LGBT Rights Thread!

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!

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.

__________________
“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.”

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.

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.

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.

I'll never be able to relate to this stuff.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.


I repeat, I care about good arguments and truth not to implement anything, but to have an efficient dialectical discussion.


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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.



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!

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

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?

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

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.