View Full Version : LGBT Rights Thread!
https://www.chelseatheatre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/flag.jpg http://img09.deviantart.net/c8ea/i/2012/153/4/7/lgbt_by_keitilen-d522myo.jpg http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/12/03/1226213/110294-australia-gay-marriage.jpg http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2013/02/27/marilyn_musgrave_gay_marriage_the_woman_who_tried_to_make_gay_marriage_unconstitutional/88544929.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg http://www.mikechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/alg-owens-barham-just-married-jpg.jpg
Hello everyone, I couldn't find another thread out there covering this, and I don't know if anyone is interested, but I thought I'd open one just in case. Anyhow, batting for the other team myself, I'm inevitably fascinated by the progression of gay rights. So if laws are being passed in your country, or discussions are taking place, post about them here!
Okay, so currently, gay marriage is legal in a total of approximately 21 countries, however this only includes one African country (South Africa) and 0 countries in Asia. Nevertheless, others are in the process of having just legalised it, and are due to start practising gay marriage at a later date, those include:
Ireland (mid - November 2015)
Finland (2017)
Jersey (2017)
Loads more countries are having debates and discussions, and look set to legalise it imminently. I know Germany and Australia have had a lot of pressure placed onto them to hurry things up after the USA supreme court ruling (I still can't believe that got through to be honest). However, asides from the more obvious choices, things are looking up in:
Andorra - Local groups were outraged when Parliament rejected its implementation in 2014 and sought to take legal action to secure the right to marry.
China - Apparently, a politician implied that in the long run, gay marriage would be legalised, but not in the short term.
Malta - Began accepting foreign unions in mid 2014, and public support has increased rapidly in the last decade, going from 6% in 2006, to 65% in 2015.
Northern Ireland - They hold a referendum seemingly every year over this, and the one held this year was extremely narrow, and was only just prevented from being legalised, so whenever they decide to next vote on the issue, it's likely that it'll pass.
Switzerland - President Simonetta Sommaruga publicly hoped that gay and lesbian couples would legally be permitted to marry "soon".
Taiwan - Discussions were held and considered in 2014 and 2015, and are due to be again in 2016. Public opinions poll fairly highly too, and with the majority of Asian countries struggling to gain any leverage, they look likely to become the first Asian country to legalise gay marriage.
Japan - As of the end of 2015, they're quickly becoming fierce competition for Taiwan as a small district issued its first marriage license to a lesbian couple. Apparently though, they haven't received the same privileges and protection as heterosexual couples, but many citizens perceive it as a symbolic victory and a significant step forward to the legalisation of gay marriage in Japan.
As for gay adoption, the issue is far more complex, but currently, (about) 26 countries permit gay couples the right to adopt children. Loads more allow LGBT individuals to either adopt as a step-parent or as an individual. Like with marriage, Finland will permit full rights in 2017!
Sexy Celebrity
10-27-15, 10:58 PM
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2013/02/27/marilyn_musgrave_gay_marriage_the_woman_who_tried_to_make_gay_marriage_unconstitutional/88544929.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg
Two hot guys can stick around, but they need to disappear ASAP.
Country shouldn't be forced or under pressure to do this, just saying... Isn't it also denying right of everyone else if you force this on them? Good for those who vote for it on referendums but that is only way to do it. Wouldn't pass in my country for thousands of years and I don't mind that at all.
Personally I'd rather marriage be limited to any 2 people who have a child, adopted or not. If gays are allowed to adopt by a state then they can get married too.
This'd keep marriage closer to its original intent, because the laws were intended as an incentive to procreate or raise children, not an "entitlement" to any 2 people who are in love.
Country shouldn't be forced or under pressure to do this, just saying... Isn't it also denying right of everyone else if you force this on them? Good for those who vote for it on referendums but that is only way to do it. Wouldn't pass in my country for thousands of years and I don't mind that at all.
I don't get how it denies the right of everyone else at all really, people ask their partners to be their husband or wife and not their civil partner and besides, marriage isn't strictly associated with religion whatsoever and I've always believed matters of the state shouldn't be interfered with by any Church.
It's a great shame it won't pass in your country, but if you look at how rapidly countries are legalising marriage and adoption, I bet your country will legalise it faster than you reckon.
I don't get how it denies the right of everyone else at all really, people ask their partners to be their husband or wife and not their civil partner and besides, marriage isn't strictly associated with religion whatsoever and I've always believed matters of the state shouldn't be interfered with by any Church.
Denies their right to decide a major change in their country. It should be decided by a referendum.
It's a great shame it won't pass in your country, but if you look at how rapidly countries are legalising marriage and adoption, I bet your country will legalise it faster than you reckon.
Trust me, it won't, not in our life time and without a major change in people's mindset, not in many lifetimes to come.
Denies their right to decide a major change in their country. It should be decided by a referendum.
Trust me, it won't, not in our life time and without a major change in people's mindset, not in many lifetimes to come.
Ah, well if that was the norm for how these changes are created, then I agree because then a heck a lot more countries would have already legalised gay marriage and adoption, like Malta, Australia, Germany, the channel islands and even Italy passed 50% in polls not long ago.
And all I have to say to the other part is look how far we've come in such a short space of time, in 14 years over 20 countries now practice gay marriage so I wouldn't rule anything out, since this movement will not be going away, just like feminism won't.
carlspackler
10-28-15, 08:53 AM
I'll never be able to relate to this stuff.
CiCi ,anything that gets compared to modern feminism won't get any positive rep.
CiCi ,anything that gets compared to modern feminism won't get any positive rep.
I don't mean feminazis but feminism in places where it's vital, like the middle East. People like Malala :)
Pussy Galore
10-28-15, 01:43 PM
That's a nice way to refuse a debate Khan, to say that every legislation or decision a country makes should be by vote.
That might be true, but the majority isn't right, it doesn't add or remove any kind of truth to what you're saying whether the majority accepts it or not. Sure in a democracy we could do that, but the important thing to do is to say your position and to defend why you're right.
That's a nice way to refuse a debate Khan, to say that every legislation or decision a country makes should be by vote.
Leaving aside that he didn't say this should be the case for "every" decision (or imply that he was unwilling to debate this one), I'm far more concerned with people who brush off legitimate questions of Constitutional authority and judicial fiat as if they were incidental.
Thinking something is a good idea should not automatically lead someone to support its implementation by any means necessary. When people do that, it tells me they don't really care about the rule of law, or think much about long-term precedent. And I daresay that's probably not the kind of person you want making your laws.
That might be true, but the majority isn't right, it doesn't add or remove any kind of truth to what you're saying whether the majority accepts it or not. Sure in a democracy we could do that, but the important thing to do is to say your position and to defend why you're right.
Seems a lot less important, to me; defending the integrity of the system is far more important than defending any one specific law, in the same way the integrity of the criminal justice system is more important than the outcome of any one case.
Pussy Galore
10-28-15, 02:24 PM
Leaving aside that he didn't say this should be the case for "every" decision (or imply that he was unwilling to debate this one), I'm far more concerned with people who brush off legitimate questions of Constitutional authority and judicial fiat as if they were incidental.
If he didn't mean that every decision should be decided by referendum then I don't see why this particular one has anything that makes it special so that it should have one. If there is something special about it then you could tell me then we could discuss it.
My position about constitutions is pretty simple, I don't care about them when it comes to debate. Sure they are a good practical guide to say what a country is about, but I don't care about what a country is about I care about what is true. Then you can answer there are no truths in pollitics or social issues, I'd say sure there are no ultimate truth, but there are truer arguments then others, more logical ones, ones that are based about more factual things then others, etc. A constitution isn't anything that interest me when I have a position to defend. The criticism I made can also be applied to democracy, but even if I disagree with the principle I accept it. What I mean is that it's not because the population accepts one candidate or party as the better one that it actually is the better one. However I don't know how to legitimately name the better one otherwise so I accept it. Same as the constitution, sure we have it because we need laws, principles to base ourselves upon, but please lets not use it when we argue about issues. Use it in court, not when we ask what is the better thing to do. When we discuss we should come to conclusions that make us change the constitution not to see it as an unchangeable true entity. A little like an holy book.
Thinking something is a good idea should not automatically lead someone to support its implementation by any means necessary. When people do that, it tells me they don't really care about the rule of law, or think much about long-term precedent. And I daresay that's probably not the kind of person you want making your laws.
I repeat, I care about good arguments and truth not to implement anything, but to have an efficient dialectical discussion.
Seems a lot less important, to me; defending the integrity of the system is far more important than defending any one specific law, in the same way the integrity of the criminal justice system is more important than the outcome of any one case.
The importance is that the criminal justice system is just. What interests me is the justification behind each law, why is it there, on what grounds, etc. Or even how to attribute sentences, what is the just criteria. We shouldn't want to protect structures for the sake of it, we can and should question everything that is questionnable (which is pretty much everythig)
That's a nice way to refuse a debate Khan, to say that every legislation or decision a country makes should be by vote.
I never said every decision needs referendum. What debate did I refuse? Did someone ask me for one? Did I sign up for one? I just have my opinion of how legalization of this should work.
That might be true, but the majority isn't right, it doesn't add or remove any kind of truth to what you're saying whether the majority accepts it or not. Sure in a democracy we could do that, but the important thing to do is to say your position and to defend why you're right.
And it is right to do whatever people, no matter how small in size decide to do? Should president just decide alone, in name of thousands and millions? I should defend my position on why I think referendum should decide?
A constitution isn't anything that interest me when I have a position to defend. The criticism I made can also be applied to democracy, but even if I disagree with the principle I accept it. What I mean is that it's not because the population accepts one candidate or party as the better one that it actually is the better one. However I don't know how to legitimately name the better one otherwise so I accept it. Same as the constitution, sure we have it because we need laws, principles to base ourselves upon, but please lets not use it when we argue about issues. Use it in court, not when we ask what is the better thing to do.
Better in what context: the arbitrary confines of the debate you're interested in, or in the context of reality? As a philosopher, your goal may be to determine truth. As a debater, your goal may be to win a specific argument. But as a citizen, the goal is to support things that maximize human flourishing, and that requires considering all the effects of a policy. The philosopher may abstractly define evil, but that is of little use to the people who actually have to figure out what to write down to try to stop it from happening.
If you're willing to admit that your argument is purely theoretical, then sure, you can debate the issue without any consideration for the legal process. But if you want to use the argument to conclude that something should or should not be law (like same sex marriage), then it doesn't get to sidestep these kinds of legal objections.
I repeat, I care about good arguments and truth not to implement anything, but to have an efficient dialectical discussion.
Okay, but you addressed this to someone who made an explicitly legal argument. It's your prerogative to care or not care about the law, but how could you use that personal preference to correct or rebuke someone who's decided it matters? It's not unreasonable for him to raise logistical objections to a law.
What interests me is the justification behind each law, why is it there, on what grounds, etc.
But the justification behind each law is based specifically on all the boring practical considerations you're trying to dismiss. Law is what you get when you try to take philosophical principles and actually apply them to reality; you can't remove it from that context to discuss it, because that context is what makes it law in the first place.
What you're saying is kind of like saying you want to know who someone really is, but without discussing their life experiences: there is no such thing. And there is no such thing as a law independent of legal considerations.
Pussy Galore
10-28-15, 03:42 PM
Better in what context: the arbitrary confines of the debate you're interested in, or in the context of reality? As a philosopher, your goal may be to determine truth. As a debater, your goal may be to win a specific argument. But as a citizen, the goal is to support things that maximize human flourishing, and that requires considering all the effects of a policy. The philosopher may abstractly define evil, but that is of little use to the people who actually have to figure out what to write down to try to stop it from happening.
As a debater my goal is to find truth whether it is by my words or the ones of the person with which I'm debating. Philosophy is also pragmatic, I'm not Plato, I'm not talking about immaterial abstract notions. I don't even think ''evil'' exists, or things like that. My point was more when you debate about an issue you shouldn't concern yourself with the law or the bible or things like that. You should care about studies, logical arguments, you should justify everything you say a little bit like you do when you debate, to say the law says that hence it's true is poor debating and doesn't really make us move forward.
If you're willing to admit that your argument is purely theoretical, then sure, you can debate the issue without any consideration for the legal process. But if you want to use the argument to conclude that something should or should not be law (like same sex marriage), then it doesn't get to sidestep these kinds of legal objections.
Schopenhauer said that a good theory is true not only theoretically, but in facts also, I agree. A good argument will have true repercussions, if the reality shows than an argument isn't true then the argument is false. In more technical termes, an a priori knowledge is true in itself, but all the empirical or a posteriori implications it has should be also true, if not then the knowledge is false. Take the laws of physics for instance, it is abstractly true, but it can predicts things in the real world and if reality proves it to be wrong then there is something wrong with th theory.
Okay, but you addressed this to someone who made an explicitly legal argument. It's your prerogative to care or not care about the law, but how could you use that personal preference to correct or rebuke someone who's decided it matters? It's not unreasonable for him to raise logistical objections to a law.
You're right about that, he made a legal argument, I didn't understand what he meant correctly I think so my refutation wasn't really pertinent even though it was true, in my opinion. What I meant was that the opinion of the majority on the sam sex marriage issue isn't really of interest to me, that I prefer to question it with arguments then to simply ask the opinion of the majority.
Please people, positive thoughts only! :D
If you want to argue about the intricacies of the legalities, set up a new thread! But this is intended for LGBT and its progression throughout the world :)
Pussy Galore
10-28-15, 05:03 PM
The question of same sex marriage is one that I find intriguing.
First, because to me it's evident, church shouldn't be forced to marry gay people, but other than that they should do anything. Anyway I don't understand why someone who is gay would want to get a stamp of approval by an institution the has disrespected them for very long.
I don't understand religious people, I think they're irrational, but they should have the right to be irrational as long as they don't hurt other people.
I don't have anything against it, I simply don't care about what they want individually. Problems start when we need to accept everything just because they say so or they get represented like they don't have any rights. Can I ask a question and sorry if this sounds silly, it's something I don't understand. Why is a term "gay" offensive?
The question of same sex marriage is one that I find intriguing.
First, because to me it's evident, church shouldn't be forced to marry gay people, but other than that they should do anything. Anyway I don't understand why someone who is gay would want to get a stamp of approval by an institution the has disrespected them for very long.
I don't understand religious people, I think they're irrational, but they should have the right to be irrational as long as they don't hurt other people.
I agree, I used to be Catholic, but when Pope Benedict was so vehemently against anything LGBT, I began looking elsewhere. The current Pope isn't much better really, although he's more active against gay adoption than gay marriage.
I think some gay people are religious though, and want something like a blessing from the church. I don't know whether I agree with forcing them or not. On one hand, like you said, what would be the point when they don't mean a word of what they say, but on the other hand, what if it was an inter racial couple? It's the same discriminatory principle, just a different minority, it's tricky :lol:
I don't have anything against it, I simply don't care about what they want individually. Problems start when we need to accept everything just because they say so or they get represented like they don't have any rights. Can I ask a question and sorry if this sounds silly, it's something I don't understand. Why is a term "gay" offensive?
I don't find the term offensive, I don't think many people do. I think some people misuse it sometimes though, like "oh that's so gay" meaning it in a negative and derogatory way perhaps.
As to the first bit, I think this is something that should be accepted, I really believe it's a fundamental. Not allowing people the access to the same privileges as other people based on their sexual orientation is, to me, discrimination. Yes, the church's intention is for marriage to raise children, but realistically, in the modern world, that just doesn't hold up. People have children before and after marriage, if anything, it's just a public celebration of love.
Pussy Galore
10-28-15, 05:38 PM
I don't have anything against it, I simply don't care about what they want individually. Problems start when we need to accept everything just because they say so or they get represented like they don't have any rights. Can I ask a question and sorry if this sounds silly, it's something I don't understand. Why is a term "gay" offensive?
I would answer you with a question, why would we collectively care about homosexualiy? How is that issue affecting other people then homosexuals? Because they see them in the street kissing and it botters them?
I don't find the term offensive, I don't think many people do. I think some people misuse it sometimes though, like "oh that's so gay" meaning it in a negative and derogatory way perhaps.
As to the first bit, I think this is something that should be accepted, I really believe it's a fundamental. Not allowing people the access to the same privileges as other people based on their sexual orientation is, to me, discrimination. Yes, the church's intention is for marriage to raise children, but realistically, in the modern world, that just doesn't hold up. People have children before and after marriage, if anything, it's just a public celebration of love.
Alright, thanks for making that clear. About church, I don't think you should force them to marry homosexuals if it's against what they believe marriage to be, especially if you can get married without them.
Alright, thanks for making that clear. About church, I don't think you should force them to marry homosexuals if it's against what they believe marriage to be, especially if you can get married without them.
Yeah, to be honest I think I do agree with the churches, like you said, there are plenty of other places they can be held at.
And no bother! :)
I would answer you with a question, why would we collectively care about homosexualiy? How is that issue affecting other people then homosexuals? Because they see them in the street kissing and it botters them?
I just said I don't care about it and the problem starts when they start forcing us to care. And is this an answer to my question "why is a term gay offensive"? Because I don't know what it has to do with this and CiCi was nice enough to answer to that.
The Gunslinger45
10-28-15, 07:42 PM
If there are two people of legal age and sound mind who wish to marry and there is a church that is willing to marry them, I see no reason why the government should say no. That being said, if the church does not want to marry said two people; it is not the government's business to say yes. They can find another one to do so.
Then again this is an idea based on small government and having people work out their own issues, but I have long given up the hope that some people will act like adults.
Captain Steel
10-28-15, 10:02 PM
I think we should coin the term "Legbots" it's a phonetic pronunciation of LGBT's.
Captain Steel
10-28-15, 11:04 PM
But seriously, I had a gay (male) friend and he had a good point - the LG in the initials stand for Lesbian and Gay.
Now all Lesbians are Gay, but not all Gays are Lesbians. His point was why do female homosexuals get their own designation, but males do not? Why do males have to share the term Gay with Lesbians? Gay has become synonymous with Homosexual, but it does not in any way designate gender. So why do female homosexuals get their own name, but males do not?
So when you break down "LGBT" it means "Lesbians, Gay Men and Women (i.e. Lesbians), Bi-sexuals and Transgendered." So it should be "LGMAW(i.e.L)BT".
Why do females get represented twice by listing both their sub-set and their set?
It's about time there was a little equality and Gay Men be given their own designation rather than having to share their term of identification with Lesbians who have their own gender-specific designation.
grampaglasses
10-28-15, 11:17 PM
But seriously, I had a gay (male) friend and he had a good point - the LG in the initials stand for Lesbian and Gay.
Now all Lesbians are Gay, but not all Gays are Lesbians. His point was why do female homosexuals get their own designation, but males do not? Why do males have to share the term Gay with Lesbians? Gay has become synonymous with Homosexual, but it does not in any way designate gender. So why do female homosexuals get their own name, but males do not?
So when you break down "LGBT" it means "Lesbians, Gay Men and Women (i.e. Lesbians), Bi-sexuals and Transgendered." So it should be "LGMAW(i.e.L)BT".
Why do females get represented twice by listing both their sub-set and their set?
It's about time there was a little equality and Gay Men be given their own designation rather than having to share their term of identification with Lesbians who have their own gender-specific designation.
Dude they're just initials. Could you imagine trying to remember LGMAWBT? Wouldn't work at all.
Captain Steel
10-28-15, 11:35 PM
Imagine if there were two bathrooms: one labeled "Gay" and one labeled "Lesbian". Female homosexuals could use both, but males would be restricted to one. How is that fair?
But seriously, I had a gay (male) friend and he had a good point - the LG in the initials stand for Lesbian and Gay.
Now all Lesbians are Gay, but not all Gays are Lesbians. His point was why do female homosexuals get their own designation, but males do not?
My post got censored automatically.. so i'll just edit it out.
Suffice to say there is a word for males only but it's offensive :eek:
Captain Steel
10-28-15, 11:51 PM
My post got censored automatically.. so i'll just edit it out.
Suffice to say there is a word for males only but it's offensive :eek:
Well there should be a vote within the gay community for a non-offensive acceptable term for gay males.
Since Lesbians have their own designation which is named for an island, perhaps gay men could have the same.
How about "Mangaians" named for the Cook Island of Mangaia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangaia
honeykid
10-29-15, 05:45 PM
But seriously, I had a gay (male) friend and he had a good point - the LG in the initials stand for Lesbian and Gay.
Now all Lesbians are Gay, but not all Gays are Lesbians. His point was why do female homosexuals get their own designation, but males do not? Why do males have to share the term Gay with Lesbians? Gay has become synonymous with Homosexual, but it does not in any way designate gender. So why do female homosexuals get their own name, but males do not?.
I've asked this question many times. From what I can tell, it comes down to the female politics/political side of gay rights and everyone wanting to be represented. It's a pretty new term, though.
Mr Minio
10-29-15, 05:55 PM
But seriously, I had a gay (male) friend and he had a good point - the LG in the initials stand for Lesbian and Gay.
Now all Lesbians are Gay, but not all Gays are Lesbians. His point was why do female homosexuals get their own designation, but males do not? Why do males have to share the term Gay with Lesbians? Gay has become synonymous with Homosexual, but it does not in any way designate gender. So why do female homosexuals get their own name, but males do not?
So when you break down "LGBT" it means "Lesbians, Gay Men and Women (i.e. Lesbians), Bi-sexuals and Transgendered." So it should be "LGMAW(i.e.L)BT".
Why do females get represented twice by listing both their sub-set and their set?
It's about time there was a little equality and Gay Men be given their own designation rather than having to share their term of identification with Lesbians who have their own gender-specific designation.
So, if I say 'I like gay porn', I can still come away completely unscathed from this, adding I meant lesbian porn?
Sexy Celebrity
10-29-15, 05:55 PM
Because lesbians aren't gay. They're ridiculous.
So, if I say 'I like gay porn', I can still come away completely unscathed from this, adding I meant lesbian porn?
Mind blown. :eek:
Small steps for Japan!!
https://www.inverse.com/article/7823-japan-recognizes-same-sex-marriage-sort-of
Proponents of same-sex marriage worldwide have a slight cause for celebration, as the small Japanese district of Shibuya handed out its first marriage certificate to a same-sex couple in the country’s history on Thursday.
The certificate, however, is not binding, meaning that the legal status of the female couple in question, Hiroko Masuhara, 37, and Koyuki Higashi, 30, isn’t the same in terms of government benefits afforded to straight couples in the country.
That’s not stopping a groundswell of optimism from taking over the collective conscious of Japan’s same-sex marriage advocates, many of whom claim the country’s first gay marriage certificate amounts to an enormous symbolic victory that starkly calls into question the country’s constitution.
Japanese politics, especially of the social variety, are steeped in conservatism, although the idea of legalizing gay marriage has been a prospect Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has considered publicly, albeit in a terse, skeptical sense.
Last February, Japanese media reported that under no circumstances was Abe inclined to amend his country’s constitution to allow for same-sex marriage; however the public has been increasingly moving away from Abe’s views.
A poll conducted earlier this year by the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper found that 44 percent of respondents supported same sex marriage while 39 percnt held an opposing view.
While Twitter has yet to reflect any feelings of widespread revelry on the streets of Shibuya, same-sex marriage advocates have been expecting this for most of the year: Officials with Shibuya’s municipal government first announced that same-sex marriage licenses would be issued back in February, while another district, Setagaya, announced plans to issue licenses to same-sex couples by November of this year. Setagaya’s mayor reportedly had supplied five same-sex couples with marriage papers as of Thursday afternoon.
The non-legally binding nature of the marriage license issued to Masahura and Higashi cannot ward off any discrimination that the couple may face from government or corporate entities. As there is still no legislation in place to safeguard gay couples from discrimination in Japan, couples routinely complain of being denied access to routine facets of everyday life, such as seeing loved ones in hospitals and apartment tenancies.
Officials in Shibuya say they’re aiming to change this however, by listing the hospitals and real estate firms which discriminate against the LGBT community on a government website.
Amid a flurry of camera snaps and emphatic smiles outside of Shibuya’s government headquarters on Thursday, Higashi, an actress, said: “As a first step, I hope this will spread across Japan.”
“Heterosexual couples and same-sex couples are really very much the same. It is unfortunate that there are many things that cannot be done and cannot be recognized because the number (of gay couples) is small.”
“I hope the day will come soon when there will be equality in society.”
what is the point ?? in europe at least ( the region of the world where tolerance for gays is highest ) , the population of those who want to tolerate gays is decreasing at an alarming rate . the newer ones who are filling it ( muslims who else ) are totally intolerant towards gays and while you westerners are living in you own cuckooland discussing gay rights , intolerance towards gays is quietly increasing . also towards jews .
sorry to break your party , but soon gays and jews will have flee europe if this continues .
honeykid
11-08-15, 06:22 PM
As my friends are sick of hearing me say, we breathe rarified air here and we should do everything we can to protect it.
False Writer
11-08-15, 06:33 PM
I honestly don't pay a whole lot of attention to the whole gay rights movement. I know that it has blown up tremendously the past year as it seems like every mainstream media outlet is covering it. I'm not against it, but I thought it was weird how the gay marriage legalization was practically forced here in the US instead of the states making the decision; I can see how it concerns some citizens who feel like they might not have a say in future decisions.
Question to the gay rights supporters though—are you gonna support polygamy rights when it starts gaining attention?
I honestly don't pay a whole lot of attention to the whole gay rights movement. I know that it has blown up tremendously the past year as it seems like every mainstream media outlet is covering it. I'm not against it, but I thought it was weird how the gay marriage legalization was practically forced here in the US instead of the states making the decision; I can see how it concerns some citizens who feel like they might not have a say in future decisions.
Question to the gay rights supporters though—are you gonna support polygamy rights when it starts gaining attention?
There is a Mormon guy from another forum i visit who always asks that, nice guy just very Conservative, Religious and old fashioned not that those are necessarily bad things. He does start going crazy when he says, Paedophilia and zoophillia will be legal soon too though.
My two cents, i support gay marriage my mums twin brother is gay as well as some of my friends and i'd never deny them their chance to be married. I'm not gonna lie and say i'm passionate about it though, if there was a vote i'd give my yes but i wouldn't be out there campaigning or anything. Also i agree with you, it should have been left up to the states. Whatever anyone thinks of people who disagree with gay marriage, some states wouldn't have passed it i imagine and they deserved their say too.
what is the point ?? in europe at least ( the region of the world where tolerance for gays is highest ) , the population of those who want to tolerate gays is decreasing at an alarming rate . the newer ones who are filling it ( muslims who else ) are totally intolerant towards gays and while you westerners are living in you own cuckooland discussing gay rights , intolerance towards gays is quietly increasing . also towards jews .
sorry to break your party , but soon gays and jews will have flee europe if this continues .
Do you have any sources? Because I'd say the complete opposite is occurring in Europe, at least in the UK anyway from my experience. I do think we have some way to go though, but seeing people fleeing from Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia for fear of homophobia is totally ridiculous.
I honestly don't pay a whole lot of attention to the whole gay rights movement. I know that it has blown up tremendously the past year as it seems like every mainstream media outlet is covering it. I'm not against it, but I thought it was weird how the gay marriage legalization was practically forced here in the US instead of the states making the decision; I can see how it concerns some citizens who feel like they might not have a say in future decisions.
Question to the gay rights supporters though—are you gonna support polygamy rights when it starts gaining attention?
I keep seeing people ask this, and some people even said bestiality would start gaining leverage... but they're in no way connected, I just don't get it :lol:
False Writer
11-08-15, 08:02 PM
There is a Mormon guy from another forum i visit who always asks that, nice guy just very Conservative, Religious and old fashioned not that those are necessarily bad things. He does start going crazy when he says, Paedophilia and zoophillia will be legal soon too though.
My two cents, i support gay marriage my mums twin brother is gay as well as some of my friends and i'd never deny them their chance to be married. I'm not gonna lie and say i'm passionate about it though, if there was a vote i'd give my yes but i wouldn't be out there campaigning or anything. Also i agree with you, it should have been left up to the states. Whatever anyone thinks of people who disagree with gay marriage, some states wouldn't have passed it i imagine and they deserved their say too.
That's pretty much exactly how I feel about it.
I keep seeing people ask this, and some people even said bestiality would start gaining leverage... but they're in no way connected, I just don't get it :lol:
But would you still support polygamy? I've already noticed that they're hard at work trying to demonize it. There's this reality TV show called "Escaping Polygamy" that I've seen commercials for and it's apparently about women trying to escape some polygamous cult. I have to laugh cause it's so obvious what they're trying to do...
Just like gay rights, all you really need to do is get a few people to put on a sad face and say "We're not hurting anybody, we just want to live our lives. Why can't we be accepted like everybody else?" And then you'll start to get sympathizers and heck the gay community would probably support them too so then it'll be like, "Well we accepted gays so why can't we accept polygamists?" There wouldn't really be a good answer for that.
About the bestiality rights—you never know. I really wouldn't be surprised if it starts popping up. Though it would be a lot harder to accept than homosexuality and polygamy.
But would you still support polygamy? I've already noticed that they're hard at work trying to demonize it. There's this reality TV show called "Escaping Polygamy" that I've seen commercials for and it's apparently about women trying to escape some polygamous cult. I have to laugh cause it's so obvious what they're trying to do...
Just like gay rights, all you really need to do is get a few people to put on a sad face and say "We're not hurting anybody, we just want to live our lives. Why can't we be accepted like everybody else?" And then you'll start to get sympathizers and heck the gay community would probably support them too so then it'll be like, "Well we accepted gays so why can't we accept polygamists?" There wouldn't really be a good answer for that.
About the bestiality rights—you never know. I really wouldn't be surprised if it starts popping up. Though it would be a lot harder to accept than homosexuality and polygamy.
Thanks for explaining! :)
I don't think public opinion is particularly supportive about this, but that might be largely because no one has really thought about it before, I haven't given it any time really :lol: But in my lifetime alone, gay rights has progressed so so much, so who knows, in twenty years they could have made radical strides for the acceptance of it. I think it might be more difficult, considering the acceptance for homosexuality has been around for much longer than the push for gay marriage and adoption has been, whereas they'll probably be setting off from square one.
As to my thoughts, I'm guess I'm okay with it if it's what they decide to do, and everyone involved is happy with the arrangements, then why not? But I'm pretty indifferent about it, I wouldn't get involved in rallies or anything. I also think polygamous relationships will be a lot more difficult to maintain, because there'll always be one person feeling isolated and not as loved as the others, but in all honesty I don't know anything about it, so I might be talking a load of rubbish.
As for bestiality... I'd like to think I'm a tolerant and open minded person, but that's one push too far for me, I will never support it :lol:
I keep seeing people ask this, and some people even said bestiality would start gaining leverage... but they're in no way connected, I just don't get it :lol:
Sure they are; virtually every argument you hear in favor of gay marriage logically includes polygamy. Examples:
"You can't legislate love."
"Who are you to say who can or can't get married?"
"How does it affect you, anyway?"
All of these arguments can be made in favor of polygamy just as easily.
Technically, you can take the position that marriage is always between two people, but a) this is almost always at odds with the sweeping rhetoric gay marriage advocates employ and b) the question then becomes why it's inexcusable to limit the gender makeup of a marriage, but perfectly fine to limit the number of people.
Citizen Rules
11-08-15, 08:19 PM
I have to partially agree with Ashdoc, in countries that are becoming Muslim controlled, you are not going to see gay rights. And if someones a gay Jewish person good luck with that. Muslim dominated countries are intolerant of gays, so you won't see gay marriage in Saudi Arabia any time soon.
As far as polygamy goes, I personal disagree with it but I wouldn't tell consenting adults that they could not be legal married in a polygamous relationship.
I liked what Stephen Fry (i'm not bringing him up because he is gay btw, he is just one of my favourite people ever) said about polygamy on QI. In a discussion he asked why cheating isn't illegal if Polygamy is, his view is that whether he would ever have a polygamous relationship or not he sees no problem with consenting adults deciding that for themselves. I tend to agree, as long as it is with consent and not an incest-cult abomination.
Sexy Celebrity
11-08-15, 08:26 PM
A LOT of gay men practice their own polygamy from what I've seen. Only they tend to call it "polyamory" or something like that.
Even if they don't, a lot of them still have open marriages. Might as well be polygamy.
Sure they are; virtually every argument you hear in favor of gay marriage logically includes polygamy. Examples:
"You can't legislate love."
"Who are you to say who can or can't get married?"
"How does it affect you, anyway?"
All of these arguments can be made in favor of polygamy just as easily.
Technically, you can take the position that marriage is always between two people, but a) this is almost always at odds with the sweeping rhetoric gay marriage advocates employ and b) the question then becomes why it's inexcusable to limit the gender makeup of a marriage, but perfectly fine to limit the number of people.
That's very true Yoda! I should probably think more before I type :lol:
I guess I'd just say what I said up above though, the push to accept homosexuality has been around for quite some time, whilst this is only getting attention now, and even then it's minimal at best. I don't think there is anything outrageous about it, but its connotations are quite sinister and dark at the moment, because like False Writer said, the media demonises it, and they have done consistently for a while. I think the legalisation of polygamy will therefore be a very slow movement.
I guess I'd also say homosexuality is a lot more similar to heterosexuality than polygamy is, and maybe that contributes to its rapid progression. All you have to do is replace one person with someone of the same gender, so you have the same number of people, and in the case of parenting, the same number of parents, it's just a standard relationship with only a slight varying factor. For polygamy, it's a lot more complex, and quite vastly different to social norms, and only accounts for an extremely minimal proportion of people too. I bet most people know, or have at least encountered, an LGBT person, whereas I doubt very few of us have met someone in a polygamous relationship, so I think their demands will fall on deaf ears for quite some time. But who knows :lol:
False Writer
11-08-15, 08:28 PM
I liked what Stephen Fry (i'm not bringing him up because he is gay btw, he is just one of my favourite people ever) said about polygamy on QI. In a discussion he asked why cheating isn't illegal if Polygamy is, his view is that whether he would ever have a polygamous relationship or not he sees no problem with consenting adults deciding that for themselves. I tend to agree, as long as it is with consent and not an incest-cult abomination.
Heck, aren't orgies "legal"? Then I really don't see a reason why polygamy should be ostracized while gay marriage is accepted.
Citizen Rules
11-08-15, 08:28 PM
I voted for gay marriage in my state. I have to say I think it's backward thinking to support gay marriage and deny polygamous people a chance to be married.
Sexy Celebrity
11-08-15, 08:30 PM
I voted for gay marriage in my state. I have to say I think it's backward thinking to support gay marriage and deny polygamous people a chance to be married.
Why does it depend a lot on gay marriage? If gay marriage wasn't an issue, would you still support polygamy with straight people?
Sexy Celebrity
11-08-15, 08:33 PM
If polygamy became legal, how many people should be allowed to be married? If only 5, why not 6 or 7?
If unlimited, could someone marry 1,000 people?
Citizen Rules
11-08-15, 08:34 PM
Sure at $100 per marriage license fees, the state would get rich. But what would happen if you got 1000 divorcees:(
Sexy Celebrity
11-08-15, 08:35 PM
Sure at $100 per marriage license fees, the state would get rich. But what would happen if you got 1000 divorcees:(
You would probably ask Halle Berry for advice.
"You can't legislate love."
"Who are you to say who can or can't get married?"
"How does it affect you, anyway?"
This works for trees as well. That would be interesting :cool:
If polygamy became legal, how many people should be allowed to be married? If only 5, why not 6 or 7?
If unlimited, could someone marry 1,000 people?
I'd say 999 or under any more and it would become a Goodfellas wedding, all those Paulies and Maries would make me dizzy.
Sexy Celebrity
11-08-15, 08:57 PM
I'd say 999 or under any more and it would become a Goodfellas wedding, all those Paulies and Maries would make me dizzy.
I was thinking it would be something more like Facebook:
"You have marriage requests from Leilani Puffer, Chantel Morrison, John Swanson, Greta Gibbons, Monica Harris, Brett Spina and Delores Treadway. Click I DO or I DON'T to marry them."
THAT'S the future, people! That IS the future that's coming for us.
Citizen Rules
11-08-15, 09:08 PM
Ha!
I was thinking it would be something more like Facebook:
"You have marriage requests from Leilani Puffer, Chantel Morrison, John Swanson, Greta Gibbons, Monica Harris, Brett Spina and Delores Treadway. Click I DO or I DON'T to marry them."
THAT'S the future, people! That IS the future that's coming for us.
I really hope Greta Gibbons is a real person, that is my favourite name ever. If i have a kid he/she will be named Greta Gibbons Lettuce Bickle Cameron. Got a feeling that very few will agrre with me though :laugh:
Captain Steel
11-09-15, 12:48 AM
Dang! I go away for a day and an actual conversation breaks out!
honeykid
11-09-15, 10:50 AM
I've no problem with polygamy in our society as it currently is. I can't see the point of marriage for myself, let alone multiple wives, but for those who desire this, I've yet to see the harm.
Comparing beastiality or paedophilla to either is ridiculous, though, as both polygamy and gay marriage/sex are between consenting adults. Neither children (under the age of consent) or animals can give this.
Captain Steel
11-09-15, 10:33 PM
I've no problem with polygamy in our society as it currently is. I can't see the point of marriage for myself, let alone multiple wives, but for those who desire this, I've yet to see the harm.
Comparing beastiality or paedophilla to either is ridiculous, though, as both polygamy and gay marriage/sex are between consenting adults. Neither children (under the age of consent) or animals can give this.
I have to agree with this. (I'm late to the conversation and haven't read all the recent posts.)
My only issue with "gay marriage" is this claim that it's all about "equal" rights.
More accurately it's about a "special right" created specifically for and limited only to homosexuals. Let's call it what it is rather than try to put a PC gloss on it by calling it what it isn't (and marriage will never be an "equal" right until all consenting adults have access to it).
"Marriage" in it's traditional definition is a set of restrictions (based on laws derived from cultural mores & norms) - and there's nothing "equal" about a bunch of restrictions.
Those restrictions are (or were):
1. Consent
2. Age (which varies by a couple years from state to state)
3. Gender
4. Relationship (i.e. blood-relation, but degrees of separation beyond immediate family vary)
5. Quantity
The problem is most of the same people calling for "equal" rights want those rights only for homosexuals, but not for any other consenting adults - with what might be considered an alternate lifestyle - who might want their relationship(s) classified as "married".
There's no argument that restrictions 1 & 2 will stand for very obvious reasons that don't need to be explained. (Age of consent may vary from state to state, but no one's calling for children to marry adults or each other.)
So I don't understand when people call for equal rights for gays to marry (eliminating restriction #3), but are opposed to eliminating restrictions #4 &5 as long as everyone involved are consenting adults.
Equal is only equal if it applies to all consenting adults across the board.
carlspackler
11-10-15, 07:49 AM
Lol.
Sounds like a fcuckin free for all in here.
Time someone took control and stomped a few arses.
Captain Steel
11-10-15, 01:04 PM
Lol.
Sounds like a fcuckin free for all in here.
Time someone took control and stomped a few arses.
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
I think he means it's a bit like a war zone in here because everyone has a different stance and approach to this :lol:
Citizen Rules
11-10-15, 08:00 PM
It seems pretty mellow to me.
False Writer
11-10-15, 09:08 PM
Lol.
Sounds like a fcuckin free for all in here.
Time someone took control and stomped a few arses.
This is a "F—in free for all" ???
Have you been to any other forum board ever? This is heavenly compared to some other arguments I've witnessed, ones that were over much more frivolous things to boot.
carlspackler
11-11-15, 05:19 AM
This is a "F—in free for all" ???
Have you been to any other forum board ever? This is heavenly compared to some other arguments I've witnessed, ones that were over much more frivolous things to boot.
I was talking about the subject matter not the posters.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.