LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:10 pm

I've gotten so fucking tired of this entire debate. Both sides are equally vicious in their fight and if you, God forbid, refuse to be sucked in this debate you will be slammed by both equally as bad with insults and threats because I suppose for the far right it's "If you are not with us then you are working against God's word" and for the liberals it's "If you're not with us then you are against us which makes you a racist, intolerant, homophobic bigot."

I hate both sides equally and think they can go fuck themselves.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:23 pm

In a sense, I agree.

I've had the unfortunate luck of crossing paths with two trans-whatever. To them, any sort of criticism or disagreement, not even tangentially related to their sexuality, means you're transphobic... what kind of made-up word is that! I ended up just disassociating myself from that social circle that included those douchenozzles rather than deal with them -- but trust me, I came close at exploding at them and going on a lengthy rant.

I came close to telling them "The only reason why I am in favor of LGBT rights is because of my friends, because if it wasn't for them, I'd be against them solely based on what a horrible person YOU are".

I have no real dog in the LGBT rights fight. In a solely personal level, I am not affected with allowing or banning. I choose to stand with my friends in the fight for their rights, because it feels right, because it's the decent thing to do.

But there are people that just make me wanna flip a table and go "fuck it guys" -- like that waitress with the fake receipt.
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 Io.Draco » Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:01 pm

I'd be against them solely based on what a horrible person YOU are.


This is exactly how I personally feel about the LGBT movement and in general social justice warriors, including feminists.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:34 pm

I can understand that. People can be very obnoxious. I do think it's important to separate the cause from the people though.

At the end of the day, I find that there are two objectives I try very hard to meet. First, I need to be able to look myself in the mirror, and know that what I believe in is right/moral. I don't want to believe in something because someone is influencing me. Whether that someone is a family member, an activist, an actor, a friend, a politician with a certain letter next to his name etc. I'm responsible to myself in my beliefs.

Secondly, I need to be open to the fact that I could be wrong, and willing to listen to the other side. Both can be challenging at times, especially the second, but I've gotten into the habit of reminding myself of these concepts and that helps. I think having that mindset allows me to utterly disregard the seething vile that can be spewed by either side of an issue. It also opened my eyes a bit to exactly how similar both sides on most issues are.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:21 pm

To me there are just "rights". Any time there's a word put in front of "rights" that segregates a group of people such that their "rights" can be treated differently, then I have a problem.

Black rights
Gay rights
Trans-whatever rights
Women's rights

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. It's just "rights".

My mother-in-law amuses me by saying "I'm tired of hearing all these gays wanting special laws passed just for them". If there weren't special laws passed preventing them from doing things in the first place, there would be no need for them to have special laws passed for them now!
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 Klaudandus » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:35 pm

Pretty valid point.

It's just that some people just really stink it up for everyone else.
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 Paxen » Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:54 pm

Koatanga wrote:My mother-in-law amuses me by saying "I'm tired of hearing all these gays wanting special laws passed just for them". If there weren't special laws passed preventing them from doing things in the first place, there would be no need for them to have special laws passed for them now!


Very important point. That's why I think that it doesn't matter that there's douchebags on both sides. It's obvious to me what the right side is anyway - I don't decide what's right and wrong based on my dislike for certain people. It's mostly the other way around.
Paxen
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby fuzzygeek » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:23 am

The correct approach is not to pass more laws. The correct approach is to repeal old laws.

There's the mindset that "whatever is not explicitly banned, is permitted," as opposed to "whatever is not explicitly permitted, is banned."

As a society I think we're better off with the first, but I see a lot of lawmakers with the mentality of the second.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:37 am

Not so clear-cut when it comes to enforcing non-discrimination, though. Sometimes special laws can be necessary, since a cultural change doesn't come about overnight, but can be helped along with legislation.

(And yes, then you get into those arguments about at what point the laws are no longer necessary.)
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:56 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:The correct approach is not to pass more laws. The correct approach is to repeal old laws.

There's the mindset that "whatever is not explicitly banned, is permitted," as opposed to "whatever is not explicitly permitted, is banned."

As a society I think we're better off with the first, but I see a lot of lawmakers with the mentality of the second.

That all depends on the law. If there is a law passed that says "marriage is between a man and a woman who are not directly related by blood", then if you repeal it some yahoo is going to marry a goat just to make the point that the law shouldn't have been repealed. If you pass a law amending the previous to read "two people" instead of "a man and a woman" then you don't have to deal with the yahoos so much.
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 fuzzygeek » Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:09 pm

KysenMurrin wrote:Not so clear-cut when it comes to enforcing non-discrimination, though. Sometimes special laws can be necessary, since a cultural change doesn't come about overnight, but can be helped along with legislation.


I agree. It's unfortunate when certain movements become institutionalized, such that they end up promulgating what they're purportedly against, because if they actually succeeded they'd have no reason to exist (and employ their huge bureaucracy, receive Federal funds, solicit donations, etc.). Some institutions may say they're against X, but end up (directly or indirectly, purposefully or by accident) instigating or preserving X.

Koatanga wrote:That all depends on the law. If there is a law passed that says "marriage is between a man and a woman who are not directly related by blood", then if you repeal it some yahoo is going to marry a goat just to make the point that the law shouldn't have been repealed. If you pass a law amending the previous to read "two people" instead of "a man and a woman" then you don't have to deal with the yahoos so much.


What's wrong if some yahoo wants to marry his goat, assuming the goat consents?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Paxen » Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:17 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:What's wrong if some yahoo wants to marry his goat, assuming the goat consents?


That would be the problem.
Paxen
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby fuzzygeek » Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:47 pm

Paxen wrote:
fuzzygeek wrote:What's wrong if some yahoo wants to marry his goat, assuming the goat consents?


That would be the problem.


Exactly.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Fri Dec 06, 2013 4:36 am

You wouldn't need some yahoo that would do it to make a point. There would be actual people doing it for actual "normal" reasons (normal here being reasons most people would use toward their chosen.. erhmm.. partner (I guess works best here)).

The question (in my mind) isn't so much whether the goat would consent - I mean, animals don't have a right to not consent to significantly worse (objectively) things, say, like being slaughtered (literally) - but more whether the goat would endure duress.
This is getting rather far afield 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 Amirya » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:19 am

There's a lawsuit pending in New York that would grant chimpanzees personhood...
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:48 am

Amirya wrote:There's a lawsuit pending in New York that would grant chimpanzees personhood...


Image
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 Amirya » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:51 am

LOL Sorry.

/slinks off
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:22 am

Amirya wrote:LOL Sorry.

/slinks off


NOT YOU! Those in the lawsuit!
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 fuzzygeek » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:25 am

(I may have shortcircuited mentioning that I consider marriage a contract, and contract law (and its protections) still apply. Specifically rules regarding capacity.)
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:27 am

Klaudandus wrote:
Amirya wrote:LOL Sorry.

/slinks off


NOT YOU! Those in the lawsuit!

Even so! Now you might lie awake at night, wondering what other stupid personhood lawsuits might start showing up on judicial dockets!

I must live with that glee guilt. :wink:
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:36 am

fuzzygeek wrote:(I may have shortcircuited mentioning that I consider marriage a contract, and contract law (and its protections) still apply. Specifically rules regarding capacity.)


That's pretty much how I see it too. A binding contract within two people to share assets, custodies, et al. -- regardless of what their gender or sexual orientation is.
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 fuzzygeek » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:19 pm

Klaudandus wrote:That's pretty much how I see it too. A binding contract within two people to share assets, custodies, et al. -- regardless of what their gender or sexual orientation is.


Logical next step: why restrict it to two people?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Paxen » Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:55 am

fuzzygeek wrote:Logical next step: why restrict it to two people?


Maybe we shouldn't? The arguments against that is mostly that it messes with demographics, that such marriages often comes from an imbalance in power (muddling up that "consenting" part of consenting adults), and that those who end up on the outside might become a destabilizing element on society (the cliche being angry unmarried muslim men, but afaik that's probably a myth).

I'm not sure if all that trumps "consenting adults". And even if it's not restricted to two people, one person can easily be limited to just one marriage contract - that is, if you want two wives (or husbands), they will have to marry each other as well as you.
Paxen
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:27 am

I feel conflicted about this
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12 ... ay-couples

On one hand, the baker is a douche; on the other hand, the couple come out as douches as well; and finally, unless there is a non-discriminatory statute that includes sexual orientation in place, I feel like the judge overstepped boundaries.

Wouldn't it be easier to give your money to someone that actually wants your business? I would not want to eat something made by someone that hates my guts. I'd just let capitalism do its work here and let the business that discriminates go out of business on its own due to bad publicity.
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 Koatanga » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:43 pm

Klaudandus wrote:I feel conflicted about this
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12 ... ay-couples

On one hand, the baker is a douche; on the other hand, the couple come out as douches as well; and finally, unless there is a non-discriminatory statute that includes sexual orientation in place, I feel like the judge overstepped boundaries.

Wouldn't it be easier to give your money to someone that actually wants your business? I would not want to eat something made by someone that hates my guts. I'd just let capitalism do its work here and let the business that discriminates go out of business on its own due to bad publicity.

The way I look at it, selling God has specific ideological tenets fundamental to the operation of the organisation, so I reckon churches should be able to discriminate - based on those ideological tenets - as they see fit. E.g. you can't have your gay marriage in our church because it's considered blasphemous. Fair enough.

Selling cakes has no inherent ideological component. The bakery has no more right to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference than it does based on race or gender.

If it was Joe's Christian Bakery ("Holiest Donuts in Town"), then I'd see the point.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Era, Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 2 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: Era, Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest