LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:27 am

Io.Draco wrote:
I'd guess once everyone is treated the same under the law, the pro-LGBT movement will quiet down.


Now that I very much doubt. They will then just turn their full attention on those living outsides countries with gay marriage.


How bout we cross that bridge when we get there?
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9723
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:09 pm

Wow, lots of activity while I was sleeping.

"Separate but equal" is not equal, as the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education. A Civil Union is a separate distinction that is never going to equal in all ways to marriage because it is separate from marriage.

"Why should they have rights?" Because they are every bit as much people as we are, so they deserve the same rights that we have. The 14th amendment has no caveat in it whereby any group can be discriminated against on any basis. "All citizens" means "all citizens".

LBGT people would not have to fight against unjust laws had such unjust laws not been made in the first place. Homophobic people create and pass such laws by pandering to religious sympathies.

It sickens me that in this day and age, there are still people fighting against ANY group of people having the same rights as everyone else. How is it possible not to see that we are all in the same boat, all want the same things, and all deserve to be treated equally, regardless of sexual preference, skin colour, hair colour, country of origin, letters-in-last-name or any other artificial distinction anyone wants to make. Because discrimination based on sexual preference is an artificial distinction. Someone decided to get their undies in a bunch because that particular law in some old book means more to them than the myriad laws they completely ignore, such as how brides are required to be virgin.

"Traditional marriage" is such an ethnocentric term it's not even funny. "Traditional marriage" really means "what I think should be, and I'll change the rules to suit my argument". Humans have been coupling in myriad ways since we came down from the trees - assuming Evolution isn't too radical a concept here?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Cutesy, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:25 pm

That depends on if Eden even had trees.

:mrgreen:
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: 2959
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:41 pm

Amirya wrote:That depends on if Eden even had trees.

:mrgreen:

Well, if Genesis is to be believed, it has at least two trees and even a talking snake - assuming that's not a euphamism for Adam thinking with his penis.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Cutesy, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:47 pm

Image
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Cutesy, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Snake-Aes » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:48 pm

Koatanga wrote:"Traditional marriage" is such an ethnocentric term it's not even funny. "Traditional marriage" really means "what I think should be, and I'll change the rules to suit my argument". Humans have been coupling in myriad ways since we came down from the trees - assuming Evolution isn't too radical a concept here?
Marriage is a loaded term.
Historically it only ever has political or economical purposes. The importance of marriage is taught. My own experience with married couples is quite polarized: Either it wasn't emotionally important to the couple (usually it's for the parents or the social benefits) or it eventually failed.

Disconnecting marriage from sex is a good start, but it's far from enough.
Image
I am not allowed to seduce the abyssal's lunar mate.
User avatar
Snake-Aes
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 10155
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:15 am
Location: Thorns

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:42 pm

Snake-Aes wrote:
Koatanga wrote:"Traditional marriage" is such an ethnocentric term it's not even funny. "Traditional marriage" really means "what I think should be, and I'll change the rules to suit my argument". Humans have been coupling in myriad ways since we came down from the trees - assuming Evolution isn't too radical a concept here?
Marriage is a loaded term.
Historically it only ever has political or economical purposes. The importance of marriage is taught. My own experience with married couples is quite polarized: Either it wasn't emotionally important to the couple (usually it's for the parents or the social benefits) or it eventually failed.

Disconnecting marriage from sex is a good start, but it's far from enough.

I've known couples who have been together for decades without being married - they view marriage as an unnecessary legal exercise. I've also known people whose ultimate goal in life was the big church wedding with all the trimmings. People are different.

But that's the thing - people are different. Different is a good thing. Discrimination based on difference is a bad thing.

Marriage, a golf course, entry to a club, a swimming pool, a restaurant, a seat on a bus - I really don't care what the issue is as it boils down to giving all people equal opportunity under the law.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Cutesy, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:32 pm

Koatanga wrote:Marriage, a golf course, entry to a club, a swimming pool, a restaurant, a seat on a bus - I really don't care what the issue is as it boils down to giving all people equal opportunity under the law.


This, and only this. That's all I want.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5075
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:51 pm

Kansas discrimination bill

"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful," GOP Rep. Charles Macheers said during a debate on the house floor. "It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we're moving this bill."


The irony of that statement just kills me.
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: 2959
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:20 pm

Such projection.
"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 Klaudandus » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:24 pm

Kal wrote:Such projection.


Much Cognitive Dissonance

So Irony

Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9723
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:41 pm

Let's refrain from using personal insults please.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:05 pm

Shoju wrote:
Koatanga wrote:Marriage, a golf course, entry to a club, a swimming pool, a restaurant, a seat on a bus - I really don't care what the issue is as it boils down to giving all people equal opportunity under the law.


This, and only this. That's all I want.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment...Are you sure that's what you want? If you have a swimming pool, does that mean I can come and swim in it whenever I want? Does that mean Lady's Fitness should be illegal or even all women's sports? What about the Senior PGA? Are you then against Affirmative Action, which specifically mandates unequal opportunity under the law?

Doesn't the right to be secure in my property and my right of freedom to associate contradict the notion that I must open my private establishment to whoever the government tells me I must? Do I really have freedom of religion if I'm compelled, by gov't, to act against my religion?

To be clear, I'm not in favor of this legislation (honestly, I know pretty much nothing about it and I don't live in Kansas), and many of those issues are solvable with proper legislation (nobody has a right to run a business for instance), but the idea that a private facility, like some golf courses and clubs are required to admit a particular group, seems to require some significant squashing of individual rights to merely provide a privilege.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:17 pm

A swimming pool on private property is not a business. The law itself does not say that individuals are required to allow whomever they want onto their own residential property or into their cars. It does state that business - and government employees (!) - have the right to discriminate against same-sex couples, if their religion compels them to do so.

If businesses are not allowed to discriminate for race, gender, ethnicity, or whatever else, then yes, they should also not be allowed to discriminate sexual orientation. Otherwise, if my religion compels me to do so, I should be able to discriminate against interracial couples too. Oh, and Caucasians, motorheads, and those who refuse to pray to a statue of His Noodliness.

It's a fine line they're trying to tread, and if someone is wanting to open a business for the public, then it should be for the public.

The part of the government employee issue? That's stupidly appalling. "Oh, guys, I can't respond to this domestic violence call, it's a couple of husbands."

"I refuse to transport these two women by ambulance, because they're wives."

"I am not going to talk your girlfriend down from suicide, ma'am."

Really? I mean...really?
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: 2959
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:28 pm

A swimming pool on private property can absolutely be a business. Is Lady's Fitness a business? Are country clubs and private golf courses? What about women's sports leagues?

The comments specifically about that law have nothing to do with anything I said (I'm not in favor of that law), nor did I differentiate specific types of discrimination.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:45 am

I'm actually tired enough, I favor a full ban on marriage. If no one can get married, then we won't have these idiotic laws. I hope.

Free love for all! :)
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: 2959
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Sagara » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:07 am

Amirya wrote:I'm actually tired enough, I favor a full ban on marriage. If no one can get married, then we won't have these idiotic laws. I hope.

Free love for all! :)


Or simply remove all economic and social advantages from marriage: taxes, inheritance, what have you. Marriage becomes a funny exercice for those that want to spend their money on it.

I'm SURE the conservative side would love this idea: less government, and no gay marriage! win-win!

Sarcasm aside, that actually makes tons of sense, considering the Church-State separation, it would make sense for the State to skitter away from the very belief-laden concept of marriage and union.
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: 3273
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:28 am

Marriage ceased to be a religious concept when ships' captains and justices of the peace were empowered to marry people. No religion is required for those marriages.

For the most part, Women's gyms operate without being challenged, but there have been successful lawsuits alleging sexual discrimination. They are not immune from discrimination suits.

Sexual discrimination suits are not at all uncommon. Women sue to join men's sports leagues; the boy scouts have been sued for not allowing girls to join, and the girl scouts have been sued to allow boys.

I haven't heard of Seniors tournaments being challenged in court, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Fact is, all those examples are not currently protected except in very few cases where state governments have passed laws to allow such discrimination is specific cases, such as Alaska allowing gyms to cater to a single sex.

I wouldn't expect things to be too different with regards to gay marriage. Going to someone who hates you to force them to marry you isn't going to make for the happiest of wedding days. Sure, there will be people who would want to force Westboro baptist Church to marry them just out of being obstinate, but I don't really think the average person would want a hostile environment in which to be married.

My wife and I were married outside near the beach because as atheists we weren't interested in a church wedding. If a church preaches a strong anti-gay message, I doubt it would have many gay people in its congregation who would want to be married there. Here in Auckland, there is an old Anglican church downtown called St. Matthew-in-the-city that welcomes gay couples, providing an option for gay couples who want a church service.

Since we've legalized gay marriage in New Zealand, gay people are not forcing anti-gay people to marry them, possibly because the wedding day is more important to them than being douchebags. It's a non-issue.

To your point, Amirya, I wouldn't worry about the government not responding to domestic violence calls, but when one member of a gay couple dies and does not have a will, you can bet your house that the government will not allow the partner to inherit if they don't recognize the legitimacy of the marriage.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Cutesy, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:27 am

No one is immune from lawsuits but that's meaningless concept unless the challenger wins. In some states men have won and (I think) some they have lost. Some states have enacted laws to allow that type of discrimination, which I'm guessing you'd be opposed too and believe that the federal courts should rule those laws unconstitutional, along with affirmative action legislation?

I've said it a few times, but I also think the state should get out of the marriage business, but allow civil unions for everyone. It's not realistic at this point though. Also, I pay more taxes because I'm married, not less but it varies based on a couple's income breakdown. There are legal benefits to being married, some of those can be achieved with proper paperwork by anyone, but not all of them are accessible, so the best solution is to allow gay marriage (and get rid of the "marriage penalty" tax altogether).
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:47 am

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/poli ... rriage-ban
Delph championed the ban, which included language that would also bar civil unions. The House took the civil union language out of the amendment. The Senate then decided not to restore that language.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9723
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:46 pm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/14/t ... -equality/
Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said in a radio interview Thursday that his “heart weeps” over the advance of same-sex marriage rights in the U.S. and vowed to do everything in his power to stop it.

According to Right Wing Watch, Cruz was appearing on “Washington Watch,” the Family Research Council’s radio show hosted by strident anti-LGBT activist Tony Perkins.

Cruz told Perkins that President Barack Obama’s administration has been characterized by “abuse of power and lawlessness.” LGBT rights activists, he said, are getting away with too much in this country through their exploitation of the “litigation approach.”

“Our heart weeps for the damage to traditional marriage that has been done,” lamented Cruz.


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/1 ... -marriage/
Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have introduced a Senate version of the “State Marriage Defense Act,” a bill that would prohibit the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages if they live in a state that doesn’t recognize them. This “You’re Not Married Anymore” bill would mean that families would lose all their federal protections simply by crossing the border into another state.
The legislation is a workaround since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act last year, reasoning that the federal government could not refuse to recognize legally valid marriages performed in the states. Since then, the Obama administration has been using a “place of celebration” standard, meaning that as long as a same-sex couple’s marriage was valid where it was performed, it continues to be valid for most federal purposes (like tax benefits, etc.), even if they travel or move to a state that bans same-sex marriage.

Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9723
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:52 pm

Also, a bit for lulz
Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9723
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:22 pm

Fridmarr wrote:No one is immune from lawsuits but that's meaningless concept unless the challenger wins. In some states men have won and (I think) some they have lost. Some states have enacted laws to allow that type of discrimination, which I'm guessing you'd be opposed too and believe that the federal courts should rule those laws unconstitutional, along with affirmative action legislation?

Yes, I do believe those laws to be unconstitutional, and I am fundamentally against affirmative action because it says there IS a racial difference when the ultimate goal is to eliminate racial differences. The charade of making NFL teams interview black candidates for head coach when they have already decided who they want for their head coach is beyond stupid, and insulting to the black candidates who are only being dragged around to an interview because of the color of their skin.

However, I also believe good judgement should prevail, and I do recognize that there are personal privacy issues surrounding things like fitness clubs, whereby women or men may feel uncomfortable in a mixed-gender environment. If a man wants to sue to join a women's fitness club, I'd weigh the privacy of the women above the man's need to join the club.

I don't see that issue when it comes to gay marriage. I don't see how two men marrying violates the privacy of heterosexual couples.

With regard to churches performing ceremonies for gay couples, again I say it's a non-issue. There are churches out there that are tolerant of homosexual people and will marry them, and the churches that aren't tolerant won't likely have homosexual people in their congregation. If people insist on being married in a hostile environment, as a judge I would tell them to stop trolling the church. Nobody wants a hostile environment on their wedding day - it's not rational, and I would not rule in favor of the irrational.

When it comes to wedding cakes, as a previous story had, I see no issue of privacy or violation of beliefs inherent in baking a cake, so I don't feel there are grounds for a baker to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. If the baker has an issue putting two grooms on top of the cake, then I suggest he doesn't put them there, but sells the couple two groom figures that they can set upon the cake. That way the baker makes a plain non-sexually-oriented cake (!) and the couple can "gay it up" after purchase. Whatever - it's a stupid issue. Cake has no sexual orientation.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Cutesy, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:30 pm

Not to mention the cake is a lie.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9723
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:04 am

What I find moronic with regards to Gay Marriage bans in the US is that they deny benefits to same sex couples that married in another state, just what the fuck is that.
Image
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

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