The Gay Lobby does it again

Ok this item is just plain stupid. In Oakland a group of gay and lesbian workers for the city of Oakland formed an email group made of up people that consider themselves gay. They emailed each other, shared stories, whatever. Another group at the job decided to start their own email group. This one was made up of Christians, and people who believe in traditional, natural families. They emailed each other, and never once disparaged the gay group. But of course the women that started the gay email group sued the city in order to make them disband the christian group. And of course the whacky court out there decided against the christians.

Ok, what's our motto? Logic and Reason. If you allow one set of employees to form a group of any kind on the company, or government worksite, then another one is allowed to be formed as well. That's basic fairness. Unless the group is infringing on the rights of the other group, there is nothing wrong. There is no discrimmination.

Why is it that if you're gay, you can do what you want. But if you're a Christian, you don't have any rights? It's ridiculous, but typical of the mentailty in country right now.

Bottom line is the supervisor should have had a back bone, and disallowed either group. And the judge in the case, 8th district court of course, should follow common sense. You can't take the rights of one group away in favor of another group. Especially when that group is a fridge one to begin with.

Comments

[Salvador Reynozo]

I would kindly suggest that you are confusing "common sense" with logic. There is a very big difference between the two. I do not deny that it would seem to make sense that if one email group is allowed to exist so should another. However, this is not an argument based in logic. Perhaps Mr. Spock logic but by no means mathematical logic, not even philosophical logic. For instance, your concern is over a court decision, but you are using political "common sense" to justify your disagreement with the decision. In order to make a logical argument you will need to use legal arguments that would stand up in court. In addition a word like "whacky" and describing somebody as having a "backbone" are not used in logical arguments. Your motto is logic and reason. You can make a claim that this argument is reasonable, which I do not believe it is, but you certainly cannot call this argument logical. Even on a political level you have failed to show why the existance of one group should guarantee the existance of another. You simply take that for granted wave your hands and use the phrase "common sense."

On another note, the notion that homosexuals can do what they want while Christians cannot and that the mood of the country supports this view is nonsense. Christians do not kill themselves in the United States out of a sense of being persecuted due to their faith. Neither do they kill themselves out of shame for being a Christian. Christians are not beaten to death in the United States because of their faith in Jesus. Christian marriages receive the full blessing and recognition of the United States court system, which opens countless avenues to save money, legal protection, and receive benefits. Can any of the same be said of homosexuals?

[Kiara]

Ok, you want a legal arguement, here's one. If one group is allowed to have a email group at work then you have to let another grouop as well. Otherwise it's discrimination. There is no legal, common-sense, or logical arguement you can make that justify's allowed a gay group to have a email or club or whatever at work, school, or in the community, and not let a Christian group do the same thing. Period. End of story. And using the "heart strings" tatic regarding gays and suicide does not give you an excuse.

As for yalking about marriage and gays. You right Christians can marry and gys cannot, and that's the way it is suppossed to be. Marriage is about a male and female. It's that way in nature, and we (humans) are the same way. Now do I think there should be civil unions, yes. But if you want marriage, stop being gay and do what nature intended. Marry a woman if you're a man, or a man if you're a woman. If you don't want to be straight, fine your choice. You have the right to make that choice. But don't ask to be protected as special for the personal choice you made. Nor should you be trying to make your choice of higher importance than the choice of a person to be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish.

[Salvador]

Again, what I most object to is the lack of logic behind your argument. If you cannot make a logical argument, then what is it doing on this site? Change your website's name or something. I am not defending or advocating either side. I am simply showing your argument not to be logical.

In this past comment, I will point out two serious issues with your argument being logical. You state in your first paragraph that your legal argument is "... one group is allowed to have a email group at work then you have to let another grouop as well." I must say again this is not a logical argument. What precedent in law has been used to justify your statement. Again you are using "common sense" which is not logic!

Your second paragraph again uses common sense. You sate "Marriage is about a male and female." You seem to think that is all you need to say to defend your position. Why? You are making assumptions, which is part of the realm of "common sense." Please change your name to politicalcommonsense.com as I do believe you are contributing to the degration of the meaning of the word logic.

I hesitated in my first comment not to list a bunch of books that explain the field of logic so as to not make myself seem superior. But it is clear now, that you seem to think logic is a relative term, and not a very well studied field of mathematics and philosophy. There are very specific things you have to do to create logical arguments. Just because you think something should be fair or that marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't make it so.