LGBT Rights Thread!

Tools    





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 do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages



-KhaN-'s Avatar
I work for Keyser Soze. He feels you owe him.
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.
__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
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!



-KhaN-'s Avatar
I work for Keyser Soze. He feels you owe him.
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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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
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



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.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
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?



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Small steps for Japan!!

https://www.inverse.com/article/7823...rriage-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 .



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.