being fired for your sexuality is, in the UK at least, grossly illegal and would result in a decent payout at tribunal - (and in a tribunal you dont have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, they just come down on one side or the other). Maybe things work differently.. but if the law doesnt protect people from being sacked for being homosexual, the law is inadequate.

well hey, that blows. always stinks when reality meets theory, and you don't have the time to deal with other's ignorance. and these are the same people who very likely fantasize about the very types of...ummm...activities in which you engage.

/damn i wish i had a personal physical therapist.

i think there are a lot of ways around it. in many jobs, and i would guess sweetpea's might be one, you can easily claim "job performance," and there's very little the person can do about it. especially if you're on a private contact.

It isn't about being allowed to talk about the intimate details of your love life. It's about being treated the same. It's about being free to make a casual comment about my wife / girlfriend the same way a male teacher might in casual conversation in the teacher's lounge or at the water cooler. It's about being able to put my name and my wife's name on a rental application without fear of being turned down as a result. It's about being free to refer to my wife as my wife, something I have to avoid whenever I'm at work, just because that word, while not offensive in itself, offends many closed-minded people when used by a woman.

I don't want to be having sex with her in every room in the school during my lunch break, I just want to be able to acknoledge my relationship with her on a basic level, exactly the way the heterosexual employees do.

Gilda

It isn't rubbing anyone's nose in anything to ask for equal rights. Many of the students participating weren't GLBT, but knew people who were.

"being fired for your sexuality is, in the UK at least, grossly illegal and would result in a decent payout at tribunal - (and in a tribunal you dont have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, they just come down on one side or the other). Maybe things work differently.. but if the law doesnt protect people from being sacked for being homosexual, the law is inadequate."

This is a bit bothersom. What stops a homosexual who has been fired, from claiming "discrimination" of sexuality for his reason for the dismissal. There very well could be a legitimate reason for the firing. Yet the person is giving the means to sue and doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? To me this would scare employers from firing a openly gay individual for legitimate reasons because they fear said invididual from seeking retribution.

if someone can indicate that they were not hired because of their sexually, of course they are entitled to compensation if the take action.

As for firing a gay person, the employer has to PROVE they acted on the basis of job performance, to have gone through the correct procedures, and so on, the same as with any other employee.

In the UK, an employer making constant "anti-gay" comments would probably constitute harassment, and be actionable.

What stops a woman who has been fired, a black man who has been fired, a Jew who has been fired, from claiming "discrimination" for their reason for dismissal?

Principles. Honesty.

I don't disagree with yout goals, just your method of reaching them. I think you are likely to impress the people that agree with you and alienate everyone else.

StanT . . .
I'm a little curious now . . .
How exactly is what Gilda stated 'alienating everyone else'??

:)

Sweetpea

I understand where you are coming from now guccilvr and i apologize publically for making assumptions :) :icare:

sweetpea

Doesn't a "National Day of Silence" seem just a little bit confrontational to you? Why should people that couldn't care less about anyone's sexual orientation be forced to deal with it (through silence and a card). Having a "we're not talking" strike seems like the wrong way to get your message across.

I see where you are coming from StanT . . . and i think that diff. people participated in different ways . . . some without the card etc.

i do see how this could be not actually confrontational but more along the lines of annoying to some people.

Getting issues across always annoys the general public who would prefer to ignore things that don't affect them.

I do see your point and thank you for clarifying StanT. :)

Sweetpea

How gracious of them to make that decision for others. It will be very comforting to them when their turn comes.

As to US/UK comparisons....
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/ic...2000i/app4.pdf
from http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/data.php

Oh my... what is this we see? ... Crime in the England is increasing.... Crime in the US is decreasing. Or maybe the US citizens polled were just liars. I am really looking forward to the 2005 results.

The home office deliberately under reports crime and massages statistics in PR. Reality is always so much more interesting then anecdotal evidence. Shall we believe the victims or the police? Do we no longer trust the UN to sponsor legitimate research?

I dunno, it's all kind of pointless when your dealing with a school of thought that refuses to empower people to solve their own problems because it believes them incapable.

"Why if I carry again I'm more likely to shoot myself or my family or have it taken away from me!!!111111!1!!"
Funny thing about that... if you stop looking at anecdotal evidence you will find it just isn't true. But that's enough from me. My goal is incite people to do their own research and convince them not rely on preprocessed crap they read in a forum or newspaper or saw on TV.

ok man... well, to be honest I dont think you'll ever convince me that arming people is a good idea, and I guess I'm not going to convince you that it is a bad idea... Im very willing to have the argument, but this thread is about something else, and Im not going to get into who started this distraction.. but lets get back to the point of this argument - which I dont think gun ownership has a geninely specific relationship to.

I know for a fact gay people do face a lot of problems and a lot of prejudice, that there are still incidents of homophobic violence that sometimes have fatal results, but for most homosexuals, they will experience bullying, isolating, censorship and enforced self-censorship; that the educational and media systems contain institutional prejudice against gay people, thay gay couples do not have equal human rights... these are things that must be addressed and that society cannot advance while such conditions exist.

I just am not sure that the refusal to speak is an appropriate gesture. I agree with other posters, that what is needed is communication, to reach out... to proclaim silence, on a personal level and if it occurs at a societal level, is an extremely strong statement... it is the same as declaring a state of mourning to me.... to refuse to speak is to on some level declare your opponents or the people you target as no longer fully alive (in a real or symbolic sense) - and again, I would call upon the gay community to open dialouge, not close it, to ask for acceptance, not to reject society (although when one feels rejected I can understand the logic of rejection)

As a society, the conditions that allow same sex relationships are not afforded the same legal or moral digtnity as different sex relationships is unacceptable. Such sentiments shall not be tolerated and must be ceaselessly berated and attacked.

The conditions that create bullying in the school and workplace of gay people must be attacked - and by the majority who stay silent but disapprove, they must be attacked.

But you do not change society by becoming separate from it... and in small sense, I think this is what the "day of silence" aims at... and I hope and believe, that the general society can be reformed, and must not be rejected.

Owning a gun is my INALIENABLE right. In the unlikely event that somebody tries to impose martial law on people, it gives people the ability to strike back. Why don't we just give people that commit violent crimes with guns the death sentence??? It will almost eradicate gun crimes, and will secure the rights of gun ownership for those who intend to use the 2nd amendment with the original intent of keeping the govt. in check.

On this issue I guess I'm old(er) school. I think "Silence = Death" is true, and that a day of silence, though very well-intentioned, is submissive and apologetic. Make a difference and speak up against intolerance. I do!