Bay 12 Games Forum

I just realized there's a minute possibility that, far into a dystopia future of resource scarcity, spam (of the electronic sense) may be made a death-sentence level crime of energy misuse.

That's kinda' a cheerful thought.

Impressive!

... also another object lesson on why to never leave a place of residence without a (much easier than that!) way back in

Problem with the "marriage has a history and emotion and yaddayadda*, let's not make it a business deal" is that right now (and forever into the past, more or less), it already is a business deal. It's never stopped being a business deal, especially since it was made a legal entity. It's only become even nominally not one since people stopped being married more by their parents than themselves (Note: This is really damn recent and still happens in many places, including the states.), but the business deal aspect has never changed, just been become likely to be ignored by people too enraptured by their partner's genitalia to actually know what they're getting into.

Incidentally, that's one of the reasons marriage screws many families and relationships straight to hell -- people thinking they're doing something full of love and commitment or whatnot when there is a whole hell of a lot more riding on the coattails of it. And then the divorce comes, of course, and *kaboom*.

In any case, the full realization of civil union rights wouldn't somehow entail current marriage candidates lose their status. There's no way in hell you'd be able to push through something that said marriage is only for white heterosexual couples.

*Not that the yaddayadda isn't important or anything, of course.

--

Anyway, the ideal is to abolish marriage as a legal entity. That doesn't prevent marriage, it just makes it a strictly personal/religious thing (as it should be, really). It would actually makes marriage more of an important emotional/historical/religious step, because suddenly it wouldn't be a business deal -- you wouldn't be making the choice with that taint of legal coercion behind it. It'd be getting the courts out of your bedroom.

But. The trick is getting there. The easiest way to do that (and one of the reasons the bigot bastards are fighting equal-right civil unions, beyond the obvious) is get civil unions across the board entailing full-out the exact legal repercussions as marriage. After that, the argument becomes a lot easier (especially from a legal standpoint, from what I understand) for either naming it all marriage or abolishing marriage (again, strictly as the name for a legal entity) entirely.

It's also a lot more likely to happen if you can get it past the initial bigot bastard gauntlet, because most people don't know or care enough on the subject to actually realize what any of it entails. That's pretty obvious when you consider stuff like Florida's amendment two a few years back, coached as a 'marriage protection' (i.e. anti-gay marriage) law that's only real impact -- gay marriage already being banned by at least two other statutes -- was stripping some rights from unmarried heterosexual couples.

*belated wagon jump* Peace Vec. Try not to let this decision end in fire -- or, at least, if it does, make sure it's someone else ending in it.

Ice is fine, though. It's nice.

I am not arguing against the law, I am merely arguing against how people generally try and dictate how arguments regarding these issues should go.

It does get a little heated, yeah.

I believe you misunderstand me when I say that people who argue against it are branded X or Y, X or Y being bigot, ignorant, homophobic, etc etc..  NOT LGBT being either man or woman.

Nah, there wasn't any misunderstanding there. The label bigot, homophobic, etc., etc., is specifically placed due to beliefs and actions re: LGBT individuals.

Yes, I suppose Religious people (Christians and Islamists come to mind) are all bigots and ignorant because of what they believe in makes them naturally opposed to LGBT.

Well, there's two statements there, actually. The first bit, that all religious people are bigots and ignorant, is of course false -- there's many religious individuals, of the abrahamic traditions as well as others, that are neither bigoted nor ignorant; hell, technically bigotry of any sort can be interpreted as heresy in relation to Christianity -- it's pretty blatantly against the teachings of Christ.

The second bit's also false -- Christianity especially has no excuse outside of a couple of blatantly heretical lines in their holy text for the persecution they've heaped on homosexuals in particular. There's little inherent to most of the major religions themselves that makes them naturally opposed to LGBT individuals.

There is a common problem with bigots attempting to use religion to justify their beliefs and actions, yes, but that's generally because they can't find an argument to justify their persecution of their fellow man that's not axiomatic.

I see I was not clear enough or I did not write well enough to express my point clearly enough, my apologies! 

No, I am not against LGBT.  That does not mean I am all for it either.  People are free to do what they want, but when it comes to issues like this, taking an all-for or all-against stance is intellectually counter productive.  By branding those who by any reason are not with LGBT as bigots or ignorant is stifling debate on a whole range of issues surrounding it. 

Remember, LGBT rights affect everyone.

All I can really note in relation to this bit is that there's not much outside of the prevention of vicious persecution in which LGBT rights affect anyone not LGBT. There's no right to persecute and abuse, no right to treat a fellow human being as filth for something that has done no and can do no harm to other people.

I wouldn't mind if you expanded that point a bit, though. I hear it occasionally, but I've never really had it clearly expressed how LGBT rights negatively impact the rest of society.

That is usually due to a lack of education, parenting, social circumstances and general individuality.  Sorry, but no matter how hard you try, it is just wrong to some people.  Does that make them bigots?  That depends.

Well, no, it doesn't really depend. For LGBT issues specifically, bigotry or ignorance is really the only reason to think it's wrong.

Not for them, sure. Not of interest, of course, that's fine. But wrong is a much stronger position than that, and when you judge a person for something they are instead of something they do, you've crossed the line into bigotry. And the issue of homosexual sex is, as strange as that may sound to some, not necessarily correlated to homosexual individuals. The issue of homosexual sex is also much more clear cut, as any of the inherently negative aspects of it have long been rectified by medical advances -- and weren't any greater than the issues related to heterosexual sex, really.

When you talk about bigots you must make the distinction that bigots are actively looking to hurt LGBT's, not those who, while uncomfortable with them, have the professionalism to work with them, or are nice and courteous enough to acknowledge them as a person, hold a conversation, or whatever.

But this still holds true, yes. That kind of belief isn't quite as damaging, but it still has repercussions.

Is it really equality when the government has to ensure that equality is maintained?  While you are ensuring their jobs, you are still failing to address why people may be uncomfortable with LGBT in the first place.

Basically, it's the equality the states are promised: No discrimination (of the sort we're discussing here) on any level beyond the civil, and only in certain instances (Namely privacy of your own home) on the civil level.

Religion is the other legitimate reason.  But then religion is EVIL, amirite?

Religiously motivated bigotry is still bigotry. Ignorance being excused or flaunted due to religion is still ignorance. Religion isn't evil, no, but people are quite happy to use it to excuse evil. Which doesn't fly, really. It's generally a very powerful insult to the core teachings of the person's religion -- none of the major religions differ on that.

I'll point out again that you must draw distinctions when discussing those who are squicked out.  There are alot of people who are squicked out that don't do anything but deal with it.

Yeah, see above a bit. There's not much difference from that as there is not wanting a physical relationship with someone you're not attracted to. If the level of reaction was limited to that, it wouldn't be an issue.

I am, uh, not arguing for the persecution of LGBT.  I am arguing against the blanket statements leveled at those who may hold opposing view points. 

By calling the other side a bunch of bigots, homophobes, and ignorant is not a serious dialogue, its mere name calling.

Interestingly, it's not actually "mere name calling." It's specifically identifying the issue(s) with the position said other side is holding. I'll agree that simple blanket name calling doesn't exactly help, no, but that's generally not actually what's happening.

I suppose you could argue that by suppressing people's natural opinions on things like these, you are forcing their displeasure to come out in different ways (your boss is harder on you at work for example).

Quote

There's no "forcing" involved.

Indeed, since the bill is aimed at government employees only, there is no forcing religious institutions, or private industries for the matter.

Ah, this was a little misinterpreted. I meant that there was nothing forcing the displeased to vent their displeasure in circumspect ways simply because they don't have legal ones. If that displeasure's being vented, it's on the head of the displeased.

Their displeasure is their own damn problem and if it's being expressed on other people, yes, it is the displeased person's fault. There's no excuse for it.

Quote

It all depends on how they express it.

It's an issue if it's being expressed, more or less. If it stays in the head and doesn't start influencing actions -- including speech, yes, in certain situations -- then we've got no problem.

Indeed, but everybody's opinion is natural to them.  Does it mean they are right?  Of course not, but then you cannot argue that you are right by saying they are bigots and ignorant because people don't agree with you.

Yeah, definitely true enough. Simple name calling because of disagreement, and dismissing others because of that is pretty poor etiquette.

Of course not, its about change through government.. *sigh*  I'll save my rants for another thread.

This is, uh, actually, not what progressivism is about. Change via government is a potential tool of progressive activism, yes, same as most other forms of activism, but neither the full depth nor breadth of progressive views. Many progressive issues would be a lot better off not involving top-down (i.e. governmental) solutions at all -- bottom-up is a lot more effective and lasting for a number of the key problems progressivism is attempt to address (LGBT issues among them). But there's difficulties with some of the issues as well (LGBT being among them, yeah) that means that a governmental solution is the quickest and most effective way to at least be able to start implementing the change from the bottom up.

Anyway, 4 AM. Need nap, but I'll happily respond to anything that someone else hasn't beat me to after I wake up

Fair warning NB, you're probably about to get piled in on a little. The position you're trying to defend, even if it's in good faith -- and I'm going to assume it is, despite the somewhat antagonistic tone I take -- is not easy to defend, because there is very little value in it.

Anyway, take the tone with a degree of softening. There's no ad hominim involved, but I am definitely attacking the position you're presenting. Still, the point of saying anything at all is to invite dialogue. Let's open the discussion, not close it.

First off, yes, it is essentially "common knowledge" that we HAVE to accept people for who they are regardless of whatever we may believe (its what is crammed down our throats in school, social media, etc etc ad nauseum).  And that is where the problem for me is. We are forcing people into accepting a certain point of view on a certain topic because it is what we want (or what certain people want), and if people are against it, then they must be x (or y).  "Oh, so and so doesn't agree with me that LGBT people should be protected by the law against unlawful firings, because he is obviously a bigot/ignorant/ or something of the like."

One of the big points here is that, in some states, they're not protected. You can be fired because you're LGBT. There's not very many reasons you can protest that everyone shouldn't be protected by law (Specifically, that's unconstitutional, from what I understand, in spirit if not letter. Equal protection.) -- pretty much the only reasons for it is either bigotry or ignorance. That's full stop it, unless you're arguing for total abolition of any laws protecting from unlawful firings.

If there's a third option, please provide it.

But yes, at least when it comes to LGBT, there's not much they can be but X (or Y), because those Xs or Ys are defined by the persons beliefs and actions re: LGBT individuals.

That is the whole optic "progressives" use to argue for social change.  We must allow more of this, and those who say otherwise MUST be racist/homophobes/bigots/what have you.

The point is that the "must be bigots/homophobes" kind of follows logically from protesting the major social issues -- such as LGBT equality -- that progressives tend to support. There's not any -- full stop any -- reason outside of bigotry to support prejudice, especially institutional level prejudice, vs. LGBT people, ferex.

The above doesn't even touch on the fact that unfortunately alot of people will never be comfortable with transsexuals (or gays or lesbians).  They can have any numerous amounts of reasons, whether they are legitimate reasons or not, but if they were to voice those opinions, they would be branded something equally as negative.

One: LGBT is not negative. Period. The only downsides to people who fall under that umbrella come from other people. Bigotry, homophobia actually have major downsides from the person holding such thoughts flowing outward, instead of the other way around.

Two: LGBT don't frakking care if you're comfortable or not -- that's your prerogative, same as if you're not comfortable around people who don't look pretty. That doesn't mean you get to attack them, doesn't mean you get to fire them, doesn't mean you get to persecute them -- not because they're LGBT. That's what they care about and what they want. Equality.

There's only one "legitimate" reason for not being comfortable with LGBT -- and that's not being comfortable with them. Being squicked out is fine. Being squicked out doesn't give you the right to treat people as second class citizens.

By doing this, you are literally scaring people to conform to another group's point of view for fear of being branded something socially unacceptable.  And that is why these issues are in the background because people cannot have a serious dialogue on these sort of issues without people pulling out the race/homophobe/bigot cards.

It's... pretty simple, really. When there's a serious dialogue that can be had without homophobia, bigotry, or ignorance being the root cause of it, then there's discussion to be had. I've personally yet to see any, at all, arguments for the persecution or removal of rights of LGBT that doesn't have its base in one of the three.

I suppose you could argue that by suppressing people's natural opinions on things like these, you are forcing their displeasure to come out in different ways (your boss is harder on you at work for example).

There's no "forcing" involved. Their displeasure is their own damn problem and if it's being expressed on other people, yes, it is the displeased person's fault. There's no excuse for it.

Also, natural doesn't mean right. Remember that.

But yes, props to Penguin for emphasizing that. Ignorance is generally a greater problem than genuine bigotry (though they're both great problems). The former is much easier to fix.

Mundane!sad: Gwargh, stuffy. G'damn bloody annoying AIR.

Screw it. 69F is amusing, but I'm turning it down to 64. Freaking normal people and their warmth. Warmth comes from people not air, curse it!

Though I guess that's sorta' more rage than sad, but I really get down when I have trouble breathing. Especially when I can hear myself breath. I have spent years and years and years learning and practicing how not to do that. If can hear self breath, breathing too loud! Fix, self, fix!

No, no, that's violent hatred. If it was like, it would have been thus: