AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
In Elementary, Sherlock Holmes is still British and is played by a Briton, and the police chief he coordinates with is Irish (though playing American).
Vinnie Jones has been on the show. It's not bad. There's no Mycroft, yet, though, and that needs to change.
I imagine the attention of major pro-LGBT organizations will turn towards these issues once gay marriage is legalized in the States, but I'm anxious to see refugess and trans* folks get the protection they need to, well, live safely.
The HRC has a rather spotty record regarding trans issues, so I'm not counting on them. Hopefully others will.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I would guess that much of that is coming from moderate conservatives who are seeing how little traction social issues are getting during election season.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I imagine the attention of major pro-LGBT organizations will turn towards these issues once gay marriage is legalized in the States, but I'm anxious to see refugess and trans* folks get the protection they need to, well, live safely.
I hope the attention does. I really do. I've always been extremely uncomfortable that "queer rights" and "gay marriage" are almost synonymous in the public consciousness - because there is a lot of other stuff that needs to be done, as soon as possible.
+5
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I imagine the attention of major pro-LGBT organizations will turn towards these issues once gay marriage is legalized in the States, but I'm anxious to see refugess and trans* folks get the protection they need to, well, live safely.
I hope the attention does. I really do. I've always been extremely uncomfortable that "queer rights" and "gay marriage" are almost synonymous in the public consciousness - because there is a lot of other stuff that needs to be done, as soon as possible.
It's all part of the same big umbrella, but there's a lot of difference between "homosexual couples should be allowed to marry" and "we need laws to keep people from imposing poverty and brutality on queer folks."
This is pretty basic and fundamental stuff. We shouldn't have to be having these conversations, but here we are.
*sigh*
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Right, that is what I mean. Gay marriage is a subset of queer rights, but I think to a lot of people, if you say one, the other is what they assume. Like they are one and the same, rather than one being a subset of things that need pushing.
I think it will get better, I'm just... well, really worried, because this stuff is personally extremely important and dictates a lot of stuff.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Right, that is what I mean. Gay marriage is a subset of queer rights, but I think to a lot of people, if you say one, the other is what they assume. Like they are one and the same, rather than one being a subset of things that need pushing.
I think it will get better, I'm just... well, really worried, because this stuff is personally extremely important and dictates a lot of stuff.
It may be advantageous to keep it all in the same big box, though.
If we can get it all passed under the same colors, it'll really save a lot of smaller individual arguments.
Right, that is what I mean. Gay marriage is a subset of queer rights, but I think to a lot of people, if you say one, the other is what they assume. Like they are one and the same, rather than one being a subset of things that need pushing.
I think it will get better, I'm just... well, really worried, because this stuff is personally extremely important and dictates a lot of stuff.
It may be advantageous to keep it all in the same big box, though.
If we can get it all passed under the same colors, it'll really save a lot of smaller individual arguments.
Plus it reduces the prevalence of the "bucket of crabs" scenario where individual groups under that umbrella attack other groups under the same umbrella.
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Right, that is what I mean. Gay marriage is a subset of queer rights, but I think to a lot of people, if you say one, the other is what they assume. Like they are one and the same, rather than one being a subset of things that need pushing.
I think it will get better, I'm just... well, really worried, because this stuff is personally extremely important and dictates a lot of stuff.
It may be advantageous to keep it all in the same big box, though.
If we can get it all passed under the same colors, it'll really save a lot of smaller individual arguments.
Yeah, but right now we're not getting it passed under the same colors. We're dropping whatever to get other stuff passed and never coming back to it. That's where my hesitation comes from.
It may be advantageous in the long run, but I am sort of unsure about that, hence my... distaste for the common-consciousness gay marriage==queer rights thing.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Right, that is what I mean. Gay marriage is a subset of queer rights, but I think to a lot of people, if you say one, the other is what they assume. Like they are one and the same, rather than one being a subset of things that need pushing.
I think it will get better, I'm just... well, really worried, because this stuff is personally extremely important and dictates a lot of stuff.
It may be advantageous to keep it all in the same big box, though.
If we can get it all passed under the same colors, it'll really save a lot of smaller individual arguments.
Yeah, but right now we're not getting it passed under the same colors. We're dropping whatever to get other stuff passed and never coming back to it. That's where my hesitation comes from.
It may be advantageous in the long run, but I am sort of unsure about that, hence my... distaste for the common-consciousness gay marriage==queer rights thing.
I can't disagree with you about the consternation regarding the conflating of specifically marriage issues with specifically queer protections issues.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Look at how smoothly the transition in the fight for voting rights from women to blacks worked out, after all.
Transexuals are going be completely screwed.
I try to be a little more optimistic than that.
The turnaround on gay rights w/r/t public opinion has been historically fast.
True, but on the other hand a ton of the folk in congress who were heavily responsible for the shift are actively hostile to transgender rights. I mean, go look Bernie Frank.
Right, that is what I mean. Gay marriage is a subset of queer rights, but I think to a lot of people, if you say one, the other is what they assume. Like they are one and the same, rather than one being a subset of things that need pushing.
I think it will get better, I'm just... well, really worried, because this stuff is personally extremely important and dictates a lot of stuff.
It may be advantageous to keep it all in the same big box, though.
If we can get it all passed under the same colors, it'll really save a lot of smaller individual arguments.
Yeah, but right now we're not getting it passed under the same colors. We're dropping whatever to get other stuff passed and never coming back to it. That's where my hesitation comes from.
It may be advantageous in the long run, but I am sort of unsure about that, hence my... distaste for the common-consciousness gay marriage==queer rights thing.
I don't really think it is a great idea to count on the feminists or the gays. They have their own issues, agendas and priories. They are going to be fighting battles for a lot longer than you want to wait, and what affects them most directly will be most important to them. It's going to be a very long time before that is what is important to you. Transgendered folks make up probably the smallest part of the LGBT tent, and have many unique issues, I don't know how well their voice is heard over all the other hubbub. Trans folk probably need to speak for themselves and control their own message if they are going to be truly heard.
Yeah, I don't think trans-rights are gonna have near the kind of turn-around gay-rights have had. I think we may see it reach the point of "You can't be utterly shitty to these people", but it's gonna get stalled in the same waters feminism or the black-rights movements has been stuck in for years with the whole "ok, it's no longer strictly legal to be anti-woman/black, it's just happening anyway" except without any sort of large cultural push to move it forward. Or not to the same degree anyway.
shryke on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Which is kinda why I support putting it all in the same box.
It's not exactly fair or accurate to the individual struggles, but transgender folk will definitely be the crabs left in the bucket if it's not a unified effort.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Look at how smoothly the transition in the fight for voting rights from women to blacks worked out, after all.
Transexuals are going be completely screwed.
I try to be a little more optimistic than that.
The turnaround on gay rights w/r/t public opinion has been historically fast.
True, but on the other hand a ton of the folk in congress who were heavily responsible for the shift are actively hostile to transgender rights. I mean, go look Bernie Frank.
Dammit, now I'm stuck writing an Onion-style article in my head, for when universal marriage rights are finally passed. "Nation's Gays Rejoice In Newfound Freedom To Ostricize Nation's Transgenders".
It starts with a quote from a former LBGT activist saying that they had been drawn to the transgender cause because of the similar natures of their struggles and their rejection by society, but now that they have achieved acceptance by society, they've achieved a new perspective that transgenders are disgusting deviants and should be suppressed. Then there's a counterpoint from another former activist, who claims to still support the cause of transgender rights and wishes them the best of luck, but has been exhausted by the successful struggle for gay rights and doesn't want to have anything to do with it or transgenders in general for a while.
Plus, looking at how things have gone for individuals with disabilities in this country, when it comes to rights and protections. I'm not terribly optimistic that the LGBT community will avoid running into some of the same problems. You'll probably get some of the high visibility things (like gay marriage) hashed out fairly, but then run into problems with all the low visibility issues and also getting hampered by infighting as well.
On the bright side, it probably won't be nearly as bad given that what constitutes being part of the LGBT community is more defined and less diverse than what constitutes being part of the individuals with disabilities community. Also you don't have the pitfall that allows for horribly, fucking awful, self-serving guardians to fuck things up further, nor deal with the ring around of but that'll cost too much for us to do even though it's quite a reasonable thing to do and is also required by law.
Is that the guy that said he was "Undecided" at first or someone else? I know we had 4 left, before the woman from Louisiana that said she wasn't "officially" for it, and someone else said they were "Undecided". So this just leaves one Senate (D) that hasn't said anything correct?
RI Senate President expects a floor vote on their gay marriage bill by the end of the month. It hasn't actually passed committee yet and that may take 2 more weeks.
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
You know, I always wondered how hard it would be to tell if you were bisexual. Gay or straight is easy since "Hey, I like X or Y and I am X or Y." I've actually wondered it about myself a few times and so far I can't say I have any romantic interest in men, yet at the same time the idea doesn't seem foreign to me. It doesn't really bother me, but it does make me wonder from time to time.
Of course, it doesn't really matter as right now I'm broke and in no position to be seeing anyone, but still!
You know, I always wondered how hard it would be to tell if you were bisexual. Gay or straight is easy since "Hey, I like X or Y and I am X or Y." I've actually wondered it about myself a few times and so far I can't say I have any romantic interest in men, yet at the same time the idea doesn't seem foreign to me. It doesn't really bother me, but it does make me wonder from time to time.
Of course, it doesn't really matter as right now I'm broke and in no position to be seeing anyone, but still!
...like, if you ask a someone out, or approach them at a bar, do you expect them to pay?
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
You know, I always wondered how hard it would be to tell if you were bisexual. Gay or straight is easy since "Hey, I like X or Y and I am X or Y." I've actually wondered it about myself a few times and so far I can't say I have any romantic interest in men, yet at the same time the idea doesn't seem foreign to me. It doesn't really bother me, but it does make me wonder from time to time.
Of course, it doesn't really matter as right now I'm broke and in no position to be seeing anyone, but still!
Not an expert, but:
Do you like the romantic company of both men and women? Even if you prefer one over the other?
That said, I'm finding the whole gay/straight/bisexual distinction more and more pointless.
To paraphrase Stephen Fry, he is 90% gay, so there's 10% of women that he'd have a relationship with (Rowen Atkinson's wife being one of the two he's identified.)
Or that one character from Torchwood. He's not gay, there's just something about Captain Jack. I think Dragon Age had a similar relationship with Hawke.
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Like, I'm physically attracted to women but if a guy friend was like laying on my shoulder, it wouldn't bother me. Which I mean, I think, is the way it should be and I'm not like 'AMG he's touching me' but I guess I kind of expected more hesitance in that sort of situation? I don't know if that comes off as homophobic, not meaning to be. The main reason I bring it up is cause I don't wanna be the guy who hits 50 and is suddenly like 'WHOA, I MISSED OUT ON THIS THING.".
Admittedly I've never been romantically approached by a man so I can't really say how I'd feel about that situation.
Republican governor and gay marriage opponent Susana Martinez has vetoed a Senate bill to help the families of gay service members obtain professional licenses in New Mexico. After issuing the pocket veto, Martinez signed an identical version of the measure that would only streamline the process for straight spouses.
The initial bill wouldn't have helped just gay veterans as the quote implies but all of them.
Viskod on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I'll give them this, for being so against gay people, they sure like showing off their balls.
So when gay marriage is no longer an issue, what is the next big goal to be worked on?
Transgender rights, and folding sexual orientation into the anti-discrimination laws. Too many states can still fire a person for being gay.
Sounds about right.
IIRC VA has some shitty law on the books that allows certain adoption agencies to refuse allowing gays to adopt kids that they are trying to find homes for. I'm pretty sure they aren't the only state with such a terrible law on the books. Definitely a good example of any area where anti-discrimination laws need to be extended.
I'm hoping they'll be able to get anti-discrimination laws extended to cover everything like hirings, firings, adoption, service and whatever else the current anti-discrimination laws cover, but alas we're dealing with bigots, so probably still end up taking a bunch of assholes to court for discrimination.
Granted depending on how quickly that fight goes, it might be interesting to see where much of the political energy for gay rights gets directed.
Like, I'm physically attracted to women but if a guy friend was like laying on my shoulder, it wouldn't bother me. Which I mean, I think, is the way it should be and I'm not like 'AMG he's touching me' but I guess I kind of expected more hesitance in that sort of situation? I don't know if that comes off as homophobic, not meaning to be. The main reason I bring it up is cause I don't wanna be the guy who hits 50 and is suddenly like 'WHOA, I MISSED OUT ON THIS THING.".
Admittedly I've never been romantically approached by a man so I can't really say how I'd feel about that situation.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it.
If you ever meet a dude that you're physically attracted to, go for it. Not going for it is pretty much the only way you'll end up with a regret like that.
Much the same way you feel when you pass on a chance with a lady you like.
Wouldn't try to overthink it past that.
Also, being comfortable with people touching you just means that you're comfortable with people touching you.
I'm uncomfortable with people touching me regardless of their gender/how much I'm attracted to them.
Or that one character from Torchwood. He's not gay, there's just something about Captain Jack. I think Dragon Age had a similar relationship with Hawke.
"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history-An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist."
Ianto is a 2 on the Kinsey Scale.
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
Posts
Steam
Vinnie Jones has been on the show. It's not bad. There's no Mycroft, yet, though, and that needs to change.
The HRC has a rather spotty record regarding trans issues, so I'm not counting on them. Hopefully others will.
I would guess that much of that is coming from moderate conservatives who are seeing how little traction social issues are getting during election season.
I hope the attention does. I really do. I've always been extremely uncomfortable that "queer rights" and "gay marriage" are almost synonymous in the public consciousness - because there is a lot of other stuff that needs to be done, as soon as possible.
It's all part of the same big umbrella, but there's a lot of difference between "homosexual couples should be allowed to marry" and "we need laws to keep people from imposing poverty and brutality on queer folks."
This is pretty basic and fundamental stuff. We shouldn't have to be having these conversations, but here we are.
*sigh*
I think it will get better, I'm just... well, really worried, because this stuff is personally extremely important and dictates a lot of stuff.
It may be advantageous to keep it all in the same big box, though.
If we can get it all passed under the same colors, it'll really save a lot of smaller individual arguments.
Plus it reduces the prevalence of the "bucket of crabs" scenario where individual groups under that umbrella attack other groups under the same umbrella.
Yeah, but right now we're not getting it passed under the same colors. We're dropping whatever to get other stuff passed and never coming back to it. That's where my hesitation comes from.
It may be advantageous in the long run, but I am sort of unsure about that, hence my... distaste for the common-consciousness gay marriage==queer rights thing.
I can't disagree with you about the consternation regarding the conflating of specifically marriage issues with specifically queer protections issues.
I try to be a little more optimistic than that.
The turnaround on gay rights w/r/t public opinion has been historically fast.
True, but on the other hand a ton of the folk in congress who were heavily responsible for the shift are actively hostile to transgender rights. I mean, go look Bernie Frank.
I don't really think it is a great idea to count on the feminists or the gays. They have their own issues, agendas and priories. They are going to be fighting battles for a lot longer than you want to wait, and what affects them most directly will be most important to them. It's going to be a very long time before that is what is important to you. Transgendered folks make up probably the smallest part of the LGBT tent, and have many unique issues, I don't know how well their voice is heard over all the other hubbub. Trans folk probably need to speak for themselves and control their own message if they are going to be truly heard.
It's not exactly fair or accurate to the individual struggles, but transgender folk will definitely be the crabs left in the bucket if it's not a unified effort.
Dammit, now I'm stuck writing an Onion-style article in my head, for when universal marriage rights are finally passed. "Nation's Gays Rejoice In Newfound Freedom To Ostricize Nation's Transgenders".
It starts with a quote from a former LBGT activist saying that they had been drawn to the transgender cause because of the similar natures of their struggles and their rejection by society, but now that they have achieved acceptance by society, they've achieved a new perspective that transgenders are disgusting deviants and should be suppressed. Then there's a counterpoint from another former activist, who claims to still support the cause of transgender rights and wishes them the best of luck, but has been exhausted by the successful struggle for gay rights and doesn't want to have anything to do with it or transgenders in general for a while.
On the bright side, it probably won't be nearly as bad given that what constitutes being part of the LGBT community is more defined and less diverse than what constitutes being part of the individuals with disabilities community. Also you don't have the pitfall that allows for horribly, fucking awful, self-serving guardians to fuck things up further, nor deal with the ring around of but that'll cost too much for us to do even though it's quite a reasonable thing to do and is also required by law.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Transgender rights, and folding sexual orientation into the anti-discrimination laws. Too many states can still fire a person for being gay.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Of course, it doesn't really matter as right now I'm broke and in no position to be seeing anyone, but still!
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
...like, if you ask a someone out, or approach them at a bar, do you expect them to pay?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Not an expert, but:
Do you like the romantic company of both men and women? Even if you prefer one over the other?
That said, I'm finding the whole gay/straight/bisexual distinction more and more pointless.
To paraphrase Stephen Fry, he is 90% gay, so there's 10% of women that he'd have a relationship with (Rowen Atkinson's wife being one of the two he's identified.)
Or that one character from Torchwood. He's not gay, there's just something about Captain Jack. I think Dragon Age had a similar relationship with Hawke.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Admittedly I've never been romantically approached by a man so I can't really say how I'd feel about that situation.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
The initial bill wouldn't have helped just gay veterans as the quote implies but all of them.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
But yes, eat a dick, Republicans.
You might just like it.
Sounds about right.
IIRC VA has some shitty law on the books that allows certain adoption agencies to refuse allowing gays to adopt kids that they are trying to find homes for. I'm pretty sure they aren't the only state with such a terrible law on the books. Definitely a good example of any area where anti-discrimination laws need to be extended.
I'm hoping they'll be able to get anti-discrimination laws extended to cover everything like hirings, firings, adoption, service and whatever else the current anti-discrimination laws cover, but alas we're dealing with bigots, so probably still end up taking a bunch of assholes to court for discrimination.
Granted depending on how quickly that fight goes, it might be interesting to see where much of the political energy for gay rights gets directed.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it.
If you ever meet a dude that you're physically attracted to, go for it. Not going for it is pretty much the only way you'll end up with a regret like that.
Much the same way you feel when you pass on a chance with a lady you like.
Wouldn't try to overthink it past that.
Also, being comfortable with people touching you just means that you're comfortable with people touching you.
I'm uncomfortable with people touching me regardless of their gender/how much I'm attracted to them.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Ianto is a 2 on the Kinsey Scale.
We could let transgender people into the military.