LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:37 pm

Point taken. How about some good news to clear the air?

"Gay Brisbane man Ali Choudhry given temporary halt on deportation as tribunal hears case"
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-07/petition-opposing-gay-mans-deportation-garners-120000-signatures/5188784

Saw this in my FB feed from George Takei.

P.S. Are they not such a cute couple?
"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 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:43 pm

Kal wrote:Point taken. How about some good news to clear the air?

"Gay Brisbane man Ali Choudhry given temporary halt on deportation as tribunal hears case"
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-07/petition-opposing-gay-mans-deportation-garners-120000-signatures/5188784

Saw this in my FB feed from George Takei.

P.S. Are they not such a cute couple?


Ali's a nice guy and a good WoW player. I raided Ice Crown with him a few times when Wrath was all the rage.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:13 pm

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/2446266 ... -for-sochi

Hey dumbass italian coot, how bout fuck you instead.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Jan 18, 2014 5:47 am

http://www.kmsstv.com/news/fairness-ordinance-stays

But none were quite as bold as Pamela Raintree, a transgender woman. Raintree called out the Bible-quoting councilman, daring him to stone her to death.

"Leviticus 20:13 states, 'If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they shall surely put him to death,'" Raintree began. "I brought the first stone, Mr. Webb, in case that your Bible talk isn't just a smoke screen for personal prejudices."

Webb withdrew his repeal measure just minutes later, without calling for a vote.


OH SNAP.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:44 am

^That is just beyond awesome.
"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: 3526
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:37 am

Not to be outdone by Republicans and Russians, the UK enters the idiocy parade:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25793358
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:27 pm

Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:32 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:11 am

The wording's general enough ("sex or gender") that it seems like the bill would protect discrimination against women, too, which I'm pretty sure would contradict existing laws.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4791
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:42 pm

Where would the federal government fall in this? Is it atheistic (separation of church and state) or agnostic? I imagine if the argument was made that the separation means the Fed is atheistic, it could withhold services to anyone of any religion, such as in the matters of farm subsidies and disaster relief.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:27 pm

Separation of church and state is secularism, not atheism. You can only have true religious freedom under a secular government. Promotion of any religion, or of non-religion, is not secularism.

Gov. Brownback's problem is that his "religious liberty" is not protected by the Constitution. He and all his religious friends are free to not believe gay marriage is moral, but they are not free to discriminate against it.
"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 Amirya » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:28 pm

Am I wrong for getting the feeling that this is backlash against the lesbian couple who had children conceived with the help of a man from Craigslist, who is now being sued by the State for child support when all three parties (both mothers and the donor) agreed he was not a parent?
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: 2950
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:49 pm

Amirya wrote:Am I wrong for getting the feeling that this is backlash against the lesbian couple who had children conceived with the help of a man from Craigslist, who is now being sued by the State for child support when all three parties (both mothers and the donor) agreed he was not a parent?


Nope. It smells of a giant "FUCK YOU"
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:53 pm

That's what I thought.

And while I do believe that those three should have investigated the legality of that sort of donation, I also understand that both mothers are supporting the donor's efforts to get that dismissed/appealed - I believe the partner of the biological mother is wanting the State to go after her for the child support, instead of the donor.

Anyways. Kansas. Ya'll need a big ol' tornado to drop you on the Wicked Witch. No ruby slippers needed.
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: 2950
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:48 pm

Kal wrote:Separation of church and state is secularism, not atheism. You can only have true religious freedom under a secular government. Promotion of any religion, or of non-religion, is not secularism.

Gov. Brownback's problem is that his "religious liberty" is not protected by the Constitution. He and all his religious friends are free to not believe gay marriage is moral, but they are not free to discriminate against it.

Strictly going by constitutionality, Brownback is guaranteed the freedom to practice his religion, and I don't recall any amendment preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Gender yes; preference, no.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:19 pm

Koatanga wrote:Strictly going by constitutionality, Brownback is guaranteed the freedom to practice his religion,

He is free to believe whatever he wants, but he cannot infringe on other people's rights.

Koatanga wrote:and I don't recall any amendment preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Gender yes; preference, no.

The 14th amendment.
"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 Feb 10, 2014 8:51 pm

Kal wrote:
Koatanga wrote:Strictly going by constitutionality, Brownback is guaranteed the freedom to practice his religion,

He is free to believe whatever he wants, but he cannot infringe on other people's rights.

Koatanga wrote:and I don't recall any amendment preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Gender yes; preference, no.

The 14th amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Assuming it was against federal law to discriminate against same-sex couples, that amendment would protect them. However, as the Fed doesn't recognise same-sex marriage (it has left that to the State level), it can therefore pass no laws protecting same-sex couples from discrimination. As Kansas does not recognise same-sex marriage, the 14th amendment actually protects Kansas and the citizens therein from laws passed in other states, such as the recognition of same-sex marriage.

I don't condone bigotry and discrimination, but the law seems to suggest Kansas could pass such a thing as a mechanism to protect Churches or ministers from being sued for refusing to host or perform same-sex marriages in the event they are ever legal in Kansas.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:01 pm

Koatanga wrote:
Kal wrote:
Koatanga wrote:Strictly going by constitutionality, Brownback is guaranteed the freedom to practice his religion,

He is free to believe whatever he wants, but he cannot infringe on other people's rights.

Koatanga wrote:and I don't recall any amendment preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Gender yes; preference, no.

The 14th amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Assuming it was against federal law to discriminate against same-sex couples, that amendment would protect them. However, as the Fed doesn't recognise same-sex marriage (it has left that to the State level), it can therefore pass no laws protecting same-sex couples from discrimination. As Kansas does not recognise same-sex marriage, the 14th amendment actually protects Kansas and the citizens therein from laws passed in other states, such as the recognition of same-sex marriage.

I don't condone bigotry and discrimination, but the law seems to suggest Kansas could pass such a thing as a mechanism to protect Churches or ministers from being sued for refusing to host or perform same-sex marriages in the event they are ever legal in Kansas.


Article 4 Privileges and Immunities clause along with the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights guarantees all citizens equal rights under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment, regardless of state laws. Romer v. Evans specifically prevents the states from denying sexual minorities protection status, and United States v. Windsor struck down DOMA. Though the repeal of DOMA was at the federal level, we come back to Article 4, but this time to the Full Faith and Credit clause. The states may not refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, as this would be denying full faith and credit to "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State".

Kansas cannot deny protection status to sexual minorities (though they are not required to give it), and it cannot refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriages from other states (though they can refuse to pass it in their state). The 14th amendment does not protect the state from either of these actions. Quite the contrary, the original text of the Constitution, the 14th amendment itself, and several court decisions prevent Kansas from doing just that.

I sincerely believe you do not condone this crap from Brownback. I don't think anyone here does.

As for whether churches could be sued for refusing to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples, that debate is worth having, but I suspect it would be a civil matter. I'm disinclined to rely on the argument that if you replace "same-sex" with "inter-racial", it's the same, but there's something strongly compelling to it. Anyway, I think that's an argument from analogy, and the issue needs real logic, not dismissal. I don't think churches should have to perform same-sex marriages. I think that a non-governmental (completely ignoring the subsidization of the churches here) institution should be able to discriminate in ways that offend decent people, but do not cause actual harm.
"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 Io.Draco » Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:48 am

One of the many Giant FUCK YOU's in this giant social war between gays and religious cretins. While I am a Christian I am not against gay marriage due to my religion, but rather that I am a traditionalist ( among other reasons ). That said I think these morons should STFU given the sheer amount of damage they have caused Christianity worldwide with their kneejerk reactions and their insistence that not only gays should not be allowed to marry but they should also be treated like trash.
Last edited by Io.Draco on Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:43 am

@Io.Draco - don't worry, nobody outside the US takes "these people" seriously.

Also, I hae to agree wiuth Kal that the 14th amendment, combined with full faith and credit, means that the bill is unconstitutional, as it is an attempt to legalize unconstitutional behaviour.

As for the other subject; I, too, believe that any religious institution, under any reasonable interpretation of religious freedom, has the right to NOT perform, or to deny service to anyone they believe act against their religion.
I do have an ammendment to taht thoug, but that stems from the religious texts themselves - denying services from gays (just to stay on topic), would not be acceptabel for the catholic church denying nuptual ceremonies, sure, but service), as the whole base of a sinner mythology is gaining forgiveness from the higher power (I generalized the previous statement, so thats why I don't say "God").
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: 1516
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:16 am

don't worry, nobody outside the US takes "these people" seriously.


They do hear about them though, and when people in other countries that are fanatical religious copy them...well you can see the problem there.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:39 am

Io.Draco wrote:I am not against gay marriage due to my religion, but rather that I am a traditionalist

Curiousity here, but because there are many different "traditional" reasons, is it that you believe marriage is:

1) for opposite genders only
2) for the purpose of having and raising offspring
3) for political purposes
4) or something else?

The reason I ask is I hear so many who claim that marriage should be only for one male and one female, because the purpose of marriage is to have kids - but no one can ever explain why, then, they are okay with elderly opposite gender couples marrying, and/or those who are infertile.
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: 2950
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:30 am

I would tread very carefully on the traditional marriage, lest I, and several others break out what a "traditional, Christian" marriage truly means, in terms of a property transaction, and the like.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:31 am

Shoju: I would argue that historically marriage has always been done due to economic benefits among other things: Love, Political Gain, Social Acceptance etc. But still the economic aspect is the most common.

That aspect has NOT changed at all. There is still a pretty good economic benefit to marrying someone.

As for my view on traditional marriage, suffice to say that it does have to do with the economic benefits and the union between a man and a woman. I don't view it as "sacred" but at the same time why should I change my perspective for the sake of a movement that is just as bad as their opponents? Regardless of what the sensible gay rights activists say and do the fact remains there are also the militants. Those that make it their mission in life to demean, insult, bully, harass etc anyone who is against the Gay Rights movement. It doesn't matter to these people if you are some religious cretin who goes out of his way to harass, insult, demean, threaten, beat up gays or if you are a simple person who hasn't really taken up the banner the marriage should be changed. A banner that I might appeared what? Just over a decade ago?

No, the mentality of some is that you either with us fully, including marriage, or you are placed in the category as those who beat gays up on the street and to that kind of group I have to say: Fuck off, and while they don't represent an entire movement the fact that even the more sensible activists are willing to justify or apologize for such behavior instead of calling it out for that it is just leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.

I will not be bullied into accepting gay marriage, nor will many others.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:55 am

But...I wasn't asking you to accept it. Was I? I was asking how you define traditional, because I get mixed signals.

For the record, I am a heterosexual female, who is infertile by chance and by choice. By some views of those who claim marriage should be traditional male/female, I am eligible because I am heterosexual and my spouse would be male. And yet, I am not considered ineligible even though I am infertile and cannot become pregnant or bear children by any means possible, unless I am part starfish with spontaneous regenerative ability.

So I am confused - am I, an infertile heterosexual female, considered by traditional views, to be marriage-worthy or no?

I trust you can see my confusion on the issue of where traditionalists stand.
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: 2950
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 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: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest