Why is "sexual orientation" considered a class in American law?

Cearbhall said:

Ah yes, because we can clearly see that there isn't a single person who discriminates against the LGBT community when there isn't a law to stop him or her (or even when there is).

Click to expand...

Please don't take him seriously. Had to read through 19 pages of posts and he still wasn't convinced that a lie was a lie, and that it was proven to be a lie. I won't be specific since that's not the topic though. Point is, he's not the type of person you can legitimately debate with and expect a reasonable response.

gradyll said:

oh, they are.

say for example...

Click to expand...

That's one extreme example and does not, in any way, represent homosexuality or any other sexual orientation. Ye should be careful not to use such a broad brush as it's not right to do so here. Also, I would ask ye to stop trying to use examples of pedophilia as reasons why homosexuality exists, since that comparison is both dishonest and incorrect in the long term. It's a stigma that is only perpetuated through what you're doing here, and it needs to stop.

lupusFati said:

Please don't take him seriously. Had to read through 19 pages of posts and he still wasn't convinced that a lie was a lie, and that it was proven to be a lie. I won't be specific since that's not the topic though. Point is, he's not the type of person you can legitimately debate with and expect a reasonable response.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm quite familiar. No worries.

David Brider said:

but discrimination against the other sexual orientations, heterosexuality included, is also illegal.

Click to expand...

I think that heterosexuality should be discriminated against, to show them what it's like.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

I think that heterosexuality should be discriminated against, to show them what it's like.

Click to expand...

It would never work. They are the apparent majority

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

I think that heterosexuality should be discriminated against, to show them what it's like.

Click to expand...

It so wouldn't work. Trust me it'd only make things harder for non-heteros since heteros would be all "SEE WE KNEW THEY WERE EVIL ATTACKING US WHITE CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES UGHHHHH".

Dramatization mine, btw.

lupusFati said:

It so wouldn't work. Trust me it'd only make things harder for non-heteros since heteros would be all "SEE WE KNEW THEY WERE EVIL ATTACKING US WHITE CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES UGHHHHH".

Dramatization mine, btw.

Click to expand...

Hah! I like to say to my conservative friends: "Of course I don't believe in gay marriage, marriage has always been a sexist institution and should be eliminated straight away".

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Hah! I like to say to my conservative friends: "Of course I don't believe in gay marriage, marriage has always been a sexist institution and should be eliminated straight away".

Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind being married I guess. Though I don't really need a set of rings, a church, a suit, or a cake, I think. I dunno. We've got a long way to go still I think.

lupusFati said:

I wouldn't mind being married I guess. Though I don't really need a set of rings, a church, a suit, or a cake, I think. I dunno. We've got a long way to go still I think.

Click to expand...

I'd prefer to pluralise relationship types in society with civil unions... What I've always valued about homosexuality was its ability to be different and value difference. I tend to think of gay marriage as something of a simulacrum of heterosexuality which I think is upsetting... I'd never voice my concern in a manner to try to limit gay rights, I just think for the most part the battle-lines can be fought elsewhere, health issues are a very big one where I live.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

I'd prefer to pluralise relationship types in society with civil unions... What I've always valued about homosexuality was its ability to be different and value difference. I tend to think of gay marriage as something of a simulacrum of heterosexuality which I think is upsetting... I'd never voice my concern in a manner to try to limit gay rights, I just think for the most part the battle-lines can be fought elsewhere, health issues are a very big one where I live.

Click to expand...

It's actually because we want to be treated just like anyone else. As people. So, no, I don't agree to 'civil unions'. Marriage is not a purely heterosexual institution, and hasn't been for ages. It just so happens America is finally catching on to the idea, but we still have a long way to go, I believe.

You could always just remove the legal benefits and government entirely from marriage, making it purely a cermonial/whatever choice that couples/poly make.

lupusFati said:

It's actually because we want to be treated just like anyone else. As people. So, no, I don't agree to 'civil unions'. Marriage is not a purely heterosexual institution, and hasn't been for ages. It just so happens America is finally catching on to the idea, but we still have a long way to go, I believe.

You could always just remove the legal benefits and government entirely from marriage, making it purely a cermonial/whatever choice that couples/poly make.

Click to expand...

Marriage has only recently become the "ground of society", it required the Protestant Reformation to do this, it only ever became a "sacrament" in the Catholic Church in the 12th century (during the rise of feudalism and probably as a societal need to protect the hereditary titles of lords). The medieval era saw a vast plurality of kinship and family relationship models as well as monastic traditions (which harboured their own particular queer element at times). It took the Reformation to stabilise and cement marriage as the foundation for society which culminated in the rise of industrialisation and capitalism being the driving force behind the emerging nuclear family. This is the current "marriage" model and I don't see the homosexual experience as being altogether compatible with it. There is far too much to celebrate in difference.

You're right, marriage is not a purely heterosexual tradition as it began millennia ago outside of the boundaries of the contemporary binary sexual construct. Yet, for the majority of its history marriage has been a woman moving from under the authority/ownership of her father to the authority/ownership of her husband. Tell me what part of that arrangement screams "equality" to you?

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

This is the current "marriage" model and I don't see the homosexual experience as being altogether compatible with it. There is far too much to celebrate in difference.

Click to expand...

It's entirely compatible, I'd say. Though why we need to stick to the Nuclear Family anyway is beyond me. Especially when so many kids could be made happy simply by being adopted by loving parents, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, or partner.

You're right, marriage is not a purely heterosexual tradition as it began millennia ago outside of the boundaries of the contemporary binary sexual construct. Yet, for the majority of its history marriage has been a woman moving from under the authority/ownership of her father to the authority/ownership of her husband. Tell me what part of that arrangement screams "equality" to you?

Click to expand...

That's not the current model now. Shouldn't be, anyway. But if it goes unchallenged, then that idea will stick around and will not fade into obsolescence. You'd rather things just stay the same? What part of that screams "equality" to you?

Besides, don't speak to me about equality when it comes to romance and marriage, etc. Do you know how painful it is for me to see a heterosexual couple in public holding hands, knowing if I did the same with a significant other I could be beaten, or worse, for it?

lupusFati said:

Though why we need to stick to the Nuclear Family anyway is beyond me. Especially when so many kids could be made happy simply by being adopted by loving parents, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, or partner.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

lupusFati said:

That's not the current model now. Shouldn't be, anyway. But if it goes unchallenged, then that idea will stick around and will not fade into obsolescence. You'd rather things just stay the same? What part of that screams "equality" to you?

Click to expand...

As I said, I'd prefer to scrap marriage altogether as an outdated cultural institution and relativise/pluralise relationships. But this isn't going to happen sadly...

lupusFati said:

Besides, don't speak to me about equality when it comes to romance and marriage, etc. Do you know how painful it is for me to see a heterosexual couple in public holding hands, knowing if I did the same with a significant other I could be beaten, or worse, for it?

Click to expand...

I think it's horrible that you have to experience this. Again, if this is the social reality then there are absolutely other battle-grounds to fight rather than that of "marriage". There obviously needs to be huge social change where you live in order to eliminate the stigma attached to queer romance!

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

I think it's horrible that you have to experience this. Again, if this is the social reality then there are absolutely other battle-grounds to fight rather than that of "marriage". There obviously needs to be huge social change where you live in order to eliminate the stigma attached to queer romance!

Click to expand...

Note I'm not sure if I would be beaten, by the way. I do live in Idaho so it's a constant worry in my mind, however, even if Boise is somewhat more progressive than the rest of the state. Maybe the only two places I might feel somewhat safe would be on campus where I go to school, and maybe the bar I sometimes go to, as it's "gay friendly". Any other place just fills me with dread over the idea. I shouldn't have to be afraid to hit on a guy (even if he's straight) or otherwise socialize. I shouldn't have to be afraid that holding another guy's hand will have dire consequences for me.

But I am afraid. Especially when I'm constantly viewed as "wrong" or "sinful". Why can't I just live my life? Sigh. I'm ranting a bit.

It should be noted I'm not "promoting" this. But this does need to be addressed at some point on these forums, I believe. Closing one's eyes and wishing it'd go away doesn't make people like me vanish.

lupusFati said:

Note I'm not sure if I would be beaten, by the way. I do live in Idaho so it's a constant worry in my mind, however, even if Boise is somewhat more progressive than the rest of the state. Maybe the only two places I might feel somewhat safe would be on campus where I go to school, and maybe the bar I sometimes go to, as it's "gay friendly". Any other place just fills me with dread over the idea. I shouldn't have to be afraid to hit on a guy (even if he's straight) or otherwise socialize. I shouldn't have to be afraid that holding another guy's hand will have dire consequences for me.

But I am afraid. Especially when I'm constantly viewed as "wrong" or "sinful". Why can't I just live my life? Sigh. I'm ranting a bit.

It should be noted I'm not "promoting" this. But this does need to be addressed at some point on these forums, I believe. Closing one's eyes and wishing it'd go away doesn't make people like me vanish.

Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir.

My namesake St Aelred of Rievaulx is renowned as a queer friendly saint. He encouraged his monks to hold hands, kiss and express deep love for one another.

Cute Tink said:

As noted, just like religion or other personal beliefs.

I do agree some people are ignorant, but protections need not be based on whether something is innate or immutable.

Click to expand...

OK.... So how is that related to my point? I made the point that many people are ignorant and think it is innate and immutable, and therefore should be protected. Does the fact that religion is not innate or immutable change the fact of what I said? Do they suddenly stop believing that myth?

David Brider said:

Sexual orientation isn't about "where you prefer to put your privates," as you so charmingly put it. It's about who you're physically and romantically attracted to.

Click to expand...

The mating instinct, which in some people is broken.

KarateCowboy said:

OK.... So how is that related to my point? I made the point that many people are ignorant and think it is innate and immutable, and therefore should be protected. Does the fact that religion is not innate or immutable change the fact of what I said? Do they suddenly stop believing that myth?

Click to expand...

I guess you would have to demonstrate, the people who disagree with you, are ignorant. Preferably, with objective evidence.

bhsmte said:

I guess you would have to demonstrate, the people who disagree with you, are ignorant. Preferably, with objective evidence.

Click to expand...

If I did that then they wouldn't be ignorant any more, I suppose.

KarateCowboy said:

If I did that then they wouldn't be ignorant any more, I suppose.

Click to expand...

I would look at it this way, if you did, you would be supporting your claim.