LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V3

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

It's a Christian conservative nation. When do you think it'll legalize marriage considering the majority of people are against same sex marriage?

Ireland was once a conservative Catholic nation. Society changed and they voted to legalize it.

Then the possibility remains.

How long it'll take depends.

[Liriena]

No idea.


Couldn't say.

Feh, I've been thinking about donating to an LGBT organization and I can't seem to find any that actually go out and do a lot of work.

I've heard good stuff about the Ali Forney Center.

[Val Halla]

You can always give me money. I'm LBT and more!

But you'll go out and spend it on shoooooes

Exactly.

No idea.

Actually...

Yet my GIDS clinic has stonewall stuff. Says a lot really.

[Liriena]

But you'll go out and spend it on shoooooes

Exactly.

Actually...

Yet my GIDS clinic has stonewall stuff. Says a lot really.

Lack of real trans-inclusivity seems to be a pervasive problem in large LGBT organisations around the world.

[Hladgos]

Feh, I've been thinking about donating to an LGBT organization and I can't seem to find any that actually go out and do a lot of work.

I've heard good stuff about the Ali Forney Center.

Very cool, I like what they're standing for. Hopefully they can expand in the future.

[Val Halla]

Exactly.


Yet my GIDS clinic has stonewall stuff. Says a lot really.

Lack of real trans-inclusivity seems to be a pervasive problem in large LGBT organisations around the world.

Eh. A lot of organisations don't include trans people because trans people are accepted a lot less than LGB people. You're really risking the whole bunch by association. Sucks, but that's how it is. A lack of gut. Punk rock is a lot better, for some reason. Although there exists an entire sub genre called "Queercore"

[Liriena]

Lack of real trans-inclusivity seems to be a pervasive problem in large LGBT organisations around the world.

Eh. A lot of organisations don't include trans people because trans people are accepted a lot less than LGB people. You're really risking the whole bunch by association. Sucks, but that's how it is. A lack of gut. Punk rock is a lot better, for some reason. Although there exists an entire sub genre called "Queercore"

And now I'm intrigued

[Herrebrugh]

Exactly.


Yet my GIDS clinic has stonewall stuff. Says a lot really.

Lack of real trans-inclusivity seems to be a pervasive problem in large LGBT organisations around the world.

It appears COC Nederland is relatively involved with transgender issues:

"COC wants legal ban on transgender discrimination", "Some insight on broader compensation sexual characteristics transgenders".

And those were on the front page of their site. I wasn't expecting that by the description of them on Wikipedia.

[Val Halla]

Eh. A lot of organisations don't include trans people because trans people are accepted a lot less than LGB people. You're really risking the whole bunch by association. Sucks, but that's how it is. A lack of gut. Punk rock is a lot better, for some reason. Although there exists an entire sub genre called "Queercore"

And now I'm intrigued

it's just, like, punk music made my queer people/about queer issues. Most notable queercore band atm is Against Me! but it goes back all the way to when punk scene started.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

And now I'm intrigued

it's just, like, punk music made my queer people/about queer issues. Most notable queercore band atm is Against Me! but it goes back all the way to when punk scene started.

Against Me! was a so-so for listening to some of their songs. I liked the lyrics but the music not so much. Sometimes he music was good though

[Val Halla]

it's just, like, punk music made my queer people/about queer issues. Most notable queercore band atm is Against Me! but it goes back all the way to when punk scene started.

Against Me! was a so-so for listening to some of their songs. I liked the lyrics but the music not so much. Sometimes he music was good though

Well, not everyone likes punk music, so...

[Arkinesia]

It's a tax/compelling interest nightmare waiting to happen. The reason marriage for same-sex and opposite-sex pairs makes sense is because there's not a lot of changes needed for the tax code, to laws regarding visitation rights, etc. But what happens when there are multiple men or multiple women?

Some changes to the legal system have to be made to allow better exercise of human rights. Laziness isn't really a good argument.

There's a fundamental human right to having multiple spouses? News to me.

And you're grossly oversimplifying the problem by blanketing it in the word “laziness.” Can you just not see how polygamy could get really, really, really expensive in the US? This isn't small potatoes.

[The Alexanderians]

So I heard so bullshit outta Utah that they might pass legislation to take foster kids away from lesbians and give them to het couples.

[Zottistan]

Some changes to the legal system have to be made to allow better exercise of human rights. Laziness isn't really a good argument.

There's a fundamental human right to having multiple spouses? News to me.

I didn't say fundamental right. There's no fundamental right to marry in the first place, since marriage is an artificial institution to begin with.

And you're grossly oversimplifying the problem by blanketing it in the word “laziness.” Can you just not see how polygamy could get really, really, really expensive in the US? This isn't small potatoes.

Sure, it could get expensive, and even of it were handled well it would be costly, but nah, I wouldn't consider "it's expensive to change our arbitrary legal restrictions" a valid excuse for the continued existence of said restrictions.

[Thermodolia]

So I heard so bullshit outta Utah that they might pass legislation to take foster kids away from lesbians and give them to het couples.

Those damn Mormons and their magic undies!

[Arkinesia]

And you're grossly oversimplifying the problem by blanketing it in the word “laziness.” Can you just not see how polygamy could get really, really, really expensive in the US? This isn't small potatoes.

Sure, it could get expensive, and even of it were handled well it would be costly, but nah, I wouldn't consider "it's expensive to change our arbitrary legal restrictions" a valid excuse for the continued existence of said restrictions.

So what, exactly, is the compelling government interest in licensing multi-spousal relationships? Are there demonstrated societal benefits? Is there a public good that monogamy with polyamory simply can't replicate?

[Talvezout]

So I heard so bullshit outta Utah that they might pass legislation to take foster kids away from lesbians and give them to het couples.

Because that will never end badly obviously

[Zottistan]

Sure, it could get expensive, and even of it were handled well it would be costly, but nah, I wouldn't consider "it's expensive to change our arbitrary legal restrictions" a valid excuse for the continued existence of said restrictions.

So what, exactly, is the compelling government interest in licensing multi-spousal relationships? Are there demonstrated societal benefits? Is there a public good that monogamy with polyamory simply can't replicate?

Literally the same argument can be and frequently is used against same-sex marriage.

[Vassenor]

So I heard so bullshit outta Utah that they might pass legislation to take foster kids away from lesbians and give them to het couples.

There's no legislation yet. Just a judge being a dick.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... rosexuals/

[Arkinesia]

So what, exactly, is the compelling government interest in licensing multi-spousal relationships? Are there demonstrated societal benefits? Is there a public good that monogamy with polyamory simply can't replicate?

Literally the same argument can be and frequently is used against same-sex marriage.

There is a compelling government interest in that such relationships exist, there are couples in such relationships who wish to adopt children, and allowing for same-sex marriage requires nothing more than a penstroke to make enforceable. Marriages of same-sex couples do not in any way affect the way any of the applicable rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage can/must be carried out or enforced aside from the fact that now couples of the same sex can engage in those contracts the same as opposite-sex couples.

[The Alexanderians]

So I heard so bullshit outta Utah that they might pass legislation to take foster kids away from lesbians and give them to het couples.

Because that will never end badly obviously

It reminds me of an American Dad episode actually

[Zottistan]

Literally the same argument can be and frequently is used against same-sex marriage.

There is a compelling government interest in that such relationships exist, there are couples in such relationships who wish to adopt children, and allowing for same-sex marriage requires nothing more than a penstroke to make enforceable. Marriages of same-sex couples do not in any way affect the way any of the applicable rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage can/must be carried out or enforced aside from the fact that now couples of the same sex can engage in those contracts the same as opposite-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption are separate issues and as far as I'm aware many states had same-sex adoption before same-sex sex marriage.

A thing being easy for the government to do isn't a compelling government interest.

If there were a reason that polygamy shouldn't be legally recognized outside of the fact that it would be a nuisance, that would be different. But as it stands, the legal system being broken is not a good enough reason to allow it to remain broken.

[Wisconsin9]

Sure, it could get expensive, and even of it were handled well it would be costly, but nah, I wouldn't consider "it's expensive to change our arbitrary legal restrictions" a valid excuse for the continued existence of said restrictions.

So what, exactly, is the compelling government interest in licensing multi-spousal relationships? Are there demonstrated societal benefits? Is there a public good that monogamy with polyamory simply can't replicate?

There's an unnecessary infringement on people's lives.

[Celseon]

So I heard so bullshit outta Utah that they might pass legislation to take foster kids away from lesbians and give them to het couples.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/12/utah-judge-removes-foster-child-from-lesbian-couple-saying-shell-be-better-off-with-heterosexuals/

It seems that Johansen based his decision on personal research indicating that children raised by heterosexual couples have superior developmental outcomes that he refused to share. It also seems that his office refuses to comment on the ruling, insisting that they're not allowed to do so. The governor has expressed puzzlement at the ruling, and has even gone a step further by insisting that even though the judge doesn't like the law he should follow it. The people Johansen expects to enforce the ruling are not supportive either, being trapped in a situation where they violate the law in one way or another whether they obey the court's order or not and altogether unhappy about it.

I don't know what Johansen thinks he's going to accomplish with this stunt. None of the authorities have his back.

[Val Halla]

So I heard so bullshit outta Utah that they might pass legislation to take foster kids away from lesbians and give them to het couples.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/12/utah-judge-removes-foster-child-from-lesbian-couple-saying-shell-be-better-off-with-heterosexuals/

It seems that Johansen based his decision on personal research indicating that children raised by heterosexual couples have superior developmental outcomes that he refused to share. It also seems that his office refuses to comment on the ruling, insisting that they're not allowed to do so. The governor has expressed puzzlement at the ruling, and has even gone a step further by insisting that even though the judge doesn't like the law he should follow it. The people Johansen expects to enforce the ruling are not supportive either, being trapped in a situation where they violate the law in one way or another whether they obey the court's order or not and altogether unhappy about it.

I don't know what Johansen thinks he's going to accomplish with this stunt. None of the authorities have his back.

Trying to pull a Kim Davis