LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:40 pm

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/c ... iberal-lie
"There has never been a state in this country that has ever banned gay marriage," Medved said during a panel titled "Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives Ever Get Along?" after another panelist referenced historical discrimination against LGBT couples. "That is a liberal lie."
Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:47 pm

A bit of interesting info with regards to Russian gay laws. Neither Putin or his party where the ones to propose the current propaganda law, rather it was his opposition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelena_Mizulina

She's the one that wrote the law...read her wiki page and weep.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:02 pm

I'm ok with her idea of free abortion for rape or medical reasons, and billed to the woman for other reasons. I'm not ok with the fining of a woman who refuses the waiting period, since I've never known a woman who had an abortion get up in the morning, take a shower, drink her coffee, "man, today is a fine day for an abortion! Let's totally make it a day trip and have lunch afterwards."

I'm not clear on her minimum sum of child support thing - is this where the parent has to pony up, regardless of job or not? Or where the government is paying the stipend (y'know, to help encourage more Russians to be born), regardless of job status of the parents?

I'm also not overly bothered by the idea of multigenerational homes, but then, I also believe the Western idea of kids moving away and not helping out parents as they get older is somewhat selfish.

Rest of it? Wow.
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 Passionario » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:38 am

Io.Draco wrote:A bit of interesting info with regards to Russian gay laws. Neither Putin or his party where the ones to propose the current propaganda law, rather it was his opposition.

Just Russia is not Putin's opposition. They've dabbled with that stance at some point, but all anti-Kremlin elements have been purged from the party by 2013 and they've been voting in lockstep with United Russia ever since.
Amirya wrote:I'm also not overly bothered by the idea of multigenerational homes, but then, I also believe the Western idea of kids moving away and not helping out parents as they get older is somewhat selfish.

That's because you're a reasonable sane person and not a member of the current Duma. The idea of multigenerational homes becomes much less pleasant once you make them mandatory.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:08 am

Just Russia is not Putin's opposition. They've dabbled with that stance at some point, but all anti-Kremlin elements have been purged from the party by 2013 and they've been voting in lockstep with United Russia ever since.


Oh ok. Still it seems to me that Putin's keeping the crazies contained from the Duma, or at least trying to.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Passionario » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:46 am

Io.Draco wrote:Oh ok. Still it seems to me that Putin's keeping the crazies contained from the Duma, or at least trying to.

That's the intended effect, yes. The idea that "the Tsar is benevolent, but his boyars (nobles) are evil" has been around in Russia for centuries, and Putin's savvy enough to cultivate it.

The deputies are all too happy to play their part. For instance, the infamous Zhirinovsky built his entire political career around being the designated crazy extremist clown that makes the president (be it Yeltsin, Putin or Medvedev) seem like a sane and moderate individual in comparison.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:51 am

So it's just a role and nothing more then that?
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Passionario » Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:16 am

Pretty much. Not matter how extravagant their rhetorics are, when it comes to serious business and matters of actual policy, all members of Duma and the Federation of Council will vote exactly as Putin wants them to. (Case in point: Crimean annexation).

As for those who are not content with playing the part and are really opposed to Putin's regime (such as Alexei Navalny) - they simply don't make it to the halls of power.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:01 pm

I should have specified. Is Putin's moderation just a role he plays while he is in fact just as crazy and extremist as they appear to be?
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Passionario » Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:34 am

I'm no psychiatrist, but I'd say that he is just as crazy, but in a different way. It appears that he bought into his own personality cult.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:12 am

something about fighting bears and riding horses while shirtless

(which is totally not gay, and instead is pretty manly *wink wink*)
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:25 am

Passionario wrote:I'm no psychiatrist, but I'd say that he is just as crazy, but in a different way. It appears that he bought into his own personality cult.


If one is going to have a personality cult as he has then he better buy into it, at least appear that he does. Also if he is surrounded by yes men that do his every bidding, well one can easily imagine how that would go.

I'd say a bit of narcissism is required for any great leader.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:02 pm

We seem to have strayed from LGBT rights to politics... a fine line to be sure, but mind keeping things on track?

In regards to the primary thread topic... I was trying to find something relevant in the news, but the most recent story I've seen is the Mozilla CEO that resigned after 11 days (due to former donations supporting prop 8 coming to light and the LGBT community coming down hard on him.)

On the one hand, he did make anti-LGBT donations...on the other hand... it was ~6 years ago and many things have changed since then (to include the president's views on the subject).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/0 ... 94761.html
"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: 3588
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:36 pm

Skye1013 wrote:We seem to have strayed from LGBT rights to politics... a fine line to be sure, but mind keeping things on track?

In regards to the primary thread topic... I was trying to find something relevant in the news, but the most recent story I've seen is the Mozilla CEO that resigned after 11 days (due to former donations supporting prop 8 coming to light and the LGBT community coming down hard on him.)

On the one hand, he did make anti-LGBT donations...on the other hand... it was ~6 years ago and many things have changed since then (to include the president's views on the subject).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/0 ... 94761.html



Yeah, I think that was an overreaction and not really needed.

Here's an interesting blog on it: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/ ... y-clinton/
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:08 am

Not so much rights, but recognition.

City Hall plaza in Copenhagen is being divided by the building of a new metrostation (I believe thats teh cause at least, hasn't been entirely specific). By law the segregated part of the plaza now has to have a new name (as 2 unconnected roads or plazas cannot have the same name within the same postcode).

The name chose?
"Rainbow plaza" (Regnbuepladsen) - which has already had some older, established conservative companies up in arms - they claim it is because they are losing their prestigious address (City hall plaza, "Rådhuspladsen"), but have had some rather, unfortunate, remarks if that was tehe only case (especially when confronted with the fact that law mandates a change of name, so they couldn't keep their streetaddress anyway)

Though rather toothless, thats the extent of the discussion in denmark currently - at least discussion that I get made aware of without being on the "inside" of any networks,and not being all that socaible outside my own small(ish) circdle of friends and aquaintances.
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: 1602
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:55 pm

Yeah, I think that was an overreaction and not really needed.


Not really an overreaction but more like the norm for the gay rights movement these days to bully, harass, demean and insult anyone who dares disagree with them.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257628 ... age-bigots

An interesting article: The writer by the way supports Gay Marriage and Gay rights and isn't too fond of Christians.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:25 pm

I'd say this is a case of "You're not Helping" when it comes to those that raised a big ruckus regarding Eich, and like I said, I don't see anyone calling out Hillary Clinton...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:36 pm

Io.Draco wrote:Not really an overreaction but more like the norm for the gay rights movement anyone these days to bully, harass, demean and insult anyone who dares disagree with them.

Fixed that for ya.

It's true of anyone anywhere. It is never anyone's own fault, it is always The Fault of the Other Person.
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 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:36 pm

Io.Draco wrote:
Yeah, I think that was an overreaction and not really needed.


Not really an overreaction but more like the norm for the gay rights movement these days to bully, harass, demean and insult anyone who dares disagree with them.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257628 ... age-bigots

An interesting article: The writer by the way supports Gay Marriage and Gay rights and isn't too fond of Christians.

The problem as I see it is that there are people who are against gay marriage and want to express that belief as if it's merely disagreeing with someone else's idea. That's not the case at all. People are pissed off because they can't deny rights to gay people anymore. That's fundamentally different to a mere opinion.

Seriously, we've been through this time and time again. Women shouldn't vote. Businesses shouldn't have to serve black/jewish/asian/mexican/whatever people. It's all based on some ancient books allegedly written by god as copied down by man and then subsequently translated, interpreted, re-translated, re-interpreted, edited, and cherry picked until it supports something that aligns with some man's prejudices, then it's shoved down children's throats with threats of hellfire and damnation, until they believe it, except they lack the theological background to understand any of it except "god hates fags".

It's such a load of utter bullshit.

There are 76 laws in Leviticus that are routinely ignored by even the most devout of Christians, up to and including "letting your hair become unkempt" and "eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof". Trust me - those same poor assailed Christians being forced to serve gays have no trouble at all selling a pack of bacon to a guy with dreadlocks.

Yet take one of those 76 - "having sex with a man 'as one does with a woman'" and it's the end of the freaking world as far as their religion is concerned.

It's artificial cherry-picking to support bigotry. It has failed over and over throughout history, and will again. Christians need to learn to live with that, just like they learned to live with women having the vote and black people eating at the same counter.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:40 am

The argument in favor or against Gay Marriage is irrelevant, the point I brought here is about the actions of those in LGBT movement following their victory. They would go after those that opposed them on a legal issue. Much can be said about the women rights movement, the black rights movement and so on, but when it comes to those movement gaining the legal victories they desired they did not go hunting for those who had opposed them.

The LGBT movement would see businesses close, people jobless and so on. Instead of trying to sugar coat it how about accepting that this course of action is bullshit and just as bad as some of the more extreme actions by the anti-LGBT movement, as indeed some people who do support Gay Rights and Marriage have called it out.

It's ridiculous to demand this kind of action against anyone who has ever been a public figure simply because they were against marriage.

Here another article, from someone who is Gay ( and supports gay marriage ) http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/ ... he-day-63/
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:33 am

The arguments about gay marriage are entirely relevant, since the type of criticism you're espousing here is created and propagated for the express purpose of distracting from those arguments and redirecting attention on to the supposed intolerance of those speaking out against intolerance. It belongs to the same category as concern trolling and tone policing.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:20 pm

It's relevant because the anti-gay-rights people are basically saying "they are being intolerant of me wanting to deprive them of rights".

My point is that they - and we - should be intolerant of someone trying to deprive them of rights.

This "oh the poor business owners" stuff is a load of rubbish. People have religions; businesses don't. People may want to discriminate on the basis of religion, but businesses operating in an environment in which people have rights cannot deprive people of those rights on the basis of religion, because the business doesn't have a religion. It's a legal entity, not an actual one. It's birth was brought about not through the miracle of life, but the tedium of paperwork, and its death will simply be more paperwork. It has no afterlife to be concerned with. It has no soul to save.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:04 pm

since the type of criticism you're espousing here is created and propagated for the express purpose of distracting from those arguments and redirecting attention on to the supposed intolerance of those speaking out against intolerance. It belongs to the same category as concern trolling and tone policing.


Except that it's propagated also by a number of people who do actually support gay rights, marriage and tolerance but are willing to call the LGBT side on their own intolerance.

People have religions; businesses don't.


The case in point had nothing to do with a business seeking to deny Gay couples services. It was about a man who supported a political campaign years ago and then being essentially lynched from his job because of it even though there was nothing to indicate he was discriminating against gay employees or customers.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:14 pm

Io.Draco wrote:The case in point had nothing to do with a business seeking to deny Gay couples services. It was about a man who supported a political campaign years ago and then being essentially lynched from his job because of it even though there was nothing to indicate he was discriminating against gay employees or customers.

I'm not concerned with individual cases - I'm concerned with the issue of gay rights and people fighting to protect their religious freedom by being able to discriminate through the companies they own. If you want to talk individual cases, I can cite plenty were people were beaten or killed for being gay. I believe being put to death trumps the hell out of being "lynched from a job".

Besides, Douthat's article was all about business and how they'll be forced to allow blacks to sit at their lunch counters - oops, I meant to say provide services to gay couples. He may not be doing it, but he supports and endorses it in his article.

But there’s another possibility, in which the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion. In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business — which is the intent of recent legal actions against a wedding photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington State, and a baker in Colorado.


He says that like it's a bad thing that people should be treated equally by businesses. I can see the issue if the photographer is being asked to film something he finds abhorrent. In that case it's an individual refusing to perform a task for the business based on his religious belief, and I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with a bakery or florist refusing service because the products will be used in a gay service. Nobody is asking anyone to do something they find offensive - just bake a cake and arrange some flowers. If that's offensive, they're in the wrong line of business.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:54 pm

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... ia-sharia/

When we lived in Brooklyn, we routinely shopped at a local food store owned by Yemeni Muslim immigrants. If I had to bet, I would guess they held strongly anti-gay views, strongly anti-feminist views, and probably strongly anti-Christian views. But you know what? They were always polite to us — friendly, even — and their products were good. They were good neighbors. Who cares what they think privately, as long as they treat customers with respect?

When we lived in Philly, we shopped all the time at a local organic food co-op that was fairly Portlandish in its progressivism. But the food was good and the people were really nice to us. If they had known that they were dealing with a right-wing Christian troglodyte every time they saw me at the register buying food, it probably would have appalled them. And I’m sure that at least some of those workers held offensive prejudices about Christians and conservatives. But you know what? They were nice and we were nice and we enjoyed sharing the same neighborhood with them. Who cares what they think privately, as long as they treat customers with respect?

In the Philadelphia area, you run into Amish folks at farmer’s markets, selling their produce. I was told by a local foodie that long before farmer’s markets became popular, the Amish were holding the line on locally-grown fresh food. According to this person, the reason the farmer’s market movement started so early and became so strong in Philly was because of the presence of the Amish from Lancaster County and elsewhere. People love them. You think the Amish are for gay marriage? You think the Amish hold properly progressive views on sex, gender roles, or anything else? Who the freak cares?! At the Baton Rouge farmer’s market, the best local milk comes from Mormon dairy farmers, and the best chicken comes from Muslim chicken farmers. You think they are pure enough for Portlandia? In my town, which is fairly conservative, some of the most beloved businesses are run by liberals, and employ gay people. Nobody cares. Nobody should care. You are a bad neighbor if you care, and not just a bad neighbor, but an asshole.


Bit of an interesting article, tangentially related to this. THAT SAID, while its ok to be polite with everyone across the board, it is still bad to undermine people's rights behind their back.

Conversely, the problem here is that there's a dichotomy. As a private individual, you have the right to support whatever cause you want, be it pro-lgbt or anti-gay marriage, pro-life, pro-choice and even a white supremacist organization. The problem arises when you take a position where you publicly represent others. You are the face of an organization, and your actions and statements can make that organization look bad through such representation, and thus the company has the right to limit the damage.

Eich had every right to support that anti-gay marriage group. Mozilla also has every right to put pressure on him, and society has every right to judge him based on political stances. If anything, the problem is that Eich did very little damage control outside of resigning, EVEN if he never, at any point, wanted Mozilla to adhere to his private views.

Now, my problem, again is that it was for something that happened somewhat long ago, and like I said before, it doesn't look like he wanted to make Mozilla share his anti-gay marriage views. And that I don't see the same criticisms being applied towards Clinton, seeing how she is on the record spouting the whole "traditional" marriage argument when it came to DOMA, which caused more damage to LGBT rights in its time than Prop-8 did.

So if you're criticizing Eich, as a public figure, for something he did in 2008, you should also openly criticize Clinton as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, otherwise its cherry picking.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

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