LGBTQ+ Rights and America

Well, they can be funded for state business, "State Business", PD conferences, "PD conferences", Just because, and "Business Expences for government employees".

I'd imagine you could work school trips into that as well if you interpret it broadly enough.

Although a California school making a trip to North Carolina is...kind of a stretch.

It seems to mostly be a symbolic thing that won't really have much use in practice.

Maybe. But no more so than the bigoted laws they're a response to.

The bigoted laws don't make sense from any logical perspective. This is true of all bigoted laws more or less. Unless you count "I was voted in to make this law" a sane and logical perspective.

The california no fieldtrips law is completely different.

Well, I'm a taxpayer, and I know I don't want my money going to North Carolina, or those other states.

Do you have a similar problem with companies that have decided to invest their money elsewhere? Are they being petty by sending the messsge that they don't want to be associated with bigotry?

edited 10th Jan '17 3:31:53 PM by Morgikit

Of course not. Companies have a different social role in the world. They are free to do a long list of things that would make me attempt to burn down the government if the government did it.

Look at it this way, would you be okay with California sending state money to Russia or Saudi Arabia? Many people would not be okay with that and would like to see sanctions against the regimes In said countries , this isn't really any different. It's a less exstream responce (a refusal to spend money rather than outright sanctions) for a slightly less exstream (but still horrific) level of human rights abuse.

I agree. It's effectively saying "we categorically condemn the civil rights violations currently being executed in these states, and if you want to go there, we're not paying for it."

Are you saying that america should stop funding diplomatic missions to russia?

Um, no?

I don't know the nature of these diplomatic missions, so I don't feel qualified to comment. I do know that they are committing human rights violations left and right, not to mention potentially violating the sovereignty of other countries and I don't want my money going to places like that. Even if this doesn't bother you, you can surely agree that taxpayers should have a say in how their money is spent, right?

edited 11th Jan '17 5:49:03 AM by Morgikit

A diplomatic mission in the form of an embassy is very different from funding school trips to the country, funding travel for international conference that are held in the country or similar.

Plus it's not like the US hasn't refused to have diplomatic relations with certain countries in the past. You can't not have relations with Russia for practical reasons, but there's no reason for South Africa to have relations with North Korea.

edited 11th Jan '17 11:13:20 AM by Silasw

Positive update on the subject discussed a while back: the Boy Scouts will now be accepting transgendered members.

edited 30th Jan '17 6:11:45 PM by RBluefish

Good for them. Now if we can just lift the atheist ban the Scouts will be, to my knowledge, completely inclusive.

Completely inclusive? Wierd calling it that while they're barring 50% of the population with it's name alone.

But I guess sexist Double Standards still get treatet with their own Double Standard compared to other discriminations.

edited 31st Jan '17 6:43:10 AM by Antiteilchen

There actually is a coed Boy Scout program. It's called Venture Scouts. It's not as popular though.

I think that isn't really a problem...mostly because there's an equivalent organization for girls. It would be great if it was co-ed, but it's not like it's the only thing out there like that.

I never approved of seperate but equal. If it was whites only and there was an equivalent for black people you wouldn't approve either. But seperating by gender is still okay in our society. Because reasons.

They already have a coed organization. There's also a female equivalent. I don't see why they should be expected to do anything more.

What Kotsya said.

Also, thats not really related to LGBT issues.

In fact, to me it is: Gender segregation of all forms is usually based, deep down, on the assumption that everyone is heterosexual.

I'm not someone who looks that deep into that.

Well, I am not sure what better way there is to organize the locker rooms than the current one. Most people would feel uncomfortable if someone of the other gender were in there with them.

In fact, there are 2 homosexual guys in my class and people got used to it. It would be much worse (while people have no clothes on) if it were 2 lesbian girls instead, so I believe not all gender segregration is based on that assumption.

edited 1st Feb '17 8:34:52 AM by Grafite

It's about perception and what we've been taught. Also, sexual orientation is not readily apparent (unlike gender), so you still see someone of the other gender rather than someone who's not at all interested in your privates (or you see someone of the same gender rather than someone who might be interested in your privates). Not to mention you'd be embarassed to see a naked person of the other gender (especially if you might visibly react to that).