LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[Noraika]

Kind of! Though to be fair, who got to be in the LGBT+ movement has changed over time and it could again.

True, but thankfully it is never beyond conscience.
The name and type of people has changed over time, but each and all of them related to each other in the same way (consent-able, natural, and not a negative impact on the person's life directly). Over time our understanding of human sexuality has grown beyond simply gay, and we've learned and over time realized more and more about human beings, and their natural gender and sexual diversity, but the movement is not beyond conscience, and the aforementioned elements and values have always consistently played a role in shaping it.

Is it possible? Anything is. Is it likely? Not at all. Parties not being able to consent, negative impacts on the person and the other individual, and many more issues would still make those thing objectionable to the LGBT+ of the previous 5 decades, and the same to the LGBT+ today.

[New confederate ramenia]

"underage people can never give informed consent but adults always can"
Why do people still believe this?

[Noraika]

"underage people can never give informed consent but adults always can"
Why do people still believe this?

There are certain lines where it is the case that very young children, outside of exceptional cases, cannot understand fully the actions they are taking, but if you mean children under 18 in general than that's pretty true, hence why in most of the world, which have a developed understanding of psychology, the age of informed consent, and age of consent in general, is anywhere from 14-16.

[Jumalariik]

Kind of! Though to be fair, who got to be in the LGBT+ movement has changed over time and it could again.

True, but thankfully it is never beyond conscience.
The name and type of people has changed over time, but each and all of them related to each other in the same way (consent-able, natural, and not a negative impact on the person's life directly). Over time our understanding of human sexuality has grown beyond simply gay, and we've learned and over time realized more and more about human beings, and their natural gender and sexual diversity, but the movement is not beyond conscience, and the aforementioned elements and values have always consistently played a role in shaping it.

Is it possible? Anything is. Is it likely? Not at all. Parties not being able to consent, negative impacts on the person and the other individual, and many more issues would still make those thing objectionable to the LGBT+ of the previous 5 decades, and the same to the LGBT+ today.

I can accept that to a point.

[Freefall11111]

"underage people can never give informed consent but adults always can"
Why do people still believe this?

Because it's the safest assumption. If there were some measurement of maturity and mental well-being that could be used to identify someone's capability of giving consent on a case-by-case basis, I'm sure everyone would support it, but such a thing does not exist.

[Vassenor]

Also I thought the the was GSRM on account of the fact it is possible to be romantically attracted to a person witbout being sexually attracted.

[Grenartia]

They aren't part of the community.

You didn't mention a community, you said "LGBT people".

In answer to the question, I reject secular marriage in-general, and therefore SSMarriages by extension.

Rejecting "secular marriage" just sounds childish.

[United Marxist Nations]

You didn't mention a community, you said "LGBT people".

In answer to the question, I reject secular marriage in-general, and therefore SSMarriages by extension.

Rejecting "secular marriage" just sounds childish.

How? I don't think they are valid in a religious sense.

[Vassenor]

You didn't mention a community, you said "LGBT people".

In answer to the question, I reject secular marriage in-general, and therefore SSMarriages by extension.

Rejecting "secular marriage" just sounds childish.

UMN has talked at length before about wanting to set up a theocracy.

[United Marxist Nations]

Rejecting "secular marriage" just sounds childish.

UMN has talked at length before about wanting to set up a theocracy.

I wouldn't call it "at length".

[Noraika]

You didn't mention a community, you said "LGBT people".

In answer to the question, I reject secular marriage in-general, and therefore SSMarriages by extension.

Rejecting "secular marriage" just sounds childish.

All marriages are secular. A marriage is based primarily in law by legal recognition and certificate. Then its up to the people involved in said secular and legal marriage as to whether or not they want to voluntarily add religious element and ceremony to their marriage, in addition to the pre-existing secular marriage.

[The V O I D]

Rejecting "secular marriage" just sounds childish.

How? I don't think they are valid in a religious sense.

Ignoring the fact that marriage is a contract between the state and the people in question getting married, with churches only being contracted to do the wedding services and such for the marriage. The Church's definition of marriage lost relevance to what marriage is long ago.

Also, what Noraika said.

[United Marxist Nations]

How? I don't think they are valid in a religious sense.

Ignoring the fact that marriage is a contract between the state and the people in question getting married, with churches only being contracted to do the wedding services and such for the marriage. The Church's definition of marriage lost relevance to what marriage is long ago.

Also, what Noraika said.

Marriage is what it means to the people involved, and I think that that means a bond between a male and female in Jesus Christ.

Even if I were civilly married, I don't think I could engage in marital activity with said woman without Church sanction.

[The V O I D]

Ignoring the fact that marriage is a contract between the state and the people in question getting married, with churches only being contracted to do the wedding services and such for the marriage. The Church's definition of marriage lost relevance to what marriage is long ago.

Also, what Noraika said.

Marriage is what it means to the people involved, and I think that that means a bond between a male and female in Jesus Christ.

Even if I were civilly married, I don't think I could engage in marital activity with said woman without Church sanction.

All marriage is civil/secular. All marriage is a contract between two people and the state proclaiming that they are to be life-long partners. Divorce is the agreed breaking of this contract between two people while informing the state.

Where do you see religion involved, beyond being contractually bound to perform wedding services if they form such a contract with the to-be-weds?

[United Marxist Nations]

Marriage is what it means to the people involved, and I think that that means a bond between a male and female in Jesus Christ.

Even if I were civilly married, I don't think I could engage in marital activity with said woman without Church sanction.

All marriage is civil/secular. All marriage is a contract between two people and the state proclaiming that they are to be life-long partners. Divorce is the agreed breaking of this contract between two people while informing the state.

Where do you see religion involved, beyond being contractually bound to perform wedding services if they form such a contract with the to-be-weds?

I don't think secular marriages are real marriages, I think they are just human creations. I think marriage is a divine union.

[The V O I D]

All marriage is civil/secular. All marriage is a contract between two people and the state proclaiming that they are to be life-long partners. Divorce is the agreed breaking of this contract between two people while informing the state.

Where do you see religion involved, beyond being contractually bound to perform wedding services if they form such a contract with the to-be-weds?

I don't think secular marriages are real marriages, I think they are just human creations. I think marriage is a divine union.

You can think that, but that basically means you don't think marriage exists at all, since the only recognized marriages are state-formed and marriage is a government/state right, not a church right.

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't think secular marriages are real marriages, I think they are just human creations. I think marriage is a divine union.

You can think that, but that basically means you don't think marriage exists at all, since the only recognized marriages are state-formed and marriage is a government/state right, not a church right.

I don't think that's true. What matters to me is recognition by the Church, not the government. I would be fine not having a civil union while being religiously married.

[Grenartia]

I have a question, not sure if this is the right place or not; but does the LGBT+ Rights movement also include robosexuals? Are robosexuals even in the LGBT+ community?

No...? Like, wanting to fuck robots =/= not being straight or cis.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

All marriage is civil/secular. All marriage is a contract between two people and the state proclaiming that they are to be life-long partners. Divorce is the agreed breaking of this contract between two people while informing the state.

Where do you see religion involved, beyond being contractually bound to perform wedding services if they form such a contract with the to-be-weds?

I don't think secular marriages are real marriages, I think they are just human creations. I think marriage is a divine union.

The Church provides marriages under licentious approval of the state.

All the church does is it provides meaning to said marriage, but it doesn't really provide any power to the marriage when it comes to recognition of the state, unless the state decides to recognize it, which is done all over the world currently.

[Grenartia]

Oh. But that would mean that LGBT+ are all non cis straight people?

Basically, but the term GSM fits better with that definition.

LGBT+ is not synonymous with GSM.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I have a question, not sure if this is the right place or not; but does the LGBT+ Rights movement also include robosexuals? Are robosexuals even in the LGBT+ community?

This is a fetish, not an orientation.

An easy way to tell is: A fetish is the strong preference of an out-of-the-ordinary sexual activity, a sexual orientation is who you are attracted to, and gender is who/how you identify as.

[Grenartia]

Not overtly likely. The groups in the LGBT+ grouping all have a shared history in that they have over time been revealed by science and medicine to be aspects of natural human diversity, in its gender and sexuality, in the naturally-occurring compenents which make up humanity's great and beautiful diversity. Essentially, they're backed by science and medicine as not only being perfectly fine, but fully natural. Plus the people involved all can consent to everything involved, and it does not impact their lives negatively.

Bestiality I can't see attraction to another species as something medicinally viable as either natural or safe, especially since an animal cannot consent to sexual relations. Peadophillia would not be alright either, since once again a child cannot consent unless they are above the age of consent, so if anything we might lower it to regular standards for developed countries (15/16), but not on children who cannot possible know what is going on, or understand its ramifications. Plus we already know that such things can bring a great amount of negative impacts upon a person's life.

Its thankfully an issue of false equivalency. Hope that helps explain it!

Kind of! Though to be fair, who got to be in the LGBT+ movement has changed over time and it could again.

Not really. It was just a matter of who got to be visible. There have always been lesbians in our movement, there have always been gays, there have always been trans people, there've always been bi/pan people. All that has really changed is who has been seen by society as a whole as being members of our community.

[Grenartia]

Rejecting "secular marriage" just sounds childish.

How? I don't think they are valid in a religious sense.

Except, that's just pissing on others who don't have or want a religious element to their marriage. Whether you want it to be or not, that's the logical consequence of saying secular marriages are not valid.

[The V O I D]

I have a question, not sure if this is the right place or not; but does the LGBT+ Rights movement also include robosexuals? Are robosexuals even in the LGBT+ community?

This is a fetish, not an orientation.

An easy way to tell is: A fetish is the strong preference of an out-of-the-ordinary sexual activity, a sexual orientation is who you are attracted to, and gender is who/how you identify as.

Robosexuality is a sexuality, though; considering that they want to have sex with and are attracted to robots. Inevitably, when humanoid robots are out there, if they are self-aware, and just like you or I, with the only difference being that they are born in a different way... that's when it becomes an actual sexuality. It's a sexuality that has yet to be realized because technology hasn't completely caught up, quite yet.

That also brings up another good question; would robots who want to have sex with and are attracted to humans be considered humanosexuals?

[Grenartia]

All marriage is civil/secular. All marriage is a contract between two people and the state proclaiming that they are to be life-long partners. Divorce is the agreed breaking of this contract between two people while informing the state.

Where do you see religion involved, beyond being contractually bound to perform wedding services if they form such a contract with the to-be-weds?

I don't think secular marriages are real marriages, I think they are just human creations. I think marriage is a divine union.

Then you're talking about matrimony, not marriage.