LGBT rights discussion

[Io.Draco]

I've gotten so fucking tired of this entire debate. Both sides are equally vicious in their fight and if you, God forbid, refuse to be sucked in this debate you will be slammed by both equally as bad with insults and threats because I suppose for the far right it's "If you are not with us then you are working against God's word" and for the liberals it's "If you're not with us then you are against us which makes you a racist, intolerant, homophobic bigot."

I hate both sides equally and think they can go fuck themselves.

[Klaudandus]

In a sense, I agree.

I've had the unfortunate luck of crossing paths with two trans-whatever. To them, any sort of criticism or disagreement, not even tangentially related to their sexuality, means you're transphobic... what kind of made-up word is that! I ended up just disassociating myself from that social circle that included those douchenozzles rather than deal with them -- but trust me, I came close at exploding at them and going on a lengthy rant.

I came close to telling them "The only reason why I am in favor of LGBT rights is because of my friends, because if it wasn't for them, I'd be against them solely based on what a horrible person YOU are".

I have no real dog in the LGBT rights fight. In a solely personal level, I am not affected with allowing or banning. I choose to stand with my friends in the fight for their rights, because it feels right, because it's the decent thing to do.

But there are people that just make me wanna flip a table and go "fuck it guys" -- like that waitress with the fake receipt.

[Io.Draco]

I'd be against them solely based on what a horrible person YOU are.

This is exactly how I personally feel about the LGBT movement and in general social justice warriors, including feminists.

[Fridmarr]

I can understand that. People can be very obnoxious. I do think it's important to separate the cause from the people though.

At the end of the day, I find that there are two objectives I try very hard to meet. First, I need to be able to look myself in the mirror, and know that what I believe in is right/moral. I don't want to believe in something because someone is influencing me. Whether that someone is a family member, an activist, an actor, a friend, a politician with a certain letter next to his name etc. I'm responsible to myself in my beliefs.

Secondly, I need to be open to the fact that I could be wrong, and willing to listen to the other side. Both can be challenging at times, especially the second, but I've gotten into the habit of reminding myself of these concepts and that helps. I think having that mindset allows me to utterly disregard the seething vile that can be spewed by either side of an issue. It also opened my eyes a bit to exactly how similar both sides on most issues are.

[Koatanga]

To me there are just "rights". Any time there's a word put in front of "rights" that segregates a group of people such that their "rights" can be treated differently, then I have a problem.

Black rights
Gay rights
Trans-whatever rights
Women's rights

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. It's just "rights".

My mother-in-law amuses me by saying "I'm tired of hearing all these gays wanting special laws passed just for them". If there weren't special laws passed preventing them from doing things in the first place, there would be no need for them to have special laws passed for them now!

[Klaudandus]

Pretty valid point.

It's just that some people just really stink it up for everyone else.

[Paxen]

My mother-in-law amuses me by saying "I'm tired of hearing all these gays wanting special laws passed just for them". If there weren't special laws passed preventing them from doing things in the first place, there would be no need for them to have special laws passed for them now!

Very important point. That's why I think that it doesn't matter that there's douchebags on both sides. It's obvious to me what the right side is anyway - I don't decide what's right and wrong based on my dislike for certain people. It's mostly the other way around.

[fuzzygeek]

The correct approach is not to pass more laws. The correct approach is to repeal old laws.

There's the mindset that "whatever is not explicitly banned, is permitted," as opposed to "whatever is not explicitly permitted, is banned."

As a society I think we're better off with the first, but I see a lot of lawmakers with the mentality of the second.

[KysenMurrin]

Not so clear-cut when it comes to enforcing non-discrimination, though. Sometimes special laws can be necessary, since a cultural change doesn't come about overnight, but can be helped along with legislation.

(And yes, then you get into those arguments about at what point the laws are no longer necessary.)

[Koatanga]

The correct approach is not to pass more laws. The correct approach is to repeal old laws.

There's the mindset that "whatever is not explicitly banned, is permitted," as opposed to "whatever is not explicitly permitted, is banned."

As a society I think we're better off with the first, but I see a lot of lawmakers with the mentality of the second.

That all depends on the law. If there is a law passed that says "marriage is between a man and a woman who are not directly related by blood", then if you repeal it some yahoo is going to marry a goat just to make the point that the law shouldn't have been repealed. If you pass a law amending the previous to read "two people" instead of "a man and a woman" then you don't have to deal with the yahoos so much.

[fuzzygeek]

Not so clear-cut when it comes to enforcing non-discrimination, though. Sometimes special laws can be necessary, since a cultural change doesn't come about overnight, but can be helped along with legislation.

I agree. It's unfortunate when certain movements become institutionalized, such that they end up promulgating what they're purportedly against, because if they actually succeeded they'd have no reason to exist (and employ their huge bureaucracy, receive Federal funds, solicit donations, etc.). Some institutions may say they're against X, but end up (directly or indirectly, purposefully or by accident) instigating or preserving X.

That all depends on the law. If there is a law passed that says "marriage is between a man and a woman who are not directly related by blood", then if you repeal it some yahoo is going to marry a goat just to make the point that the law shouldn't have been repealed. If you pass a law amending the previous to read "two people" instead of "a man and a woman" then you don't have to deal with the yahoos so much.

What's wrong if some yahoo wants to marry his goat, assuming the goat consents?

[Paxen]

What's wrong if some yahoo wants to marry his goat, assuming the goat consents?

That would be the problem.

[fuzzygeek]

What's wrong if some yahoo wants to marry his goat, assuming the goat consents?

That would be the problem.

Exactly.

[Nooska]

You wouldn't need some yahoo that would do it to make a point. There would be actual people doing it for actual "normal" reasons (normal here being reasons most people would use toward their chosen.. erhmm.. partner (I guess works best here)).

The question (in my mind) isn't so much whether the goat would consent - I mean, animals don't have a right to not consent to significantly worse (objectively) things, say, like being slaughtered (literally) - but more whether the goat would endure duress.
This is getting rather far afield though.

[Amirya]

There's a lawsuit pending in New York that would grant chimpanzees personhood...