LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

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: 9362
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: 2958
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: 9362
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: 2958
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: 9362
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: 547
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: 9362
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: 1668
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby fuzzygeek » Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:29 pm

On the one hand, government telling private business whom they must serve twitches my radar, but on the other hand, no one would blink if a racist baker was being forced to serve minorities.

On the third hand, it's not like these services are hard to find options for; the idea of buying a wedding cake from someone you've had to take to court to get them to sell it to you sounds like one of the Top 10 things Not To Do. The cynic in me thinks they specifically targeted this baker just for a lawsuit.

Like, who the fuck would purchase anything for their wedding from a vendor that doesn't want to do business with them? If I had to sue someone to get them to make me a cake, I certainly wouldn't expect their best work, nor would I trust the ... quality ... of the product.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:05 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:On the one hand, government telling private business whom they must serve twitches my radar, but on the other hand, no one would blink if a racist baker was being forced to serve minorities.

On the third hand, it's not like these services are hard to find options for; the idea of buying a wedding cake from someone you've had to take to court to get them to sell it to you sounds like one of the Top 10 things Not To Do. The cynic in me thinks they specifically targeted this baker just for a lawsuit.

Like, who the fuck would purchase anything for their wedding from a vendor that doesn't want to do business with them? If I had to sue someone to get them to make me a cake, I certainly wouldn't expect their best work, nor would I trust the ... quality ... of the product.


Pretty much exactly what I've been thinking all along.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:07 am

Klaudandus wrote:
fuzzygeek wrote:On the one hand, government telling private business whom they must serve twitches my radar, but on the other hand, no one would blink if a racist baker was being forced to serve minorities.

On the third hand, it's not like these services are hard to find options for; the idea of buying a wedding cake from someone you've had to take to court to get them to sell it to you sounds like one of the Top 10 things Not To Do. The cynic in me thinks they specifically targeted this baker just for a lawsuit.

Like, who the fuck would purchase anything for their wedding from a vendor that doesn't want to do business with them? If I had to sue someone to get them to make me a cake, I certainly wouldn't expect their best work, nor would I trust the ... quality ... of the product.


Pretty much exactly what I've been thinking all along.


Sure, and Rosa Parks could have taken a different bus. Maybe they went to a baker, were denied service solely on the basis of their sexual preference, and decided to stand up for their rights.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:31 am

You have to consider precedent-setting and other situations that could occur, even if they seem unlikely. To defend the right of an individual to discriminate against members of one group, you must also defend the right of an entire community to exclude that group, should they choose to.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:25 am

KysenMurrin wrote:You have to consider precedent-setting and other situations that could occur, even if they seem unlikely. To defend the right of an individual to discriminate against members of one group, you must also defend the right of an entire community to exclude that group, should they choose to.

Image

I think the only thing the judge could do was rule this way, because ruling the other way would have stated that it wa slegal to deny services based on sexuality, and that could be a real problem in a small town for instance (say the 2 markets there denied service based on sexual preference, you now cnannot buy food without getting a acar, but hey, the local car dealership decided to deny service too)

I can get behind the individual enterprise having a right to chose its customers - to a degree - but only based on rational criteria (I agree with the church thing*)


*Anecdotally, some years back there was a whole to do about a man being denied a job as a priest at a church (we have "state church" in denmark), despite being fully qualified (having complete theology at the university and having done the seminars etc required) - because he had stated that he did not believe in God.
I have to look up where it ended up because that wasn't what stuck out - what stuck out was the discussion about being discriminated based on personal belief despite meeting all qualifications and being competent, and willing to perform all duties loyally.

My take on that - if you don't believe in God, the chuch can deny you work as a priest. Not as a digger or any other "menial" function, but the proselytizer, they can damned well demand believes in what they are saying (or at least, that they haven't said outright that they don't believe).

Same deal with private schools or child care institutions - if the applicant is qualified, but outright says they don't believe in the pedagogical apprach said schoool or institution wants to practice - they should be allowed to deny employment with no other special circumstances.
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: 1541
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby fuzzygeek » Sun Dec 08, 2013 8:34 am

Klaudandus wrote:Pretty much exactly what I've been thinking all along.


I swear I had another half to the post that either got accidentally deleted, or I never actually wrote and just thought I did.

I thought I originally expanded upon the first thought -- gov't forcing private enterprise to do business is weird at first blush, but anti-discrimination laws are a thing.

Ultimately I think the precedent the judge sets is better than the alternative. It's an interesting twinge, when government edict trumps classical liberalism.

Also the more I think about it the less I think the Baker has a leg to stand on, theologically. It's not like Christianity has an analog to haram.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:45 am

I know its the better alternative, but at the same time, I feel like such laws should be made at a federal level, than at a county level -- although its not uncommon for some more liberal counties/cities to have non-discrimination statutes based on sexual orientation.

Truth be told, this case gives me a bunch of mixed feelings.

But I'd not want to eat something prepared by someone who hates my guts.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:17 am

Klaudandus wrote:But I'd not want to eat something prepared by someone who hates my guts.

^This, so much, this.
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: 1541
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:21 pm

Klaudandus wrote:
Amirya wrote:LOL Sorry.

/slinks off


NOT YOU! Those in the lawsuit!

Lawsuit fails, Klaud.
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: 2958
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:31 pm

Amirya wrote:Lawsuit fails, Klaud.


Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:50 pm

For now. They're promising to appeal it, but at least this is a good first step.
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: 2958
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:44 am

My thoughts on people marrying animals...

If the animal has a proveable IQ level equivalent to whatever limits are currently set in place in order to give consent... and they give it... have at.

This does bring up a question though... obviously marrying children is out of the question... but are there any laws restricting the marriages of mentally handicapped people who have the body of an adult, but the mental acuity of a child? If so... that would be where I'd start the line for marrying animals.
"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: 3540
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:26 am

Marriage laws obviously differ a lot across countries, but I've yet to hear of any countries that restrict marriage on base of IQ or other cognitive tests specifically.

Around here these are the criteria;

1) You need to be 2 persons of opposite genders, or of the same gender
2) Persons under the age of 18, that are not previously married, cannot enter into marriags without the consent of their parents (guardians), with a caveats about only one parent beeing needed under circumstances that make it difficult to get the consenc of the other
3) you cannot be a ward of the state (as in, having been considered legally unable to take care of yourself - this is an reverse competency requirement)
4) you cannot marry a relative in direct ascending or descending line, or a sibling
5) you cannot have/be adopted by the one you wish to marry, as long as the adopted relationship exists (so you can have it voided, then marry)
6) you cannot enter into a new marriage/partnership(holdover) as long as you are currently married/in a registered partnership

There is a further clause to the age requirement, that theyc annot enter into marriage without the consent of the approving authority, and that the approving authority can stipulate that the person under 18 years of age would still be considered a minor, despite being allowed to enter into marriage - this is a thing, because the law on being fully legally competent (the Law of Guardianship), wherein it is stated that Children and young under the age of 18, that have not entered into marriages, are minors, and therefore not legally competent (and goes on to list what requires legal competence, like entering into contracts, and managing their wealth)
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: 1541
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:00 am

Nooska wrote:There is a further clause to the age requirement, that theyc annot enter into marriage without the consent of the approving authority, and that the approving authority can stipulate that the person under 18 years of age would still be considered a minor, despite being allowed to enter into marriage - this is a thing, because the law on being fully legally competent (the Law of Guardianship), wherein it is stated that Children and young under the age of 18, that have not entered into marriages, are minors, and therefore not legally competent (and goes on to list what requires legal competence, like entering into contracts, and managing their wealth)

This is where I get confused... because people with Down's Syndrome or similar, typically have the mental demeanor of a child even beyond the age of 18. Can they legally get married on their own or do they require a guardian to "sign off" on it, as if they were a child? Is the only stipulation "they are chronologically 18 years old, so therefore are capable of deciding for themself if they want to get married."

Edit: In essence, if my final statement is true... then the only reason it's illegal to marry a minor is because they aren't 18 and has nothing to do with competency.
"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: 3540
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Ironshield » Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:29 am

The problem with any kind of competency test is: who decides? An age limit is pretty easy to use in most cases (it's rare that someone's age is unverifiable or fairly obvious). Whereas what ever 'test' you decide to implement would almost certainly be failed by people who are happily married now.

Image

Source
Image
Ironshield
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:46 pm

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