# Second Class Citizens: The Gay Rights Documentary



## SenorDingDong (Jan 18, 2012)

First off, I am not gay. I was brought up to believe that we as humans are all equals, that no matter what our differences, we are all one. 

This documentary is all about the struggle of gay men and women who have struggled over the years for equality. A struggle that is still going on in some places to this very day. 



This is the trailer for the upcoming documentary:





First off, I thought the trailer was touching in and of itself. The pledge goal has already been reached, but there are links on the video if you would like to donate. 

I personally have no part in the video or its creation, but I found it not only touching but somewhat enlightening as well. While it isn't meant to be a full explanation, it does get to the roots of some of the issues that the gay community have faced in the past years. 

Give it a watch, speak your opinion. I believe this is something that we could all benefit from sharing. I only ask that the comments stay appropriate and non-hateful.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Jan 18, 2012)

Homophobes are gay


----------



## Explorer (Jan 18, 2012)

First off, this topic is definitely both about current events and politics. I reported it and requested it be moved to P&CE, to prevent trolling.

I know that a lot of people and websites are very upset about what they believe will be censorship from the Stop Online Piracy Act. I'm always surprised when there is a huge groundswell where people claim to be all about protecting everyone's rights, and yet an issue like this one, where there is a clear discrimination instead of some vague hypothetical, don't register for those same people.


----------



## SenorDingDong (Jan 19, 2012)

Explorer said:


> First off, this topic is definitely both about current events and politics. I reported it and requested it be moved to P&CE, to prevent trolling.
> 
> I know that a lot of people and websites are very upset about what they believe will be censorship from the Stop Online Piracy Act. I'm always surprised when there is a huge groundswell where people claim to be all about protecting everyone's rights, and yet an issue like this one, where there is a clear discrimination instead of some vague hypothetical, don't register for those same people.



Thanks,man. And I agree; People's mentality is pretty much "rights for those who I think deserve rights, everyone else is on their own and can suffer, no matter how unjust."


----------



## Spaceman_Spiff (Jan 19, 2012)

This is very interesting, and I would love to see it. 

I have always been a huge supporter of gay rights and always like to see something newsworthy that not only promotes tolerance, but also raises awareness about how unjustly they are treated in our very undecided society.


----------



## signalgrey (Jan 19, 2012)

"It doesn't have ANY effect on your life. What do you care? People try to talk about it like it's a social issue. Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show and say 'How am I supposed to explain to my child that two men are getting married?' I dunno, it's your shitty kid, you fuckin' tell 'em. Why is that anyone else's problem? Two guys are in LOVE but they can't get married because YOU don't want to talk to your ugly child for five fuckin' minutes?" &#8211; Louis CK

My favorite argument is "...Whats next? people will want to start marrying their pets?!" What shocks me is that no one calls these people out on a very basic "slippery slope" logical fallacy. My elementary debate team here in Seoul, could call them out, verify and destroy a debater if they used something so blatant and ...well...retarded.

Its amazing how ignorant, unabashedly and blatantly hypocritical Americans can be sometimes. Land of the free...depending of course on your socio-economic class, and sexual identity.
Ok maybe thats being dramatic, but you know what I mean.


----------



## SenorDingDong (Jan 19, 2012)

signalgrey said:


> Its amazing how ignorant, unabashedly and blatantly hypocritical Americans can be sometimes. Land of the free...depending of course on your socio-economic class, and sexual identity.
> Ok maybe thats being dramatic, but you know what I mean.



I don't think that is nearly as dramatic as you do. In fact, I think it is totally true; people are brought up to hate what they don't understand or what they fear. The problem is, it isn't their job to understand, and there should be no fear involved because it isn't their life. It affects them -10%.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 21, 2012)

Uhhh. This reminds me how this site has gotta go away one day:
Westboro Baptist Church Home Page

It amazes me how this church is around and how they have all the funds to go around the world picketing funerals and spreading their illogical beliefs. I just feel sad for the young children who are exposed to this kind of brainwashing.



Although some of you may not agree with Anonymous doings, don`t you think these Westboro people have stepped over the line?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 21, 2012)

Why again with the Anonymous promotion and the talk about doing stuff to websites? That's two threads where you went there. 

Nope, I don't agree with anonymously breaking the law to make a point. The Quakers went to jail for their beliefs as one example of having the courage of one's convictions, and those who just want to snipe without consequences for their criminal acts are worse than those who, like Westboro, are willing to stand publicly for their beliefs. Nice way to try to propagandize, though.

(I can't believe I just found something positive about the WBC. *laugh*)

Back to topic!


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Jan 21, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> Uhhh. This reminds me how this site has gotta go away one day:
> 
> 
> It amazes me how this church is around and how they have all the funds to go around the world picketing funerals and spreading their illogical beliefs. I just feel sad for the young children who are exposed to this kind of brainwashing.
> ...



Because that's their religion and as nuts as they are, they are entitled to it. STOP giving them free promotion. I do NOT understand why people love posting their stuff all over the internet for them. STOP DOING THEIR WORK.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 21, 2012)

DT, what's going on is, he's trying to portray Anonymous in a positive light. I asked in another thread, where he was wishing he could hack a few websites with Anonymous because he didn't like how a law might be passed against online piracy, why he didn't worry about rights for those who are definitely being denied them.

His response? Clearly not in favor of laws, or getting out the vote, or education, but again wanting a criminal act to punish those with whom he doesn't agree.

Intolerance... how does it work?

Pretty well, apparently.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 21, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Because that's their religion and as nuts as they are, they are entitled to it. STOP giving them free promotion. I do NOT understand why people love posting their stuff all over the internet for them. STOP DOING THEIR WORK.



The adults may do whatever asshatery they wish, but I consider bringing their children up in such conditions as ABUSE. Do you really think thats what kids are suppossed to be brought up like? Their parents are restricting their children`s future and rights in their own backyard.  And its not free promotion. Its called showcasing the truth. The truth is that we got organizations like Westboro preaching such meaningless hate and here you are telling me how I`m giving them promotion... If you don`t want to agree with me, fine. The whole point of the video was to showcase "these beliefs that are so worth protecting" while we all fail to uphold laws to protect and give the rights to those who need it. How shameful.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't think there will ever be total equality for gays.
Humans by nature herd together and have a strong tendency to pick on the other herd members that are different than the majority. 

No passing of laws or gaining of suggested social acceptence will change the way they're treated when no one is looking and the world isn't watching.

I strongly oppose the gay marriage, and I strongly oppose the hetro-marriage as legal recognitions.

Since when in the hell does the government have the right or duty to make claims or denials in regards to personal relationships.

I haven't a problem at all with people (couples, triples, singles w/ animals(lol on that one) making agreements/commitments with each other, their families or their churches in consimation of the partnership.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 22, 2012)

@Trenchlord - The question isn't about whether to abolish marriage, but whether two consenting adults can have their marriage recognized as are other marriages between two consenting adults. It was fairly recently in our history when marriage wasn't recognized between negroes and whites, as well as a lack of other civil and employment rights for those same negroes. They were second class citizens.

(Yes, I chose that word "negro" specifically as it reflects those times.)

So, given that the question isn't about abolishing governmental recognition of marriage, I ask you: As the government does recognizes marriages, should it exclude one particular marriage between two consenting adults?

----

I saw that there was going to be a public debate in Seattle between those who are in favor of marriage equality, and those who have actively opposed it. I was hoping to see a webcast of the debate, but all the religious leaders who had agreed to take part backed out at the last moment. Again, it's interesting to see those who are willing to talk and to act... until there's a chance that others will witness what they're doing. I guess it's one thing to lecture from the pulpit, and another to have to present your views where you're not preaching to a complacent flock....


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Jan 22, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> The adults may do whatever asshatery they wish, but I consider bringing their children up in such conditions as ABUSE. Do you really think thats what kids are suppossed to be brought up like? Their parents are restricting their children`s future and rights in their own backyard.  And its not free promotion. Its called showcasing the truth. The truth is that we got organizations like Westboro preaching such meaningless hate and here you are telling me how I`m giving them promotion... If you don`t want to agree with me, fine. The whole point of the video was to showcase "these beliefs that are so worth protecting" while we all fail to uphold laws to protect and give the rights to those who need it. How shameful.



Yeah everyone says they have good reasons but for every time someone posts something from them, it's an opportunity to get their name out to people who didn't know they existed..and for someone to check the vid out and go "Ya know..they make sense". Anytime you post something of theirs you are spreading their word, regardless of whether or not you agree with the message. Unfortunately they aren't "harming" their children in a way the laws recognize as illegal. Many religions teach their kids a sheltered world view, some moreso than others..not a whole lot you can do.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 22, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Yeah everyone says they have good reasons but for every time someone posts something from them, it's an opportunity to get their name out to people who didn't know they existed..and for someone to check the vid out and go "Ya know..they make sense". Anytime you post something of theirs you are spreading their word, regardless of whether or not you agree with the message. Unfortunately they aren't "harming" their children in a way the laws recognize as illegal. Many religions teach their kids a sheltered world view, some moreso than others..not a whole lot you can do.



I get what you are saying, sure there are people out there who will take their message in, but its really best for people to know such idiocracy exists. Shunning it will not be of much help. Its like the bible to me. Being an athiest although I wouldn`t press people to read the Bible, I won`t act like its something not to consider reading. After reading that book It strengthned my disbilief in its teachings and may be of help in people who are going through the athiest experience. This form of sheltered view is very hard to escape from. Hopefully some of the kids will realize that later that this hate leads to nothing. There`s always something we can do.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 22, 2012)

Explorer said:


> @Trenchlord - The question isn't about whether to abolish marriage, but whether two consenting adults can have their marriage recognized as are other marriages between two consenting adults. It was fairly recently in our history when marriage wasn't recognized between negroes and whites, as well as a lack of other civil and employment rights for those same negroes. They were second class citizens.
> 
> (Yes, I chose that word "negro" specifically as it reflects those times.)
> 
> So, given that the question isn't about abolishing governmental recognition of marriage, I ask you: As the government does recognizes marriages, should it exclude one particular marriage between two consenting adults?


 

Yes, because that puts us half-way to having the government out of marriage altogether.

The way I see it, the gays are the lucky ones for not having big brother involved in their unions.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yes, because that puts us half-way to having the government out of marriage altogether.
> 
> The way I see it, *the gays are the lucky ones for not having big brother involved in their unions.*



Here's what's scary: There were a lot of people who felt that slaves were lucky to not have to find jobs. Of course, those were people on the outside who felt that way, not the slaves.

However, since the push for two consenting adults being allowed to marry is coming from within the gay community, it's clear they don't think of themselves as lucky. Your point is irrelevant, as you are clearly not speaking for them, and clearly don't understand why people want to get married. That's okay to have your own viewpoint, but don't impose it on someone else.

And, there isn't a push from society asking for the abolition of marriage, so that's a non-starter. However, I'm sure you can gauge response to it if you want to discuss it in a topic devoted to it.

Back to topic!


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 23, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Here's what's scary: There were a lot of people who felt that slaves were lucky to not have to find jobs. Of course, those were people on the outside who felt that way, not the slaves.
> 
> However, since the push for two consenting adults being allowed to marry is coming from within the gay community, it's clear they don't think of themselves as lucky. Your point is irrelevant, as you are clearly not speaking for them, and clearly don't understand why people want to get married. That's okay to have your own viewpoint, but don't impose it on someone else.
> 
> ...


 
I know what you're saying really, and it's true that things won't ever change in the way that i'd like. That being so, I'd think it wrong for anyone to stand in the way of love .

There is however a push from society to abolish marriage altogether.
Of coarse that push is an extreme minority, just like the push for gay marriage is from an extreme minority.

If the gays want total equality, then they'll have to man-up (p.i.) and make it happen through civil disobediance in the same way blacks did.
Martin Luther King inspired many blacks yes, but it was the riots that forced the change.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> There is however a push from society to abolish marriage altogether.
> Of coarse that push is an extreme minority, just like the push for gay marriage is from an extreme minority.
> 
> If the gays want total equality, then they'll have to man-up (p.i.) and make it happen through civil disobediance in the same way blacks did.
> Martin Luther King inspired many blacks yes, but it was the riots that forced the change.



I'm going to disagree that it was the riots which forced the change. It was a slow and steady progress. However, if you look at the history of that change, you'll see that most riots were the whites, and that federal troops and police were mobilized to stop them. The violence got them nowhere.

Civil Rights Movement Timeline (14th Amendment, 1964 Act, Human Rights Law) &mdash; Infoplease.com

I'm sorry that history isn't in line with your theory, but sometimes that happens.

There isn't really a push from society to abolish marriage, any more than there is a push from society to support the neo-Nazis. If it's a tiny minority, saying it's society in general is a complete misstatement.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 23, 2012)

Explorer said:


> There isn't really a push from society to abolish marriage, any more than there is a push from society to support the neo-Nazis. If it's a tiny minority, saying it's society in general is a complete misstatement.


 
I'm not going to take time to quote statistics because statistics by their very nature are very manipulatible, but your implying that those seeking full equality (including the right for gay couples to adopt) are any more than a tiny minority is just inaccurate.

It's easy to see how society is led to believe that there is this huge outcry for gay rights. The modern leftist media pushes that false notion along with many other lies.

When they have gay rights activist demonstrations up in Champaign IL near the U of I campus there isn't more than a couple hundred of them show up. And that's in an area of a few hundred thousand people.

Hell, the Tea Party meetings totaly trump them on attendence, yet the leftist media makes the tea partiers out to be a small fringe group of radicals while totaly embracing the gays.

This nation is just fortunate now to have FOX NEWS to set the record straight (no p.i.).


----------



## Waelstrum (Jan 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> This nation is just fortunate now to have FOX NEWS to set the record straight (no p.i.).





It's probably not fair that I laugh at this, (as I only see Fox news through the lense of an outsider, and as such, only see Fox News when it's being biased) but I will anyway. I'm sure most of the time it really is fair and balanced.

Here is a link to some info. I know you've already said that you don't like statistics, and this is from Wikipedia (and therefore to be taken with a cup of salt), but it does give a pretty good indication that the public opinion on gay marriage has been move more and more in favour of it each year. In 2011, it finally tipped the scales into being more than half in favour of gay marriage. I would say that's significantly more than a tiny minority.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 23, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> It's probably not fair that I laugh at this, (as I only see Fox news through the lense of an outsider, and as such, only see Fox News when it's being biased) but I will anyway. I'm sure most of the time it really is fair and balanced.
> 
> Here is a link to some info. I know you've already said that you don't like statistics, and this is from Wikipedia (and therefore to be taken with a cup of salt), but it does give a pretty good indication that the public opinion on gay marriage has been move more and more in favour of it each year. In 2011, it finally tipped the scales into being more than half in favour of gay marriage. I would say that's significantly more than a tiny minority.


 
Yes, but that's gay marriage.
I specifically cited full gay rights (those including gay couple adoption) in my proclaiming of those in favor being a tiny minority.

That's where the gay movement loses it's footing. 
There's just still too many people who can't accept the right of gays to adopt.
If I'm wrong on this, then why is it still illegal?


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 23, 2012)




----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 23, 2012)

Did it pass in Iowa?

edit; just checked, it's been legal there for 3yrs now, but are the gay man couples allowed to adopt? I'll see if I can find the Iowa laws on it.

http://family.findlaw.com/adoption/legal-issues-for-gay-and-lesbian-adoption.html


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Did it pass in Iowa?
> 
> edit; just checked, it's been legal there for 3yrs now, but are the gay man couples allowed to adopt? I'll see if I can find the Iowa laws on it.



I don`t think so. Adoption`s a whole different case to fight for.


----------



## Necris (Jan 23, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> I don`t think so. Adoption`s a whole different case to fight for.


In what way is it a different case? Assuming they are fit to care for a child if a married straight couple has the right to adopt why shouldn't a married gay couple?


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 23, 2012)

Necris said:


> In what way is it a different case? Assuming they are fit to care for a child if a married straight couple has the right to adopt why shouldn't a married gay couple?



I meant getting the rights to adopt kids. I`m not against it, just saying. I hope you don`t think the goverment is gonna hand the whole Gay rights package in one box. Sure what you say makes sense, but I`m thinking its not gonna be easy to claim those rights.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 23, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> I meant getting the rights to adopt kids. I`m not against it, just saying. I hope you don`t think the goverment is gonna hand the whole Gay rights package in one box. Sure what you say makes sense, but I`m thinking its not gonna be easy.


 
Exactly. It'll be a long slow tedious transition. Just as Explorer noted of the civil rights movement of the 19th and 20th century.


I still think that if they ever want total rights in all or most states, that they will just all have to quit paying their taxes all at once across the nation in a unified coalition. It'll take some illegal dissobedience and have to utilize all their numbers to get it accomplished. 

Otherwise, they will just have to be satisfied with a slow spread of gay marriage initatives from state to state.
Eventually most states will be cool with gay marriage and gay couple tax filings, but they'll still go to the bottom of the list at best in regaurds to gay couple adoption.


----------



## Waelstrum (Jan 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yes, but that's gay marriage.
> I specifically cited full gay rights (those including gay couple adoption) in my proclaiming of those in favor being a tiny minority.
> 
> That's where the gay movement loses it's footing.
> ...



Ah, I see what you mean. I had assumed that once the marriage is legal, the parenting rights would just fall into place. At least, that is the impression I got from this Wikipedia article.

I still don't think that civil disobedience will be absolutely necessary, if the polls from the marriage article are any indication of the general acceptance of homosexuality.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm not going to take time to quote statistics because statistics by their very nature are very manipulatible, but your implying that those seeking full equality (including the right for gay couples to adopt) are any more than a tiny minority is just inaccurate.



Just because people aren't out in droves, and instead are quietly supportive, doesn't mean they aren't out there. 

However, you're absolutely right. Black parents generally aren't allowed to adopt white kids, but there has been slow progress to overcome that.

Oh! You meant gay couples, not black couples!

I see what you're saying, that there is a minority of society who are working to allow couples of a particular sort to adopt. However, your extensions of that (that society won't accept it) is strange.

Anyway, thanks for bringing up yet another parallel, and another example of where we still have a ways to go.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 23, 2012)

^This also brings up the issue of adoption inequality for singles and those who have diseases like HIV that were once considered eventual death setences but are now very managable in some cases (like for those who can afford the costly drug regiment or have the proper insurance).

Is the lack of instances involving black couples adopting white children a case of logistics (so many more white couples looking to adopt than there are black couples merely because population differences), or is there a general bottom of the list placing for black couples adopting whites due to Family Services preference of same race adoption?

I see alot of white couples with black children, but hardly ever vice-versa.
Maybe it's just socio-economic reasons as well?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 23, 2012)

To the individual who felt strongly enough to want to comment positively (but privately) on the subject of Anonymous, and on my opinions about how they don't have the courage of their convictions... really, you don't want people to know you feel that way? *laugh* Given that I've talked about being willing to stand behind what one feels strongly about, the irony of you not wanting to be public about your views, yet criticizing my views, was enough to make me burst out laughing. 

Really? *chuckle* 

----

Regarding the lawsuits where black couples met all the specific criteria as fit parents, but were de facto disqualified because of race, they weren't about all the white children being placed in good homes, or that they lived too far away to give a good home (like the kids are going to be commuting?). Race was the common factor, which is why litigation was initiated. 

I can understand you wanting to solve all those adoption problems in one swoop, singles, illness, what have you. However, you're again wanting to bring in issues where it's not a straight (pun) comparison: black or gay couple not having the same ability to adopt as a white couple, versus couple being able to adopt versus a single parent. It's strange that you keep bringing in all these side issues. It almost feels like you keep trying to derail things. Hopefully that's just my impression.

Also, originally you also wanted to talk about gay rights as an all-at-once solution. As civil rights for blacks is still an ongoing struggle, just as there still isn't pay equity (equal pay for equal work, education and experience) for women, I'll suggest that equal rights for people regardless of sexual orientation will be the same long process.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Jan 25, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I still think that if they ever want total rights in all or most states, that they will just all have to quit paying their taxes all at once across the nation in a unified coalition. It'll take some illegal dissobedience and have to utilize all their numbers to get it accomplished.



In Brazil, last year we got the right to Civil Union. Another superior court granted the right to marry a few months later, a decision which is likely to be confirmed by the Supreme Court. There are also a few precedents here and there allowing gay couples to adopt.

And all of that without taking any illegal actions... hell, we only have a few congressmen actively defending the GLBT cause.

I'm talking about a religious, 3rd world country, with a significant amount of uneducated people who'd rather see their kids dead than being gays. I can't see why couldn't that happen in US.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 25, 2012)

Sang-Drax said:


> In Brazil, last year we got the right to Civil Union. Another superior court granted the right to marry a few months later, a decision which is likely to be confirmed by the Supreme Court. There are also a few precedents here and there allowing gay couples to adopt.
> 
> And all of that without taking any illegal actions... hell, we only have a few congressmen actively defending the GLBT cause.
> 
> I'm talking about a religious, 3rd world country, with a significant amount of uneducated people who'd rather see their kids dead than being gays. I can't see why couldn't that happen in US.



The whole civil union movement in Brazil was sparked from a case concerning an Englishman in the early 2000`s if I remember correctly. Ever since courts in Brazil have approved of some civil unions to marriage. I think civil union is more recognized in Brazil than any other nation in the world, leaving out marriage. Even the rate of homosexuality is far above than the US, and I think is now embedded in culture. The majority of Brazil`s gay/lesbian population it seems is not that interested in marriage or adoption. Religion doesn`t seem to be a factor keeping gay/lesbian brazilians from being granted marriage anymore.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Jan 25, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> The whole civil union movement in Brazil was sparked from a case concerning an Englishman in the early 2000`s if I remember correctly. Ever since courts in Brazil have approved of some civil unions to marriage. I think civil union is more recognized in Brazil than any other nation in the world, leaving out marriage.



That's correct. I might add, however, that those approvals were given by local courts in an irregular basis. From 2011 and on, it had been enforced to all courts.

Inheritance rights are not the same in civil union and marriage - though it should be, according to the Constitution. 



> Even the rate of homosexuality is far above than the US, and I think is now embedded in culture. The majority of Brazil`s gay/lesbian population it seems is not that interested in marriage or adoption. Religion doesn`t seem to be a factor keeping gay/lesbian brazilians from being granted marriage anymore.



Do you have any source for that? I don't think that's true at all. We have nothing like San Francisco in Brazil, for instance, except for a tiny street in Rio.

In fact, none of the changes have been enforced by law - rather, they've been a result of judicial activism based on interpretation of the Constitution. Our legislative body is afraid of losing their electorate by positioning themselves either way, so, instead, they do nothing.

For the average population, views on homosexuality is as conservative as the most traditional americans' (which means that being out is a BIG issue for anyone who's 25+), except for a few bubbles in Rio, São Paulo, and maybe a few other capitals. We still have the world's highest homicide rate of gays killed solely for their sexual orientation. All that taken into account, I believe most Brazilian gays tend to stay in the closet and, therefore, not counted as being part of the homosexual population.

Sadly, religion is still a huge factor, although the Roman Catholic Church, which is still the most common religion, doesn't interfere much in politics these days. Instead, we have quite a few congressmen called 'the evangelical bench', who get in the way of adopting more liberal measures.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 25, 2012)

Sang-Drax said:


> Do you have any source for that? I don't think that's true at all. We have nothing like San Francisco in Brazil, for instance, except for a tiny street in Rio.
> 
> In fact, none of the changes have been enforced by law - rather, they've been a result of judicial activism based on interpretation of the Constitution. Our legislative body is afraid of losing their electorate by positioning themselves either way, so, instead, they do nothing.
> 
> ...


My sources are a few articles/some gay-lesbian sites, blogs/amnesty international and the Brazillian Senate site that my friend showed me.

This might be a good place to start research:

LGBT rights in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sang-Drax (Jan 25, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> My sources are a few articles/some gay-lesbian sites, blogs/amnesty international and the Brazillian Senate site that my friend showed me.
> 
> This might be a good place to start research:
> 
> LGBT rights in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'd reply to that, but that would derail the thread way too much. I'll send you a PM instead


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 26, 2012)

Since coming out, I've seen the strangest paradox that confirms this video. People tell me they have no problem with it, yet friends have distanced themselves from me, I've been kicked out of bands over it, and have had religious freaks verbally attack me in an attempt to "save" me. I culled at least 10 people from my facebook due to homophobic comments, some of them members of this very forum over this issue. It's kinda sad too, because had I stayed closeted, they would've had no problem with me at all. It irks me that I have to "conform" and get with a girl if I want to marry and have kids, because I can't marry a man and adopt if I so choose. I have nothing against women and would gladly get with the right one, but if I meet the man of my dreams, I want the right to start a family with him. Hell I'm honestly afraid to visit with family back in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas because I'm not 100% sure that I won't have the holy shit stomped out of me by some good ol' boys. Kinda hard to hide the fact that I'm a bisexual transgender who doesn't pass.

And to those that think the LGBT community is tiny, you outght to go take a look at some of the support forums. There are hundreds of thousands of closeted people of all walks of life, and many of them you would NEVER have guessed. Truth is that being born LGBT has such a stigma to it, that people have to stay hidden in order to have a peaceful life. Then of course you have the strange phenomena of gay bashers turning out to be LGBT themselves. Apparently there is this widespread belief that if you stomp enough homos, you won't be gay anymore. These people are akin to the Uncle Toms of the civil rights movement. Them and the gay republicans. (but thats for another thread)

Another heart-breaking side effect of peoples negative views of LGBTs is teen suicide and teen homelessness. A guy I was trying to get with was a crisis counselor for the local LGBT center. The area I'm in is one of the most socially backwards parts of southern california thanks to the tea party movement, and as such, the statistics for both teen suicide and homelessness have risen. That guy used to tell me of calls where a kid from the richest parts of town was thrown out of his house by his father for coming out as gay, and was sleeping in rain runoff culverts and back alleys. Or about a teen m2f transsexual that was kicked out and had to resort to prostitution to scounge up enough to pay a friend for rent and a place to stay. These were happy, productive people who have had their lives turned upside down for being no one other than themselves. In my mind, gay marriage kinda takes a backseat to the more immediate threat of LGBT-related bullying and abuse. But gay marriage and adoption are still a high priority for me.


----------



## Waelstrum (Jan 26, 2012)

I'm not really sure what can be done about prejudice and the attacks it provokes other than trying to change the views of society, and the best way that I can think of is to make the LGBT community equal in the eyes of the law. I agree that marriage is less of a priority than living a safe and healthy life (for most), but I think that the issues are intrinsically linked. That is to say, marriage equality will require acceptance, and acceptance will be increase through equality legislation IMHO.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Jan 26, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> People tell me they have no problem with it, yet friends have distanced themselves from me, I've been kicked out of bands over it, (...).



Seriously? That's fucked up, dude


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 26, 2012)

Yep. People that I hung out with EVERY day no longer come over and K see them maybe once every few months. It's not for a lack of trying, but after a while I've kinda given up. I gave 'em the benefit of the doubt too, up til the rumor mill came back that they were worried I'd hit on them. Most of my friends here remembered my band Psychosis Asylum. Similar situation there. Went from writing, recording and gigging regularly to meeting up maybe once every two weeks after I came out. Vocalist eventually quit, and I was told the band split. Lies of course. Seems my former bandmates were still going on and trying to replace me, with no luck. They forgot the local scene is really small here and that everybody knows somebody out here. So it was inevitable that it would get back to me. Be thzt as it may, I hold no grudges, but I would never work with them musically again. The only two people in that band that I won't even talk to are my former drummer and bassist because of the severity of the rumors they were spreading. Things like I was always looking at gay porn and was trying to find ways to seduce them. They may have been talented, but they were ugly as hell and I wouldn't touch 'em with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 26, 2012)

There are many LGBT bands here in Japan, I guess the reason being no one gives a fuck, and a lot of visual kei overload. So many of them are just so feminine acting/looking it amazes me, plus they got crazy shredding skills.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 26, 2012)

If I knew japanese, I'd consider moving. My boyfriend is a huge J-rock fan and is in love with the culture so I'm sure he wouldn't mind coming with. 

Right now I'm preparing for my list of friends to dwindle down to almost none as I come out to them a second time about wanting to look and live as a chick. Hmmm, stay living as a man and have friends or stay true to myself and have none? 

Friends are overrated, and skirts never judge.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 26, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> If I knew japanese, I'd consider moving. My boyfriend is a huge J-rock fan and is in love with the culture so I'm sure he wouldn't mind coming with.
> 
> Right now I'm preparing for my list of friends to dwindle down to almost none as I come out to them a second time about wanting to look and live as a chick. Hmmm, stay living as a man and have friends or stay true to myself and have none?
> 
> Friends are overrated, and skirts never judge.



 well.. I wish you the best of luck, but to me it seems that people who can`t accept you for who you are, are just whack. Really though, there must be people like you around somewhere? Is it really that hard to find new friends who have or accept the same lifestyle as you? Also I think you`ll be happy later about making the choice to come out. Hiding who you are and taking it to the grave, would be such a shame.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 26, 2012)

Oh don't get me wrong, I do have some close ciswomen (google it) friends that are helping me with things like finding clothes and makeup tips and stuff, but the larger bulk of people that I know seem to be accepting in word, but not in deed. The fact that a big guy like me is now a very big woman would be too much for them to comprehend. Admittedly, I've been known as Adam to them for years so being known now as Jessica is a bit much to take in at first. Particularly since as a guy, I was very much a man's man. I wonder now if that was a farce to hide my female self and deceive. In which case I feel like an asshat for it.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I figure that putting stuff out there like this helps give people better insight by 'walking a mile in my shoes'. Even if said shoes are 3" pumps.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 26, 2012)

Double post.


Edit:
I should clarify that I love the U.S. on the whole, but people should understand that it is very hard for me to be patriotic to uncle sam when many of it's citizens, (namely those in government) want to see me at the business end of a rope. If I do choose to leave the U.S., it would be to find a place to escape persecution for being bisexual and transgendered.
If I had my way, I'd stay right here and live the "American Dream". But for the good ol boy that didn't bother to read the OP, I'm treated CONSTANTLY as a second class citizen here. Once America stops with the hypocrisy that all straight, white, middle-upper class cismales are created equal and makes it so that ALL people are created equal, and without discrimination, THEN I'd be more inclined to say "'Murrica....Fuck Yeah!"


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 27, 2012)

What can I say...

Pretty solid talk right here. You do what you can man, if there`s anything left of the American dream you`ll have to fight for it like the people that came before you. Visit Japan sometime though, I`m sure it will be an awesome experience. If you ever go to Shibuya, Akihabara, Harajuku (major hubs to go roaming/shopping) you won`t be dissapointed.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 27, 2012)

I haven't left the country yet, so I guess that means there are still some things here worth fighting for. That and I'm not so naive as to believe the grass is greener on the other side. Plenty of the same bullshit exists in all parts of the globe. It's my hope that America finally overcomes it's one fatal flaw, which is prejudice. 

I've been asked before, "Why are you so passionate about gay rights? What's it to you if I call people a fag?" Well, outside of the fact I'm part of the LGBT community, I think of those crisis call stories. Kids who have to live in the streets starving, and are beaten, raped, and had their innocence torn from them are now the fucking punchline of ignorant people. Worst part of it, point that out to people and they'll still laugh. Humanity sickens me sometimes.

Or how about the main hurr durr question transpeople get in public:
"Excuse me, are you a man or a woman? I figure you're used to being asked that question by now...." Try to answer them honestly and have responses like, "See, I knew it. There's no way they could hide that Adam's apple." Like we're a fucking freakshow on display at a circus.

It's this kind of stupidity and insensitivity that boils my blood. Man, woman or in between, we're still human. Treat us with the dignity befitting of another person please.


----------



## decypher (Jan 27, 2012)

I have a ton of gay friends in the US where it seems to work (mostly SF, LA and NY... lol), but I'm really glad to be in a country that has been more open to alternative lifestyles. and seriously, Germany has been shunned by many for a long time, but I grew up there and came out at 16 and had the best time of my life there. I just still have the impression that there are parts of the US that have not exactly been updated with social developments over the past 50 or 100 years..... it can be difficult to take a country like that serious, politically and socially...


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 28, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I haven't left the country yet, so I guess that means there are still some things here worth fighting for. That and I'm not so naive as to believe the grass is greener on the other side. Plenty of the same bullshit exists in all parts of the globe. It's my hope that America finally overcomes it's one fatal flaw, which is prejudice.
> 
> I've been asked before, "Why are you so passionate about gay rights? What's it to you if I call people a fag?" Well, outside of the fact I'm part of the LGBT community, I think of those crisis call stories. Kids who have to live in the streets starving, and are beaten, raped, and had their innocence torn from them are now the fucking punchline of ignorant people. Worst part of it, point that out to people and they'll still laugh. Humanity sickens me sometimes.
> 
> ...





decypher said:


> I have a ton of gay friends in the US where it seems to work (mostly SF, LA and NY... lol), but I'm really glad to be in a country that has been more open to alternative lifestyles. and seriously, Germany has been shunned by many for a long time, but I grew up there and came out at 16 and had the best time of my life there. I just still have the impression that there are parts of the US that have not exactly been updated with social developments over the past 50 or 100 years..... it can be difficult to take a country like that serious, politically and socially...


----------



## Explorer (Jan 28, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I've been asked before, "Why are you so passionate about civil rights? What's it to you if I call people a n*gger?"



Fixed to make the quoted person's attitudes plain. I'm sure their mother, coworkers, family and friends are proud to be associated with them.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 29, 2012)

Thank you Explorer!
Usually when I point out that those two thought processes are similar, it sets most people back, and they either quiet down or apologize. Of course you get the oddball that doesn't care. Those are the ones to watch out for....

Edit:
Just thought that I'd leave this here as further proof of why I don't feel safe in my own country for being trans...


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec0_1303444048


Yep, that's a male to female transgender being stomped into a grand mal seizure for using the ladies room at a mcdonalds.
God bless 'murrica...


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 2, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Just thought that I'd leave this here as further proof of why I don't feel safe in my own country for being trans...
> 
> 
> [liveleak]ec0_1303444048[/liveleak]
> ...


 
Not sure what this really proves?
Nothing about this wimpy "assult" would induce seizure. Must have been drugs or prior medical condition involved to induce seizure.

Also I find it hard to believe that these black girls are that mad over nothing and just wanting to beat up a transgender for minding his/her own buisiness in restroom, but I admit I could be wrong about that.

Any crazy unjust sort of B.S. can happen anywhere on earth 4sure.
It's not an american thing really.
Most americans will generally stand up or jump in to rescue a defensless person no matter who they are. 
Of coarse there are those who won't get involved, but that's anywhere you go.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Feb 2, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Thank you Explorer!
> Usually when I point out that those two thought processes are similar, it sets most people back, and they either quiet down or apologize. Of course you get the oddball that doesn't care. Those are the ones to watch out for....
> 
> Edit:
> ...



I find this really realy wierd. As in the brutality of this. I`ve been to Thailand many times and there are so many transgendered people. The majority of them are not ashamed of themselves and have their own part in Thai culture. There are even government built toilets for transgendered people:






Actually to be honest I`m kind of surprised that this kind of stuff even happens in America. Not that hate crimes don`t happen anywhere else, but this.... 

Sometimes I think there is no point in having male/female bathrooms. I mean the toilets are the same/so are the cubicles. The only difference are the urinals. Like in homes, you don`t have a male/female bathroom, thats ridiculus. I don`t understand why its seperated when you go out your home.
Sure it might be for privacy/saftey/being comfortable with the group, but honestly I think there needs to be some laws for transgenders concerning this. Overall this is just overthetop.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 2, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Not sure what this really proves?
> Nothing about this wimpy "assult" would induce seizure. Must have been drugs or prior medical condition involved to induce seizure.
> 
> Also I find it hard to believe that these black girls are that mad over nothing and just wanting to beat up a transgender for minding his/her own buisiness in restroom, but I admit I could be wrong about that.
> ...




Apparently you know very little about concussions, and failed to see the girl get kicked to the face. Yes, that is enough to induce a seizure. But further more, as you see in boxing and MMA, repetitive blows can cause brain damage and can,definitely induce a seizure. Some are more prone to seizures than others. Ive only had a seizure once in ny life and it was after a massive blow to the head.

But that's not the point. Regardless of how "wimpy" the attack looked to you, there is no excuse for it to have happened at all. I honestly am a little appauled that upon instead of condemning a person being assaulted for no reason other than gender identity, you critique it like siskel and ebert. :/ (two thumbs down for shitty acting right?  )

It also proves that America is still a great country in the works. By which I mean that it is amazing, but not for all citizens. You think this is just a random act of 
violence? Spend some time with trans-supportive groups like I have, and you'll see a very different world-perspective.
If I had more time and a better form of internet access, I'd be happy to post many more links of things like this. Since I don't, I'm afraid it will have to fall on someone else to do so.

I can't help but be shocked that you can watch that video and have a reaction of "So what?"  

Also her, not his/her. Calling her "it", "him", "he", "sir", or any other neutral or masculine pronoun is disrespectful and transphobic. You don't call your mother or sister any of those things, so why should she be any different?


----------



## Waelstrum (Feb 2, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Also her, not his/her. Calling her "it", "him", "he", "sir", or any other neutral or masculine pronoun is disrespectful and transphobic. You don't call your mother or sister any of those things, so why should she be any different?



This is one of those seemingly small things that a lot of people (myself included) miss, and can end up offending without meaning to. I remember a conversation I had about Wendy Carlos, in which we were talking about her album Switched on Bach. It was released when she was Walter Carlos, and I had no idea what sort of pronouns to use when referring to her past (still not particularly sure which pronouns to use to refer to a transgendered person before they come out as such).

----------------------------------------------

Also, in a gay marriage, does one take the other's name, or do the both keep their family names?  (It would make sense to me that they both keep their names, unless one has an embarrassing last name.) It's not something that I've encountered yet, coming from Australia.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 2, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Not sure what this really proves?
> 
> ...Also I find it hard to believe that these black girls are that mad over nothing and just wanting to beat up a transgender for minding his/her own buisiness in restroom, but I admit I could be wrong about that.
> 
> ...



First point: he was talking about why he feels unsafe in America, and how some act out against those who are different. I'm surprised you didn't understand that the video supports that. 

As far as people beating up or killing those of a different orientation in the US, I'm similarly surprised that you haven't heard of the phenomenon of gay bashing. It even has a name. There are groups which claim "God hates fags" and many news reports of gays being killed just because they're gay. 

Often, these attacks happen where there isn't anyone else present. That group of racists who killed that black guy leaving work hunted for a black person who they could easily grab. The only "witness" was the video camera which caught it on tape. 

At least you recognize that you might have missed something. That's better than people who might just deny this stuff, and that would be that for them.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 2, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> This is one of those seemingly small things that a lot of people (myself included) miss, and can end up offending without meaning to. I remember a conversation I had about Wendy Carlos, in which we were talking about her album Switched on Bach. It was released when she was Walter Carlos, and I had no idea what sort of pronouns to use when referring to her past (still not particularly sure which pronouns to use to refer to a transgendered person before they come out as such).
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> Also, in a gay marriage, does one take the other's name, or do the both keep their family names?  (It would make sense to me that they both keep their names, unless one has an embarrassing last name.) It's not something that I've encountered yet, coming from Australia.




All great questions. As far as the "correct" way to refer to a transperson, simply recognizing that (this is in the case of an mtf transgender) their current identity is valid by addressing them with feminine pronouns. (like myself. I still look much like a guy since I'm just starting my transition, but goddamn do I hate being sir'd. I give some room because a lot of people still see me as a guy. But it bothers the fuck out of me.)
If still unsure, then politely ask once what they identify as. Just don't try to make a big deal out of it. In cases of FTM transgenders, addressing them with masculine pronouns is warrented. Note that there are people that identify as neither and still identify as transgender. In such cases, I see no harm in asking.
For your example, even though she had the name of walter at one point, feminine pronouns still apply. A mindfuck I'm sure, but unless told otherwise, that's the proper way. Reason is that through gender therapy, many (but not all mind you) learn to accept what they've known all along; they were born the wrong gender. Many people think that gender identity and sexual orientation are related. They are not. Gay does NOT mean they wanna become a woman. By that same token, become a woman does NOT make them gay. At least not in the traditional sense. For example, a man is transitioning to live as a gender intended woman. But is considered "hetero" when they are still attracted to women. The ratio of hetero transpeople to gay/bi transpeople is about proportionate to the general population: LGBTs as a whole. Not many are gay/bi identified.

As for marriage, well there's no traditional "role" there, and it's,really up to what each couple wants.

Hope this cleared up a few things there.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Feb 2, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I can't help but shocked that you can watch that video and have a reaction of "So what?"
> 
> Also her, not his/her. Calling her "it", "him", "he", "sir", or any other neutral or masculine pronoun is disrespectful and transphobic. You don't call your mother or sister any of those things, so why should she be any different?



Actually, that does bring about something I truly fear about the whole gay / transgender equal rights and integration, which is how (often violent) manifestations of discrimination against them are pretty much frequently looked at with either a condescending "oh well, there it is again. What a bunch of naughty boys spanking the poof" or discriminatory "fucking nancy is totally overacting" mindset, which seems to suggest such acts are looked at as something trivial, an unavoidable consequence the victim was supposed to know was bound to happen.

I am a gay / transgender rights activist. Often people will ask me if I'm gay, to which my retort is blunt yet truthful: "I'm heterosexual; would I be required to be black or yellow to have a problem with racism as well?", and there is this shroud of complacency towards discrimination directed at sexual orientation - it's the whole "you aren't supposed to do that, but oh well..." scenario that stems from far more than the Judaic / Christian influenced castrating social rules (i.e. the fine art of attempting to maintain anachronistic aspects of a nomadic society as religious aspects in a whole different world), and THAT is what worries me: when discrimination is so deeply rooted that eradicating it becomes a challenge of identifying and suppressing the cause.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 2, 2012)

Guys, my comments stem from the fact that I/we didn't see the whole thing, so couldn't possibly know what went down previous to the "attack".

I can 99% gaurentee that the seizure was not induced by the "attack" because I've been involved and a fan of contact sports and training my whole life(except for first couple years of coarse lol).

If the incident is truely a reflection of yall's interpetation, then it was uncalled for 4sure. 
Either way, if I would have been there I would have done my best to stop it since one of the parties was clearly not able to defend his/herself.

My choice to use the his/her reference is due to me not knowing or having confirmed that it is in fact a soul who chooses to be refered to as "her", it's not a product of bigotry I assure you.
Hell, there's just no way anything can really be confirmed by this video except for the fact that someone is getting a beatdown.


----------



## wlfers (Feb 2, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Also her, not his/her. Calling her "it", "him", "he", "sir", or any other neutral or masculine pronoun is disrespectful and transphobic. You don't call your mother or sister any of those things, so why should she be any different?



Just curious, so it is proper to decide the correct pronoun based off the gender and not their sex? Not sure about the mother/sister comment either since I'm assuming in your analogy their genders don't differ from their sex.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

I'd be kinda irked if a transgender person got mad at me for using the wrong pronoun or title, as though I had done it on purpose. I want to use the right terms as much as the next guy (assuming the next guy wants to use the proper terms ), so I'd far prefer a friendly correction. I really doubt most people who use the wrong terms are doing it out of spite, we're just doing what, frankly, makes the most sense. See somebody who looks like a guy? Call "him" "sir." 99 times out of 100, it'll be correct. Until there's a gender neutral pronoun or title that's commonplace in English and used to refer to _everyone_ until individual preferences are made known, I'm afraid transgendered persons are just going to have to be patient with people for doing what they've been sociolinguistically ingrained to do for their entire lives.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Feb 2, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Also, in a gay marriage, does one take the other's name, or do the both keep their family names?  (It would make sense to me that they both keep their names, unless one has an embarrassing last name.) It's not something that I've encountered yet, coming from Australia.



Here in Brazil, any spouse can pick the other's family names, regardless of the genders involved.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 2, 2012)

athawulf said:


> Just curious, so it is proper to decide the correct pronoun based off the gender and not their sex? Not sure about the mother/sister comment either since I'm assuming in your analogy their genders don't differ from their sex.




The offense occurs because you refer to them (again using mtf as an example) as anything but a woman. This sends a clear message that you do not accept them or their gender kdentity. Granted mistakes happen, which is why in my case Im patient and correct people. Others may be as or more patient, and still others are less patient. Personalities differ. But in pretty much every case it irritates the fuck out of them when improperly addressed.

I still look like a dude at the moment, so I get why people are gonna call me sir. Sucks, but Tim is right. Perhaps down the line this will occur less frequently. My goal is to have it not happen at all. A lofty goal, but not out of reach.

All transpeople ask is for validation. That you recognize them for the gender they identify and portray themselves as. If you "read" a transperson, just ignore it and treat them as the gender they perceive themselves to be. For example, if you see what you know to be "a dude in a skirt and a wig" call them ma'am and use feminine pronouns. If one simple mistake is made, nobody is gonna go apeshit on you. It's most likely that they will just correct you. It's when after repeated correctings that they will become increasingly pissed. None of them want to be read as gender neutral, but as the gender they identify as, hence why neutral pronouns are not used. That and they are often used to imply that transgenders are less than human and I can assure you that is much more offensive than saying sir or ma'am incorrectly. First offense will likely get you a telling off. You have been warned. 

And guys, I don't mind answering any questions you have. Honest. I figure social acceptance comes with understanding and bigotry comes with fearing what is unknown.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> None of them want to be read as gender neutral, but as the gender they identify as, hence why neutral pronouns are not used. That and they are often used to imply that transgenders are less than human and I can assure you that is much more offensive than saying sir or ma'am incorrectly. First offense will likely get you a telling off. You have been warned.


 

When I mentioned a gender neutral pronoun, I didn't mean one that would just be used for transgendered people, especially not as a means to belittle them. I meant a gender neutral pronoun that would be used _by_ everyone, _for_ everyone. Under those circumstances, no offense could be caused because everyone would be referred to with the same terms.

It's kindof like referring to a woman as "Miz" to avoid causing offense by using Ms. or Mrs. improperly, but taken to a broader level to apply to all genders and sexes.

It'll never happen, most likely, so as we can both likely agree, patience is the best road to take here.


----------



## Waelstrum (Feb 2, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> All great questions. As far as the "correct" way to refer to a transperson, simply recognizing that (this is in the case of an mtf transgender) their current identity is valid by addressing them with feminine pronouns. (like myself. I still look much like a guy since I'm just starting my transition, but goddamn do I hate being sir'd. I give some room because a lot of people still see me as a guy. But it bothers the fuck out of me.)
> If still unsure, then politely ask once what they identify as. Just don't try to make a big deal out of it. In cases of FTM transgenders, addressing them with masculine pronouns is warrented. Note that there are people that identify as neither and still identify as transgender. In such cases, I see no harm in asking.
> For your example, even though she had the name of walter at one point, feminine pronouns still apply. A mindfuck I'm sure, but unless told otherwise, that's the proper way. Reason is that through gender therapy, many (but not all mind you) learn to accept what they've known all along; they were born the wrong gender. Many people think that gender identity and sexual orientation are related. They are not. Gay does NOT mean they wanna become a woman. By that same token, become a woman does NOT make them gay. At least not in the traditional sense. For example, a man is transitioning to live as a gender intended woman. But is considered "hetero" when they are still attracted to women. The ratio of hetero transpeople to gay/bi transpeople is about proportionate to the general population: LGBTs as a whole. Not many are gay/bi identified.
> 
> ...



This is what I suspected. My theory was that gender identity is an identity, rather than the way in which one dresses, and the clothing is merely an extension of that. (Sort of like how there can be a gay virgin: it's not the act, but the desire.) Therefore one should refer to Wendy Carlos as a female, even when she was Walter.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that transpeople are homosexuals by asking the two questions together. Sorry if it seemed that way.

EDIT: Thanks to this thread, I've got a lesbian dating add at the top of the page.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Feb 3, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> The offense occurs because you refer to them (again using mtf as an example) as anything but a woman. This sends a clear message that you do not accept them or their gender kdentity. Granted mistakes happen, which is why in my case Im patient and correct people. Others may be as or more patient, and still others are less patient. Personalities differ. But in pretty much every case it irritates the fuck out of them when improperly addressed.
> 
> I still look like a dude at the moment, so I get why people are gonna call me sir. Sucks, but Tim is right. Perhaps down the line this will occur less frequently. My goal is to have it not happen at all. A lofty goal, but not out of reach.
> 
> ...


 In the real world you can't always expect people to go by that. When it comes to what you're saying I'm on the fence about that. Usually I'll refer to someone as the gender they present themselves as...however...it's technically not inaccurate to call the person the gender they are. Whether or not you feel like the opposite gender..you are whatever gender you are and nothing will change that. Some people don't feel comfortable calling a man a woman or a woman a man and that has to be respected. 

Obviously there's a difference between calling someone something with the sole purpose of being rude, and calling someone something because it's what they are.

There's also a lot of confusion on the issue. I've known cross dressers who still identify as whatever gender they naturally are, yet just wear clothes of the opposite sex, some do wish to be referred to as the opposite gender, and some don't care..so people might not know


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 3, 2012)

You're absolutely right Drak. There are those under the transgender umbrella that still identify as male even though they are dressed as female. I have done a fair share of generalizing here and apologize for it. Im one of the types that like to err on the side of caution. However if I'm dressed to the nines and still get sir'd in a public place, that is just plain rude because clearly I'm not presenting myself as male. If for some crazy reason (like my current situation), I am unable to present myself as more than a slightly effeminate male, then I fully expect to be sir'd. I still don't like it, but that's kind of my own issue to deal with.

In an attempt to try and get the thread a bit more back on track, I think iamasingularity raises a great point in having gender neutral restrooms. I agree that there needs to be some. Thoughts on that?


----------



## Explorer (Feb 3, 2012)

Due to the demand, I'm sure gender-neutral bathrooms are likely to become just as common in shopping centers and restaurants of the United States as prayer facilities which include washing stations for preparing to pray in the direction of Mecca. 

I can see how this might not move forward anytime soon. 

----

Funny story, to me anyway:

One of our places is right in the middle of a large yearly festival. We let people use our bathrooms, and since there are normally more women than men, we let the women's line use the men's room when there's no one in there. I had volunteered to be there so that I could sort out any crap which came up (and there was much crap arising from the self entitled, as always). 

I had one woman who started playing word games in order to get into the men's room. She culminated by asking me, Well, what if I identify as male?

I asked her friends if she did indeed identify as male, to which the friends hemmed and hawwed. They clearly didn't want to lie for her.

I told her that, as transgenders and others have such a hard time in society, I was disappointed in her for basically lying about something like that to gain advantage. She got upset at me, asked who my boss was (our CEO, in point of fact, whom I offered to call on my cell phone for her to discuss it), and then after more of her yelling, I kicked her out. 

After she started yelling at the director of that facility for being anti-gay (hugely ironic as the director is lesbian) and left the building (escorted), I went back to keeping the peace... and everyone there started being appreciative. "Thank you for letting us use your bathrooms! Thank you for not judging everyone based on a few idiots!" *laugh*

----

I think there's a potential collision when you have people who want a bright shining line on who can use a large public bathroom (no biological males in with them, for example), and those who want the line to be drawn on how an individual identifies. Since a lot of this is just biological urge, it's hard to argue with a mother who doesn't want a male of any kind in the can with her and her daughter. 

Me? I don't care. I'm straight, but I have gay and lesbian friends, coworkers, and family members. I'm not threatened by being in the shower and locker room at the gym. I know I like women, and being around guys who like guys won't suddenly make me change teams. I don't worry that someone having the right to marry will remove my right to marry whom I wish.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 3, 2012)

Homophobia ---> modern racism


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 4, 2012)

http://www.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id/21882/pn/all/p/0/?KSID=b5068dd4b030d67257a89ebbeb86f6d2

I read this and died a little inside. It's for these kids that I fight and bitch and moan as much as I do. There is no reason, ever, for this to happen in this day and age. Not in any country, and ESPECIALLY not in such a freedom and diversity-toting country like the US.

Edit:
Link is being weird, and this phone is being retarded. It was supposed to link to a story by rolling stone magazine on a school districts "No Homo Promo" which forbids teachers to discuss anything LGBTQ related and forbids them to do more than lightly verbally correct students for using words like fag. This lead to an epidemic of suicide resulting in 9 of them in a year and a half. 9 kids are dead because of the religious intolerance that fosters that kind of bullying. :'(

It's also worth noting that the area was Michelle Bachmann's congressional district if that gives you a clue as to how bad the area can be....

Here's huffington post's article on it. Not nearly as in depth as the rolling stone article, but gives some background on it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/12/08/anoka-hennepin-minnesota-_n_1137730.html


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 4, 2012)

This kinda stuff is really in a grey area for me.

One one hand, controversial and current news sort of things are hard to avoid and can make great debate/discussion topics.

On the other hand, not all teachers are able and qualified to present sensitive material in an unbiased and fact-based way.

Teens by their very nature are so impressionable, so having some knuckle-headed idealog pretend to present the facts about things of a sexual nature to my kid is more than a little unnerving.

There are however many teachers who can moderate a good class discussion on hot topics in a sensible and fair way, but as parents it's hard to get to know all your childs teachers to that degree of trust.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 4, 2012)

Perdition, you're in CA, maybe you should move to San Francisco!


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 4, 2012)

Why do that Mehtab, when Hollywood is a lot closer to me? 

Trench, these articles serve as stern reminders that things are still so far from ok in the lgbtq community. Bullying happens regardless of what people do. But when, in the case of Aaron from that rolling stone article, some dude comes up and grabs my crotch saying "bet you like that don't you faggot?", it becomes sexual assault and harassment. Upon reporting such action to a teacher, tge kid was told to just lay low next time. Im sorry, but this is a disgusting and irreprehensible way to respond to that case, but in that area, it is common practice. Being a teenager trying to find yourself is hard enough without being berated about your orientation in top of it. It compounds upon kids whose hormones and emotions are already on the fritz as is. Call me a bleeding heart, but I don't think these kids deserved to die, and there were hundreds of opportunities for school officials to intervene and failed to do so. Im reminded of a quote from Dumbledore, "Indifference can often be more damaging than outright dislike."
Good leaders are supposed to lead, not look the other way when people pull this crap. Apparently that school district didn't get the memo, or simply doesn't care. I'm inclined to believe the latter. It's a sickening world when fear of losing your job holds a higher value than protecting kids....


----------



## thesnowdog (Feb 4, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> It's not something that I've encountered yet, coming from Australia.



...coming from Queensland I think you mean.


----------



## Varcolac (Feb 4, 2012)

Ah, pronouns...

I've always used "they/them" when I don't know someone's gender, either because of internet anonymity or real-world androgyny/ambiguity. I'll continue to use "they/them" until I get a clarification. English is lucky to have a gender-neutral third-person plural pronoun like that. It's not perfect, but it's certainly worlds better than calling someone "it," which is a level of disrespect that I can barely comprehend. Spoken Chinese at least has the utterly neutral _t&#257;_, but its written forms distinguish between male and female. "They/them" will have to do for now.

Gender-neutral titles are sorely lacking in this language, and indeed most languages I know. Japanese at least has the gender-neutral _-san_, but it's almost always attached to a name and so is redundant in a "yes, sir; no ma'am" context. Then again, my Japanese is rusty as hell. The few neutral titles that exist in English are tied to profession and education, which I'd be in no position to know unless they're in a white coat or military dress. However I've never been one for calling someone "sir" or "ma'am;" I feel I can express respect without resorting to such words.

Transphobia seems far more insidious than homophobia. Even otherwise intelligent people see to have a moment of "squick" at the thought of so-called "gender-bending." I hate it (the phobia, not trans people!). I always call people out on it. Prejudice against the contents of someone's underwear has to be one of the most idiotic forms of prejudice.

That's what it boils down to: presenting as a particular gender while not being the usual biological sex. Gender and sex, while intertwined, are not the same thing.


----------



## Waelstrum (Feb 4, 2012)

thesnowdog said:


> ...coming from Queensland I think you mean.



Wait, what did I miss?

EDIT: Well, Queensland recently got civil partnerships, which is a step in the right direction, but it's still not quite there. There are still no states which have the full thing.


----------



## groph (Feb 4, 2012)

Varcolac said:


> Ah, pronouns...
> 
> I've always used "they/them" when I don't know someone's gender, either because of internet anonymity or real-world androgyny/ambiguity. I'll continue to use "they/them" until I get a clarification. English is lucky to have a gender-neutral third-person plural pronoun like that. It's not perfect, but it's certainly worlds better than calling someone "it," which is a level of disrespect that I can barely comprehend. Spoken Chinese at least has the utterly neutral _t&#257;_, but its written forms distinguish between male and female. "They/them" will have to do for now.
> 
> ...



Eh, all people really need to do is get drunk and talk to a trans person. You might get a giant earful of TMI like I did but I'm not squeamish around trans people at all any more.

EDIT: And as far as what identifier to use, that really drives home how internalized the gender binary (male OR female, her OR him, etc.) really is. I'd just come straight out and ask them what they want to be identified as and risk looking a little bit ignorant because I just am. I figure it's fine to be curious as long as I'm treating them like a valid human being. The trans person I was talking to was biologically male*, but felt female so I referred to her as such. She wanted to get sex reassignment surgery but couldn't afford it. She was 50 I think, HIV positive, and worried about the police. Probably been through a lot of shit.












*even "biologically male" and "biologically female" is on a continuum. Genitalia develop out of the same embryonic tissue and some just differentiate more than others. The penis and clitoris are homologous parts (look at a clit and it basically looks like a tiny dick - eat that, homophobes). Some people are born with giant ass clitorises, micropenis, both sets, you name it. Most people are fertile, and for the most part there are, effectively, two sexes which are capable of reproduction with each other but it is absolutely, scientifically wrong to declare that there is a gender binary that is natural because it corresponds with two kinds of genitalia. There is enough variation out there, I think, to warrant not being all that surprised to hear of the existence of a person whose junk doesn't look like yours or your girlfriend's. You can also have a penis, be fertile, but have XX chromosomes and vice versa, along with many other chromosomal variations. I think you can be XXY and XXX too. How awesome would that be?


----------



## groph (Feb 4, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Homophobia ---> modern racism



(I hope somebody's posted since I did last, otherwise I guess it would be jim-dandy if a mod were to merge my posts or ban me)

Interesting point, homophobia and racism definitely seem to operate on some similar logics, especially at the individual level. I wouldn't say they're equivalent because homophobia doesn't have the same colonial background that racism in the West had/has, depending on how left you lean 

Racism was used as an ideological tool to justify colonizing (exploiting is probably a better word, as "colonizing" probably could have worked out in a nicer, mutually beneficial way, but alas people are dicks sometimes) - it wasn't a horrific sin to enslave African people because they were godless savages and "natural" slaves so racism was sort of used to wash people's hands of feelings of prejudice, ironically enough. That's if I'm understanding myself correctly. I could be getting this totally ass-backwards and putting racism in an historical context like this is bound to make racism look much different depending on what perspective or political inclination you're using. Racism is still around, so no matter what you have to explain it somehow. It didn't end when slavery was abolished and blacks were let into the front of the bus, or when Obama was elected.

I don't think homophobia has had that same kind of history. From what I know, non-heterosexuality was always kind of a thing that lurked around in the shadows in Western society and was only really just implied, never explicitly mentioned or faced. In movies, homosexual men were implied with British accents and slightly feminine gestures, or certain leering facial expressions (Scar from the Lion King is gay, and gayness is equated with evil in some way, they hint at these things). A movie, for example won't come out and say that gayness is evil, but they'll just suggest it and over time the effect this has is internalization of negative attitudes towards non-heterosexuals. This isn't the sole responsibility of movies, by any stretch, it's just an example.

I think (I'll just say queerness) queerness has only really been "around" since the 80s? That's when the gay rights movement really seemed to take off. Society was pretty shitty to queers in the 80s, the sex liberation movement of the 60s and 70s left its mark, feminism was beginning to embrace queer identities and a men's movement was emerging out of psychoanalysis, feminism, feminist backlash (reactionary movement, look up men's rights activists), and its own devices so I guess around this point in history we really looked down our own pants and really questioned what we were seeing.

I'll go on my own experience here with both racism and homophobia as they were/still are to an extent internalized in me. I still feel a slight twinge of intimidation when I see a black guy of large stature, even more if he's dressed like a "gangsta" (I feel like a 40 year old when I say that) thanks to the media, music videos, the institution of masculinity (hypermasculinity in the case of black males - gay black males are EXTREMELY vulnerable to outside abuse). I don't hold my purse in tight or cross the street, but there is a part of me that is praying he doesn't get set off when I make brief eye contact with him because the image is that they ("giant black guys") are a bunch of volatile gorillas who will rage at you if you look at them. This is a pretty antiquated racist stereotype that has been around for decades and still persists. I'm sure some of your white friends have said "a huge black guy" several times, that's a microaggression (a subtle indication of internalized racism/sexism/whateverism). Homophobia is maintained through microaggressions, we call guys who are behaving in "unmasculine" ways "faggots," much of male privilege is practically rooted in homophobia; it's used to maintain this masculine front so your place in the group of guys you hang out with isn't compromised. Maybe back in the day racism functioned in a sort of similar way, if you were a "...... lover" then your friends would probably outcast you but not on the basis of compromised masculinity.

I guess what you're saying is that homophobia (I prefer homonegativity but I always just say phobia) is kind of the prejudice of our day? You definitely seem to hear more about homophobic sorts of stories in the news - racist hate crimes are still around but homophobia seems to be a bit more common, and by that I mean it's reported more. It's also been incorporated into public schools, in high school I was seeing these posters with anti-homophobic messages, and now there's this whole "it gets better" thing which is kind of a crock of shit, there's SlutWalk (the picture of the androgynous looking swoopy red haired kid holding up the sign that says "this is what I wore when I was raped, I dare you to ask me if I was asking for it is a gay male, everyone including me thought it was a girl because "only heterosexual women are raped," making rape very much a gay issue as well, and a male issue for that matter esp. since the overwhelming majority of rapists are male), schools have GSA's, universities have pride events, there are all kinds of things out there that advocate on behalf of queer people, and there are of course the reactionary conservative groups (and some crooked liberals as well, even some feminists aren't accepting towards trans people) who are fighting against them for some fucking reason so homophobia is very much a common topic of discussion today. 



tl;dr - as far as current topics of discussion goes, yeah homophobia is like the new racism, but racism is still around and it has a much different history than homophobia.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 4, 2012)

Groph, you said it all dude! 

And yes there are those with chromosone variations of XXX, XXY, XYX, etc. This is known in the trans community as intersex. It is very rare, but does happen. I think people know them better by the term hermaphrodite, but not all intersex persons actually have both gentalia. 

It's pretty interesting stuff to look into. Be forewarned, it will devastate your concept of gender binary forever.....


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 5, 2012)

I'm posting this for the reason of relavence to society's perception of the subject and because I just seen outakes from the video on the super bowl pregame show.

What do you guys/girls think? 
Should this be considered fair game for humor or not?
I for one just don't find it that funny, but I also am not offended but can understand some being.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 5, 2012)

I actually found that kinda funny. I have a similar appetite as Yvonne. 


Sure there's more stereotyping, but in this case I feel it's more aimed at crap tv than the trans community. I can't speak for other's but I wasn't offended at all.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Feb 6, 2012)

Not every stereotype is necessarily negative. I don't mind when girls who don't know me well yet know I'm gay ask about my opinion on clothing. They're usually surprised I know jackshit about that, decoration, and pretty much any other "gay-related" stuff for that matter. It's not a statement of inferiority, just a commonly observed situation.

I'd think it's the same when people relate black people to "big, strong, and ferocious". Of course, saying all blacks are potential psychopaths is one thing; saying "don't fuck with that guy or he's gonna kick your ass" is somewhat different. Of course, I'm not black myself; I wouldn't know how they feel... besides, although racism does exist in here, it's not as proeminent a problem as it seems to be in US.

But I derail.

There's something in Groph's post I find particularly accurate:



groph said:


> Homophobia is maintained through microaggressions, we call guys who are behaving in "unmasculine" ways "faggots," much of male privilege is practically rooted in homophobia; it's used to maintain this masculine front so your place in the group of guys you hang out with isn't compromised.



I've always seen homophobia as an extend of misogyny. Homosexual men are viewed as inferior because they're renouncing their higher status of men to become more of a woman; homosexual women, as insolent, for daring to act like more than what they really are (_mere_ women).

I do not know if these concepts necessarily walk hand in hand, or maybe if it's just a coincidence (and tolerant people are tolerant). Be it as it may, religious extremists' views on both subjects (feminism and LGBT rights) are quite similar, and countries where gender equality is not only enforced, but also socially internalized (Scandinavia in particular) are also the most tolerant regarding LGBT.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 6, 2012)

^ I rather enjoy the "big dick" stereotype. It's gotten me laid many many times. Curiosity slayed the slut...


----------



## groph (Feb 6, 2012)

Sang-Drax said:


> Not every stereotype is necessarily negative. I don't mind when girls who don't know me well yet know I'm gay ask about my opinion on clothing. They're usually surprised I know jackshit about that, decoration, and pretty much any other "gay-related" stuff for that matter. It's not a statement of inferiority, just a commonly observed situation.
> 
> I'd think it's the same when people relate black people to "big, strong, and ferocious". Of course, saying all blacks are potential psychopaths is one thing; saying "don't fuck with that guy or he's gonna kick your ass" is somewhat different. Of course, I'm not black myself; I wouldn't know how they feel... besides, although racism does exist in here, it's not as proeminent a problem as it seems to be in US.
> 
> ...



Homophobia and misogyny are absolutely related and they do work together to enforce a binary or male privilege or what have you.

Gay men can still be closeted and maintain a level of privilege but once you're out and open some of it is gone. You still have maleness in common so you're not the shit at the bottom of the barrel - at least not to all men, some will kill you just the same (Matthew Sheppard) but there probably is some privilege lost. Your straight friends will probably say that they don't see you any differently but who knows, maybe when you guys go out for a night on the town, would they be cool with you bringing a guy back to their place, as cool as they would have been if you were straight and brought a girl back, would they still high-five you? Probably not. I think gay men still feel a need to censor themselves around straight men, even if everybody knows they're gay. Straight guys just aren't comfortable with gay sex (and I mean teh buttsecks and all that "raunchy shit" you fabulous gays are up to) I guess.

EDIT: And Konfyouzd, allow me to be the white guy who will explain your own prejudice to you (sorry) but isn't the "big dick" thing rooted in some old notion that black men are hypersexual and way more rapist-y than the average (white) man? Large dicks are glorified today yes, but back in the day it wasn't at all meant as a compliment? I know in ancient Greek culture large penises were associated with barbarians while small ones were the well cultured citizens and they were considered more aesthetically pleasing. As far as actual studies go, there doesn't seem to be a huge correlation between size and race, at least not a big exaggerated one like porn and the boastings of black rappers would have you believe. I'm just glad I'm not Asian. True or not, the Asian = tiny (not just small, TINY) penis thing is pervasive.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 6, 2012)

^ It's almost like if you tell someone you play EMGs or a guitar that only has 6 strings around here...


----------



## groph (Feb 6, 2012)

^ that is me on both accounts, hahahhahaa


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 6, 2012)

Simple question... 

The Declaration of Independence seems to suggest we have these things we call rights... Rights that are supposedly inalienable. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We've reserved the right to suspend said rights as a means of legal reprimand... 

Does letting two men who are in love fall under "the pursuit of happiness" (or even the other two for that matter)? 

Seems so to me and they've done nothing illegal in finding each other to be beautiful individuals.


----------



## thesnowdog (Feb 6, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Wait, what did I miss?
> 
> EDIT: Well, Queensland recently got civil partnerships, which is a step in the right direction, but it's still not quite there. There are still no states which have the full thing.



I was just making a childish reference to Bob Katter's pronouncement that there were 'no poofs in Kennedy' and that he'd walk backwards from Bourke to Brisbane if one was ever found. Then his brother came out...

I wonder if he's ever given any thought to how many of the rural suicides he's always banging on about being blokes who were just sick and tired of having to 'visit relatives in the city' every month?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 6, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> ^ It's almost like if you tell someone you play EMGs or a guitar that only has 6 strings around here...


 
Yeah that's me as well lol 

As far as the other stereotyping mentioned by you above;
I always tell women that; I might look white,
I might hate rap, but I'm 100% black from the waist down .


----------



## Explorer (Feb 6, 2012)

@Konfyouzd - I'm not sure if you're asking a leading question because the correct answer would then be obvious, but...

Women and blacks didn't have the vote for a long time. The majority of blacks didn't even have freedom.

It's only as we have more and more protections from the majority that these laws come to be enforced for even the weakest or least powerful in society.


----------



## SenorDingDong (Feb 7, 2012)

I've missed out on a lot of this discussion (although I've read most), but I'll just say that I believe in a separation of church and state.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. 

It shouldn't be the state's job to step in and say, "hey, you can't get married," because, well, that's the church's decision, isn't it? And by the state doing so, they are stepping into religious boundaries which, quite blatantly, is jointing church and state. If the state would abide by the separation, there would be no need for the federal government to get involved in the first place. 

If they want to step in and grab the reigns for the church so badly, what are their defenses as to why they won't stop the Westboro Baptists or other religious-type cults? I mean, if you can cross the line once, why can't you cross it again when the rationalization is, in most eyes, blatant?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 7, 2012)

Explorer said:


> @Konfyouzd - I'm not sure if you're asking a leading question because the correct answer would then be obvious, but...
> 
> Women and blacks didn't have the vote for a long time. The majority of blacks didn't even have freedom.
> 
> It's only as we have more and more protections from the majority that these laws come to be enforced for even the weakest or least powerful in society.


 
I was just stating an observation really. I've noticed that a lot of the time when someone is trying to push some personal agenda they'll talk about the ideals up on which the country was founded in some half assed attempt at guilting you into agreeing with them via pseudo-patriotism. 

But then obvious shit like that seems to get swept under the rug. 'Tis all. 

And I realize that there is more or less always going to be a majority of some kind, but I'm kind of disgusted at how the "majority" tends to behave.


----------



## Waelstrum (Feb 7, 2012)

thesnowdog said:


> I was just making a childish reference to Bob Katter's pronouncement that there were 'no poofs in Kennedy' and that he'd walk backwards from Bourke to Brisbane if one was ever found. Then his brother came out...
> 
> I wonder if he's ever given any thought to how many of the rural suicides he's always banging on about being blokes who were just sick and tired of having to 'visit relatives in the city' every month?



Oh, I forgot he said that. I remember at the time thinking that the effort, money and time he must have spent in establishing the sexual orientation of every single person could have been used for more important things.



JWGriebel said:


> Marriage is a religious ceremony.



It is not only a religious ceremony, as atheists can get married too. (Please excuse the smartarsery.) Also, if I'm not mistaken, there is some misinformation coming from the anti-gay movement that if gay marriage is legalised, it will force churches to perform marriage services for homosexual couples. (However, (AFAIK) this has never been proposed, as churches have the right to discriminate against couples for any reason. For example, a church can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for a mixed faith couple.) Thus this argument can go either way, depending on your preconceptions.

EDIT: Also, while some may benefit from it, I don't believe that positive stereotypes are good. (Certainly they're almost all better than negative stereotypes.) For example, if you're a small dicked African American, it will seem even smaller when compared to how big the dick was expected to be. Similarly, and Asian that can't do maths will seem even dumber than a similarly maths illiterate white person. It also belittles the achievements of people who live up to the stereotypes, as they are meeting expectations, rather than demonstrating a level beyond the norm.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 7, 2012)

^ Any of the arguments suggesting that allowing gays to be open about what they've always done "corrupting the rest of us" in any way shape or form always sounds like someone in the closet to me.  

And church officials have been known to touch little boys. Not just the Catholic ones either. At least I can let a homosexual babysit my child with little to no worries (most gay men I know are very respectful of others' preferences--imagine that). But I can't even let them go to Sunday school... What a world.


----------



## Kwampis (Feb 7, 2012)

Hey, first post here. I've been lurking for awhile, but hadn't gotten around to posting yet.

Anyway, I can back that up with respect to marriage being a religious ceremony. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ceremony has no legal standing by itself in the US. That's why you often see couples signing the marriage license during the wedding. That's when the wedding legally happens. You can get married without going anywhere near a church, so the whole "Churches will have to marry gay people" argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 7, 2012)

^This...

A lot of people sign their marriage license well before the ceremony even takes place. It's just traditional to have said ceremony and 9/10 times your woman will more or less make you do it.


----------



## Waelstrum (Feb 7, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> ^ Any of the arguments suggesting that allowing gays to be open about what they've always done "corrupting the rest of us" in any way shape or form always sounds like someone in the closet to me.




The specific thing I was referring to isn't necessarily the old "standing near tall people makes you tall" argument, I was actually referring to this argument: *(WARNING: MASSIVE DOUCHE CONTENT)*

at around 1:17

(Aside: I was watching a few of this guy's videos because I thought he was being a straw man, like Colbert, until I realised he was serious. )


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 7, 2012)

^ Whoa... What a clusterfuck... I get what you mean now, though. They were never "forced" to marry anyone else, so why would homosexuals be anything different? Seems like an excuse to just say no like that dude's mom who said she didn't trust Rondo's website. 

EDIT: You were right. That guy IS a massive douche. Seems intelligent but everything he says has a very pretentious vibe to it.


----------



## Waelstrum (Feb 7, 2012)

EDIT: Never mind.


----------



## Kwampis (Feb 7, 2012)

Wow, I agree. That video was pretty bad. I really don't see how he's getting the idea that churches will lose their tax-exempt status out of this.

Also with the civil union vs marriage issue, it goes back to the civil rights movement and the idea of "separate but equal." The problem is that separate is not equal. If the goal is equality, that's not the way to do it. It's basically saying to LGBT people "Well, you can have something, but you can't have a 'real' marriage." It's better than nothing, but it's still not equality.


----------



## Waelstrum (Feb 7, 2012)

Yeah, separate but equal can be used to justify separate toilets for separate races.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 7, 2012)

The Rondo/mom thing is from another thread that popped up this AM. You probably missed it.

Back on topic... I dont know why ppl want to hold on so tightly to the whole religious aspect of marriage. They're trying to make it out to be more than it is... A wife is a legal girlfriend. That's it. All the spiritual crap ppl go on with I think is just their way of justifying the life long decision they just made.

If the Bible defines it it's automatically a religious matter. 

I went to Webster and I got this... 



> 1
> _a __(1)_ *:* the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law _(2)_ *:* the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex _marriage_>


 
... a consensual CONTRACTUAL relationship RECOGNIZED BY LAW 

So the only thing stopping them is the law, not the Lord. Further, Webster doesn't even seem to make as big a distinction between the two as the ppl making the laws do so it seems some ppl just think about it way too hard. 

Hmm...


----------



## Waelstrum (Feb 7, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> If the Bible defines it it's automatically a religious matter.



Does the Bible define marriage? Most of the marriages I remember from the Bible were polygamous, and it even had concubines in it. I don't really want to get into a whole religious thing, but I'm pretty sure that our current view of marriage came from another source.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 7, 2012)

It may or may not. Perhaps that's just something homophobic Bible thumpers say. But I have heard it referenced that the Bible at least mentions in passing that a marriage is a bond between a man and woman. And it also says a man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman and blah blah blah... So maybe some folks just put two and two together and decided gay marriage = an abomination... 

With the divorce rate as high as it is I don't see why ppl care anyway. The odds are stacked against them whether they're allowed to or not. 

EDIT: You're actually right. It doesn't explicitly define it anywhere. It just uses suggestive language. Whenever marriage is the subject it almost ALWAYS uses both terms "husband" and "wife" so as to plant in your mind that that's what it's supposed to be but that's it.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Feb 7, 2012)

I don't know how it works in US, but I don't think it's that different from here. Here we have _religious_ marriage and civil marriage. The religious one has no legal effects until its legal aspects are likewise confirmed.

Regardless, the arguments are the same in here, with anti-gay movements complaining churches will be obliged to marry homosexual couples. It's not true in the least: it's just that, unfortunately, civil unions offer fucked up inheritance rights. I'd rather be married.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 7, 2012)

Sang-Drax said:


> I don't know how it works in US, but I don't think it's that different from here. Here we have _religious_ marriage and civil marriage. The religious one has no legal effects until its legal aspects are likewise confirmed.
> 
> Regardless, the arguments are the same in here, with anti-gay movements complaining churches will be obliged to marry homosexual couples. It's not true in the least: it's just that, unfortunately, civil unions offer fucked up inheritance rights. I'd rather be married.


 
It's like Waelstrom says... Separate but equal is never equal... Just separate--and to a petty degree. I mean really? They've gone so far as to change inheritance rights? REALLY?! Bc they both have the same sex organs? How does that even compute?

I've heard stories about same sex life partners not being allowed to be with their terminal lovers in hospitals on their death beds for similar reasons. I don't have anything to substantiate this; it's just something I've heard about in passing but if it *is* true it's fucking ludacris.

Anyone willing to deny someone else happiness over something so trivial doesn't deserve to be happy themselves.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Feb 7, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> It's like Waelstrom says... Separate but equal is never equal... Just separate--and to a petty degree. I mean really? They've gone so far as to change inheritance rights? REALLY?! Bc they both have the same sex organs? How does that even compute?



No, no... that's civil union vs. marriage, not heterosexual civil union vs homosexual civil union 

Regardless, I'm pretty optimistic as far as gay marriage is concerned around here. While not all justices agree, our Supreme Court tends to avail it just as they did with civil unions. Fingers crossed!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 7, 2012)

Oooh gotcha...


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 7, 2012)

JWGriebel said:


> I've missed out on a lot of this discussion (although I've read most), but I'll just say that I believe in a separation of church and state.
> 
> Marriage is a religious ceremony.
> 
> ...


 
My feelings exactly


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 7, 2012)

JWGriebel said:


> I mean, if you can cross the line once, why can't you cross it again when the rationalization is, in most eyes, blatant?


 
How often do you find yourself wondering this same EXACT thing in various other arenas?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 7, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Does the Bible define marriage? Most of the marriages I remember from the Bible were polygamous, and it even had concubines in it. I don't really want to get into a whole religious thing, but I'm pretty sure that our current view of marriage came from another source.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 7, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


>


 
I'm kinda liking some of this.
This is starting to make me very pro-marriage .


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 8, 2012)

This is a serious beatdown of a defensless man. It's great he stepped up and is gonna see these fuckers do jail time.
Gay man brutally beaten by Atlanta gang on video to step up and speak out - Last Word


Bastards don't even have the courage to face him straight up (npi), or even one on one for that matter.
Sucker-punching gangbanging scum if you ask me (or just about any other human being).


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 9, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> How often do you find yourself wondering this same EXACT thing in various other arenas?




Holy crap! You found a pic of what I'd look like if I was a South Park character. Good job! 

So some big news for the LGBTQ community this week. First up, the ninth district court in california ruled that prop 8 (gay marriage ban) is unconstitutional and that it serves only to make california's gays and lesbians second class citizens. The ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court next. But it sets a nice precedent in favor of gay marriage.

Also in the news, the state of Washington has passed a bill through both house allowing same-sex marriagem with the bill passing with something along the lines of 55-44. All it needs is for the governor to sign it into law and Washington will be the seventh state in favor of gay marriage.

Big, big news for us.


----------



## Brandon (Feb 18, 2012)

@ ghstofperdition: I thought I was the only gay metalhead round these here parts! 

I had the fortune of going to an Arts high school here in Las Vegas that was very open and accepting of people from all walks of life, So I've never personally experienced any amount of discrimination to the extent that you have or that many others have. Although it very well may happen one day. 

That being said (not sure how many people like the term, so take it as it is), I suppose I am one of those "straight acting" gay people. All my friends are straight, I definitely identify as a male, although I have my moments. It's nice seeing a civil discussion on this board filled with varying opinions, but overall respect for each other and the LGBTQ community. I just wanted to say kudos, this stuff is going to keep me coming back to this board for a while.


----------



## Varcolac (Feb 18, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Holy crap! You found a pic of what I'd look like if I was a South Park character. Good job!
> 
> So some big news for the LGBTQ community this week. First up, the ninth district court in california ruled that prop 8 (gay marriage ban) is unconstitutional and that it serves only to make california's gays and lesbians second class citizens. The ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court next. But it sets a nice precedent in favor of gay marriage.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately New Jersey's republican governor vetoed their gay marriage bill. Another NJ politician had this to say, and it's very relevant to the title of this thread. Warning: brace for epic.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 18, 2012)

Brandon said:


> @ ghstofperdition: I thought I was the only gay metalhead round these here parts!
> 
> I had the fortune of going to an Arts high school here in Las Vegas that was very open and accepting of people from all walks of life, So I've never personally experienced any amount of discrimination to the extent that you have or that many others have. Although it very well may happen one day.
> 
> That being said (not sure how many people like the term, so take it as it is), I suppose I am one of those "straight acting" gay people. All my friends are straight, I definitely identify as a male, although I have my moments. It's nice seeing a civil discussion on this board filled with varying opinions, but overall respect for each other and the LGBTQ community. I just wanted to say kudos, this stuff is going to keep me coming back to this board for a while.


Well I'm bisexual, not gay, but am also transgendered. I say transgendered and not transsexual because I'm not getting my dick chopped off. (this is due to wanting kids, not because of a profound love for it.)

Also, there are PLENTY of gay/bi dudes/dudettes on here. They just aren't as vocal as I am, and I prefer to let them identify themselves as they see fit. 

I also believe my buddy Groph when he says like half the people here are either gay or bi, but are downlow. 



Varcolac said:


> Unfortunately New Jersey's republican governor vetoed their gay marriage bill. Another NJ politician had this to say, and it's very relevant to the title of this thread. Warning: brace for epic.





I'll be damned! A politician that "gets" it.


----------



## Brandon (Feb 19, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Well I'm bisexual, not gay, but am also transgendered. I say transgendered and not transsexual because I'm not getting my dick chopped off. (this is due to wanting kids, not because of a profound love for it.)
> 
> Also, there are PLENTY of gay/bi dudes/dudettes on here. They just aren't as vocal as I am, and I prefer to let them identify themselves as they see fit.



Sorry for the misnomer. I have a friend that is FtM Transgendered and recently got top surgery, so I really should have known better. 

We might have to start a SS.org Queer Club!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 20, 2012)

Brandon said:


> SS.org Queer Club!



Count me in!


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Feb 20, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> So some big news for the LGBTQ community this week. First up, the ninth district court in california ruled that prop 8 (gay marriage ban) is unconstitutional and that it serves only to make california's gays and lesbians second class citizens. The ruling is expected to be *appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court *next. But it sets a nice precedent in favor of gay marriage.



So this could be good or bad. On one hand, it could mean that the Supreme Court says that gay marriage must be legal as anything against it is unconstitutional. On the other hand, we could have the court say the bans are legal for some ridiculous reason. I can't really tell as I'm not too familiar with the modern court, but how do our chances look?


----------



## Brandon (Feb 20, 2012)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Count me in!



Absolutely! We will convene and produce the most brutal music know to man.


----------



## Miek (Feb 20, 2012)

dragonblade629 said:


> So this could be good or bad. On one hand, it could mean that the Supreme Court says that gay marriage must be legal as anything against it is unconstitutional. On the other hand, we could have the court say the bans are legal for some ridiculous reason. I can't really tell as I'm not too familiar with the modern court, but how do our chances look?



SCOTUS'll probably go "yep gay marriage is legal," them going "NO, ASSHOEL" would be much more unexpected.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 21, 2012)

Brandon said:


> Absolutely! We will convene and produce the most brutal music know to man.



Followed by an epic orgy? YUSH!!! 

Back on topic:
@Dragonblade
Our chances look pretty good. Everything I'm hearing thus far (which isn't much admittedly) shows that SCOTUS is likely to uphold California's ninth district court's ruling. If that happens, it could have HUGE ramifications. By ruling that prop 8 is unconstitutional, that sets the stage for similar rulings in other states. The ripple effect I'm hoping for here is that this will lead to the ruling that outlawing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, which therefore would lead to it being legal everywhere in the U.S. That's why this ruling is so important. It will decide a LOT of the LGBTQ community's future.

I watch and wait with baited breath in the hopes of becoming an equal with other Americans...


----------



## Waelstrum (Feb 21, 2012)

^ Not just for Americans. In many cases (mostly wars) Australia will follow America's lead. We have a lesbian front bench minister, and our Prime Minister still isn't moving forward on this issue.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 22, 2012)

Brandon said:


> Absolutely! We will convene and produce the most brutal music know to man.



Queercore! :lol

There shall never be anything more brutal, yet more fabulous....


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Feb 22, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> @Dragonblade
> Our chances look pretty good. Everything I'm hearing thus far (which isn't much admittedly) shows that SCOTUS is likely to uphold California's ninth district court's ruling. If that happens, it could have HUGE ramifications. By ruling that prop 8 is unconstitutional, that sets the stage for similar rulings in other states. The ripple effect I'm hoping for here is that this will lead to the ruling that outlawing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, which therefore would lead to it being legal everywhere in the U.S. That's why this ruling is so important. It will decide a LOT of the LGBTQ community's future.
> 
> I watch and wait with baited breath in the hopes of becoming an equal with other Americans...



Sadly we have to wait a few years for that to happen. At least it will happen, though.


----------



## Brandon (Feb 25, 2012)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Queercore! :lol
> 
> There shall never be anything more brutal, yet more fabulous....



Just to be sure, we're not talking about the return of glam, are we? 



On topic: Apart from what I usually see in the media, I have become very happy as of late. I am finding that there are so many people who are supportive of this and me personally, whether they be personal friends or acquaintances from afar on this forum. Every day I am more grateful for that. Kudos to you all.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Feb 27, 2012)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Queercore! :lol
> 
> There shall never be anything more brutal, yet more fabulous....



Ya'll bishes need a big black satanist metalhead drag queen. I have come to answer your prayers.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 27, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Ya'll bishes need a big black satanist metalhead drag queen. I have come to answer your prayers.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Feb 27, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Ya'll bishes need a big black satanist metalhead drag queen. I have come to answer your prayers.



I may not be gay, but I can appreciate the Beauty of Staccia Tori Rape.


----------



## Varcolac (Feb 27, 2012)

It's a big black dude dressed as a cybergoth nymphette. Gay or straight or any other number on the Kinsey scale, that shit's confusing.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Feb 28, 2012)

Varcolac said:


> It's a big black dude dressed as a cybergoth nymphette. Gay or straight or any other number on the Kinsey scale, that shit's confusing.



Doesn't matter, had sex.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 28, 2012)

Varcolac said:


> It's a big black dude dressed as a cybergoth nymphette. Gay or straight or any other number on the Kinsey scale, that shit's confusing.


 


It's like Ving Rames in that Chuck and Larry movie.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Feb 28, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> It's like Ving Rames in that Chuck and Larry movie.



Bitch do I look like Ving Rhames to you? 








Shit..wrong pic..I mean











Speaking of him though...that man is gorgeous..well not in drag


----------



## broj15 (Mar 1, 2012)

It honestly makes me sad to think that gay marriage may never be legal in my lifetime. I hope it happens, but, given the moral climate of some states I feel like there is still alot of progression that needs to happen before it can be achieved. Two of my best friends are gay it pisses me off that i will never get to see them experience the happiness that some people do on thier wedding day. 
I mean, it doesn't even have to be a religious ceremony, even if it's a non denominational affair performed by a Judge or a Boat Captain (I'm pretty sure they can still marry people).
I also find the whole argument of "ruining the sanctity of marriage" to be flawed. When you get down to it, in a legal sense, marriage is nothing more than a contract recognized by the law. People "ruin the sanctity of contracts" all the time when the embezzle money, steal, cheat people out of goods and services, etc. Yea, people get pissed off about it, but they don't flip out like some people do over the issue of gay marriage. Since when does wanting to marry someone you love make you less of a person than someone who screws over people that trust them?
I'm not gay so i don't exactly have a horse in the race, but since the issue can directly effect some people that are close to me i just felt compelled to give my input.

Edit: As far as queercore goes, check out Pansy Division. Easily one of my fav punk bands.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

broj15 said:


> It honestly makes me sad to think that gay marriage may never be legal in my lifetime. I hope it happens, but, given the moral climate of some states I feel like there is still alot of progression that needs to happen before it can be achieved. Two of my best friends are gay it pisses me off that i will never get to see them experience the happiness that some people do on thier wedding day.
> I mean, it doesn't even have to be a religious ceremony, even if it's a non denominational affair performed by a Judge or a Boat Captain (I'm pretty sure they can still marry people).
> I also find the whole argument of "ruining the sanctity of marriage" to be flawed. When you get down to it, in a legal sense, marriage is nothing more than a contract recognized by the law. People "ruin the sanctity of contracts" all the time when the embezzle money, steal, cheat people out of goods and services, etc. Yea, people get pissed off about it, but they don't flip out like some people do over the issue of gay marriage. Since when does wanting to marry someone you love make you less of a person than someone who screws over people that trust them?
> I'm not gay so i don't exactly have a horse in the race, but since the issue can directly effect some people that are close to me i just felt compelled to give my input.
> ...



It is flawed on the grounds that most marriages in this country are a HUGE sham anyways. Some people get married to get in the country, some do it just because it "feels like the right time", as far as my personal observations go it is a rarity that 2 people get married for the right reasons (because they love each other above anything else). Divorce is common in my family so I have a skewed perception.

In terms of adoption. My sister lost her kids (why because she is a terrible person nuff said) she is straight and in a relationship. To pretend that being straight makes you an "AWESOME" parent is ridiculous.

My mom pointed out to me once even that every time they legalized gay marriage people come out and bulk to get married. That's her theory of corruption. I don't think she realizes why though on 2 levels. For one it gets repealed almost every time (until recently in some states) it gets legalized so people are just trying to make it in time in hopes that they can be grandfathered in. Secondly, some things can't be taken to the supreme court unless a law has been broken or an action has been taken. (In some regards I find that to be ridiculous) I'll never understand that in many cases someone has to be a lifer or on death row before supreme court can have a say on it, but that is a discussion for another time.

Point? The argument against it is unfounded even if their arguments deserved consideration.

Me, personally, I am straight in the sense that I like women, but I am a fairly asexual person. Don't have a strong desire to be with someone else emotionally and respect women enough to not deceive them to my bedroom.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 8, 2012)

Best pro-gay marriage slogan I've seen yet:
"Legislating against gay marriage because it's against your beliefs is like banning people from eating because you're on a diet."

Win!


----------



## Karl Hungus (Mar 8, 2012)

Hey folks, y'all remember me? 

Well, it might come as a shock to you (well, maybe not some of you, btw looking awesome Drak!) but I caught the trans too.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 8, 2012)

Karl Hungus said:


> Hey folks, y'all remember me?
> 
> Well, it might come as a shock to you (well, maybe not some of you, btw looking awesome Drak!) but I caught the trans too.



Ugh...SUCH a trend follower

Just kidding. Glad you're able to be open about it now


----------



## Karl Hungus (Mar 8, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Ugh...SUCH a trend follower
> 
> Just kidding. Glad you're able to be open about it now



Bitch, I started it, you just copies me. 







stops copies me


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 8, 2012)

Karl Hungus said:


> Bitch, I started it, you just copies me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But I make it look SICK'NING!


Ya know I have to say, we have a seriously diverse group on this forum..it's pretty damn cool


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 8, 2012)

HOLY SHIT


U SINGLE!??


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 9, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> HOLY SHIT
> 
> 
> U SINGLE!??



Wait... I thought you were into guys... what's going on?


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 9, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Wait... I thought you were into guys... what's going on?



Well I am...but if they're all out of beef..I suppose fish is alright if I'm hungry enough


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 9, 2012)

That was my dinner last night (in a non-metaphorical sense.)

EDIT: Also, now that you say that, your previous post is not so much of a compliment anymore...


----------



## Karl Hungus (Mar 9, 2012)

Sorry to disappoint, but I've got a girlfriend.


----------



## ry_z (Mar 9, 2012)

Karl Hungus said:


> I know, I know... I don't have Drak's style, but I rock the geek girl look.



Huge props for the Firefly shirt.


----------



## Karl Hungus (Mar 9, 2012)

ry_z said:


> Huge props for the Firefly shirt.



Thanks! I do like my sci fi


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 9, 2012)

Woot! Welcome to the trans club hun! 
Feels good to not be the only one... 

And holy fuck do you look good!


----------



## Karl Hungus (Mar 12, 2012)

Thank you


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 12, 2012)

So when you gonna jump in on the miss sso pagaent with drak and myself? 

Admittedly, mehtab has honorable mention with the cute, flowery dress and sombrero. Ole!


----------



## Necris (Mar 12, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> So when you gonna jump in on the miss sso pagaent with drak and myself?
> 
> Admittedly, mehtab has honorable mention with the cute, flowery dress and sombrero. Ole!


I demand entry into this contest.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 12, 2012)

Start posting pics in Drak's thread.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 13, 2012)

To keep this thread in step with P&CE....

What do you guys think of this cartoon:






I'd be especially curious to hear what fellow trans members on here think of it...


----------



## Necris (Mar 13, 2012)

The Lesbian and Gay portion of the LGBT "community" has it's own fairly serious acceptance issues when it comes to Bisexuals and Transgendered men and women. I've met quite a few gay men and women who consider trans people freaks and wish for them not to be associated with the rest of the gay community. It's a disturbing viewpoint to take, really.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Mar 13, 2012)

There's also people that think that bisexuality doesn't exist, believing you're either homosexual or heterosexual, nothing in between.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 13, 2012)

Both excellent points and I've had to deal with exactly both of those. 

 indeed....


----------



## groph (Mar 13, 2012)

Necris said:


> The Lesbian and Gay portion of the LGBT "community" has it's own fairly serious acceptance issues when it comes to Bisexuals and Transgendered men and women. I've met quite a few gay men and women who consider trans people freaks and wish for them not to be associated with the rest of the gay community. It's a disturbing viewpoint to take, really.



It does sound like a strange viewpoint to take, but it's not as if anybody who is in a marginalized category like a gay man or lesbian woman is automatically some kind of beacon of acceptance and political awareness. Not to put words in your mouth, just a point to consider. It definitely seems to make sense for non-heterosexuals to band together somehow because no matter what they're labelled as, they're discriminated against for not fitting in to the nice mold of heterosexuality (which is arguably unstable itself). 

A lot of radical feminists are the same way as well. By "radical" I don't mean "too feministy for me; don't want," I mean "belief in a patriarchy that pervades all aspects of social life, the oppression of women defines human society, patriarchy is to blame for every ill of society" kind of belief. As far as I understand, despite being intensely critical of a gender binary (men and women) they reproduce that binary in their theories and end up not understanding transgendered people or engage in straight up transphobia. They question whether or not a biological male can grow up thinking he's a woman because they question the basis of being a woman itself, or vice versa of course.

The bisexual hate is ridiculous. For cissexuals (people who are not transgender, their biology matches their social gender category in the typical way you'd expect) it's hilariously polarized and subject to all sorts of heteronormative commentary. A bisexual girl is A-OK to straight guys because hey, girl girl guy threesomes! Fuck yeah! Of course she could also be assumed to be experimenting, or in a phase (the old "you're either straight or gay, no in between" kind of thing) or of course is a total skanque. Bisexual guys are just gay. A guy can't even have an inkling of a homosexual thought and be open about it, that makes him gay. Getting a boner in a shower room makes you gay. In reality those boners probably happen because face the fucking truth, dicks are sexual cues, and also you're standing there thinking about not getting a boner. You know how that always works out. But no, fuck the reality, you're just gay. "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" = gay. Not saying "no homo" after expressing affection towards another man = gay. Actually gay = watch your back, you might get beaten to death. I'm a firm believer that "100% straight, no exceptions" people (especially guys) do not exist, and I will keep driving that point into the ground until people realize that Anderson Cooper is fucking gorgeous.

Interestingly, right now there are student union executive elections going on at my school. Candidates did their speeches today, and one of the questions they were asked by an audience member was advocating for transgendered students. Neither of the candidates really knew where to go with the question, but one (who identifies as a feminist and is really sex-positive, I dig her) at least has some experience and she's very accepting of basically anyone. She'll get my vote. 

I've always found the labels heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, etc. to be really odd and I almost think we shouldn't be using them, but on the other hand I don't want to rob someone of an identity. I guess in the future we'll have added so many letters to the LGBTQ community acronym we'll have to just start calling them people.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 13, 2012)

groph said:


> I guess in the future we'll have added so many letters to the LGBTQ community acronym we'll have to just start calling them people.




Epic post is epic! 

+rep your way for this! 
To those that ask man or woman, I say human. That should be enough. We're all people and as such are deserving of the respect befitting a human being until our actions and deeds alone warrant the negation and termination of said respect. Dress/look how you want, and be intimate with any consenting adult that you want. It is not mine, or other person's place to tell you otherwise. Do I care for the emo style? Not really, but I won't tell an emo person to look and act like anything else. Why? Because it isn't my place to, and I mildly respect them for not giving a fuck about what anyone else thinks and looking and acting the way that they want to. 

Granted GID (google it) is something you're born with as opposed to emo, which is a lifestyle choice, but much of the same principle holds. 

Slightly off-topic, but I've even wondered if some of the musical culture could be something you're inherently born with too. I'd love to see some scientific research on this as I find studies of things like this fascinating.


----------



## Necris (Mar 13, 2012)

groph said:


> It does sound like a strange viewpoint to take, but it's not as if anybody who is in a marginalized category like a gay man or lesbian woman is automatically some kind of beacon of acceptance and political awareness. Not to put words in your mouth, just a point to consider.


Oh, of course. I'm not at all surprised by it and am well aware of the fact that every human being has the capacity to discriminate, but I can still be uncomfortable with it.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Mar 13, 2012)

groph said:


> I've always found the labels heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, etc. to be really odd and I almost think we shouldn't be using them, but on the other hand I don't want to rob someone of an identity. I guess in the future we'll have added so many letters to the LGBTQ community acronym we'll have to just start calling them people.



I believe the current fully expanded acronym is QUILTBAG (Don't ask me what it stands for).


----------



## Necris (Mar 13, 2012)

dragonblade629 said:


> I believe the current fully expanded acronym is QUILTBAG (Don't ask me what it stands for).


Q - Queer and Questioning 
U - Uncertain
I - Intersex 
L - Lesbian 
T - Transgender, Transexual 
B - Bisexual 
A - Asexual 
G - Gay, Genderqueer


----------



## Explorer (Mar 13, 2012)

groph said:


> Getting a boner in a shower room makes you gay. In reality those boners probably happen because face the fucking truth, dicks are sexual cues, and also you're standing there thinking about not getting a boner. You know how that always works out.
> 
> ...I'm a firm believer that "100% straight, no exceptions" people (especially guys) do not exist, and I will keep driving that point into the ground until people realize that Anderson Cooper is fucking gorgeous.



You bring up some interesting assertions, but I'm not sure they're correct.

I have never had to think, "Don't get a boner!" in the locker room or shower. Male nudity isn't a sexual cue for me. To give a parallel example, young children aren't a sexual cue for most adults, and most adult men don't need to think about not getting a boner when dealing with a baby or a young child having its diaper changed. 

I also like that, although one of the points made is that some can't really believe someone can be bisexual, you've asserted that someone can't be attracted only to one sex. Lesbians and gays are just fooling themselves by that logic. 

Don't feel bad that you hadn't thought that throguh, though. Just be a little more understanding when lesbians don't believe that someone can be trans. 

----

Funny story: A good friend of mine who is a lesbian kept arguing with me that I wasn't in touch with the fact that people are naturally bisexual, and kept insisting that I should get with a guy that she knew. I agreed that I'd be up for the experiment... if she would first get with a guy I knew. She was completely revolted by the idea of sex with a guy, but she would never cop to it until I finally made it a quid pro quo situation. 

Personally, I don't get people who tell others that they don't really have their declared sexual preferences, whether it's someone bi telling a straight or gay that they're lying, or a clergyman telling gays and lesbians that they are really straight. Ignorance abounds in this world, and the most I can do is not contribute to it. 

That's my choice, but any one of us is free to choose to do so.


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 14, 2012)

While I agree with the above post almost entirely, I think that what he meant by everyone being a little bit bi is that the little bit can be so small as to be negligible. It's sort of like how almost everyone can score a little bit along autism spectrum. I think that he meant that to be 100% straight, you not only must have never been attracted to your gender, but you must also have never considered that you might find even one example of an attractive person of your gender (because some may accuse* homosexuality of anyone who considers the possibility, as mentioned in his post).


*Not the right word for it, but 'twas all I could think of.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 14, 2012)

Well, I've never considered a male in a sexual way, and have never given a thought as to whether I might someday find one I'd find attractive. 

Anyway, having heard idiots like Pat Robertson seek to redefine sexual orientation as a "choice" rather than what someone automatically feels, I think that the idea of trying to find some bi/homosexual component in someone who is straight is hilarious but misguided. 

BTW, a lot of women I've known who have been involved in sex work (sad but true, and I don't frequent where such things happen) always start to assert that everyone is a prostitute in their own way. I don't agree, but they keep trying to redefine things to make their case, and it always comes across as BS. 

This feels a lot like that.


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 14, 2012)

I wasn't really agreeing with his post, I was just trying to see his point of view and considering some of the ideas as perhaps more valid than they first seem.

EDIT: Or perhaps Groph was talking about people in isolation with their own gender, (usually men) such as in prison or at sea. His point is that as a last resort, the instinct is to find sexual relief with company as opposed to one's self, even in the absence of one's preferred gender.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm not sure I'm really on board with the "we're all at least a little bisexual" idea, either. I can certainly admit when another man is attractive, but I've never been sexually attracted to another man at all. I can also see a child and think "what a beautiful little girl" or "what a handsome little boy," but I don't consider myself to be "at least a little paedo" because of it.

If being comfortable admitting when another man is attractive, regardless of not being attracted to him, makes me a little bit bi, then by that definition I suppose I am.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 14, 2012)

First..I do believe there are many gray areas in sexuality..porn's a great example of this for most men. Men do care what the guy looks like in porn movies..and about the size of his dick. Sexual imagery is arousing be it a man or woman for lots of people, even if on some small scale. As a gay man I never had the hardon situation in the shower, but it doesn't make me not understand groph's point which is extremely valid. Nudity has a sexual aspect, naked men draws a parallel to sexuality, and some men get hardons due to it..makes perfect sense.

Second..I don't think women involved in sex work is sad..if they make that choice in clear mind then so be it. In Nevada prostitution is legal and I think it should be and taken as a valid job and not something women do that should be pitied. 

I don't know how the pedo thing came along..but that's something entirely different. I don't believe anyone's 100% anything. Some are definitely stronger towards one of the spectrum or another..but different situations lead to different results. I've seen lots of "very gay" men become attracted to a woman for whatever reason and lots of "very straight" men become attracted to another man for whatever reason


----------



## Lady Gaga (Mar 14, 2012)

By the way, we're onto quiltbagpipe now: QUILTBAGPIPE - Yada Wiki


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 15, 2012)

Lady Gaga said:


> By the way, we're onto quiltbagpipe now: QUILTBAGPIPE - Yada Wiki




Lolwut?
So according to that I'm T and both Ps? Interesting..... 


And for those that didn't know...
Groph makes a good case for many people being bi to some degree. This is based upon the Kinsey Scale:
Kinsey scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember reading up on this and out of 100 or so test subjects, Dr. Kinsey found that only 30% of his test subjects were truly exclusively straight, or exclusively gay. It makes a pretty good case for bisexuality being more common that people would like to admit. I will say that the test was pretty flawed since it dealt exclusively with the sexual side of things and didn't take into account things like relationships and the emotional side of things.

That said, I'm still of the mind there are far more bisexuals out there than we can see. Erasure as well as people still being in the closet (understandably so given the hatred for it by society) have skewed the numbers a fair bit...


----------



## flint757 (Mar 15, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Lolwut?
> So according to that I'm T and both Ps? Interesting.....
> 
> 
> ...



If you look at it from a historical context bisexuality has always been pretty common.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 15, 2012)

flint757 said:


> If you look at it from a historical context bisexuality has always been pretty common.



Humans have been around for far too long for most things we perceive in our everyday life to be new or unique. What's sad is we still haven't found ways of coping with who we are.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 15, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Humans have been around for far too long for most things we perceive in our everyday life to be new or unique. What's sad is we still haven't found ways of coping with who we are.



This. The more people understood about themselves, the more they could relate to others they see as different..and less trouble we would have


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 15, 2012)

I'm pretty sure the QUITLTBAGPIPE acronym is taking the piss, considering the 'E' is for everyone. It just looks like they're trying to make a silly word.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 15, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Groph makes a good case for many people being bi to some degree.
> 
> ...I remember reading up on this and out of 100 or so test subjects, Dr. Kinsey found that only 30% of his test subjects were truly exclusively straight, or exclusively gay. It makes a pretty good case for bisexuality being more common that people would like to admit.



But it wasn't Groph's point that many people are bi. He said that everyone was bi.



groph said:


> I'm a firm believer that "100% straight, no exceptions" people (especially guys) do not exist.



The study that you posted disagrees with Groph's point, as it found that 30% of the test subjects were straight, which is not the 0% argued by Groph. 

And again, I have to laugh that in a thread where (prior to the derail and subsequent back-to-topic jump) the group being discussed is always being told that their natural proclivities are a problem, now someone is arguing that the other group doesn't know anything about its own sexual preferences. That echoes so many evangelical "homosexuality doesn't really exist, it's a choice" that it's both hilarious and extremely scary.

Ah, well. I just have alarm bells go off whenever someone claims to know what another person feels, even better than that person.


----------



## groph (Mar 16, 2012)

Explorer said:


> You bring up some interesting assertions, but I'm not sure they're correct.
> 
> I have never had to think, "Don't get a boner!" in the locker room or shower. Male nudity isn't a sexual cue for me. To give a parallel example, young children aren't a sexual cue for most adults, and most adult men don't need to think about not getting a boner when dealing with a baby or a young child having its diaper changed.
> 
> ...



..I don't feel bad, and I have thought it through, a lot. I wasn't talking about lesbians, I was talking about some threads of thought in radical feminism (the whole feminism shebang is pretty multifaceted so I can't really speak on behalf of everybody who subscribes to it nor have I really read volumes of the stuff yet either though I am into this stuff). They attack the idea of a "naturally" internalized gender identity, they tend to think that gender is entirely learned through (a patriarchal) society.

Maybe I was a bit clumsy and implied that I said that someone can't only be attracted to one sex but I was talking about the rigidity in sexual/gender roles IE if a man expresses the slightest bit of attraction towards another man he's very easily labelled as "gay" even if he identifies otherwise. I'm pretty sure in the spectrum of human sexuality there are people who are not attracted AT ALL to people with the same body parts as them, but they're probably pretty rare and how much of that stuff is macho posturing? Lots of guys will assert their 100% heterosexual orientation and I'd wager a decent bet that a good proportion of them are bullshitting you. Personally, I do find lots of guys out there attractive but I don't experience any romantic attraction to them and I'm pretty damn sure that if it ever came down to it, I wouldn't actually have sex with them and if I think a guy is good looking, I can't not be friends with him for fear of accidentally coming on to him or anything. What works occasionally in fantasy is not necessarily what works in real life.

About the shower boners business, no, if you're comfortable around the people nudity isn't always a sexual cue, the same thing goes for nude beaches and physical examinations. The context matters for sure. It's just a boner-conducive mindset if you're constantly thinking about getting hard and in reality, I'm sure the "boner in the shower" is more of a fear than a reality, I doubt it actually happens much. Why guys are so terrified about it is what's of interest, some are just really insecure and sometimes that insecurity can backfire on you. I'm sure in your youth you've pitched many a tent in class and your mental efforts to become flaccid only made matters worse. Of course one also has to consider that erection is a physiological response that is more or less separated from higher brain functioning, you can't just "will" a boner in and out of existence. I've never even used a changing room in any school before, partially out of my own insecurities and partially because the popular "jock" guys really appeared to be a bunch who would put you down because of the way you looked, I'd be the sort of fat kind of nerdy kid they'd whip in the ass with a towel and make comments on my junk. That was the fear. Nowadays I'd be far less averse to using a public changing room, I guess these things change with maturity.

EDIT: Yeah I didn't mean that everybody was bisexual to the point of willfully engaging in sex with either sex, I just really question the 100% heterosexual mentality, to put it in a nutshell. I've never shagged a man and I don't want to, but there's no way I'm 100% straight. I'm looking at "100% straightness" as a sort of managed presentation of one's self in order to preserve and protect a status, especially in the case of guys.


----------

