Gays truly are a second class citizen in the US.

Read it and weep.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/18/elderly-california-gay-couple-forcibly-separated-abused-robbed-by-county-officials

Sounds pretty fucked up.

That's a part of California I don't really know much about ... Kinda weird it happened there considering how close to san francisco it is, although being so close could polarise sonoma against gays.

Absurd and tragic.

Holy shit, this truly DOES give a whole other meaning to the Greek saying of "being elderly, gay, poor, sick and ugly" to indicate the utmost downfall of a man.

I hope that guy wins. That story is completely fucked up. Even moreso considering it came from Cali.

Yeah, that is just fucking bullshit. Hopefully he'll win his case and return to some sense of normalcy.

Obama recently cleaned up the hospital visitation rights, so at least part of this is now illegal (if it wasn't already).

Relevant article quote for the lazy:

In the memo, Obama said hospitals should not be able to deny visitation privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

"Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay," he wrote.

Affected, he said, are "gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated."

Actually, anyone who isn't white and male is a second-class citizen. Anyone who isn't Straight, white, and male, is a second class citizen.

We've known this for a while now. People are just now waking up. USA is a country whose own capital's citizens cannot have a say in Congress or the Senate.. If they won't care about the area they occupy, Do you think The US Government cares about anyone else?

That's a serious question. I'm sure someone will try to defend these actions.

As Mao Ze Dong said, it's better to be rich, young, handsome and healthy than being poor, old, ugly and sick.

Similarly, it's better to be white, male, young rich, healthy, straight and protestant, than being black, female, old, poor, sick and gay or a combination thereof.

DoomUK said:

Absurd and tragic.

This is something I would expect in a less gay tolerant country or in the deep south, not California. I hope these "officials" lose their jobs for the abuse they put Harold (RIP) and Clay through.

Fuck that, fuck abusing the elderly...go try that with somebody your own age!

DoomUK said:

Absurd and tragic.

It's good to be me.

Seriously though, that's very absurd. If that sort of thing was done to my grandparents, I'd be furious.

Not surprising, considering America is home to the "God hates fags" church, whatever it's called. The only way to solve this is to start a national blacklist of religious organizations which hold beliefs that violate fundamental human rights (Scientology comes to mind as a big one), and take away the right of any members to raise children (keep in mind some of those groups currently breed like rabbits). Organizations which hold beliefs in violation of human rights are very harmful to society if they grow to a significant size, so efforts should be made to limit their growth. (Under this law, 1940s Jews and gypsies would have been allowed to reproduce, but SS members would have not. It's practically the reverse of Hitler's ideas, I think.)

This is absolutely horrible.

Spleen said:

Organizations which hold beliefs in violation of human rights are very harmful to society if they grow to a significant size, so efforts should be made to limit their growth.

Jews and Gypsies are organizations?

Do you also class major religions as organizations, too (with which they have more common)?

And how do you quantify the "harm" done to society? Do you take time scale and long-term repercussions into account?

Sure, SS would harm it right away and a lot...if you happened to be on the wrong side of their beliefs, that is. If you were with them/neutral you wouldn't find them so harmful at all.

On the other hand, take for example Islam. It sounds good (well, so-so) on paper but take a look at Islamic countries today, and tell me in which one you would like to live, especially if you are a woman or gay. Would you take "measures" for them too?

Yeah, I read about this earlier. I can't say I'm surprised. Of course I already knew I and every other gay is a second class citizen, but then I live in Utah.

Maes said:

Jews and Gypsies are organizations?

Organized religion are. And since that is what people who got issues with homosexuals usually are hiding behind...

Taking measures to limit somethings growth doesn't necessarily mean that you will use violence or break any laws. Simply debating them, or making people aware of where they falter are the most common way to deal with people and organizations that you don't agree with.

Maes said:

On the other hand, take for example Islam. It sounds good (well, so-so) on paper but take a look at Islamic countries today, and tell me in which one you would like to live, especially if you are a woman or gay. Would you take "measures" for them too?

Other countries are a different matter entirely. A country should either stay out of the business of other countries, or conquer them.

For instance, United States should either declare Afghanistan part of itself, or leave it alone. And if Afghanistan is part of United States, then the regular measures for enforcing order in the country should come into play.

Historically, conquering countries was the norm. The current attitude of the USA is an ineffective atavism of the Cold War, when it and the USSR used other countries as a staging ground to avoid direct conflict, and hasn't been around for long (and probably won't be around for longer - either United States will start conquering countries or leaving them alone). Unless there's actually a conspiracy to use the War on Terror to restrict civil rights, in which case the war for freedom is really a war on freedom. But only the politics really know what's going on.

Maes said:

And how do you quantify the "harm" done to society? Do you take time scale and long-term repercussions into account?

Well, how do they quantify moral "harm" done to an individual when someone sues someone?

Spleen said:

Historically, conquering countries was the norm. The current attitude of the USA is an ineffective atavism of the Cold War, when it and the USSR used other countries as a staging ground to avoid direct conflict, and hasn't been around for long (and probably won't be around for longer - either United States will start conquering countries or leaving them alone).

"Conquering" countries is a myth in the 21st century because of the rise of concepts like nationalism and asymmetric warfare without 1940s-scale ethnic cleansing (which will inevitably destroy the economic value of a country resulting in a pointless invasion. Well done.)

The reverse of the news: http://www.news.com.au/world/bisexual-men-not-gay-enough-for-sport-event/story-e6frfkyi-1225856680465

chungy said:

The reverse of the news: http://www.news.com.au/world/bisexual-men-not-gay-enough-for-sport-event/story-e6frfkyi-1225856680465

I'm sorry, but I laughed out loud when I saw that. You made my day with that, thanks.

Mr. T said:

"Conquering" countries is a myth in the 21st century because of the rise of concepts like nationalism and asymmetric warfare without 1940s-scale ethnic cleansing (which will inevitably destroy the economic value of a country resulting in a pointless invasion. Well done.)

Recall how Germany and Japan successfully recovered after the devastation of World War II. It is a matter of who governs these people, and with the rule and economic aid of the richest nation in the world, it'll be a fine place to live in within 20 years. The problem is this strange attitude that the States can somehow prod them into becoming democratic from the sidelines.

Of course, simply leaving the country alone is always an option, if the consequences of war are deemed too dire.

Coopersville said:

It's good to be me.

Seriously though, that's very absurd. If that sort of thing was done to my grandparents, I'd be furious.

Funny, in middle class Toronto, I'm the minority.

Absurd and tragic? More like outrageous and criminal!

Spleen said:

Other countries are a different matter entirely. A country should either stay out of the business of other countries, or conquer them.

What the US is doing is more like economic appropriation/temporary use as a base. This doesn't benefit the "invaded" country's economy on a large scale (sure, a couple of local blokes may find employment in an US base, but that's it. The rest/vast majority will suck bitter dicks), and, on the short/middle term, not even the "invader".

Spleen said:

For instance, United States should either declare Afghanistan part of itself, or leave it alone. And if Afghanistan is part of United States, then the regular measures for enforcing order in the country should come into play.

Ha! And to think that there were/are countries (Albania and Latin American countries being the most notable, as well as many "orange revolution" ex-soviet republics) that would think nothing of becoming the 51st state/a satellite state of the the US. Their line of thinking is ofc "instead of being a little poor post-communist/latino/asian country with a funny name that nobody respects, why not join the big dog and have fat donut-eating sheriffs myself?"

Well, how do they quantify moral "harm" done to an individual when someone sues someone?

Depends on the skill of your lawyer and the jurisdiction aka it's entirely arbitrary and (on countries without an anglo-saxon type of common law with precedents) per-case matter.

Maes said:

Ha! And to think that there were/are countries (Albania and Latin American countries being the most notable, as well as many "orange revolution" ex-soviet republics) that would think nothing of becoming the 51st state/a satellite state of the the US. Their line of thinking is ofc "instead of being a little poor post-communist/latino/asian country with a funny name that nobody respects, why not join the big dog and have fat donut-eating sheriffs myself?"

And if the United States really wants to police the world, this is the only good way to do it. Hey, it might actually be cheaper than holding a ridiculous military campaign everywhere, looking at the current US military budget!

chungy said:

The reverse of the news: http://www.news.com.au/world/bisexual-men-not-gay-enough-for-sport-event/story-e6frfkyi-1225856680465

Wat.

That reads like an Onion article.

Aliotroph? said:

Absurd and tragic? More like outrageous and criminal!

The other side of the coin says that they weren't separated for being gay, but because of domestic violence. So... Waiting to see how it'll be settled in court. Cause it seems it's being used as a soapbox, with distortion of facts and the media being more interested in shocking news and sensationalism will not care too much about truth and accuracy.

And that thing about not being gay enough to play ball is completely ridiculous. What's the point of a Gay World Series anyway? Guess we need to get people working on Straight World Series, Bi World Series, and Asexual World Series too.