LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:35 am

Kal, I really think you are the one who is missing the context a bit. I'm pretty sure no one here is even in the same universe of the notion that gays are also pedophiles or echoing anything similar. Nor is anyone suggesting that gay marriage is a slippery slope which will lead to child marriages. In fact, reading the last two posts, there's a lot more in agreement than not.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9669
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:00 am

First, and just to be absolutely clear.
Nowhere do I state, suggest, imply or infer that pedophilia and homosexuality (bisexuality, trans etc etc etc) are related.

Well they are related in so far as they are all the same category box labeled "sexual orientation" (or some such), but that includes heterosexuality and asexuality as well.

Also, my argument is not in regards to going to child marriages (and Young Adult is a very very new term; besically we have children at various ages (minors) and adults - the different terms that have popped up are by no means well defined, or general - around here a young adult would be someone that has reached the age of majority, but is in a young category (like say 18-25, usually).
Likewise, new categories crop up all the time ("Tweens" has only appeared the last coule of years for instance) - and they usually pop up because of companies / advertising needs to segregate consumer groups - teh grouping "teenager" is from the end of the 1930's, and the shortened "teen" isn't till the 1940's. Now we are all* young enough to think thats old, but it really isn't.
This also includes the notion that you are a minor and need special protection til you are 18 (most places), sometimes with segregated protection ages for different things, it is a very very new thing (and by all indications seems to be on the retreat again, at least rights wise).

If you will note, also, I said that the next logical step could be children or companies IF we went to a competency requirement instead of an arbitrary age requirement.
Also, please do note that yes, "child" marriage happens in some places (though by your next definition, it is not child marriage, because it is legal (in general), and so the views have to be changed along with teh age requirements), that it DOESN'T happen in the western world (in general) is the outlier here - historically it did, and it still does in a large part of the world (whether counted by geography or by population).

I have to say; I have to say, that it does come across as if you think I am an idiot, because, while you appear to disagree, you go both directions in your tirade, as well as putting up several strawmen - especially when you say that the words I use are echoing what you have expereinced.

I, in general, do not mind discussing realities and hypotheticals (I am a politician), and I do not mind entertaining ludicrous premises to have a principled discussion, but I do mind discussing it when it gets into personal territory - I respect that each person I debate with (be it in this thread or the politics thread or somewhere else) has a personal background that helps define their views and how they weigh issues, but I also, respectfully, request that they put aside their personal experiences and anecdotes, when we discuss issues on a theoretical or hypothetical level (doubly so when commenting on a debate that was had a while back where they did not partake).

From your last post, you seem to have judged me, and you have done so very wrongly, because I doubt you will find many politicians more open to LGBT equality (and ensuring it by law if necessary); I just don't want to restrict equality on the base of sexuality (so if argument A can be made for groups X, Y and Z, then all 3 groups need the same equality/protection, otherwise it is hipocritical of me to support one group).


* - well, age wise, I would assume
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: 1563
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:29 am

Kal wrote: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.


If you get nothing else from anything I said, the "next logical step" from allowing gay marriage is not child or corporate marriage. Polygamy, maybe, but not minors or legal fictions. It's a non sequitur.

While you're at it, calm down. Just because I said the word pedophile doesn't mean I think anyone here is one, or thinks anyone else is. I said it because that is what is implied by referencing child marriage. Context. I say that what you are arguing is echoing the talk of bigots, because they are saying very, very similar things. "Let Baptists marry Catholics? What's next, letting blacks marry whites? Marrying the same sex? A dog? A child? A house? A corporation?" Just read any Rick Santorum interview.

Fundamentalists are the idiots here, and since they consider World of Warcraft to be sinful (demons, witchcraft, ect) I sincerely doubt any person actually making the illogical next steps would be reading, much less posting on these forums. I'm just trying to convince you that these "next logical steps" being discussed are what are really arbitrary, illogical, slippery slope arguments.
"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 Koatanga » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:06 pm

I do think the issue here boils down to simple rights. LGBT people should have the same rights as everyone else, which in this case is legally to marry another person.

Different states/countries/provinces have different laws as to age and other requirements for a legal marriage, but it's fair to say that children and animals generally can't enter into legal contracts of any kind, so any discussion regarding that portion of the slippery slope is moot.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:51 pm

Boy, that escalated quickly.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11226
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:52 pm

Klaudandus wrote:Boy, that escalated quickly.


Slippery slopes are exponential by nature.
"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 Koatanga » Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:44 pm

Yo Aussies - this guys is a gamer living in Australia who needs help to stay there instead of being deported to Pakistan where it's a crime to be gay.

He's been in a stable relationship for a long time and is a very nice guy. I've raided with him.

Please help him if it's in your conscience to do so.

http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/d ... i-choudhry
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:18 pm

Kal wrote:While you're at it, calm down. Just because I said the word pedophile doesn't mean I think anyone here is one, or thinks anyone else is. I said it because that is what is implied by referencing child marriage. Context. I say that what you are arguing is echoing the talk of bigots, because they are saying very, very similar things. "Let Baptists marry Catholics? What's next, letting blacks marry whites? Marrying the same sex? A dog? A child? A house? A corporation?" Just read any Rick Santorum interview.
That's just hogwash, and for a couple of reasons and I totally get Nooska's response. Your comments are very inflammatory.

First, child marriage does not imply pedophilia. My thoughts were more along the lines of teenage kids wanting to get married or having been arranged. Of course I can see it both ways and my perception may be painted by having grown up around the amish...but one shouldn't consider it exclusively one way or the other.

Secondly, the argument itself doesn't pass the sniff test of having any real meaning. For instance, I have two young children, and I choose not to let them be babysat by a preteen. I am therefore discriminating against a group, judging members of the group (that they can't help being in) by a collective action or perception, not by individual actions. That sort of thought process, echos some of the worst bigotry mankind has seen, including homosexuals. Equating it with such things though, is really silly and simply can not be taken seriously.

Lastly, context. You keep saying it, but you keep missing. Nooska isn't saying "gee well if you let them there gays get married, we might as well let grown ups marry kids"

The conversation, which I understand you are a late entry too, has progressed. It started talking about gay marriage and the notion that two consenting people should be allowed to marry who they want. To the notion of why limit it to two consenting people, why not allow more than two or groups? To the idea that we don't really have a particularly good notion at which point someone is able to consent. That last notion is how children got into the conversation, and Nooska also noted that such a declaration would make them not children in a sense. I think twisting that conversation into a link back to gay marriage as some sort of bigoted excuse to cloud the issue, is a seriously crazy leap if not downright irresponsible.

I suppose you could debate the notion of age being inadequate for determining the ability for one to consent to something, but lets not hang up silly straw men.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9669
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:43 pm

I'd say spouse and family benefits provided by corporations are the primary roadblock for polygamy. Picture a corporation being asked to provide health coverage for 20 wives and assorted children. It would exceed the salary of the employee.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:22 pm

That's minor. As it is, many (if not the vast majority of) companies pass on more and more of the health insurance costs to the employee based on family size. There might need to be some adjusting, but it's trivial for companies to do.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9669
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:59 am

Health care is the probelm? just adopt a scanidnavian healthcare model *coughcoughsaidthesocialistcoughcough*

In regards to teh other discussion, I'm going to let it lie - I was not upset though, just wanted to be very clear about what I sad and implied (as I do know, and recognize those accusations or implications ofetn show up, and as I said, I'm a politiian, so I don't want anything like that to be left hanging).
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: 1563
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby fuzzygeek » Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:28 pm

Socialism works just fine for certain group sizes. I think a large number of the failings of American systems are caused by the application of well-meaning solutions that just don't scale.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:35 pm

Like our base damage.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11226
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:23 pm

In regards to "teh discussion" :wink: , I'm more than willing to let it lie as well. We obviously agree on the important matter of consent, and I'm not upset either. I think we were talking cross-purposes. There sure are a lot of tangents on this thread, and perhaps I should have let that particular one go, especially since it seems to have run it's course before I even stepped in. You have my apologies.

I like tangents, though, and it's no surprise to me that religion and politics both tend to get involved in this issue.

On the matter of religion, it's often framed as the bogeyman for LGTB rights, but I think that's an unfortunate cognitive bias caused by the outright noisiness of the Ted Haggert types. It was actually a culture shock for me when I grew up and met people who called themselves Christian, but didn't hate gay people. It was even more surprising (though pleasantly so) to find these Christians seem to be the majority. I'm still an anti-theist, but I don't hate Christians that don't hate me.

As for politics, that seems to be the new tangent. Oh goodie, I love socialism! Seriously, America loves socialism. We can't get by without it.

@fuzzygeek, can you specify which socialist solutions are not scaling? Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid seem like the typical culprits, but I don't see how they scale poorly. Do you mean Obamacare? I have some criticisms of that myself.
"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 fuzzygeek » Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:29 pm

The politics thread is in another castle; let's not derail this thread any more :D
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 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