression and tendancy towards violence. Should the fact they were born with this tendancy excuse any acts they commit? Of course not. We all have impulses (whether good or bad) and we decide whether or not to act on them. Once again, just because I don't agree with you has nothing to do with homophobia. To argue that is a copout. My two best friends from high school, Mike and Jason, came out of the closet. While I do not agree with their choice, I agree with their right to do it. That said, it doesn't mean that I should condone or agree that they deserve special benefits or exceptions due to their choice of sexual activity. Marriage benefits is not a right. Benefits, in whatever arena, are by definition going to have criteria. Once again I ask- why are homosexuals any more deserving than some other groups currently banned from the marriage definition? I think any reason you try to give will involve specious logic intended to allow benefits to a group you agree with, but disallow those you don't. The primary reason for marriage is to let the members of a society know who has sexual access to whom. The couple and their extended family raise the children. Often the husbands male relatives teach his boys and the girls learn from moms sisters. Since couple often parted, this method insured that children learned to be a productive member of the group even if parents died. Over time wealth was handed down to children and the churches and states got into the marriage business. Some men married all the girls in a family, some had multiple wives. The function and form of marriage changes slowly but surely over time. Today many people have marriage-lite. They don`t marry because they would loose pensions or SSI. While gays want to get married, heteros are opting out dispite the monatary and legal benefits. Go back 40 years and imagine a vote on same sex unions or marriage. When a group of people push for equal, not special, rights they always prevail over time. Homofriendlyness can be taught to children. I did it, my kids did it and their friends and relatives also did it. Sharon B. Grouch - Why are you using medical facts to argue about psychiatric opinion? Can you differentiate between the two? Sharon- so you advocate "equal rights" for ALL who want their lifestyle recognized as marriage? As a side note. We have many proponents for gay marriage on this blog calling those who disagree with them bigots. They argue about equal rights, hate, and discrimination. However, I wonder how many are hypocrites since I'm willing to bet $$$ that their self-proclaimed tolerance, love, and support for equal rights doesn't extend to other alternative marriage lifestyles that they find objectionable. I also note that my question remains unanswered. [What makes homosexuals any more deserving or acceptable than other currently banned individuals and groups.] KW, Psychiatry is a specialty in the medical profession, as is surgery, internal medicine, etc., etc. One learns the basics of medicine first. Psychology is closely allied to medicine, most schools of human psychology being either adjuncts to medical schools, or cross staffed. Again, the "issues" you seem to think of as either somehow "unchangeable according to prior practice", or - at least seemingly, from the way you write - "unimportant if practice changes" - are evidence of the difference learning makes in propounding "absolutes". Well, let's try to answer fiesty's question: What makes homosexuals any more deserving or acceptable than other currently banned individuals and groups? In other words, why can't people marry children or blood relatives or their pets or their houseplants--or even more than one person? Is that your silly, demeaning (probably more to you than to anyone else) question, fiesty? Restricting marriage to couples is reasonable because each of us, as individuals, can only honestly pledge our lives in the manner marriage calls for to one other individual. Children, animals, and plants cannot legally "consent" (although it wasn't too many decades ago that in some states a 12-year-old girl could get married.) Marrying a relative is at best redundant because you're already related. Hansie - Please quit trying to cram your morals down our throats. You need to be more tolerent of those who want plural marriage. Who are you to say people can only pledge to one person. Who are you to speak for all of America. Anything goes in a socialist, progressive America, remember? To answer Fiesty's question, gays are no more deserving than any other banned group. Fiesty, can you answer my question? What is the state's interest in recognizing marriage between anyone when there are no minor children involved? And as color, I believe that we have too many laws and too many restrictions on behavior. I think the state should be required to articulate a compelling state interest before passing laws. KW- uh oh, we are agreeing again. :-) People like Hans don't get it. They don't realize that everyone has different moral definitions of what's acceptable. (and in this case, religous as well) For example, most may agree bestiality is "gross" (i.e. not acceptable), but who's to say that gay marriage is any more acceptable than plural marriage? I saw a survey that found more people find polgamy less "gross" than gay marriage. Nor do people like Hans want to accept the consequences for what they are advocating for- equal rights for ALL, not just those they agree with. "What is the state's interest in recognizing marriage between anyone when there are no minor children involved?" None whatsoever. If you use this rationale (I don't), anyone incapable of having children, or whose children are adults, etc, shouldn't be recognized as married. However, even using children as the definition, it becomes a blurred line. Stop it fiesty. No more agreeing with eachother and thats final!!! feisty, the only thing I advocated in my post is teaching homofriendly attitudes. I said that groups seeking equal rights always prevail over time. That is fact, not opinion. The key is equal rights. If people want polygamy , and they are adults, why should anyone care? How about polyandry? Group or communal marriage? I decided not to trademark "homofriendly" so plese feel free to use it, anyone. sharon, in that case I agree. the world would be a lot better place if folks were more tolerant. Oh, that also extends to homosexuals too- for them to understand and truly ACCEPT that not everyone believes their lifestyle is morally acceptable... rather than continually trying to force acceptance and approval. Well "fiesty" having arrived at "accepting" your premise, are they then supposed to also "accept" the idea that BECAUSE others "believe" that their lifestyle is "morally unacceptable", that also entitles those others to refuse them equal civil rights? I guess that would also apply then to the blacks, who insisted that sitting on the back of the bus was discriminatory. Wouldn't it? Shouldn't Rosa Parks have ACCEPTED the fact that since "not everyone believes" that blacks are fully human beings, she should have gone to the back of the bus? Always the "moral" out, when it comes to anything that might give those "others" EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS BEFORE THE LAW! what an awful world it is when one group of loving , consenting adults must ask permission from another group to get married. And what a terrible power that puts in the hand of those other people. Maybe we should take away that power . Old Grouch- First, you misunderstood me. I didn't say we should outlaw homosexuality, and that homosexuals should accept that. I was talking about tolerance, and how it's a two way street. Just as non-homosexuals should respect the right of homosexuals to pursue their version of happiness, homosexuals need to respect the fact that some non-homosexuals don't agree with their lifestyle choice. Get it now? Second, marriage is NOT a right, and it is already discriminatory towards more groups than just homosexuals. Don't see anyone advocating equal rights for polygamists, do you? If you are going to argue equal "rights" for all, then apply it fairly. Don't just "allow" it for groups that you think are "acceptable". Third, I don't think marriage belongs in the legal arena at all. We should leave it for the churches. Then simply make sure you have a will, medical power of attorney, and possibly a general/financial power of attorney. (And don't tell me it's a hassle or costs too much- if you have money for a wedding, you have money for a lawyer who can do it in two hours.) Sharon B- Does that attitude apply towards polygamists and non-reproducing sister/brother pairs? In other words, groups you might find repugnant? To me, a critical question is whether it is reasonable to expect all homosexuals to be celibate. If not, then surely it is better for them to practice sex in a committed relationship than to encourage promiscuity by discouraging committed relationships. The Catholic Church teaches that only a person who receives a special grace can be expected to be celibate, although it doesn't apply that teaching to homosexuals. Candidates for the priesthood are examined closely to see if the Church thinks that have that special grace. If they do not, they are rejected, regardless of how well suited they might otherwise be because they cannot be expected to succeed at celibacy. But the Church demands that all homosexuals be celibate without regard to whether or not they have a special grace. Some will say that the answer is to permit legal unions for homosexuals but not marriage. That may be as far as we can go. Others want to deny even legal unions to homosexuals. I think that position is embedded in hate and is about as Christian as burning people at the stake. I was raised in the panhandle of Texas, in an atmosphere quite intolerant of homosexuals. I am uncomfortable with the gay lifestyle. When I see men kissing, I am quite "turned off". But I consider that to be a result of my upbringing and not the result of a message from God. I also can have difficulty with, for example, a person whose physical handicap causes him to look and act in a very unattractive manner. That is my shortcoming, not his. fiesty, I didn't think I said anything about "outlawing" - although not a few of the Dobsonite/Haggardite/etc., cultists seem to be pushing that idea again, too. As for the rest, you are correct in saying that tolerance is a two way street. And I think you will find that the majority will agree with you that it is necessary to tolerate the other side; and that there will always be "another side" as well. My own question was directed to the effects of "accepting" the intransigience of any "one side", when that "one side" goes on to advocate some kind of "repression", BECAUSE of that tolerance. I would have to disagree about marriage being not a "right". If it be not such, how then is a civil definition, written into a State Constitution - and trying to get written into the U.S. Constitution as well - how is this then a "right" when it deprives a significant portion of the population of "equal protection(s) under the law"? And, the only answer that comes up to that falls into the good old "tryanny of the majority" excuse, however it be couched in terms of "moral", or "religious", foundation. The history of marriage/union shows that it was, for over a millenium, in the hands of the church. (I have cited sources before, and then been plagued for days with out of context quotations from the Hebrew mythology book, along with assertions concerning my own total lack of "moral character", from the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ nut-cult fringe; so I'll simply say that good, scholarly, historical works are there. if one wants to find them.) When the Protestant Revolution fragmented the Western Church, marriage, along with many other things that were previously matters of church control, became part of the civil (State) government's responsibility; and this has carried over for centuries, including our Nation's civil government as well. And, it is just those matters of CIVIL LEGAL questions you cite that are really at issue. Since the whole of "marriage/union(s)" does now belong - rightly or wrongly - to the "legal arena", it is in that arena that these basics are being challenged by those who insist that their relgious and "moral" (churchly) points of view should displace the Constitutional premise of equal rights before the law. This is an "end run" around the 1st Amendment, concerning separation of church and state, as well as an outright insertion of a religious superstition into the civil legal system. And, as those who have managed to get this done have shown repeatedly, it is only the tip of the iceberg. ALL THE LEGAL OPTIONS you mention can be - and have been - overturned, and done away with, when the "anti" fanatics appear on the scene. Even when parents, siblings, or other immediate family members are not themselves "anti"; and have supported the pair in their union. After all, the shyster trade exists only to make as much trouble as possible, and keep trouble stirred up as long as possible, while taking its cut from both (or all) sides of any trouble there is. polygomist should not have to ask others to ok their marriages. If children are not involved in these , sometimes forced unions, then why should anyone else even care? As for people marring relatives, well cilvililzation has been there, done that and survived. The Maya and the Egyptians as well as some European royal families maried first cousins on a regular basis. And also married brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters. Anything to keep the rulilng class safe from outsiders. Humans invented marriage to solve social problems and only now are we loosing interest in who others marry. None of this is personal opinion, it is historical fact. Still seems wrong to give one group of people power over who marries. Power is always misused. Especially when that power is seen as coming from God and is reinforced by law. To paraphrase and old expression, "let all adults marry whom they want and let God sort it out." Now for a laugh. I bought a bamboo plant that was damaged, it had a bamboo-boo. It died and I was sad, bamboo-hoo. Returned it for replacement, said I was bamboozled. New plant llved, spirit of jealous deceased plant came to haunt me, bamboooo! The purpose of the constitution was not to establish personal preferences rights but, rather to guarantee the right to have personal preferences Rafael. And as for voting, what about those who voted against a smoking ban, not once but twice, in various cities across Colorado. Does that meet your criterion for jusification and demand for implementation. If so, why were you not upset that the legislature ignored the vote of the people and enacted a law that was directly opposed by the vote of the people they represent. They did not so much as allow their constituents one day to voice their opininos on such action. In great haste and in a very short time, They rewrote the original bill, which exempted bars and taverns, removing those exemptions but allowing the exemptions to cigar bars, casinos, 25% of hotel rooms and the lounge at DIA. Now they are adding insult to injury by removing those exemptions one by one until there is now one exemption, DIA, left. I expect they will get to that one shortly. Does anybody see this law for what it really is? A wrong headed law, incedibly badly written, vague and confusing in it's legislative intent, without defined enforcement policy, based on unfounded, false and fraudulent evidence and the laughable and now proven hypocritical health reasons, which is proven by the exemptions, and finally which serves only one purpose. Allowing the giant Roberts Wood Johnson Foundation, which has funded smoking ban advocates to the tune of over $400,000,000, many of which were given to state health departments, to selfservingly grant a mercantile advantage to large pharmeceutical companies, like Johnson and Johnson, who produce the very lucrative no smoke nicotine delivery devices, patches pills, gums, and stop smoking tapes and programs. In other words, once again, our elected representatives have allowed themselves to be used by private interest through enacting laws to their mercantile advantage at the expence of legilative resposibility to the people. How much longer are we going to allow our government to hold the money and donations from private interests in higher regard than the people they represent. Oh, by the way, we are in the process of organizing a law suit that will conclusively prove that the claims of tobacco advocates that second hand smoke is a workplace health risk are patently false and that those who have expressly propagadized this belief and excepted funding from the special interest groups to do so, are guilty of a wide spread conspiracy of lies and defamation of character of pro smokers as dangerous malcontents. The ACS has already been proven to have done this in Ohio and Washigton state and is facing legal action as a result. By the way, the American Cancer Society has recieved hugh amounts of money from Robert Woods Johson Foundation who also owns, it should come as no surprise to you, $3.7billion dollars worth of stock in Johnson and Johnson pharmaceuticals, to pull out all the stops to insure the passage of smoking bans. Are you getting the picture. You might want to ask your representatives if any of that money found it's way into their pockets. We have tried to tell the legislature to hold hearings to see if the claims of tobacco control are valid but, they don't seem think finding out if their reason for passing the law in the first place, public health, is justified. Well, we are sorry that the taxpaying public will have to bare the financial burden caused by this legislative hard headed nonrespondsiveness but, maybe that's not the real reason for their reticence, maybe it's the fear of discovery that is at work here.
and full constitutional freedoms. Such a mindset is nothing more than spiteful, self-righteous, and mean-spirited. These are the people who, back in 1992, thought that by passing Amendment 2, all homosexuals in our state and their "agenda" would magically vanish, and that Colorado would become totally fundamentalist Christian with no trace of immorality. There is no end to the hate when it comes to attempts to legislate morality, because these are the people who can't mind their own business. Whatever the ramifications of HB 1330, anybody who opposes the rights of others will someday be judged by a higher authority. They define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, despite the fact that over fifty percent of marriages are doomed to failure. Could gay people do any worse?
So are you saying that marriage is a benefit that is given only to certain people? If that's the case, then why don't we just remove marriage as a federal benefit and allow churches to administer that benefit? That way we could abolish this argument once and for all.
In my book, when you restrict certain people from making decisions about their OWN life, that IS discrimination.
Many people make the argument that the gay community wants marriage becasue they want the benefits. That simply isn't true. Referndum I provided no tax benefits whatsoever, it was basically a registry in the State of Colorado where same sex relationships would be recognized by the state and would open the door to some benefits as being recognized as such.
I believe it is discrimination when you are restricting a certain segment of the population from making a decision in their own lives that does not infringe or restrict the rights of other people. Of course, everything is on a case by case basis, it would be stupid to make a blanket response for everything.
But I just don't get the opposition to recognize same sex relationships when being gay has absolutley no bearing on whether a committed relationship is worthy of being recognized by the government.
Also, does Affimative Action deny you the opportunity to apply for a job or college enrollment? I'm not saying I'm for it or against it... that's beside the point. But explain how it takes a choice out of your hands and restricts you from doing something?
The same can be said for the smoking ban. Does the ban restrict you from smoking all together? You are still allowed that choice to smoke, and you are allowed all of the same benifits of restaurants and bars - you haven't been banned from those places, you just can't smoke.
Also, neither of these issues have been made into a Constitutional amendment. They are strictly laws (if affirmative action is even that) which can be changed an amended with rather ease.
Oh, and by the way... when did I say that I was gay? Do I have to be gay to support the idea of same sex couples having their relationships recognized?
It's amazing, so many people are willing to give their opinion on this subject, but no one has yet to explay why they feel the way they do. But they sure do know how to tell gays what to do and where to go.
In many cases, the partner in a same sex relationship is not afforded this protection. Next of kin have been successful at baring hospital visitation, over turning wills and power of attorney and taking away property.
It's a sad reality, but it's reality none the less.
2. I think there's a pretty big difference between what people ARE and what people DO. Contrary to claims, sexual activity is a choice, and gender (for example) is not.
3. Doesn't your argument apply to other minorities currently "discriminated" against?
4. Isn't there a big difference between basic rights and denigration, and benefits?