All Things LGBTQ+ (3 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

This is a very legitimate concern. With the Trans activist agenda being so radical, the inevitable backlash could be sharp enough to even overturned the gay marriage ruling.

We certainly have the judges in place for that. Not that they would state it in terms of being anti-gay marriage, but in terms of allowing states to decide issues of marriage, as they always have.

They thought the same when with the Dobbs decision and it cost them a lot of seats in the house. Its like they intentionally like to shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Snarky Sack]

They thought the same when with the Dobbs decision and it cost them a lot of seats in the house. Its like they intentionally like to shoot themselves in the foot.

Sure, and when same-sex couples lose the right to be married, the GOP may lose a couple of more seats.

But the rights to abortion and same-sex marriage will still be gone, at least so far as being a federally recognized right.

That's what I mean by the backlash. Trump himself was a product of the backlash against mealy mouth establishment republicans and Democrats constantly putting America dead last, if even on the table at all.

 

[coldseat]

Sure, and when same-sex couples lose the right to be married, the GOP may lose a couple of more seats.

But the rights to abortion and same-sex marriage will still be gone, at least so far as being a federally recognized right.

That's what I mean by the backlash. Trump himself was a product of the backlash against mealy mouth establishment republicans and Democrats constantly putting America dead last, if even on the table at all.

Who do you believe would have standing to sue against gay marriage? A conservative Republican state AG? I'm curious how you think they would go about that.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Who do you believe would have standing to sue against gay marriage? A conservative Republican state AG? I'm curious how you think they would go about that.

Assuming a Supreme Court thought willing to rule that marriage is a state issue?

Yes, it would be a state AG, most likely a conservative Republican who ran on that very issue. Of course, due to what I said in a previous post about Republicans running one way and governing another, several conservative Republicans AGs would have to be elected to have at least one willing to do that.

But that AG would not be the plaintiff. The legislature would have to act in such as way that the state would be sued.

First, the state would have to pass a law declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman (and define that term, I suppose ), then counties would stop issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Then they won't have to wait long for a same-sex couple to sue the state for not marrying them. That couple would surely have standing.

Then it's off to the races. Lower courts would quickly grant the petition under stare decisis, and the USSC could take the case at its leisure.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not hoping that happens. I'm all for same-sex marriage, that's each couple's beezwax, not mine. I cried when Cam and Mitch got married, no shirt.

What I'm saying is that the absurd excesses, and unintentional self-satire of the transgender movement may cause a backlash that brings that result.

 

[coldseat]

Assuming a Supreme Court thought willing to rule that marriage is a state issue?

Yes, it would be a state AG, most likely a conservative Republican who ran on that very issue. Of course, due to what I said in a previous post about Republicans running one way and governing another, several conservative Republicans AGs would have to be elected to have at least one willing to do that.

But that AG would not be the plaintiff. The legislature would have to act in such as way that the state would be sued.

First, the state would have to pass a law declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman (and define that term, I suppose ), then counties would stop issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Then they won't have to wait long for a same-sex couple to sue the state for not marrying them. That couple would surely have standing.

Then it's off to the races. Lower courts would quickly grant the petition under stare decisis, and the USSC could take the case at its leisure.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not hoping that happens. I'm all for same-sex marriage, that's each couple's beezwax, not mine. I cried when Cam and Mitch got married, no shirt.

What I'm saying is that the absurd excesses, and unintentional self-satire of the transgender movement may cause a backlash that brings that result.

That's a whole lot of trouble for Republicans to go through for backlash. But I wouldn't be surprised if they tried, Republicans are very vengeful.

Their goal is to force the LGBTQ+ agenda back in the closet, as it were. To do that they'd have to reverse gay marriage through the SC. So it would seem this to be a logical part of their eventual goal. I don't think they'll be able to, but I know they want too.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That's a whole lot of trouble for Republicans to go through for backlash. But I wouldn't be surprised if they tried, Republicans are very vengeful.

Their goal is to force the LGBTQ+ agenda back in the closet, as it were. To do that they'd have to reverse gay marriage through the SC. So it would seem this to be a logical part of their eventual goal. I don't think they'll be able to, but I know they want too.

What compromises are you willing for the Dems to make with Republicans on LGBTQ+ issues?

 

[coldseat]

What compromises are you willing for the Dems to make with Republicans on LGBTQ+ issues?

On what particular issue are you referring to and what is the policy proposal that is a compromise?

 

[Snarky Sack]

On what particular issue are you referring to and what is the policy proposal that is a compromise?

I don't know that either side is offering a compromise policy. That is my point. Neither side is willing to compromise. Dems are just better at sticking to their guns than Republicans.

What compromise would you want Dems to offer to Republicans who want to forbid sex reassignment hormones and surgeries for children, for example? Or what compromise could Republicans offer that you would want Dems to accept?

What compromise with Republicans who want to require people to not use the bathroom not corresponding to their biological sex?

What compromise with Republicans who want to ban biological males from female teams, and vice-versa.

Or just say whether you would be willing to compromise on those issues at all?

Take your time, please.

 

[coldseat]

I don't know that either side is offering a compromise policy. That is my point. Neither side is willing to compromise. Dems are just better at sticking to their guns than Republicans.

What compromise would you want Dems to offer to Republicans who want to forbid sex reassignment hormones and surgeries for children, for example?

I speak for myself here, but I would say that is specific, peer-reviewed scientific evidence (not religious, not pseudo-science, not fallacious arguments) can be presented that hormones or sex reassignment is harmful or dangerous, then discussion should be had about limiting/banning it. In the absence of that, I propose more legitimate peer-reviewed scientific studies/experiments to try and determine long term outcomes. In the interim, the best course of action would be to allow medical boards to outline best practices with the available evidence (something they're already doing) and trusting parents and responsible medical professionals to make those decisions.

What compromise with Republicans who want to require people to not use the bathroom not corresponding to their biological sex?

Single use bathrooms? I don't know what compromise there is for that. You either do or don't in regards to allowing trans woman to use the bathroom of their choice.

What compromise with Republicans who want to ban biological males from female teams, and vice-versa.

Well men are already banned from women's sports, so you already have more than half the comprise right there. Since you specifically talking about trans women, I'll again defer to athletic and medical governing boards to determine who and under what conditions they're allowed to compete.

Or just say whether you would be willing to compromise on those issues at all?

Take your time, please.

Not much time needed. These aren't very had questions.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I don't know that either side is offering a compromise policy. That is my point. Neither side is willing to compromise. Dems are just better at sticking to their guns than Republicans.

What compromise would you want Dems to offer to Republicans who want to forbid sex reassignment hormones and surgeries for children, for example? Or what compromise could Republicans offer that you would want Dems to accept?

What compromise with Republicans who want to require people to not use the bathroom not corresponding to their biological sex?

What compromise with Republicans who want to ban biological males from female teams, and vice-versa.

Or just say whether you would be willing to compromise on those issues at all?

Take your time, please.

The compromise should be Republicans should go back to being conservatives and stop worrying so much about what other people are doing.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I speak for myself here, but I would say that is specific, peer-reviewed scientific evidence (not religious, not pseudo-science, not fallacious arguments) can be presented that hormones or sex reassignment is harmful or dangerous, then discussion should be had about limiting/banning it. In the absence of that, I propose more legitimate peer-reviewed scientific studies/experiments to try and determine long term outcomes. In the interim, the best course of action would be to allow medical boards to outline best practices with the available evidence (something they're already doing) and trusting parents and responsible medical professionals to make those decisions.

Lots of words to say "no compromise."

Single use bathrooms? I don't know what compromise there is for that. You either do or don't in regards to allowing trans woman to use the bathroom of their choice.

No compromise, check.

Well most men are already banned from women's sports, so you already have more than half the comprise right there. Since you specifically talking about trans women, I'll again defer to athletic and medical governing boards to determine who and under what conditions they're allowed to compete.

No compromise, check.

I seriously doubt you'd favor letting athletic governing boards decide for themselves if the decision was that they banned transwomen from female sports.

Not much time needed. These aren't very had questions.

No, because you are not at all willing to compromise. Simple. Exactly as I expected.

People who champion the virtues of compromise, nearly always means, the other side compromises until I get all of what I want.

Not blaming the Democrats for being that way, I blame the Republicans who fall for it.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

There is no compromise to be had because there is no rational policy position being pushed by Republicans. It isn't being based on facts or logic, just pure fear and using that to create a voting block. When that is the goal, there isn't a thing you can compromise on because they'll just move to the next thing to create that fear.

Repubicans used to make a big stink about parent's rights, and keeping the government out of personal decisions, but clearly that isn't the case based on things they want now.

 

[Snarky Sack]

There is no compromise to be had because there is no rational policy position being pushed by Republicans. It isn't being based on facts or logic, just pure fear and using that to create a voting block. When that is the goal, there isn't a thing you can compromise on because they'll just move to the next thing to create that fear.

Repubicans used to make a big stink about parent's rights, and keeping the government out of personal decisions, but clearly that isn't the case based on things they want now.

I'm glad you are willing to admit that you oppose compromise. Hopefully others will also.

What you believe about the GOP having no rational policy, the GOP believes about the Dems having no rational policy. One look at our border, our energy dependency, and our near default level of borrowing and it is easy to understand why.

I get that the Dems look at GOP policies as crazy too.

My only point is that neither side is willing to compromise. Also that that the Republicans often knuckle under in the name of compromise.

 

[coldseat]

Lots of words to say "no compromise."

No compromise, check.

No compromise, check.

No, because you are not at all willing to compromise. Simple. Exactly as I expected.

People who champion the virtues of compromise, nearly always means, the other side compromises until I get all of what I want.

Not blaming the Democrats for being that way, I blame the Republicans who fall for it.

You haven't even stated what you/Republicans want on any of those issues much less offered a compromised position/policy on any of them. How can you say "no compromise"? Lol. That's just silly.

Can we not have a real conversation instead of you failing at playing "gotcha".

I seriously doubt you'd favor letting athletic governing boards decide for themselves if the decision was that they banned transwomen from female sports.

They already do that and I haven't complained about any of them doing so. This issue isn't at the top of my list of things this country needs to deal with.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You haven't even stated what you/Republicans want on any of those issues much less offered a compromised position/policy on any of them. How can you say "no compromise"? Lol. That's just silly.

Fair enough. Let's try to have that adult conversation, as you said.

You asked before about Republican compromise policies, and I don't know of any. But I can tell you what I - Snarky Sack would be willing for the Republicans to compromise on:

Republicans (in general, with exceptions) want no medical or surgical treatment of transgender children under the age of 18. Democrats want no limits on medical or surgical treatment of transgender children.

The obvious compromise would be an minimum age lower than 18, such as 14 for hormones, 16 for top surgery and facial/voice surgery, and 18 for bottom surgery. Those seem like the right number to me as a compromise to stop the worst excesses of what I consider an abusive way to treat children. It would be a compromise, because I prefer no such treatment until 18.

Republicans in general would like for all public restrooms not single use, to be labeled for males/men or females/women, and for it to be against the law to go into the bathroom for the opposite sex, as it has been for many years in many states. Democrats want males or females, however obvious it is that they are males or females, to be able - by law - to use the bathroom of the gender as which the identify.

Several compromise ideas present themselves. For example, allow each business with restrooms available to the public to determine its own policy as to who uses which. Thus people can vote with their feet for or against businesses whose policies they do not like. Let school boards do the same, with voters voting with their votes and parents voting with their childrens feet to show approval or disapproval.

My favorite: Label bathrooms as either women or men, or as males or females. For women and men, that includes trans folk. For males and females, biology determines entrance. Thus people can make informed choices. A woman will know that if she goes into the "women" room that they may well be sharing it with a biological male who makes whatever degree of effort they chose to appear to be a woman.

They already do that and I haven't complained about any of them doing so. This issue isn't at the top of my list of things this country needs to deal with.

You have not, but Democrats have. So you are willing to compromise by allowing each sport to set its own policies. But Democrat politicians have shown no such willingness. Biden is I believe trying to make Title IX mean that males can play girls sports. That would completely violate the spirit of Title IX, IMO.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Ok but what did you mean by "Crying Game vibe?"

You're taking something, that wasn't said about you, way too personally and are trying to read way too much into it.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Republicans (in general, with exceptions) want no medical or surgical treatment of transgender children under the age of 18. Democrats want no limits on medical or surgical treatment of transgender children.

Except that isn't the Democrat position, and never has been. The Democrat position is that medical decisions should be made by the doctors and the parents of the children according to policies laid out by medical review boards based on peer reviewed studies. Not politicians or on personal feelings.

You can't have an honest discussion with someone who isn't willing to honestly present the opposing view point.

Note, there is no Democratic policy at all to interfere with medical decisions of transgender patients. There is no policy put forth to require doctors to allow hormone replacements or surgery against their better judgement, or anything like that.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'm glad you are willing to admit that you oppose compromise. Hopefully others will also.

What you believe about the GOP having no rational policy, the GOP believes about the Dems having no rational policy. One look at our border, our energy dependency, and our near default level of borrowing and it is easy to understand why.

I get that the Dems look at GOP policies as crazy too.

My only point is that neither side is willing to compromise. Also that that the Republicans often knuckle under in the name of compromise.

Yeah, you can't compromise on human rights or on the lives of children. All available research shows that gender affirming care is the best way to lower suicide risks and help transgender children become productive adults. Gender affirming care is a progressive standard of care that starts with therapy, then moving to social transition (using preferred pronouns) and more therapy, and then hormone replacement therapy, more therapy and finally surgery. At any given point, the doctor, parent or child can stop based on how they are all feeling and observing changes in the patient.

Denying access to care is shown to increase suicide attempts (and by extension successful suicides) of transgender children.

You can't compromise with the that because some people think it's icky.