Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Luveria]

...

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?



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.

It shouldn't. Generally I consider it be extremely stupid for a person to take their life over a temporary emotional discomfort. But I fully support their right to do that, and to have the resources and assistance to do it in a reliable and pain-free way.

That's not supporting it and it's not approving of suicide. It's that I respect a person's sovereignty over themselves. I support suicide being legal for the same reason I support abolishing laws against recreational drug use. If a person wishes to harm themselves or take their own life, it is their life alone.

The everyone turning gay scenario and everyone committing suicide scenarios are equally implausible. Especially the belief that it being illegal somehow discourages it. Homosexuality is illegal in most of Africa. Does that stop homosexuals from being homosexual? In places where assisted suicide is illegal, it still happens anyway. When someone has to resort to "BUT IF WE ALL TURN GAY WE'LL GO EXTINCT" it shows they have absolutely nothing to argue against homosexuality, which is why I'm not willing to play by their rules and defend something that doesn't need a defence.

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

There is no direct path. It likely can't be abolished. If it can't be abolished, then the financial benefits can be. That will only be possible when it's no longer an elitist and exclusionary concept society won't allow changed.

[Grenartia]

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

Bullshit. They prevent the strong from preying on the weak, and give the weak the opportunity to fully utilize their talents, thus benefitting all of society.

[Llamalandia]

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?

1. There are plenty of diy legal forms out there plus have you ever heard of legal zoom.com come on it's not that hard and generally most people make (or certainly should make) a living will and will anyway.

2. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

3. meh why not smileys are happy and nothing wrong with that is there?

[Osterreichischen Faschistischen Republik]

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

Bullshit. They prevent the strong from preying on the weak, and give the weak the opportunity to fully utilize their talents, thus benefitting all of society.

If they're being preyed on, then they deserve it.

If they're too weak to do anything for themselves, they're having someone else do it for them, someone else taking care of them.

They drag society down.

[Sun Wukong]

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

Read Hobbes.

[Othelos]

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

How exactly are minorities weak?

[Luveria]

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.

Political freedom should never trump human rights, and I really don't care if sexuality or being trans is a choice or not, because it's of no relevance to how there is nothing wrong with it. If it simply must not have been a choice to be tolerated, then what about when it is a choice? Those people for whom it may be a choice are then screwed over by the defence which is then turned against them.

Using the "it's not a choice" defence is admitting agreeing that it would be wrong if it were a choice. How could any pro-LGBT person ever use the "it's not a choice" defence?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Accidents of birth? Reaaaaaaally now.

Do you know how a human develops his or her sexuality? Do you even know how gender identities play out in society and how people distinguish in between genders? Here's a tip for you: children are not born with sexual knowledge of any sort, they develop it in puberty and while they are teenagers. The gene predisposition is there, but it doesn't mean 5 year olds go around saying they are homosexual or they would like to be girls.

And have you ever thought some transexuals cannot afford surgery or that they just prefer to be this way while dressing up like women and encompassing feminine gender roles is okay for them?

[Vareiln]

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.

Political freedom should never trump human rights, and I really don't care if sexuality or being trans is a choice or not, because it's of no relevance to how there is nothing wrong with it. If it simply must not have been a choice to be tolerated, then what about when it is a choice? Those people for whom it may be a choice are then screwed over by the defence which is then turned against them.

Using the "it's not a choice" defence is admitting agreeing that it would be wrong if it were a choice. How could any pro-LGBT person ever use the "it's not a choice" defence?

Even if it were a choice, it would still be wrong to deny them human rights. Hell, in the US, it's downright unconstitutional.

[Othelos]

Bullshit. They prevent the strong from preying on the weak, and give the weak the opportunity to fully utilize their talents, thus benefitting all of society.

If they're being preyed on, then they deserve it.

Let me guess. White male?

If they're too weak to do anything for themselves, they're having someone else do it for them, someone else taking care of them.

They drag society down.

Protesting and advocating for their equal rights isn't having other people do things for them.

[Grenartia]

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?

1. There are plenty of diy legal forms out there plus have you ever heard of legal zoom.com come on it's not that hard and generally most people make (or certainly should make) a living will and will anyway.

2. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

3. meh why not smileys are happy and nothing wrong with that is there?

1. Still need lawyers to make sure everything's on the up and up. Status quo (with regards to the system itself, not to who it serves) is the most efficient and fair way.

3. Yes, but when there's no real context for them, it seems rather spammy.

[Osterreichischen Faschistischen Republik]

If they're being preyed on, then they deserve it.

Let me guess. White male?

If they're too weak to do anything for themselves, they're having someone else do it for them, someone else taking care of them.

They drag society down.

Protesting and advocating for their equal rights isn't having other people do things for them.

You want to know if I'm a white male?

"Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race."

- Benito Mussolini.

[Llamalandia]

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

It shouldn't. Generally I consider it be extremely stupid for a person to take their life over a temporary emotional discomfort. But I fully support their right to do that, and to have the resources and assistance to do it in a reliable and pain-free way.

That's not supporting it and it's not approving of suicide. It's that I respect a person's sovereignty over themselves. I support suicide being legal for the same reason I support abolishing laws against recreational drug use. If a person wishes to harm themselves or take their own life, it is their life alone.

The everyone turning gay scenario and everyone committing suicide scenarios are equally implausible. Especially the belief that it being illegal somehow discourages it. Homosexuality is illegal in most of Africa. Does that stop homosexuals from being homosexual? In places where assisted suicide is illegal, it still happens anyway. When someone has to resort to "BUT IF WE ALL TURN GAY WE'LL GO EXTINCT" it shows they have absolutely nothing to argue against homosexuality, which is why I'm not willing to play by their rules and defend something that doesn't need a defence.

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

There is no direct path. It likely can't be abolished. If it can't be abolished, then the financial benefits can be. That will only be possible when it's no longer an elitist and exclusionary concept society won't allow changed.

Well i certainly think there may exist certain circumstances in which euthansia may be justifiable, but I'm guessing that in most suicide cases the right thing to do is take any and all measure necessary to stop the person and deter them from future attempts. If they still want to and can provide evidence of a justified need then sure by all means otherwise no.

But how likely do you think people it is that people will support abolishing the financial benefits of marriage once even more people get to take advantage. Heck it'll probably be the only thing the religous rights and the gay community would agree on ie don't touch are money screw the single people.

[Luveria]

Political freedom should never trump human rights, and I really don't care if sexuality or being trans is a choice or not, because it's of no relevance to how there is nothing wrong with it. If it simply must not have been a choice to be tolerated, then what about when it is a choice? Those people for whom it may be a choice are then screwed over by the defence which is then turned against them.

Using the "it's not a choice" defence is admitting agreeing that it would be wrong if it were a choice. How could any pro-LGBT person ever use the "it's not a choice" defence?

Even if it were a choice, it would still be wrong to deny them human rights. Hell, in the US, it's downright unconstitutional.

The problem is, if it's only when it's not a choice, then it's admitting it's wrong when it is a choice. That's not saying it's okay to be gay or trans. It's saying "yeah, it's wrong but it wasn't your choice so it's fine."

[Vareiln]

Let me guess. White male?



Protesting and advocating for their equal rights isn't having other people do things for them.

You want to know if I'm a white male?

"Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race."

- Benito Mussolini.

Guys, don't even bother with him. It's that Fascist German guy.

[Vareiln]

Even if it were a choice, it would still be wrong to deny them human rights. Hell, in the US, it's downright unconstitutional.

The problem is, if it's only when it's not a choice, then it's admitting it's wrong when it is a choice. That's not saying it's okay to be gay or trans. It's saying "yeah, it's wrong but it wasn't your choice so it's fine."

Indeed, that's fucked up.

[Luveria]

It shouldn't. Generally I consider it be extremely stupid for a person to take their life over a temporary emotional discomfort. But I fully support their right to do that, and to have the resources and assistance to do it in a reliable and pain-free way.

That's not supporting it and it's not approving of suicide. It's that I respect a person's sovereignty over themselves. I support suicide being legal for the same reason I support abolishing laws against recreational drug use. If a person wishes to harm themselves or take their own life, it is their life alone.

The everyone turning gay scenario and everyone committing suicide scenarios are equally implausible. Especially the belief that it being illegal somehow discourages it. Homosexuality is illegal in most of Africa. Does that stop homosexuals from being homosexual? In places where assisted suicide is illegal, it still happens anyway. When someone has to resort to "BUT IF WE ALL TURN GAY WE'LL GO EXTINCT" it shows they have absolutely nothing to argue against homosexuality, which is why I'm not willing to play by their rules and defend something that doesn't need a defence.



There is no direct path. It likely can't be abolished. If it can't be abolished, then the financial benefits can be. That will only be possible when it's no longer an elitist and exclusionary concept society won't allow changed.

Well i certainly think there may exist certain circumstances in which euthansia may be justifiable, but I'm guessing that in most suicide cases the right thing to do is take any and all measure necessary to stop the person and deter them from future attempts. If they still want to and can provide evidence of a justified need then sure by all means otherwise no.

But how likely do you think people it is that people will support abolishing the financial benefits of marriage once even more people get to take advantage. Heck it'll probably be the only thing the religous rights and the gay community would agree on ie don't touch are money screw the single people.

If you're upset about a minority of the populace (straight married couples) getting tax cuts, wouldn't you prefer as many people as possible are entitled to those tax cuts too?

[Luveria]

The problem is, if it's only when it's not a choice, then it's admitting it's wrong when it is a choice. That's not saying it's okay to be gay or trans. It's saying "yeah, it's wrong but it wasn't your choice so it's fine."

Indeed, that's fucked up.

That's why it's treasonous for any supposedly pro-LGBT person, and worst of all when it's an LGBT person, to ever resort to using that defence. It validates the belief that it's wrong.

[Grenartia]

Bullshit. They prevent the strong from preying on the weak, and give the weak the opportunity to fully utilize their talents, thus benefitting all of society.

If they're being preyed on, then they deserve it.

If they're too weak to do anything for themselves, they're having someone else do it for them, someone else taking care of them.

They drag society down.

Troll detected.

[Sun Wukong]

You want to know if I'm a white male?

"Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race."

- Benito Mussolini.

Guys, don't even bother with him. It's that Fascist German guy.

And by "German" you mean, "Midwestern American Teenager?"

[Osterreichischen Faschistischen Republik]

Guys, don't even bother with him. It's that Fascist German guy.

And by "German" you mean, "Midwestern American Teenager?"

I am Austrian, not German.

[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.

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.

Accidents of birth? Reaaaaaaally now.

Do you know how a human develops his or her sexuality? Do you even know how gender identities play out in society and how people distinguish in between genders? Here's a tip for you: children are not born with sexual knowledge of any sort, they develop it in puberty and while they are teenagers. The gene predisposition is there, but it doesn't mean 5 year olds go around saying they are homosexual or they would like to be girls.

And have you ever thought some transexuals cannot afford surgery or that they just prefer to be this way while dressing up like women and encompassing feminine gender roles is okay for them?

As to your second point yeah, that's basically what i was saying when I said some trans can't (eg are financially unable) or choose not to have surgery, nothing wrong with that, they were still born the way they are.

As for sexual development plenty of kids discover sexuality well before puberty and even physically act upon (at times with rather embarassing and even on rare instances criminal consequence). As for transexuality there are in fact countless stories of children expressing gender dysphoria and even being allowed to transition to the other gender at very young ages (even five year olds wouldn't surprise me).

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And by "German" you mean, "Midwestern American Teenager?"

I am Austrian, not German.

Don't Austrians consider themselves of the German ethnos though?

[Osterreichischen Faschistischen Republik]

If they're being preyed on, then they deserve it.

If they're too weak to do anything for themselves, they're having someone else do it for them, someone else taking care of them.

They drag society down.

Troll detected.

I've always found it fascinating that those on the left cannot fathom someone would have beliefs contrary to their own, and thus strike it down as lying.

[Osterreichischen Faschistischen Republik]

I am Austrian, not German.

Don't Austrians consider themselves of the German ethnos though?

We are Germanic, but we are not Germans.