Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Luveria]

Lies, I see your lithp right there!

Seriously though, the one guy I'm interested in doing anything with right now is a bisexual crossdressing PLUMBER. I'm a dirty metalhead security guard. Anyone who thinks that there's an overarching gay culture probably thinks that gays are all natural pedophiles too. And that is why we have shotguns.

I try to see myself as non-stereotypical LGBT, but, I play keyboard (not drums, not guitar, not even bass, but KEYBOARD) for a band. I smoke lights, since I think full flavors are too rough on me. I also have a strange obsession with fruity drinks.

At least I don't have the lithp.

The only people I've encountered who conformed to LGBT stereotypes conformed to it because they wanted to, and not because it was a legitimate stereotype.

[New Frenco Empire]

I try to see myself as non-stereotypical LGBT, but, I play keyboard (not drums, not guitar, not even bass, but KEYBOARD) for a band. I smoke lights, since I think full flavors are too rough on me. I also have a strange obsession with fruity drinks.

At least I don't have the lithp.

The only people I've encountered who conformed to LGBT stereotypes conformed to it because they wanted to, and not because it was a legitimate stereotype.

Metrosexuals exist, too.

[Luveria]

The only people I've encountered who conformed to LGBT stereotypes conformed to it because they wanted to, and not because it was a legitimate stereotype.

Metrosexuals exist, too.

I've met a few and they were trying to be metrosexual. On some level, there's most likely an active attempt being made to fit the image of a stereotype if they fit it.

[Mini Miehm]

The only people I've encountered who conformed to LGBT stereotypes conformed to it because they wanted to, and not because it was a legitimate stereotype.

Metrosexuals exist, too.

I barely like dealing with hyper-effeminate gay men. Why in the world would I want to deal with an aggravating straight man who is trying to half assedly ape the characteristics of a gay man? That's like drinking non-alcoholic beer. All the awful piss taste, none of the pleasant intoxication to make up for it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I try to see myself as non-stereotypical LGBT, but, I play keyboard (not drums, not guitar, not even bass, but KEYBOARD) for a band. I smoke lights, since I think full flavors are too rough on me. I also have a strange obsession with fruity drinks.

At least I don't have the lithp.

The only people I've encountered who conformed to LGBT stereotypes conformed to it because they wanted to, and not because it was a legitimate stereotype.

Besides, several straight people have a lisp.

I do have a slight but noticeable lisp plus an accent so figure how I sound like over the phone when not paying attention

[Libertarian California]

I try to see myself as non-stereotypical LGBT, but, I play keyboard (not drums, not guitar, not even bass, but KEYBOARD) for a band. I smoke lights, since I think full flavors are too rough on me. I also have a strange obsession with fruity drinks.

At least I don't have the lithp.

The only people I've encountered who conformed to LGBT stereotypes conformed to it because they wanted to, and not because it was a legitimate stereotype.

Most of the freaks in San Francisco are straight anyways.

[Whitton World]

several straight people have a lisp.

I have a lisp.

It never held me back.

Do not understand the connection with having a lisp and being LGBT.

[Oneracon]

Lies, I see your lithp right there!

Seriously though, the one guy I'm interested in doing anything with right now is a bisexual crossdressing PLUMBER. I'm a dirty metalhead security guard. Anyone who thinks that there's an overarching gay culture probably thinks that gays are all natural pedophiles too. And that is why we have shotguns.

I try to see myself as non-stereotypical LGBT, but, I play keyboard (not drums, not guitar, not even bass, but KEYBOARD) for a band. I smoke lights, since I think full flavors are too rough on me. I also have a strange obsession with fruity drinks.

At least I don't have the lithp.

How can you not have a strange obsession with fruity drinks? They're delicious!

[Vareiln]

I saw it discussed about two pages ago, and I would like to just add that in west Africa(And Jamaica, Eastern Europe, Russia, among other places), a lot of the homophobia there today is almost entirely because of American missionaries like Scott Lively.
Thankfully, he's undergoing trial as apparently what he and other missionaries have done is against international law. Hope this sets a legal precedent.
Related stuff:

http://www.upworthy.com/an-incredibly-disturbing-look-at-how-religious-missionaries-are-spreading-homophobia-in-uganda-2
http://www.osisa.org/openspace/regional ... tural-wars
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/a ... ishops.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVzefG2oz5E
http://76crimes.com/2014/02/21/no-porn- ... ical-ploy/

[Oneracon]

I saw it discussed about two pages ago, and I would like to just add that in west Africa(And Jamaica, Eastern Europe, Russia, among other places), a lot of the homophobia there today is almost entirely because of American missionaries like Scott Lively.
Thankfully, he's undergoing trial as apparently what he and other missionaries have done is against international law. Hope this sets a legal precedent.
Related stuff:

http://www.upworthy.com/an-incredibly-disturbing-look-at-how-religious-missionaries-are-spreading-homophobia-in-uganda-2
http://www.osisa.org/openspace/regional ... tural-wars
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/a ... ishops.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVzefG2oz5E
http://76crimes.com/2014/02/21/no-porn- ... ical-ploy/

As I've mentioned before, I do love the double standard. Foreign missionaries who come to convert people to their radical sects and influence government policy aren't neocolonialism... but the UN and other nations requesting that these countries abide by international law is neocolonialism.

[Luveria]

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/who-cares-why-people-are-gay

Thanks, Vice. I'm sincerely glad to see someone saying it doesn't matter why people are gay or bi.

It’s OK to be gay because I say so. Fuck science. If you want to bump uglies tonight with someone who has the same set of genitals as you, go for it. Seriously, this is on me, folks—as one of Britain’s leading slutbags, I now pronounce you free to go gay. Or not. Whatever. I really couldn’t give a shit.

I agree.

[Othelos]

I saw it discussed about two pages ago, and I would like to just add that in west Africa(And Jamaica, Eastern Europe, Russia, among other places), a lot of the homophobia there today is almost entirely because of American missionaries like Scott Lively.
Thankfully, he's undergoing trial as apparently what he and other missionaries have done is against international law. Hope this sets a legal precedent.
Related stuff:

http://www.upworthy.com/an-incredibly-disturbing-look-at-how-religious-missionaries-are-spreading-homophobia-in-uganda-2
http://www.osisa.org/openspace/regional ... tural-wars
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/a ... ishops.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVzefG2oz5E
http://76crimes.com/2014/02/21/no-porn- ... ical-ploy/

Why am I not surprised American evangelicals have a part in spreading international homophobia.

[Llamalandia]

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/who-cares-why-people-are-gay

Thanks, Vice. I'm sincerely glad to see someone saying it doesn't matter why people are gay or bi.

It’s OK to be gay because I say so. Fuck science. If you want to bump uglies tonight with someone who has the same set of genitals as you, go for it. Seriously, this is on me, folks—as one of Britain’s leading slutbags, I now pronounce you free to go gay. Or not. Whatever. I really couldn’t give a shit.

I agree.

The article doesn't really say much about gay rights themselves though does it? I mean for example maritial status confers tax benefits (or in some case disadvantages go figured) so there should be some good reason for recognizing marriage. I don't think, that just because you like gay sex is for example enough to justify the tax benefits that come with marriage.

[Othelos]

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/who-cares-why-people-are-gay

Thanks, Vice. I'm sincerely glad to see someone saying it doesn't matter why people are gay or bi.



I agree.

The article doesn't really say much about gay rights themselves though does it? I mean for example maritial status confers tax benefits (or in some case disadvantages go figured) so there should be some good reason for recognizing marriage. I don't think, that just because you like gay sex is for example enough to justify the tax benefits that come with marriage.

It's good enough reason. Plenty of people get together starting with sex. Why is the gender of someone's spouse so important?

[Llamalandia]

The article doesn't really say much about gay rights themselves though does it? I mean for example maritial status confers tax benefits (or in some case disadvantages go figured) so there should be some good reason for recognizing marriage. I don't think, that just because you like gay sex is for example enough to justify the tax benefits that come with marriage.

It's good enough reason. Plenty of people get together starting with sex. Why is the gender of someone's spouse so important?

It simple it has to do with the presumption that procreation will occur. The tax code is meant to encourage the nuclear family model that is why married people are treated differently then single people for tax purposes. And sure plenty of relationships begin with sex but few people get married just because the sex is so great.

[Luveria]

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/who-cares-why-people-are-gay

Thanks, Vice. I'm sincerely glad to see someone saying it doesn't matter why people are gay or bi.



I agree.

The article doesn't really say much about gay rights themselves though does it? I mean for example maritial status confers tax benefits (or in some case disadvantages go figured) so there should be some good reason for recognizing marriage. I don't think, that just because you like gay sex is for example enough to justify the tax benefits that come with marriage.

Sure it does. The only possible reason I would ever consider marriage is for financial benefits like tax cuts. The problem is the marriage system, and not why people get married. I'm in favour of abolishing tax cuts for marriage. Until that happens, don't be blaming people like me for taking advantage of what's there. If you want marriage to stop being about the tax benefits, then get rid of the tax benefits.

The author of the article's stance on gay and trans rights is the one I've gravitated towards lately, having become frustrated with needing to make excuses for why it's okay to be trans or gay.

Call me a luddite, but we shouldn't necessarily count on science to make gay OK. In many cases, science is as guided by morals as religion. It was science that tried to "cure" Alan Turing of homosexuality through electroshock therapy and chemical castration. That he was one of the brightest scientific minds of the 20th century adds a cruel irony, but he was by no means the only gay man for whom science thought it had all the answers. Until the 70s, the American Psychiatric Association still classified homosexuality as a mental illness. It's not the science that’s the problem; it's what scientists view as moral priorities and the way people choose to use knowledge. As American physicist Richard Feynman said, "Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad—but it does not carry instructions on how to use it."

That I entirely agree with. It's defeatist to need science to argue against religious morality. That's playing on their terms, and it's a very shaky position to take when science was used against gay people.

The author also addressed the issue of societal acceptance of trans people.

True acceptance of transgender people simply requires that we truly accept transgender people. Ditto gay people. The end.

It's really that simple and doesn't need science to defend it.

[Luveria]

It's good enough reason. Plenty of people get together starting with sex. Why is the gender of someone's spouse so important?

It simple it has to do with the presumption that procreation will occur. The tax code is meant to encourage the nuclear family model that is why married people are treated differently then single people for tax purposes. And sure plenty of relationships begin with sex but few people get married just because the sex is so great.

The institution of marriage is very discriminatory to polyamorous people and anyone who isn't married. We're all forced to subsidize the traditional lifestyle.

[Llamalandia]

The article doesn't really say much about gay rights themselves though does it? I mean for example maritial status confers tax benefits (or in some case disadvantages go figured) so there should be some good reason for recognizing marriage. I don't think, that just because you like gay sex is for example enough to justify the tax benefits that come with marriage.

Sure it does. The only possible reason I would ever consider marriage is for financial benefits like tax cuts. The problem is the marriage system, and not why people get married. I'm in favour of abolishing tax cuts for marriage. Until that happens, don't be blaming people like me for taking advantage of what's there. If you want marriage to stop being about the tax benefits, then get rid of the tax benefits.

The author of the article's stance on gay and trans rights is the one I've gravitated towards lately, having become frustrated with needing to make excuses for why it's okay to be trans or gay.

Call me a luddite, but we shouldn't necessarily count on science to make gay OK. In many cases, science is as guided by morals as religion. It was science that tried to "cure" Alan Turing of homosexuality through electroshock therapy and chemical castration. That he was one of the brightest scientific minds of the 20th century adds a cruel irony, but he was by no means the only gay man for whom science thought it had all the answers. Until the 70s, the American Psychiatric Association still classified homosexuality as a mental illness. It's not the science that’s the problem; it's what scientists view as moral priorities and the way people choose to use knowledge. As American physicist Richard Feynman said, "Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad—but it does not carry instructions on how to use it."

That I entirely agree with. It's defeatist to need science to argue against religious morality. That's playing on their terms, and it's a very shaky position to take when science was used against gay people.

The author also addressed the issue of societal acceptance of trans people.

True acceptance of transgender people simply requires that we truly accept transgender people. Ditto gay people. The end.

It's really that simple and doesn't need science to defend it.

Well there are other advantages beyond tax benefits for married folks, but quite frankly i don't think the govt should be involved in marriage at all, basically just leave up to common law marriage and churches to decide whose married and who isn't and don't confer any special benefits on the institution.

Also I think it's more correct to say if anything science was misused rather than used against gay people. But face we live in a time of logic and reason, heck most juries won't convict someone without hard physical evidence anymore, it's called the csi effect. Likewise we need scientific evidence to validate homosexuality, that's just the way it is.

[Llamalandia]

It simple it has to do with the presumption that procreation will occur. The tax code is meant to encourage the nuclear family model that is why married people are treated differently then single people for tax purposes. And sure plenty of relationships begin with sex but few people get married just because the sex is so great.

The institution of marriage is very discriminatory to polyamorous people and anyone who isn't married. We're all forced to subsidize the traditional lifestyle.

That's correct but that is also more or less because the traditional is more or less the ideal. Studies show that kids do better in two parent homes (though either orientation works) and even worse in a single parent home in which said parent has a string of lovers who becomes in and out "Uncles".

The fact remains though that the govt may have some legitimate interest in encouraging responsible natural procreation. Afterall somebodies got to pump out the kids to keep social security solvent.

[Luveria]

Sure it does. The only possible reason I would ever consider marriage is for financial benefits like tax cuts. The problem is the marriage system, and not why people get married. I'm in favour of abolishing tax cuts for marriage. Until that happens, don't be blaming people like me for taking advantage of what's there. If you want marriage to stop being about the tax benefits, then get rid of the tax benefits.

The author of the article's stance on gay and trans rights is the one I've gravitated towards lately, having become frustrated with needing to make excuses for why it's okay to be trans or gay.



That I entirely agree with. It's defeatist to need science to argue against religious morality. That's playing on their terms, and it's a very shaky position to take when science was used against gay people.

The author also addressed the issue of societal acceptance of trans people.



It's really that simple and doesn't need science to defend it.

Well there are other advantages beyond tax benefits for married folks, but quite frankly i don't think the govt should be involved in marriage at all, basically just leave up to common law marriage and churches to decide whose married and who isn't and don't confer any special benefits on the institution.

Also I think it's more correct to say if anything science was misused rather than used against gay people. But face we live in a time of logic and reason, heck most juries won't convict someone without hard physical evidence anymore, it's called the csi effect. Likewise we need scientific evidence to validate homosexuality, that's just the way it is.

Science can easily continue to be misused against gay or trans people. Selective fetus screening for example, looking for early indicators of possible transexuality or homosexuality so that those ones can be aborted.

[Othelos]

Well there are other advantages beyond tax benefits for married folks, but quite frankly i don't think the govt should be involved in marriage at all, basically just leave up to common law marriage and churches to decide whose married and who isn't and don't confer any special benefits on the institution.

In the meantime while marriage is still around, it should be extended to homosexual couples and polyamorous groups.

Also I think it's more correct to say if anything science was misused rather than used against gay people. But face we live in a time of logic and reason, heck most juries won't convict someone without hard physical evidence anymore, it's called the csi effect. Likewise we need scientific evidence to validate homosexuality, that's just the way it is.

I don't think scientific evidence is really necessary, considering homosexuality obviously exists.

[Luveria]

Well there are other advantages beyond tax benefits for married folks, but quite frankly i don't think the govt should be involved in marriage at all, basically just leave up to common law marriage and churches to decide whose married and who isn't and don't confer any special benefits on the institution.

In the meantime while marriage is still around, it should be extended to homosexual couples and polyamorous groups.

I agree entirely. The path to abolishing marriage requires extending it to everyone as much as possible.

I don't think scientific evidence is really necessary, considering homosexuality obviously exists.

Yes, and I really don't like having to resort to IT'S NOT A CHOICE, or THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY. What does it matter who I'm attracted to? It feels like it's giving fundamentalists justification if I have to be the one to prove it's not bad. No. They can be the one to prove it's wrong, without a bible.

[Llamalandia]

Well there are other advantages beyond tax benefits for married folks, but quite frankly i don't think the govt should be involved in marriage at all, basically just leave up to common law marriage and churches to decide whose married and who isn't and don't confer any special benefits on the institution.

In the meantime while marriage is still around, it should be extended to homosexual couples and polyamorous groups.

Also I think it's more correct to say if anything science was misused rather than used against gay people. But face we live in a time of logic and reason, heck most juries won't convict someone without hard physical evidence anymore, it's called the csi effect. Likewise we need scientific evidence to validate homosexuality, that's just the way it is.

I don't think scientific evidence is really necessary, considering homosexuality obviously exists.

Yes but the argument is and polls still support this view that if homosexuality is a choice it could be forbidden, if it's something someone can't control (ie a gay gene) then it's ok.

[Luveria]

In the meantime while marriage is still around, it should be extended to homosexual couples and polyamorous groups.


I don't think scientific evidence is really necessary, considering homosexuality obviously exists.

Yes but the argument is and polls still support this view that if homosexuality is a choice it could be forbidden, if it's something someone can't control (ie a gay gene) then it's ok.

And that's a dumb argument I refuse to play along with anymore.

[Othelos]

In the meantime while marriage is still around, it should be extended to homosexual couples and polyamorous groups.

I agree entirely. The path to abolishing marriage requires extending it to everyone as much as possible.

I don't think scientific evidence is really necessary, considering homosexuality obviously exists.

Yes, and I really don't like having to resort to IT'S NOT A CHOICE, or THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY. What does it matter who I'm attracted to? It feels like it's giving fundamentalists justification if I have to be the one to prove it's not bad. No. They can be the one to prove it's wrong, without a bible.

Yeah, exactly.