LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double

[Anarion]

If human rights aren't a political subject, then I don't know what is. Not going there.

Everything is politics.

As far as I grasp its definition on this forum (and this is one guy's interpretation who isn't a mod, grab your saltshakers) that doesn't mean that talking is banned though. It does mean that it's a good idea to avoid issues that are currently considered hot-button divisive topics as well as rhetoric espoused by existing or historical candidates or parties from any country.

While human rights, in general, certainly intersect with the above, they aren't inherently divisive. We could, I think, discuss what sort of living conditions everyone needs, for example (I'd say shelter, some number of calories, and clean water, as a starting point). And there's nothing wrong with saying how important the right to self-expression is, though we probably can't talk about how best to secure that right under differing regimes.

I'm also hoping dearly that talking about what we can't talk about in a roundabout way is acceptable in this context.

[SowZ]

Listen to the conspicuous sound of silence...



If human rights aren't a political subject, then I don't know what is. Not going there.

(Edit: the only reason I pointed this out is in answer Golentan: to let him know that while I recognize and respect his very legitimate expression of need, we can't discuss the topic here. I'm happy to do that on another medium, although I thingk there isn't much I can say that's very original or interesting on it).

Literally anything can be political. Anything. If human rights can't be discussed at all in a support thread for LGBT people that would be silly, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

[Icewraith]

Morality is a bad road to go down with people like me. It's far more complex than usual because I understand that the root of all conflict and civility is violence. Moral stances aren't philosophies. They are ultimatums past which the point is "when you transgress this enough, you're not human enough that I need to respect your rights". That's why they're such a huge issue; if followed to their reasonable conclusions we would have war and genocide over... Everything we've had war and genocide over. Huh.

Anyway! Acknowledging that isn't condoning it, but it's a layer of discussion that needs to be touched on and explored before we can really get anywhere, and it requires an intimacy that large Internet groups don't have.

But yes, there does come a point where I don't like tapioca so if you do I'll imprison you or worse. I don't like murder so even if you do, you'll get in trouble for it. Etc.

You misspelled "uneven or insufficient access to resources". (IMO) Violence is merely a byproduct.

[SiuiS]

SiuiS beat me to it, but yeah, the counter to the cake thing is: "I don't like it when people go around punching others in the face, so you don't get to do it."

At some level there's a list of stuff that's definitely okay, stuff that's definitely not okay, and then a fairly large grey area where reasonable minds may differ (example, is putting an arm around somebody's shoulder during conversation an okay touching?).

The thing is, trying to dig down, logically, as to how stuff falls into the okay, not okay, or unsure categories is this insane rabbit hole. You need to start with Plato, throw in some Aristotle, read up on your Thomas Aquinas, reference Kant, and then pick your three favorite modern philosophers and smash them into each other like bumper cars.

Can I do that smashing thing anyway? Sounds like fun~

Listen to the conspicuous sound of silence...

"Why? Silence rarely says much of value. Surely, you mean to obey silence rather than listen for it, non?"

If human rights aren't a political subject, then I don't know what is. Not going there.

That's a fair point. The division is pretty clear at this level; "I want to get married" (human rights are good) is okay, whereas discussion and dissection of ("I want these tax benefits"/"I want these specific rights") is not. But I respect that you would rather back off of something when unsure (or very sure) of how safe the topic is.

I'm also hoping dearly that talking about what we can't talk about in a roundabout way is acceptable in this context.

Don't worry. We won't get modded unless we deserve it XD

[golentan]

Politics, from the greek Politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens."

If you are a citizen of anywhere and something affects you, it's politics.

[noparlpf]

Whoa. So like, rain is politics?

[Coidzor]

Listen to the conspicuous sound of silence...

Well, you know, sometimes it takes a while for people to notice the thread's got new posts.

If human rights aren't a political subject, then I don't know what is. Not going there.

(Edit: the only reason I pointed this out is in answer Golentan: to let him know that while I recognize and respect his very legitimate expression of need, we can't discuss the topic here. I'm happy to do that on another medium, although I thingk there isn't much I can say that's very original or interesting on it).

It is self-evident that we can, in fact, express sentiments like "I would like to be able to get married," and "I do not like being forbidden from marrying someone if I can find someone who wants to marry me right back." We can also say "X place legalized same-sex marriage" and "hooray" in response to this news.

That or the mods have been asleep at the wheel and there's a gold mine of infractions that one could count as a feather in one's hat by going back and trawling through old incarnations of the LGBTAIITP thread with an eye towards the report button.

There are definitely ways that can go into banned topics, and those should generally be avoided, but not everything about them is as verboten as you imply.

Whoa. So like, rain is politics?

Ask a Californian what they think about the drought sometime. You'll hear even more about it if you ask 'em about it offsite.

[Shadowscale]

Politics, from the greek Politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens."

If you are a citizen of anywhere and something affects you, it's politics.

Politics cause people to fight and argue and it typically doesn't end well and escalates. I'd imagine that's more what the forum rules are trying to suggest at.

[golentan]

Whoa. So like, rain is politics?

Certainly, my good fellow!

I'm not even being flippant. Rain affects businesses, farming, the price of water, and the ways that people must distribute it. Here in california, rain is very big politics!

[Jormengand]

I have an idea: how about avoiding the ban on politics by stopping discussing literally politics itself.

[Shadowscale]

I have an idea: how about avoiding the ban on politics by stopping discussing literally politics itself.

Wouldn't the discussion to halt politics be political in its nature as a tactic of avoiding as well? Isn't avoiding conversation political?

[Zurvan]

Whoa. So like, rain is politics?

The lack of it or the excess of it clearly is.

[golentan]

I have an idea: how about avoiding the ban on politics by stopping discussing literally politics itself.

That seems far too sensible. Apologies, I won't say anything further.

[Anarion]

Here in california, rain is very big politics!

North or south? If you're within range of mass transit or zipcar, I might need to try meet your human form?

[Gwynfrid]

That's a fair point. The division is pretty clear at this level; "I want to get married" (human rights are good) is okay, whereas discussion and dissection of ("I want these tax benefits"/"I want these specific rights") is not. But I respect that you would rather back off of something when unsure (or very sure) of how safe the topic is.

Precisely. And, thanks.

[Zurvan]

So... Plans for the holidays? (Awkward change of subject)

[golentan]

North or south? If you're within range of mass transit or zipcar, I might need to try meet your human form?

Central coast. I'm about a ten-fifteen minute walk from the closest san jose transit hub.

[SiuiS]

Wouldn't the discussion to halt politics be political in its nature as a tactic of avoiding as well? Isn't avoiding conversation political?

No, but continuing discussion of what is political might become flame bait...

So... Plans for the holidays? (Awkward change of subject)

Oh thank gosh!

[SowZ]

So... Plans for the holidays? (Awkward change of subject)

Just did the one night of Hannukha that we observe a year.

[Anarion]

Just did the one night of Hannukha that we observe a year.

Mine is ongoing presently.

Edit: oh and Golentan, I'm gonna figure out how to have coffee with you and SiuiS at some point. It will happen.

[golentan]

Mine is ongoing presently.

Edit: oh and Golentan, I'm gonna figure out how to have coffee with you and SiuiS at some point. It will happen.

Promise not to murder me and you're on. SiuiS, you're on your own.

[Shadowscale]

Promise not to murder me and you're on. SiuiS, you're on your own.

I wanna come, I think Flagstaff is near by.

[golentan]

I wanna come, I think Flagstaff is near by.

It's a 12 hour drive. I could put you up on the couch, but I'd want to meet you in person first for at least a little while.

[Anarion]

Promise not to murder me and you're on. SiuiS, you're on your own.

Fiiiine.

I wanna come, I think Flagstaff is near by.

You could. Yours is more of a weekend trip though, whereas the three of us could make it in an afternoon.

[golentan]

Has anyone seen the Imitation Game's initial limited release back in august? It's due out in general theaters on christmas, and my concern about going to see it is how they'll handle Turing and Clarke.

[SiuiS]

Promise not to murder me and you're on. SiuiS, you're on your own.

It's okay. I've met Anarion a few times (two? Or three? Three, right?) and he's so far been nothing if not too accommodating.

Plus there's always your gun arms versus mine. 3:1, not good odds...

I wanna come, I think Flagstaff is near by.

Hmm. We could make a meet of it? Dunno. Never heard of flagstaff, which sucks because that's a cool name.

[banthesun]

Sorry for bringing up the political stuff, I didn't really think of that before posting. With out getting into any more detail, my views are a lot like what Sowz described.

I've always be wary of the concept of "ally", because it's inherently divisive. "Ally" implies there's an enemy, and implies a kind of compact, explicit or implicit, to fight in a war of some sort. Also, it is a political notion, especially with the example given (by the way, with "NSW" I assume you mean the state in Australia, right?), and politics isn't a welcome topic in this forum.

I can see where you're coming from here, but I was under the impression the enemy implied by "ally" was homophobia (or the other types of relevant bigotry).

Do you think this is because you don't know many people of different orientations from yourself, because you wouldn't stand up for them if the opportunity came up, or because the moments are passing you by without you even realizing that they occur?

Here's an easy one. Do you friends call things gay when they mean "bad"? Do you? Are you okay with people doing that?

Well, presently I'm a bit short on IRL friends, but all the friends I have currently are at least somewhat socially minded. When it comes to facebook friends, if I see them doing something homophobic or otherwise dodgy, I tend to just quietly unfriend them. To me that doesn't seem too productive though, since all I'm doing is making sure I don't have to put up with there ****, it wouldn't do anything to combat bigotry.

Also, you should be aware that you're wrong from a strictly practical standpoint. I don't know a ton about international law, but I can tell you about the United States. In the US, there are multiple levels of law: Federal (that is, national), State, and local. "Marriage" as a legal issue intersects with all three. There are also hundreds or even thousands of laws on the books that refer to marriage, including everything from hospital visitation to taxes, to property inheritance upon a person's death. Changing every single one of those laws to include the term "civil union" has not been done and would be extremely difficult to do (even a blanket "everywhere it says 'marriage' add 'civil union' wouldn't solve everything due to use of archaic wording and interpretive challenges).

So, you should be aware that, in addition to any questions of personal recognition, it's simply untrue that civil unions offer the same things as marriage.

Edit: Here's an example. Someone dies. A handwritten will is found that seems to leave everything to the person's brother and nothing to the other member of the civil union. If there were a marriage, the spouse would have the right, under the common law (it's not written down in statute except in a small number of states) to receive some of the person's property anyway because the law has decided that you can't screw over your spouse in your will. The civil union guy though, might get screwed. Even if a statute said "everywhere it says marriage, add civil union," this law comes from a combination of case precedent and historical policy. Nowhere does it say "marriage" in a single law that can be updated to include civil unions. If you try to sue about this and get a conservative judge (average judge age is 50+ so guess how likely that is), that judge will probably rule that the common law doesn't extend to civil unions and the person who's lover just died also gets screwed out of everything.

Yeah, I don't really know much about US law, but I've definitely heard it's an issue there. I even know there's some states of Australia that don't allow civil unions between people of the same gender, so that's why I specified NSW. Of course, my legal knowledge just comes from working in the proximity of legal books, so I could be gravely mistaken here.

I'm not a fan of that line of thinking. It's a good thing to make people conscious of the ways that they can offend without meaning to, but telling people who want to be helpful to go away tends to be counter-productive in my experience.

In my opinion, step 1 is to say that if people want to be friends, they can be friends however they want. Step 2 is once they're friends, gentling pointing out if they do something wrong or offensive unintentionally, and helping them understand how they can be helpful. If somebody is trying to be exploitive, it quickly becomes obvious when they don't correct their behavior or pay attention to the people they claim to be friends with. And there's nothing new about that, it's just being a jerk.

Thanks for your response!

The concept is great, the execution may need improvement.

I'm curious though. Was it the article you read that brought you here now? Or something else? You seem to be unsure of your own position and if you don't mind my prying, I'd very much like to know what motivated you to join the discussion. Please ignore this last part if you'd rather not discuss it, though.

I didn't realise I was that transperant. This has been something I've been thinking about since before I saw that article. Part of it came from when I heard members of my (very extended) family using gay as a slur, but I didn't say anything in response (that was the last time I posted here, I think). A bit came from seeing some stuff about the LGBTQ thread here, but not feeling like I should browse a safe space not intended for me (like, I consider myself a feminist, but I wouldn't go inserting myself into any safe spaces for women). Mix in a bit of general internet terribleness, and that article too. Hell, since posting I saw another article dealing with similar concepts (but about feminism). So kinda a lot of things on my mind, I guess.

Being an ally is pretty simple in my experience. Don't tell me I'm going to hell, don't assault me, don't try to make my sex life illegal or keep me from getting a marriage license based on the sex of my partner, and don't try to justify the actions of people who do any of those things.

I'm not sure I follow. I've been assuming there's a certain degree of space between being homophobic and being an ally. Are you saying you see it as a dichotomy?

[Kesnit]

So... Plans for the holidays? (Awkward change of subject)

I have to work today, 5AM-11AM. (Since I've been unable to find a job in law, I'm working retail.)

We're having an invasion tomorrow. (My wife and I live with her parents.) The invasion includes:

• My mother-in-law's brother, who is a jerk.
• My wife's brother, his wife, and their 2.5 year old daughter. I get along with my brother- and sister-in-law, but don't like kids. (I'm sure my niece will be fine once she becomes a human being...)
• My sister-in-law's mother and sister. Mother is OK, though can be annoying. Sister has some mental illness (not sure what) and often forgets to take her meds. When she's off her meds, she literally becomes delusional.

For New Year's, I've got a job interview Wednesday morning, then am coming home (it's 4 hours away) and will likely spend the night at home. In years past, the local gaming store has held an all-night party for New Years, but plans did not get worked out in time to have it this year. (I'm not crying too hard. I went last year and was kinda bored.)

[Astrella]

So... Plans for the holidays? (Awkward change of subject)

Seeing family and hoping I won't have to deal with too much stuff regarding me being trans or my mental health.

[Serpentine]

Brief factual qualification:

On top of this, I have some views that I'm pretty sure members of said community would challenge, specifically regarding gay marriage in NSW (as far as I know, civil unions or defacto relationships afford the same statuses and protections as marriage, and are open to couples regardless of their makeup).

De-facto and civil unions cover most of the statuses and protections as marriage, but not all of them. They are also not necessarily recognised in other countries, or even potentially other states. Moreover, the fact that they have to have a different type of union means it by nature doesn't have the same "status" as marriage. Then there's issues involving the separation of church and state and why the secular aspects of the union are being dictated by religious factors, which I won't address further.
Personally, I'd like one overall "union", if you will, that covers the binding of consenting adults in both same- and different-sex combinations that incorporates all secular aspects - rights, responsibilities, tax, inheritence, etc - and leave the "ritual" aspects up to individual churches or groups to decide what combinations of people they're willing to officiate over. Whichever one you want to call marriage, separate the secular from the rest and apply it to everyone evenly, and leave the rituals to the individual organisations to do with what they will.