LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[Mahdistan]

India’s gay sex ban could be axed, judges reveal https://www.rt.com/news/415346-india-gay-sex-ban/

THIS is meaningful progress

[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.

---

What legal institutions are closed to single people?


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.

I was referring to your position on marriage equality.

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

Lawyers constitute a small, tightly knit minority. Should probably ban them from hearing cases that involve lawyers.

Wait, that's all the cases. Huh.

[Mahdistan]

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

I was referring to your position on marriage equality.

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

Lawyers constitute a small, tightly knit minority. Should probably ban them from hearing cases that involve lawyers.

Wait, that's all the cases. Huh.

But I've never argued against legal unions between homosexuals- I argued that fighting over the word 'marriage' was a waste of time, and the benefits to couples should be based on actual contribution to the state, not just for being together.

And being a lawyer is an occupation, not a lifestyle choice. If there were say a union of lawyers, or if a judge and a lawyer being tried came from the same firm originally, that would be another situation where bias could present a threat.

[Vassenor]

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?

So you have no evidence then. Just assumptions.

And you know what they say about what happens when you assume.

[Ifreann]

I was referring to your position on marriage equality.

Lawyers constitute a small, tightly knit minority. Should probably ban them from hearing cases that involve lawyers.

Wait, that's all the cases. Huh.

But I've never argued against legal unions between homosexuals- I argued that fighting over the word 'marriage' was a waste of time, and the benefits to couples should be based on actual contribution to the state, not just for being together.

Which is to say, straight couples can get married, but gay couples only get a civil union. The legal institution of marriage is closed to them on the basis of their sexuality. Government imposed discrimination.

And being a lawyer is an occupation, not a lifestyle choice. If there were say a union of lawyers, or if a judge and a lawyer being tried came from the same firm originally, that would be another situation where bias could present a threat.

There is a union of lawyers. It's called the bar association. You have to join in order to practice law. So all lawyers and all judges are members of this organisation. That's a much more tightly knit community than the gay community, which individual gay people may have little if any involvement in.

[Kannap]

I was referring to your position on marriage equality.

Lawyers constitute a small, tightly knit minority. Should probably ban them from hearing cases that involve lawyers.

Wait, that's all the cases. Huh.

But I've never argued against legal unions between homosexuals- I argued that fighting over the word 'marriage' was a waste of time, and the benefits to couples should be based on actual contribution to the state, not just for being together.

And being a lawyer is an occupation, not a lifestyle choice. If there were say a union of lawyers, or if a judge and a lawyer being tried came from the same firm originally, that would be another situation where bias could present a threat.

Wait a second, are you telling me people don't choose to spend their lives going to law school and becoming a lawyer? Damn, I knew we needed to be worried about those people born as lawyers and their lawyer agenda.

[Mahdistan]

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?

So you have no evidence then. Just assumptions.

And you know what they say about what happens when you assume.

No, I can't pull direct examples- I'm in no way involved in court matters, and wouldn't know where to start to look. But, as a legal citizen of the United States, I have the right to question and raise concerns with the way legal matters are handled, because it very well could impact me if I'm ever forced into a case- and evidently, as it is a court justice raising this concern from inside the system, my concerns are not unfounded.

[Ifreann]

So you have no evidence then. Just assumptions.

And you know what they say about what happens when you assume.

No, I can't pull direct examples- I'm in no way involved in court matters, and wouldn't know where to start to look. But, as a legal citizen of the United States, I have the right to question and raise concerns with the way legal matters are handled, because it very well could impact me if I'm ever forced into a case- and evidently, as it is a court justice raising this concern from inside the system, my concerns are not unfounded.

Are there even any openly gay judges in the US?

[Mahdistan]

But I've never argued against legal unions between homosexuals- I argued that fighting over the word 'marriage' was a waste of time, and the benefits to couples should be based on actual contribution to the state, not just for being together.

Which is to say, straight couples can get married, but gay couples only get a civil union. The legal institution of marriage is closed to them on the basis of their sexuality. Government imposed discrimination.

And being a lawyer is an occupation, not a lifestyle choice. If there were say a union of lawyers, or if a judge and a lawyer being tried came from the same firm originally, that would be another situation where bias could present a threat.

There is a union of lawyers. It's called the bar association. You have to join in order to practice law. So all lawyers and all judges are members of this organisation. That's a much more tightly knit community than the gay community, which individual gay people may have little if any involvement in.

I thought I'd made it fairly clear- I said no one can be married, straight or otherwise, at least in the eyes of the government; only civil partnerships for everyone.

And if a lawyer or a judge is being tried, that's a very serious concern- this should not be the case. There should be a diversity of unions, and members of one ought not to preside over cases involving members of the same one.

[Mahdistan]

But I've never argued against legal unions between homosexuals- I argued that fighting over the word 'marriage' was a waste of time, and the benefits to couples should be based on actual contribution to the state, not just for being together.

And being a lawyer is an occupation, not a lifestyle choice. If there were say a union of lawyers, or if a judge and a lawyer being tried came from the same firm originally, that would be another situation where bias could present a threat.

Wait a second, are you telling me people don't choose to spend their lives going to law school and becoming a lawyer? Damn, I knew we needed to be worried about those people born as lawyers and their lawyer agenda.

You've got my point backwards, or I may have worded it wrong- but it's pretty clear someone choosing to be a lawyer is a big jump away from someone realising they're gay.

[Ifreann]

Which is to say, straight couples can get married, but gay couples only get a civil union. The legal institution of marriage is closed to them on the basis of their sexuality. Government imposed discrimination.


There is a union of lawyers. It's called the bar association. You have to join in order to practice law. So all lawyers and all judges are members of this organisation. That's a much more tightly knit community than the gay community, which individual gay people may have little if any involvement in.

I thought I'd made it fairly clear- I said no one can be married, straight or otherwise, at least in the eyes of the government; only civil partnerships for everyone.

I thought you had some objection to gay couples getting equal treatment to straight couples because gay people don't contribute to the state or something like that.

And if a lawyer or a judge is being tried, that's a very serious concern- this should not be the case. There should be a diversity of unions, and members of one ought not to preside over cases involving members of the same one.

Why? This is how the practice of law has worked for...centuries, probably. Has there ever been a problem with judges taking it easy on lawyers out of some bar association loyalty?

[Mahdistan]

No, I can't pull direct examples- I'm in no way involved in court matters, and wouldn't know where to start to look. But, as a legal citizen of the United States, I have the right to question and raise concerns with the way legal matters are handled, because it very well could impact me if I'm ever forced into a case- and evidently, as it is a court justice raising this concern from inside the system, my concerns are not unfounded.

Are there even any openly gay judges in the US?

To be honest, I don't know- I assume so, being that it became a controversial subject in the first place.

[Mahdistan]

I thought I'd made it fairly clear- I said no one can be married, straight or otherwise, at least in the eyes of the government; only civil partnerships for everyone.

I thought you had some objection to gay couples getting equal treatment to straight couples because gay people don't contribute to the state or something like that.

And if a lawyer or a judge is being tried, that's a very serious concern- this should not be the case. There should be a diversity of unions, and members of one ought not to preside over cases involving members of the same one.

Why? This is how the practice of law has worked for...centuries, probably. Has there ever been a problem with judges taking it easy on lawyers out of some bar association loyalty?

I did say child-bearing straight couples should be entitled to extra benefits, but feel gay couples should be entitled to plenty of other benefits for other civil services.

And it's impossible to know for sure, but it could've happened- judges and those involved in a case should have no connection to one another, otherwise a serious risk is being taken.

[Ifreann]

Are there even any openly gay judges in the US?

To be honest, I don't know- I assume so, being that it became a controversial subject in the first place.

Plenty of things become controversial in the US without ever actually happening.

---

I thought you had some objection to gay couples getting equal treatment to straight couples because gay people don't contribute to the state or something like that.


Why? This is how the practice of law has worked for...centuries, probably. Has there ever been a problem with judges taking it easy on lawyers out of some bar association loyalty?

I did say child-bearing straight couples should be entitled to extra benefits, but feel gay couples should be entitled to plenty of other benefits for other civil services.

So basically what I said.

And it's impossible to know for sure, but it could've happened- judges and those involved in a case should have no connection to one another, otherwise a serious risk is being taken.

An impossible standard. How do you keep public prosecutors and defenders from going before the same judges all the time? How do you keep professionals in the same field from knowing one another?

[Mahdistan]

To be honest, I don't know- I assume so, being that it became a controversial subject in the first place.

Plenty of things become controversial in the US without ever actually happening.

---

I did say child-bearing straight couples should be entitled to extra benefits, but feel gay couples should be entitled to plenty of other benefits for other civil services.

So basically what I said.

And it's impossible to know for sure, but it could've happened- judges and those involved in a case should have no connection to one another, otherwise a serious risk is being taken.

An impossible standard. How do you keep public prosecutors and defenders from going before the same judges all the time? How do you keep professionals in the same field from knowing one another?

The first is a fair point...

Second, no, because producing a child is a service to the state. Obviously, a gay couple cannot produce a child, but that's not the state's fault- adopting a child is also a service to the state however, and would entitle them to benefits. There is no discrimination except on the basis of service.

And third, by careful records of public figure's history, and cross-referencing them with the histories of those attending a trial. It can all be resolved with simple yes or no questions; obviously, the diversification of lawyer unions would be a necessity then.

[Ifreann]

Plenty of things become controversial in the US without ever actually happening.

---

So basically what I said.


An impossible standard. How do you keep public prosecutors and defenders from going before the same judges all the time? How do you keep professionals in the same field from knowing one another?

The first is a fair point...

Second, no, because producing a child is a service to the state. Obviously, a gay couple cannot produce a child, but that's not the state's fault- adopting a child is also a service to the state however, and would entitle them to benefits. There is no discrimination except on the basis of service.

One might almost say it guarantees citizenship.

And third, by careful records of public figure's history, and cross-referencing them with the histories of those attending a trial. It can all be resolved with simple yes or no questions; obviously, the diversification of lawyer unions would be a necessity then.

You are coming out with some pretty crazy lengths that you think need to be gone to to ensure the legitimacy of a trial. Lengths that are not gone to anywhere, with no signs of bias.

You're creating an insane solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Just let gay people be judges. It'll be fine.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

The first is a fair point...

Second, no, because producing a child is a service to the state. Obviously, a gay couple cannot produce a child, but that's not the state's fault- adopting a child is also a service to the state however, and would entitle them to benefits. There is no discrimination except on the basis of service.

One might almost say it guarantees citizenship.

And third, by careful records of public figure's history, and cross-referencing them with the histories of those attending a trial. It can all be resolved with simple yes or no questions; obviously, the diversification of lawyer unions would be a necessity then.

You are coming out with some pretty crazy lengths that you think need to be gone to to ensure the legitimacy of a trial. Lengths that are not gone to anywhere, with no signs of bias.

You're creating an insane solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Just let gay people be judges. It'll be fine.

This is...

[Senkaku]

Additional spiders.

>more spiders
>curse
Does not compute.

So you're saying you're a spider collaborator?

Well, then I'm sorry it had to go this way *pumps shotgun*

[Cekoviu]

>more spiders
>curse
Does not compute.

So you're saying you're a spider collaborator?

Well, then I'm sorry it had to go this way *pumps shotgun*

I'm sorry it had to go this way *unleashes angry OBT*

[Dylar]

>more spiders
>curse
Does not compute.

So you're saying you're a spider collaborator?

Well, then I'm sorry it had to go this way *pumps shotgun*

You're gonna need more than a shotgun to get rid of spiders. Luckily, I have a solution:

[Vassenor]

So you're saying you're a spider collaborator?

Well, then I'm sorry it had to go this way *pumps shotgun*

You're gonna need more than a shotgun to get rid of spiders. Luckily, I have a solution:

I have a better idea.

[Cekoviu]

So you're saying you're a spider collaborator?

Well, then I'm sorry it had to go this way *pumps shotgun*

You're gonna need more than a shotgun to get rid of spiders. Luckily, I have a solution:

No.

[Nature-Spirits]

Second, no, because producing a child is a service to the state. Obviously, a gay couple cannot produce a child, but that's not the state's fault- adopting a child is also a service to the state however, and would entitle them to benefits. There is no discrimination except on the basis of service.

You know, Mahdistan, for a supposed communist you sure do love to engage in state-worship.

[The Widening Gyre]

Second, no, because producing a child is a service to the state. Obviously, a gay couple cannot produce a child, but that's not the state's fault- adopting a child is also a service to the state however, and would entitle them to benefits. There is no discrimination except on the basis of service.

You know, Mahdistan, for a supposed communist you sure do love to engage in state-worship.

'From each according to their ability, to each according to how fervently they beg the state to allow them to exist'

[Cekoviu]

Sorry if this is gravedigging, but I'm not sure where else to put this.
So, you know that LGBTQ flag with the brown and black stripes on it that was made a few years ago? It seems like it's gaining a lot of traction now (I've seen it on pride posters at my school and at a local LGBTQ resource center where it wasn't a few months ago), and I have some problems with it as an aesthete, anti-racist, and LGBTQ person:
1. It looks like crap and ruins the rainbow look of the flag, since rainbows don't have brown or black
2. It sort of makes it seem like PoC are LGBTQ merely by being PoC. Like, I'm all for inclusion of PoC, anti-racism, and focusing on intersectionality between racism and trans/homophobia, but the LGBTQ community is about sexual and gender diversity, not ethnic and racial diversity. If we try to make it have such a wide breadth, I worry that it will collapse.
3. It actually excludes PoC more because it implies that they are different from the rest of the LGBTQ community and have to be indicated on the flag as such. LGBTQ PoC are just like the rest of us. They don't have to be distinguished by their skin color, because that's just more divisive in my opinion. Yeah, they tend to have different experiences, but that doesn't mean we have to separate them as a distinct category.

Now, I'm white, so maybe I'm like 'whitesplaining' or something. I can't ever have the experience or insights of a person of color because I'm not one, so maybe it's something that is in fact really important to you as an LGBTQ person of color. I'm not 100% solid on points 2 or 3, so I would like to hear how you feel to see if maybe I'm missing something.