[quote=@Jig]Or, indeed, who tups whom in the vagina so long as that happens behind equally-closed doors. If you make a distinction between how closed a door should be between your eyes and a gay couple and a straight couple, then your opinion is definitely biased. I'm not saying [i]yours[/i] is, but the 'behind closed doors' is an old phrase that always comes out to describe LGB people as though same-sex partnerships are in some way shameful, sordid, or in any way something to hide. The phrase doesn't exactly reek of acceptance - and never applies to straight people.[/quote]

AW shieeet homie. You know I don't wanna see a straight couple fuck in public either. Behind closed doors applies to everyone for me.

If I wanna see sex I'll go online and search for it or I'll go out and get laid.

[quote=@Jig]Not here. Metropolitan areas, sure. You go to anywhere in England (I'm talking England here, not the UK) that's not London, Manchester, or a major university town, and LGBT+ people don't have the luxury of the kindness of strangers.[/quote]

Yeah, cause English people are fokken cunts. 

[quote=@Jig]Unless prides are vastly different in the Netherlands, I think you're being petulant. Sprinkles, glitter, terrible pop music. Gay as in 'that's so gay' rather than LGBT+.[/quote]

I mean, I think this is exactly the reason why gay prides are so bloody useless. If it was like a regular old festival, I think it'd do a lot more to show that gay people are just like us straight people, except they like a different sex (namely, the same as theirs). Now it's enforcing that they are different somehow and that enforces the 'different than us = bad' thing that you see in our tribal nature.

[quote=@Jig]That is their right. It doesn't prevent them from being awful (either on account of the religiously nutty or the belligerently selfish).[/quote]

Reality is awful. Moving on.

[quote=@Jig]For me, that's an issue of animal rights. With humans, we expect there to be consent given for intercourse to be acceptable. For inanimate objects (say, a dildo), we don't expect that. I can't work out to what degree in the real world I can balance the 'are you upsetting the animal or is the animal into it?' because there's no way to tell, but if a canine could give consent and gave consent, it's no business of mine whether a human gets to do it doggy style.[/quote]

Some people will argue for this and they'll argue for it hard - and if we're being 100% honest, they are probably right in the sense that larger animals probably can't even feel it and therefore it doesn't bother them.

But yeah, there's no visible/audible consent and therefore it's theoretically rape. Which is weird.

[quote=@Jig]I maintain my policy of 'live and let live'. If you find somebody with whom you can't live and let live (when you know nobody is being harmed), then you're probably intolerant of them. And that's most likely bigotry.[/quote]

Tolerance doesn't mix well with democracy. Like I said, tolerance only has to extend as far as the majority within a country wishes it to extend. There's really .. not much more to it except your personal idea of tolerance.

Which we've already established is broader than mine.

[quote=@Jig]You're taking me too literally: drinking and driving is dangerous. It just basically is, and not just for the perp but also for anybody else on the road. An LGB person having consensual sex with another LGB person or committing to a life with them via marriage harms nobody, because it's all consensual. Sober drivers are abiding by the contract all drivers should be abiding by (the law) when they drive sober, and they deserve to be protected from people who are breaking that contract (drunk drivers). That is to say, they have not given their consent to engage in drunken vehicular intercourse with drunken drivers. There's your difference.[/quote]

Let me argue in the name of a religious nut (whether he be Christian, Jewish or Muslim) and say that homosexual sex is in fact dangerous. It does harm people because it means they can't go to paradise/heaven. It does harm people because it is inviting the devil into our society.

As outrageous as this sounds, these are legitimate claims because people believe in this and therefore they deserve to be taken seriously. I'd like to invite you to try and see it from their side. 

[quote=@Jig]Nope. They're trying to exist in a way that is ideally equal to cishet people but at the very least doesn't put them in danger every day of their lives. They [i]are[/i] entitled to live (and let live. My arguments have a theme.)[/quote]

.. which is forcing their worldview upon others that do not share this worldview. It's really not that hard, dude. The worldview that everyone should have an equal chance at living their life in the same way as others is a worldview in and of it's own. Even though I agree with this worldview I also acknowledge that it's still just a worldview and not everyone has to agree. The majority believes in this worldview and therefore you'll find that this is the worldview that everyone more or less agrees with.

Because if you disagree, you'll be branded negatively in a social regards and that's bad and nobody wants that. So even those that theoretically would disagree are forced to 'agree' somewhat.

[quote=@Jig]At a philosophical level, you're right, since nothing beyond maths can be proven.
That said, in real life, who're you gonna pick? The people who won't tolerate others or the people who just want to be recognised and allowed to live in their own way and otherwise to be left the fuck alone and ask for just one day a year to party publicly? Or, the ISIS fighter who won't tolerate any version of life other than their own understanding, or the person who just wants to live and let live?[/quote]

I make it a point to not judge other cultures, ideas or people. Reason being that yes, I can actually see why Wehrmacht soldiers fought for Hitler, and I respect them for fighting for what they thought was right. Yes, I can actually see why Hitler did what he did - I do not agree with it, but I can see [i]why[/i] he did it and to a degree I think he deserves some objective respect for building an empire the way he did. 

Note that that in no way means I agree we should kill the jews. It just means I can see his ideology, I can understand it, I can still disagree but respect that he fought for it. 

And yes, in that regard, I also respect ISIS fighters who fight for their ideology. Because that's what you do. 

So no, I don't pick between either of them. They are both right - or at least both think they are right, and therefore, both have a right to defend their claim.

I am not anti-violence. It's a pretty solid way of enforcing your claim as long as you recognize the damages that you need to repair once you're done. It's just that in the western world we agree not to use violence - and I can agree to that, so I'd prefer that we didn't use violence [i]here[/i].

[quote=@Jig]Because in the UK, the US, and the Netherlands, it's broadly white people who have actual agency. The house of commons, congress and the tweede kamer are primarily made of white faces. White faces in all three of these countries primarily make up the politically-engaged cohort. I'm not saying that BME communities don't have their own opinions (and I'm certainly not saying that BME communities have great records on LGBT+ issues), but it's white people in the three countries that have power at a legal level. At a social level, it depends very much on your local environment at least in the UK. Being gay in London isn't something anybody's gonna give a shit about. Being gay in a Welsh village... would not recommend to a friend.[/quote]

Although the white people have the most agency, they are also the biggest group that is trying to help LGBT people [i]because[/i] they have the agency. I believe this comes more from a PR perspective and they really don't care about LGBT people, but they're still helping.

So blaming white people for all the shit isn't gonna help anyone and is more likely to make them feel like [i]not[/i] helping. Which is what I feel every time someone brings up slavery in the black lives matter debate.

Sidenote; was in Wales for a karate tournament. Gay community there is big as fuck. Most of the pubs closed at 2.00 at night so we moved to a gay club because we wanted beer. I got hit on a few times and they were generally very respectful about it when I said 'nah mate I'm straight, we just want beer' :lol

[quote=@Jig]Not legally, in most places (unless the US is more backwards than I thought).[/quote]

Like we discussed before, in most western countries, LGBT people too enjoy the freedom that straight people do. Legally. Most of the time it falls under the umbrella 'no discrimination' laws.

[quote=@Jig]I don't really believe that beyond next of kinship, marriage should provide any benefits to the people involved. It's a statement of emotional and/or financial commitment to another person, not to the taxman (or, it should be).[/quote]

What you believe doesn't matter in this case. In every single country marriage is incentivized with benefits due to marriage = children (often) and children = population = more taxes in the long run. It's simple maths. 

For 1. Gay couples do not contribute to this because they do not produce new children in most cases. Therefore, government doesn't stand to gain anything except for.. well, moral points? I guess? Because they'll get less tax because married couples pay less taxes than others.

For 2. For polygamy, this means that if you are clever you can just set up a family with 20 people and enjoy tax-boons that nobody else could get.

Because that's how it's gonna play out. I'm not naive enough to think people will respect the law. They'll use it to full extent. 

[quote=@Jig]I can't think of a Western country that forbids, say, a Christian marrying/getting with a Muslim. At a social level for some communities, it may well be an issue that could well cause something like, as you say, kids being kicked out. But the law can't account for parents being intolerant (it can't force them to be tolerant: that battle is won socially and not legally) and I can't help but wonder if the kids wouldn't be better off being independent of people that have disowned them - the law forcing the parents to hold onto kids they hate isn't helping anybody. In the UK, I'm very critical of the state-care of kids, but that's an argument for another day.[/quote]

Well actually until you're 21, a parent is supposed to take care of their children no matter how intolerant they are. And until 18, they are supposed to make all the decisions for the children. So.. yes, it does have legal issues. And yes, the law does in some indirect way account for parents being intolerant. 

Doesn't help that shelters for children like this are often lackluster and shitty.

[quote=@Jig]My overall point is I don't care who has sex with whom, but thinking of the consequences on kids that might be born is reasonable. I don't know the science and I don't know where I'd draw the line anyway (so I won't bother looking into it), but, ultimately, at the relationship-level, it's none of my business.[/quote]

Sexually you are right, its not your concern and neither is it mine. Like I said, closed doors, for all couples. Medically I'd be a bit more inclined to say 'hold up, you're gonna be using my tax money to pay, and that's fine, but there's limits.'

As for the science - incest is generally said to be bad because, well, it is bad. But the first generation should be fine. Medieval families were fucked up genetically because they had so much incest (looking at you, Karling family) because they breeded within the own family and often, with close links (King A is brother of king B, son of king A marries king B's daughter, etc.). Blood lines were kept pure at the cost of having people on the throne that we'd put in hospitals nowadays. 

[quote=@Jig]It might seem that way in the Netherlands, where you've enjoyed equal marriage for ages. In most other European countries, it's only recently been passed or been on the agenda at all. Once England got access to equal marriage, I noticed the LGB community basically stop protesting, because there was little to protest about (at the legal level) - LGB people had stopped being second-class citizens who had fewer rights than straight people. It's not laughable to be a second-class citizen, which is what the legal lack of provision for the equivalent rights that straight people enjoyed rendered LGB people.[/quote]

But that's exactly my point. There's little to complain about nowadays in most countries. The EU actually enforces that member states offer some degree of equality between people legally. 

Which is again my problem with gayprides. It's stopped being about acceptance and instead is a commercialized practice funded by the government. 

[quote=@Jig]That's not to say there aren't other marginalised groups or that those groups aren't worth listening to, but at the same time, their issues don't disqualify the importance of LGB issues for LGB people.[/quote]

Agreed, I was just raising the point that there's many smaller groups that do not get benefits simply because they're smaller.

[quote=@Jig]There remain social issues (the whole literal safety of walking around with one's partner), which I sincerely hope will be lessened by the current generation's sexual open-mindedness, but I also think that the law lends a legitimacy to LGB partnerships by putting them on the same footing as straight partnerships, which, at the very least, will give LGB people more confidence that they're accepted socially - and they need some of that.[/quote]

It's all generational, man. In 20 years we'll probably have reached the point where nobody cares anymore bar the religiously devoted.

[quote=@Jig]It sounds like you think LGB issues aren't really a thing in the Netherlands - but you're ahead on LGB issues anyway. So, you might have now found the solution that is publicly accepting LGB people and are perhaps missing the divides that the lack of social and legal acceptance in other countries can cause.[/quote]

Oh no. I mean the USA has a long way to go socially, but what I have been saying is that in most western countries, LGB people are on equal footing already. And the transgenders are coming closer too.


[quote=@Jig]That would be [i]rude[/i].[/quote]

Yeah, I'm a rude person.

[quote=@Jig]Your argument is that somebody's different worldview is legitimate, even if you disagree with them. Pointing and laughing is somewhat incongruous.[/quote]

The idea of fucking your car is legitimate.
It's still funny to me.

[quote=@Jig]Well, you get a variety of people that you've mentioned (amongst others) that the law needs to take into account. LGB people are simply the largest single grouping, as opposed to, say paedophiles, zoophiles, people who're attracted to objects, etcetera. Each of these categories has a smaller cohort than the LGB community, and so the LGB voice is louder. It helps, of course, that LGB people can exist within a framework of adult consent, while the consent of a child, animal or object is much murkier territory.

So, yes, you're right when you say that the LGB community is the most outspoken voice among sexualities - but I'm not really sure who else you're expecting to hear from.
[/quote]

Actually, we had a political party here called Party Martijn. They were a group that voted for the acceptance of pedophiles - medically/psychologically. They didn't want pedophilia to be legalized but rather wanted there to be more professional help for people that had pedophilic ideas in their head and wanted these ideas gone.

The general public was not receptive.

A petition was started to ban them from participating even though they legally did everything they had to to become a full fledged political party.

I was never against this party, in fact I kind of supported the idea of it even if I'd never vote for them (one-issue parties are a no-go for me). People, even pedophiles, have a right to democracy in our society, and if they had wanted to legalize pedophilia, I would've accepted that if they were the majority. That's how democracy works.

So, I disagree in the sense that there's other sexualities that want to be heard but that others, including LGBT people, do not want to hear.

[sub]The part was later disbanded after several high-profile members of party Martijn were arrested for ongoing pedophilia rings. Go figure.[/sub]