LGBTQ+ Rights and America

You know what, screw 'em. If they want their state to stay in the Medieval Age so badly, let them. But they don't get to ignore Federal law.

edited 27th Feb '14 4:37:28 PM by Fighteer

I don't know about the situation in Kentucky, but here there's no real difference between parties that I can tell. Granted, I haven't followed much since I became disillusioned with state politics years ago. Regardless, we have an entirely Republican Supreme Court led by Roy "homosexuality is inherently evil" Moore, so it may very well take a federal decision to bring equality here any time soon.

Also some AG's do focus on upholding the law. While part of me likes the "progressive agenda by any means" concept, i also dislike the politicization of the AG seat that we see going on in a lot of statehouses, fearing that it could easily go to the other side of the coin and disliking it against the principle of good governance.

It could just be that Kentucky's AG is falling on the "good governance" side, rather than taking the Kathleen Kane route (which is doing good things, just with the caveat i mentioned)

Kentucky's Attorney General Jack Conway (D) said he would not defend Kentucky's anti-gay marriage law struck down last month, as a result Governor Steve Beshear (D) said the state will hire outside attorneys to appeal.

Rep. Michele Bachmann: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) was wrong to veto anti-gay bill.

The city of Dallas has passed a resolution, enforcing equality for Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgender employees, residents, and visitors.

Hear me out on this. I'm very tired of the LGBT discussion.

I'm tired of the LGBT rights discussion because of my belief that America shouldn't be having this debate because seriously, the LGBT community SHOULD ALREADY HAVE THEIR RIGHTS! Yet I swear all I hear from the opponents of Gay marriage and such is "oh its against my religion" or "Oh the sanctity of marriage" or something like that. To me it seems like I continually hear the same arguments against LGBT rights when all I hear is "Lets discriminate against this minority because we don't like this aspect of them".

This is about as close to a copy and paste of the Civil Rights movement back in the 60's and 70's as we can get I think. It's ridiculous that because someone acts or looks a certain that we decide "Hey, I don't like this or that about someone, lets get rid of their rights as a citizen because I don't like that aspect of them." It feels like we're more likely to give and uphold rights to criminals than we are to whomever we're persecuting.

As a side thought, I feel like we're also discriminating against the Muslim/Middle Eastern community as well

Arizona state Senator comes out: ‘I’m gay, I’m Latino, and it’s okay’.

He had to come out as Latino???

Latinos are usually associated with conservative stances on social issues.

That reminds me of Stephen Colbert's Running Gag of "outing" people as black (and female, and occasionally other similar things).

edited 6th Mar '14 6:43:23 AM by Fighteer

I wonder if people like Bachman will ever figure out why "intolerance" towards their ideology exists. It is insane and vile to render a group of people second class citizens, then demand the government give you special protection against the repercussions of your actions.

Something I've gathered from some of the debates here is that it seems like conservatives see various "gay life activities" as a political act, whereas those opposing them aren't seen as political, given that they are maintaining the status quo (I'm sure there's also issues where liberals do this toward conservatives).

So like a gay couple seeking the services of a wedding planner is seen as "forcing" that person to be accepting of their lifestyle. And I'm also reminded of those instances which have come up about St. Patrick's Day parades not wanting gay floats, etc.- I mean I can kind of see the argument if the float/whatever has nothing to do with St. Patrick's Day, but I don't see the difference between a float celebrating being Irish and a cop and one that celebrates being Irish and gay ("Friends of Oscar Wilde/Roger Casement"?)

edited 6th Mar '14 8:11:25 AM by Hodor

Right. However much they may couch their intolerance in "tolerance for their beliefs", the only reason there's even an issue about gays doing these things is because of the people yelling about it. If they weren't trying to claim special privileges to determine what kinds of people they find acceptable, there wouldn't even be a debate.

edited 6th Mar '14 8:15:07 AM by Fighteer

Self Thumped because I'm Dumb.

edited 6th Mar '14 8:46:15 AM by tricksterson

This is the LGBT Rights and America thread, actually.

I'm easily confused and there was a similar discussion over in American Politics.

Dr Mark Regnerus, the author of a widely criticised study that purports to show the negative impact of having a gay parent was cross-examined yesterday during the hearing to overturn Michigan's same-sex marriage ban. It did not end well for him.

Short version: he basically admitted, under oath, that he stacked the deck to get the results that he wanted.

Loling at the people holding "I support traditional marriage - 1 man, 1 woman" signs.

Tell you what, guys. I support traditional marriage too. I also support non-traditional marriage. They can co-exist, you know. Nobody is going to force you to marry someone you don't want to.

I find the definition somewhat weak.

It is nice that they specify for example not to support the traditional one man, one main woman , several secondary women model. But if they could add the minimum age for the partners and whether they are inclusive of arranged marriages (I think in the english middle-ages an arranged marriage involving a twelve and a six years old was for example declared valid once or twice), we would be a lot closer to an understanding of their position, than with the fuzzy term 'traditional marriage'.

Oliver North at CPAC: ‘Allowing gays makes the military like lab rats, which is why Putin invaded Ukraine’.

edited 7th Mar '14 7:03:03 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Is he trying to say that America's repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" caused Russia to annex part of the Ukraine? I know some people don't really understand that the rest of the world isn't part of the US, but really?

I think the, for lack of a better term, logic is that the Evil Russians™ were only being held back by the US's manly awesomeness, and now that gay has gotten into the military we aren't a threat and aforesaid Evil Russians™ are free to start annexing places like they always wanted to.

In other words, if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood!

I wouldn't say it for obvious reasons but my general thought in regards to the "traditional marriage" people is "So you're saying 30 year old men can marry 13 year olds?"

Or arranged marriages, don't forget those. Of course, the person I know who is most for "traditional" marriage and against gay marriage also thinks that Sampson and Delilah is a great example of a traditional marriage, so...

This is not me trying to bring religion into the thread. Sampson and Delilah is just a horrible, horrible example to use in this situation.