The LGBT Thread

[Krooze L-Roy]

My opinion re: Brendan Eich, the LGBT community hasn't gone far enough to purge society of all the filthy anti-gay bigots who supported prop 8. First of all, the guy co-founded Mozilla. Where was the outrage years ago? That we waited so long to get rid of this disgusting excuse for a human reflects poorly on every supporter of gay rights. Second, over 35,000 people contributed to prop 8. I say we track down each and everyone of them, and publically shame their employers until they're forced to resign too. It may be illegal in California to fire someone over their political activity, but this isn't speech, it's oppression! and if we can't get them fired then we can make their lives so hellish that hopefully they end up unemployable and in the street. Finally, since voting isn't speech and is actually an act of political force desined to impose one's views on other people, we should open up the voter rolls and go after the remaining 7 million people who voted in favor of prop 8. I don't want to buy my coffee, cheeseburgers, vinyl flooring, or have my toilet fixed by some subhuman piece of shit. Maybe some time on the welfare rolls will teach those pigfuckers some tolerance.

Amazing how quickly the anti-bigots have become bigger bigots than the actual bigots. Pretty intoxicating to have the social power structures backing you up, huh?

[GaijinPunch]

Amazing how quickly the anti-bigots have become bigger bigots than the actual bigots. Pretty intoxicating to have the social power structures backing you up, huh?

[Acid King]

Amazing how quickly the anti-bigots have become bigger bigots than the actual bigots. Pretty intoxicating to have the social power structures backing you up, huh?

Just because I believe everyone who disagrees with me is functionally retarded doesn't make me a bigot. I just don't want anyone who has different values than me to be anywhere near me at any time. Tolerance, bitch!

[Krooze L-Roy]

Just because I believe everyone who disagrees with me is functionally retarded doesn't make me a bigot. I just don't want anyone who has different values than me to be anywhere near me at any time. Tolerance, bitch!

Maybe if they were all forced to wear some sort of symbol, it would be easier for you to avoid them.

[Acid King]

Maybe if they were all forced to wear some sort of symbol, it would be easier for you to avoid them.

I know, but for the time being I can just go by voter registration.

[GaijinPunch]

Maybe if they were all forced to wear some sort of symbol, it would be easier for you to avoid them.

[ACSeraph]

I'm not gay, but shit like this makes me never want to set foot in the US again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/0 ... 10538.html

[GaijinPunch]

It's Mississippi. It's not exactly the US.

[Skykid]

It's amazing how a country so advanced can be equally so backward thanks to Christianity. I suppose the same can be said of all religions.

(Have at you!)

[Astraea FGA Mk. I]

My opinion re: Brendan Eich, the LGBT community hasn't gone far enough to purge society of all the filthy anti-gay bigots who supported prop 8. First of all, the guy co-founded Mozilla. Where was the outrage years ago? That we waited so long to get rid of this disgusting excuse for a human reflects poorly on every supporter of gay rights. Second, over 35,000 people contributed to prop 8. I say we track down each and everyone of them, and publically shame their employers until they're forced to resign too. It may be illegal in California to fire someone over their political activity, but this isn't speech, it's oppression! and if we can't get them fired then we can make their lives so hellish that hopefully they end up unemployable and in the street. Finally, since voting isn't speech and is actually an act of political force desined to impose one's views on other people, we should open up the voter rolls and go after the remaining 7 million people who voted in favor of prop 8. I don't want to buy my coffee, cheeseburgers, vinyl flooring, or have my toilet fixed by some subhuman piece of shit. Maybe some time on the welfare rolls will teach those pigfuckers some tolerance.

You are a psychopath.

[ciox]

That post looks ironic...

[Acid King]

You are a psychopath.

You're sexy.

On a related note, it's good to see our chums in Portland are giving hell to some filthy bigots opening a grocery store. I'll be fucked if the proceeds of my next purchase of organic radishes and ethically raised lamb are going to go to the coffers of such dangerous people. And seriously, socially conservative religious farmers? What is this, the Antebellum south? I thought they were all destroyed by the rise of the hipster farmer and their pastured artisanal goat cheese operations.

[Astraea FGA Mk. I]

I am not an American. I do not live in California. If I did I would have voted no on prop 8. I believe that same sex couples should be allowed to get married. But you know what? I have this philosophy that I should treat others how I want to be treated myself. How can I expect people to respect my opinion if I won't allow them to have theirs? Even if their perspective is the exact opposite of my own. Instead of hating the people who voted yes on prop 8 you should feel happy that the majority of voters voted no. Prop 8 did not pass because the majority of Californians share your ideals on the matter. People like you are just further polarizing the situation. People like you are making the people who hate you hate you more, and the people on the fence take the side of your opposition. People like you are more detrimental to the LGBT community than the people who voted yes on prop 8. Please stop being angry and focus your efforts towards acceptance and equality because going by your disgusting post you are against these things.

[trap15]

His posts are sarcastic yo.

Also, proposition 8 did pass. It had to be overturned in court.

[GaijinPunch]

Instead of hating the people who voted yes on prop 8 you should feel happy that the majority of voters

It's discrimination. We're allowed to hate on it. It's backwards shit. The ironic thing is the claim by homophobes is that by allowing some other demographic basic rights they've enjoyed forever somehow encroaches on their basic rights.

EDIT: This thread needs some PC-EFX factoids.

[ACSeraph]

I have this philosophy that I should treat others how I want to be treated myself. How can I expect people to respect my opinion if I won't allow them to have theirs?

Wait wut?

What if their opinion is that you shouldn't be treated how they want to be treated?

People are angry because they are oppressed. The oppressors have no right to have a problem with the anger they themselves caused. If you don't want to anger people to what may eventually lead to radicalism maybe you could like, stop treating them like shit?

[Krooze L-Roy]

Very first world usage of the word "oppression" ITT. I've seen harsher oppression doled out by mall security guards on skateboarders.

[ACSeraph]

The horrors of third world oppression are not an excuse to ignore first world oppression.

[Acid King]

It always seemed to me that the easiest thing to do would be to remove the word marriage from the government's lexicon and replace it with something like domestic contract. Primary objection the religious right seems to have with gay marriage is the use of the word marriage, which is ingrained in religious doctrine as a man and a woman. If legislatures pulled that loaded term from their books and allowed religious institutions to preside over weddings that are inline with their religious dogma and the state's only involvement was to enforce the contract between the two people who enter in to the agreement no one would have anything to bitch about. Not only could gays could get married and be eligible for all the government favors and privileges involved in a domestic partnership, but it could also be widened to allow even more people to take advantage of the situation. Let us not forget that the Defense of Marriage act was struck down because Edie Windsor got hit with a $363,000 inheritance tax bill from the Feds after her spouse died. If she were any other relation to Ms. Spyer, a child, mother, father, caretaker or even a unmarried domestic partner, Edith would have been fucked and had absolutely no recourse to challenge that bill. Maybe it's just me but I think hitting anyone with a $300,000+ tax after the death of a loved one is fucked up, regardless of whether or not they engaged in a government sanctioned wedding ceremony.

[KennyMan666]

That alternative term already exists. Civil union.

[Krooze L-Roy]

It always seemed to me that the easiest thing to do would be to remove the word marriage from the government's lexicon and replace it with something like domestic contract. Primary objection the religious right seems to have with gay marriage is the use of the word marriage, which is ingrained in religious doctrine as a man and a woman. If legislatures pulled that loaded term from their books and allowed religious institutions to preside over weddings that are inline with their religious dogma and the state's only involvement was to enforce the contract between the two people who enter in to the agreement no one would have anything to bitch about. Not only could gays could get married and be eligible for all the government favors and privileges involved in a domestic partnership, but it could also be widened to allow even more people to take advantage of the situation. Let us not forget that the Defense of Marriage act was struck down because Edie Windsor got hit with a $363,000 inheritance tax bill from the Feds after her spouse died. If she were any other relation to Ms. Spyer, a child, mother, father, caretaker or even a unmarried domestic partner, Edith would have been fucked and had absolutely no recourse to challenge that bill. Maybe it's just me but I think hitting anyone with a $300,000+ tax after the death of a loved one is fucked up, regardless of whether or not they engaged in a government sanctioned wedding ceremony.

Definitely in agreement with this. The word marriage is really what's being fought over, and since it's considered by most to be a religious ritual, the government shouldn't be touching it in the first place. Civil unions are all that should exist from a legal standpoint, but to use this kernel of common sense to actually resolve the issue would require the government to give up some of it's assumed authority, and I can't think of any precedent for that.

[ptoing]

Not really. You just get married or civil unioned, or whatever, by the state and then you get all the same benefits as straight married couples. Getting married in church is optional anyway. People who are against homosexual marriage are just hateful bigots, really. There is no good reason whatsoever. Either everyone is allowed to marry who they love or no one is. Same rights for everyone.

[Moniker]

Definitely in agreement with this. The word marriage is really what's being fought over, and since it's considered by most to be a religious ritual, the government shouldn't be touching it in the first place. Civil unions are all that should exist from a legal standpoint, but to use this kernel of common sense to actually resolve the issue would require the government to give up some of it's assumed authority, and I can't think of any precedent for that.

This, but I'd go a step further and say that any sort of union is none of the government's business. The government shouldn't be subsidizing marriages, families, or anything else regarding personal relationships. Let people designate their beneficiaries freely. Problem solved.

However, as long as marriage is still government business, then it should be extended to same-sex couples. Separate-but-equal is like, by definition, a fallacy. Opposite-sex couples feel that their marriages are more significant, or at least drastically different, than same-sex civil unions. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an issue. Same-sex couples are clearly savvy to this fact, and don't care to be subject to judgmental definitions.

A decent analogy might be hurricane vs severe tropical storm. If you were a proud natural disaster, which category would you choose?

[blackoak]

Civil union or marriage, the government shouldn't regulate it on any level: federal, state, or local. There should be no tax benefits etc for married people. If two people want to call themselves "married" in the eyes of their church/community/friends/whatever, who cares, but they shouldn't be given preferential treatment for it. That an oppressed minority wants into a franchise that is already inherently discriminatory (but not for a "protected" class) elicits an inner chuckle from me. That's always been the dark side of identity politics though, imo: expand the franchise, worry not that its rotten to begin with.

Actually, living in SF most of my life, I have heard some LGBT folks remark along the lines of: "why the fuck would I want to be married?", but even those objections don't usually go past lifestyle radicalism.

[BulletMagnet]

It always seemed to me that the easiest thing to do would be to remove the word marriage from the government's lexicon and replace it with something like domestic contract.

This is one of the few areas where I find myself in agreement with the libertarian angle; however you slice it, "marriage" is always going to have a religious tinge to it, and the state should do its utmost to separate itself from it. If you're two consenting adults who want to file a joint tax return, head down to the courthouse/clerk's office/whatever and sign a civil union. If you want to be sanctified together in the eyes of your chosen deity, find a church that'll do it for you, and any that don't want to don't have to, but also can't petition the government at large to play by their rules. Just 'cuz some people like to pretend that the founding fathers didn't opine at length concerning the dangers of church and state getting too chummy doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that so much of our history has proved them right on this point.

[GaijinPunch]

This, but I'd go a step further and say that any sort of union is none of the government's business.

Trust me, it is. Not only is it their business, but it's their business to enforce basic rights of equal partners. Generally, the state needs tobe involved to.

1) Grant next of kin rights to partner
2) Ensure tax/insurance breaks to partner
3) Respect visa/immigration rights to partner
4) Ensure partner is protected/supported financially in case of an end of the civil union
5) Ensure partner gets proper visitation rights to any offspring in case of divorce
6) Loads more

If you want to see a perfect example of how to completely shit the mattress on all of the above, simply look over to the world's 3rd largest economy, which is basically "crime free" (huge asterisk), toilets wipe your ass for you, and you can eat off the floor it's so clean: Japan. Terms to Google for some horrific reading. "Japan Parental Abduction". "Japan Divorce" (lol). "Japan Spousal Support". "Japan Dual Custody" <- that one doesn't exist by the way.

The state needs to be present for the same reason the state needs programs to take care of the poor: b/c people are fucktards, and a bottom-rung level needs to be set (and enforced) regarding how badly you're willing to let your citizens be treated. Hate to say it but people can't govern themselves.

There should be no tax benefits etc for married people.

Dependents. They cost money, and you should pay less taxes for more of those you have.

however you slice it, "marriage" is always going to have a religious tinge to it,

When the US government actually separates itself from the church, many moons from now, I'm sure the religious right will start bitching that they want a government which upholds their religion.

[blackoak]

Dependents. They cost money, and you should pay less taxes for more of those you have.

Right, but you don't have to be married to claim dependents (technically they don't even have to be your own children). At least at the federal level... don't know about different state laws.

[GaijinPunch]

Dependents. They cost money, and you should pay less taxes for more of those you have.

Right, but you don't have to be married to claim dependents (technically they don't even have to be your own children). At least at the federal level... don't know about different state laws.

A spouse can suck the life (and money) out of you though!
I'm not against the tax breaks for married people. Unless both parties make the same (much more fathomable in a same-sex marriage, but still pretty unlikely) someone's going to take a financial hit.

[BulletMagnet]

When the US government actually separates itself from the church, many moons from now, I'm sure the religious right will start bitching that they want a government which upholds their religion.

They've already used the phrase "happy holidays" to convince themselves that they're the most mercilessly oppressed group in the history of humankind, so methinks that'd be a rhetorical step back for some of them, at least.

[glitch]

This, but I'd go a step further and say that any sort of union is none of the government's business.

3) Respect visa/immigration rights to partner

amen to this...
i'm in a same-sex relationship while living in japan on a temporary visa (few years). i intend to be working here indefinitely, but if i end up without a position for a while, or get sick and lose a job (less hypothetical than i'd like, given what a mess my spine is) we're basically screwed. two of my friends here are a straight couple in an otherwise similar situation. when push comes to shove they can tell the government that they mean it (i.e. get married) and have the right to be together. no such luxury for us. don't care whether it gets called marriage or whatever, but i'd sure like me those rights.

(yeah gay marriage in japan not on the agenda anytime soon i know. dreams yo. dreams.)