Gay Rights

[Bullgrit]

Originally posted on my blog back in January:

*****
Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender folks — I’m fine with them all. I don’t really give any thought or care about a person’s sexual preference, orientation, or identity. I’ve known only a few openly gay folks in my life, and although one was kind of creepy, (like a sleazy lounge lizard kind of guy), the others were just normal people, normal acquaintances or friends. There may be others in my immediate world that are gay and I just don’t know it. And really, that’s the way it should be; that’s the way normal people are. No normal person, heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual, lives their life with their sexuality printed on their shirt, as if the world just has to know it and accept it in their face. I’ve never personally met the stereotypical, flamboyant gay or butch lesbian, even when I spent a whole evening at a gay/lesbian night club.

I’ve never harassed anyone I thought was gay, at least definitely not to their face. When I was a young and dumb teenager, yes, there was name calling among friends. But that wasn’t really accusations or attacks on their real sexuality any more than using other words meant we thought each other were female dogs or had unmarried parents. Young guys are just jerks to each other. It’s dumb, but it’s the nature of male puberty.

I would not stand by and watch someone be harassed by a bully, whether for their sexuality or skin color or any other reason. And I’d think very low of anyone who did allow harassment in front of them, not to mention I consider those who do harass are total scum.

I have no problem with gay men marrying each other, or lesbian women marrying each other. I don’t see how their marital status affects me at all. But the argument over “gay rights” does confuse me a bit. When I hear how gays are denied rights in the U.S., I wonder what rights do I have that a gay man does not? From all the arguments I’ve heard, it seems that “gay rights” is just a synonym for “gay marriage,” but saying “rights” makes it sound like a much broader and deeper situation. All the rights that the LGBT pundits claim are restricted from gays are those rights that come with marriage. So it seems that the one item, gay marriage, would bring all those other rights. Right?

*****

What are your thoughts about "gay rights"? Would allowing gay marriage generally solve all the gay rights issues?

The link in the above post goes to the story* of my experience at a gay/lesbian night club, (when I was 21 years old, in 1988). How would you feel about going to such a club as a heterosexual?

Bullgrit

* Is safe for work/grandma friendly.

 

[Morrus]

The term broadly includes things like blood donation, adoption, non-discrimination laws, immigration, age of consent laws, legal recognition of gender reassignment, laws relating to military service, and hate crimes.

In the US, the highest profile issue is gay marriage. Though there are many other issues of tolerance, inclusiveness, and acceptance, the marriage issue is the big one.

As a more general worldwide term, it refers also to intolerant countries where many other rights are also denied. Wikipedia tells me 73 countries have criminalized homosexuality.

Last month, Ireland became the first country in the world to allow same-sex marriage via popular vote (referendum).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I’ve never personally met the stereotypical, flamboyant gay or butch lesbian....

I have. Some were nice people, some were not. Whodathunkit?

What are your thoughts about "gay rights"? Would allowing gay marriage generally solve all the gay rights issues?

Not even close. That's just the second major battle- post-Stonewall rights to not be beaten up was first- in their quest for equality. More battles will come.

They need employment fairness: you might not be fired from the military anymore, but not all states protect gays from being fired for their orientation.

They need housing fairness: you can still be evicted from your rental property for being gay in some states.

They need fairness in adoption: some places, homosexuality is a bar to adoption.

They need protection in death: wills in favor of gay lovers have been successfully challenged by family members in court and tossed out on the grounds of "undue influence", "lack of testamentary ability". In one shameful Texas case, the court tossed out the decedent's will and voided several prior versions (covering decades) that left the entire estate to the surviving significant other to hand the estate over to the surviving family who had ostracized the deceased.

How would you feel about going to such a club as a heterosexual?

When I was 18 and didn't know better, I'd probably have freaked outa little. But a year later, not so much. By age 20, I'd say any homophobia I had was pretty much burned out of me because of the out gays I had met in that period of time. In this case, at least, familiarity bred acceptance.

That said, I'm not a fan of seeing hypersexualized public displays of affection and nudity, straight or gay. Keep your face-devouring & crotch grinding in private, please.






For those keeping score: I'm a cradle Roman Catholic, still practicing my faith.

 

[Ryujin]

My thoughts are that the old maxim applies: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

I don't particularly care what consenting and competent adults do with each other. It's none of my business, unless someone chooses to make it my business. On many occasions I've been the official photographer for a charity event in support of a local rape crisis centre, as a volunteer. I'd estimate that fully 50% of the people involved are other than heterosexual. I wouldn't know that if they hadn't made it clear in conversation, over the years. I live my life. They live theirs. We get along fine because neither side tries to tell the other how to live.

When it comes to "gay marriage", the con side's reasons always seem to somehow relate back to religious doctrine. As someone who thinks that government has no place in religion I have an easy solution; say that your government has no position on marriage. The word simply doesn't exist to government. All that should matter, from a government standpoint, is that a contractual obligation exists between the people involved. Want to get married? Go nuts. Just sign and register that contract with the government, because that whole marriage thing isn't in our lexicon.

 

[Morrus]

As someone who thinks that government has no place in religion I have an easy solution; say that your government has no position on marriage. The word simply doesn't exist to government. All that should matter, from a government standpoint, is that a contractual obligation exists between the people involved. Want to get married? Go nuts. Just sign and register that contract with the government, because that whole marriage thing isn't in our lexicon.

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.

 

[Ryujin]

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.

Yes and no. If you'll pardon the pun, it divorces it from the religious institution of marriage. This, in my view at least, removes any objection on religious grounds.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

As is often the case in these discussion, the "T" in LGBT gets forgotten.

Transgender folks are denied basic healthcare in many places, even here in the U.S. We face often insurmountable employment barriers. We can be fired for being transgender. Most damning, in every state but California, the "trans panic" defense still holds up in court when it comes to getting away with murdering us.

 

[Morrus]

Yes and no. If you'll pardon the pun, it divorces it from the religious institution of marriage. This, in my view at least, removes any objection on religious grounds.

You can have marriages without religion easily enough though. My marriage was non-religious (though it had Imperial Stormtroopers present). The marriage part (absent any ceremonial stuff you choose to surround it with) was a legal process.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

All that should matter, from a government standpoint, is that a contractual obligation exists between the people involved.

Actually, that's been kinda the law on the USA for a while, but nobody noticed it until gays wanted to join the party and conservatives squawked in protest. I expect that's how the SCOTUS will rule, too.

I mean, marriage hasn't been the exclusive thing for religion since we started letting judges, captains at sea and others perform them. And just try getting married in the USA without state permission in the form of licenses...even IN a church.

And, as I recall, (most of) the common law stuff doesn't mention gender.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As is often the case in these discussion, the "T" in LGBT gets forgotten.

Transgender folks are denied basic healthcare in many places, even here in the U.S. We face often insurmountable employment barriers. We can be fired for being transgender. Most damning, in every state but California, the "trans panic" defense still holds up in court when it comes to getting away with murdering us.

No doubt, y'all have the hardest path to follow out of the LGBT community.