Remove Advertisements

LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:46 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11053
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:19 am

The situation with Russia greatly underscores the double standards and hypocrisy of the gay rights movement. Oh look at how gays are so fucking special above everything else that goes badly in Russia or east Europe in general ( the corruption, the stealing, the SLAVERY, the mafias controlling entire states etc. ), but Putin makes a law that bans gay "propaganda" and suddenly it's the most important thing in the world making headlines in every major news outlet!

I get it gays have it bad in Russia/East Europe, but no one can come to my face and tell me that thousands of children of being sold ( by their parents no less )/abducted every single fucking year in east Europe ( including in Russia ) to be sold into fucking slavery and having their entire lives destroyed is somehow less important, and yet that issue barely brings up any headlines or the kind of response that the gay rights movements has gotten.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Sagara » Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:32 am

I see two flaws in that logic

a) first, your own point is going backwards. It's not that it's bad that the LGBT get the limelight while the rest gets to rot, it's bad that other civil rights movement are being ignored. I can understand being pissed about not tackling other issues, but accusing the LGBT of hogging the limelight feels like a rather dick move, because to an extend...

b) I'd blame newcaster more than the LGBT movement for that one, tbh. I'd honestly expect LGBT rights movement to actually, you know, move when LGBT rights are in danger. The fact that news channel have decided this to be "the big news" is just the bottom line - LGBT discussion is hip and generates revenue, while complex discussion about state corruption, its origins and potential paths to couterbalance it would bore the "average" public to death. That's an article for serious journals on complex issues, not mainstream or grassroots. One could minimize the law, but let's not forget it's Russia we're talking about, a land where law interpretation has become an art for the powers that be.
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:51 am

a) first, your own point is going backwards. It's not that it's bad that the LGBT get the limelight while the rest gets to rot, it's bad that other civil rights movement are being ignored. I can understand being pissed about not tackling other issues, but accusing the LGBT of hogging the limelight feels like a rather dick move, because to an extend...


You know what's a dick move? Calling yourself a promoter of human rights ( as many of these LGBT crusaders do ) while not giving a shit about other human rights issues AND promoting the issues gays face as being the most special thing in the world.

Not all activists do this and I am well aware of this fact that some do care about other issues, but these a rarity. I look at the Black Rights movement as a different example where quite a few activists did and still do fight for other civil rights issues. The most notable person who is still alive and doing this is Desmond Tutu who is fighting tirelessly against homophobia, slavery and poverty.

b) I'd blame newcaster more than the LGBT movement for that one, tbh. I'd honestly expect LGBT rights movement to actually, you know, move when LGBT rights are in danger. The fact that news channel have decided this to be "the big news" is just the bottom line - LGBT discussion is hip and generates revenue, while complex discussion about state corruption, its origins and potential paths to couterbalance it would bore the "average" public to death. That's an article for serious journals on complex issues, not mainstream or grassroots. One could minimize the law, but let's not forget it's Russia we're talking about, a land where law interpretation has become an art for the powers that be.


I would argue that anyone who claims to be fighting for human rights while being a very public figure with a lotof sway has a responsibility to fight for other issues as well. Newscasters do actually cover the issue of slavery ( as an example ) but people do not care about it.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Darielle » Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:11 pm

You know what's a dick move? Calling yourself a promoter of human rights ( as many of these LGBT crusaders do ) while not giving a shit about other human rights issues AND promoting the issues gays face as being the most special thing in the world.


I'm not sure who you're really trying to address with that. I doubt even a significant portion of "LGBT crusaders" don't give a shit about other human rights issues. Moreover, for them, these issues are simply closer to them, or hit them in an area that is more sensitive due to history/relatability etc., and there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

Certainly, the world is better off and more able to handle other human rights issues even if it simply tackles whichever one is popular at the time.
Darielle
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Sagara » Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:59 pm

Io.Draco wrote:Not all activists do this and I am well aware of this fact that some do care about other issues, but these a rarity.


I'll tahnk Darielle for restating the obvious, and I'll just add to that little tidbit: [citation needed]

Io.Draco wrote:I would argue that anyone who claims to be fighting for human rights while being a very public figure with a lotof sway has a responsibility to fight for other issues as well. Newscasters do actually cover the issue of slavery ( as an example ) but people do not care about it.


Honestly, it's been *years* since I read or heard something about sweatshops. If I wasn't slightly aware of it due to past exposure, it'd fly right over my head.

Also, to adress the "fair and unbiaised news" bit, I spilled my drink on the screen. I'll be eating raw hats the day major newscaster priotirize according to fairness and information, not hype and market shares. The only group that actually provides fairly unbiased news are general information groups (Belga comes to mind), but whom only bothers with actual new information.
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:55 pm

Io.Draco wrote:You know what's a dick move? Calling yourself a promoter of human rights ( as many of these LGBT crusaders do ) while not giving a shit about other human rights issues AND promoting the issues gays face as being the most special thing in the world.

So basically unless you are prepared to spend every waking moment solving every human rights issue, you should STFU? That's a load of crap.

There are heaps of human rights issues all over the globe, from Russian slavery to Rwandan genocide to the unfair treatment of native Americans and golf courses that don't allow black members. Solving them all simultaneously is impossible for anyone to do, much less attempt.

By taking your stance, all you are doing is stifling one segment that actually has some traction toward gaining the rights they deserve. It may suck that the other issues aren't getting the attention they need, but solving one issue is still better than solving none.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. You're suggesting if you can't eat the elephant in one bite, you should put down the fork. Ridiculous.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Sat Dec 21, 2013 10:10 am

The problem is that this anti-gay law(s) isn't just a human rights 'violation' because it bans you from being gay (good luck with that btw) - its a bigger problem because you are banned from even protesting the human rights violations. So not only do the law violate human rights (whihch, I'll grant, aren't as universal as we like to think in the west), it bans the freedom to speak out against the political opinion, so they reach quite a bit further than being anti-gay; they are anti-democratic (free speech, or rather, the ability to state ones views is fundamental to being a democratic or free system)
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: 1498
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Passionario » Tue Dec 24, 2013 2:55 am

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

Next logical step: why restrict it to natural persons? Corporations (and nations!) can enter into all kinds of contracts, so why should marriage be an exception?
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:19 am

While I get the point, it is actually too late.

You can ente rinto a contract, no problem, with all the legal parts of a marriage between 2 corporations , including tax status etc (though corporations operate under different tax codes in general)
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: 1498
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:04 am

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

Next logical step: why restrict it to natural persons? Corporations (and nations!) can enter into all kinds of contracts, so why should marriage be an exception?


I have no logical argument against polygamy. Does anyone else?

As for "natural persons", holy crap, how far down the slippery slope will people's concern go? Marriage is a legal contract between two people of consenting age. If we adopt marriage equality for gay people, sure, I could see polygamy being the "logical next step", but there is no slippery slope after that. So long as marriage is defined by consent, no children, animals, inanimate objects, or abstractions will become involved. These are disgusting and petty canards, only meant to obfuscate the issue and play up the fear and hatred of the gays.

The logical steps we have taken in the past need review, I think. We have only very recently in history changed the definition of marriage from arraigned marriages where neither partner could consent (often due to being under age), to a man taking a woman from her father as a property exchange (so long as they're all the right race/religion/social class), to now where anyone consenting individual can marry any other unmarried opposite sex consenting individual. This proposed step is just dropping the "opposite sex" part. If one would also like to drop the "unmarried" part and allow group marriage, so what? Who is harmed?
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:16 pm

I'm fine with polygamy, but one difference between it and gay marriage, is that there is no victim for the cause.

Everyone (assuming gay marriage becomes fully legal) has the ability to marry one other consenting person. Everyone is treated the same, so there is no legal issue that could cause a legalization of polygamy, like you have with the 14th amendment and gay marriage.

So, polygamy can only become legal if the majority of the people vote for it, either through initiative or representatives. That's going to be a tough hurdle imo.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:00 pm

I'm not a polygamist-minded person myself, and I doubt I'll ever marry anyway. (They can take half or more of your stuff!? And keep taking more? Why would I financially motivate someone to leave me?) I just wanted to be intellectually honest and recognize that pro-gay marriage arguments could also be applied to a pro-polygamy cause. I don't want to be immediately dismissive of it, but I see it as also part of the "slippery-slope" canard. I also think gay marriage is a bizarre moral question to be debating as we hurtle headlong into a future with no privacy. Relative privation, perhaps, but it's how I feel.

I'm going through the whole thread, finding interesting stuff. The rest of this post kind of a summary response, with a bit of personal narrative (please indulge me), and very disjointed. Sorry.

People are touchy about religion, that's for sure. I grew up fundamentalist Christian, and now I'm a full blown anti-theist. It was an intellectual decision that compelled me to not believe without evidence, and I really grieved, so not "Screw you, mom!" Anyway, before I gave up even the slightest bit of fundie faith, I was disappointed by the hypocrisy of those who wish to enforce their beliefs on others. I could believe being gay is a sin all day long, and at the same time not be against gay marriage. I worked that out inside my own head when I was a teenager, but kept quiet at the time, of course. My point is, I once believed being gay was a sin, but I saw many things which are sinful being legal, like gambling, drunkenness, adultery... *ahem* divorce. My point is, the people teaching me these things were good, kind people. They took me in when I needed a home. I can't bring myself to hate them or people like them, but they are wrong. We cannot force people to follow any religion.

"LTB rights" vs. "Human rights" was brought up. Maybe it's semantics, but may I remind everyone that the word "semantics" comes from the Greek "semantikos" meaning "important". I usually use the language that people before me use, as a way to mimic tone, phrasing, dialect, ect. I'm a verbal chameleon of sorts that way. So, in this context I've already used the phrase "gay marriage" several times, but if I were to start a thread or in any way write or speak my own piece, I would call it marriage equality. That happens to be the way the Human Rights Campaign phrases it, and yes, gay rights are human rights, not "special recognition" or "privileges", just basic human rights. I like the way Rep. Barney Frank phrased the gay agenda: "It’s to be protected against violent crimes driven by bigotry. It’s to be able to get married. It’s to be able to get a job and it’s to be able to fight for our country."

Living in rural Tennessee, I'd like that first one ASAP.

As for the Chik-fil-A boycott, I'm going to have to be hipster here and say I've been boycotting them for years, because they discriminate against non-Christians, and some stores have held mandatory team meetings on Sunday, which completely invalidates their reason for having the day off. Also, funding legislation that discriminates against me kinda kills my appetite, which is really saying something. I liked their food.

Oh, I'm bi, btw. Just thought that might be relevant by now. Also, I'm the real kinda bi, not the "Oh, just experimenting while in college and/or and I want the opposite sex to think I'm cool" kinda way. Also not the "I'm actually gay, but for some reason I want my guy friends to think I still like girls" kinda way.

Back to boycotts. I did not dump Russian vodka, partly because Stoli isn't primarily a Russian company, but mostly because they have nothing to do with the anti-gay legislation going on in Russia. Boycotting them accomplishes nothing. I also still eat Barilla because I was not even remotely offended that a chairman spoke his mind when asked to. I was offended by the competitors gleefully chasing that ambulance. I am also offended by the PC-police.

"My best friend/family member is..." means nothing to the rest of us. Please, for your own argument's sake, don't use this defense. If you do, a whole lot of people will write you off. Fair warning.

That said, it seems suspicious to me that every time someone, especially a politician, "evolves" on the issue of gay rights, they mention a gay family member or close friend. Is it just an excuse to not have to say "I didn't believe, but now the polls have changed, so now I believe"?

*coughbamacough*

"Civil Union" vs. "Marriage" was also brought up. I don't care what it's called. Even if we have an echo of "separate but equal", so long as we get equal rights, I'm OK with it in practice, if not in principle. And by equal rights I mean getting on a partner's healthcare plan, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, tax filing whatevers (someone married would know), adoption, everything.

To those who want the government out of marriage altogether, put down the pipe, maaaan. :D Seriously though, it's not gonna happen.

"I don't have any problems with you as an individual, but I do not condone your lifestyle." This has been said to me many times too. My coffee tastes the same now that I'm out. I still have a cat and live alone. Who can't condone that?

I'm not going to mock something I take seriously, and I do take religion and faith very seriously. I don't like or use the r/atheist-style insults. As an anti-theist, though, I do believe your god is a voice inside your head. There's another word for that, and I will say it. It's schizophrenia. That's just what I believe, and if you take offense to that, please keep in mind that I don't care what the voices in your head say. Just treat me like a fellow human being and I will acknowledge your beliefs/faith/feelings all day long, but there's no guarantee I will respect them. Here's an NSFW explanation, just for fun.

I also find it oddly coincidental that gay rights-themed discussions derail into religious debates frequently. I wonder why?

OK, I'm only 12 pages in, and I like it all so far, even the posts I disagree with.
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:50 am

Kal wrote:Marriage is a legal contract between two people of consenting age. If we adopt marriage equality for gay people, sure, I could see polygamy being the "logical next step", but there is no slippery slope after that. So long as marriage is defined by consent, no children, animals, inanimate objects, or abstractions will become involved.


Snipping this out - by reading your (at the time of writing) newest post, I think you may not have gotten to my previous post on almost this, but I'll restate my opinion of it.

There are no competency qualifiers in general, the qualifiers for marrying* are arbitrary. If we wish to use mental competency in regards to consent (and drop the arbitrary qualifiers), then I know people in their twenties that would not be allowed to marry, and I know a couple of persons, that would currently be considered minors, that would qualify.

While I agree its not a slippery slope, a "next logical step" could allow children or companies** to enter into marriage - provided the next area we looked at was competency versus arbitrary criterion - of course if we did change to a competency requirement, then, by definition, those now-minors qualifying, would not be children, as we would have to change our views (legally at least) on when a person is a minor/child in general in the case that we changed to a competency requirement instead of an age requirement.




* Marrying shall here be defined as entering into a legal contract that alters your rights and responsibilities towards the one(s?) you are entering into the contract with, as well as towards society.
The reason I argue for this definition of marriage, is that thi must be the one we talk about, since a religious marriage would not be something we, as a society, can legislate or decide, that will always be up to the interpretation of whatever canon the religion has - just like "you cannot apply for a job as a priest, if you do not believe in God" to me is a fair requirement, even though "cannot apply without believing in God" in all other positions would be discrimnatory.

** companies can already enter into marriage as defined above with other companies. Also, I doubt very much that a company and an individual could not enter into a marriage like contract - I don't see any incentive to do so for either party, but lack of incentive doesn't mean it couldn't be done.
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: 1498
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:25 am

I'd like to reiterate what i said immediately after the quote you used. These are disgusting and petty canards, only meant to obfuscate the issue and play up the fear and hatred of the gays.

First, the disgusting one:

I think you are entertaining these ideas only intellectually, not meaning to further the accusation that gays are also pedophiles. Just please be aware of the context. I grew up the neighbor of a woman who is somewhat infamous for saying "They can't reproduce, so they have to recruit." I've seen first hand all the illogical next steps of unreason that people go through to justify prejudice. The words you are using are echoing theirs.

I do take the proposition of child marriage seriously, because it happens in some places. It's not a canard in that sense, so what I mean when I call it that is that gay marriage in America will not, and cannot lead to child marriage in America.

So far the word "child" has been used in the "not of the age a majority" sense. The other common use is "below the age of puberty". This distinction needs to be made. A minor in puberty is also often called a "young adult", but we still don't let them vote. Everyone under 21 in America is a minor in some sense, more so at 18, 16, 14, ect. It's a continuum of development, of course, and there is a certain amount of arbitrariness to where we put the legal age to marry. Most states make it 18, or 16 with permission from one or both sets of parents. Mississippi makes it 21 to no longer need parental consent. A 20 year old in Mississippi may be called an adult, if you ran across one on the street, but legally they are still a minor when you step in front of the magistrate. If we went back to ancient Rome, everyone under 25 would be considered a minor.

My point is that I agree that personhood is assigned somewhat arbitrarily by the legal system, and if we were to change the age of any given aspect of personhood, from our current perspective it could lead to "children" getting married. But they would no longer be minors. If you change the definition, then change your perspective with it.

What really matters is consent, and the community of civilized nations seems to be in agreement on this. "Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." - General Assembly resolution 1763 A (XVII) 7 November 1962. (source) (PDF text, page 252)

If you wish to propose mental competency as a gauge for ability to consent, consider that you may simply be replacing one arbitration with another. Either way, no children are getting married in the civilized world. Gay marriage will not lead to child marriage.

Now the petty one:

The problem with the corporations angle is that "corporations as people" is only a useful legal fiction that allows people to act collectively. People intuitively know that corporations are not people, and the courts reflect this. This is silliness being entertained. By all means, have fun with it. Just don't expect me to take this part seriously.

In rereading this, it seems harsh, especially my reiterated quote and dismissive tone at the end there. Let me balance it out by assuring you that I don't think you're an idiot, I just think you're wrong.
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

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