Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Othelos]

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.

Even if it was, people shouldn't care, because someone's sexual morality is irrelevant to everyone else.

[Llamalandia]

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.

So we're agreed that marriage should be abolished, i can more or less live with that. But i'm not sure how extending makes it more likely to be abolished i mean isn't the more natural outcome just that everyone becomes married jto everyone else?

Also, consider this if everyone decides one day to be gay, that's basically it, game over for humanity, I realize that's an extreme example but still certainly there may be some legitimate reason to insure replacement level fertility is being met.

[Llamalandia]

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.

Even if it was, people shouldn't care, because someone's sexual morality is irrelevant to everyone else.

I think in a democracy it very much is. I mean hey I think drugs should be legalized, but a moral majority disagrees with me therefor in a democracy my position loses because i'm out voted.

[Luveria]

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



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.

Those type of defences are shooting themselves in the foot to get their way at this moment while setting up their downfall later down the road.

It severely shafts over bisexual and trans people when we're using the "it's not a choice" and "I was born this way" defences. I'm bi so I have a choice of which sex I have relationships with. Yet I only care for being in same-sex ones (male or female as long as it's same-sex). I like having that choice of which sex I desire to have relationships with. If it's wrong to have that choice, and if the only thing making homosexuality okay is that gays can't help but only be attracted to other males, then clearly it's wrong for me to not limit myself to the "right choice" that gays can't make.

Trans people are often screwed over by the "I was born this way" defence. It's nonsense because there's plenty of people who legitimately only become transexual as adults from a late onset of it triggered by environmental influence and personal decisions in some cases. It marginalizes and stigmatizes people who only become trans as adults since they weren't always that way.

We shouldn't need to ever be making defences, and I refuse to continue doing it anymore.

[Othelos]

So we're agreed that marriage should be abolished, i can more or less live with that. But i'm not sure how extending makes it more likely to be abolished i mean isn't the more natural outcome just that everyone becomes married jto everyone else?

Well yeah, but a big reason people defend marriage is because they say it's a "religious institution", which completely ignores the fact that civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. Extending marriage to basically anyone who wants it would help people realize that it really isn't.

Also, consider this if everyone decides one day to be gay, that's basically it, game over for humanity, I realize that's an extreme example but still certainly there may be some legitimate reason to insure replacement level fertility is being met.

Even if everyone did turn gay, which they won't, we have the technology to keep up the human race. Gay people want kids, too, and I'm sure if homosexuality became that widespread people would make 'arrangements' with other people to have kids with them.

[Grenartia]

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



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.

So we're agreed that marriage should be abolished, i can more or less live with that. But i'm not sure how extending makes it more likely to be abolished i mean isn't the more natural outcome just that everyone becomes married jto everyone else?

Also, consider this if everyone decides one day to be gay, that's basically it, game over for humanity, I realize that's an extreme example but still certainly there may be some legitimate reason to insure replacement level fertility is being met.

If you abolish marriage, then how do you guarantee things like hospital visitation rights, medical decision making, funeral planning, estate control, etc.?

[Othelos]

Even if it was, people shouldn't care, because someone's sexual morality is irrelevant to everyone else.

I think in a democracy it very much is. I mean hey I think drugs should be legalized, but a moral majority disagrees with me therefor in a democracy my position loses because i'm out voted.

Doing drugs is a bit different than having freedom in personal relationships or personal expression. The latter won't hurt anyone, but the former might.

[Othelos]

Yeah, exactly.

Those type of defences are shooting themselves in the foot to get their way at this moment while setting up their downfall later down the road.

It severely shafts over bisexual and trans people when we're using the "it's not a choice" and "I was born this way" defences. I'm bi so I have a choice of which sex I have relationships with. Yet I only care for being in same-sex ones (male or female as long as it's same-sex). I like having that choice of which sex I desire to have relationships with. If it's wrong to have that choice, and if the only thing making homosexuality okay is that gays can't help but only be attracted to other males, then clearly it's wrong for me to not limit myself to the "right choice" that gays can't make.

Trans people are often screwed over by the "I was born this way" defence. It's nonsense because there's plenty of people who legitimately only become transexual as adults from a late onset of it triggered by environmental influence and personal decisions in some cases. It marginalizes and stigmatizes people who only become trans as adults since they weren't always that way.

We shouldn't need to ever be making defences, and I refuse to continue doing it anymore.

People should just be happy that you/me/whoever cares for someone else. End of story.

[Othelos]

So we're agreed that marriage should be abolished, i can more or less live with that. But i'm not sure how extending makes it more likely to be abolished i mean isn't the more natural outcome just that everyone becomes married jto everyone else?

Also, consider this if everyone decides one day to be gay, that's basically it, game over for humanity, I realize that's an extreme example but still certainly there may be some legitimate reason to insure replacement level fertility is being met.

If you abolish marriage, then how do you guarantee things like hospital visitation rights, medical decision making, funeral planning, estate control, etc.?

I think they should change marriage to civil unions, personally.

[Regnum Dominae]

Even if it was, people shouldn't care, because someone's sexual morality is irrelevant to everyone else.

I think in a democracy it very much is. I mean hey I think drugs should be legalized, but a moral majority disagrees with me therefor in a democracy my position loses because i'm out voted.

Human rights are not a popularity contest.

[Luveria]

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



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.

So we're agreed that marriage should be abolished, i can more or less live with that. But i'm not sure how extending makes it more likely to be abolished i mean isn't the more natural outcome just that everyone becomes married jto everyone else?

...

Oh gee, it's a ridiculously exclusionary institution that no one wants to extend once they get their share of it. You haven't seen how long it took to give same-sex couples the right to marry? That's still a rare right around the world. And you're not sure making marriage much more freely accessible doesn't help reduce how entrenched it is as an unchangeable and sacred institution?

When it goes from straight couples to same-sex couples, it's now secular. When polyamorous people can marry each other, it's no longer inherently a union between two people, but instead a legal contract between persons.

Is it easier to abolish a firmly entrenched religious concept enshrined in law that gives married couples significant financial incentives, or is it easier to abolish a secular contract between two or more people that doesn't provide tax cuts?

Also, consider this if everyone decides one day to be gay, that's basically it, game over for humanity, I realize that's an extreme example but still certainly there may be some legitimate reason to insure replacement level fertility is being met.

Consider this. If everyone decides to one day commit suicide, that's it. Humanity is extinct.

Yeah, I'm tired of nonsensical scenarios that are not even worth taking seriously.

[Llamalandia]

Yeah, exactly.

Those type of defences are shooting themselves in the foot to get their way at this moment while setting up their downfall later down the road.

It severely shafts over bisexual and trans people when we're using the "it's not a choice" and "I was born this way" defences. I'm bi so I have a choice of which sex I have relationships with. Yet I only care for being in same-sex ones (male or female as long as it's same-sex). I like having that choice of which sex I desire to have relationships with. If it's wrong to have that choice, and if the only thing making homosexuality okay is that gays can't help but only be attracted to other males, then clearly it's wrong for me to not limit myself to the "right choice" that gays can't make.

Trans people are often screwed over by the "I was born this way" defence. It's nonsense because there's plenty of people who legitimately only become transexual as adults from a late onset of it triggered by environmental influence and personal decisions in some cases. It marginalizes and stigmatizes people who only become trans as adults since they weren't always that way.

We shouldn't need to ever be making defences, and I refuse to continue doing it anymore.

No arguably one could just say that bisexuals are drawn to the most attractive person regardless of gender and they were born that way. If you're happiest with a same sex relationship at the moment then it is a natural result of your bisexual orientation at birth and therefor once again excusable.

As for trans people, do you have any evidence support your assertion that environment influences gender identity to such an extent that an adult becomes a transexual as result without any likely predisposition? I mean there are plenty of trans people who never have surgeries after all, they're still trans it's just for a variety of reasons they can't or don't want to have surgery (also many only do so in adulthood because until relatively recently trans children were almost never given much in the way of treatment to help change genders).

The simple fact is accidents of birth excuse quite a lot that might otherwise be unacceptable in society.

[Luveria]

Even if it was, people shouldn't care, because someone's sexual morality is irrelevant to everyone else.

I think in a democracy it very much is. I mean hey I think drugs should be legalized, but a moral majority disagrees with me therefor in a democracy my position loses because i'm out voted.

You know it's generally only Anarchists and Communists who advocate that sort of direct democracy in which the people truly have a say?

A true democracy is a crappy concept.

[Llamalandia]

So we're agreed that marriage should be abolished, i can more or less live with that. But i'm not sure how extending makes it more likely to be abolished i mean isn't the more natural outcome just that everyone becomes married jto everyone else?

...

Oh gee, it's a ridiculously exclusionary institution that no one wants to extend once they get their share of it. You haven't seen how long it took to give same-sex couples the right to marry? That's still a rare right around the world. And you're not sure making marriage much more freely accessible doesn't help reduce how entrenched it is as an unchangeable and sacred institution?

When it goes from straight couples to same-sex couples, it's now secular. When polyamorous people can marry each other, it's no longer inherently a union between two people, but instead a legal contract between persons.

Is it easier to abolish a firmly entrenched religious concept enshrined in law that gives married couples significant financial incentives, or is it easier to abolish a secular contract between two or more people that doesn't provide tax cuts?

Also, consider this if everyone decides one day to be gay, that's basically it, game over for humanity, I realize that's an extreme example but still certainly there may be some legitimate reason to insure replacement level fertility is being met.

Consider this. If everyone decides to one day commit suicide, that's it. Humanity is extinct.

Yeah, I'm tired of nonsensical scenarios that are not even worth taking seriously.

Yeah, well that's why suicide (or at least attempted suicide) should be illegal as well.

Hmm you do make an interesting point on abolishing marriage, still it seems like the direct path may be less work overall.

[Llamalandia]

I think in a democracy it very much is. I mean hey I think drugs should be legalized, but a moral majority disagrees with me therefor in a democracy my position loses because i'm out voted.

You know it's generally only Anarchists and Communists who advocate that sort of direct democracy in which the people truly have a say?

A true democracy is a crappy concept.

I agree in principle to a point. But what would you suggest is a reasonable alternative? I mean I personally think our constitutional democratic republican in the usa is a pretty good system which generally balances the rights of the minority and protects them from a tyranical majority, or course such rights often need to be explicitly spelled out in the constitution.

[Luveria]

Those type of defences are shooting themselves in the foot to get their way at this moment while setting up their downfall later down the road.

It severely shafts over bisexual and trans people when we're using the "it's not a choice" and "I was born this way" defences. I'm bi so I have a choice of which sex I have relationships with. Yet I only care for being in same-sex ones (male or female as long as it's same-sex). I like having that choice of which sex I desire to have relationships with. If it's wrong to have that choice, and if the only thing making homosexuality okay is that gays can't help but only be attracted to other males, then clearly it's wrong for me to not limit myself to the "right choice" that gays can't make.

Trans people are often screwed over by the "I was born this way" defence. It's nonsense because there's plenty of people who legitimately only become transexual as adults from a late onset of it triggered by environmental influence and personal decisions in some cases. It marginalizes and stigmatizes people who only become trans as adults since they weren't always that way.

We shouldn't need to ever be making defences, and I refuse to continue doing it anymore.

No arguably one could just say that bisexuals are drawn to the most attractive person regardless of gender and they were born that way. If you're happiest with a same sex relationship at the moment then it is a natural result of your bisexual orientation at birth and therefor once again excusable.

It's for reasons other than physical attraction.

Unless someone has been in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, I don't expect them to understand why I prefer only same-sex ones, and it's definitely for reasons other than physical attraction.

As for trans people, do you have any evidence support your assertion that environment influences gender identity to such an extent that an adult becomes a transexual as result without any likely predisposition?

The fact that not everyone with a "trans brain" (brain between male and female) is transexual? The fact that psychologists recognize that there can be lot onsets of transexuality? The fact that many trans people themselves say they only ever realized they would prefer living as a female after trying to look female out of curiosity as an adult? The fact that on a brain structure level, there are varying degrees of transexuality that may begin anywhere from early childhood, to as an adult when crossdressing out of curiosity, or never developing into transexuality at all?

The simple fact is accidents of birth excuse quite a lot that might otherwise be unacceptable in society.

It shouldn't.

If something is wrong it's wrong either way. Being born that way won't make it okay.

[Llamalandia]

So we're agreed that marriage should be abolished, i can more or less live with that. But i'm not sure how extending makes it more likely to be abolished i mean isn't the more natural outcome just that everyone becomes married jto everyone else?

Also, consider this if everyone decides one day to be gay, that's basically it, game over for humanity, I realize that's an extreme example but still certainly there may be some legitimate reason to insure replacement level fertility is being met.

If you abolish marriage, then how do you guarantee things like hospital visitation rights, medical decision making, funeral planning, estate control, etc.?

Yeah, contract law can generally take care of most of these things and the courts can sort out the rest. Heck before gay marriage, gay people just adopted each other to secure many of these rights.

[Grenartia]

If you abolish marriage, then how do you guarantee things like hospital visitation rights, medical decision making, funeral planning, estate control, etc.?

I think they should change marriage to civil unions, personally.

Why not just stick to calling it marriage? I mean, if it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage, and for all intents and purposes IS a marriage, then why not just call it what it fucking is--a marriage?

Also, most people want to MARRY somebody, not "civilly unionize" them.

[Luveria]

You know it's generally only Anarchists and Communists who advocate that sort of direct democracy in which the people truly have a say?

A true democracy is a crappy concept.

I agree in principle to a point. But what would you suggest is a reasonable alternative? I mean I personally think our constitutional democratic republican in the usa is a pretty good system which generally balances the rights of the minority and protects them from a tyranical majority, or course such rights often need to be explicitly spelled out in the constitution.

The reasonable alternative is that we stop holding "democracy" as a sacred ideal or inherently good. The sensible thing to do is to stop allowing states to vote on making same-sex marriage legal (or illegal). Why should I or anyone else have the legal right to vote on denying equal rights to other people? Should that really be done by referendums? That's kind of a disturbing concept when human rights can be tossed away to referendums. I'd like to value human rights a little more than political freedom.

[Llamalandia]

No arguably one could just say that bisexuals are drawn to the most attractive person regardless of gender and they were born that way. If you're happiest with a same sex relationship at the moment then it is a natural result of your bisexual orientation at birth and therefor once again excusable.

It's for reasons other than physical attraction.

Unless someone has been in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, I don't expect them to understand why I prefer only same-sex ones, and it's definitely for reasons other than physical attraction.

As for trans people, do you have any evidence support your assertion that environment influences gender identity to such an extent that an adult becomes a transexual as result without any likely predisposition?

The fact that not everyone with a "trans brain" (brain between male and female) is transexual? The fact that psychologists recognize that there can be lot onsets of transexuality? The fact that many trans people themselves say they only ever realized they would prefer living as a female after trying to look female out of curiosity as an adult? The fact that on a brain structure level, there are varying degrees of transexuality that may begin anywhere from early childhood, to as an adult when crossdressing out of curiosity, or never developing into transexuality at all?

The simple fact is accidents of birth excuse quite a lot that might otherwise be unacceptable in society.

It shouldn't.

If something is wrong it's wrong either way. Being born that way won't make it okay.

If someone is born retarded for example, generally society says you shouldn't make fun of them or call them stupid because they can't help it they were born that way. On the other hand if someone is of more or less average intelligence but choose not to study and do well in school/college, it's more or less open season to make fun of the moron, because had a choice and chose to be ignorant and uneducated.

[Luveria]

It's for reasons other than physical attraction.

Unless someone has been in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, I don't expect them to understand why I prefer only same-sex ones, and it's definitely for reasons other than physical attraction.



The fact that not everyone with a "trans brain" (brain between male and female) is transexual? The fact that psychologists recognize that there can be lot onsets of transexuality? The fact that many trans people themselves say they only ever realized they would prefer living as a female after trying to look female out of curiosity as an adult? The fact that on a brain structure level, there are varying degrees of transexuality that may begin anywhere from early childhood, to as an adult when crossdressing out of curiosity, or never developing into transexuality at all?



It shouldn't.

If something is wrong it's wrong either way. Being born that way won't make it okay.

If someone is born retarded for example, generally society says you shouldn't make fun of them or call them stupid because they can't help it they were born that way. On the other hand if someone is of more or less average intelligence but choose not to study and do well in school/college, it's more or less open season to make fun of the moron, because had a choice and chose to be ignorant and uneducated.

The reason why we shouldn't be hostile and malicious towards people born with cognitive disabilities is not because they were born that way or because they can't help it. I mean, by that reasoning we shouldn't get upset at psychopaths since they were born that way too with a brain defect making them incapable of caring about anyone.

[Grenartia]

If you abolish marriage, then how do you guarantee things like hospital visitation rights, medical decision making, funeral planning, estate control, etc.?

1. Yeah, contract law can generally take care of most of these things and the courts can sort out the rest. 2. Heck before gay marriage, gay people just adopted each other to secure many of these rights. 3.

1. Which just makes the entire process take more time, money, and effort for all involved. And only the rich would be able to do it, because the process would necessarily require lawyers. No thanks, that's an absolutely shitty idea.

2. Which shouldn't have had to happen.

3. What's with the pointless smiley?

[Osterreichischen Faschistischen Republik]

Equal rights only give the weak incentive to leech on the strong.

[Llamalandia]

I agree in principle to a point. But what would you suggest is a reasonable alternative? I mean I personally think our constitutional democratic republican in the usa is a pretty good system which generally balances the rights of the minority and protects them from a tyranical majority, or course such rights often need to be explicitly spelled out in the constitution.

The reasonable alternative is that we stop holding "democracy" as a sacred ideal or inherently good. The sensible thing to do is to stop allowing states to vote on making same-sex marriage legal (or illegal). Why should I or anyone else have the legal right to vote on denying equal rights to other people? Should that really be done by referendums? That's kind of a disturbing concept when human rights can be tossed away to referendums. I'd like to value human rights a little more than political freedom.

Woah, I'm not sure if entirely agreee with you there. I think in some case political freedoms can and should trump human rights or rather are sometimes one in the same. After all free speech may lead to genocide, but just as freedom from genocide is a human right so too is free speech.

Keep in mind though in plenty of states the definition of marriage is enshrined in the state's constitution (california was one large exception) so generally it requires far more than a simple majority in a referendum or state legislature to deny these rights.

Plus if it's a choice the rights can arguably be called into question if it's a choice. Hence the importance of the choice/genetic argument.

[Othelos]

Yeah, well that's why suicide (or at least attempted suicide) should be illegal as well.

Hmm you do make an interesting point on abolishing marriage, still it seems like the direct path may be less work overall.

Suicide shouldn't be illegal.

I think they should change marriage to civil unions, personally.

Why not just stick to calling it marriage? I mean, if it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage, and for all intents and purposes IS a marriage, then why not just call it what it fucking is--a marriage?

Also, most people want to MARRY somebody, not "civilly unionize" them.

People can still have a marriage ceremony, so they'd still be getting married. I think renaming it civil unions (for everyone) will solve the "marriage is a religious/sacred institution" argument against legalizing it for same sex couples or polyamorous groups.

But I guess if we reach the point where marriage is legal for everyone, there'd be no point in renaming it.