ENDA passes House

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Well naturally (haha I'm so witty) that depends on your philosophy on Nature Vs. Nurture.

I happen to believe that humans are products of their own choices and how they've used their freedom to choose. People who say they 'can't help' something I tend to view as weak willed. But I also understand that this is not a wildly popular view. It's just what I believe. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="77656"]Well, to answer that Allamorph, ones personality is developed around parents, and friends who sometimes share those personality attributes that you have. Personality is inherited, but certain traits get influenced either slowly or faster than other traits depending on the environment.

[QUOTE]I happen to believe that humans are products of their own choices and how they've used their freedom to choose. People who say they 'can't help' something I tend to view as weak willed. But I also understand that this is not a wildly popular view. It's just what I believe. [/QUOTE]

Now I also agree with this. So I teeter on each side of the debate. I never really make up my mind completely.
[/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Aceburner']Here's a thought: why would they want to work somewhere where they will be looked down upon anyway?[/QUOTE]Here's a thought, why should they have to look elsewhere for a job because someone would be so narrow minded as to care about what their sexual orientation is?

This kind of discrimination is a problem here in Utah. It doesn't get put out into the public eye very often since people like to pretend it doesn't happen, but many if not all of my friends who are homosexual know that talking about it or even letting it be known at work is a big mistake that could get you fired.

This is but one example that I could find an article on it that happened here in the last decade: [URL="http://www.tolerance.org/teach/current/event.jsp?cid=392"][U]Article[/U][/URL] This kind of harassment is unacceptable in my opinion and just shows that this type of legislation is long overdue.

[James]

[color=#606060]I'm not saying people are born gay (I think sexuality is probably formed during puberty), but to say it's a choice is asenine. Nobody can consciously choose instincts - they are, by nature, instinctive and not reasoned thought. One must be able to differentiate between the two.

English is something you learn, it is not instinctive. But the desire to have sex is not a learned behaviour - it is instinctive and part of your genetic make-up. As I said before, you can not "choose" who to love or who to find attractive...nor can you learn it.

By that logic I could "teach" you how to find George Bush physically attractive, lol. It just doesn't make sense. It's a line of logic that leads to a completely ridiculous conclusion, if followed to that degree.

Anyway, as I said, let's try to keep the weirder/unrelated stuff to one side and focus on the discussion about legislation - perhaps that can be expanded to include other civil rights matters, I don't know.

I just know that if we were talking about space travel and the thread degenerated into a ridiculous discussion about whether or not we actually landed on the moon...it would be a waste of a thread.

The experience I have in this area is different from many of you just by virtue of the fact that I'm not American. There's certainly still some discrimination here and there in Australia...but as I said earlier, actual workplace laws relating to this were formed long ago - including anti-discrimination law on the basis of sexuality or gender.

I think the bigger issue in Australia is achieving equal rights in other areas, including everything from superannuation to Medicare. Those areas are probably due to be rectified in a fairly short period of time, I think it's just disappointing that it's even still something that needs to be fixed.[/color]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Aceburner']The most influential homophobe I know of right now is Fred Phelps. And that's because of his message of hate, not position of leadership. From my understanding, homosexual employment is pretty easy to come by, but maybe that's coming from a liberal state. I can't really speak for the rest of the country. All I know is that I myself have heard of no such problem. Besides, I could swear the Constitution already covered this. Something about "all men are created equal."
[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Like James already said, I think this just shows that some people are just unaware of the fact that gays face in the US. I do think because you live in a liberal state (where exactly?), you don't realize the importance of having a federal law that would ban employee discrimination against gays throughout the country.

Questioning ENDA's viability is like questioning why we even had to make a law banning employee discrimination against blacks, or women, or whatever. It was just needed.

Also, "all men are created equal" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]
...but since anti-discrimination laws are already in effect on a national level, ENDA is completely and utterly pointless.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Actually, there isn't any against gay people. That's why ENDA isn't pointless. [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]It is ILLEGAL to ask a potential employee their sexual orientation, and those that make it obvious, or even answer questions that could inform the employer of their orientation are just unaware of this fact. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] No, it's not illegal in many states. It's perfectly fine in many states to ask a potential employee if he's gay or not.[/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]In the same vein, it's illegal to discriminate against hiring females, people of a certain religion, or those in a certain age group. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Yeah, but none of those federal anti-discrimination laws include gays. [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Oh yes. Legislate away, but employers are still going to find some excuse to not hire people they don't want to hire. And as far as gay president? ......No. And why would Bush veto such a bill? Aside from the fact that it would destroy any standing he'd have with his political base, there would be more than just a few Americans that would loathe this move.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Legislation isn't a bunch of useless words; do you think major changes would've occurred if civil rights legislation wasn't introduced? What were we going to do, sit around and wait for society to all agree black people were the same as white people? Duh, a lot of employers will still go against the law, but it still brings about gradual, even if slow, change. Should this impede the front to make anti-discrimination against gays laws? (If anyone thinks 'yes', the biggest problem with US politics isn't its bipartisan nature, or PACs, or interest groups, or whatever, it's politically apathetic people who stubbornly say "I don't care" and then ***** about things later. And no, this isn't directed at you, Neuvoxraiha.)

And seriously, I don't care if Bush is a politician, it's still a dick move. I knew he would veto it, but I personally think it's stupid. It's like saying a president who vetoes civil rights legislation is just 'doing his job' because his supporters don't want it. That's BS to me.

It's not like he's can run again for office, either. He's already created the biggest deficit in US history because of a war half of America didn't agree with, and now we're possible going to stagflation, and definitely a recession. He's not going to be remembered well. [/font]

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]Well I'm not sure if the anti-discrimination laws in Ireland cover transgendered people, but we?ve had similar legislation for years here, to the point where nobody really gives it second thought. That said, there is a kind of common sense element that people shouldn?t really apply for jobs where they know issues might arise, such as gay people applying for jobs with religious institutions.[/SIZE]

[Raiha]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] Legislation isn't a bunch of useless words; do you think major changes would've occurred if civil rights legislation wasn't introduced? What were we going to do, sit around and wait for society to all agree black people were the same as white people? Duh, a lot of employers will still go against the law, but it still brings about gradual, even if slow, change. Should this impede the front to make anti-discrimination against gays laws? (If anyone thinks 'yes', the biggest problem with US politics isn't its bipartisan nature, or PACs, or interest groups, or whatever, it's politically apathetic people who stubbornly say "I don't care" and then ***** about things later.)

And seriously, I don't care if Bush is a politician, it's still a dick move. I knew he would veto it, but I personally think it's stupid. It's like saying a president who vetoes civil rights legislation is just 'doing his job' because his supporters don't want it. That's BS to me.

It's not like he's can run again for office, either. He's already created the biggest deficit in US history because of a war half of America didn't agree with, and now we're possible going to stagflation, and definitely a recession. He's not going to be remembered well. [/font][/QUOTE]
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]I never said that all legislation was useless, some legislation is however, and this is a rather good example. Of course I live in California, so I might be confusing California/OSHA law with the rest of state law. That and Shy's boyfriend somehow managed to get a very good, high paying job, without ever being discriminated against. It's possible I simply don't care about the rest of the country. I should look into that...

It is also intellectually dishonest to equate black Americans with gay Americans. You're talking about race and trying to equate it with sexual orientation. This law was written for the 3% of the population that wants to be a protected class. When there's a law passed that defends the 65% of Christians from being discriminated against by homosexuals in the workplace, then I'll stand up and cheer.

But as far as Bush making a dick move? He's considering the future of any Republican ever elected to office again. Throwing in bogus statistics about statistics and the 'illegal war' has no bearing on your argument and instead makes it look like you're grasping at straws. If Bush signs this bill into law, it is only a matter of time before other pieces of legislation are passed to make discrimination a crime where pedophiles are concerned. It's a slippery slope, and don't forget that this bill was originally not a big deal because it was being quietly slipped through the various venues of the government for a vote. This is a representative republic, and the people of America have a voice of their own. It's premature to say that Bush will automatically veto the bill when it hasn't even passed the Senate where it will in fact, most likely, assuredly go down to defeat.

Now that people know that this bill is about to be voted on, they will call their representatives and Bush will never find this bill on his desk. If he does? He'll do right by his base, and by the majority of Americans that do not find this bill Constitutional.

One of the major arguments I hear against this bill is the issue of gays and lesbians finding their way into showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms of those of the opposite gender. If you were a parent, would you want ANY male in the same bathroom as your daughter? This opens a path for potential pedophiles to share the same bathroom as your 10 year old. Say I'm a hater, but this is potentially possible. This isn't crazy theory, this could very well happen if this bill becomes the law of the land.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]

It is also intellectually dishonest to equate black Americans with gay Americans. You're talking about race and trying to equate it with sexual orientation. This law was written for the 3% of the population that wants to be a protected class. When there's a law passed that defends the 65% of Christians from being discriminated against by homosexuals in the workplace, then I'll stand up and cheer.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] No, it's not. I'm talking about upholding anti-discrimination in the US. Because gays only make 3% of the population, it doesn't matter if they're discriminated against in the work place? That makes no sense. Majority doesn't count for everything, that's why minority right exist. It's intellectually dishonest to think my argument is invalid only because 3% of the population is gay.[/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"] But as far as Bush making a dick move? He's considering the future of any Republican ever elected to office again. Throwing in bogus statistics about statistics and the 'illegal war' has no bearing on your argument and instead makes it look like you're grasping at straws. If Bush signs this bill into law, it is only a matter of time before other pieces of legislation are passed to make discrimination a crime where pedophiles are concerned. It's a slippery slope, and don't forget that this bill was originally not a big deal because it was being quietly slipped through the various venues of the government for a vote. This is a representative republic, and the people of America have a voice of their own. It's premature to say that Bush will automatically veto the bill when it hasn't even passed the Senate where it will in fact, most likely, assuredly go down to defeat.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] How is vetoing the bill considering the future of any Republican ever elected to office again? Do you realize that all of the Republican candidates right now are trying to distance themselves from Bush? Do you think the Iraq war, our tremendous deficit, and the recession and possible stagflation our economy will undergo is not going to make Bush one of the most controversial and possibly one of the most disliked presidents in history?

I NEVER said the war was 'illegal'. I said half of American didn't support it, which is pretty much true. How is this grasping at straws?

It's was quietly being slipped because people were afraid it would be denied out right, not because it wasn't 'important'. ENDA has been fought for for about thirty years; it's not just something people decided to slap together and slip though because they didn't really care about it.

No, you obviously didn't read my first post. Bush has ALREADY stated he will veto the bill, even if it passes the Senate, which is already highly unlikely, I'm not just 'guessing' that Bush will veto it, he [i]will[/i]. [/font]


[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]Now that people know that this bill is about to be voted on, they will call their representatives and Bush will never find this bill on his desk. If he does? He'll do right by his base, and by the majority of Americans that do not find this bill Constitutional.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"]I already said that the bill was very unlikely to pass the Senate. Please try and read my posts. [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]One of the major arguments I hear against this bill is the issue of gays and lesbians finding their way into showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms of those of the opposite gender. If you were a parent, would you want ANY male in the same bathroom as your daughter? This opens a path for potential pedophiles to share the same bathroom as your 10 year old. Say I'm a hater, but this is potentially possible. This isn't crazy theory, this could very well happen if this bill becomes the law of the land.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] What Representative or Senator of the US Congress has ever said that? I'm really just curious. I never never heard of this, ever, and I would just really like to get links or sources on this. [/font]

[Raiha]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"]


[font="trebuchet ms"] How is vetoing the bill considering the future of any Republican ever elected to office again? Do you realize that all of the Republican candidates right now are trying to distance themselves from Bush? Do you think the Iraq war, our tremendous deficit, and the recession and possible stagflation our economy will undergo is not going to make Bush one of the most controversial and possibly one of the most disliked presidents in history?


[font="trebuchet ms"] What Representative or Senator of the US Congress has ever said that? I'm really just curious. I never never heard of this, ever, and I would just really like to get links or sources on this. [/font][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I never said that a representative of any body of office had made that argument on record. This is something the grassroots American groups are angry about. And what they say can be found on any blog with a Republican slant. Furthermore, no bill should ever be slipped through any part of the government. Even if you are afraid. The American people, no matter what they believe, have a RIGHT to know what laws are being put through.

Do you realize that Republican candidates distancing themselves from the President in office right now are doing exactly what they've done for years? If you want controversy, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus. Vice President Aaron Burr shot someone to death in a duel. JFK was a philandering, if well meaning drug addict. Bill Clinton had hundreds of people connected to him die under mysterious circumstances during his 8 years in office.

Candidates want to come in on their own power, not riding his coattails. What he does shouldn't have anything to do with them, but it does. And this is all a big political game. The rules of logic have less to do with it than we'd like.

Money and politics baby. That's all this is. Reps don't really care about homosexual discrimination or any other number of things, they get paid by special interest groups to do their thing. Or they think that doing this whole Congress thing for a career is a good gig. Sad but true.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I never said that a representative of any body of office had made that argument on record. This is something the grassroots American groups are angry about. And what they say can be found on any blog with a Republican slant. Furthermore, no bill should ever be slipped through any part of the government. Even if you are afraid. The American people, no matter what they believe, have a RIGHT to know what laws are being put through.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Ok, exactly how many gay people do into the showering areas/restrooms/etc. of the opposite gender? Are there any statistics? This is what I think 'grasping for straws' is. It reminds me of people who argued that terrorists could sneak through the Mexican border and bomb the US, and then could ask someone: "Do YOU want to be bombed?" Clearly, no, but did you really just make that argument? In reality, most of the people arguing this are just people who don't like immigrants.

Furthermore, just because a bill 'slips' through doesn't mean it's kept secret from the public; it means national media never paid attention to it because the representatives didn't alert media of it. If the American people want their right, they need to look it up themselves, not rely on the tv.

The public always has access to Congressional bills through the Congress website or just a simple online search, it's just that most people are too lazy to do it. [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Do you realize that Republican candidates distancing themselves from the President in office right now are doing exactly what they've done for years? If you want controversy, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus. Vice President Aaron Burr shot someone to death in a duel. JFK was a philandering, if well meaning drug addict. Bill Clinton had hundreds of people connected to him die under mysterious circumstances during his 8 years in office. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"]You just argued that Bush is looking out for future Republican elected officials, but then said candidates are always distancing themselves from the incumbent, so your argument is invalid.

I'm not saying Bush is the only president that has done wrong, I'm saying he'll probably be remembered a lot for doing wrong. Lincoln? Everyone loves him because of the Emancipation Proclamation. Clinton? Everyone loves him because of our economy. JFK? Everyone loves him because he was JFK. And just to stop any debate on semantics, but 'everyone' I mean the general public, not historical scholars or well-informed people. [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Candidates want to come in on their own power, not riding his coattails. What he does shouldn't have anything to do with them, but it does. And this is all a big political game. The rules of logic have less to do with it than we'd like.

Money and politics baby. That's all this is. Reps don't really care about homosexual discrimination or any other number of things, they get paid by special interest groups to do their thing. Or they think that doing this whole Congress thing for a career is a good gig. Sad but true.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Is Bush enacted ENDA, Giuliani wouldn't give a **** about Bush's personal feelings or whatever; he'd use it reinforce his stances on gay rights. What Bush does effects Republican candidates in that it gives them a chance to renounce or support, which still doesn't fit with your argument that "Bush is considering the future" of Republican officials.

"Money and politics"? Just because the media hypes up PACs means all Congress members are corrupt and evil? :rolleyes:

People think all Congress members are in it for money and power, and that's a bunch of BS. A lot are, a lot aren't.

PACs support [b]campaigns[/b], not personal wealth. There are actually federal laws on PACs that ban the personal wealth growth of a Congress member by PACs, and while PACs can find loopholes, it's not like no one cares and accepts it as the norm. Jack Abramoff isn't representative of everyone in Washington.

Campaigns need money because now people are too lazy to actually learn about politics and rely on TV ads and the media. If you want to say "congress is corrupt and follows money" and not do anything about it, don't complain about it either.

Tell "Reps don't really care about homosexual discrimination" to Tammy Baldwin or Barney Frank, who are gay members who, clearly, don't "really care about homosexual discrimination". [/font]

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]At the college I used to attend, I can name any number of occasions where a homosexual friend of a friend was in the same bathroom as me. An example is when I was showering and came out wrapped in a towel and there he was in the female bathroom, brushing his teeth. I'm comfortable enough in my sexuality to not freak out. But if it had been my uptight Christian room mate and not me? She would've completely lost it.

Barney Frank isn't exactly the most shining example of American democratic process. I don't like him because he's an incompetent jerk, not because he's homosexual. Remember that hissy fit he threw on the House Floor? The time he called Santorum a 'jerk'? I remember. And woah now. Not EVERYONE loves Clinton. I can think of the almost half of the general public that voted for the other guy. And you were what? Six? And not EVERYONE loves JFK. Mostly because of that Bay of Pigs, Marilyn Monroe... ...thing... Do I not count because I'm well informed AND a scholar?

Oh yeah, I also don't really happen to deeply passionately care what laws are passed, because I don't live or die with politics. But interesting note. Congress has a 18% approval rating. Even Bush beats them.

And your reference to Giuliani? He is NOT going to be the Republican nominee. He's an old fashioned Democrate, and a New Yorker, and he's lived his life like one. Most Americans don't live like New Yorkers. He's got so much baggage that it's amazing the media's held out this long on reporting it [/FONT][/COLOR]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Neuvoxraiha;796796][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]One of the major arguments I hear against this bill is the issue of gays and lesbians finding their way into showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms of those of the opposite gender. If you were a parent, would you want ANY male in the same bathroom as your daughter? This opens a path for potential pedophiles to share the same bathroom as your 10 year old. Say I'm a hater, but this is potentially possible. This isn't crazy theory, this could very well happen if this bill becomes the law of the land.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]I'm not sure if I follow you here, if only because I don't think someone who is gay or lesbian is more likely to be a pedophile than someone who is considered straight. I can see why parents wouldn't want say a lesbian coach to see their daughters in the shower or locker area, but at the same time, pedophiles aren't limited to same sex only. So honestly I don't see how this law would make that more of a problem, at least as far as pedophiles go.[quote name='Neuvoxraiha;796816][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Money and politics baby. That's all this is. Reps don't really care about homosexual discrimination or any other number of things, they get paid by special interest groups to do their thing. Or they think that doing this whole Congress thing for a career is a good gig. Sad but true.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]As much as I hate to agree with this, I must. [QUOTE=Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"]"Money and politics"? Just because the media hypes up PACs means all Congress members are corrupt and evil? :rolleyes:

People think all Congress members are in it for money and power, and that's a bunch of BS. A lot are, a lot aren't.

PACs support [b]campaigns[/b], not personal wealth. There are actually federal laws on PACs that ban the personal wealth growth of a Congress member by PACs, and while PACs can find loopholes, it's not like no one cares and accepts it as the norm. Jack Abramoff isn't representative of everyone in Washington.

Campaigns need money because now people are too lazy to actually learn about politics and rely on TV ads and the media. If you want to say "congress is corrupt and follows money" and not do anything about it, don't complain about it either.[/font][/QUOTE]Actually, it's not that hard to do a little research to find that many members of congress have all sorts of issues. From spousal abuse, being arrested for fraud, writing bad checks, doing time for assault, bad credit, drug related charges, getting arrested for shoplifting and for drunk driving. Just do a search on google and you'll find all sorts of interesting things about those supposedly non-corrupt congress members.

The law about wealth doesn't stop them from being wealthy to begin with, and to accuse people you don't even know of being lazy as a reason why campaigns need money? That's a bit of a stretch really. Quite a few people get informed without paying attention to the campaigns that are run. Because you know... they aren't lazy at all.

Anyway, in the end I am cautiously in favor of this bill, and the only reason I say cautiously is because I need to read up on it to fully understand just what it entails. I only know that like the article Rach linked to, job discrimination based on sexual preference is common in Utah. Especially in the education system. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]It's easy to sit back and call Americans homophobic simply because of well publicized cases of homophobia in the workplace, but since anti-discrimination laws are already in effect on a national level, ENDA is completely and utterly pointless.

It is ILLEGAL to ask a potential employee their sexual orientation, and those that make it obvious, or even answer questions that could inform the employer of their orientation are just unaware of this fact. In the same vein, it's illegal to discriminate against hiring females, people of a certain religion, or those in a certain age group. As a bisexual female, I manage to get job offers regardless of my orientation, perhaps because I never answer questions during interviews that could tip off my potential boss as to who I might happen to be attracted to.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]I am sorry hun, but you are wrong. Twenty states and the District of Columbia already ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But twenty states is a far cry from[I] all fifty states[/I] so it is perfectly legal in more than half of the states to fire someone because of their sexual orientation. Whether or not ENDA is pointless, well at least in it's current state, is another matter altogether. The bill is flawed in it's current state and needs to be turned down.[quote name='Neuvoxraiha;796750][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]But back to the real topic. You can't pass this bill and expect all Americans to instantly become accepting of non heterosexuals. And you can't protest and demand change, because that just gets the people all riled. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]On this you and I are in complete agreement. Bill or not, people are not going to suddenly be more accepting of non heterosexuals. You can't take something like that and toss it out the window just because of legislation that prevents discrimination.[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]One of the major arguments I hear against this bill is the issue of gays and lesbians finding their way into showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms of those of the opposite gender. If you were a parent, would you want ANY male in the same bathroom as your daughter? This opens a path for potential pedophiles to share the same bathroom as your 10 year old. Say I'm a hater, but this is potentially possible. This isn't crazy theory, this could very well happen if this bill becomes the law of the land.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]I hear a different argument against this bill and that is the ever so scary thought that it would lead to recognizing same sex marriage. And yes I am being sarcastic here, not at you Neuvoxraiha but those who seem to be afraid of non heterosexuals. Anyway, a White House statement gives the legally dubious argument that ENDA would statutorily recognize state sanctioned same-sex marriages and thereby conflict with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Details as to that can be found here: [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr3685sap-r.pdf"][U]White House[/U][/URL] I'm not going to get into that argument since it's a separate issue altogether, the one about same sex marriage that is.

Another thing I hear against this is that the bill had been stripped of actually providing real protection so even those who would supposedly benefit form the bill are against it in it's current form. [URL="http://www.thetaskforce.org/enda07/tools/lambda_legal_analysis.pdf"][U]Details here[/U][/URL] If I understand it correctly, as it stands now there are far too many loop holes, making it rather useless should it actually pass.[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"]The public always has access to Congressional bills through the Congress website or just a simple online search, it's just that most people are too lazy to do it. [/font][/QUOTE]I'll thank you to not assume that most people are too lazy. Honestly, that's just rude. They may not be as vocal as the others, but to assume that people are lazy? Far from it, and for you to assume that, is in itself[I] lazy[/I].

Anyway, as much as I am in favor of doing away with this type of discrimination, I'm not sure if this bill is the means since everything I have read indicates that it's far to weak to really do any good. And I really dislike legislation that is shoved through for the sake of getting it there instead of trying to do it right the first time. Though seeing how this has been a long fight, I'm not sure when that will ever happen.

[eleanor]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]At the college I used to attend, I can name any number of occasions where a homosexual friend of a friend was in the same bathroom as me. An example is when I was showering and came out wrapped in a towel and there he was in the female bathroom, brushing his teeth. I'm comfortable enough in my sexuality to not freak out. But if it had been my uptight Christian room mate and not me? She would've completely lost it. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Is this one person supposed to be the norm? [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Barney Frank isn't exactly the most shining example of American democratic process. I don't like him because he's an incompetent jerk, not because he's homosexual. Remember that hissy fit he threw on the House Floor? The time he called Santorum a 'jerk'? I remember. And woah now. Not EVERYONE loves Clinton. I can think of the almost half of the general public that voted for the other guy. And you were what? Six? And not EVERYONE loves JFK. Mostly because of that Bay of Pigs, Marilyn Monroe... ...thing... Do I not count because I'm well informed AND a scholar?[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] No, you don't count. Didn't I make that clear in my post? You make up a minority in the US, and that's why I use the term 'general public'. Everyone was a loose term I used for most everyone, and it's generally true. Clinton is hugely popular (in a positive way), denying that would be ignorant.[/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Oh yeah, I also don't really happen to deeply passionately care what laws are passed, because I don't live or die with politics. But interesting note. Congress has a 18% approval rating. Even Bush beats them.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I never said everyone had to be deeply passionate about politics, I said if you want to argue about them, you should at least be well-informed. It pisses me off when someone uses the defense of "interest groups have corrupted Congress" as to why they don't care about politics, when usually it's just because the person doesn't care about politics, or doesn't feel like keeping up with it.

I'll note that the Congress approval rating is low because people are angry that they aren't doing more to stop Bush. The Dems have been rather weak in their party unison, but it's not like getting things done in Congress is a piece of cake when the President is vetoing everything to try and be fiscally responsible now that he knows the economy is in the drain. [/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]And your reference to Giuliani? He is NOT going to be the Republican nominee. He's an old fashioned Democrate, and a New Yorker, and he's lived his life like one. Most Americans don't live like New Yorkers. He's got so much baggage that it's amazing the media's held out this long on reporting it [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Thanks for nitpicking on the least-important part of that argument. It doesn't matter WHO it is, it could be Giuliani or Huckabee or Romney or Paul, it's still the same principle. Big ****ing deal if Giuliani won't be the next candidate, did I say he was going to be? No, because I was just using him as an example. What is you claiming that Giuliani won't be the candidate doing for your argument? Nothing, because it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. [/font]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]Actually, it's not that hard to do a little research to find that many members of congress have all sorts of issues. From spousal abuse, being arrested for fraud, writing bad checks, doing time for assault, bad credit, drug related charges, getting arrested for shoplifting and for drunk driving. Just do a search on google and you'll find all sorts of interesting things about those supposedly non-corrupt congress members. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Ok, but is this supposed to represent all members in Congress? A lot of them are corrupt, but that doesn't mean all of them are. I'm not saying Congress is some sort of beacon of truth and light, because it isn't, but I really get tired of people claiming to not care about politics because Congress is corrupt (which was what I was trying to get at). A lot of this is angry talk, but that doesn't mean I don't believe what I'm saying at its core. [/font]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]The law about wealth doesn't stop them from being wealthy to begin with, and to accuse people you don't even know of being lazy as a reason why campaigns need money? That's a bit of a stretch really. Quite a few people get informed without paying attention to the campaigns that are run. Because you know... they aren't lazy at all.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] No, I don't think it's that much of a stretch. The deciding factor that most people use to vote is what they see on tv, and they don't bother actually researching the candidates. Is this lazy? Yes. Has the advent of media forced campaigns to raise millions upon millions of dollars because people now rely mostly on the tv? Yes. Why is this a stretch?

No, not everyone is lazy. But a lot of people are.[/font]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]Anyway, in the end I am cautiously in favor of this bill, and the only reason I say cautiously is because I need to read up on it to fully understand just what it entails. I only know that like the article Rach linked to, job discrimination based on sexual preference is common in Utah. Especially in the education system. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I'm being genuine here when I say I love that you're doing this. [/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I'll thank you to not assume that most people are too lazy. Honestly, that's just rude. They may not be as vocal as the others, but to assume that people are lazy? Far from it, and for you to assume that, is in itself[I] lazy[/I].

Anyway, as much as I am in favor of doing away with this type of discrimination, I'm not sure if this bill is the means since everything I have read indicates that it's far to weak to really do any good. And I really dislike legislation that is shoved through for the sake of getting it there instead of trying to do it right the first time. Though seeing how this has been a long fight, I'm not sure when that will ever happen.[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] If they're not lazy, they don't care. And I'm not willing to back down from that. The political involvement in the US is horrendously low, the lowest it's ever been. Why? Because people are either don't care or don't care to do anything about it. I'm probably biased because I'm a teenager, and I can tell you for sure that 95% of teenagers have no idea what the hell is going on in politics, which I find incredibly sad.

Why is ENDA far too weak? The actual content of the legislation? It's pretty straight forward. Do you mean it's weak because so many Congress members aren't willing to vote yes for it, and Bush has already announced that he'll veto it?

ENDA was not 'shoved through'. ENDA is thirty years in the making. Multiple delays were made on its latest voting so more debate could follow. I don't think ENDA was 'shoved through' because sponsors of the bill felt it important to get it to pass the House to say something, even if they knew it wouldn't pass the Senate or the president. All civil rights legislation has come in small steps, and I believe that even if this was a tiny step, it was still a step.
[/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Bill or not, people are not going to suddenly be more accepting of non heterosexuals. You can't take something like that and toss it out the window just because of legislation that prevents discrimination.[/quote]

[font="trebuchet ms"] When did a civil rights bill ever have a sudden impact of acceptance? Never. That doesn't mean it's important to pursue those types of bills. It's gradual change we're aiming for here.

Another pet peeve is people who say we shouldn't pass legislation because it won't have immediate impact or it'll cause too much controversy. Isn't that what progressive legislation and action is there to do? Where would we be now if Brown v. Education hadn't happened? I know court cases are different from legislation, but what I'm trying to say is activist decisions by our branches is what propels the nation forward sometimes. [/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"]If they're not lazy, they don't care. And I'm not willing to back down from that. The political involvement in the US is horrendously low, the lowest it's ever been. Why? Because people are either don't care or don't care to do anything about it. I'm probably biased because I'm a teenager, and I can tell you for sure that 95% of teenagers have no idea what the hell is going on in politics, which I find incredibly sad. [/font][/QUOTE]I asked you to stop making assumptions and I'll do it again. Do a little research please, you are again making baseless assumptions as to why people seem to not care or perhaps in the end don't vote. The information isn't that hard to find. This isn't the most current one but it is an example of valid reasons as to why people either don't keep up or in spite of knowing what's going on don't vote: [URL="http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf"][U]Click[/U][/URL] To give you even more here's a clip from that article:

[I]In 1996, for example, slightly more than 1 in 5 nonvoters (22 percent) reported they could not take time off from work or school or were too busy to vote. In 1980, only 8 percent gave this reason.[/I] This may be a decade old, but this is a trend I have seen throughout my life. So to say people don't care is inaccurate and lazy on your part and I will not back down from that. I've been seeing this happen for longer than you have even been alive. Don't think that teenagers who can't even vote are a true indication of whether or not people are lazy.[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"]Why is ENDA far too weak? The actual content of the legislation? It's pretty straight forward. Do you mean it's weak because so many Congress members aren't willing to vote yes for it, and Bush has already announced that he'll veto it?

ENDA was not 'shoved through'. ENDA is thirty years in the making. Multiple delays were made on its latest voting so more debate could follow. I don't think ENDA was 'shoved through' because sponsors of the bill felt it important to get it to pass the House to say something, even if they knew it wouldn't pass the Senate or the president. All civil rights legislation has come in small steps, and I believe that even if this was a tiny step, it was still a step. [/font][/QUOTE]I already provided the answer to that, the bill in it's current form has quite a few loop holes. I already linked to an article showing the potential legal issues with it.[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom;796848]Another thing I hear against this is that the bill had been stripped of actually providing real protection so even those who would supposedly benefit form the bill are against it in it's current form. [URL="http://www.thetaskforce.org/enda07/tools/lambda_legal_analysis.pdf"][U]Details here[/U][/URL] If I understand it correctly, as it stands now there are far too many loop holes, making it rather useless should it actually pass.[/QUOTE]I already know that it's been around for a long time, I say it was shoved through because they changed it to make it more acceptable and baby steps, if taken in the wrong direction take you down instead of up. [QUOTE=Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] When did a civil rights bill ever have a sudden impact of acceptance? Never. That doesn't mean it's important to pursue those types of bills. It's gradual change we're aiming for here.

Another pet peeve is people who say we shouldn't pass legislation because it won't have immediate impact or it'll cause too much controversy. Isn't that what progressive legislation and action is there to do? Where would we be now if Brown v. Education hadn't happened? I know court cases are different from legislation, but what I'm trying to say is activist decisions by our branches is what propels the nation forward sometimes. [/font][/QUOTE]You're misquoting me here, I was simply agreeing with Neuvoxraiha that acceptance of change wasn't immediate I did not say it was a reason to not even try. Nor did I say we shouldn't pass it because of immediate effect or controversy, I said we shouldn't pass it because it has too many issues, something that I provided a link to showing the potential legal loopholes.

It is a waste of time to put a bill through that would later require doing it again because the first one has enough loopholes to make enforcing it difficult. Or even worse, leaves those who would discriminate with valid reasons to get away with firing someone who is non-heterosexual.

[eleanor]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I asked you to stop making assumptions and I'll do it again. Do a little research please, you are again making baseless assumptions as to why people seem to not care or perhaps in the end don't vote. The information isn't that hard to find. This isn't the most current one but it is an example of valid reasons as to why people either don't keep up or in spite of knowing what's going on don't vote: [URL="http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf"][U]Click[/U][/URL] To give you even more here's a clip from that article:

[I]In 1996, for example, slightly more than 1 in 5 nonvoters (22 percent) reported they could not take time off from work or school or were too busy to vote. In 1980, only 8 percent gave this reason.[/I] [/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I'm saying this after studying it in my class with a teacher and recent textbook, so no, I'm not pulling all of this out of the air. I'll ask you to stop making assumptions about me. For a 10-year-old census, I'd say the odds that 'Don't care' have jumped even higher; the 'No time off/busy' leads by 4% from ten years ago. Also directly from your source: “It appears a significant proportion of those who are registered are more apathetic about the political process these days,” Casper said."[/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Don't think that teenagers who can't even vote are a true indication of whether or not people are lazy.[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] You're right, I must not use the teenage population to conclude on the American public, but just because we can't vote doesn't mean we shouldn't care about politics. So what if I can't vote? I still think it's important that I know what's going on.[/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I already provided the answer to that, the bill in it's current form has quite a few loop holes. I already linked to an article showing the potential legal issues with it. I already know that it's been around for a long time, I say it was shoved through because they changed it to make it more acceptable and baby steps, if taken in the wrong direction take you down instead of up.[/quote]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I've now read the link I missed earlier, but I really don't think those reasons are enough to think this legislation is weak. It still has its core purposes and laws; the only reason from the link I think is really a problem is the last one about religious institutions and such. But realistically, I believe making these changes was what was needed. Like I said before, civil rights legislation comes in small steps. What's wrong with baby steps when they're still steps? Further legislation will be passed, just like in history.[/font]


[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']You're misquoting me here, I was simply agreeing with Neuvoxraiha that acceptance of change wasn't immediate I did not say it was a reason to not even try. Nor did I say we shouldn't pass it because of immediate effect or controversy, I said we shouldn't pass it because it has too many issues, something that I provided a link to showing the potential legal loopholes.

It is a waste of time to put a bill through that would later require doing it again because the first one has enough loopholes to make enforcing it difficult. Or even worse, leaves those who would discriminate with valid reasons to get away with firing someone who is non-heterosexual.[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] There is [i]one[/i] potential loophole in the link you provided me, and the other reasons were just criticisms about what was cut out. I don't think the one loophole that you've identified can be called "enough loopholes [that would] make enforcing [ENDA be] difficult". And I really don't think three problems is "too many issues", especially when most of it were changes made so that the bill would pass. And the one loophole the bill does bring up would be rather hard to prove in court, it's not like employers everywhere are going to go to the courts with that loophole.

It's not a waste of time to put a bill through when amendments can be added later. When Congress made the amendment saying blacks could vote, white people imposed poll taxes. Congress amended that. White people found millions of ways to keep black people down, but does that make civil right legislation useless? Hardly.

If it were ever a waste to pass any legislation that would be amended later, a lot of bills in Congress wouldn't be passed. If it's just a 'waste of time', why have amendments in the first place? [/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] I'm saying this after studying it in my class with a teacher and recent textbook, so no, I'm not pulling all of this out of the air. I'll ask you to stop making assumptions about me. For a 10-year-old census, I'd say the odds that 'Don't care' have jumped even higher; the 'No time off/busy' leads by 4% from ten years ago. Also directly from your source: ?It appears a significant proportion of those who are registered are more apathetic about the political process these days,? Casper said."[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] You're right, I must not use the teenage population to conclude on the American public, but just because we can't vote doesn't mean we shouldn't care about politics. So what if I can't vote? I still think it's important that I know what's going on.[/font][/QUOTE]At this point I think you are dragging this out more than is necessary, my point was that the implication that most people were lazy was inaccurate. You seem to want to focus only on the aspect of people who are not really interested and I was trying to point out that it was far more than that. At this point you seem to be missing that since you keep knee jerking back to it.

Also, I never said teenagers shouldn?t care, I said don?t think that because teens are uninterested means that the rest of us are not. And the fact that they can?t vote is a big factor. It?s hard to have much of an interest in something when you don?t have a voice yet. So it?s only natural that the disinterest is so high. And don?t start thinking that I?m saying you or any other teenager shouldn?t care. That?s not what I was getting at and I?m quite sure you know that. So honestly, try lightening up a little, instead of being so quick to take offense. [quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"]It's not a waste of time to put a bill through when amendments can be added later. When Congress made the amendment saying blacks could vote, white people imposed poll taxes. Congress amended that. White people found millions of ways to keep black people down, but does that make civil right legislation useless? Hardly.

If it were ever a waste to pass any legislation that would be amended later, a lot of bills in Congress wouldn't be passed. If it's just a 'waste of time', why have amendments in the first place? [/font][/QUOTE]You and I are going to disagree here there?s no getting around it. Personally I think a bill should be as firmly put together as possible, you seem to see no problem with it not being that way because of amendments that can be added on. There?s nothing to discuss here since I was not saying that every bill had to be perfect either. I was saying that I feel that it?s a waste when things are ?watered? down to get them in because then later it requires more taxpayers money to fix it. It?s a part of the political process that I find annoying and frustrating, nothing more.

[eleanor]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']At this point I think you are dragging this out more than is necessary, my point was that the implication that most people were lazy was inaccurate. You seem to want to focus only on the aspect of people who are not really interested and I was trying to point out that it was far more than that. At this point you seem to be missing that since you keep knee jerking back to it.[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] You can't expect me to not reply when you argue against what I said in my post, and my 'lazy' part was one of the least important aspects of my original argument.[/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']And don’t start thinking that I’m saying you or any other teenager shouldn’t care. That’s not what I was getting at and I’m quite sure you know that. So honestly, try lightening up a little, instead of being so quick to take offense. [/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"]Things I take time to argue and write about on a forum are things I care about, so pulling the "lighten up" thing doesn't help. This will also be my last post on the matter, as it really has nothing to do with my original argument. [/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] You can't expect me to not reply when you argue against what I said in my post, and my 'lazy' part was one of the least important aspects of my original argument.[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"]Things I take time to argue and write about on a forum are things I care about, so pulling the "lighten up" thing doesn't help. This will also be my last post on the matter, as it really has nothing to do with my original argument. [/font][/QUOTE]I never expected you to not reply and you can't dictate to the person debating what's important in your argument. It was the part that interested me so therefore I addressed it. It's the same with candidates you can't gloss over or ignore something just because you think that part of your argument isn't as important as the others.

Also, you're just reaffirming my statement of lighten up here. You take this so seriously that honestly I wonder at times. So it stands, go play video games, read a book or watch TV. I'm not pulling anything on you other than to say if you can't simply say we disagree then in my opinion you need to lighten up.

So we disagree, so what? That's the very heart of politics and part of what makes them fun. I don't expect you to suddenly see my point of view so it's only fair that you don't expect that of me either. ;)

[Raiha]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']
So we disagree, so what? That's the very heart of politics and part of what makes them fun. I don't expect you to suddenly see my point of view so it's only fair that you don't expect that of me either. ;)[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Disagreement is at the heart of democracy as well. Without it, and if everyone thought the same, we wouldn't be citizens of our representative republic, we'd be sheep. And being a sheeple is bad.

Most teenagers are incapable of 'suddenly' seeing anyone's point of view but their own. I vaguely recall a time in which I disagreed with my mom because if I DID agree with her, I felt like I'd loose face. Now I tend to agree with her because I'm noticing she was mostly right all the time. ....except when it came to non Christian music poisoning my mind. I had public school to do that for me.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Disagreement is at the heart of democracy as well. Without it, and if everyone thought the same, we wouldn't be citizens of our representative republic, we'd be sheep. And being a sheeple is bad.

Most teenagers are incapable of 'suddenly' seeing anyone's point of view but their own. I vaguely recall a time in which I disagreed with my mom because if I DID agree with her, I felt like I'd loose face. Now I tend to agree with her because I'm noticing she was mostly right all the time. ....except when it came to non Christian music poisoning my mind. I had public school to do that for me.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Sometimes it surprises me to see people get so worked up over having a difference of opinion when it comes to politics. But then my family for the most part has always been pretty laid back in the sense that having the same view as say mom or dad was not required.

And some of the arguments/debates we've had over different issues have been fun because we don't have a problem with the other person seeing things differently. Take this current bill. My parents think it's stupid as hell and a waste of time. Where I and my older brothers disagree.

Still, in a way I prefer it, even though I wish my parents could see that there is a problem with discrimination. I just like that we aren't little carbon copy idiots who all think the same. That kind of mindless mentality really gets on my nerves.

When I was a teenager it didn't matter what my parents thought because to be honest, I didn't give a damn. Once I could actually vote I became more interested but until then? I avoided it like the plague since a lot of the stances here in Utah just annoy the hell out of me. And arguing with the other teenagers at the school I went to only had me wanting to strangle the stupid fools. lol