Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Vain.3805]

Just to derail this ONCE MORE! I have a comment on the whole love Jesus more than your family stuff...

Since it seems to be causing a bit of unhappiness when duh, your family comes first for just about everything if not everything.

 

Perhaps to what Jesus is referring to as a true disciple is actually redemption, exaltation, that sorta deal. If he is talking about becoming redeemed, saved, whatever - then your family never even comes into the equation.

 

Redemption is a personal event that takes place just between you and God and maybe that's what he's pointing out - not that you have to say "Screw you, Mom and Dad, Jesus makes better pancakes!" But more that you need to have a closer one on one relationship with Jesus than would be healthy with your Mother, Father, or even your spouse. The whole becoming one with God thing.

 

And, to head off upset marital type peeps, if your spouse is doing the same thing - seeking this level of communion, enlightenment, what have you - then you don't have to worry about your relationship with God getting in the way of your marriage either since you'll both be on the same page.

 

Also - taking offense is a choice. Discuss.

[Obscure_Trash]

Warning for some brief language: http://genderpunkrock.tumblr.com/post/8535...before-but-what

 

Regarding the acronym thing, this is interesting.

Oh shoot - yep, I have that acronym in my tags. Completely forgot. Thanks for linking it here!

[KageSora]

Warning for some brief language: http://genderpunkrock.tumblr.com/post/8535...before-but-what

 

Regarding the acronym thing, this is interesting.

That's an interesting proposed one, but I think a shortcoming is it just uses "orientations" and most people will assume that means sexual, not even realizing that a romantic orientation can in fact be different from the sexual one. I like the ones that specify sexual/romantic, because it indicates that those are two separate things not always just one in some people.

 

But, that might also just be that I'm incredibly wary of things that come from Tumblr these days, since even that post falls under the "links to a 'source' of information that says nothing about what they claim it does" thing. (The link about the "pedo coined the term" thing actually appears to say no such thing about when the term was coined--it mentions the guy, I think, but it doesn't seem to attribute the creation of the term to him, and additionally has warnings that it needs more citations for verifying the authenticity of the information as well as it may be a biased article.)

Edited May 13, 2014 by KageSora

[edwardelricfreak]

I dunno, I don't feel like other terms were needed. I thought the LGBT+ was fine enough, since the plus was meant to incorporate everyone. But maybe that's just me.

 

I guess I just kinda think that the MOGII acronym is a bit TOO general and also harder to remember for me. :\ Like I can remember the letters in the acronym, but not what they stand for. At least before I knew that they were specifically standing for certain terms.

 

But MOGII? When I see what it stands for, it just seems like a bunch of long, extremely general and hard-to-memorize words. I can remember the GII part but not the MO, especially not the M. It sounds harder to explain, too, especially since it seems like a new term. Unless it REALLY starts catching on, I don't think I'll ever remember it unless I force myself to. :\

 

My reaction to MOGII was like: "whoa, okay, what? You just said words at me. What does any of that mean?" I have to put more effort into understanding what is meant by those words. Honestly the only letter in it that I don't have to ask for understanding about is the last I, Intersex. No further explanation is needed. "Gender Identity" seems like it will still confuse some people. But with "Marginalized Orientations" opening up the acronym, if it throws me off (and some other people I showed that link to) it's gonna throw off others. Marginalized isn't exactly a word used in common conversation, and "orientation" has a few different meanings. Just from "marginalized orientations", I personally have no idea what anyone is talking about. It's only when you reach the "gender identity and intersex" that I have any context as to what "marginalized orientations" means.

 

MOGII also doesn't really sound like a good community name, but that might just be me.

[KageSora]

I think the biggest problem with the LGBT+ is that everything after the + gets forgotten. Except the "A for Allies". >_> (aka people don't get that it means asexual)

 

But, then again, everything after the LG tends to be overlooked or forgotten anyway...

[Fuzzbucket]

Just to derail this ONCE MORE! I have a comment on the whole love Jesus more than your family stuff...

Since it seems to be causing a bit of unhappiness when duh, your family comes first for just about everything if not everything.

 

Perhaps to what Jesus is referring to as a true disciple is actually redemption, exaltation, that sorta deal.  If he is talking about becoming redeemed, saved, whatever - then your family never even comes into the equation.

 

Redemption is a personal event that takes place just between you and God and maybe that's what he's pointing out - not that you have to say "Screw you, Mom and Dad, Jesus makes better pancakes!"  But more that you need to have a closer one on one relationship with Jesus than would be healthy with your Mother, Father, or even your spouse.  The whole becoming one with God thing.

 

And, to head off upset marital type peeps, if your spouse is doing the same thing - seeking this level of communion, enlightenment, what have you - then you don't have to worry about your relationship with God getting in the way of your marriage either since you'll both be on the same page.

 

Also - taking offense is a choice.  Discuss.

I like that, and I've been (heterosexually) married for almost 50 years.

 

But what I actually don't like is splinter groups of any kind. Why do we have to call it "gay marriage" or "minorities". It's marriage, pure and simple. A commitment to share your life with someone else. ETA And so why do any of us need a label ?

 

And we are all people. And the sooner more people GET that we are all the same, with different needs* for a few preferences in all sorts of areas, the better.

 

(* With "needs" I mean disabled, not sexual - I honestly don't see that those of various sexual orientation needs "special rights" - the differences are in areas which are private, really. What does a lesbian or a transgender "need" that I don't ? Oh wait - OK - we also all need unisex toilets... )

 

The more some of us "demand rights" for x group or other, the more other people will demand THEIR "rights" because it isn't fair that "they" should get something. Don't demand the "right to gay marriage". Demand the same right to marry for everyone. That kind of thing.

Edited May 13, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[edwardelricfreak]

I think the biggest problem with the LGBT+ is that everything after the + gets forgotten. Except the "A for Allies". >_> (aka people don't get that it means asexual)

 

But, then again, everything after the LG tends to be overlooked or forgotten anyway...

Not really? At least definitely not for me.

 

And no, they don't, at least definitely not all the time. Maybe in your experience, but I've never seen them get overlooked or forgotten. :\ For most people I know, when you say LGBT+ (with more or less letters, doesn't matter) they know you are talking about everyone, not just those represented by the letters...

 

This MOGII thing, again, just seems TOO general and I'm not sure how easily it will even catch on. Again, LGBT+ is easily recognized and easily understood.

 

Also I think I'm just a little miffed by the M meaning "marginalized". That seems very negative. While it might be the truth, I don't think it should be used in the acronym. That's kind of rubbing the salt in the wound a little bit. It's calling too much attention to itself and seems like it's there only to make others pity those marginalized groups. I have a disgusting feeling in my gut when I see the groups described like that.

 

If the M were removed or replaced with a word that made sense for the context and wasn't there to make it seem like a pity party, I think it might be okay (though still a bit too general).

 

It's not like this is coming from a straight person, either. While I do have a boyfriend, I happen to be bi and I don't feel like a female all the time. I also have gay and bi friends and have known trans people as well as someone who is gender fluid. I am not comfortable with that M specifically pointing out that they are marginalized. That's like constantly pointing out "HEY WE'RE LOSING ALL THE TIME" or something. I guess I could describe it like a "sore loser" complex.

 

Did that all make sense?

 

I guess I'm also not okay with anyone not "white" being considered a minority. I just want all people considered equal and calling attention to stuff like that seems...wrong.

[KageSora]

Not really? At least definitely not for me.

 

And no, they don't, at least definitely not all the time. Maybe in your experience, but I've never seen them get overlooked or forgotten. :\ For most people I know, when you say LGBT+ (with more or less letters, doesn't matter) they know you are talking about everyone, not just those represented by the letters...\

You're lucky--a lot of people who are "allies" really only care about things like "let gay people marry". Of course, they're not REAL allies, so... But they're also the loudest. Probably because proper allies don't need to announce that to get attention, heh.

 

I suppose "forgotten" isn't always accurate. A lot of times they get a lot of crap, even in the LGBTQIA+ community.

 

But yeah, though, that might be the areas I'm in--I wish more people everywhere understood it meant everybody.

Edited May 13, 2014 by KageSora

[Obscure_Trash]

Not really? At least definitely not for me.

 

And no, they don't, at least definitely not all the time. Maybe in your experience, but I've never seen them get overlooked or forgotten. :\ For most people I know, when you say LGBT+ (with more or less letters, doesn't matter) they know you are talking about everyone, not just those represented by the letters...

 

This MOGII thing, again, just seems TOO general and I'm not sure how easily it will even catch on. Again, LGBT+ is easily recognized and easily understood.

 

Also I think I'm just a little miffed by the M meaning "marginalized". That seems very negative. While it might be the truth, I don't think it should be used in the acronym. That's kind of rubbing the salt in the wound a little bit. It's calling too much attention to itself and seems like it's there only to make others pity those marginalized groups. I have a disgusting feeling in my gut when I see the groups described like that.

 

If the M were removed or replaced with a word that made sense for the context and wasn't there to make it seem like a pity party, I think it might be okay (though still a bit too general).

 

It's not like this is coming from a straight person, either. While I do have a boyfriend, I happen to be bi and I don't feel like a female all the time. I also have gay and bi friends and have known trans people as well as someone who is gender fluid. I am not comfortable with that M specifically pointing out that they are marginalized. That's like constantly pointing out "HEY WE'RE LOSING ALL THE TIME" or something. I guess I could describe it like a "sore loser" complex.

 

Did that all make sense?

Then you're very, very lucky. Very few people even know asexuality or pansexuality is a thing. Same with intersectionality, questioning, genderqueer, genderfluid, nonbinary, bigender, agender, etc. Heck I've seen bunches of people who've heard of pan (and bi and sometimes ace) give incorrect definitions for it. Even the large groups ignore bi folk and trans folk (see HRC who silences and refuses to service trans people - and undocuqueers). Most tend to step on bi and especially trans folk in order to promote some rights for some gay and lesbian folk. Bi folk, bi women in particular, have the highest rates of bullying and suicide in the orientation community. And trans people, trans women in particular, face the highest rates of rape and murder of the whole community. And it's in part due to things like the fact that we won't even face the issues facing them - instead we pretend like bi and trans people don't exist.

 

And I can't tell you the number of times people have argued with me that a) allies deserve a letter in the acronym and that's already what the a is there for. Asexuality doesn't even cross their mind.

 

On marginalized - it's much more descriptive than "minority" (which as discussed earlier can be offensive and negative), it's much more inclusive than trying to name everyone under the sun (which gets shortened into an acronym that I'm not included in either in romantic or sexual orientation or gender), and IMO gets rid of the Otherness aspect that some other choices promote. What's wrong with general? I like general! Trying to get too specific gets us a fifteen letter acronym or fun inside jokes that I can never take seriously. You can't just give a four letter acronym and expect it to describe everyone. And sure, you have the plus - but even then there's still politics in that acronym. The L was placed before the G for very specific reasons - to try and combat the erasure of lesbians and having all the attention on gay men - so it stands to reason that there's some issues/problems with just shoving the rest of us into a plus-mark. Which, yeah, does include things like my experience of not getting any further than "asexual" before getting stomped on by the LGBT community telling me I'm "not queer" and that I need to "get out". I do like queer as an alternative - I've been slowly reclaiming it the past few months. However, it's definitely not a good solution since it is a slur and not everyone's comfortable with it. And if someone asks that I don't refer to them in a way that they're uncomfortable with, of course I'm going to respect that. (And here you're saying you don't like MOGII so I would avoid using it to include you - but I still will use it in reference to myself and elsewhere.)

 

JMO

Edited May 14, 2014 by SockPuppet Strangler

[edwardelricfreak]

What's wrong with general? I like general! Trying to get too specific gets us a fifteen letter acronym or fun inside jokes that I can never take seriously.

 

(And here you're saying you don't like MOGII so I would avoid using it to include you - but I still will use it in reference to myself and elsewhere.)

I do too, but as I said, MOGII seems too general. Or maybe just the way its laid out is weird. idk, I just don't think we're at a decent acronym yet and so far prefer the (long, yes, but understood as of now) LGBT+ acronym to MOGII (or any of its predecessors).

 

Also thank you.

 

Honestly I think it all falls back to sex ed, too. Even in most sex ed classes, no talk is brought up regarding anything beyond homosexual and maybe bisexual sexualities (and nothing is said regarding romantic vs sexual relationships or even gender vs sex).

 

I guess I just AM lucky that I had a very in-depth sex ed course and the community I grew up in was very strongly (and properly) LGBT+ (or MOGII for those that prefer the term).

[Vain.3805]

I like that, and I've been (heterosexually) married for almost 50 years.

 

But what I actually don't like is splinter groups of any kind. Why do we have to call it "gay marriage" or "minorities". It's marriage, pure and simple. A commitment to share your life with someone else. ETA And so why do any of us need a label ?

 

And we are all people. And the sooner more people GET that we are all the same, with different needs* for a few preferences in all sorts of areas, the better.

 

(* With "needs" I mean disabled, not sexual - I honestly don't see that those of various sexual orientation needs "special rights" - the differences are in areas which are private, really. What does a lesbian or a transgender "need" that I don't ? Oh wait - OK - we also all need unisex toilets... )

 

The more some of us "demand rights" for x group or other, the more other people will demand THEIR "rights" because it isn't fair that "they" should get something. Don't demand the "right to gay marriage". Demand the same right to marry for everyone. That kind of thing.

I missed the reference to my post you quoted.

 

But to continue with your topic of equality and get really wild and speculative here - AND OFFENSIVE, did I mention what I'm about to say is supremely offensive? I'll paint it yellow, you'll have to highlight it to get mad. Didn't even know white was an option... woah

 

It could be that many, not all (some unconventionally oriented people have brains, or so I've heard), but it could be that many of the activists out there seeking their "rights" are in fact seeking society's validation. Validation they need because they need approval for what they are doing - something someone who is emotionally healthy does not need.

 

Also another great many of them are on the band wagon. They are being manipulated by more powerful people. Conspiracy theorists should be going wild on this but it's apparently too controversial even for them to touch. There are already legal solutions to a great many issues covered by the current "rights" movement - and all of them are simpler than said powerful people would have you believe. Wanna get married to someone the same sex? What is marriage - a unity of self and possessions. Give each other power of attorney, joint bank account, ect - well that sure looks a whole lot like the STATE institution of marriage which... isn't that what the "rights" movement is looking for? Now if you want the religious one... make a gay friendly church, that's what the Protestant religions did. They didn't like the mainstream, so made their own.

 

Now, I have a stake handy. Who knows a guy with the napalm; I'll be the perfect target and stand perfectly still. But that is my reason for the WHY in your post. Also - Pedophiles are demanding rights for their love as well, using the Gay Crusade as their guiding star. After all, love is love... right?

Edited May 15, 2014 by Vain.3805

[hazeh]

The sexual attraction to children =/= the attraction to an adult of the same gender. (and since it always leads to this for some reason, also =/= sexual interaction with animals)

 

Please do not ever compare pedophilia to homosexuality.

[KageSora]

I missed the reference to my post you quoted.

 

But to continue with your topic of equality and get really wild and speculative here - AND OFFENSIVE, did I mention what I'm about to say is supremely offensive?  I'll paint it yellow, you'll have to highlight it to get mad.

 

It could be that many, not all (some unconventionally oriented people have brains, or so I've heard), but it could be that many of the activists out there seeking their "rights" are in fact seeking society's validation.  Validation they need because they need approval for what they are doing - something someone who is emotionally healthy does not need.

 

Also another great many of them are on the band wagon.  They are being manipulated by more powerful people.  Conspiracy theorists should be going wild on this but it's apparently too controversial even for them to touch.  There are already legal solutions to a great many issues covered by the current "rights" movement - and all of them are simpler than said powerful people would have you believe.  Wanna get married to someone the same sex?  What is marriage - a unity of self and possessions.  Give each other power of attorney, joint bank account, ect - well that sure looks a whole lot like the STATE institution of marriage which... isn't that what the "rights" movement is looking for?  Now if you want the religious one... make a gay friendly church, that's what the Protestant religions did.  They didn't like the mainstream, so made their own.

 

Now, I have a stake handy.  Who knows a guy with the napalm; I'll be the perfect target and stand perfectly still.  But that is my reason for the WHY in your post.  Also - Pedophiles are demanding rights for their love as well, using the Gay Crusade as their guiding star.  After all, love is love... right?

First, let's make that white, instead of blinding.

 

Second, I almost don't even know where to begin with you.

 

Believe it or not, there are a number of LEGAL RIGHTS given to married couples that are unable to be replicated without an ACTUAL marriage It's not just about the ceremony--as you said, you can find an institution friendly to whatever sort of arrangement you've got going on. But things like just having a joint bank account? That's not what it's about.

 

People who are not legally recognized as spouses have been kicked out of hospital rooms for injured or dying partners, for example. Even if they've done everything else they can on paper besides legally being recognized as married.

 

Not to mention there are various tax benefits that aren't available unless you're legally married.

 

Additionally, hell yeah we want validation! You'd want validation, too, if you faced the idea of being kicked out of your family for how you were born, for being beaten or murdered for who you love or your gender identity. If you risked being raped to "fix" you, because "corrective" rape is very much a thing that people will try to do, disgustingly enough.

 

There is a very real need for society to recognize non-cishet identities as real and just as valid as being a cishet.

 

 

Yeah, sure some of them are on the bandwagon--but the same could be said about people who oppose equality. A lot of them are bandwagon haters, too. EVERY movement has bandwagoners. It's unavoidable. Bandwagoners should not be a reason to discredit a movement. If it's the case, then literally every movement shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

 

Additionally, consenting ADULTS in a same-sex relationships does not have any relation to pedophilia, and pedos shouldn't be trying to piggyback on it. In a CONSENTING situation between ADULTS (since young children of the age pedos are attracted to are NOT capable--legally or otherwise--of truly giving informed consent) there are no victims.

 

If a child is engaging in sexual contact with an adult, there is a victim--the child. Because the child is not capable of giving informed consent. They are not capable of truly understanding what the adult wants to do to them, how it will physically affect them, and what the potential physical and mental side-effects will be as a result of what the adult wants to do to them as well as how those will hold the potential to alter their life. Hell, there are ADULTS who don't even know that stuff, despite it being legally considered giving consent due to their age.

 

The ability to give informed consent is, additionally, the reason why homosexuality will not lead to bestiality, either--animals are not capable of giving the sort of consent required.

[Fuzzbucket]

Then you're very, very lucky. Very few people even know asexuality or pansexuality is a thing. Same with intersectionality, questioning, genderqueer, genderfluid, nonbinary, bigender, agender, etc. Heck I've seen bunches of people who've heard of pan (and bi and sometimes ace) give incorrect definitions for it. Even the large groups ignore bi folk and trans folk (see HRC who silences and refuses to service trans people - and undocuqueers). Most tend to step on bi and especially trans folk in order to promote some rights for some gay and lesbian folk. Bi folk, bi women in particular, have the highest rates of bullying and suicide in the orientation community. And trans people, trans women in particular, face the highest rates of rape and murder of the whole community. And it's in part due to things like the fact that we won't even face the issues facing them - instead we pretend like bi and trans people don't exist.

 

And I can't tell you the number of times people have argued with me that a) allies deserve a letter in the acronym and that's already what the a is there for. Asexuality doesn't even cross their mind.

If you add all these variants to an acronym you'd start to lost the point. (and by the way, where are the polyamorous ? )

 

But the issue is that RIGHTS are NOT the same as validation. Not in any which way. I will validate (almost) anyone; I have absolutely no prejudices against ANY sexual orientation except when it comes to force and manipulation. But I will not demand "rights" for every small group of them individually. We should all have the same rights. I don't have to "approve" of people - approval has nothing to do with the bedroom - and I am well sick of how we have to "tolerate" those different from ourselves; that actually implies that there is something that has to be put up with. I strongly believe in ACCEPTANCE of differences - which would in effect validate.

 

Before anyone starts to pull the "she just doesn't understand" thing - I grew up in the days before Wolfenden in the UK. My very good friends used routinely to be put in JAIL for their preferences. Some married to conceal their homosexuality. Many of us - including me - were introduced as "the girl friend" to parents who would otherwise have turned their sons in to the cops just for loving other guys. Many felt dirty and unworthy; many killed themselves. I know many gay men simply because I was known not to give a toss about that stuff. If I'd had as many boyfriends as I had parents I was introduced to as girlfriend, I'd have been called a today

 

All of you with differing orientations - all of whom I willingly accept for who you are - don't know how lucky you are in some ways - unless you live in those countries that still have the death penalty. THERE I will fight for you - there it IS a matter of rights !

 

And anyway, surely adding everyone to a HUGE umbrella group of disparate people with varying sexual orientations is kind of counter productive. We aren't all the same. A transgender woman needs a unisex toilet in a way that a lesbian does not. For just one example.

 

I'm not mad, Vain.3805. I am very sorry indeed if you feel in some way marginalised for your views; I accept you for yourself; I don't care what your sexual orientation is. It has nothing to do with me unless you wanted to invite me into your bed, after all.

 

As Miss Manners said once, when asked how you introduce "different" people to your friends, "What type of entertainment do you give, that everyone's sexual affiliations must be declared at the door ?" In most areas of life, it is irrelevant, though I do accept that when it becomes known, there are people who will do the disgusted thing. Too bad for them. Those they choose to despise are better than they are.

Edited May 14, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[Vain.3805]

The sexual attraction to children =/= the attraction to an adult of the same gender. (and since it always leads to this for some reason, also =/= sexual interaction with animals)

 

Please do not ever compare pedophilia to homosexuality.

I don't have to compare it to pedophilia. It IS being compared to pedophilia by PEDOPHILES. You musta missed the whole part where I said pedophiles were using the Gay Crusade and mistook me for saying I think that pedophiles and gays and bestiality are all the same.

 

Just 'cause you don't like it doesn't mean it's not real.

 

North Colorado Gazette I shall cite my sources.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Vain.3805

[Vain.3805]

First, let's make that white, instead of blinding.

 

Second, I almost don't even know where to begin with you.

 

Believe it or not, there are a number of LEGAL RIGHTS given to married couples that are unable to be replicated without an ACTUAL marriage  It's not just about the ceremony--as you said, you can find an institution friendly to whatever sort of arrangement you've got going on.  But things like just having a joint bank account?  That's not what it's about.

 

People who are not legally recognized as spouses have been kicked out of hospital rooms for injured or dying partners, for example.  Even if they've done everything else they can on paper besides legally being recognized as married.

 

Not to mention there are various tax benefits that aren't available unless you're legally married.

 

Additionally, hell yeah we want validation!  You'd want validation, too, if you faced the idea of being kicked out of your family for how you were born, for being beaten or murdered for who you love or your gender identity.  If you risked being raped to "fix" you, because "corrective" rape is very much a thing that people will try to do, disgustingly enough.

 

There is a very real need for society to recognize non-cishet identities as real and just as valid as being a cishet.

 

 

Yeah, sure some of them are on the bandwagon--but the same could  be said about people who oppose equality.  A lot of them are bandwagon haters, too.  EVERY movement has bandwagoners.  It's unavoidable.  Bandwagoners should not be a reason to discredit a movement.  If it's the case, then literally every movement shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

 

Additionally, consenting ADULTS in a same-sex relationships does not have any relation to pedophilia, and pedos shouldn't be trying to piggyback on it.  In a CONSENTING situation between ADULTS (since young children of the age pedos are attracted to are NOT capable--legally or otherwise--of truly giving informed consent) there are no victims.

 

If a child is engaging in sexual contact with an adult, there is a victim--the child.  Because the child is not capable of giving informed consent.  They are not capable of truly understanding what the adult wants to do to them, how it will physically affect them, and what the potential physical and mental side-effects will be as a result of what the adult wants to do to them as well as how those will hold the potential to alter their life.  Hell, there are ADULTS who don't even know that stuff, despite it being legally considered giving consent due to their age.

 

The ability to give informed consent is, additionally, the reason why homosexuality will not lead to bestiality, either--animals are not capable of giving the sort of consent required.

The legal benefits, you are exactly correct about - or interracial marriage would never have become possible.

 

As for validation... why would you want validation from people who hate you?

 

I just really like playing devil's advocate.

 

And again - Pedophila may not equal gay, but go tell that to the pedophilia rallies using the gay rallies as their logic for why it's okay. Seriously people, what is wrong with your reading comprehension.

 

North Colorado Gazette I cite my sources.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Vain.3805

[Obscure_Trash]

I just really like playing devil's advocate.

Just wondering why you enjoy emotionally toying with people who already face real hate just for being them? I don't understand how this is challenging or new or edgy or even fun at all.

[Fuzzbucket]

Just wondering why you enjoy emotionally toying with people who already face real hate just for being them? I don't understand how this is challenging or new or edgy or even fun at all.

It's actually rather dull.

 

Though the way some (NOT ALL by any means) paedophiles do try and demand validation for their behaviours is worrying. Don't forget though that anyone having sex with a minor - including heterosexual, consensual sex - will be breaking the law and it is not OK.

 

A child cannot genuinely consent and is easily manipulated, and the couple of paedophiles I know accept their feelings but do NOT act upon them, as they also accept that while they feel as they do, it is not OK to have sex with a child. I do feel sympathy for them.

[MasterWeavile898]

Just wondering why you enjoy emotionally toying with people who already face real hate just for being them? I don't understand how this is challenging or new or edgy or even fun at all.

Some people are just like that

Don't pay too much attention to us, it gets less interesting when your target won't break

 

Anywhales, on acronyms:

I honestly pretty much jusy generalize sexual/romantic orientations as "gay or some such" and gender issues as "like trans or whatever" Just because it's simpler. If I'm trying to be more professional, then I'll say LGBT, sometimes with a + or an A, depending on the exact situation. I get the whole thing where it gets really big if you want to list everything, but there's got to be a stopping point (I mean, I don't think there's even a word for the second half of my orientation) It's well known and simple. And I don't see the point of changing it because this person or that has an issue with it. Someone's always going to have an issue with it, no matter what

 

Now, if someone wishes to provide sufficient reasoning for me to use an equally simple, more general acronym, I will do so gladly. But for now I'm going to stick with my oversimplified versions

[edwardelricfreak]

If you add all these variants to an acronym you'd start to lost the point. (and by the way, where are the polyamorous ? )

I've never seen polyamory (or polygamy, since that's a bit related) considered a part of LGBT/MOGII before. ._. I've seen pretty much every gender orientation, sexuality, etc under the sun in it, but not polyamory. I think that might be another boat entirely? I can see it being related, and maybe considered part of sexual/romantic attraction, but I'm not convinced that it's a part of it. o3o

 

Well, okay, so actually if I recall, we MIGHT have gone over polyamory a bit.

 

I don't have a problem with them being a part of that group, but I didn't think they were. :U I guess it makes a bit of sense, but really, it seems like a different subject.

 

I do support it, though. Polyamory AND polygamy (uh, especially when the polygamy is a result of polyamory, not just because laws, but either way :Y). I do not understand the mind set AT ALL. I can't understand how someone can allow themselves to be shared by more than one person or have enough love and attention to give without being spread thin. BUT I'm hardly against it. It works for some people and my opinion shouldn't matter.

[Fuzzbucket]

I've never seen polyamory (or polygamy, since that's a bit related) considered a part of LGBT/MOGII before. ._. I've seen pretty much every gender orientation, sexuality, etc under the sun in it, but not polyamory. I think that might be another boat entirely? I can see it being related, and maybe considered part of sexual/romantic attraction, but I'm not convinced that it's a part of it. o3o

 

Well, okay, so actually if I recall, we MIGHT have gone over polyamory a bit.

 

I don't have a problem with them being a part of that group, but I didn't think they were. :U I guess it makes a bit of sense, but really, it seems like a different subject.

 

I do support it, though. Polyamory AND polygamy (uh, especially when the polygamy is a result of polyamory, not just because laws, but either way :Y). I do not understand the mind set AT ALL. I can't understand how someone can allow themselves to be shared by more than one person or have enough love and attention to give without being spread thin. BUT I'm hardly against it. It works for some people and my opinion shouldn't matter.

But see, they too are a minority group, if we must put people in groups, and they often get a lot of stick - stuff like "you just want to have your cake and eat it, get a mistress instead" and so on. I have some online friends who keep very quiet about it. And I have seen less than charitable posts here, aimed at some members who are very open about it.

 

But I hate hate hate categorising everyone.

[edwardelricfreak]

But see, they too are a minority group, if we must put people in groups, and they often get a lot of stick - stuff like "you just want to have your cake and eat it, get a mistress instead" and so on. I have some online friends who keep very quiet about it. And I have seen less than charitable posts here, aimed at some members who are very open about it.

 

But I hate hate hate categorising everyone.

Yeah :c

 

Also I would like to say that I can see how polyamory/polygamy ties into this thread, just not into that specific group. This thread is about marriage equality after all, so polygamy makes sense.

 

But no, I don't like categorizing everyone, either. Maybe that's why I don't like MOGII as an acronym- it's trying to include EVERYONE and thus becomes too general and disconnected. It's trying to lump an absolutely HUGE and diverse group of people into one acronym. At least LGBT+ (with or without more letters in the acronym) named a few of the people within it. MOGII names intersex and generalizes others.

[Vain.3805]

Devil's advocacy isn't me playing with people's emotions. If that's how you'd do it, then gosh, what an awful person you'd be. And heads up - I didn't say you were an awful person, I said that anyone playing the devil's advocate for that reason is an awful person.

 

What I'm doing is giving your stance (the stance of the person I am countering) more clarity.

 

You should be grateful - someone on the internet not only actually cares what you think but is trying to figure out WHY you think it. If you hate backing up your opinions so much, why do you even have one?

 

I'm not trying to "break" my target. You people really don't understand other people very much if you think anyone with an opinion that differs from yours or conversational habits that aren't identical to how you talk is suddenly evil, bad, or otherwise out to get you. Gee that sounds a whole lot like... prejudice. I do however appreciate that fuzzy doesn't hate me. I don't hate you either, I just find it disappointing when people don't actually read what I say.

 

And I still don't have an answer from the first kid on why they quoted me in the first place - their post had nothing to do with what I'd said and I still don't know their opinion on it other than they like hitting the quote button. That would be you, KageSora.

 

TL;DR

What I'm doing with throwing out controversial opinions which I may or may not agree with (you guys really have no way of knowing) is seeing how you feel on a wider scale than just talking to people who do nothing but agree with you. It's easy to believe something or feel something or have an opinion of something if everyone around you is saying the same thing. And yes, I realize that many many people disagree with you to the point of causing psychotic breaks, suicide, ect. but my POINT is - how do you respond in a situation where the person disagreeing with you isn't being hateful or rude, but just... disagreeing.

 

I have to hand it to the thread though - while you do have a little bit of the knee-jerk reaction, you also do more thinking than just spouting diarrhea from your mouth when things don't go your way. It helps that we are all protected from each other by the barrier of the internet.

 

Also - since we seem to want an all comprehensive name to the thread - why not make it "Controversial Rights" and get it over with?

[brairtrainer]

It's actually rather dull.

 

Though the way some (NOT ALL by any means) paedophiles do try and demand validation for their behaviours is worrying. Don't forget though that anyone having sex with a minor - including heterosexual, consensual sex - will be breaking the law and it is not OK. 

 

A child cannot genuinely consent and is easily manipulated, and the couple of paedophiles I know accept their feelings but do NOT act upon them, as they also accept that while they feel as they do, it is not OK to have sex with a child. I do feel sympathy for them.

Quoting this to bring up a point: Paedophila has been recognized in certain countries (I'm pretty sure Canada is one, but that's according to the internet, you might have a better understanding of this than I do) as a mental disease or unsafe fetish. In some countries (Ex: Canada) people who have the urges can go and seek mental treatment without fear of being arrested (gold star paedophilics) but here in the US even mentioning the urges to a psychologist while seeking treatment can get you behind bars.

 

Edit on first point: I am not saying that Paedophiles should be allowed to carry on those relationships, or that they should be piggybacking of the LGBT+ movement. They should pick another way to argue (mental health issues) because same sex marriage is already compared to Paedophilia by those who argue against same sex marriage and it just hurts both groups (Paedophlics who wish to seek treatment to not act and LGBT+ members) End Edit.

 

But that falls under mental health so now that I don't stray off the subject:

 

I had someone come out to me recently as being bi. He lives in a household that if his parents found out he'd end up homeless. So now it seems the fight has become more personal to me to fight for rights of others. I wish I knew how beyond being a listening ear, or signing petitions.

Edited May 16, 2014 by brairtrainer

[edwardelricfreak]

And I still don't have an answer from the first kid on why they quoted me in the first place - their post had nothing to do with what I'd said and I still don't know their opinion on it other than they like hitting the quote button.  That would be you, KageSora.

I'm pretty sure it was fuzzbucket who responded to you, I think? And it was in response to this part:

 

And, to head off upset marital type peeps, if your spouse is doing the same thing - seeking this level of communion, enlightenment, what have you - then you don't have to worry about your relationship with God getting in the way of your marriage either since you'll both be on the same page.

fuzz's post:

I like that, and I've been (heterosexually) married for almost 50 years.

 

But what I actually don't like is splinter groups of any kind. Why do we have to call it "gay marriage" or "minorities". It's marriage, pure and simple. A commitment to share your life with someone else. ETA And so why do any of us need a label ?

 

And we are all people. And the sooner more people GET that we are all the same, with different needs* for a few preferences in all sorts of areas, the better.

 

(* With "needs" I mean disabled, not sexual - I honestly don't see that those of various sexual orientation needs "special rights" - the differences are in areas which are private, really. What does a lesbian or a transgender "need" that I don't ? Oh wait - OK - we also all need unisex toilets... .png)

 

The more some of us "demand rights" for x group or other, the more other people will demand THEIR "rights" because it isn't fair that "they" should get something. Don't demand the "right to gay marriage". Demand the same right to marry for everyone. That kind of thing.

 

As far as any other questions you were specifically asking KageSora, they just haven't answered yet. But that original thing was fuzz. (I posted because it looked like you were still wondering why one of your posts was quoted. Sorry if I misunderstood anything.)

 

Also - since we seem to want an all comprehensive name to the thread - why not make it "Controversial Rights" and get it over with?

That's not what we were discussing. Please reread the posts starting from here. That's the only thing about names and it's not in regards to the thread name.

 

Besides, this topic isn't even controversial. Not unless you make it that way, which you are.

 

-----

 

As far as pedophilia is concerned, I don't believe that really belongs here but another thread (unless you consider that mixed it with marriage equality...okay then). I'm pretty sure the main reason why THAT is illegal is because children are underdeveloped. They also don't hold very many rights and the majority are expected to be in school. Getting into a relationship with an adult could potentially ruin their futures. Even if they are mature and smart, they are considered too young and underdeveloped to make responsible decisions in regards to consent. Even younger adults are often asked a thousand times over if a decision they're about to make is really wanted.

 

Honestly, I don't really care if some people are attracted to younger people, so long as they don't try to molest the child. There is nothing wrong with fantasies until they become reality.

Edited May 16, 2014 by edwardelricfreak