Jump to content


Photo

LGBT Rights (Part 4)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
837 replies to this topic

#1 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,116 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 28 June 2015 - 04:17 AM

Previous Thread

 

 

Okay, people.  This is a thread about LGBT rights.  Racist or sexist commentary to establish your point about LGBT issues is not appropriate.  This is a warning.
 

two straight people can have sex and get aids just like if two gays do it.
 
The only reason why their are more gays with aids is because they had more partners.

 
 

But AIDS in the US originated in the gay community and spread to other people due to bi's having sex with aids infected gays and then with normal women. If they're going to have irresponsible sex, they should at least keep it amongst themselves.

 
 

Aids at one time was a myth. Everyone during that time period was practicing unprotected sex. The only difference is gays at the time didn't settle with only one person. That is the only reason why there where more gays with the disease than straight people.

 
 

What do you mean AIDS at one time was a myth? The first documented case of AIDS was from a gay man in manhattan in 1979.

 
 

Why scrutinize same sex couples?
 
Are there any longterms studies that indicate biracial couples have mentally and emotionally healthy children?
 
what about kids from dwarfs? ect. 
 
 
 
 
 
:huh:
 
it isn't just the black community that has single parent household.
 
 
 
 
 
 
I don't think anyone could really anything at this point. with a surrogate no one could say anything, at least not to the biological parent. a bisexual person could also just have a kid and raise it with their partner.

 
 

Actually that's a great idea. Let's study biracial couples. I am most certain that the evidence WILL show that mixed race children have a bunch of psychological problems because of their identity. From there we get one stop closer to banning interracial marriage. 
About dwarves, it's about the absence of a mother or father figure in one's life, not about how good of a parent each parent is. 
 
 
 
 
No, but they have an extremely high rate of single parent upbringing.

 
 

Aids a myth despite killing millions . i bet you think holocaust is a myth too? 

 
No. It's because anal sex unprotected is disgusting and when you get shit onto your genetals and don't clean it, you get infections and diseases. 
Anal sex is both morally and physically disgusting.

 
 

he claimed it originating from gay men is a myth.

 
 

Aids at one time was a myth. "

 
 

I'm not saying forbidding gay marriage leads to discrimination. I am saying it is discrimination. If you don't think it is, I'd like to hear your reasons, but so long as you don't think it is, I can understand why you're against the federal government's interference.


Edited by FrostyMouse, 28 June 2015 - 09:31 AM.
Warning for posters


#2 Ganderath

Ganderath

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 945 posts
  • LocationSerbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

   2    2   

Posted 28 June 2015 - 04:24 AM

http://streamable.com/kwyj

 

BRINGING THE HEAT


9uDrnRm.png


#3 FrostyMouse

FrostyMouse

    Life

  • Moderators
  • 3,159 posts
  • LocationStamford Bridge

Posted 28 June 2015 - 09:31 AM

Okay, people.  This is a thread about LGBT rights.  Racist or sexist commentary to establish your point about LGBT issues is not appropriate.  This is a warning.


ilhd1c.jpg


#4 ddboy102

ddboy102

    Less Beautiful than DEW

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,009 posts

Posted 28 June 2015 - 12:35 PM

http://streamable.com/kwyj

 

BRINGING THE HEAT

 

 

it's kinda hard to understand him so I'll give him the benefit of doubt. :shrug:



#5 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 28 June 2015 - 01:38 PM


I'm not saying forbidding gay marriage leads to discrimination. I am saying it is discrimination. If you don't think it is, I'd like to hear your reasons, but so long as you don't think it is, I can understand why you're against the federal government's interference.

 

Like I've said, they technically have the same rights, as two straight people of the same sex can't marry either. What arguing that "denying same sex couples marriage = discrimination" comes down to is that you're saying people are discriminated against because some people, who aren't necessarily even all gay, can't just do whatever they want. That logic can be applied to virtually anything. 


Edited by TridentPuff, 28 June 2015 - 02:13 PM.


#6 ddboy102

ddboy102

    Less Beautiful than DEW

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,009 posts

Posted 28 June 2015 - 02:11 PM


, as two straight people can't marry either
'

 

what?

 

explain. you mean 2 straight women/men can't marry 



#7 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 28 June 2015 - 02:14 PM

'

 

what?

 

explain. you mean 2 straight women/men can't marry 

 

yeah that was an unfurnished sentence but as stated earlier i meant two straight people of the same sex. 


Edited by TridentPuff, 28 June 2015 - 02:20 PM.


#8 Goddess Nike

Goddess Nike

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts
  • LocationIn Despair

Posted 28 June 2015 - 08:44 PM

There seems to be a lot I've missed and while I don't have much time now a few things have caught my eye.

First of all pedophilia does not relate to older minor teenagers at all, to even bring them up is a display of ignorance more than anything; it relates to young children generally of prepubscent age. The distinction is not at all arbritrary but if anyone doesn't know the difference between a prepubscent child and a postpubscent than the only thing I can suggest is going to middle school and paying attention in Biology this time around.

Focusing on postpubscent minors alone, the age of consent does indeed have a degree of arbritrariness as do most of our laws from posted speed limits to sentencing times for criminals. However nothing about a law being arbritrary equates to it being unreasonable. Minors are not considered full fledged members of society and we place various kinds of of limits on them from when they can drive, work, drink, enlist in the military, get married, vote, etc. Most age limits regardless of what they are for could never be so perfect that they couldn't be moved a year or two in either direction but so long as the reasoning for having an age limit in the first place is reasonable than the line has to be drawn somewhere since the alternative is not having one at all which often offers no benefit and introduces vast potential for harm.

Even if it is argued that this is a type of discrimination it's not at all comparable to discriminations based on intrinsic qualities such as race or gender because one is saying because you are "X" you can't do "A", "B", or "C" period while the other is saying you are restricted from doing "A", "B", or "C" until reach a certain level behavioral maturity and cognitive delvelopment which while not 100% universal is extremely consistent enough to use as a rational basis and typical occurs near the latter part of puberty. Being told to wait until the right time is nowhere equivalent to outright bigotry.

At any rate all of this is a blatantly transparent attempt to give some homophobic ideas credibility by erroneously attaching them to other (irrelevant) ideas that people may find contentious. The line of thinking that if we allow a sexual deviancy like homosexuality why can't we allow all this other random stuff  is circular logic that already assumes homosexuality is even a form a sexual deviancy to begin with rather than natural part of the scale human orientation as indicated by the medical and scientific community and as with evolution opposed almost entirely by people from the religious right or otherwise those that are just plain ignorant whose claims are rarely ever quantifiable and when they are often don't hold up to basic academic scrutiny or common sense. If any of you guys want to seriously discuss incest, pedophilia, or anything else than open a thread for because here it serves no purpose here other than a red herring argument and non sequitor since it has literally no intrinisc relationship to homesexuality. If you can't form an argument against homosexuality that doesn't derive from specious analogies than you're just derailing the thread (speaking from experience since this literally the same stuff that was discussed in part 1).
 

Like I've said, they technically have the same rights, as two straight people of the same sex can't marry either.


I'm not sure how obtuse one has to be in order to think this constitutes as a remotely reasonable argument. People are discriminated against in different ways, in this case gender is not the sole or even main culprit but rather the basis for discrimination is on sexual orientation itself. That two straight men can't get married to each other is literally, entirely irrelevant because the ban was based against a certain orientation, that of homosexuality, which as heterosexual men is completely inconsequential to them. Most people that are against gay marriage or gay relationships can at least acknowledge as it as discrimination but think it's fully justified because of god or something ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that anyone could not see the difference, even if they technically apply in a nonsensical hypothetical scenario disciminations opposed specifically against the sexual orientation of homosexuality are irrelevant to heterosexual people.

Now a debate about SCOTUS' role in the decision is at least a productive one relevant to the thread, though that seems primarily a debate about the roles and limits of the branches of government which could be it's own thread entirely.

Anyway that's it for me for awhile I don't have as much free time as some of you seem to, hopefully this thread is moving in an actually productive direction when I return though I'm not optimistic given how far down the quality of the debate forum has gone in recent years.


  • DaEvilWithin, DarkNemesis and Tale like this


2h7297a.jpg

Pro Scientia Atque Sapientia


#9 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 28 June 2015 - 09:52 PM


Focusing on postpubscent minors alone, the age of consent does indeed have a degree of arbritrariness as do most of our laws from posted speed limits to sentencing times for criminals. However nothing about a law being arbritrary equates to it being unreasonable. Minors are not considered full fledged members of society and we place various kinds of of limits on them from when they can drive, work, drink, enlist in the military, get married, vote, etc. Most age limits regardless of what they are for could never be so perfect that they couldn't be moved a year or two in either direction but so long as the reasoning for having an age limit in the first place is reasonable than the line has to be drawn somewhere since the alternative is not having one at all which often offers no benefit and introduces vast potential for harm.

 

You're missing the point. If these age limits aren't perfect, yes, nothing stops them from moving a year or two down. And then what stops them from moving down again? Does someone magically go from being a post-pubescent child to a pre-pubescent child with the snap of your fingers? What marks the onset of puberty? As long as the criteria, or "reasonable reasoning" for deciding these age limits aren't perfect, the entire concept of an age limit being an effective preventive measure from allowing someone too young to do something from engaging in that activity is vulnerable. 

 

 

 


that already assumes homosexuality is even a form a sexual deviancy to begin with rather than natural part of the scale human orientation as indicated by the medical and scientific community

 

Deviate (v). To depart from an established course or norm. 

 

Heterosexual hehavior, exhibited by 90% of the population, is the norm. Homosexuality is a form of sexual deviancy by definition. The definition doesn't change because it's connotation hurts someone's feelings. 

 

 

 


I find it hard to believe that anyone could not see the difference, even if they technically apply in a nonsensical hypothetical scenario disciminations opposed specifically against the sexual orientation of homosexuality are irrelevant to heterosexual people.
 

 

So by not allowing schizophrenics to go around killing people that make them feel paranoid, are we discriminating against the mentally ill? 


Edited by TridentPuff, 28 June 2015 - 09:55 PM.


#10 Goddess Nike

Goddess Nike

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts
  • LocationIn Despair

Posted 28 June 2015 - 10:44 PM

In case it wasn't somehow clearly obvious I wasn't refering to mere statistical deviance otherwise left handed people, vegans, or wealthy indviduals would all be considered deviants in that sense; I'm refering to the type of malignant or harmful deviance along the lines of sociopaths and the mentally unstable. Didn't think I had to spell out that connotation but I always overestimate this forum. Also I'm not missing the point of anything at all but as I said if you seriously want my views on such topics then open a thread for them, I won't be a part of a chaotic mess where we're talking gender wage gap, interracial marriage, and gun control all in one thread especially when it has nothing to do with anything.



2h7297a.jpg

Pro Scientia Atque Sapientia


#11 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 28 June 2015 - 11:11 PM

A 19 year old that has sex with a 17 year old will be considered a pedophile in America. 


"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler


#12 ddboy102

ddboy102

    Less Beautiful than DEW

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,009 posts

Posted 28 June 2015 - 11:15 PM

A 19 year old that has sex with a 17 year old will be considered a pedophile in America. 

 

wrong thread.



#13 ryuzaki07

ryuzaki07

    N00b

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • LocationOuter Haven

Posted 29 June 2015 - 08:16 AM

A 19 year old that has sex with a 17 year old will be considered a pedophile in America.

Imagine if the gay marriage law has a bypass for pedophily.

Like, say a male 15 yo and a 40 yo decide to get married, and because none of the states can deny gay marriage no more they get married with no issues.

Let's hope the law took that into consideration.

Posted Image


#14 Oben

Oben

    Coffee and Cake

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,091 posts

User's Awards

         2   

Posted 29 June 2015 - 08:23 AM

Laws on one matter don't just magically disappear just because a law on another matter was changed. Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't change anything in existing pedophilia laws. Why would it? It's not like hetero-marriage overrules the rule either.



#15 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 29 June 2015 - 09:08 AM


Laws on one matter don't just magically disappear just because a law on another matter was changed. Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't change anything in existing pedophilia laws. Why would it? It's not like hetero-marriage overrules the rule either.

 

That is, unfortunately not the case.

 

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

 

When establishing the case for gay marriage, legal counsel and lgbt supporters were pointing at hetero-marriage to say that it essentially consists of two consenting people who love each other and therefore gain these benefits and that they should not be prevented from having the same thing. (Obviously, it was a bit more complex than this, but simplifying for sake of my own time).  

 

Hetero marriage set a precedent for gay marriage (which, yes, is a little hilarious for those keeping score).

 

What I suggest is being argued by others here, is that gay marriage is going to set a precedent for other unusual forms of marriage. 


  • Passingby and Miss.J like this

tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#16 Oben

Oben

    Coffee and Cake

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,091 posts

User's Awards

         2   

Posted 29 June 2015 - 09:15 AM

Aw crap, common law. I'm not too familar with it, but nonetheless, I doubt it makes a difference here. Forgive me if not ^^
 

That is, unfortunately not the case.
 
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
 
When establishing the case for gay marriage, legal counsel and lgbt supporters were pointing at hetero-marriage to say that it essentially consists of two consenting people who love each other and therefore gain these benefits and that they should not be prevented from having the same thing. (Obviously, it was a bit more complex than this, but simplifying for sake of my own time).  
 
Hetero marriage set a precedent for gay marriage (which, yes, is a little hilarious for those keeping score).
 
What I suggest is being argued by others here, is that gay marriage is going to set a precedent for other unusual forms of marriage.

 

That's not what ryuzaki's point was though if I understood it correctly. Ryuzaki's point was that in it's current form, homosexual marriage would allow for homosexual pedophilia if not specifically accounted for. That isn't the case, since, as you posted, consenting is required by the preceeding form (hetero marriage), and children under the age of consent are not capable of consenting to begin with, which applies to hetero as much as to homo, no?



#17 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 29 June 2015 - 09:57 AM

Ahh, I had thought he was talking about precedent. If not, sorry I brought it up. 


tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#18 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,116 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 29 June 2015 - 12:15 PM

Like I've said, they technically have the same rights, as two straight people of the same sex can't marry either. What arguing that "denying same sex couples marriage = discrimination" comes down to is that you're saying people are discriminated against because some people, who aren't necessarily even all gay, can't just do whatever they want. That logic can be applied to virtually anything. 

 

Then apply it to virtually anything and let me see how ridiculous the position is, if it is :shrug:

 

As I already pointed out before, that technicality has nothing to do with the situation as it stood in practice. The gay marriage ban was not an inconvenience to straight couples, but it was an inconvenience for gay couples. To make a hypothetical and deliberately extreme example, if everyone under the law had the right to get injection A but not injection B, and a certain section of the population needed injection B and not injection A, then the law is discriminatory as it is implemented with respect to the actual state of affairs, even if it is treating everyone the same.

 

You see, it's not enough to treat everyone the same way for a law to be non-discriminatory, and sometimes a law is discriminatory because it treats everyone the same way, ignoring the fact that they have different needs. In this case, the law discriminated against homosexuals by acting as if they were heterosexuals, in other words, by treating them as if they (and their needs) didn't exist (or worse, characterizing them as a bad thing...)


Edited by Tale, 29 June 2015 - 12:27 PM.

  • Goddess Nike likes this

#19 Passingby

Passingby

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,508 posts
  • LocationWindy City

Posted 29 June 2015 - 12:17 PM

Rehash of thread 1 and 2: And this is why I ascribe to the libertarian principle to autonomize marriage from its legal aspects and divorce it of any social status imputed to it. The governement, federal and state, have no business legislating marriage because it's a private ceremony/ritual. In the same way, that it's outside of its purview to state which relationships are acceptable or not. 
 
What exactly did gay couples gained from a 'legal' marriage? A piece of paper. A certificate, so that they can join assets, file joined taxes, petition fiancees/partners and bring them here from abroad, gain some social benefits when raising a household that is below or at poverty level, etc. These are things that can be discussed, settled, and arranged among the parties involved in their 'union' without necessarily circling that 'married' status on a form. Marriages are not uniform (eg. prenuptials) and it sometimes takes as much legal leg-work for a 'union' to be finalized apart from the marriage ceremony itself. So I find it strange that the government wants to uniformize it and in effect create a social status out of a private (and religious) ceremony/ritual. It's really bizarre that marriage has to be 'legalized.' Marriage should not be a basis of anything that deals with the government. 

  • TridentPuff, Misty and Miss.J like this

YouTube: • MV 레드벨벳 • 

 

crYWlPI.gif

RED VELVET


#20 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 29 June 2015 - 01:17 PM


As I already pointed out before, that technicality has nothing to do with the situation as it stood in practice. The gay marriage ban was not an inconvenience to straight couples, but it was an inconvenience for gay couples. To make a hypothetical and deliberately extreme example, if everyone under the law had the right to get injection A but not injection B, and a certain section of the population needed injection B and not injection A, then the law is discriminatory as it is implemented with respect to the actual state of affairs, even if it is treating everyone the same.
 
You see, it's not enough to treat everyone the same way for a law to be non-discriminatory, and sometimes a law is discriminatory because it treats everyone the same way, ignoring the fact that they have different needs. In this case, the law discriminated against homosexuals by acting as if they were heterosexuals, in other words, by treating them as if they (and their needs) didn't exist (or worse, characterizing them as a bad thing...)

 

That's an extremely dangerous door to open. In the injection analogy, it may be easy to see and define what the specific needs are for the group in question, but in a more general sense, how do you define what the specific needs are for a group? Is getting married a need for the LGBT community? Is affirmative action a need for the Black community? But then why do middle class Blacks need it more than say, poor Whites or Southeast Asians? Are equal wages a need for women when they are the ones who take maternity leave and the husband is usually the breadwinner of the family? When you decide a law should be slanted due to someone's needs, you need to have a foolproof method of ensuring that their needs truly are needs and do not infringe upon the needs of others. Why can't I argue that the Christian and Muslim communities of certain states have a need to see God's will (the way they interpret it) enforced on earth?


Edited by TridentPuff, 29 June 2015 - 01:41 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users