Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread
.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Urgh. That's... that's just appalling. <shakes head>
I think we need to extend the benefit of the doubt in the sense that you should never presume someone is a willfully ignorant bigot that's incapable of being reasoned with. Not unless they make it really obvious, at least. As in, Fred Phelps levels of obviousness.
I do agree that it's important to not just brush certain statements aside because they aren't coming from a raging Westboro Baptist Church member. I know that if I unknowingly said something offensive, I would want it to be pointed out so that I could avoid doing that.
Manliest Person on Skype
Who here wants to subject Romney to the tender ministrations of Polarstern and her GF? Show of hands?
edited 26th Oct '12 3:24:46 PM by Karalora
Stuff what I do.
Don't think this guy will be impressed with the uniform, though. He gets me as being too up his own rear end.
Otherwise, I'd be behind it. Heck, I'd hold coats.
I'm an Irene!
My hand is definitely up.
Quest 64 thread
scratching at .8, just hopin'
edited 26th Oct '12 4:02:59 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
@Taoist: Agree'd.
@Karalora: As long as that creep doesn't step one foot in the White House, that's good enough for me. But yes.
Mikon :3
@Romney: I'm starting to feel guilty I voted for him in the primary, but Santorum scared the hell out of me (he came out on top in my state anyway, much to my surprise).
As for giving people the benefit of the doubt, I'm inclined to agree with the guy who wrote that article. When I give people the benefit of the doubt about LGBT, they tend to prove me right except on rare occasions. Then when they get called out on their behavior, they try to play the victim (because criticism=persecution, you know).
I've been trying to see if there's been any meaningful legal opposition. I mean, it sounds so flatly ridiculous. I mean a first-year law student would simply say "Well, how 'bout we not mention blacks either? Oh, wait..."
1. The people who support such a law would probably see legal opposition against it as a sign they're on the right side, because the big bad government is siding with those evil nasty homos who want to corrupt our children, throw Christians in jail, etc.
2. Some people would argue that you can't compare black people and gay people for various reasons.
edited 26th Oct '12 5:14:52 PM by Morgikit
Wandering Jew
You know Gingrich and Paul were still in the primaries at that point (not that they were much better).
edited 26th Oct '12 5:25:08 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Jon Huntsman was for civil unions and seemed like an overall not crazy guy.
He had no chance of winning, but then again, neither did most of the other candidates.
explanation over the don't say gay and do say racism laws
But regardless of how you feel, this isn't the way to go.
Wandering Jew
If I recall correctly, Huntsman dropped out before the Alabama primary.
I should point out that Tennessee's "Don't Say Gay" bill has long since died after it was decided that the bill would not be put to a final vote needed for passage.
Although technically the bill isn't dead, but rather put on indefinite limbo until the adjournment of the 107th General Assembly (which will happen in 2013).
edited 26th Oct '12 6:24:00 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Mikon :3
The gay bill doesn't surprise me sadly. But a bill that makes racial discrimination ok? This is why I tend to apologize when I tell people I'm from the South.
This was the one article that explained both of them, so that's why I listed this.
This is how they're bunching things together in order to make them more appealing and lasting.
Just being vigilant.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Vikings player actively seeks debate with politicians over Gay Marriage.
This makes me happy for several reasons:
- Here is a straight NFL player proving he's not just a dumb jock.
- Here is a very wealthy celebrity doing something above and beyond positive for a progressive cause.
- Here is another positive role model for both genders and across demographics.
edited 28th Oct '12 7:41:43 PM by Gabrael
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Happy New Year!
I know this off topic, but why are football players the epitome of heterosexuality anyway? they are a butch of sweaty men in shorts who spent most of their time rolling around in the mud with other sweaty men over control of a ball.
hashtagsarestupid
probably has something to do with the fact they work in a sport wherein your most likely way to retire is an injury that permanently cripples you
Chaotic Greedy
In other words, a manly sport.
edited 29th Oct '12 5:54:35 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
In a way, the association of football as a very manly sport is only a good thing. Most sports players are considered very masculine: they're aggressive, successful, powerful in multiple facets, normally married or dating women that are considered gorgeous, etc.
So when a very masculine guy comes out in educated fashion in support of gay marriage, as more and more NFL players are doing, it really shakes up the opposition.
This with DADT is helping break the stereotype it's somehow immasculating to be gay or to accept gays. I'm certainly all for that!
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
DADT as well as new research in PTSD is really helping break barriers on what our gender norms are for men, especially heterosexual and homosexual men in general. Now if we can just get these discoveries to filter down into normal society.
"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc
To bring it back on topic, I'm wondering if discussions about Gay Rights in America really need more "benefit of the doubt
", as opposed to more "if you come in and you're wrong, be willing to learn":
People who have complained to me about feeling “ganged up on” or “bullied” when entering into minority spaces, often with seemingly-benign intentions, therefore get little sympathy from me. After all, there’s the obvious issue of separating the honest confused from the willful abusive, but even allowing for that I don’t find such appeals for “the benefit of the doubt” persuasive. Extending the benefit of the doubt to everyone who doesn’t saunter into a conversation wearing a “bigot” badge means that members of minority groups are being asked to unlearn what they (we) have learned – to forget that our emotional and psychological survival sometimes depends on early detection and rapid response. The world that forges us does not often give us the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when talking about our own stories, and more often than not punishes us for speaking up.