LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[Kannap]

We still are a small minority, facing considerable outside-oppression; this is a situation where bias would be incredibly easy to occur, and difficult to prevent. For the record, I don't think Muslim judges should hear Muslim cases, Jews hearing Jew cases etc here in the United States, for that same reason.

So only straight white Christians can rule on whether minorities have equal rights.

A state of affairs that itself proves that they don't have equal rights.

"a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority" - Ayn Rand

[Mahdistan]

We still are a small minority, facing considerable outside-oppression; this is a situation where bias would be incredibly easy to occur, and difficult to prevent. For the record, I don't think Muslim judges should hear Muslim cases, Jews hearing Jew cases etc here in the United States, for that same reason.

Then you've designed a system that favours the majority. White judges will still hear "white cases", but black judges won't hear "black cases"? If, as you believe, people will favour their own group, you've given WASPs a high chance of receiving a judge who'll favour them while explicitly barring most other groups from having the same chance. And designing a system that explicitly favours those who are already the majority is fucking moronic.

Further, your system requires everyone to identify themselves, which is invasive enough before you consider all the complications. If a closeted judge eventually comes out, can he be prosecuted for not disclosing his sexuality if he previously heard "gay cases"? Is Judge Jose required to decide whether he identifies as white or not? What if the government disagrees with whichever he chooses? If Judge Abdul lost his faith ten years ago but wants to keep that private, what is he supposed to do?

Not every minority, it's the very small, less than 2% of the population minorities that need to be considered more carefully; there's just plain less diversity among these groups, and they tend to be less integrated in society. Mind you too, there's a bigger divide between religious and sexual minorities and the common population, versus racial minorities- it's a matter of deliberate choice in lifestyle as opposed to just being born that way (and no, I'm not suggesting being gay is a choice- being OPENLY gay is a choice, however). And this is about gay judges hearing LGBT cases, not just cases where someone happens to be gay, thus the matter is directly related to a lifestyle choice, and this issue of bias becomes relevant

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Then you've designed a system that favours the majority. White judges will still hear "white cases", but black judges won't hear "black cases"? If, as you believe, people will favour their own group, you've given WASPs a high chance of receiving a judge who'll favour them while explicitly barring most other groups from having the same chance. And designing a system that explicitly favours those who are already the majority is fucking moronic.

Further, your system requires everyone to identify themselves, which is invasive enough before you consider all the complications. If a closeted judge eventually comes out, can he be prosecuted for not disclosing his sexuality if he previously heard "gay cases"? Is Judge Jose required to decide whether he identifies as white or not? What if the government disagrees with whichever he chooses? If Judge Abdul lost his faith ten years ago but wants to keep that private, what is he supposed to do?

Not every minority, it's the very small, less than 2% of the population minorities that need to be considered more carefully; there's just plain less diversity among these groups, and they tend to be less integrated in society. Mind you too, there's a bigger divide between religious and sexual minorities and the common population, versus racial minorities- it's a matter of deliberate choice in lifestyle as opposed to just being born that way (and no, I'm not suggesting being gay is a choice- being OPENLY gay is a choice, however). And this is about gay judges hearing LGBT cases, not just cases where someone happens to be gay, thus the matter is directly related to a lifestyle choice, and this issue of bias becomes relevant

You didn't answer any of my questions, I note.

"There's less diversity in sexual minorities!" said the gay muslim Trotskyist, unironically.

[Mahdistan]

Not every minority, it's the very small, less than 2% of the population minorities that need to be considered more carefully; there's just plain less diversity among these groups, and they tend to be less integrated in society. Mind you too, there's a bigger divide between religious and sexual minorities and the common population, versus racial minorities- it's a matter of deliberate choice in lifestyle as opposed to just being born that way (and no, I'm not suggesting being gay is a choice- being OPENLY gay is a choice, however). And this is about gay judges hearing LGBT cases, not just cases where someone happens to be gay, thus the matter is directly related to a lifestyle choice, and this issue of bias becomes relevant

You didn't answer any of my questions, I note.

"There's less diversity in sexual minorities!" said the gay muslim Trotskyist, unironically.

On the judge examples; 1, no, because viewpoints and lifestyle choices change- they ought to be prosecuted if there's evidence they were actively concealing said lifestyle choices, however. 2, not necessarily- if an identity is not held by an individual, then bias is not an issue. And 3, such a judge should be obligated to make such information known- they are a public official, and as such sacrifice a significant level of privacy.

And, though yes I and many others hold a diversity of viewpoints, here I am involving myself in the LGB conversation- I would be biased in support of people who are also homosexuals, because I identify with them.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

You didn't answer any of my questions, I note.

"There's less diversity in sexual minorities!" said the gay muslim Trotskyist, unironically.

On the judge examples; 1, no, because viewpoints and lifestyle choices change- they ought to be prosecuted if there's evidence they were actively concealing said lifestyle choices, however. 2, not necessarily- if an identity is not held by an individual, then bias is not an issue. And 3, such a judge should be obligated to make such information known- they are a public official, and as such sacrifice a significant level of privacy.

1. So forcing people to out themselves, yes?
2. Ah, so while a gay judge will definitely be biased in cases that will affect the LGB community, there's no chance Jose will be biased in favour of the Hispanic community as long as, when forced to choose, he identifies as white?
3. Why on Earth should a judge have to divulge their religious beliefs?

And, though yes I and many others hold a diversity of viewpoints, here I am involving myself in the LGB conversation- I would be biased in support of people who are also homosexuals, because I identify with them.

Given that pretty well your entire contribution to this thread is all the ways and reasons LGB people shouldn't be equal, I find that hard to believe.

[Mahdistan]

On the judge examples; 1, no, because viewpoints and lifestyle choices change- they ought to be prosecuted if there's evidence they were actively concealing said lifestyle choices, however. 2, not necessarily- if an identity is not held by an individual, then bias is not an issue. And 3, such a judge should be obligated to make such information known- they are a public official, and as such sacrifice a significant level of privacy.

1. So forcing people to out themselves, yes?
2. Ah, so while a gay judge will definitely be biased in cases that will affect the LGB community, there's no chance Jose will be biased in favour of the Hispanic community as long as, when forced to choose, he identifies as white?
3. Why on Earth should a judge have to divulge their religious beliefs?

And, though yes I and many others hold a diversity of viewpoints, here I am involving myself in the LGB conversation- I would be biased in support of people who are also homosexuals, because I identify with them.

Given that pretty well your entire contribution to this thread is all the ways and reasons LGB people shouldn't be equal, I find that hard to believe.

Yes, because that information is relevant to their functions as a judge.

The second example is more tenuous- the judge should be carefully reviewed to ensure no bias is present in favor of either race. Like I said before, bias in racial/ethnic cases is easier to discern than religious/sexual cases.

And third, because they are a public figure paid with tax money. Their duty is to provide bias-free rulings, and information like that is relevant.

And yes, I'm conservative in the social sense- but not once have I advocated for harm towards the LGB community. My positions are made out of a desire for meaningful advancement, not knee-jerk reactions.

[Ifreann]

1. So forcing people to out themselves, yes?
2. Ah, so while a gay judge will definitely be biased in cases that will affect the LGB community, there's no chance Jose will be biased in favour of the Hispanic community as long as, when forced to choose, he identifies as white?
3. Why on Earth should a judge have to divulge their religious beliefs?

Given that pretty well your entire contribution to this thread is all the ways and reasons LGB people shouldn't be equal, I find that hard to believe.

Yes, because that information is relevant to their functions as a judge.

The second example is more tenuous- the judge should be carefully reviewed to ensure no bias is present in favor of either race. Like I said before, bias in racial/ethnic cases is easier to discern than religious/sexual cases.

And third, because they are a public figure paid with tax money. Their duty is to provide bias-free rulings, and information like that is relevant.

And yes, I'm conservative in the social sense- but not once have I advocated for harm towards the LGB community. My positions are made out of a desire for meaningful advancement, not knee-jerk reactions.

You've been arguing that gay people shouldn't be equal in society. That they should be second class citizens and denied certain careers. That is a kind of harm, and is certainly not any kind of advancement.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Yes, because that information is relevant to their functions as a judge.

The second example is more tenuous- the judge should be carefully reviewed to ensure no bias is present in favor of either race. Like I said before, bias in racial/ethnic cases is easier to discern than religious/sexual cases.

And third, because they are a public figure paid with tax money. Their duty is to provide bias-free rulings, and information like that is relevant.

And yes, I'm conservative in the social sense- but not once have I advocated for harm towards the LGB community. My positions are made out of a desire for meaningful advancement, not knee-jerk reactions.

You've been arguing that gay people shouldn't be equal in society. That they should be second class citizens and denied certain careers. That is a kind of harm, and is certainly not any kind of advancement.

We're advancing towards the state we vile sinners deserve. *nods*

[Mahdistan]

Yes, because that information is relevant to their functions as a judge.

The second example is more tenuous- the judge should be carefully reviewed to ensure no bias is present in favor of either race. Like I said before, bias in racial/ethnic cases is easier to discern than religious/sexual cases.

And third, because they are a public figure paid with tax money. Their duty is to provide bias-free rulings, and information like that is relevant.

And yes, I'm conservative in the social sense- but not once have I advocated for harm towards the LGB community. My positions are made out of a desire for meaningful advancement, not knee-jerk reactions.

You've been arguing that gay people shouldn't be equal in society. That they should be second class citizens and denied certain careers. That is a kind of harm, and is certainly not any kind of advancement.

I've argued that it's reasonable to be viewed differently in the eyes of the government, because of the government's duty to maximize state productivity and organize as such, and that a potentially biased judge shouldn't hear cases where that bias plays in- I don't see the harm taking place.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

You've been arguing that gay people shouldn't be equal in society. That they should be second class citizens and denied certain careers. That is a kind of harm, and is certainly not any kind of advancement.

I've argued that it's reasonable to be viewed differently in the eyes of the government, because of the government's duty to maximize state productivity and organize as such, and that a potentially biased judge shouldn't hear cases where that bias plays in- I don't see the harm taking place.

Except in the former case, you argue as if the state is something that no modern western state resembles. In the latter, you only want to eliminate bias when it's the gays who might be biased.

The harm is blatantly obvious, and either you're lying about being unable to see it, or you're hilariously incapable of thinking critically about ideas that conform to your prejudices.

[Mahdistan]

I've argued that it's reasonable to be viewed differently in the eyes of the government, because of the government's duty to maximize state productivity and organize as such, and that a potentially biased judge shouldn't hear cases where that bias plays in- I don't see the harm taking place.

Except in the former case, you argue as if the state is something that no modern western state resembles. In the latter, you only want to eliminate bias when it's the gays who might be biased.

The harm is blatantly obvious, and either you're lying about being unable to see it, or you're hilariously incapable of thinking critically about ideas that conform to your prejudices.

First, it's irrelevant whether or not a current state conforms to my ideals; it's a hypothetical matter. Second, I deliberately said I want bias eliminated altogether from the courtroom in the same matter when it comes to other minority groups- no one's getting hurt, and I don't want anyone getting hurt, I just want a fair system.

[Ifreann]

You've been arguing that gay people shouldn't be equal in society. That they should be second class citizens and denied certain careers. That is a kind of harm, and is certainly not any kind of advancement.

I've argued that it's reasonable to be viewed differently in the eyes of the government, because of the government's duty to maximize state productivity and organize as such,

I.E. relegate gay people to being second class citizens.

and that a potentially biased judge shouldn't hear cases where that bias plays in- I don't see the harm taking place.

You don't see the harm in gay lawyers never getting selected to be judges, why put someone on the bench who'll always being recusing themselves when you could pick a straight lawyer who'll probably be able to hear every case, all based on nothing more than your bizarre assumption that gay judges will just let the gay side win every time, but straight judges are totally trustworthy.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I've argued that it's reasonable to be viewed differently in the eyes of the government, because of the government's duty to maximize state productivity and organize as such,

I.E. relegate gay people to being second class citizens.

and that a potentially biased judge shouldn't hear cases where that bias plays in- I don't see the harm taking place.

You don't see the harm in gay lawyers never getting selected to be judges, why put someone on the bench who'll always being recusing themselves when you could pick a straight lawyer who'll probably be able to hear every case, all based on nothing more than your bizarre assumption that gay judges will just let the gay side win every time, but straight judges are totally trustworthy.

To be fair, gay judges are all totally bent.

[Mahdistan]

I've argued that it's reasonable to be viewed differently in the eyes of the government, because of the government's duty to maximize state productivity and organize as such,

I.E. relegate gay people to being second class citizens.

and that a potentially biased judge shouldn't hear cases where that bias plays in- I don't see the harm taking place.

You don't see the harm in gay lawyers never getting selected to be judges, why put someone on the bench who'll always being recusing themselves when you could pick a straight lawyer who'll probably be able to hear every case, all based on nothing more than your bizarre assumption that gay judges will just let the gay side win every time, but straight judges are totally trustworthy.

Single people are treated differently by the government than married couples. Are singles second-class citizens?

And careful regulation of judges is an absolute necessity- it's worth discrimination to ensure a clean courtroom, because a biased judge will harm the public. Like I've said, gays aren't the only people I think should be regulated.

[Vassenor]

I.E. relegate gay people to being second class citizens.

You don't see the harm in gay lawyers never getting selected to be judges, why put someone on the bench who'll always being recusing themselves when you could pick a straight lawyer who'll probably be able to hear every case, all based on nothing more than your bizarre assumption that gay judges will just let the gay side win every time, but straight judges are totally trustworthy.

Single people are treated differently by the government than married couples. Are singles second-class citizens?

And careful regulation of judges is an absolute necessity- it's worth discrimination to ensure a clean courtroom, because a biased judge will harm the public. Like I've said, gays aren't the only people I think should be regulated.

So what evidence do you have that LGBT judges will be biased in favour of LGBT defendants?

[Computer Lab]

Something something impartial judges able to put aside their biases in the court room.

Character and respect for rule of law are more important in a judge than meeting some political litmus test.

[Neutraligon]

Single people are treated differently by the government than married couples. Are singles second-class citizens?

And careful regulation of judges is an absolute necessity- it's worth discrimination to ensure a clean courtroom, because a biased judge will harm the public. Like I've said, gays aren't the only people I think should be regulated.

So what evidence do you have that LGBT judges will be biased in favour of LGBT defendants?

Following up on this, what evidence does the above poster have that say Christians won't be biased when it comes the law about religion in the government. Or how about blacks when it comes to voting? Why is the above poster so interested in treating two people differently before the law?

Why is it that judges are allowed to judge at all, since they are all human and all have opinions on different matters.

[Ifreann]

Australia's first gay weddings have taken place. Can't imagine what God could possibly do to curse Australia that's worse than, you know, being Australia.

---

I.E. relegate gay people to being second class citizens.

You don't see the harm in gay lawyers never getting selected to be judges, why put someone on the bench who'll always being recusing themselves when you could pick a straight lawyer who'll probably be able to hear every case, all based on nothing more than your bizarre assumption that gay judges will just let the gay side win every time, but straight judges are totally trustworthy.

Single people are treated differently by the government than married couples. Are singles second-class citizens?

What legal institutions are closed to single people?

And careful regulation of judges is an absolute necessity- it's worth discrimination to ensure a clean courtroom, because a biased judge will harm the public. Like I've said, gays aren't the only people I think should be regulated.

You haven't demonstrated that there is any bias to protect the public from. You just assume it is present among gays and absent among straights.

[Farnhamia]

Australia's first gay weddings have taken place. Can't imagine what God could possibly do to curse Australia that's worse than, you know, being Australia.

Turn them into New Zealand?

[Senkaku]

Australia's first gay weddings have taken place. Can't imagine what God could possibly do to curse Australia that's worse than, you know, being Australia.

Additional spiders.

[Salandriagado]

Australia's first gay weddings have taken place. Can't imagine what God could possibly do to curse Australia that's worse than, you know, being Australia.

He was just getting the punishment in early.

[Cekoviu]

Australia's first gay weddings have taken place. Can't imagine what God could possibly do to curse Australia that's worse than, you know, being Australia.

Additional spiders.

>more spiders
>curse
Does not compute.

[Mahdistan]

Single people are treated differently by the government than married couples. Are singles second-class citizens?

And careful regulation of judges is an absolute necessity- it's worth discrimination to ensure a clean courtroom, because a biased judge will harm the public. Like I've said, gays aren't the only people I think should be regulated.

So what evidence do you have that LGBT judges will be biased in favour of LGBT defendants?

The basis of being a small, often tightly-knit minority group raises the threat of bias- every gay senator has placed LGBT activism at the forefront of their campaigns; why should we expect different from judges?

[Mahdistan]

So what evidence do you have that LGBT judges will be biased in favour of LGBT defendants?

Following up on this, what evidence does the above poster have that say Christians won't be biased when it comes the law about religion in the government. Or how about blacks when it comes to voting? Why is the above poster so interested in treating two people differently before the law?

Why is it that judges are allowed to judge at all, since they are all human and all have opinions on different matters.

They very well may be- however, Christians as a blanket group tend not to be so closely knit. Now, a church-going Methodist judge shouldn't be allowed to preside over a case related to the Methodist Church, for the same reason. It shouldn't even come into question whether or not a judge could be biased in a particular case- so why not just hand it off to someone else entirely?

[Mahdistan]

Australia's first gay weddings have taken place. Can't imagine what God could possibly do to curse Australia that's worse than, you know, being Australia.

---

Single people are treated differently by the government than married couples. Are singles second-class citizens?

What legal institutions are closed to single people?

And careful regulation of judges is an absolute necessity- it's worth discrimination to ensure a clean courtroom, because a biased judge will harm the public. Like I've said, gays aren't the only people I think should be regulated.

You haven't demonstrated that there is any bias to protect the public from. You just assume it is present among gays and absent among straights.

No legal institutions are being closed to anyone- the whole argument is over whether or not certain individuals should hear certain cases.

And I have noted the concern of a small, tightly knit minority presiding over another of that same, tightly knit minority.