Serious LGBT Discussion

[Hyperion]

It is not a complicated issue to me. If you do not like gays, then don't be gay. What these people do in the privacy of their own homes is no business of mine and does not hurt me, nor does it hurt anyone else. Sometimes there are members of the LGBT community that engage in histrionics but with people like Rick Santorum and Kim Davis running around I think the straight community is equally guilty.

If someone has an issue with how someone else lives and they can't put it out of their mind and keep to their own business then it is they who have a problem, and not whoever they disagree with.

 

[Vitriol]

I have deleted one anecdote about going to a gay party as it did not contribute to discussion.

This thread is specifically for discussion of lgbt issues, the thread in off topic is the place for sharing general anecdotes. I've left @DirkBloodStormKing and @DoshesToDoshes posts as they just barely illustrate issues faced by lgbt people.

 

[AnOminous]

It is not a complicated issue to me. If you do not like gays, then don't be gay.

The problem is that an inordinate number of the people who really, really, really hate gays are actually gay.

 

[bearycool]

It is not a complicated issue to me. If you do not like gays, then don't be gay. What these people do in the privacy of their own homes is no business of mine and does not hurt me, nor does it hurt anyone else. Sometimes there are members of the LGBT community that engage in histrionics but with people like Rick Santorum and Kim Davis running around I think the straight community is equally guilty.

If someone has an issue with how someone else lives and they can't put it out of their mind and keep to their own business then it is they who have a problem, and not whoever they disagree with.

Correct. Gay people are equal in all ways, as they are humans who just like the same gender.

That also means they have imperfections and problems as well, and shouldn't be forced to be perfect humans becomes other think their sexuality is a sin. Which also means we shouldn't be trying to make ourselves better than everyone else, hence why Tumblr is shitty and I want to destory it with glorious fire.

It's okay to love yourself, but it's another thing to be prideful and FULL of yourself.

 

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

The only time I every really have a problem with any sexuality or gender identity is when those seem to be the only thing a person uses to define themselves, or when they play the professional victim game.

We all know that one guy whose only attribute is being gay. If you asked him what his favorite music is, he would just reply "gay", or what his favorite food is, he would just remind you he likes to take it up the ass. Most people never have this problem, because people tend to have interests other than what they like to penetrate/be penetrated by, but there is still a small minority that does just that.

As far as the professional victim game, remember when that bible thumper who ran a cake shop wouldn't make a cake for a gay wedding? Is the person who refused to make the cake a bad person? Yes, they are a bigot and have some pretty backwards beliefs. The person who dragged them into court? Even worse, they succeeded in further polarizing the opinions of people who generally weren't involved at all. All this does is breed hate, and serves no purpose at all. On the whole, society is advancing, and viewpoints are changing, and we should let it proceed naturally. Keep educating, the old breed always dies off soon enough.

 

[DNJACK]

Something I wonder is the need for gay people to form their own community. Is wanting to fuck dudes so life-chaning for them that they can't relate to the rest of the population?

 

[bearycool]

Something I wonder is the need for gay people to form their own community. Is wanting to fuck dudes so life-chaning for them that they can't relate to the rest of the population?

The reason for community is because gays are a minority, and have faced persecution. Humans tend to do that because it makes them feel safer, especially when faced with others who want to do them harm. It's not that they can't relate to others outside of the community, it's just there so that we know that others like us exist and we aren't alone in the world.

 

[bearycool]

The only time I every really have a problem with any sexuality or gender identity is when those seem to be the only thing a person uses to define themselves, or when they play the professional victim game.

We all know that one guy whose only attribute is being gay. If you asked him what his favorite music is, he would just reply "gay", or what his favorite food is, he would just remind you he likes to take it up the ass. Most people never have this problem, because people tend to have interests other than what they like to penetrate/be penetrated by, but there is still a small minority that does just that.

As far as the professional victim game, remember when that bible thumper who ran a cake shop wouldn't make a cake for a gay wedding? Is the person who refused to make the cake a bad person? Yes, they are a bigot and have some pretty backwards beliefs. The person who dragged them into court? Even worse, they succeeded in further polarizing the opinions of people who generally weren't involved at all. All this does is breed hate, and serves no purpose at all. On the whole, society is advancing, and viewpoints are changing, and we should let it proceed naturally. Keep educating, the old breed always dies off soon enough.

You basically summed up my viewpoints. I do believe in moderation, and I find gays who just constantly talk about being gay in a unfunny way REALLY annoying. I can see why you don't let people like that work with you sometimes.

As for that cake thing, it was a fiasco. People really need to learn that there is this thing called "communication" and actually discussing stuff in a critical manner. Both the guy who refused to make the cake and those who took him to court should have done that, and saved themselves a shitton of drama and bullshit.

But no, apparently only extremes work.

 

[DNJACK]

The reason for community is because gays are a minority, and have faced persecution. Humans tend to do that because it makes them feel safer, especially when faced with others who want to do them harm. It's not that they can't relate to others outside of the community, it's just there so that we know that others like us exist and we aren't alone in the world.

If anything it makes them easier targets. When russian youth want to look cool by bashing some homo, they know where to find them. Otherwise they'd have to ask everyone "Hey do you like to fuck dudes?" until someone is dumb enough to say yes.

 

[Marvin]

As far as the professional victim game, remember when that bible thumper who ran a cake shop wouldn't make a cake for a gay wedding? Is the person who refused to make the cake a bad person? Yes, they are a bigot and have some pretty backwards beliefs. The person who dragged them into court? Even worse, they succeeded in further polarizing the opinions of people who generally weren't involved at all. All this does is breed hate, and serves no purpose at all. On the whole, society is advancing, and viewpoints are changing, and we should let it proceed naturally. Keep educating, the old breed always dies off soon enough.

I don't have an opinion specifically on the cake issue, but in general, I disagree. Just sitting around and waiting politely for the majority to give you your rights doesn't work. How much longer would legal segregation in the south have lasted had the supreme court not ruled it unconstitutional?

In many cases, the authorities enforcing your rights are the only way you'll get them. It's why we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't have an opinion specifically on the cake issue, but in general, I disagree.

I disagree in general as well, but I think there's a reasonable argument that a profession with some degree of artisanship, like creating cakes, has an expressive component to it that someone who does it should have some right not to be compelled to express a viewpoint with which they disagree or to which they have religious objections.

However, any such exception would have to be very narrow.

There was an anti-discrimination law in place, it forbade discrimination on the basis of orientation, and a business not only overtly violated that law, but did so intentionally and stated its intention of continuing to disobey the law. Someone directly affected by that illegal behavior brought a complaint under the law, as allowed, and the relevant agency found the law to have been broken and the complainant entitled to compensation.

Break the law, pay the price.

 

[Dark Mirror Hole]

The person who dragged them into court? Even worse, they succeeded in further polarizing the opinions of people who generally weren't involved at all. All this does is breed hate, and serves no purpose at all. On the whole, society is advancing, and viewpoints are changing, and we should let it proceed naturally. Keep educating, the old breed always dies off soon enough.

If you're referring to the Melissa's case, I think the lesbian couple sued the bakers because the bakers essentially doxxed them on their Facebook page, not because of the refused service. They filed some kind of complaint prior to the doxxing. Then the bakers started playing up the martyr angle on their GoFundMe page. I could be wrong though.

 

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

If you're referring to the Melissa's case, I think the lesbian couple sued the bakers because the bakers essentially doxxed them on their Facebook page, not because of the refused service. They filed some kind of complaint prior to the doxxing. Then the bakers started playing up the martyr angle on their GoFundMe page. I could be wrong though.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-ruling-colorado-baker-refused-gay-wedding-cake/ this one, not that one. The one you were talking about was totally warranted.

I don't have an opinion specifically on the cake issue, but in general, I disagree. Just sitting around and waiting politely for the majority to give you your rights doesn't work. How much longer would legal segregation in the south have lasted had the supreme court not ruled it unconstitutional?

In many cases, the authorities enforcing your rights are the only way you'll get them. It's why we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy.

I disagree. I think educating is far from doing nothing, you catch more flies with honey after all. Anyone who may have been persuaded to open their minds a bit for anyone who followed that case is now pissed. As far as someone like Kim Davis, I agree. Impeach the bitch. But who are you to tell any private citizen what they can and can not do? We already have laws on the books that allow for these kinds of exceptions. Here, in NY, a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription based on religious beliefs, but are required to direct them someplace that will within a certain driving distance. That system seems to work well. Now, the number of pharmacists who refuse to fill a prescription is rapidly dropping, because there is an active program to educate.

I'd say forcing others to comply with your viewpoints via litigation is really no better than what the gender-fluid demi-girl/boy autigender SJW crowd is trying to do. There has to be a happy median.

 

[Marvin]

I disagree. I think educating is far from doing nothing, you catch more flies with honey after all. Anyone who may have been persuaded to open their minds a bit for anyone who followed that case is now pissed. As far as someone like Kim Davis, I agree. Impeach the bitch. But who are you to tell any private citizen what they can and can not do? We already have laws on the books that allow for these kinds of exceptions. Here, in NY, a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription based on religious beliefs, but are required to direct them someplace that will within a certain driving distance. That system seems to work well. Now, the number of pharmacists who refuse to fill a prescription is rapidly dropping, because there is an active program to educate.

I'd say forcing others to comply with your viewpoints via litigation is really no better than what the gender-fluid demi-girl/boy autigender SJW crowd is trying to do. There has to be a happy median.

You fail to bring up specifics. Everything you've said could be trivially applied to race discrimination.

 

[Joan Nyan]

Not quite on topic to what everyone else has been talking about, but related to LGBT discussion, am I the only gay who doesn't like the word "Queer"? It seems like it's been commonly accepted as an umbrella term for anyone who's not straight, but it means "strange". I just don't really like being considered "strange" for not being straight.

Queer doesn't really bother me that much though, people can call themselves queer if they want and I really don't care. What does actually bother me a bit is when people use a pink triangle. I saw it on a sign at my school about being inclusive and I actually thought it was really offensive. It's literally Nazi symbolism. I don't take many things seriously but the holocaust is one of them, and that's fucked up.

 

[Shugo]

Do you guys think that homosexuals standing in at Medical conferences and screaming as loudly as they can not to be deemed mentally ill, even though it does not mandate them to have any forced diagnosis is productive to the LGBT movement? I believe this was near when HIV/AIDS was much more deadly and widespread than today, and I think there was still a medical reason for labeling homosexuality as a disorder that increased the risk factor of catching HIV.

Even now, transgenders are labeled by some medical professionals as a mental illness. Should it or should it not be treated by medical professionals like this? Transgender people from what I understand have abnormally high suicide rates, both pre and post operation. Is transitioning the best treatment, even if many transgenders commit suicide after their operations? I don't really know the numbers on this, just hearsay that looks to be supported vaguely by articles I've read.

 

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

You fail to bring up specifics. Everything you've said could be trivially applied to race discrimination.

Sure thing.

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, a majority of states already had marriage equality on the books. Sure, there were a few holdouts still, but compare that situation to even 20 years ago. 1-2 states had it on the books, sure, but the fact is a majority of states had put it on the books only by outreach and education. I think this route should've been followed a bit longer than it was. Changing minds changes laws.

As far as race is concerned, the 1960's civil rights movements were primarily based on outreach. To churches, politicians, schools, etc. Sure, you had a handful of cases like Brown v. BoE that happened, but honestly, the LGBT community isn't dealing with anything like Jim Crow. The reason litigation needed to happen with racial issues is the fact we had laws on the books, on a federal level, that basically made all other approaches impossible. The LGBT movement was winning long before they started dragging a few holdouts into court to ruin them financially, publically shame them, and in some cases, put them in a cell. All over a fucking cake. We aren't talking segregated schools and facilities. We aren't talking burning crosses in a front yard. Just one well meaning but ignorant person saying "sorry, I can't do that. It violates my beliefs." Can I walk into a halal butcher shop and demand a pork chop? Or an Indian restaurant and demand a cheese burger? The guy even offered to make them any other kind of cake. He refused service not because they were gay, but because he thought marriage was primarily a religious institution.

It sure doesn't help the PR battle, and really only validates the fear of the bigots.

EDIT:http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/same-sex-marriage-state-by-state/ turns out in 1995, no states allowed gay marriage, and even 10 years ago, a majority actually had a ban on it. Fast forward to 2014, only 15 hold outs, and a few of them were already in the process of legalization. Sure, you can't patiently wait for the majority to give you rights, but you can make yourself the majority and give yourself rights via education and outreach. Not bad for just a decade.

 

[Vitriol]

Not quite on topic to what everyone else has been talking about, but related to LGBT discussion, am I the only gay who doesn't like the word "Queer"? It seems like it's been commonly accepted as an umbrella term for anyone who's not straight, but it means "strange". I just don't really like being considered "strange" for not being straight.

Queer doesn't really bother me that much though, people can call themselves queer if they want and I really don't care. What does actually bother me a bit is when people use a pink triangle. I saw it on a sign at my school about being inclusive and I actually thought it was really offensive. It's literally Nazi symbolism. I don't take many things seriously but the holocaust is one of them, and that's fucked up.

Fun fact in parts of Scotland 'queer' still means strange. I remember accidentally causing offense when i first went to uni and described something as 'a bit queer'.

I agree its a poor word to have tried to 'reclaim'. When one sees an individual who looks like they may be on ADF's friend list carrying a sign that reads 'QUEER AS FUCK' the immediate reaction is 'yes, yes you are.' it impresses no one and convinces noone. Nor does it intimidate anyone- it just makes the garishly painted and oddly dressed person look like a tool. They look like they're try harding and attention seeking- neither of which impresses the general public.

 

[Pikimon]

From what I've learned from some of my gay friends, it seems like within the gay community there is a heavy emphasis on looks and wealth which prevents a lot of average gay people from feeling comfortable within the community. I've been told that it made them feel even more distressed than when they came out, because the people they came out to where understanding but they didn't feel accepted by the larger gay community. Did any LGBT kiwis have this sort of issue, and if you did, how did it make you feel/how did you deal with it?

In Los Angeles there is a lot of that, there is a certain kind of gay guy that are called "The Untouchables". They're the dude who wears the perfect clothes, has the perfect job, the best body and a sultry voice. They're called untouchables because they're so hot that you literally cannot approach them unless you're on their level. However everyone else beneath them is a free for all. Are you really thin and pale with low muscle mass and wish to hook up/go on a date with a really hot muscular bro? Yep you'll find him and get to bone too.

On the issue of promiscuity, gay men are massive hypocrites. We make fucking hilarious jokes about different men being sluts and whores ("His asshole is so stretched out it's being used as an inner tube at the pool") but while hooking up with everything that moves. I personally don't give two shits about how many or with who they sleep with, sex feels good and if someone wants to fuck a bunch a guys then let em' If they want to stay in a monogamous relationship or stay single, that's their own issue. Promiscuity and other people's sexual patterns are simply not my concern.

As a movement, the LGBT community has basically petered out with Gay Marriage. The movement concerned itself so hard and so intensely on gay marriage that now we simply either deny or ignore the really HUGE problems the community faces. HIV for example is on the rise among the 13-21 demographic because of relaxed attitudes about HIV. Then there's the ugly drug culture that simmers in a lot of parts of the gay community, with meth and GHB use being fairly common now.

These issues aren't going to addressed anytime soon, thanks to the resurgence of the "Offended Affluent Liberal" any time these problems are brought up they're going to be ignored in order to preserve the "image" of the gay community as light-skinned smiling middle class gays who cut your hair in salons and like shopping, it's condescending and reall fucks up any chance of any discussion being made.

 

[Marvin]

Sure thing.

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, a majority of states already had marriage equality on the books. Sure, there were a few holdouts still, but compare that situation to even 20 years ago. 1-2 states had it on the books, sure, but the fact is a majority of states had put it on the books only by outreach and education. I think this route should've been followed a bit longer than it was. Changing minds changes laws.

As far as race is concerned, the 1960's civil rights movements were primarily based on outreach. To churches, politicians, schools, etc. Sure, you had a handful of cases like Brown v. BoE that happened, but honestly, the LGBT community isn't dealing with anything like Jim Crow. The reason litigation needed to happen with racial issues is the fact we had laws on the books, on a federal level, that basically made all other approaches impossible. The LGBT movement was winning long before they started dragging a few holdouts into court to ruin them financially, publically shame them, and in some cases, put them in a cell. All over a fucking cake. We aren't talking segregated schools and facilities. We aren't talking burning crosses in a front yard. Just one well meaning but ignorant person saying "sorry, I can't do that. It violates my beliefs." Can I walk into a halal butcher shop and demand a pork chop? Or an Indian restaurant and demand a cheese burger? The guy even offered to make them any other kind of cake. He refused service not because they were gay, but because he thought marriage was primarily a religious institution.

It sure doesn't help the PR battle, and really only validates the fear of the bigots.

EDIT:http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/same-sex-marriage-state-by-state/ turns out in 1995, no states allowed gay marriage, and even 10 years ago, a majority actually had a ban on it. Fast forward to 2014, only 15 hold outs, and a few of them were already in the process of legalization. Sure, you can't patiently wait for the majority to give you rights, but you can make yourself the majority and give yourself rights via education and outreach. Not bad for just a decade.

Admittedly, it's a very different concept, but the situation reminds me of bona fide occupational qualifications. Basically, it answers the question of how much is discrimination essential to your business model and to what extent we must tolerate it. With the halal butcher shop and the Indian restaurant the answer is: yes, it is essential. (Well, not discrimination, but their product is very specific.) There are well established definitions of what constitutes "halal" and there's a pretty solid understanding of what Indian food is. But BFOQs aren't infinite in scope, they're actually pretty limited. Hooters is still fighting over whether or not it's legal for them to discriminate against male waiters.

Like I said, I have little knowledge of the specifics of the cake issue. But I don't see the big difference between that and the Kim Davis thing. Like yeah, marriage itself is more important than cakes. But still, the solution to getting a marriage license in her county is as simple as going one county over. Many other counties were issuing marriage licenses. A half hour drive would've solved their problem. But the bigger issue is that people are flouting the law to make a personal statement. That shouldn't be tolerated any more than if I cut off the fire escapes on my building and claimed first amendment protection for it.