ATLA.fans

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: LGBT rights  (Read 2831 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

skybison

  • Guest
LGBT rights
« on: August 16, 2016, 12:39:49 AM »

So this is still an issue being argued about. 

I'm making this thread to respond to theColonel position that he doesn't see the injustice in not allowing gay people the right to marry, or that a man cannot be a woman.  I'm straight and Cis but I will attempt to answer both to the best of my ability.

The injustice of not allowing same sex marriage first comes from the simple fact that numerous legal and economic benefits are attached to marriage.  It effects your taxes, your property rights, your ability to visit loved ones in the hospital etc.  Not allowing gay couples the right to marry places them at a social disadvantage simply because they are gay.  And there seems no reason that should be the case, since scientists have long ago demonstrated that gay and lesbian couples are equally stable, well adjusted and good at raising children as straight couples.  So I ask you: Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry?

The injustice of saying "A man can't be a woman" is simply due to the fact that this is not true.  Men and Women have differing brain chemistry, ie men have more testosterone and women more estrogen.  Most people have brains that match their sexual organs.  But sometimes it doesn't work out that way, with someone born with male sexual organs but female brain chemistry, or vice versa, or with a mixture that doesn't conform to either gender or alters over time.  And such people find they are more comfortable living as the gender of their brain then their junk.  This does no harm whatsoever, scientists have again long found there is no connection between transgender people and violence or sexual abuse of minors.  But despite this trans people are among the most likely to be victims of violence because of the stereotype of them being crazy, dangerous and pedophiles.  Declaring "a man can't be a woman" when this is not true holds up the idea that trans individuals as a sick other.  Why shouldn't accept that some people are different genders then their bodies at birth?

If I said right now that I did not believe in catholic rights, would you really say there was no injustice in that?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2016, 08:49:37 PM by skybison »
Logged

FartsOfNeil

  • The Avatardist
  • Posts: 93
  • Savage... Brutal... Bendt.
    • Art of Neil
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2016, 05:30:51 PM »

So I ask you: Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry?

Because marriage is a religious ceremony and no recognized religion that practices it condones homosexuality.

Naturally as such it shouldn't be an issue of legality at all.  Marital status should not be relevant to any law of any kind and doing so is in complete violation of the separation of church and state.  Marriage as a legal status should undoubtedly be abolished, but until that is enacted, restricting that status based on sexual preference is discriminatory and is a human rights violation and that is a FACT.

Why shouldn't accept that some people are different genders then their bodies at birth?

Because their bodies are what any relevant laws are applicable to.
Logged

Guy

  • The Resident Toxicologist
  • Posts: 20
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2016, 04:50:24 PM »

>2016
>thinking marriage is religious
>w e w l a d
Logged
"As he caught his footing, his head fell back, and the Milky Way flowed down inside him with a roar."

FartsOfNeil

  • The Avatardist
  • Posts: 93
  • Savage... Brutal... Bendt.
    • Art of Neil
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2016, 05:07:22 PM »

I'm not saying you have to like it, but the origins of marriage in regards to american history and law are pretty well set.  Trying to rewrite that context will only hurt the core goal in the long run.

But no, your tumblr snark was a profound and vital contribution to the discourse.

Logged

Guy

  • The Resident Toxicologist
  • Posts: 20
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2016, 05:38:02 PM »

Having religious origins is literally the most irrelevant thing I've ever heard. It's anachronistic and the legal rights afforded to people are so far beyond the religious context of marriage that any link between marriage and its religious origins is practically asinine. By your logic anyone, who gets married in the United States should establish a husband's ownership over his wife because historically that was the implication of being married to a man. Besides, the term "marriage" having any etymological significance is pretty much gone the minute you have a multicultural society, as its various components use the term in different contexts. Chinese and Japanese people, for instance, marry all the time with literally zero care for the religiosity of an American marriage.

>thinking greentexting is tumblr snark

Please learn your Internet mannerisms and BB code before making patently absurd comments.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2016, 05:41:14 PM by Guy »
Logged
"As he caught his footing, his head fell back, and the Milky Way flowed down inside him with a roar."

FartsOfNeil

  • The Avatardist
  • Posts: 93
  • Savage... Brutal... Bendt.
    • Art of Neil
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2016, 08:04:37 PM »

Yeah no, learning how to Gen Whine loltext totally sounds like a good use of my time...



Whelp, I said mah stakes on the issues presented, so you can go ahead and greenpeace or whatever as ya like.  I'll leave ya to your valued additions to the debate.
Logged

Guy

  • The Resident Toxicologist
  • Posts: 20
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2016, 09:08:50 PM »

I mean, it's not my fault that the problems with your post can be answered by literally invoking the current year meme, so maybe learning how to green text will be a good use of your time if your understanding of American legal history is that outdated.
Logged
"As he caught his footing, his head fell back, and the Milky Way flowed down inside him with a roar."

Loopy

  • False Prime
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • I'm Loooooopy!
    • My Fanfic @ tumblr
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2016, 05:02:26 PM »

Let's try this mod/admin thing out:

I'm a big fan of snark, and I'd like to think that some levity can help serious discussions like this, but let's try to add two things to it:

1) Let's assume that any snark is just an attempt to be humorous unless it's clear otherwise, and not an insult or deliberate expression of disrespect.

2) Let's not assume everyone is familiar with every meme, and either offer some context and or ask for context without getting acrimonious.
Logged

BySt0rm

  • Posts: 8
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2016, 09:26:24 AM »

So this is still an issue being argued about. 

I'm making this thread to respond to theColonel position that he doesn't see the injustice in not allowing gay people the right to marry, or that a man cannot be a woman.  I'm straight and Cis but I will attempt to answer both to the best of my ability.

The injustice of not allowing same sex marriage first comes from the simple fact that numerous legal and economic benefits are attached to marriage.  It effects your taxes, your property rights, your ability to visit loved ones in the hospital etc.  Not allowing gay couples the right to marry places them at a social disadvantage simply because they are gay.  And there seems no reason that should be the case, since scientists have long ago demonstrated that gay and lesbian couples are equally stable, well adjusted and good at raising children as straight couples.  So I ask you: Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry?

I don't really approve of benefits or any strings attached to marriage and wish they were removed for everyone, as the government has no business in our personal lives so long as I don't infringe on people's natural rights,  or do anything that can be directly constituted as harmful towards individuals and groups. Then again if not that, I'm for universal civil unions where two or more people of consenting age can sign onto it and are prescribed the same thing as marriage, but under a secularized name instead. That way, no one can argue that religious institutions are being attacked, while anyone can get a union.

Marriages can be left merely for the religious authorities.

Quote
The injustice of saying "A man can't be a woman" is simply due to the fact that this is not true.  Men and Women have differing brain chemistry, ie men have more testosterone and women more estrogen. 
It is true. Biology has demonstrated this as a fact that men are men and women are women. There are only two genders and it can't be changed at the cellular level.

Quote
Most people have brains that match their sexual organs.  But sometimes it doesn't work out that way, with someone born with male sexual organs but female brain chemistry, or vice versa, or with a mixture that doesn't conform to either gender or alters over time.  And such people find they are more comfortable living as the gender of their brain then their junk. 
There's a woman who has higher than average testosterone levels in the Olympics who was born like that. However, in all these cases ,they're the gender they are born with. The fact that our society tells us that we have to conform to gender roles in order to appear as a man or a woman should be more concerning  because people shouldn't have to be forced into gender roles due to the freedoms we are granted by natural law.

Because our society tells people we have to uphold gender-specific ways of living, therefore, I believe transsexualism might be seen as an out for those in society who want to defy these stereotypes, but as men, are demonized or made fun of. Even something as simple as showing emotions, crying, or being sensitive. The same apples for women as well, though in all fairness, it's harder for a man to defy sociopathic expectations without being mocked relentlessly. It's a fair shame that society tells people through shows that exploit people that they have to go under the knife in order to be accepted by society instead of being accepted or given help.

Quote
This does no harm whatsoever, scientists have again long found there is no connection between transgender people and violence or sexual abuse of minors.  But despite this trans people are among the most likely to be victims of violence because of the stereotype of them being crazy, dangerous and pedophiles. 

It also doesn't help that these laws which are for 0.3% of the population have been taken advantage of by crazy dangerous pedophiles, creeps, or perverts via these "bathroom laws" . These laws don't protect women or help transgender people in any way other than make transgender people and those concerned about or been raped, demonized. It's clearly obvious when I read between the lines how it happens. Anyone who has concerns about men taking advantage of these laws are deemed "transphobic" ,all the while the lawmakers and their supporters all can pat their backs for appearing "progressive".

There's plenty of cases where boys or even girls have done this and they're not transgender. I believe that the loosening of biological sex or even sexuality by Tumblr [at its most extreme, I will add.] or whatever someone else wants it to be is rather illogical. Tumblr has over 100  that which I've read that don't make a single lick of sense. Let alone the dumb as heck "sexualities" that either sound like a troll, Dr. Seuss,  or a very good satire writer invented them to screw with people, or are just plain insane. With how Tumblr users also glorifies mental illnesses and not getting treated, it really only makes anyone associated with those communities look worse off. There, I can be a trisexual threehorned Unicorn helicopter Transformer named Wildereye and no one would bat an eye.

I have no issue with transsexuals anyways because they're not the problem, it's our society that tries to find ways to pretend they care while harming over half the population in the name of "progress", that's the issue. If these people truly cared about transexuals, they should:

1.Stop using transgenders and LGBT as a scapegoat group to whittle away private ownership rights and freedom of association, or using it as a justification to threaten business owners for their opinions with death and violence.  If someone doesn't want to bake a cake specifically for gay marriages, so what? African Americans shouldn't be forced to bake racist cakes for the KKK, Jews shouldn't have to bake Nazi cakes, or Muslims shouldn't be forced to bake anti-Islamic cakes. I find the dialogue how most of these accusations are only levied at Christian establishments and not anyone  else ridiculous. Either equal enforcement under the law , or no one should be forced to associate with special orders such as those sorts of cakes. Otherwise, we have a double standard in society where certain groups are exempt from the rule of law, while others are oppressed for being straight, male and Christian.  LGBT aren't being helped by this.

2.Stop telling boys they need to repress their masculine traits for feminine, or either way in preference. For anyone. Our society really wants to mold men to become unfeeling sociopaths because it's averse to emotion when it's nearly "feminine". This also extends to clothing as well. Our society tells us that the only way   is to alter yourself permanently than to accept that they might have more feminine and masculine leanings and are best as the way they are.

If someone needs to change what they look on the outside through hormones and therapy, I won't stop them because that's not my business. My only beef is with a society that frowns upon people shedding their gender roles and expectations [especially of men], that being homosexual or feminine is wrong. That's where I believe it comes from, ultimately. Some men and  women are uncomfortable with their boys being who they want to be, so they abuse them and try to mold them to these roles and then they wonder why their boys ditch them to the curb and say "Bye Felicia."  This part is more personal than I would like because that's what society has done to people like me and a friend of mine. If I feel more feminine or have some traits ,why does it matter to them? Are they that much of losers that they can't just grow up?

I believe neither are right or wrong. They just are.
 
3. Arrest parents like Jazz's, who use puberty blockers and inject hormones from an early age, and exploit them and their struggles for television for child abuse and neglect. It's very clear that Jazz is basically another Duggar-like situation waiting to happen, going how the parents are literally only concerned by using their child as some sideshow attraction while leaving their other children in the dust. Puberty blockers and hormones before those individual can have a fuller comprehension of who they are is as bad as any circumcision.  As a five year old, I was busy playing Power Rangers and watching Toonami. I believe the claims about Jazz wanting it has much validity as those children who believe they seen God after a near death experience and those movies. There's no way abuse wasn't involved with Jazz, and people acting like this abuse should be acceptable is wrong. It's just my gut feeling ,though.

I believe individuals should be able to decide once consent rolls around, or if they are screened for any issues at home and pass. Let the children actually find themselves and who they are before anything happens. Perhaps they might actually want to be as they ultimately are. If not? That's fine as well.

Want to know would be more progressive? How about we cut off any economic relations with India, a nation that demonizes and casts out transgender people into a caste that effectively have zero rights and can't get assistance? Or about cutting off Saudi Arabia and any nation that doesn't do anything or supports the murdering and imprisonment of LGBT?

Quote
Declaring "a man can't be a woman" when this is not true holds up the idea that trans individuals as a sick other.  Why shouldn't accept that some people are different genders then their bodies at birth?
If someone wants to call themselves a man if they are a woman, go ahead. But please. At least prove it on a scientific basis per patient that these people actually aren't factually the gender they appear as at birth.  Even if it's not proven, it's not really my concern because it's not harming me or anyone else. They're not proven to hurt anyone else anyways.

Quote
If I said right now that I did not believe in catholic rights, would you really say there was no injustice in that?

Catholicism is a religion. Both are choices ultimately, though one may not be one based on a plurality of factors. An equally valid choice, but a choice nonetheless. So I would have problems with that, since Catholics and related ethnic groups have been long persecuted in the United States the same as transgenders are today and for some time.
Logged

FartsOfNeil

  • The Avatardist
  • Posts: 93
  • Savage... Brutal... Bendt.
    • Art of Neil
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2016, 02:16:52 PM »

If someone doesn't want to bake a cake specifically for gay marriages, so what? African Americans shouldn't be forced to bake racist cakes for the KKK, Jews shouldn't have to bake Nazi cakes, or Muslims shouldn't be forced to bake anti-Islamic cakes.

Bear in mind you are supporting KKK the right to refuse black people cake, Nazi's refusing Jews cake, and 'anti-islamics' refusing Muslims.  Thing about freedom is it's a packaged deal.  You don't get to pick and choose who gets to express themselves or why.

Just saiyan...

Logged

Loopy

  • False Prime
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • I'm Loooooopy!
    • My Fanfic @ tumblr
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2016, 06:35:07 PM »

I'm actually fairly confused about the "wedding cake" examples. My understanding of businesses is that they have the right to refuse service to anyone, thus accounting for why they can tell a belligerent customer to take their business elsewhere. Is it only illegal to refuse service if it's clearly stated to be for racist reasons (or other reasons specifically called out by explicit laws)? In that case, could a KKK baker get by simply by denying service to non-whites without stating a reason?

As with a lot of laws, the enforcement is where I have most of my questions. But I'm an engineer, so implementation and edge-cases are what naturally captivate me.
Logged

BySt0rm

  • Posts: 8
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2016, 10:20:46 PM »

If someone doesn't want to bake a cake specifically for gay marriages, so what? African Americans shouldn't be forced to bake racist cakes for the KKK, Jews shouldn't have to bake Nazi cakes, or Muslims shouldn't be forced to bake anti-Islamic cakes.

Bear in mind you are supporting KKK the right to refuse black people cake, Nazi's refusing Jews cake, and 'anti-islamics' refusing Muslims.  Thing about freedom is it's a packaged deal.  You don't get to pick and choose who gets to express themselves or why.

Just saiyan...

So we're really going to go George Orwell's 1984? Just persecute people on their thoughts and beliefs alone and not their actions? The problem with how it's dishonestly portrayed by news anchors and some bloggers  is that it's only  straight male Christians' problems. There are many groups outside of Christianity that oppose homosexuality, and false equivalencies can't really explain how a Christian in more cases than not won't kill you for your beliefs or sexuality. We honestly don't want to go down the road of thoughtcrimes like Europe, specifically the UK, has where just saying the wrong thing, not threats mind you, can get you jailed or fined. It's just fascism and communism, plain and simple.

You don't have to approve or agree with any of those viewpoints in order to protect people's right to say them. Nor does having the right to say them give you immunity from criticism. I don't agree with any of them to be honest, but it doesn't mean I believe a business should be coerced to serving people they have no intention of actually serving on an equal level as their other clientele.

I'm not picking and choosing. If you own the business, it's private property. Just because it can serve people of the public doesn't mean it has to necessarily. They could even choose to serve it only to one group of five random people on any given day. Most fancy restaurants discriminate based on the fact of dress code and money, or movie theaters in the sense of those who aren't courteous, let alone businesses who refuse people who are half naked and don't wear any shoes, or walk with a dog [unless it's a seeing eye dog] into a store.  Or the fact that many stores give their members discounts versus non-members. Is that discrimination wrong?The only reason why people are upset is because of entitlement culture because they believe that cakes are as vital as education, food, water and shelter. And it's plainly crazy.

They believe they have every right to force a business to do everything in their whims, without acknowledging the rights of private business owners. On the other end of the issue,  Jim Crow banned businesses from serving racial minorities, even when some would've gladly done so. Either way, the government has no right to violate private businesses' right to freedom of association, even if their views are contrary to the groupthink. Why should the government have the power to segregate or force association in private locations anyways?

It's not freedom if it's forced morality, no matter how benign it sounds on paper. Like how safe spaces are basically transforming into a modern form of racial  and ideological segregation. Would you rather actually know where people stand and actually get the service you feel you deserve and support people you believe need it, or would would want to give patronage to a business where the owners oppose your beliefs, stances, or who you are? Why would someone go to people they know they wouldn't support just to start something for no reason at all other than broken feelings?

I'm actually fairly confused about the "wedding cake" examples. My understanding of businesses is that they have the right to refuse service to anyone, thus accounting for why they can tell a belligerent customer to take their business elsewhere. Is it only illegal to refuse service if it's clearly stated to be for racist reasons (or other reasons specifically called out by explicit laws)? In that case, could a KKK baker get by simply by denying service to non-whites without stating a reason?

As with a lot of laws, the enforcement is where I have most of my questions. But I'm an engineer, so implementation and edge-cases are what naturally captivate me.
In an ideal world, any businesses would be able to refuse anyone for any reason so long as they're belligerent or making a scene or against beliefs, thus ensuring their freedoms of association to be protected. I don't believe  I believe it's illegal if its explicit and outright refusal to serve.

The enforcement is generally lopsided in some respects, or rather the public opinion aspect is lopsided.
Logged

FartsOfNeil

  • The Avatardist
  • Posts: 93
  • Savage... Brutal... Bendt.
    • Art of Neil
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2016, 08:23:46 PM »

I'm not picking and choosing.

Yes you were.  You absolutely were.  Your comment clearly introduced an example of the oppressors vs. the oppressed:

Quote
If someone doesn't want to bake a cake specifically for gay marriages, so what?

Then the very next sentence are a series of examples of the oppressed vs. their oppressors:

Quote
African Americans shouldn't be forced to bake racist cakes for the KKK, Jews shouldn't have to bake Nazi cakes, or Muslims shouldn't be forced to bake anti-Islamic cakes.

With no qualifying information to clarify the difference, thus presenting them as if they were the same.  It was deliberate, intellectually dishonest and exceptionally distasteful, especially if you're going to try and deny such a blatant fallacy.

That's not to say I disagreed with the base concept.  Yes, freedom isn't free, but that's because the price of freedom is that it gives power to oppressor and oppressed alike equally, because it doesn't work as needed unless it is without bias.  If you're going to claim to do the same, I'd recommend you start presenting your arguments as such.  If nothing else, it will be less likely to invite my smarm.
Logged

BySt0rm

  • Posts: 8
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2016, 01:07:22 AM »

I'm not picking and choosing.

Yes you were.  You absolutely were.  Your comment clearly introduced an example of the oppressors vs. the oppressed:

They're equal. Either it's handled as all the same, or don't. You can't choose to have different standards for different people. That's why the enforcement of the law in the legal system is as messed up as it is. That is how I'm presenting the very argument, and if you misunderstood, that would have to be my responsibility for not articulating it well enough in my writing..


Quote
With no qualifying information to clarify the difference, thus presenting them as if they were the same.  It was deliberate, intellectually dishonest and exceptionally distasteful, especially if you're going to try and deny such a blatant fallacy.

That's not to say I disagreed with the base concept.  Yes, freedom isn't free, but that's because the price of freedom is that it gives power to oppressor and oppressed alike equally, because it doesn't work as needed unless it is without bias.  If you're going to claim to do the same, I'd recommend you start presenting your arguments as such.  If nothing else, it will be less likely to invite my smarm.

Here is what I mean.  It's all about the freedom of association and protecting that. If we force inclusiveness by the force of law, then it is about as bad as using the same force of law to enforce exclusiveness. Both limit if not eliminate any freedom of choice and association by customers and or business owners alike. Businesses if they consider their views as an integral part of their business should be able to be honest about their views as customers can choose not to support them. 

It's another where there are these types merely do it for the sake of attention and provocation for the sake of retweets and page views.  You can't pick and choose who gets the right to say anything or be free to do, or otherwise it's censorship. This is Regressivism in a nutshell. Force people to believe what they believe or else. It's the same as what the Far Right has done, and it's as dangerous. If these people were as classically liberal as they claim to be, they would realize that only protecting  their favored groups and not the entire population's rights is anathema towards actual freedom. Replace the Christian baker couple with an Muslim one for instance, and critics would be called bigots. The vocal minority dominating the conversation does not hold people to an equal standard. Law and order means nothing if only a certain part of the population is expected to abide by the law, while another segment can wholly ignore it without legal or moral action. 

I'm just arguing that just because I don't agree with a business owner's views, they have no right to have a business. If their beliefs however are involved in them directly harming people, then my sympathies dwindle to zero. Every company has CEOs with personal biases and opinions and  get involved into funding for campaigns , and that's perfectly fine until there's  a reform that gets money out of politics. The issue is that some hold the opinion that only companies that have viewpoints that align with their own should be allowed to exist, and that's ignorant.

I would be fine with anti-discrimination laws if they were enforced towards everyone and equally across the board because there are places where they are the only game in town, and I can understand that side of the argument. The only flip side is that there are places where you can do service. If this happened to Muslims instead and it was deemed acceptable,  I would be opposed. It doesn't matter to who people are and what they believe in so long as they're not directly harming people with threats and or violence. It goes towards any sort of relationship in society.



« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 02:03:27 AM by BySt0rm »
Logged

FartsOfNeil

  • The Avatardist
  • Posts: 93
  • Savage... Brutal... Bendt.
    • Art of Neil
Re: LGBT rights
« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2016, 11:53:13 AM »

I'm not picking and choosing.

Yes you were.  You absolutely were.  Your comment clearly introduced an example of the oppressors vs. the oppressed:

They're equal. Either it's handled as all the same, or don't. You can't choose to have different standards for different people. That's why the enforcement of the law in the legal system is as messed up as it is. That is how I'm presenting the very argument, and if you misunderstood, that would have to be my responsibility for not articulating it well enough in my writing..

I didn't misunderstand a thing.  The statements weren't being used to argue legality.  They were arguing a moral standpoint while trying to deliberately side-step the issue of societal power dynamics as it applies to freedom of expression in about the clumsiest manner possible.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
 

Page created in 0.138 seconds with 23 queries.