LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Lieris » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:36 am

The equal marriage bill in the UK passed its second hearing last month and the Conservative Party supporters are still having kittens over it because their leader (our PM) and nearly the entire cabinet supported it. UKIP, the far right party modeled on the American tea party, is gobbling up lots of disaffected conservative voters because they are against it (despite supposedly being a libertarian party!) which will massively split the right wing vote.

As always, populist tabloid politics and scaring the shit out of people is always a vote winner and by trying to modernise itself by moving away from some of this stuff, the Conservative Party is hemorrhaging support. Amusing but tragic.
Lieris
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:49 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:21 pm

We may be seeing some action here by the courts soon as well. I've read a couple of recent articles speculating the results. The articles don't paint a rosey picture but I suspect they're sandbagging. They seem to be suggesting Kennedy as the swing vote (he often is), and point out that his prior comments which seem promising don't necessarily mean he'll come out in favor of gay marriage.

I guess that last point is probably accurate, but I really don't think it'll be that close. I could easily see a 2 vote margin, and more wouldn't surprise me. The only thorn I see is the "states rights" issue, but I think that's a shit copout at this point.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:13 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9359
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:33 pm

Sounds like they're running out of arguments to oppose it with.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Lieris » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:48 pm

How do these people manage to get up in the morning without drowning themselves in the toilet. It's like they are characters in a satirical political programme written by Chris Morris.
Lieris
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:49 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Zobel » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:29 pm

KysenMurrin wrote:Sounds like they're running out of arguments to oppose it with.

That was the winning argument in Hernandez v. Robles, so it's no surprise that marriage opponents are rehashing it now.

It fetishizes the one biological difference between same-sex couples and other-sex couples as not only relevant but indispensible. It's a fundamentally stupid argument, but it's one with an actual judicial pedigree.
User avatar
Zobel
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:09 pm

Klaudandus wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/argument-against-gay-marriage-california-hinges-accidental-pregnancies-095158941--election.html

*facedesk*

Do pro-lifers support same-sex marriage? As it's a guaranteed way to avoid abortion (short of medical complications) since same-sex couples can't accidentally get pregnant...
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3537
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kanta » Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:40 am

There's a pretty big flaw in that line of logic. The same-sex couple that gets married has exactly the same chance to get accidentally pregnant as they had prior to marriage. The ability to marry doesn't change this. If I were married to another man, that wouldn't necessarily preclude me from cheating on my husband with a female. Of course, this does assume either bisexual or at least experimental willingness, but nonetheless it's not guaranteed.
Image
Image
Kanta
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:31 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:32 am

Well that argument goes both ways. Accidental pregnancy isn't any greater (or lesser) risk if my GF and I got married, than it is now where we are not, also neither eventuality precludes me from going out and cheating and getting some other girl (I don't feel old enough to call them women, sorry "girls") pregnant.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:14 pm

Kanta wrote:There's a pretty big flaw in that line of logic. The same-sex couple that gets married has exactly the same chance to get accidentally pregnant as they had prior to marriage. The ability to marry doesn't change this. If I were married to another man, that wouldn't necessarily preclude me from cheating on my husband with a female. Of course, this does assume either bisexual or at least experimental willingness, but nonetheless it's not guaranteed.

Wasn't saying it was a good argument... I was just trying to come up with something just as stupid as what anti-gay marriage people come up with.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3537
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:53 pm

Kanta wrote:There's a pretty big flaw in that line of logic. The same-sex couple that gets married has exactly the same chance to get accidentally pregnant as they had prior to marriage. The ability to marry doesn't change this. If I were married to another man, that wouldn't necessarily preclude me from cheating on my husband with a female. Of course, this does assume either bisexual or at least experimental willingness, but nonetheless it's not guaranteed.

A percentage of the population does wait until marriage to have sex, so the ability to marry does in fact have an impact on the chances of getting pregnant. It's probably not a big percentage, but of the people who have accidental pregnancies, I believe they would be disproportionately represented due to inexperience with birth control methods and lack of knowledge about birth control in general.

Yes, I agree that's a stupid argument.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:55 am

It seems like that court was just looking for a way to punt on that case and force the legislature to handle it.

The critical question is whether a rational legislature could decide that these benefits should be given to members of opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples. The question is not, we emphasize, whether the Legislature must or should continue to limit marriage in this way; of course the Legislature may (subject to the effect of the federal Defense of Marriage Act) extend marriage or some or all of its benefits to same-sex couples.


That's the one concern I have about the Supreme court too, that they may essentially punt declaring it a state's rights issue or something like that. Especially since this topic has been getting dealt with quite a bit in state legislatures lately, it's not a hard argument to make. I think it's nonsense, but the court has been taking quite a bit of heat for even looking like they may rule on a recent legislative matter lately, ironically, mostly from people who are going to want them to not punt on this issue.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:16 am

As to the supreme court, the way I see it, its a bit hard to make it a states right issue due to Art. 4, sec. 1, Full faith and credit. I do see how the state courts can refer it back to the legislature from that argument though.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:27 am

I don't necessarily disagree but, the court has a lot of flexibility in what it considers.  It can simply not rule on certain aspects and therefore not have to answer that question.

I can't remember off the top of my head the details of what they are going to be looking at.  One is DOMA and I think there's another case too...but it's totally slipped my mind, and I can't look it up atm.

They could rule that DOMA is unconstitutional, but that would merely make it a state issue.  Without an amendment, the fed's can't easily tell states that they have to accept same sex marriages, unless the court answers that specific challenge as part of its ruling.

It just seems to me, that marriage is a pretty fundamental recognition, both legally and socially. The idea that that status can change as you drive across states or move to a new home, seems to cut at the core of our founding principles.

I'm a bigger advocate for state's rights than most, but it just doesn't make sense for this issue to me.  Granted my ultimately desired solution is to not have a legal concept of marriage anyhow (civil unions for all, imo), but that's simply not going to happen.  So the pragmatist in me sees this as the best alternative.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:27 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9359
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:20 am

Fridmarr wrote:Granted my ultimately desired solution is to not have a legal concept of marriage anyhow (civil unions for all, imo), but that's simply not going to happen.  So the pragmatist in me sees this as the best alternative.


Well, depending on the viewpoint we are fast approaching that in Denmark. Marriage (and registered partnership for same-sex unions previously carries certain rights and duties. One of the most principal duties (and rights) in a marriage, that is not extended to people living together (we have a term for people that live in a marriage-like relationship for 2 years or more) is interdependency / mutual provider duty. This is now, in the social security areas, being extended to unmarried couples that are living together, so the rights and duties associated with the legal union conferred by marriage is now almost fully transferred to unmarried couples as well (granted, the reform hasn't been ironed out or even reached a majority settlement, its just the governments suggestion to parliament so far) - the only thingsunmarried couples are restricted in if this goes through (apart from some arcane priveleges) is joint tax filing (which is as much a benefit as it is a problem) and inheriting eachother outside of massive fees (since unmarried couples are, by definition not related).

So come another 5 or 10 years, marriage as an institution will probably be purely symbolic and religious.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:35 pm

Nooska wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Granted my ultimately desired solution is to not have a legal concept of marriage anyhow (civil unions for all, imo), but that's simply not going to happen.  So the pragmatist in me sees this as the best alternative.


Well, depending on the viewpoint we are fast approaching that in Denmark. Marriage (and registered partnership for same-sex unions previously carries certain rights and duties. One of the most principal duties (and rights) in a marriage, that is not extended to people living together (we have a term for people that live in a marriage-like relationship for 2 years or more) is interdependency / mutual provider duty. This is now, in the social security areas, being extended to unmarried couples that are living together, so the rights and duties associated with the legal union conferred by marriage is now almost fully transferred to unmarried couples as well (granted, the reform hasn't been ironed out or even reached a majority settlement, its just the governments suggestion to parliament so far) - the only thingsunmarried couples are restricted in if this goes through (apart from some arcane priveleges) is joint tax filing (which is as much a benefit as it is a problem) and inheriting eachother outside of massive fees (since unmarried couples are, by definition not related).

So come another 5 or 10 years, marriage as an institution will probably be purely symbolic and religious.


The issue with both Fridmarr's desired solution, and apparently Denmark's, is that it is not recognised as a marriage abroad. If you have a couple travelling to a place where same-sex marriage is permissible, they would not be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of that state. That could mean they have no rights to hospital visitation in the event of a medical emergency.

The institution of marriage is recognised world-wide, although same-sex marriages are not always recognised. Civil unions are recognised in fewer countries, and de-facto relationships are recognised in even fewer. So while the designation may be fine within the country, it is different and therefore not equal to an actual marriage.

The US tried that back in the mid-1900s with segregated schools. "Separate But Equal" was the motto. In principal it worked - what is the harm if both whites and blacks get the same education, and only the buildings are different? In reality it wasn't equal, and fostered the perception that there needed to be a distinction between whites and blacks.

Similarly, there needs to be no distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage. It needs to just be "marriage". Not something similar, or something equal, but actually the same thing. It's nice that people propose methods to recognise same-sex couples and give them some legal standing, but as long as it is not actual marriage there is more work to do.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:17 pm


Similarly, there needs to be no distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage. It needs to just be "marriage". Not something similar, or something equal, but actually the same thing. It's nice that people propose methods to recognise same-sex couples and give them some legal standing, but as long as it is not actual marriage there is more work to do.


Sorry, there's no "like" button on the board. I agree 100%
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:22 pm

Koatanga wrote:The issue with both Fridmarr's desired solution, and apparently Denmark's, is that it is not recognised as a marriage abroad. If you have a couple travelling to a place where same-sex marriage is permissible, they would not be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of that state. That could mean they have no rights to hospital visitation in the event of a medical emergency.

That's pretty trivial to solve through the diplomatic process.

I don't agree with separate but equal either, so that's not at all what my desired solution entails.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:46 pm

Koatanga wrote:The issue with both Fridmarr's desired solution, and apparently Denmark's, is that it is not recognised as a marriage abroad. If you have a couple travelling to a place where same-sex marriage is permissible, they would not be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of that state. That could mean they have no rights to hospital visitation in the event of a medical emergency.

I don't wish to put words in Fridmarr's mouth, but I think the idea is to get away from the term "marriage" and let that be a religious term. You can get "married" through your church or whatever, but if you want any sort of recognition outside of your religious institution, then you need to enter into a civil union* in the presence of a justice of the peace (or whatever the current process is minus the big wedding/reception part which is basically just "fluff.")

That I'd be okay with, but it would require making the distinction that a "marriage" doesn't provide any sort of benefits (hospital visitation, joint taxes, survivor benefits) and civil unions* do.

*Or whatever terminology is decided. I couldn't give two shits what they want to call it, so long as it's the same for everyone.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3537
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:27 am

Skye1013 wrote:
Koatanga wrote:The issue with both Fridmarr's desired solution, and apparently Denmark's, is that it is not recognised as a marriage abroad. If you have a couple travelling to a place where same-sex marriage is permissible, they would not be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of that state. That could mean they have no rights to hospital visitation in the event of a medical emergency.

I don't wish to put words in Fridmarr's mouth, but I think the idea is to get away from the term "marriage" and let that be a religious term. You can get "married" through your church or whatever, but if you want any sort of recognition outside of your religious institution, then you need to enter into a civil union* in the presence of a justice of the peace (or whatever the current process is minus the big wedding/reception part which is basically just "fluff.")

That I'd be okay with, but it would require making the distinction that a "marriage" doesn't provide any sort of benefits (hospital visitation, joint taxes, survivor benefits) and civil unions* do.

*Or whatever terminology is decided. I couldn't give two shits what they want to call it, so long as it's the same for everyone.

That's completely unrealistic. Once an idea exists and spreads, you can't kill it. The idea of marriage not only exists, but has been THE traditional grouping for thousands of years.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:54 am

As for the danish solution, that wouldn't be a problem, as the laws are being changed to inflict the duties of being married on unmarried couples, so over a 5-10 year period of changing laws, being legally "married" is just something that happens automatically - as is the only reason another (national) state allows married couples specific rights in case of emergencies ( to stay with that example) is because a legal union is claimed - I've yet to hear of any place requiring proof of said union from either part.
As for the rights to make decisions - if my gay neighbors (diclaimer, I hae no knowledge of my neighbors' sexuality) are legally joined here, they have the powers to make decisions in medical emergencies in any country regardless of whether that country (or state for the US) recognizes the union, as the legal powers stem from the legal union, and the powers remain, even though the union itself would not be recognized - a gay and joined couple does not need to carry seperate and notarized forms detailing power of attourney or proxies when traveling, to retain said powers.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Lieris » Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:54 am

Koatanga wrote:The issue with both Fridmarr's desired solution, and apparently Denmark's, is that it is not recognised as a marriage abroad. If you have a couple travelling to a place where same-sex marriage is permissible, they would not be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of that state. That could mean they have no rights to hospital visitation in the event of a medical emergency.

The institution of marriage is recognised world-wide, although same-sex marriages are not always recognised. Civil unions are recognised in fewer countries, and de-facto relationships are recognised in even fewer. So while the designation may be fine within the country, it is different and therefore not equal to an actual marriage.

The US tried that back in the mid-1900s with segregated schools. "Separate But Equal" was the motto. In principal it worked - what is the harm if both whites and blacks get the same education, and only the buildings are different? In reality it wasn't equal, and fostered the perception that there needed to be a distinction between whites and blacks.

Similarly, there needs to be no distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage. It needs to just be "marriage". Not something similar, or something equal, but actually the same thing. It's nice that people propose methods to recognise same-sex couples and give them some legal standing, but as long as it is not actual marriage there is more work to do.


Spot on.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel; have marriage for everyone then draw the line under this. One law for all. All this talk of getting rid of marriages (an internationally recognised concept) or allowing the religious to have a monopoly over it is a load of rubbish that needlessly complicates an issue that is really very simple: equality.
Lieris
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:49 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:34 pm

No one's talking about getting rid of the concept, or anything other than equality.

It's been the current integration with religion that's left a sort of tight coupling that has caused much angst and confusion throughout history. I totally get how and why it occurred, but it's hard to argue with the results.

I agree that it's unrealistic at this point, it was a bit of an aside comment, but things would have been much cleaner had we started from a point with a proper separation of concerns.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:16 am

What Fridmarr seems to be proposing (as far as I understand it) is something akin to... (Oh I'm in so much trouble here) the Netherlands, where the legal union is one entered into purely with the state, and any religious ceremony is something you do afterwards if thats your thing (I remember the marriage of - some royal - in the netherlands having to go through it twice because the big church thing was a given - after they went to city hall)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest