Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[AngelKitty]

Honestly, I find the word "retarded" to be offensive only when it's referring to the disabled. I grew up with it being a schoolyard slur on par with "moron" and "idiot" and it just sounds nasty. If someone says something like "that joke was totally retarded" or "you act retarded when you're drunk," I'm okay with it, but I cringe inside every time someone talks about some genetic disease that "causes mental retardation" or results in "mentally retarded children." You wouldn't call someone with autism or Down syndrome "retarded," just like you wouldn't call them an idiot or a moron.

 

I don't feel the same about the word "gay" though - I don't use it to insult others or things, I'll only use it in discussions of homosexuality.

[Fuzzbucket]

I have to agree. I am all for the respectful treatment of the disabled, gay and such groups, but going bananas over words that are clearly not being used to offend strikes me as being a bit too sensitive for one's own good. :/

 

If it's being used to offend then yeah, bring on the flaming torches. Otherwise, I think you (general) need to learn the difference between a word being used to offend and a word being used in context.

The trouble is that until you have used the word, you don't know whether the person hearing it is going to be hurt by it. Not worth the risk.

 

I do agree that some people are grossly over-sensitive. But on the other hand - a discussion I had with someone once when I was p*ed off about someone's reaction to something rather silly - it was pointed out that - well, imagine what it is like to be Mr X, with the disability. Yes he's oversensitive and it's a PIA - on the other hand, you don't have his disability. You're luckier than him, so be nice about it.

 

ETA - those stars were representing the name of the innocent. I did NOT see the coming! Edited to call him Mr X !

Edited February 6, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Kestra15]

Honestly, I find the word "retarded" to be offensive only when it's referring to the disabled. I grew up with it being a schoolyard slur on par with "moron" and "idiot" and it just sounds nasty. If someone says something like "that joke was totally retarded" or "you act retarded when you're drunk," I'm okay with it, but I cringe inside every time someone talks about some genetic disease that "causes mental retardation" or results in "mentally retarded children." You wouldn't call someone with autism or Down syndrome "retarded," just like you wouldn't call them an idiot or a moron.

 

I don't feel the same about the word "gay" though - I don't use it to insult others or things, I'll only use it in discussions of homosexuality.

In relation to this, and other similar comments:

 

Yes, things like 'moron,' 'idiot,' and 'imbecile' do have the same roots as retarded. However, while those words did lose their original meanings a couple of generations ago, 'r.etard' was still used up until recent times as the medical terminology and only recently become more of an insult whilst at the same time being removed from medical lexicon, so for many it is still used as an insult. (Or in respect to physics, 'retardation' is the technical term for deceleration).

 

Regardless of how people on here may feel, it is still generally considered an unacceptable slur in most walks of English society, so be aware of it. I personally do not accept it, and while I am not running to the mods reporting you all for being offensive I am pointing this out (again) for future reference - please don't use it in the UK, you will get into trouble.

 

Similarly, I personally do not encourage the use of 'gay' as an offensive slur and refrain from using it myself. Especially with gay marriage being a hot topic in modern society it seems frankly ridiculous to use it as such - I'm not going to call a guy in a tight pink t-shirt and skinny jeans 'a bit gay' any more than I'd call a well-built girl with short hair 'a biit dyke-y.' Just not a smooth move at all.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Kestra15

[TikindiDragon]

In relation to this, and other similar comments:

 

Yes, things like 'moron,' 'idiot,' and 'imbecile' do have the same roots as retarded. However, while those words did lose their original meanings a couple of generations ago, 'r.etard' was still used up until recent times as the medical terminology and only recently become more of an insult whilst at the same time being removed from medical lexicon, so for many it is still used as an insult. (Or in respect to physics, 'retardation' is the technical term for deceleration).

 

Regardless of how people on here may feel, it is still generally considered an unacceptable slur in most walks of English society, so be aware of it. I personally do not accept it, and while I am not running to the mods reporting you all for being offensive I am pointing this out (again) for future reference - please don't use it in the UK, you will get into trouble.

Really, Kestra? How do you think those words changed their meaning in the first place? It was because the way they were being used in every day language changed and people didn't try to stop it because they had once been used offensively.

 

And I've never known anyone around here get in trouble for describing something as 'retarded'. Although, admittedly, it's more common to call someone a spanner.

 

Edit: Typing too quickly ends up with the second letter of a sentance being capitalised rather than the first.

Edited February 6, 2012 by TikindiDragon

[Kestra15]

Really, Kestra? How do you think those words changed their meaning in the first place? It was because the way they were being used in every day language changed and people didn't try to stop it because they had once been used offensively.

 

And I've never known anyone around here get in trouble for describing something as 'retarded'. Although, admittedly, it's more common to call someone a spanner.

 

Edit: Typing too quickly ends up with the second letter of a sentance being capitalised rather than the first.

I am aware as to how those words changed. My point is that we are currently in that first phasing process and so it is still considered a slur, while 'idiot' etc happened a couple of generations back so those words have lost as much of their original meaning - in the same way that 'gay' has mostly lost it's original meaning as well.

[Wends]

(tiptoes in)

 

Oh, the original meaning of gay? You mean merry and bright? Happy? Yep yep, definately lost its meaning.

 

On topic... I do believe in equal rights for homosexual and bisexual individuals. I do have many, many friends who are gay, and love and support them.

 

I don't believe in homosexual marriage as many people define it and petition the government to allow and accept.

 

Namely because I don't think government has any darned place in the institution of marriage, period. Rewarding people with tax breaks due to marriage? Estate taxes levied by the government when people die? Marriage being used as a defense against the state to keep dualy-owned properties in the hands of the surviving member of that coupling instead of having all properties transfer to the government?

 

Just get government out the darned equation. Get RID of estate taxes and death taxes. I've never agreed with penalizing someone for being single, or penalizing someone's family for their death.

 

Leave marriage in whatever religious institutes derive and usher them. Then whatever - people can get married all they like to whatever they like in the eyes of whatever diety their religious affiliation offers praise to.

 

This is where I throw the towel in for 'equal rights' rather than 'marriage' - with equal rights for all, insurance payouts and coverage, portfolio transferances/dividends, property ownership/transferance, etc would be as viable between same sex couples as with differing gendered couples. If equal rights are guaranteed to all, then I could in fact list a woman as my beneficiary for my life insurance and as a dependant for coverage through my health insurance as well as claim her as a cosigner on loans and as a partner for the purposes of adoption.

 

Now common-law 'marriages' for both homosexual and heterosexual couples is something I can see myself supporting and defending. Once a time requirement is met for mutual cohabitation, that person is allowed by corporate entities to be a benificiary or dependant for the purposes of insurance coverage or benefit payout. That's fine and dandy. And that's corporate policy rather than government regulation. If the corporation you desire coverage won't honor a common-law partnership or allow you to claim whatever dependant you desire, then go find one that does - guarantee there's going to be a company that will accomadate them (some would argue that this would open the way for fraud and abuse of insurance companies and other such corporations, but that's already being accomplished with marriage the way it's written; perhaps a means of proving that you're 'partnered,' such as a record of joint cohabitation of a residence for x amount of time? Joint bank accounts? Maybe a form stating that benefits are to be terminated upon the cesation of cohabitation? Just a few thoughts). So in reality, all that I can see being necessary is a recognition or a means of tracking common-law partnerships, which is actually already accomplished across the vast majority of the states.

 

But anything else? Get the federal government out of marriage, and this becomes a near non-issue.

 

For the record, I am married - I just truly and utterly despise the tax code and see no viable reason for government to be in the institution of marriage to begin with. It was a means to alleviate the tax burden on families that were living on a single paycheck back in the days of 'husband goes to work, wife tends the house, husband supports them both' and what not - an overhaul of the tax code would relieve this burden, and that burden's not so applicable these days as it was in days past with both spouses in a relationship working more commonly these days.

[skinst]

The trouble is that until you have used the word, you don't know whether the person hearing it is going to be hurt by it. Not worth the risk.

 

I do agree that some people are grossly over-sensitive. But on the other hand - a discussion I had with someone once when I was p*ed off about someone's reaction to something rather silly - it was pointed out that - well, imagine what it is like to be Mr X, with the disability. Yes he's oversensitive and it's a PIA - on the other hand, you don't have his disability. You're luckier than him, so be nice about it.

I am generally extremely careful with how I phrase myself when I know someone has a disability, is gay, ect ect, however, if people get hurt because they misinterpret or overhear someone's words, that is their own problem, not mine. I refuse to take responsibility for people's misinterpretations because it isn't my responsibility to do so for someone who overheard my conversation.

 

If they get offended by the use of the words I use, I am not at fault unless I directly address a person with the intention to insult, then it is my fault.

 

Sorry, but I refuse to allow myself to put up with that, and no one else should either.

[Kestra15]

I am generally extremely careful with how I phrase myself when I know someone has a disability, is gay, ect ect, however, if people get hurt because they misinterpret or overhear someone's words, that is their own problem, not mine. I refuse to take responsibility for people's misinterpretations because it isn't my responsibility to do so for someone who overheard my conversation.

 

If they get offended by the use of the words I use, I am not at fault unless I directly address a person with the intention to insult, then it is my fault.

 

Sorry, but I refuse to allow myself to put up with that, and no one else should either.

*shrug* Okay then.

 

On-topic: Nothing wrong with gay marriage. Let them marry.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Kestra15

[Princess Artemis]

Uh, yes. Because in your example the entire rest of the world isn't responsible for that one person's neurosis. Wether they've a justifiable reason for the neurosis or not, it's still their problem.

So you believe a person who steps on your foot on accident is not responsible for the pain they cause? What if they accidentally step on the foot of someone with a bunion? They surely didn't inflict the bunion, so they must not be responsible for stepping on their foot either, right? I want to live in this world where I am not personally responsible for my actions if they hurt someone who is already injured.

 

As far as I'm concerned someone with no malicious intent whatsoever is not responsible for how someone that has a trigger might react. It's different if you *know* it's a trigger, and a polite "would you mind not doing that around me, I'm kinda twitchy" would suffice to cover that.

 

So, given that you know some words are widely seen as insulting even if you don't intend them that way, do you still use them? Given that you know they "trigger" a lot of people? Or do you think a woman tired of being called a female dog should just politely ask that someone refrain from using that language in their oh so very innocent manner, they are kinda 'neurotic' about that word, and that will suffice? Then they'll only hear it ninety-nine times a day instead of a hundred. That'll be such a relief, getting one person to stop hurting them, instead of educating the world why it's effing hurtful and they should watch their mouths.

 

But, to carry your metaphore onwards, it's a little ridiculous to expect everyone in the world to stop waving their arms for any reason simply because some people have been used as punch bags.

 

It would be fair to teach people that swinging their arms in crowded elevators is impolite though, wouldn't it? I don't believe anyone reasonable is asking for the total annihilation of some words, but I do know they are asking for people to use their brains. I understand that using their brains is too much to expect from a lot of people, but still, it's not a bad thing to expect it.

 

Especially as it's the first and instant reaction in most cases.

 

Really? First time they've ever ever ever heard the insult and then reacted as if the word must be eradicated from the face of the Earth, or, maybe, the hundred thousandth time they've heard it in the last fifty years on top of being denied equal rights on top of things far far worse and yeah, they just totally had it with it and you get to be the lucky person who hears them say, "This SUCKS!"...? I bet it's far, far more often that last one that is occurring. That's totally unjustified of them, getting upset over the last straw in a lifetime of straws.

 

I am generally extremely careful with how I phrase myself when I know someone has a disability, is gay, ect ect, however, if people get hurt because they misinterpret or overhear someone's words, that is their own problem, not mine. I refuse to take responsibility for people's misinterpretations because it isn't my responsibility to do so for someone who overheard my conversation.

 

Otherwise, when around people you don't know, you assume they are all the default straight able-bodied?

 

When someone accidentally steps on your foot, who's fault is it that you feel pain? Now, it is very true that it is entirely your problem if your foot now hurts--I mean, it sure as hell isn't inconveniencing the person who stepped on you--but for the person who tread on you to absolutely refuse taking responsibility under the guise of "Your problem, not mine" would grate a tad, perhaps?

 

If they get offended by the use of the words I use, I am not at fault unless I directly address a person with the intention to insult, then it is my fault.

 

If they die by my use of an automobile, I am not at fault unless I directly run them over with the intent to kill, then it is my fault.

 

Sorry, but I refuse to allow myself to put up with that, and no one else should either.

 

So, while you are refusing to put up with people being hurt by your words, I'm refusing to put up with people hurting me with their words. Sounds even.

[Riverwillows]

I personally believe that: (and this applies to actions as well)

 

If you use a word or phrase that you KNOW might offend someone in the vicinity, even if you are not actually directing it toward anyone in particular, you are purposely being offensive.

 

If you use a word or phrase that you KNOW a certain group of people find offensive even if you DIDN'T realize there were those people around you, you are still being offensive.

 

The only way you are completely innocent of any offense, is if you truly DIDN'T know the word or phrase was offensive at all. In which case, a considerate apology would be in order, just to show that you are a compassionate human being.

 

For the first statement, here is an example:

 

Neo nazi wants to promote his cause. Ok, that's his right. BUT...he CHOOSES to do so by standing outside a Jewish temple, even if he is across the street, KNOWING that many people who would pass him and hear his rhetoric ARE Jewish and would be upset. THAT is his responsibility for the hurt he causes.

 

For the second statement, example:

 

Neo nazi wants to promote his cause. He knows his cause will offend Jewish people. He chooses to do his preaching 2 blocks away from the Jewish temple, knowing that he is MAY encounter some jewish people, but justifes his decision by saying he felt he was far away enough and therefore is not responsible. Wrong. He still is.

 

For the third statement, example;

 

Tourist new to country, not knowing that Naziism is offensive to Jewish people, listens to Neo nazi, then goes down the street to a deli where he proceeds to discuss the messages the Neo nazi preached with his fellow tourists at the table. He is not aware of the hurt of the Jewish couple at the next table. Hopefully, he will notice their hurt and offer apology, but if he doesn't notice, and is not aware of the offense, he is not responsible.

 

See? It's called INTENT.

 

If you know it and you do it, you're a jerk.

If you do it, and you know it, you're a jerk.

If you don't know that you did it, but when you realize, chagrined and mean it,

Then you've proven that you're not really a jerk!!

 

(hehe, just made that up just now!)

Edited February 6, 2012 by Riverwillows

[Princess Artemis]

Tourist new to country, not knowing that Naziism is offensive to Jewish people, listens to Neo nazi, then goes down the street to a deli where he proceeds to discuss the messages the Neo nazi preached with his fellow tourists at the table. He is not aware of the hurt of the Jewish couple at the next table. Hopefully, he will notice their hurt and offer apology, but if he doesn't notice, and is not aware of the offense, he is not responsible.

This would be what I'm getting at with the example of people stepping on feet on accident. They have no intent to harm; it's an accident. They still did cause harm though, and if it's pointed out, one would hope they had the class to feel a modicum of chagrin for their actions and might perhaps watch where they place their feet in the future, rather than feel put upon and tell all and sundry that it's the person who got stepped on who has the problem.

[linkx7]

I say let them marry i mean people complain about the bad economy but if they let homosexuals marry there will be what 10,000 marriages that are gonna cost how much each

[TikindiDragon]

~snip~

Now, see, that's one entire post of overreaction. It's coming across as getting very angry and very emotional. You're exemplefying my 'first and instant reaction' comment'. You've gone from 0 - massively offended in a very short space of time, and in this particular case I haven't used any negative words, or even implied that it's alright to directly insult people, I've just said that I don't feel words used in non-offensive contexts are, well, offensive.

 

Your 'female dog' example? Actualy a really good one. Because you know what? They saying "Life's a [female dog]" is actualy really common over here in the UK. And yet even the feminists over here let that one slide. Why? Because the word [female dog] is not being used with any relation to a persons gender. If I were to say "Man, I've had a [female dog] of a day." in the pub after work then I really wouldn't expect anyone to take any kind of offence. If they did, and mentioned it, I'd apologise, think they were weird, and try to remember to watch my language around them in future. That said it doesn't mean I, or anyone else, should stop using the word [female dog] because a minority of people have issues with it.

 

Freedom of Speech means freedom to say things that you might not like. It's not freedom if you're only free to say things that can't offend anybody. Especially in cases like this where I'm gay and I'm not offended. I will continue to tell people that, as long as they don't intend it to be an insult, then there's no problem with it.

 

Life is too short to spend it on a hair trigger the whole time, waiting for someone to say something completely innocently so you can get offended about it. If it's not an insult, and more especially if they weren't talking to you in the first place, then you're only causing yourself grief by getting uptight about it.

[skinst]

Hear hear Tiki.

[Dymetreus]

Now I realize how touchy this is and how mean this may seem to some, but I believe that something happens to that person in their life to make them gay. Whether it's as simple as their environment they live in or a drastic moment in their life happens to them. Something makes them resort to looking to the other sex. Obviously, (and around here there's a lot) goes for bisexual or anything else for that matter.

 

It goes back to my thought on another subject; everyone is the way they are because of the genuine experience they've had in life. No matter how similar, it happened differently for that person. For instance; there's a guy named Nick who is well known for being gay, and not just a regular he likes to go out and SHOW it. He wants to literally be pretty much a woman. This happened because a girl denied him in the most disrespectful way I can think of; emotionally. She pretended to like him, brought him before a huge crowd then made a mockery out of him. From then on he was gay, as he never wanted to date a woman again. He was at first wasn't this gay, and when I say that I mean he was silent. But he got more and more open.

 

Now I have nothing against gays, I'm just telling you my belief on that manner. (I read someone giving their own belief which is related to mine, or rather opposite.)

 

Back to the topic however, I do think they should be equal in every way. Just dunno why a priest would do it as it seems a bit contradictory to their position. I'd rather not explain, too hot of a topic again. Lol

 

I also would like to say this is a good topic, along with others. Educates more then you would think.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Dymetreus

[Princess Artemis]

Now, see, that's one entire post of overreaction. It's coming across as getting very angry and very emotional. You're exemplefying my 'first and instant reaction' comment'. You've gone from 0 - massively offended in a very short space of time

[...]

How am I exemplifying your "first and instant reaction" comment if you haven't used offensive language? Clearly I am not instantly reacting to your use of offensive language, so it must be something else I am responding to. You're smart, figure it out.

 

I'm not offended. Massively disappointed, yes. Offended, no. Angry? Maybe, because I've heard it several times before from people trying to justify their inability to be polite when asked to stop stepping on my metaphorical feet. Is that what you were doing? No. You were just making the same arguments I've heard a bunch of times before, and I thought I'd put my POV out there--some people see it and others might start to. That's always a good reason to say something and risk being thought of as a bananas-going-handle-flyer.

 

I think "offense" gets over used. I've seen people use it to substitute for butthurt, disgusted, triggered, traumatized, irritated, upset, horrified, ticked off, etc..

 

If I were to say "Man, I've had a [female dog] of a day." in the pub after work then I really wouldn't expect anyone to take any kind of offence. If they did, and mentioned it, I'd apologise, think they were weird, and try to remember to watch my language around them in future.

 

Having a little class is a good thing. It'd be classier if you didn't default to categorizing the person as mentally ill (neurotic, as you said), but apologizing is a start.

 

Freedom of Speech means freedom to say things that you might not like. It's not freedom if you're only free to say things that can't offend anybody. Especially in cases like this where I'm gay and I'm not offended. I will continue to tell people that, as long as they don't intend it to be an insult, then there's no problem with it.

 

So, you speak for all gay people everywhere? Because you don't get offended, no one else is allowed to have a problem with it? For all I know, every gay person in the world does hold the same opinion about the subject.

 

Yeah, freedom of speech does mean that. It also means others are free to inform you if you step on their foot...and it means you also have the right to tell everyone how uptight you are about them saying so. People who get offended by offensive language aren't trying to censor you when they speak up about it.

[St. Jimmy]

Now I realize how touchy this is and how mean this may seem to some, but I believe that something happens to that person in their life to make them gay.

Nope. Nothing happened to make me bi. I've had good relationships with both sexes.

 

On a somewhat related note, I've known I was genderqueer since I was a child. What could possibly happen to a child to change their gender identity?

[Rosedamai]

Was talking about this with my bro the other day (I'm bi) and I mentioned if it was possible for him to donate his sperm to impregnate my lesbian partner, in the event that I have a lesbian marriage. He said no, it sounds too much like incest.

 

What usually happens if, during the course of homosexual marriage, those parties involved want a child? A biological child? Do they also resort to asking their siblings? Or their friends? Do they usually adopt(I've heard that this was very hard)? I'm just curious.

[WereJace]

Was talking about this with my bro the other day (I'm bi) and I mentioned if it was possible for him to donate his sperm to impregnate my lesbian partner, in the event that I have a lesbian marriage. He said no, it sounds too much like incest.

 

What usually happens if, during the course of homosexual marriage, those parties involved want a child? A biological child? Do they also resort to asking their siblings? Or their friends? Do they usually adopt(I've heard that this was very hard)? I'm just curious.

It depends on the couple. We've shortlisted a few possible donors from among our friends and family and are deciding who to approach first with our request. It's probably going to be our best friend, honestly.

 

Others go the egg/sperm donor route, and gay men usually hire a surrogate if they can't or won't adopt.

 

Edit: Also, I strongly doubt any incident turned me homosexual. If it did, it would have had to have happened before I was three years old, and I don't remember anything all that notable happening in that time period.

Edited February 7, 2012 by WereJace

[Rosedamai]

It depends on the couple. We've shortlisted a few possible donors from among our friends and family and are deciding who to approach first with our request. It's probably going to be our best friend, honestly.

 

Others go the egg/sperm donor route, and gay men usually hire a surrogate if they can't or won't adopt.

Alright, thanks for the info

[tyto_alba]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns/us...e/#.TzG5cFyvKSo

 

Thoughts?

[Riverwillows]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns/us...e/#.TzG5cFyvKSo

 

Thoughts?

I think it's great. About time people figured out that love and marriage are a matter of the heart, and not be based on who has what genitalia.

 

And, while I am heterosexual by inclination, almost EVERY gay man and woman I've ever met (legions, lol) has said they knew from the time they were very young they were "different".

 

I once asked my very dear male friend when he realized he was gay, he said when he was 8, and got excited about the next day's proposed mud wrestling "fight" with his best buddy at the time. It actually didn't "hit" him til he reached puberty, but looking back he realized that was a defining moment for him.

 

Most of the gay people I've talked with mention similar experiences. They've just "known" since they were very little. Nothing actually "happened" to them, it was just how they were naturally.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Riverwillows

[Alpha Gryph]

You've met legions of homosexuals? Show me them.

 

But anyways, the only way I can see that "made gay by experiences" idea making sense is if someone was abused at one point in their lives, and now cling to the sex opposite of the one who abused them.

 

I know I've described my strange coming into homosexuality in this topic before. But myself, I didn't really have an evident sexuality at ALL until around seventh grade to ninth grade. I was attracted to males then. Very mildly attracted to them. Then in late ninth grade I discovered I was attracted to females (so I thought I was bisexual). But then came to completely shift to being attracted to only females. Now I do not find men attractive at all and can't even think of doing something sexual with them. Just feels wrong in my mind.

 

Absolutely nothing happened between that short period of liking men to liking women. Nothing at all. And now looking back farther in my childhood, even before seventh grade, I can see hints of me being attracted to women. I just didn't know what it was, I guess.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns/us...e/#.TzG5cFyvKSo

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm very excited for this. That was, of course, very unconstitutional, I'm glad that has finally been realized.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Alpha Gryph

[Viktorya]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns/us...e/#.TzG5cFyvKSo

 

Thoughts?

I was really glad to see this all over the news recently! I fully support LGBT+ marriage and rights and allowing gay marriage is one step closer to giving everyone the respect and rights they deserve.

[Completely Different]

Wait- I thought Prop 8 had been overturned months ago. Has it only just been ruled unconstitutional?