Homophobia is wrong ! - A Rant of sorts

[cnaw]

Originally posted by Phang
im sunday8pm's son out of wedlock'

ah Ha!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
Civil unions are stupid anyway, the anti-rights they grant are populist restrictions on free contracts such as tenancy, and irresponisble mutations of socialist policies like inheritance tax.

What restrictions are put on tenancy? To my knowledge the Housing Act grants no privilidge to marriage (and therefore, presumably any hypothetical civil equivalent) in matters of sucession or tenancy dissolvement (See McCarthy vs Greenwich, etc). Or do you mean with the assignment of property in a will or something?

Same with Next of Kin, to my knowledge it's whomever you want, isn't it? Yes, you'd need a contract to establish it, but that's pretty much what you're advocating.

I think the big thing which would prevent the introduction of a contract-based marriage (with no civil ratification) is immigration. Under current immigration law marriage certainly is given a special status (over any other non-blood relationship) - i.e. people can "bring their wives over". Our immigration policy is a load of bollocks of course, but that's another topic.

My personal preference would yes, abolish the special status of "marriage" as Nod and others have advocated and allow people to do whatever they want. I'm not sure how far I'd go with the "contract is king" principal though, but I don't forsee any problems.

[queball]

Found this thread searching for "bollocks".

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
What restrictions are put on tenancy? To my knowledge the Housing Act grants no privilidge to marriage (and therefore, presumably any hypothetical civil equivalent) in matters of sucession or tenancy dissolvement (See McCarthy vs Greenwich, etc). Or do you mean with the assignment of property in a will or something?

I'm not sure how seriously my post was meant but the article does mention tenancy. I assume it meant something like that a widow has a few days to leave after her husband dies without having her water cut off.

Same with Next of Kin, to my knowledge it's whomever you want, isn't it? Yes, you'd need a contract to establish it, but that's pretty much what you're advocating.

I think the big thing which would prevent the introduction of a contract-based marriage (with no civil ratification) is immigration. Under current immigration law marriage certainly is given a special status (over any other non-blood relationship) - i.e. people can "bring their wives over". Our immigration policy is a load of bollocks of course, but that's another topic.

Hey, so do we get gay immigrants now?

My personal preference would yes, abolish the special status of "marriage" as Nod and others have advocated and allow people to do whatever they want. I'm not sure how far I'd go with the "contract is king" principal though, but I don't forsee any problems.

But when there are much fewer landlords than tenants so the landlords can afford lawyers it's hardly fair. And in a world with free flow of information between people on all subjects, contracts would still be a gay way to do everything.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
Hey, so do we get gay immigrants now?

I remember a guy went to the High Court to fight for the right to bring over his "life partner" from Brazil, but I can't remember what the result was. In general, it's irrelevent that they're gay as such, it's just they can't be married.

But when there are much fewer landlords than tenants so the landlords can afford lawyers it's hardly fair. And in a world with free flow of information between people on all subjects, contracts would still be a gay way to do everything. [/b]

Well, ideally we wouldn't even need contracts. I don't need a contract between my flat mates to decide whose turn it is to buy milk, people do it because they're reasonable. Similarly with my wife. No-one should be under any obligation to enter into these arrangements, and I can't really think of that many reasons why you'd need to. The next of kin thing is one. If I am run over by a bus and someone needs to make a decision then I don't necessarily want a long drawn out argument over whose got power of attorney.

But some people seem to like contracts, so they can go knock themselves out.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I remember a guy went to the High Court to fight for the right to bring over his "life partner" from Brazil, but I can't remember what the result was.

He lost and his partner is back in Brazil.

[Ebany]

In situations like next of kin I can understand that a person needs to indicate their wishes if they dont mean to involve the default person. If, for example, there was a gay couple (purely as an example, they could equally be straight) and one of their parents had never accepted that their son was gay. For, who knows how long, say 10 years, they have had no contact, the boys love each other and know each others wishes. Suddenly one is in a car crash, but by law it would be the parents who are asked, the partner wouldnt even neccesarily be allowed to see them in hospital.
People have to allow for bitterness between families. Its sad, but it happens.

In general, I think marriage should be a thing that cannot be enetered into lightly. Its become a bit of a farce these days, with people being married and divorced again within months. Celebs dont help with their brief marriages, but there is little to be done.
If they could make marriages more difficult to leave, without forcimg anyone, male or female, to stay in an abusive relationship, that would be good. Bit is a difficult thing to do. But I guess if it was easy people would have done it years ago.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Well, ideally we wouldn't even need contracts. I don't need a contract between my flat mates to decide whose turn it is to buy milk, people do it because they're reasonable. Similarly with my wife.

Yeah, right. <insert relevant theonion link>.
We get our milk delivered.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Well, ideally we wouldn't even need contracts. I don't need a contract between my flat mates to decide whose turn it is to buy milk, people do it because they're reasonable. Similarly with my wife. No-one should be under any obligation to enter into these arrangements, and I can't really think of that many reasons why you'd need to. The next of kin thing is one. If I am run over by a bus and someone needs to make a decision then I don't necessarily want a long drawn out argument over whose got power of attorney.

This argument is rendered hilarious by the fact you had to agree to a contract to sign up to these forums and make this post.

[huh]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Marriage would be pretty high on the list, how about section 28? How long have you got?

As long as being gay is an 'issue' in any part of life there will be Pride. The ultimate goal of the Pride concept is that one day there will be no need for it, being gay/straight/bi will not be an issue in social or business life. Until that day comes (and we are SO not even close :/) Pride will be here to remind you all we're gay...Good As You.

lol gayle lolz am i rite

ZING

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Marriage would be pretty high on the list

Come to the Netherlands

As long as being gay is an 'issue' in any part of life there will be Pride. The ultimate goal of the Pride concept is that one day there will be no need for it, being gay/straight/bi will not be an issue in social or business life. Until that day comes (and we are SO not even close :/) Pride will be here to remind you all we're gay...Good As You.

Actually, it's the whole Gay Pride thing which puts me off them. I know a few people who are gay, they don't make a fuss out of it and they're perfectly normal people - why wouldn't they be?

It's those flamboyant Hey-Sister-Look-I'm-So-Gay-Accept-Me gays that annoy me personally. Yes, I know that there are gay people and that they are normal and equal to everyone else, you don't have to put a pink sock around your schlong and go run in a parade. I don't put a white sock around my penis and go running through the town to celebrate being a heterosexual.

It's those Gay Pride events which make gay people stand out from the rest, saying 'Look, we're different!'.

[Mirai]

Why is this thread still on topic?! This isn't the GD I know!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Leshy
It's those Gay Pride events which make gay people stand out from the rest, saying 'Look, we're different!'.

So those countries in which gay pride marches etc, don't exist - they must totally accept gays as equals with no discrimination, right? You know, countries like Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, etc? You're implying that it's gay pride marches which is causing homophobia, despite the latter predating the former by several centuries...

It's not gay pride events which make gay people stand out. It's prejudice which is heavily woven into our culture, people's psyches, etc.

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
So those countries in which gay pride marches etc, don't exist - they must totally accept gays as equals with no discrimination, right? You know, countries like Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, etc? You're implying that it's gay pride marches which is causing homophobia, despite the latter predating the former by several centuries...

No, but by having gay pride parades in places like Amsterdam or London you're really just preaching to the choir.

Saudi Arabia could use a gay pride parade. Having one there could be useful. Having one in Amsterdam it just annoys people who want to shop but cant park their car.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
No, but by having gay pride parades in places like Amsterdam or London you're really just preaching to the choir.

I think this is exaggerating the tolerance level in the UK (I don't know about Amsterdam). Aside from anti-gay laws (or laws which work in an anti-gay fashion) as mentioned in this thread, there is also the matter of anti-gay violence, and general attitudes shown towards gay men and women. According to this site 745 "homophobic incidents" were reported to the Metropolitan Police in the first half of 2001.

On an anecdotal level, a number of tenants that my employers house have been harrassed because of their sexuality (from being spat on, to shouted at, to attacked with a machete in one instance).

Don't get me wrong, obviously London is infinitely ahead of Saudi Arabia, but to presume the problems are solved now, and discrimination has been reduced to acceptable levels is utterly naive.

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I think this is exaggerating the tolerance level in the UK (I don't know about Amsterdam). Aside from anti-gay laws (or laws which work in an anti-gay fashion) as mentioned in this thread, there is also the matter of anti-gay violence, and general attitudes shown towards gay men and women. According to this site 745 "homophobic incidents" were reported to the Metropolitan Police in the first half of 2001.

On an anecdotal level, a number of tenants that my employers house have been harrassed because of their sexuality (from being spat on, to shouted at, to attacked with a machete in one instance).

Don't get me wrong, obviously London is infinitely ahead of Saudi Arabia, but to presume the problems are solved now, and discrimination has been reduced to acceptable levels is utterly naive.

I've not been to London al lthat often, but the times I have been there I've seen numerous people being quite openly gay without any negative attitudes from anyone.

And in Amsterdam I sometimes even feel left out because I am not gay

But the question you need to ask is if a gay pride parade would make homosexuality more accepted than it already is in the Uk.
I doubt it tbh. Better to focus your attentions on countries where being gay is still persecuted even by the government.


Of course, that would also be a lot less fun than prancing around halfnaked in Amsterdam wouldnt it?
If you feel like having a party, then by all means have a party, you dont need any excuse for it. But if you want to improve the conditions for gays, then start someplace where it will actually make a noticeable difference.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Marriage would be pretty high on the list, how about section 28? How long have you got?

As long as being gay is an 'issue' in any part of life there will be Pride. The ultimate goal of the Pride concept is that one day there will be no need for it, being gay/straight/bi will not be an issue in social or business life. Until that day comes (and we are SO not even close :/) Pride will be here to remind you all we're gay...Good As You.

just well err.. biologically technically i am better then you.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Knight Theamion
biologically technically i am better then you.

What?

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
What?

i reproduce, and the whole 'technically' is just rude translation from dutch, get used to it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Knight Theamion
i reproduce, and the whole 'technically' is just rude translation from dutch, get used to it.

You both have the equipment to reproduce, and as she's female she's much more valuable to the continuation of the species, so she's more valuable biologically.

It depends if you view 'lesbianism' as a 'genetic flaw'; whether it's designated by nature or nurture or nietzsche.

[queball]

Sexuality is no longer a restriction on breeding. I don't know anything about Gayle's or Theamion's life plan but I don't believe either has children. Besides, genetic survivability (number of grandchildren?) is just an approximation used to study evolution (as far as I know). The successful amoeba might boast about his asexual prowess. Zoom forward a billion years and his descendents might share none of his genes.

[Dante Hicks]

As soon as people start trying to put the words "better" (in a value sense) in any debate on evolution then it's pretty much certain everything else they say will be utter garbage.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
As soon as people start trying to put the words "better" (in a value sense) in any debate on evolution then it's pretty much certain everything else they say will be utter garbage.

It's not a debate on evolution. :-\

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
It's not a debate on evolution. :-\

heh, a conversation which involves evolution is what I meant.

[edit]And of course I wasn't referring to you sweetie[/edit]

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
As soon as people start trying to put the words "better" (in a value sense) in any debate on evolution then it's pretty much certain everything else they say will be utter garbage.

next time i will post


'BAIT BAIT'

mk?



oh and gayle, i don't like the 'good as you' thingy, dace version was better.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Knight Theamion
next time i will post 'BAIT BAIT'

Yeah, but you wouldn't want to damage your stellar posting reputation though would you?

[queball]

I just like to rub it in that my brain is more important than your bollocks.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You both have the equipment to reproduce, and as she's female she's much more valuable to the continuation of the species, so she's more valuable biologically.

That doesn't follow :/

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by G_frog
That doesn't follow :/

It did imo by his implied meaning of 'biology'

[G_frog]

I think he meant that he had a higher fitness (or expected fitness) than gayle, which would be true. (gayle's fitness is probably zero, unless she gets very drunk or something).

Whereas I guess you mean that the number of females becomes limiting on the growth of a population far sooner than the number of males.

They're both equally biological concepts (although in practice other parts of ecology are usually the limiting factor).

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by G_frog
I think he meant that he had a higher fitness (or expected fitness) than gayle, which would be true. (gayle's fitness is probably zero, unless she gets very drunk or something).

Whereas I guess you mean that the number of females becomes limiting on the growth of a population far sooner than the number of males.

They're both equally biological concepts (although in practice other parts of ecology are usually the limiting factor).

quite right

i am very fit.

[G_frog]

Once again, my self-restraint in dreadful punning goes to waste :/

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by G_frog
Once again, my self-restraint in dreadful punning goes to waste :/

the joke was on me.