Gay Rights

KirayaTiDrekan · Jun 26, 2015

Bullgrit said:
What's the Q and + mean in LGBTQ+?

Bullgrit

The LGBT acronym has become slightly problematic as more orientations, identities, and genders are recognized and added to it. At last count, the full version was LGBTQQIAAP (I think; even I'm losing track) - which stands for...

Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transgender
Queer
Questioning
Intersex
Agender
Asexual
Pansexual

I think I'm missing a couple. The point is, I use LGBTQ+ as a shortcut, fully acknowledging that it isn't ideal and diminishes certain orientations, genders and identities. MOGAI is a more inclusive alternative, standing for Marginalized Orientations, Genders And Intersex but I'm not a fan of it as I hope that the word "Marginalized" won't be one associated with LGBTQ+ people in the near future.

Janx · Jun 26, 2015

Morrus said:
Isn't that just changing the name, though? After all, a marriage is - in essence - a legal contract, though happens to be surrounded by a swathe of cultural stuff.

I think it's more of a matter that if you're going to insist Marriage is a religious institution then the government must refuse to recognize it. period. Jerks can't have their cake and eat it too. Basically, if you're going to insist that some folks can't get married, then nobody gets to be married.

Umbran · Jun 26, 2015

Janx said:
Basically, if you're going to insist that some folks can't get married, then nobody gets to be married.

That seems to be the basis of today's decision - the 14th Amendment has the "Equal Protection" clause. If you allow something to one person under the law, you cannot disallow it to another without some significant governmental need.

Bullgrit · Jun 26, 2015

I thought "queer" was general homosexual, so I thought the LGB covered that. "Questioning" seems a bit odd, to me. Is that the period before coming to grips with one's LGB... identity, or is it something more long term/permanent?

Agenger, asexual, and pansexual, I understand.

Intersex?

****

As for my picking on a small group -- I shouldn't have, I agree. (And I usually don't, in general.)

But I learned something about picking on even large subjects a long time ago from my then best friend:

My friend was about 6'2" and 250#. I hit him in the arm (as stupid teen boys sometimes do). He winced and said "ouch." I said, "But you're so big." He replied, "It still hurts."

Sometimes we forget things and do/say dumb and regrettable stuff to make funny.

Bullgrit

billd91 · Jun 26, 2015

trappedslider said:
So, now that same sex marriage is legal will the gay rights activist now work on getting Bigamy legalize? What about polygamy? And those who wish to marry in the family? Or was it not really about marriage equality for all,but just for them?

Ah, the brother of the slippery slope argument. I was wondering when this would come up.

Not the same issues at all. Arguing to expand the definition of marriage from mixed-sex, equal, consenting adults to same-sex, equal, consenting adults isn't the same as arguing for polygamy or marrying with an immediate family. Polygamy pretty much always includes unequal relationships and, if you pay attention to the issues of the former-LDS sects that try to practice it, can be pretty abusive. That alone gives the state compelling reason to be skeptical of it in ways that aren't true for same-sex marriages. And as far as marrying within a family, inbreeding can be more problematic than just having a Habsburg lip.

KirayaTiDrekan · Jun 26, 2015

Bullgrit said:
I thought "queer" was general homosexual, so I thought the LGB covered that. "Questioning" seems a bit odd, to me. Is that the period before coming to grips with one's LGB... identity, or is it something more long term/permanent?

Agenger, asexual, and pansexual, I understand.

Intersex?

****

As for my picking on a small group -- I shouldn't have, I agree. (And I usually don't, in general.)

But I learned something about picking on even large subjects a long time ago from my then best friend:

My friend was about 6'2" and 250#. I hit him in the arm (as stupid teen boys sometimes do). He winced and said "ouch." I said, "But you're so big." He replied, "It still hurts."

Sometimes we forget things and do/say dumb and regrettable stuff to make funny.

Bullgrit

You are pretty much correct on Questioning - they are the folks who are unsure of their sexuality or orientation and are exploring their identities. For some, the questioning stage results in affirming an identity, for others they remain fluid and/or questioning.

Intersex are folks born with no sexually identifying genitalia or with multiple sexually identifying genitalia. The archaic and offensive term for this was hermaphrodite.

Dannyalcatraz · Jun 26, 2015

All that, plus bigamy/polygamy throw all kinds of monkey wrenches into legal constructs all across the spectrum. There are valid state reasons not to allow either.

billd91 · Jun 26, 2015

Bullgrit said:
No. Note I said *openly* live. Please don't put words in my mouth, nor twist my words to mean something completely different.

I'm not sure it is completely different. You're expressing skepticism of people letting their freak flag fly whether it's flamboyant gayness or the full frontal nerdity of cosplay. Conform. Blend in. Don't rock the boat. Be more like the broader culture so they'll like you more. But where does the line get drawn? What level of non-conformity is acceptable? What level of conformity will make you comfortable? Why should you, or society at large, get that much of a say in the level of conformity people need to exhibit?

trappedslider · Jun 26, 2015

billd91 said:
Ah, the brother of the slippery slope argument. I was wondering when this would come up.

Not the same issues at all. Arguing to expand the definition of marriage from mixed-sex, equal, consenting adults to same-sex, equal, consenting adults isn't the same as arguing for polygamy or marrying with an immediate family. Polygamy pretty much always includes unequal relationships and, if you pay attention to the issues of the former-LDS sects that try to practice it, can be pretty abusive. That alone gives the state compelling reason to be skeptical of it in ways that aren't true for same-sex marriages. And as far as marrying within a family, inbreeding can be more problematic than just having a Habsburg lip.

I'm not saying slippery slope,i'm saying don't use phrases like " marriage equality" if it's only going to be for a segment of the population. So you want to deny those who chose to be married to more than spouse the legality to do so? That doesn't sound very equal to me.

Dannyalcatraz said:
All that, plus bigamy/polygamy throw all kinds of monkey wrenches into legal constructs all across the spectrum. There are valid state reasons not to allow either.

IF it were to ever happen the system would get fixed i'm sure.

billd91 · Jun 26, 2015

trappedslider said:
I'm not saying slippery slope,i'm saying don't use phrases like " marriage equality" if it's only going to be for a segment of the population. So you want to deny those who chose to be married to more than spouse the legality to do so? That doesn't sound very equal to me.

Nor does one person having a stable of spouses. And that's the rub.