Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> Out of Context >> RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles
Page 7 of 7«<34567
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
6/4/2014 18:17:04   
liamliam1234liam
Member

Well, it might be in the DNA, but it is not a specific gene. I think someone explained the concept in the previous pages.

Also, hormones and stuff is in accordance with nature. It is effectively predetermined. It can trigger at different times, and the cultural environment can cause you to repress, consciously or unconsciously, natural inclinations, but at no point do you ever truly determine your preference for yourself. It occurs on its own.
DF  Post #: 151
6/4/2014 18:32:58   
Corvus Corax
♥ Senpai ♥


Hey all,

I'm jumping in here as it seems this thread has gone off course a bit. The purpose of this thread isn't to sort out the biological or physiological or even psychological mechanisms of homosexuality. but rather:
quote:

The purpose of this thread is to discuss how far the world has come in terms of the acceptance and acknowledgement of LGBT lifestyles. Granted, there is still room for improvement in all areas, on all sides. In this thread, I would like to open up the OOC to discuss how the emergence of LGBT lifestyles into the public eye and the continued growing acceptance of LGBT lifestyles has changed the face of our world.
Let's please bring the discussion back around to that. Thanks!

Corvus Corax
OOC Head Moderator
AQ AQW  Post #: 152
6/23/2014 0:21:21   
Rose
Member

I think that it is great that this particular group is gaining acceptance.

My only issue is how the group wished to seek acceptance. In America, there wasn't a reason to specifically target marriage, especially since Americans are kind of big on innovation. Something else, like civil unions, could have been chosen to create equality and awareness without as much conflict. Instead, the group insists that equality is granted if and only if the people in the group can marry, which I simply do not buy into.

Like I said, I'm glad this group was successful, but forgive me if I don't feel as though society is actually as accepting as this movement wants us to believe.

Off-topic comment removed. Please stay on topic as CC has mention right above. ~Mecha
Slight edit
-Draketh99


< Message edited by draketh99 -- 6/26/2014 14:37:09 >
AQ  Post #: 153
6/23/2014 17:03:56   
Cataclysm
The fanciest of moustaches


Well, there's a few justifications for gay marriage rather than just going for civil unions, not the least of which would be the benefits granted by marriage to married couples which civil unions do not afford. There's also a certain pride in the recognition that the person isn't just a "life partner" or what-have-you, but actually a spouse. Then there's the Brown v Board of Education position, which I find to be the most well-backed idea and one I've personally used more than once.

The legal benefits granted to married couples are pretty significant; things like being able to see your loved one on his or her deathbed, which you can't do unless you're a.) family, or b.) married. Reworking these laws granting married couples benefits could be done, but it'd be an extremely lengthy and arduous process, compared to the simplicity of just changing the legal requirements of marriage. It's literally the difference between a few words in a single law versus having to revise the phrasing across numerous laws. From a lawmaker's standpoint, it's significantly easier to just change the laws regarding marriage, rather than changing how EVERY OTHER law relating to how marriage works.

The pride one is more of a personal matter. Though it's nice to have someone, there's a certain pride I've noticed associated with referring to your wife/husband. Rather different than the "Oh, that's my girlfriend." statements of a dating phase, there's a lot more to it. It shows commitment, and a large degree of both trust and love. People want to be able to hold that kind of pride - how many people dreamed of a wedding when they were little? Even when they were older? The word "marriage" carries a lot of emotional feelings with it, and people, regardless of orientation, tend to want to have that kind of influence.

The legal logic is my favorite, though. Brown vs Board of Education was a Supreme Court case during the era of segregation that literally ended the practice. Its primary ruling was that "separate but equal is inherently unequal." There's a bit more to it than just that, but that's the nutshell ruling. What this basically means is that, even if you have two inherently equal ideas (say if we FINALLY equate "civil unions" with "marriage" in both law and practice), there's an inherent imbalance because one group will still feel marginalized. Though originally used to revoke such practices as different water fountains for the racial barrier, it can also be applied here - yes, a civil union and marriage might be "equal" on paper, but that doesn't change the emotional draw or divide created by being forced into something different from what the rest of the people can get.

I hope that clarified why the movement is so focused on getting gay marriage - or as we'd just like to call it, marriage - allowed across the country.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 154
6/23/2014 23:35:20   
Superemo
Constructive!


My personal theory on this is that the government has absolutely no business being involved in marriage in the first place. Marriage is a religious institution, and the government should have no control over who someone can or can't marry. I believe that it is a choice for any consenting adults to be wed, and any religious authority willing to authorize that union should be allowed their right to do so.
Furthermore, I think no marriage should have any special provisions under any laws, nor should any marriage be a legal matter. I believe that what the government should recognize on a legal level is civil unions, as they are solely issued by governments, with no involvement from any religious institution.

Now, before anyone gets on my case about this, keep in mind that I'm actually strongly for equal marriage rights. The way I see it, a government shift from issuing marriages to exclusively issuing civil unions is the only way to make people see exactly what they're opposing. As it stands now, people can cloud this civil rights issue with religion. Once you remove religion from the equation, though, you can get to the actual problem: some people are being denied rights granted to other people due to something that's out of their control. So, the simplest way to solve the problem is to: 1. Revoke the state's rights to perform marriages, 2. Afford all rights currently provided to marriages to civil unions, 3. Copy over all current, government-recognized marriages to civil unions, and 4. Remove all legal status involving marriages, citing marriage as being a strictly religious institution and a realm where the government has no right to intervene.

Just my opinion on this, though. I can't say how easy or difficult to implement this would be, but I can guarantee you that it would afford marriage rights to everyone (many churches would be willing to perform same-sex marriages were they allowed to) and bring the debates to the actual issues presented.
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 155
6/24/2014 20:07:56   
Rose
Member

They could have left marriage alone and reworked the 'benefits' portion of the civil union to match the marriage laws. It doesn't appear to be as complicated as what you are making it out to be. There is a chance that I am wrong.

quote:

What Is Marriage?

Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.

What Is a Civil Union?

A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united. States that have domestic partnership or civil union laws include Colorado, Hawaii, and Illinois.


________________

Regarding marriage pride, it has long since diminished with the rates of divorce and the increased rates of couples choosing to not marry. Many people hold the belief that the marriage certificate is 'just a piece of paper'.

______________________________

Regarding Brown vs. Board of Education, I get what you are saying, but it's speculation. It is impossible to know if one group would actually feel marginalized based on the idea that there are different words to describe the exact same thing if they made civil union benefits match marriage benefits. Furthermore, it is impossible to know which group will actually feel marginalized. It is completely possible that those who are married would feel marginalized due to the idea that civil unions could be perceived as better if they were changed.

___________________________



To clarify, my point isn't that this group doesn't deserve the 'benefits', my point is that the group made more conflict than what was necessary. In addition, there are other groups that are just as deserving, maybe more deserving, of gaining attention. Follow through is fine, but it's time to move onto other groups while society still believes that acceptance is a good thing.

< Message edited by Rose -- 6/24/2014 20:09:11 >
AQ  Post #: 156
6/24/2014 20:22:10   
Mordred
Member

@Rose: "Separate but equal is inherently unequal." Even if civil unions granted the exact same rights as marriage, it would still be unequal(especially considering the religious ties that come with marriage). Even if you use the "marriage is traditional, you can't change marriage!" argument, it holds no water considering that marriage has been evolving since its inception. It's always changing, and trying to hold on to tradition for the sake of tradition, rather than actual human emotions and relationships, is only a detriment rather than a boon to what marriage represents. I understand trying to avoid conflict, but honestly, is it really true acceptance if there isn't conflict of some kind? Would it be genuine if there isn't some kind of struggle, either outward or, more importantly, inward? If you avoid the issue, the feelings people harbor towards one another won't change. There's a huge laundry-list of "flip-flopping" politicians who were once strongly anti-gay, but when a relative came out, their policies shifted towards pro-gay. It's not a lack of belief that changed their minds, it was the struggle within the family and within themselves that brought about the change. Because they were faced with the situation, they had to deal with it. I think denying couples their right to marriage in law or in church would only be avoiding such a struggle. Yes, people will be uncomfortable. Some will be outraged even. But it's what ultimately needs to happen for everyone to grow as human beings.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 157
6/24/2014 20:46:58   
Rose
Member

Except that they would be completely equal in every way except the actual word would be different - which is exactly what I am talking about. It would be like arguing that we shouldn't call our significant other 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend', because homosexual and heterosexual couples could be identified that way.

I'm not talking about tradition, so that is a non-sequestur argument that I won't respond to because it doesn't logically follow anything that I have said.

There would still undoubtedly be conflict over the issue. The issue wouldn't be avoided. Also, societal beliefs take a long time to change and it includes more than just seeing other people's struggles or being forced to deal with it. I will say that positive exposure definitely helped the movement and was needed, but how people internalize certain beliefs is done differently.

No, specifically targeting marriage is not what was needed for people to grow - there's that if and only if statement again, just said differently.

< Message edited by Rose -- 6/24/2014 20:55:04 >
AQ  Post #: 158
6/25/2014 2:24:54   
sporetox
Member

@Rose: And then some fast-talking politician uses some clever wording to give more benefits to marriage that Civil Unions would not receive? No. They need to be the same not just for current laws, but for future laws. Separate but equal can't exist because some people will always be trying to better one over the other as long as they are separate.

Marriage is not a religious thing. It may have started that way, but it isn't any longer. And as long as the government is providing benefits to married couples it IS a government issue. Unless the government revokes all marriage benefits, it is their problem.

Marriage laws are still laws. And laws need to change with time, or they will become outdated.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 159
6/26/2014 16:00:05   
Kaelin
 Strange World


quote:

It is impossible to know if one group would actually feel marginalized based on the idea that there are different words to describe the exact same thing if they made civil union benefits match marriage benefits.

It's quite easy to find out: you ask them. Some would consider it enough of a victory to have the same rights, but it is important for many that the terminology is the same. I know many at my church who want full recognition so that they can ultimately be a part of the rest of marriageable society and be able to use the same language as everyone else. It may be surprising, but most just want to fit in. However, they will not belong as long as they're treated differently.

quote:

To clarify, my point isn't that this group doesn't deserve the 'benefits', my point is that the group made more conflict than what was necessary. In addition, there are other groups that are just as deserving, maybe more deserving, of gaining attention. Follow through is fine, but it's time to move onto other groups while society still believes that acceptance is a good thing.

I think it is a disservice to all oppressed groups to say we can only have the capacity to correct injustices (or half-correct them) one at a time. If the dominant majority is so small-minded that we can't juggle many issues and recognize injustices more quickly, if it takes decades of evidence after the medical profession already stopped regarding same-sex attraction as a bad thing, the blame for a protracted "conflict" falls on the unearned-confidence and moral cowardice of the majority (and not the groups it victimizes). If someone else's group is being harmed by society, our impulse needs to add them to the list rather than kick someone else off to make room.

It's also unfair to say "the group made more conflict than what was necessary" given what their antagonists have done to them. The preponderance of violence, denial-of-access, insults, and name-calling is coming from the anti-GLBT side. 98.1% of sexual orientation-motivated crimes in 2012 were committed against people perceived to be GLB, according to the FBI. GLBTs aren't the ones holding up signs saying God hates the other group at funerals. Heterosexuals are the ones who have enjoyed the comforts of invisibility and being able to access institutions, while gay people are called any number of slurs just for existing (although sometimes even heterosexuals are targeted with gay slurs, which reinforces the perceived superiority of heterosexuality). There are some GLB people who go too far, but they've got nothing on the heterosexual side of the ledger. Yet it shouldn't even matter: regardless of instigation ratios, governments must still do the right thing (rather than use reactionary violence from the oppressed group to continue oppressing them).
AQ  Post #: 160
6/29/2014 1:19:57   
Rose
Member

quote:

It's quite easy to find out: you ask them. Some would consider it enough of a victory to have the same rights, but it is important for many that the terminology is the same. I know many at my church who want full recognition so that they can ultimately be a part of the rest of marriageable society and be able to use the same language as everyone else. It may be surprising, but most just want to fit in. However, they will not belong as long as they're treated differently.


I'm really not trying to be offensive, but you asked a small portion of the LGBT population. Unless your church is a megachurch where people come from all over, I am sure your sampling size would not be appropriate to be used to gauge how the majority of LGBT people feel. For example, a LGBT population in California may have very different answers than a LGBT population in Maryland. I am not saying that I know how the LGBT community feels either. It is also impossible to know which group will be marginalized, because this is a hypothetical situation. The only reason why I brought the hypothetical situation up is due to the fact that it is reasonable to believe that there wouldn't be as much conflict over civil unions as opposed to marriage. (if someone wants to debate this, I am willing, but I am assuming no one wants to debate that targeting civil unions would cause the same amount of conflict or more conflict)

If the LGBT actually felt marginalized given the hypothetical situation was real, then I would agree with you. Considering the gender-specific terms related to dating and spouses (girlfriend/boyfriend, husband/wife), the group is already easily identified regardless of if the group targeted marriage or civil unions.

quote:

I think it is a disservice to all oppressed groups to say we can only have the capacity to correct injustices (or half-correct them) one at a time. If the dominant majority is so small-minded that we can't juggle many issues and recognize injustices more quickly, if it takes decades of evidence after the medical profession already stopped regarding same-sex attraction as a bad thing, the blame for a protracted "conflict" falls on the unearned-confidence and moral cowardice of the majority (and not the groups it victimizes). If someone else's group is being harmed by society, our impulse needs to add them to the list rather than kick someone else off to make room.


I think it is a disservice as well, but it is a reality. I can't say what other issues took the spotlight previously, because one of my posts were edited for bringing up other topics - but society generally only focuses on one or two social issues at a time. It isn't perfect, and it never will be. Courts all across America are striking down gay marriage bans, and now it is only a matter of time before gay marriage is recognized across America. I think it's far to say that America can focus on other social issues that have not made so much progress. Also, it will never be 'fully correct'. Without going into too much detail about other social issues, structural discrimination still exists for many minorities.
____________
It can be blamed on society's prevailing social attitudes towards gay people, which has little to do with unearned confidence or moral cowardice and more to do with the actual science of sociology. Beliefs can be changed, but there is a lot more to it then your claim of 'small-mindedness'. (I personally see the small mindedness comment as an insult to the studies of human behavior - like psychology and sociology)


quote:


It's also unfair to say "the group made more conflict than what was necessary" given what their antagonists have done to them. The preponderance of violence, denial-of-access, insults, and name-calling is coming from the anti-GLBT side. 98.1% of sexual orientation-motivated crimes in 2012 were committed against people perceived to be GLB, according to the FBI. GLBTs aren't the ones holding up signs saying God hates the other group at funerals. Heterosexuals are the ones who have enjoyed the comforts of invisibility and being able to access institutions, while gay people are called any number of slurs just for existing (although sometimes even heterosexuals are targeted with gay slurs, which reinforces the perceived superiority of heterosexuality). There are some GLB people who go too far, but they've got nothing on the heterosexual side of the ledger. Yet it shouldn't even matter: regardless of instigation ratios, governments must still do the right thing (rather than use reactionary violence from the oppressed group to continue oppressing them).


I get what you are saying. It doesn't justify that the group created more conflict than what was necessary. The logic behind the justification is as follows (correct me if I am wrong):

A: Gays were not allowed to fully participate in society.
B: The anti-gay people (which is a small portion if you only include people motivated by hate) made the LGBT group suffer.
Therefore, the gays are allowed to specifically target something that would cause much more conflict.

I can see how it can make sense as a justification for seeking equality, but I don't see how it allows the LGBT to target marriage as opposed to civil unions - which made more conflict than what was necessary.

< Message edited by Rose -- 6/29/2014 1:26:33 >
AQ  Post #: 161
6/29/2014 12:39:34   
liamliam1234liam
Member

They are "allowed" because it does not matter how much conflict is caused when you are pursuing equality. If people do not like it, tough.
DF  Post #: 162
6/30/2014 3:44:07   
Kaelin
 Strange World


quote:

I'm really not trying to be offensive, but you asked a small portion of the LGBT population. Unless your church is a megachurch where people come from all over, I am sure your sampling size would not be appropriate to be used to gauge how the majority of LGBT people feel.

The proportion who want it is irrelevant, because the idea is universalize our approach to relationships. Anyone who asks for legalization of same-sex marriage simultaneously wants same-sex unions to also be an option. If there are GLB people who don't want "marriage," they are free to select a "civil union" or nothing at all. Likewise, heterosexual people in relationships who choose to be married, in a civil union, or neither. The key is that consenting pairs of people should be able to make that determination for themselves, with all options on the table.

quote:

I think it is a disservice as well, but it is a reality. ... I think it's far to say that America can focus on other social issues that have not made so much progress.

The problem with this attitude is that you're seeking to ration out justice to people who various groups who face intimidation, an inability to participate in vital institutions, and violence. You may argue from a "practical" standpoint that we can't try to work on everyone at once, but it's not realistic to expect any particular group to take a seat while they're bullied, fired, and murdered just for being in that demographic. Besides, the moment you go out and says your issue is more important than someone else's, another group will come along and say they have an even more important issue than yours that deserves attention first. You're not going to get what you want by standing in the way of someone else's justice.

If you feel some other group deserves attention, you can make a thread in acknowledgement of them (provided the topic meets forum rules).

quote:

(I personally see the small mindedness comment as an insult to the studies of human behavior - like psychology and sociology

These fields are very comfortable acknowledging the negative of human behavior. Both explore the idea of "confirmation bias," where people tend to pay more attention to evidence that supports their beliefs (prejudices) instead of evidence that challenges their beliefs (prejudices). By doing so, people tend to see their beliefs (prejudices) as having more credibility than research would actually suggest. If they hear horrible things are happening to people of "other" demographics they hold prejudices against, they're prone to not take them too seriously or rationalize the target group deserves it. Obviously there is more to people than our prejudices, but they are very much the heart of the problem: if our collective attitude is that we need someone important for us to be a victim before we allow our institutions to fight a particular prejudice, it'll take a super movement before anything will ever get done about it. This is small-mindedness in a nutshell.

quote:

Therefore, the gays are allowed to specifically target something that would cause much more conflict.

You're dead wrong about my point. Gays are not "causing much more conflict" -- it's actually the opposite. I refuted this line already in the paragraph you quoted.

< Message edited by Kaelin -- 6/30/2014 3:45:37 >
AQ  Post #: 163
6/30/2014 16:43:13   
Rose
Member

quote:

They are "allowed" because it does not matter how much conflict is caused when you are pursuing equality. If people do not like it, tough.


Why doesn't it matter?
__________________________

quote:

The proportion who want it is irrelevant, because the idea is universalize our approach to relationships. Anyone who asks for legalization of same-sex marriage simultaneously wants same-sex unions to also be an option. If there are GLB people who don't want "marriage," they are free to select a "civil union" or nothing at all. Likewise, heterosexual people in relationships who choose to be married, in a civil union, or neither. The key is that consenting pairs of people should be able to make that determination for themselves, with all options on the table.


Fair enough. I would still argue that you are making a generalization when you say 'anyone who asks...', but it's a moot point because my original point is to make marriage = civil unions. Edit (for clarity): The very core of the movement is for the couple be recognized as a couple. The difference between marriage and civil unions when both could be equal would be the moot point that I am referring to.

Yes - people, regardless of sexual orientation, can make a choice to get married or have a civil union. My original point (the original argument not related to sampling size) is to make marriage = civil unions and the only difference would be in the word and that doing so would create less conflict.

quote:

The problem with this attitude is that you're seeking to ration out justice to people who various groups who face intimidation, an inability to participate in vital institutions, and violence. You may argue from a "practical" standpoint that we can't try to work on everyone at once, but it's not realistic to expect any particular group to take a seat while they're bullied, fired, and murdered just for being in that demographic. Besides, the moment you go out and says your issue is more important than someone else's, another group will come along and say they have an even more important issue than yours that deserves attention first. You're not going to get what you want by standing in the way of someone else's justice.


It's not an attitude. I'd love to help the other groups, but the reality is the politicians and media focus on one or two issues at a time. I never expressed or implied that any group will take a seat, just that not every group will get the attention they deserve. Gay rights took the stage for 10 years, and the reality of the situation is that they are going through the states right now and the state's rights are getting overruled. Unless you are really going to argue that some state is going to successfully keep their previous laws of marriage when so many states have seen their marriage laws struck down, then I think it's fair to say it's time to move on to another social issue.

quote:

These fields are very comfortable acknowledging the negative of human behavior. Both explore the idea of "confirmation bias," where people tend to pay more attention to evidence that supports their beliefs (prejudices) instead of evidence that challenges their beliefs (prejudices). By doing so, people tend to see their beliefs (prejudices) as having more credibility than research would actually suggest. If they hear horrible things are happening to people of "other" demographics they hold prejudices against, they're prone to not take them too seriously or rationalize the target group deserves it. Obviously there is more to people than our prejudices, but they are very much the heart of the problem: if our collective attitude is that we need someone important for us to be a victim before we allow our institutions to fight a particular prejudice, it'll take a super movement before anything will ever get done about it. This is small-mindedness in a nutshell.


I know all about the confirmation bias, self-fulfilling prophecies, and prejudices, but the root of the problem is the fact that people internalize these beliefs before they can confirm any belief. Using other words, a belief must exist before a person can start confirming their belief. And that is so much more than 'simple-mindedness'. I am sure that simple-mindedness is not a psychological condition or term - instead it is a general term. In the general sense, I will agree that I do think 'simple-mindedness' plays a role in some people, but I don't think 'simple-mindedness' is the core of the problem in most people. Internalizing incorrect beliefs is at the core of the problem.

quote:

You're dead wrong about my point. Gays are not "causing much more conflict" -- it's actually the opposite. I refuted this line already in the paragraph you quoted.


This wasn't arguing. I was summarizing your points to understand them better and asked you to correct me if I am wrong.

< Message edited by Rose -- 6/30/2014 18:16:35 >
AQ  Post #: 164
6/30/2014 23:41:03   
Kaelin
 Strange World


If you want to abolish the legal status of marriage for all couples (same-sex and mixed-sex) and just want civil unions in place, with the idea that governments shouldn't be in the business of enforcing a "religious" contract, that is a reasonable purpose. It won't be popular, but it would emphasize a separation of church and state.

If you are instead prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples but keeping it legal for mixed-sex marriage on the basis of avoiding controversy, there are two fatal flaws with this reasoning:

1) The government's obligation is to uphold the Constitution even when doing so is unpopular, and based off of contemporary legal interpretations of constitutional law particularly concerning same-sex marriage, a "compromise" plan violates the 14th Amendment.

2) According to a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Americans support the right to same-sex marriage. There is more controversy in keeping same-sex marriage illegal than actually making it legal, and sentiment is only going to get more lopsided over time.

Society won't "move on" until unqualified marriage equality with respect to sex pairing is realized, so insisting on anything less will only delay the progress on other issues you say you want.
AQ  Post #: 165
7/1/2014 2:13:38   
The Extinguisher
Member

quote:

Regarding Brown vs. Board of Education, I get what you are saying, but it's speculation. It is impossible to know if one group would actually feel marginalized based on the idea that there are different words to describe the exact same thing if they made civil union benefits match marriage benefits. Furthermore, it is impossible to know which group will actually feel marginalized. It is completely possible that those who are married would feel marginalized due to the idea that civil unions could be perceived as better if they were changed.


I'm pretty sure it's the group who have been threatened, oppressed, beaten, and killed that will feel marginalized here. Just an educated guess.




You don't just get to move on from an issue because things are getting better. That attitude is so damaging to everyone. Do you think racism is over because we're no longer enslaving black people? Is misogyny over because women can vote? So why would homophobia be over because same-sex marriage is allowed? That's ridiculous. It's a long, painful process to equality and acceptance, and it's absolutely not okay to tell someone to "move on" because one little thing is better.

Worst of all, language like that encourages the belief that the oppressed are being gifted their freedoms by the oh-so generous oppressors. That we should be happy that we were given same-sex marriage but not to get too pushy for more rights, cause we might lose them. That attitude is everywhere, and it's just disgusting. You're not giving us anything. We are fighting for it, because otherwise you wouldn't give it to us, and you have the gall to tell us that we should be thankful. That the small concession you made for us is more than enough. I mean sure, children are still killing themselves other than face the harassment and abuse that comes from being openly gay in school, but at least we can get married, right?

Note: that 'you' there is a more general you. Not you specifically, Rose, I'm not attacking you for that. It's just the best pronoun to use for the sentiment I was trying to express.
The language your using encourages and reflects similar thoughts. I'm not saying that's necessarily your intention, and it probably isn't, but be more careful with how you word things. Because how you say things is more important than what you're saying.
Post #: 166
7/1/2014 2:47:50   
Senras Wolf
Member

@Rose Like Kaelin said, a society won't move on from an issue until it is resolved. In this case, the LGBT community won't just stop until they can marry just like everyone else. Now, I now what you're saying by marriage being a loaded term and perhaps civil union may be a better alternative, without that religious connotation or such. But you need to clarify exactly what you want changed about marriage or civil union. It's not so simple as just changing the word, in legal circles marriage and civil union carry a lot of more than just different connotations. The legal benefits of civil unions are very limited compared to what a marriage allows and I think that a few people in this thread already talked about some of those differences, such as, when it comes to married pairings, the ability to plan estates, medical insurance, maintaining a will, and recognition of your pairing with regards to travel, economic, and recognition of the institution across and within international borders.

Changing any of that will be a bureaucratic and political endeavor that will take longer than the "10 years" the LGBT community has taken. The federal government and the state will both have to comply, decide, debate, write, propose (not necessarily in that order) and fight until those benefits are comparable. I mean the U.S. is years behind in repairing its highway infrastructure and that's because of the government. If anything this path to be included and have all the options available like any regular "normal" citizen is probably the quickest. So apart from simply being about the ability to pair with the person that you love, it is also about the economic benefits that traditionally has always been associated with the institution of marriage and denying anyone an economic well-being based simply on sexual orientation, and while I'm at it, race, creed, gender, color, and religion is a denial of a persons civil rights and illegal.

And just because same sex marriage is getting slowly recognized at the state level does not the group should move on. If anything this should be the time to maintain the same momentum going forward. Yes, the country is looking at same-sex marriage favorably but that doesn't mean a thing in the long run. If they are not in the marginalized group they easily forget. The worker's movement, the feminist movement, immigrant movements, the african-american movements have lost or have just about begun to lose the influence they have all fought for, as everyone else takes their what they have accomplished for granted. And undermining the movement as if they over stayed their welcome, or talked it out, hinders any ability to actually set in stone what it takes to resolve these issues and finally move on to other conversations that just as desperately, if not more, need the support. I can think of a few more issues off the top of my head that need resolving but we can't have those conversations, if we don't show that we can resolve another.

You pointed out that you would love to see mental health issues get more of a spotlight, that's great. I'm sure you also know that homosexuality, not that long ago, was once seen as a mental illness, too. This belief is still being held with "reparative therapy" sessions still being held in certain parts of the country. Those therapies are dangerous to those that undergo them and any psychologist should be able to help both the LGBT community and the Psychological Community and at the same the society as whole by doing what they can to show those that still hold these belief towards homosexuality that they are normal people by supporting their inclusion into normal institution without having to change anything that specifically is tailored to them because that will only continue to divide them and separate them from their goal.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 167
7/1/2014 6:39:20   
Kaelin
 Strange World


Senras, you've touched on an important idea. While we are progressing overall in terms of acceptance as a society, there is often "slippage" when issues falls out of focus. An ebb and flow of focus is unavoidable, but I don't think we can allow this regression to occur. We need to put this dimensions together (in a "matrix," if you will) so we *can* handle the big picture.

Feminism is a pertinent example because it demonstrates where things can go horribly wrong but where things can go fantastically well. Feminism, at its root, is a movement working for the equality of women in society. Media have often unfortunately described it as some bizarre female-supremacist movement, which has discouraged people who support equality from backing it overtly, but not only is feminism not the caricature that has been painted of it, it has grown from a white middle class-centric movement to one that looks at how discrimination against women affects racial and religious minorities, women of lower economic classes, LBT women, women in different parts of the world, and men (!). While there is some amount of commonality in sexism, there is also a lot of variation in how it manifests and impacts people depending on their background, circumstances, and abilities. The focus on intersectionality has grown feminism into something far beyond what an unacquainted person would imagine.

GLBs benefit as well when they take the larger view, because the experience of being gay or bisexual (which are different in their own right) will vary depending on a similar array of factors. The same is true for transgender people (with transgender including an array of identities and expressions in its own right). GLBTs have often catered to a narrow subgroup of itself (like upper/middle-class gay white men), and while some strides have been made, B and T have often been "silent," certain Ts acknowledge only a limited range of transgender possibilities, and dimensions like race, class, and personality are often cast aside. Even cisgender heterosexuals can benefit from a culture that does not lock them into rigid behaviors or expressions, so they require consideration as well. The "war" can't be won unless we're looking out for everyone. It is not practical to handle hundreds or thousands of dimensions one at a time, but we can commit to a general philosophy that allows us to respond appropriately as each dimension (or combination of dimensions) comes up. Humanism and egalitarianism are words frequently associated with this idea, although there may be other terms to use.

Like how feminism still is concerned with women and girls at its core, the GLBT thread is going to focus primarily on its topic. However, the long view requires that we do seek to do right by everyone. To add to the mental health issues topic, besides the various anti-gay and anti-trans "therapies" and psychiatry that corrupt the field, GLBTs are much more likely to attempt suicide than the general population. Living transgender people in particular have an attempted rate of over 40%. This correspondence is so overwhelming that discussions of mental health and GLBTs ignore each other at their own peril.
AQ  Post #: 168
6/26/2015 18:59:05   
ArchMagus Orodalf
Member

Hooray! It has been so ordered.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 169
6/27/2015 15:45:13   
PD
Member

Let's talk about the supreme court and it's recent decision? Seems relevant to the discussion at hand...
AQ MQ  Post #: 170
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> Out of Context >> RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles
Page 7 of 7«<34567
Jump to:



Advertisement




Icon Legend
New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition