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
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Well, polyamory's still a little way off, though I think that's more about being a nightmare to write legislation for than moral concerns.
The Mod with the Migraine
While my concern would also be the legal/logistical given that any such legislation would have to work for a variety of permutations, I think you're wrong about there being no moral concerns. While I don't personally share their concerns, the fact that one of the major images of polygamous marriages are like those practised by groups like the FLDS (Fundamentalsist Latter Day Saints aka Mormon fundie splinter group) there is potential for push back from some feminist groups.
My personal counter to that is that the legal recognition of polygamous relationships would actually do a lot to curb the abuses of such groups (and reading the experiences of some who have left, a lot of them are abusive) by granting the women in these relationships the same protection afforded women in current, legally recognised relationships but, speaking from personal experience, it can be an uphill battle.
You would definitely get religious pushback against polyamory from most of the same groups hollering about gay marriage. In fact, it might even be louder. So I wouldn't say there's no moral concerns in the way of it being legalized. (Although I do agree that the legislative issues would be significant.)
edited 27th Jun '15 5:55:34 PM by Nocturna
The Mod with the Migraine
Texas clerk issuing licenses to same-sex couples despite her objections, because " first and foremost, I took an oath on my family Bible to uphold the law, and as an elected public official, my personal belief cannot prevent me from issuing the licenses as required.” If only more of our elected officials thought like this.
Lost in Space
Wait until she gets fired or arrested for it...
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The Mod with the Migraine
That wouldn't surprise me, but it's still nice to see someone doing the right thing.
Especially when compared to Alabama...
edited 1st Jul '15 1:44:55 PM by BlueNinja0
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
I no longer have to worry about where we move or changing jobs or what could happen to our children.
This is a good start.
I was telling the men's issues thread that I have had an influx of soldiers coming in to get their prenup sheets signed off on.
This is going to be good for the military.
"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc
No longer a forum herald
In less happy news, someone just admitted that he faked being the victim of anti-gay hate crimes.
My message to this guy: You. Are. Not. Helping. At. All.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Kind of quiet
Talk about a backwards attitude. Huckabee here would have us go back to the days where marriage was merely a sort of business agreement between, naturally, a man and a woman, and where love was nice but not necessary. Quite frankly, that kind of marriage is begging for a divorce if you ask me.
Likely busy writing something.
No longer a forum herald
Well, it makes perfect sense if you see the entire end goal of marriage as having children. If love can result in a marriage without children, then love isn't that useful of a tool to arrange an "ideal" marriage. This is a big part of why so many cultures throughout history have embraced arranged marriages (and more or less where this train of thought leads).
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
NOT THE BEES
Yeeaaahhh, uh. I'm pretty sure divorce tends to happen when a marriage stops being "sentimental and emotional".
Like, there's a certain amount of valid criticism to be made about people flying headlong into marriage with a rush of hormones and little to no idea what that kind of commitment actually entails. But...that's actually been getting less frequent lately. Millenials have been marrying later and divorcing less than Huckabee's generation — and the demographic most likely to divorce across pretty much any given age group is still conservative Protestants.
edited 6th Jul '15 9:10:10 AM by Pykrete
Having children really has no cause to be the priority it used to be. There are seven billion of us now. I know there's the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing but seriously, Mission Accomplished. We can stop now.
Lost in Space
There are economic and political reasons to want to keep the population on a growth curve, even if it is a slow one. If economic output can be roughly expressed as [working population] * [productivity], then if the first term declines, you're in big trouble unless you're constantly coming up with technological ways to improve output per worker. Doing the latter has the drawback of shifting profits from labor to capital, which creates increasing inequality unless addressed aggressively by government policy.
Politically, if "those people" are having more kids than "our people", eventually they will have more political influence than us and will screw us over.
edited 6th Jul '15 5:17:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Mikon :3
People who prattle on about "tradition" and "sacred unions" don't need to knock sentimentality. It's their stock and trade.
Queen of Good Things, Honest
Economically, there is such a thing as too many people for productivity.
The U.S. has an unemployment rate of 5.3%. This tells me that we have more people than things for people to do.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
Actually I like this guy, I meant he is awfull but a least he put logic in his speech and get into a logical conclution that well...aparenly love is the root of all this problem.
I meant it is still awfull and pretty idiotic, but I like when a person understand what they are saying instead of dancing around the concept when it fix you.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
NOT THE BEES
Technically he's right in that the problem is ultimately a misconception of what love is.
He's just arguing the wrong side of it. Like, empirically, his viewpoint appears to be the problem.
edited 6th Jul '15 9:08:11 AM by Pykrete
Student of Story
Bigham recently came out of the ordeal with a $140,000 settlement from Multnomah Education Service District (MESD). But if he lived across the border in Idaho, he may not have been so lucky: Idaho is one of 18 states that don't ban workplace discrimination against gay public sector employees. And Bigham's situation would have been even worse in the private sector in other states — 28 states don't explicitly prohibit discrimination against gay private sector workers in their laws.
Bigham was named Oregon's 2014 Teacher of the Year. But after he began speaking openly about his sexual orientation in speeches, he was allegedly harassed at work. And when he reported the harassment, he said MESD fired him in retaliation.
MESD said it had trouble with Bigham's "performance, insubordinate behavior, and focus on matters other than his students," according to local news station OBP. The district accused Bigham of spending too much time out of class for speeches and other events.
An investigation by Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries backed some of Bigham's claims, according to a summary memo obtained by OBP: "If the case had gone forward, a determination of substantial evidence of discrimination and retaliation on the basis of [Bigham's] sexual orientation, whistleblowing activity, and for opposing unlawful practices … would have been recommended."
To Bigham's advantage, he lives in a state that bans workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation against public and private sector employees, which is perhaps why he managed to obtain a settlement. But it's a concerning fact for America's gay teachers and LGBTQ advocates that geography plays a huge role in whether employees like Bigham are protected.
Thirty-one states lack civil rights laws that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the workplace, housing, or public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, and other places that serve the general public).
As a result, more than half of LGBTQ Americans, according to the LGBTQ advocacy group Movement Advancement Project, live in a state where, under state law, an employer can legally fire someone because he's gay, a landlord can legally evict someone because she's lesbian, and a hotel manager can legally deny service to someone who's transgender — for no reason other than the person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
The US military is considering allowing transgendered individuals to serve openly. The secretary of Defense has said that the current policy (that transgendered individuals are banned from service and can be discharged if outed, basically similar to Don't Ask, Don't Tell) is at least "outdated".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33517212
A nice butterfly
Along with "Dont ask dont tell" that is something I have always considered incredibly weird. I mean. Why cant you let people, regardless of gender, die for their country? Is gay blood too precious to spill or something?
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Lost in Space
It's not that at all. The "idea" behind restricting gay and female participation in the military is that our soldiers are too weak-minded to accept their presence on the front lines and our armies will collapse. Because the mere presence of someone you might want to fuck or who might want to fuck you on the same combat line will turn you into a gibbering mess who might as well be a target dummy for the enemy.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Okay Guy
I saw political cartoon that depicted a gay soldier saying "I can't shoot him, he's gorgeous!"
So, it's not more complicated than plain ol' homophobia.
edited 16th Jul '15 9:33:55 AM by DrStarky
Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian
While Cyanide and Happiness might not be best known for their social commentary, their strip on the legalization of gay marriage is actually pretty thoughtful.
EDIT: That one time I actually post something here I end up with a page topper like this...
edited 27th Jun '15 9:45:49 AM by Paradisesnake