LGBTQ citizens and inequality in the law - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 06-27-2009, 07:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
So I was having a discussion with a straight friend of mine yesterday (someone who I had believed to be quite liberal), and we started discussing legal inequalities in the US based for people who identify as LGBTQ. He is apparently of the opinion that, other than the right to marry, there is no real inequality.



I (strongly) beg to differ.



What do you think? And if you're not in the US, feel free to comment on the legal inequalities (or lack thereof) in your country of origin.
RedLotus is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 06-27-2009, 07:47 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
the latest stats in oz say that 60% of aussies support gay marrriage. i think we wouldve had gay marriage made legal in oz by now if we hadnt had to suffer 11 years of conservative government and then now, for the first time ever (i think), we have an openly devout christian as a prime minister. hes a good bloke and hes doing a lot of great stuff but unfortunately, his christian views may be holding him back on approving of gay marriage. so until he changes his stance on that there will never be true equality, in a legal sense anyway.
GhostUser is offline  
#3 Old 06-27-2009, 07:54 PM
Newbie
 
TheWaldo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 44
all for it..definately.

the only reason theyre restricted is because of the religious conservatives..

what happened to the seperation of church and state.?
TheWaldo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 06-27-2009, 10:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

So I was having a discussion with a straight friend of mine yesterday (someone who I had believed to be quite liberal), and we started discussing legal inequalities in the US based for people who identify as LGBTQ. He is apparently of the opinion that, other than the right to marry, there is no real inequality.



I (strongly) beg to differ.



What do you think? And if you're not in the US, feel free to comment on the legal inequalities (or lack thereof) in your country of origin.

I have to agree with you friend. They have the right to vote, freedom of speech, have children, work, etc...



What legal inequalities do you think exist in our current politically correct country?
havocjohn is offline  
#5 Old 06-27-2009, 10:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
rosiem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 858
It's pretty good in Canada. We have gay marriage in all provinces and territories, so that's pretty nice.
rosiem is offline  
#6 Old 06-28-2009, 01:01 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
I have to agree with you friend. They have the right to vote, freedom of speech, have children, work, etc...



What legal inequalities do you think exist in our current politically correct country?



Well, for starters, the right to marry includes a hell of a lot more than just being able to call your partner your wife/husband. In the US, there are over 1,000 legal rights and privileges that are exclusive to married couples.



Beside that, there are many state-by-state laws that limit LGBTQ people's rights. For instance, in Alabama they recently passed a law making it impossible for single people to foster or adopt children. This is generally believed to be a roundabout way of making it impossible for gay couples to foster/adopt, since they can't get married in Alabama and therefore are considered "single" no matter how committed of a relationship they are in. Mississippi outright bans gay or lesbian couples from adopting.



Then there's Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the thousands of LGBTQ people who have been dishonorably discharged from the military for their sexuality or gender identity. Not to mention those who want to serve but are unable to because they're not willing to lie or hide who they are.



LGBT people, despite having a much higher risk of discrimination than the general public, are not well protected under more than half of this county's state laws. Only 20 states outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and only 13 states outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression. I'm not talking about special rights here, just the ability to get housing, employment, and have personal safety regardless of your sexuality or gender. If you're Latino, and someone refuses you a job for your race, they are violating your rights. In many states here in the US, if you are a lesbian and you are refused a job based on your sexuality, tough luck.



Of course we have most of the same rights as straight people in the US, but that doesn't mean we have ALL of them.
RedLotus is offline  
#7 Old 06-28-2009, 01:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

Well, for starters, the right to marry includes a hell of a lot more than just being able to call your partner your wife/husband. In the US, there are over 1,000 legal rights and privileges that are exclusive to married couples.



Beside that, there are many state-by-state laws that limit LGBTQ people's rights. For instance, in Alabama they recently passed a law making it impossible for single people to foster or adopt children. This is generally believed to be a roundabout way of making it impossible for gay couples to foster/adopt, since they can't get married in Alabama and therefore are considered "single" no matter how committed of a relationship they are in. Mississippi outright bans gay or lesbian couples from adopting.



Then there's Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the thousands of LGBTQ people who have been dishonorably discharged from the military for their sexuality or gender identity. Not to mention those who want to serve but are unable to because they're not willing to lie or hide who they are.



LGBT people, despite having a much higher risk of discrimination than the general public, are not well protected under more than half of this county's state laws. Only 20 states outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and only 13 states outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression. I'm not talking about special rights here, just the ability to get housing, employment, and have personal safety regardless of your sexuality or gender. If you're Latino, and someone refuses you a job for your race, they are violating your rights. In many states here in the US, if you are a lesbian and you are refused a job based on your sexuality, tough luck.



Of course we have most of the same rights as straight people in the US, but that doesn't mean we have ALL of them.

yes and those same rights are denied straight couples that don't marry, so I don't see that as anything special.



Though I can't speak of individual states laws, I do no it is damn near impossible for most straight single people to adopt children anyways, so again nothing special.



Don't ask don't tell; considering it was no gays at all prior to don't ask don't tell, I think you don't have any room to complain about that. As I have pointed out in another thread about the military's policy, in some ways it is more for the safety of the individual that is gay to not be open about it, and being straight I can honestly say I wouldn't want to be in boot camp with someone that was gay, call it what ever you want, but women seem to have a problem running naked around men they don't want to share their beds with, and I dont want to run around naked with some guy checking out my butt.



Well to be honest, if I was a company owner, or a property owner and didn't want to hire or rent to someone because of their sexual orientation, I don't think the state has the right to tell me any different, so I don't see that as an issue either.
havocjohn is offline  
#8 Old 06-28-2009, 01:28 AM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

Don't ask don't tell; considering it was no gays at all prior to don't ask don't tell, I think you don't have any room to complain about that.



By that kind of "reasoning", one could have said to a post Civil War African American, "considering you were slaves, I think you have no right to complain about Jim Crow laws."



Guys sure have some weird hangups. I guess there probably are some women who are uncomfortable around lesbians, but even back in the dark ages (the '70's) none of the girls in my dorm had any qualms about sharing communal showers with the girls that happened to be lesbian. They may have had a different sexual orientation, but they had the same anotomical features as the rest of us, so it never even entered our minds to be uncomfortable.
mlp is offline  
#9 Old 06-28-2009, 01:33 AM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post

By that kind of "reasoning", one could have said to a post Civil War African American, "considering you were slaves, I think you have no right to complain about Jim Crow laws."

please some of you people like to pull out the slavery card about everything, don't ya.



so do you like running around naked in front of a bunch of men that you aren't interested in?
havocjohn is offline  
#10 Old 06-28-2009, 01:52 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
yes and those same rights are denied straight couples that don't marry, so I don't see that as anything special.



Well, when those rights are denied to a straight couple that WANTS to marry, but is told they can't, then maybe you'll see that as "special." And many of those rights/privilages are specific to couples, like the right to be claimed on your spouse's insurance, visit them in an ICU, etc, so they don't apply to single people in general. You're talking about people who DON'T marry, not people who CAN'T marry, and there is a difference.



Quote:
Though I can't speak of individual states laws, I do no it is damn near impossible for most straight single people to adopt children anyways, so again nothing special.



First off, I meant to say Arkansas, not Alambama - my bad. : Secondly, single-parent adoption is very common in this country. According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 33% of children adopted from Foster Care are adopted by a single parent (U.S. DHHS, 2000). In many states gay and lesbian people CAN adopt, but second-parent adoption is an issue in many parts of the country (the ability of, for instance, a lesbian to legally adopt her partner's bio child).



Quote:
Don't ask don't tell; considering it was no gays at all prior to don't ask don't tell, I think you don't have any room to complain about that. As I have pointed out in another thread about the military's policy, in some ways it is more for the safety of the individual that is gay to not be open about it, and being straight I can honestly say I wouldn't want to be in boot camp with someone that was gay, call it what ever you want, but women seem to have a problem running naked around men they don't want to share their beds with, and I dont want to run around naked with some guy checking out my butt.



I absolutely have room to complain about it when members of my community are being actively discriminated against. And gays still aren't allowed in the military. It's STILL no gays allowed. DADT is basically the military saying "well, we can't identify all of you, so as long as no one can tell you're gay, fine." But as soon as they can identify someone as LGBT, they get the boot. Gays were hiding their sexuality to serve in the military for a long time before DADT. Now there's just a term for the policy. But as far as rights go, nothing has changed. And you're right, it could be dangerous to be gay in the military, but it can also be dangerous to be a female soldier, or a minority, or a Muslim. So should they be kicked out too? And you might be surprised how okay a lot of soldiers are with serving with LGBT people. Take Lt. Dan Choi, for instance, who was a decorated soldier who admitted to being gay and was dishonorably discharged. It was general knowledge to those who served with him that he was gay, and all any of them can say about him is what a good soldier he was and how much they respect him.



And as for you not wanting a gay soldier checking you out, well, I think we've established that there ARE gays in the military, even if they can't serve openly, so you'd run the risk of being ogled regardless of rather or not DADT exists. And for the record, being gay does not make someone an insatiable slut that lusts after anyone of the same sex. Our brains aren't all sex all the time. A gay soldier is not by definition any less focused or dedicated or respectful in his or her duty than a straight soldier. Just because he's gay, and you're a man, does NOT mean he's trying to get in your pants. Also, your version of the military, where people run around buck naked in the barracks, sounds like a lot of fun. I hadn't realized there was so much streaking in our nation's military.



Quote:
Well to be honest, if I was a company owner, or a property owner and didn't want to hire or rent to someone because of their sexual orientation, I don't think the state has the right to tell me any different, so I don't see that as an issue either.



So, if you were a company or property owner and didn't want to hire someone or rent to them because they were Asian, or black, or a woman, then that'd be fine, too?
RedLotus is offline  
#11 Old 06-28-2009, 02:06 AM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

please some of you people like to pull out the slavery card about everything, don't ya.



so do you like running around naked in front of a bunch of men that you aren't interested in?



I wasn't comparing LGBT issues to slavery; I was pointing out a rather sizeable flaw in your reasoning. If you try really, really hard, you might just possibly see the difference.



As to the second part of your post, re-read what I said. Women are women, and it doesn't make any difference to me whether I'm naked in the company of hetersexual or gay women. I would prefer not to be naked in the company of men (other than the one with whom I am co-habitating), whether they're heterosexual or gay, but it wouldn't freak me out unduly. (Maybe it's because I don't expect that everyone within sight will be overcome with lust at the sight of my naked body. Is it as simple as that - that a lot of straight men are just positive that anyone who is not likewise a straight male must naturally be lusting after them?!)
mlp is offline  
#12 Old 06-28-2009, 02:19 AM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

Well, when those rights are denied to a straight couple that WANTS to marry, but is told they can't, then maybe you'll see that as "special." And many of those rights/privilages are specific to couples, like the right to be claimed on your spouse's insurance, visit them in an ICU, etc, so they don't apply to single people in general. You're talking about people who DON'T marry, not people who CAN'T marry, and there is a difference.







First off, I meant to say Arkansas, not Alambama - my bad. : Secondly, single-parent adoption is very common in this country. According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 33% of children adopted from Foster Care are adopted by a single parent (U.S. DHHS, 2000). In many states gay and lesbian people CAN adopt, but second-parent adoption is an issue in many parts of the country (the ability of, for instance, a lesbian to legally adopt her partner's bio child).







I absolutely have room to complain about it when members of my community are being actively discriminated against. And gays still aren't allowed in the military. It's STILL no gays allowed. DADT is basically the military saying "well, we can't identify all of you, so as long as no one can tell you're gay, fine." But as soon as they can identify someone as LGBT, they get the boot. Gays were hiding their sexuality to serve in the military for a long time before DADT. Now there's just a term for the policy. But as far as rights go, nothing has changed. And you're right, it could be dangerous to be gay in the military, but it can also be dangerous to be a female soldier, or a minority, or a Muslim. So should they be kicked out too? And you might be surprised how okay a lot of soldiers are with serving with LGBT people. Take Lt. Dan Choi, for instance, who was a decorated soldier who admitted to being gay and was dishonorably discharged. It was general knowledge to those who served with him that he was gay, and all any of them can say about him is what a good soldier he was and how much they respect him.



And as for you not wanting a gay soldier checking you out, well, I think we've established that there ARE gays in the military, even if they can't serve openly, so you'd run the risk of being ogled regardless of rather or not DADT exists. And for the record, being gay does not make someone an insatiable slut that lusts after anyone of the same sex. Our brains aren't all sex all the time. A gay soldier is not by definition any less focused or dedicated or respectful in his or her duty than a straight soldier. Just because he's gay, and you're a man, does NOT mean he's trying to get in your pants. Also, your version of the military, where people run around buck naked in the barracks, sounds like a lot of fun. I hadn't realized there was so much streaking in our nation's military.







So, if you were a company or property owner and didn't want to hire someone or rent to them because they were Asian, or black, or a woman, then that'd be fine, too?



I am too tired to even think about responding to most of this, but in regards to Lt Choi; it was not general knowledge that Lt Choi was gay by anyone for the first 10 yrs of his military career, that is his words from the article he did with ABC, it is somewhere the heap. So no it was not general knowledge that he was gay, despite the distortion you are presenting. Here's the bottom line in regards to the military, there are laws/rules which are spelled out in the UCMJ, until you can convince congress to change those laws/rules they are the guidelings to be followed, and as such if you want to serve and are gay then I suggest you remain silent and celebite while your in.
havocjohn is offline  
#13 Old 06-28-2009, 02:39 AM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post

I wasn't comparing LGBT issues to slavery; I was pointing out a rather sizeable flaw in your reasoning. If you try really, really hard, you might just possibly see the difference.



As to the second part of your post, re-read what I said. Women are women, and it doesn't make any difference to me whether I'm naked in the company of hetersexual or gay women. I would prefer not to be naked in the company of men (other than the one with whom I am co-habitating), whether they're heterosexual or gay, but it wouldn't freak me out unduly. (Maybe it's because I don't expect that everyone within sight will be overcome with lust at the sight of my naked body. Is it as simple as that - that a lot of straight men are just positive that anyone who is not likewise a straight male must naturally be lusting after them?!)

I tried responding to this and everything just disappeared... maybe tomorrow if I get online.
havocjohn is offline  
#14 Old 06-28-2009, 02:50 AM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

Also, your version of the military, where people run around buck naked in the barracks, sounds like a lot of fun. I hadn't realized there was so much streaking in our nation's military.





when one is in boot camp or on a ship where 30 to 50 individuals (possibly more) share a common barracks with only one interior wall between the sleeping area and the bathroom, yeah your going to see each other naked... but your comment only reinforce my opinion of why gays shouldn't be allowed in the military. I have no doubt that more than a few gay men felt the same way when they decided to join.
havocjohn is offline  
#15 Old 06-28-2009, 03:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
havocjohn is offline  
#16 Old 06-28-2009, 07:49 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
when one is in boot camp or on a ship where 30 to 50 individuals (possibly more) share a common barracks with only one interior wall between the sleeping area and the bathroom, yeah your going to see each other naked... but your comment only reinforce my opinion of why gays shouldn't be allowed in the military. I have no doubt that more than a few gay men felt the same way when they decided to join.



Ok, did you not sense that that was a JOKE?
RedLotus is offline  
#17 Old 06-28-2009, 08:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
I am too tired to even think about responding to most of this, but in regards to Lt Choi; it was not general knowledge that Lt Choi was gay by anyone for the first 10 yrs of his military career, that is his words from the article he did with ABC, it is somewhere the heap. So no it was not general knowledge that he was gay, despite the distortion you are presenting.



Ok, so it wasn't general knowledge for the first ten years of his service, during which time he graduated West Point, worked as an Arabic translator, and deployed to Iraq. He's put ten dedicated years of his life into serving our country to the best of his ability, and you think it's okay to say to him "well, we don't like who you love, so that's all meaningless?" But people in the military DID know he was gay before he was discharged:





Quote:
MADDOW: In terms of the good order and discipline allegation, what has been the reaction that you got from your fellow troops, from your unit after you told them that you are gay? Was there upset, was there discord? Were there any negative consequences to your ability to function as a group?



CHOI: Two weeks after I appeared on the show, we had National Guard training. Basically, we went to marksmanship qualification. We shot our rifles. And I was leading some of the training as officer in charge, telling them to cease fire or fire, and I thought, for four days, nobody was saying anything, so maybe they don't watch TV or maybe they don't read the "Army Times." But at the end of the training, so many people came up to me, my peers, my subordinates, people that outranked me, folks that have been in the Army -- and this is an infantry unit, infantry men that -- coming up to me and saying, hey, sir, hey, Lieutenant Choi, we know, and we don't care. What we care about is that you can contribute to the team. And what leaders do, they look to see how can they make the best team before they go to war.



That's what they care about.



Quote:
Here's the bottom line in regards to the military, there are laws/rules which are spelled out in the UCMJ, until you can convince congress to change those laws/rules they are the guidelings to be followed, and as such if you want to serve and are gay then I suggest you remain silent and celebite while your in.



Well, lucky for us, Obama has stated that DADT is on its way out soon. And just because something is a rule does not make it right. I shudder to think bout where this country would be if its citizens had always just shrugged and said "Well, them's the rules!" when something was wrong or discriminatory. As for CELEBRATING my "right" to potentially serve in the military at the cost of hiding my entire personal life, denying who I am, facing the constant fear of being found out and losing everything I've been working for, well, you have a funny idea of things worth celebrating.
RedLotus is offline  
#18 Old 06-28-2009, 08:56 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:



While I absolutely beleive that anyone, regardless of gender or sexuality, should have equal protection and rights in regard to sexual assault, the article you provided is CLEARLY not a factual presentation of information. The writer speculates on many of the events and presents them as factual, when in fact there is no way to know for sure if that's how things happened whithout having been there. I'm not saying that's NOT how things went down, but that was an opinion piece, full of heresay, and not an unbiased presentation of fact.



And I'm not sure I'm seeing "different rights" here. Nary wasn't convicted for being straight. In fact, the article stated that the prosecution insinuated that he is actually gay. So while I agree that the sentance seems unjustly harsh, how do you see this as gay people getting preferential treatment?



ETA: In fact, this whole situation with Nary underscores a popular and incredibly harmful misconception - that if you are a gay man, you can't be raped, since obviously you WANT sex with another man. The prosecution took the stance that nary was gay, and had therefore consented to sex, undermining the self-defense claim.
RedLotus is offline  
#19 Old 06-28-2009, 10:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
major.walrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 625
People's rationalisations for their homophobia never make sense :P
major.walrus is offline  
#20 Old 06-28-2009, 11:50 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Hekaterine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,012
I think we're reasonably lucky here in the UK; anti-discrimination and civil partnership legislation is relatively recent but it is here.



Homophobic and trans bullying in the workplace is specifically prohibited by law and you can't refuse to employ or to provide a service for anyone on the basis of the sexual orientation. Trans people also have the right to be legally recognised as their changed gender.



There has been a lot of backlash from religious organisations in particular in terms of things like Christian hotel owners not wanting to have to rent rooms to same-sex couples and a registrar took a high-profile case out against her employers over her refusal to carry out civil partnerships.



There has been an interesting case in the military as well, where a uniformed service had to pay out to a trans woman after telling her to report to work in uniform but failing to provide her with a woman's uniform and telling her to come in in the man's uniform from before her sex change.
Hekaterine is offline  
#21 Old 06-28-2009, 11:55 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Hekaterine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,012
Oh yeah, and I heard a great story from the Chief Exec of Stonewall (the UK LGBT support organisation). Buckingham Palace has a Christmas party for all staff and their partners but people with same-sex partners were not allowed to bring their partners along.



Well, along comes the Sexual Orientation Employment Equality Regulations and Buckingham Palace says, yes, you can bring your same-sex partner with you this year.



This one guys is telling this story to the CEO from Stonewall and says how it's great progress but they have been told, if Prince Philip asks to be introduced you must say "sir, this is my brother".



This guys says, "ok but my partner is black"!
Hekaterine is offline  
#22 Old 06-28-2009, 12:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
this one guys is telling this story to the ceo from stonewall and says how it's great progress but they have been told, if prince philip asks to be introduced you must say "sir, this is my brother".



This guys says, "ok but my partner is black"!



:d
RedLotus is offline  
#23 Old 06-28-2009, 12:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
this one guys is telling this story to the ceo from stonewall and says how it's great progress but they have been told, if prince philip asks to be introduced you must say "sir, this is my brother".



This guys says, "ok but my partner is black"!







But really, they have to introduce their parterns as siblings? Wouldn't it be even more scandalous if you looked out at the dance floor and saw two "brothers" doin' the ol' "hug and sway?"
RedLotus is offline  
#24 Old 06-28-2009, 01:08 PM
Veggie Regular
 
isowish's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hekaterine View Post

Oh yeah, and I heard a great story from the Chief Exec of Stonewall (the UK LGBT support organisation). Buckingham Palace has a Christmas party for all staff and their partners but people with same-sex partners were not allowed to bring their partners along.



I'm a bit too tipsy to put together a proper response to most things in this thread (I'll try tomorrow) BUT I must point out that Stonewall is NOT an 'LGBT support organisation' but an LGB support organisation whose attitude to trans people has been indifferent at best and harmful at worst.
isowish is offline  
#25 Old 06-28-2009, 02:41 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Hekaterine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,012
Apologies, isowish. I have heard the same from other people too. Slip of the keyboard.



Quite a few people say that bi people feel very much at the bottom of the LGB "hierarchy" in organisations like Stonewall too.



RedLotus, I assume that there wouldn't be dancing etc at the Buck House Xmas do but I might be wrong
Hekaterine is offline  
#26 Old 06-28-2009, 04:36 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Apologies, isowish. I have heard the same from other people too. Slip of the keyboard.



Quite a few people say that bi people feel very much at the bottom of the LGB "hierarchy" in organisations like Stonewall too.



RedLotus, I assume that there wouldn't be dancing etc at the Buck House Xmas do but I might be wrong



There does unfortunately seem to be some discrimination against those who identify as bi. For some reason unknown to me, people seem to think that they're either just "experiementing," or haven't realized that they're fully gay yet. Part of it is that a lot of people who eventually identify as lesbian or gay kind of ease into it by identifying as bi first (since, conversely, bi seems more acceptable to a lot of straight folks). Of course, that does NOT mean that everyone who identifies as bi is just easing into full gay-ness.



There's also a faction of younger women (i.e. sorority girl stereotypes) who claim the label of bi as a way of titilating the guys. It's that sort of "I'll make out with a chick, but only if there's an audience" kind of mentality. It's not about attraction, it's about reaction. Now, don't get me wrong, if they want to lock lips with another girl (one who isn't expecting more than some tonsil hockey) in order to rile up the boys, fine. I don't care about what consenting adults do with each other for fun. :smile: But in some ways that sort of behavior can be damaging to people who are truly bi, as it gives ALL of them the reputation of being, well, slutty. Then people don't take them seriously because all they see is someone from a Girls Gone Wild video instead of someone who is genuinely attracted to both sexes.



As for the Bux party, well, it's a shame there's no dancing. Maybe they'd relax about the gay thing a little if they could loosen up with some dancing, eh? :wink:



It's too bad that Stonewall isn't more inclusive to trans people. Trans folk face a fair amount of discrimination within the LGB community as well - something I just don't understand. Now, gender identity and sexuality are seperate issues, but there is a lot of common ground that LGB and T people share. My best friend is a trans woman, and it's so infuriating to watch her have to deal with so much discrimination from so many angles. I genuinely worry that she'll be hurt by somone, or killed. I believe strongly in non-violence, but when I hear people call her "it," "he-she," or "freak," I seriously consider making an exception to my "do no harm" rule.



As an amusing aside, my trans friend was my first real "boy"friend in 8th grade, and we dated for four years all through high school. "He" was the only real relationship I ever had with a "guy," and now we laugh over the fact that my one hetero relationship was actually with another girl!
RedLotus is offline  
#27 Old 06-28-2009, 07:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 16,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post


Well to be honest, if I was a company owner, or a property owner and didn't want to hire or rent to someone because of their sexual orientation, I don't think the state has the right to tell me any different, so I don't see that as an issue either.



Well, that was a shockingly homophobic statement. Why in the hell would you think it's okay to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation? Is it okay to discriminate against someone based on their race or gender in your mind too, because there's really no difference.

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is offline  
#28 Old 06-28-2009, 07:10 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 16,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post


Don't ask don't tell; considering it was no gays at all prior to don't ask don't tell, I think you don't have any room to complain about that. As I have pointed out in another thread about the military's policy, in some ways it is more for the safety of the individual that is gay to not be open about it, and being straight I can honestly say I wouldn't want to be in boot camp with someone that was gay, call it what ever you want, but women seem to have a problem running naked around men they don't want to share their beds with, and I dont want to run around naked with some guy checking out my butt.



If you honestly believe gay men will have an uncontrollable urge to rape you simply because they are gay then I feel very very sorry for you.



There are ALREADY plenty of gay people in the military and it's not like poor innocent straight men are being raped and hit on left and right.



People are just people, whether they are gay or straight or male or female or anything. It may come as a shock to you, but a gay man is just as capable of being professional and doing his job well and not randomly molesting his coworkers as you are. Weird concept right?

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is offline  
#29 Old 06-28-2009, 07:35 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
People are just people, whether they are gay or straight or male or female or anything. It may come as a shock to you, but a gay man is just as capable of being professional and doing his job well and not randomly molesting his coworkers as you are. Weird concept right?



RedLotus is offline  
#30 Old 06-28-2009, 11:47 PM
Newbie
 
Campaigner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 0
Werewolf Girl and RedLotus - you took the words right out of my mouth, so to speak. Everything I was thinking when I read this thread, and was tempted to post, youve said for me - and brilliantly, and I thank you!



Speaking as a gay man, I honestly cant believe and will never understand how some of these straight men derive their grossly delusional ideas that we are all just ready to jump on any other man we see - any more than, oh wait a minute! Of course - all straight men just want to jump any woman (and I do mean ANY woman) they happen to see, RIGHT?!



Point taken, I hope . . .
Campaigner is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off