LGBTQ+ Rights Worldwide

What is it with wingnuts and their irrational fear of sex ed? Do they have a Fetish for unwanted pregnacies and ST Ds or something?

edited 29th Apr '15 7:05:19 AM by LogoP

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.

They don't want people to actually understand the real dangers of sex, instead misleading them in the mistaken belief they'll abstain entirely.

'All shall love me and despar!'

I've noticed that as a general rule, any time you hear about the Truth you're probably as far away from the truth as it is possible to get.

The answer is religion.

The fear of sexual education from certain elements is that actual systematic and controlled exposure via information to a subject that is pretty difficult is what would promote the STDs and unwanted pregnancies (not to mention some are very anti-contraceptive).

The problem is they fail to take into account that sex is basically something young teens seem to be stumbling into with remarkable ease nowadays. Lucky bastards.

It is like...there is this amazing pool, and everyone cool swims in it. Teens WANT to swim in it, but they don't know how to swim. You have the option of scaring the bajeezus out of them from the pool but come on. It's hot, everyone's talking about it, and it looks really awesome, and they are fucking teens: they are caractherized by their desire to be rebellious little pricks. Now, because giving them personal swimming lessons is unviable it is better to inform them how to swim, how to get floaties, how to equip them, and also let them know "Just so you know, you can also simply NOT swim". And let them decide.

Then, it is up to them but now, at least, IF they do decide how to swim, they would know what to expect and how to deal with it. But keeping them out of sex is impossible. Teens can, and will, fuck. Unless you're me.

edited 29th Apr '15 8:44:19 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

I think it's largely due to something clearly stated as off-topic for this thread, but I think some of it is due to control - if you can control what someone learns, as well as how they learn it, then you control how they think about that subject. Fortunately, the internet continues to make it more and more difficult to exert that control, when every Google search will bring up sources of information you can't censor.^note Well, unless you're Google, I guess. Haven't teen pregnancy rates been dropping for years? Either way, it's drifting off-topic.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Yes, they have. As has Sex-ed.

Maybe it is off topic but I was just explaining why some anti LGBT sources dislike sex-ed. Seeing how I grew up in the bosom of one of those anti LGBT sources. Not exctly radical fundamentalist ones but still pretty opposed.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Yes. Specifically, in the areas that have good sex ed.◊

It's actually been on the rise in places that have poor to no sex ed, but the overall national rate is still falling.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

It gets ironic when you consider that poor sex ed is, by a wide margin, responsible for the spread of diseases they so happily associate homosexuals with.

Not to mention all the unwanted teen pregnancies that can result in abortions.

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.

Indeed, the so-called "pro-life" are working, usually unwittingly, towards a world where a lot of people need abortions but no one can have them (because of their utopia of people only having sex when they want to procreate).

Conversely, the "pro-choice" group is consciously working towards a world where anyone can abort but no one needs to, due to also supporting sex ed and contraceptives.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

It makes me wonder, given the statistics that are out there, if there's a way to discover by percentage how many women who identify as lesbians have abortions. I can't help but think most of them would be a result of sexual assault, or possibly some "You're not ''really'' bi," from a clinic worker.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

So I got a slightly strange question for y'all. What is the difference between gay marriage and societies of convenience? I do not mean from the legal point of view because legally they are supposed to be the same

I am talking philosophical as shit in here. Let's get Plato all up in dis biz.

I ask cuz' in my country only one party supports equal marriage, but everyone else (except the fundie one, that is), supports a "Society of convenience" sort of thing, which grants equal sex members all of the economical and legal rights (sans adoption, of course) of an opposite sex married couple.

It just is not called marriage.

I am aware it is political bullshit there, I am just wondering about folks' opinions on such unions

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

In a non-legal sense, neither really exists. They are simply sociological contracts.

TOO PHILOSOPHICAL. MAYDAY. MAYDAY. MAYDAY. BACKPEDAL. BACKPEDAL. I REPEAT. BACKPEDAL. TOO MUCH SOLIPSISM! I REGRET EVERYTHING!

edited 7th May '15 9:59:26 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

I would say something about marriage being more than a sociological contract, but I know it's not a popular opinion.

Let me put it to you this way...

Depending where you are in the world depends on how heavy the baggage is with the word marriage.

Contract does imply a partnership. But marriage carries the implication beyond just a business deal. It implies that these individuals are committed to the health and happiness of the other and that they will act as a unit in all issues. Hence why marriage has the legal perks it does. Your spouse gets access to difference resources because of that partnership.

Your business partner doesn't have those perks because of a understanding that they have different boundaries and limits.

Marriage also implies a monogamy of obligations and favors until told otherwise.

People will actively treat me different depending on what words I use to describe my relationship with Aprilla.

Marriage implies direct care and a partnership higher than just a contract.

Now of course, all this came from cultural conditioning. But this is also the very reason why homosexuals want gay "marriage", not just legal unions. They want the cultural boundaries, respect, and expectations that come with the word marriage as well as the legal rights.

I think opening marriage to include all legal and responsible partnerships is far more culturally and psychologically beneficial than just downgrading it to a specific legal situation.

EDIT: To illustrate my last point better, dismissing "marriage" and just making social partnerships as a way to allow gay couples legal rights to each other feels like burning down a cruise ship and passing out individual rafts to everyone instead, never-mind that others still got the experience of the cruise ship.

It's legally equal, but it's not culturally equal and we need to evolve our laws in such a way they improve our culture and our people accordingly.

Such as letting black people drink from the same water fountain drastically helping fight racism.

edited 7th May '15 10:47:59 AM 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

I'd say the same actually, it's more than just the legal benefits, it's about being able to call your relationship equal to that of a strait couple, now if we lived in a society where long term loving relationships that aren't marriges were accepted than it would be less of a thing.

Plus people like being able to say they're married, words carry weight and the word married carries a fair amount, people should be able to use it.

Finally there's the religious point, some faiths (or denominations of faiths) do embrace gay marriage, now many of thouse still hold marriage to be something of high importance so denying people of such faiths the right to that religious element to their union is wrong.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I know the baggage. To be more clearer in my position, marriage is more than a mere sociological contract, imo. It has that (and it's all well and good), but it also should feature (ideally) love and caring from both partners. Rights and respect are vital, I ain't denying that. But I'm not comfortable with the idea that it's just about signing papers (especially in this day and age in the Western world). And I say this to couples of all kinds, regardless of sexuality.

Then again, I'm a stupid romantic, so, I might as well not try to argue. I've had a discussion about this in the past and I phrased arguments poorly.

The religious point is also to be taken in consideration, indeed. But to me, it's more about love than about papers (like I said, I'm a stupid fucking romantic).

edited 7th May '15 10:51:40 AM by Quag15

While marriage might have other meanings, the state should only care about the contract. The rest is a private matter.

Right, I think I may have been misunderstood a little.

I see all that stuff as being an important part of marriage.

I just don't think you really need to make it official.

Like, if you want to make a big song and dance about it with vows of monogamy and whatnot, then that's fine.

But on a personal level I don't think the relationship suffers if you forego all the pomp and ceremony and just do all that shit by itself.

Basically what I'm saying is that marriage doesn't really require marriage.

Yes, yes. I happen to care about both in equal measure (the private part a bit more, but still...). I just don't like when people say that marriage is only X or only Y. I prefer a balance of private and public, with all the rights and responsabilities it entails.

Here is the problem though.

The state has sanctioned marriage for so long as both a cultural and legal institution that you cannot possibly divorce the two now.

To cut off that now and resort to a basic legal contract is exactly like my allegory of burning a cruise ship and handing out individual rafts.

If you want to strip marriage to a simple function, you're welcome to try. But to do so now would be to deny LGBT couples what they want. They want the marriage. They want the whole package and while you are trying to make everyone equal, you're not.

You're denying them an experience just as readily as the conservatives are, albeit for different reasons.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Uh... did you misunderstood my post?

It was never my intention to divorce those aspects you mentioned. In fact, my intention was to state my opinion that you need those aspects, sure, but also put an emphasis on the love/private sphere. Not just limit marriage to this or that. Embrace both (rights, responsabilities, love, respect, the whole package).

I also want to state that my comment was not meant to show agreement or disagreement with what Aszur posted in regards to what's happening in his country.

Is my position so unclear?

edited 7th May '15 11:10:35 AM by Quag15

I was referring to the tropers who were saying the state should only have legal contracts and not be involved with marriage as a cultural institution, not your arguments Quag.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur