All Things LGBTQ+ (1 Viewer)

[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]

No, but ivermectin is great at fighting brain eating, litter box worms.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

So your entire argument boils down to “Why don’t we have White Entertainment Television and/or White History Month?”

they always argue that point, but fail to realize that is all the other channels and months..lol

 

[Farb]

It is called a marriage license and is issued by the state. Once a couple has the license they are married. Any religious ceremony must be meaningless in the context of the state. It isn’t a matter of non-religious v religious. Religious people may have any ceremony that they wish. They may call themselves married in the eyes of God or in the eyes of the church. It must have no bearing on whether or not the state considers them married precisely because it would be a religious ceremony. The state must not infringe on the religious ceremony except in a very few instances and religion must not have any power to proclaim peoples married in the eyes of the state. Attempts to claim religious v non-religious are not simply meaningless, they are dangerous as they present a two-tier system showing preference for religion.

Yep. One is for marriage the other is for accounting and tax purposes.

 

[Farb]

You're welcome. Just to be clear, my wife and I didn't have a religious ceremony and have exactly zero religious facets to our relationship. Are we married or in a civil union?

You can call it whatever you like and by the government you are married. Congratulations.

 

[Farb]

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

The religious ceremony can mean whatever it means to you. Why would or should my thoughts on a religious marriage ceremony matter to you?

Regardless of what it means to you, it has nothing to do with you being married legally in the eyes of the state. That's not really disputable. Why are you wasting so much time arguing this silly point? You seem unbelievably insecure about it for some odd reason.

Apparently my thoughts on marriage vs civil union matter to you.
I agree. One is honored by the state and the other is honored by whatever religion you participate in. In a simple way, one is for God and one is for state bookkeeping.

 

[Farb]

Sounds like you have education envy. And just because, you know, you're going to want to go there, I don't have a college degree, not even an Associate Degree.

College is not for everyone and it's not necessary for everyone, but a college degree absolutely has worth and meaning.


White-only participation, you bet I'd have a problem with that. The ceremony you hate celebrates black students specifically, but as has been pointed out to you, it is not black-only participation. Non black people who want to be a part of celebrating black students are welcomed to participate.

Seems like your real problem is that it dares to celebrate black students. What's wrong with celebrating black students if everyone is welcome to participate in the celebration?

I'm also white, male and heterosexual. I say that...you know...because reasons.

I have no issue with college degrees. People can spend their money on whatever they like, it is when they start asking the other people to pay for it. I went to college and got my piece of paper and paid for it.
If they have absolute worth and meaning, why are we asked to pay it off for those that did it? That doesn't seem right to me.

I do have a problem with racism and what you just described is white racism. Why would you have a problem with celebrating a certain skin colors getting an education but not another? In your view do we solve racism of the past by being racist in the present? That seems to be the left's view on this but I think it is actually based on the racism of low expectations.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I have no issue with college degrees. People can spend their money on whatever they like, it is when they start asking the other people to pay for it. I went to college and got my piece of paper and paid for it.
If they have absolute worth and meaning, why are we asked to pay it off for those that did it? That doesn't seem right to me.

Because the better educated we, Americans, are the better off we are both as a nation and as individuals.

Servicemen's Readjustment Act (1944)​

Signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 22, 1944, this act, also known as the G.I. Bill, provided World War II veterans with funds for college education, unemployment insurance, and housing. It put higher education within the reach of millions of veterans of WWII and later military conflicts.
While World War II was still being fought, the Department of Labor estimated that, after the war, 15 million men and women who had been serving in the armed services would be unemployed. To reduce the possibility of postwar depression brought on by widespread unemployment, the National Resources Planning Board, a White House agency, studied postwar manpower needs as early as 1942 and in June 1943 recommended a series of programs for education and training.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/servicemens-readjustment-act#:~:text=Signed into law by President,WWII and later military conflicts.

Countries with free college
From sources across the web​

Germany
Colleges and Universities: Humboldt University of Berlin, Technical University of Munich, Freie ...

Norway
Colleges and Universities: University of Oslo, Norwegian University of Science and Technology ...

Finland
Colleges and Universities: University of Helsinki, Aalto University, University of Turku, University of ...

Sweden
Colleges and Universities: Lund University, Stockholm University, Uppsala University, KTH Royal ...

France
Colleges and Universities: University of Paris-Saclay, University of Paris, University of Bordeaux ...

Austria
Colleges and Universities: University of Vienna, Vienna University of Technology, University of ...

Denmark
Colleges and Universities: Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen University, Aarhus University ...


Spain
Colleges and Universities: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Universitat de Barcelona, Universitat ...



Czech Republic
Colleges and Universities: Charles University, Masaryk University, Czech Technical University in Prague ...

 

[coldseat]

Apparently my thoughts on marriage vs civil union matter to you.

If you get married through the state (i.e. non-religious), you're still married. It's not a civil union. It doesn't really matter to me what your thoughts on that are, I'm just correcting your inaccurate statement.

I agree. One is honored by the state and the other is honored by whatever religion you participate in. In a simple way, one is for God and one is for state bookkeeping..

Whatever you want to believe. Next time you get married, only do it religiously. Since that's all that matters to you.

 

[SystemShock]

So what you are saying is that the government issue document is really just bookkeeping records for taxes and government purposes? That is what you are saying.
If a couple gets married in a religious ceremony only and no paperwork if filed to the state, are they not married and why not?

That's going to depend on how you define marriage, but also, a very... simplistic way of looking at it.

A marriage in front of the State is not just for "book keeping and taxes'... it is a legal and binding contract that gives rights and assigns responsibilities to the parties involved, aims at protecting the children that marriage could produce, and provides a framework to enforce it (how god or bad that framework is, that's another discussion).

A religious ceremony is just an ancient rite, which provides no protection to anyone involved, and offers no means to enforce whatever corny and vague vows you made at the altar, or chase a deadbeat who is not paying child support... further, in the context of religion, it not only doesn't offer protection for women/children, it actually puts them at a disadvantage inherent in the dogma.

 

[bird]

Yep. One is for marriage the other is for accounting and tax purposes.

Failure again. A marriage license is issued by the state. Anything issued by a religious entity must be meaningless in the eyes of the state. No license, no marriage.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You can call it whatever you like and by the government you are married. Congratulations.

Nice dodge. It's almost like you know your options are to ignore the point and look like a coward or say what you want and know that it's an butt crevasse thing to say. Just own your shirt, Farb.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I wasn't sure if anyone would get the reference. Glad to see someone did.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I have no issue with college degrees. People can spend their money on whatever they like, it is when they start asking the other people to pay for it. I went to college and got my piece of paper and paid for it.
If they have absolute worth and meaning, why are we asked to pay it off for those that did it? That doesn't seem right to me.

We as a society accept debt forgiveness in certain circumstances. That's why we have bankruptcy laws and courts. I guess those don't seem right to you either.

I do have a problem with racism and what you just described is white racism. Why would you have a problem with celebrating a certain skin colors getting an education but not another? In your view do we solve racism of the past by being racist in the present? That seems to be the left's view on this but I think it is actually based on the racism of low expectations.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between participation and celebration? The only way your response makes any sense at all is if you think participation and celebration mean the same thing.

I don't have a problem with events that just celebrate white people and never said that I did. Every one of my birthdays were white-only celebrations, but non-whites were/are just as welcome to participate and many have/will participate.

Either you intentionally or unintentionally misunderstand the phrase white-only participation.

I suspect you're just trying to take the spotlight off the fact that your words and failure to understand actual facts clearly indicate that you have a problem with any celebration that only celebrates people who aren't white.

 

[MT15]

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

they truly have become the real snowflakes...

 

[bird]

they truly have become the real snowflakes...

Agreed. I would add that it is even worse than simply whining. They want to emotionally, if not physically, destroy LGBTQ people in general and kids in particular. When they show their hatred, believe them.

 

[Booker]

You know what really turns kids toward a "LGBT left wing" ideology? Either being LGBT, or having LGBT friends/family, and seeing how they're treated by the right wing.

 

[Optimus Prime]

why are there gender separations for chess in the first place?
=======================================
The international governing body for chess has released new policies that prohibit transgender women from competing in women’s events and will strip some transgender players of their titles.

Under the new guidelines from the International Chess Federation — known by its French acronym, FIDE — individuals who transition from male to female have “no right” to compete in official events for women until “further analysis” is made, which could take up to two years. Additionally, if a player holds titles in women’s categories and transitions to male, “the women titles are to be abolished,” while if the player transitions from male to female, the titles will remain, the handbook says.

FIDE also said it has the right to “inform the organizers and other relevant parties” about a player’s gender change, which it said was to prevent players “from possible illegitimate enrollments in tournaments.”

Yosha Iglesias, a FIDE master and chess coach from France, expressed concern about the new regulations, writing on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that the federation made it sound as if transgender players are “the biggest threat” to women in chess.

The Center for Trans Equality, in a statement posted on the X platform, said the new policy “relies on ignorant anti-trans ideas” and is “insulting to cis women, to trans women, and to the game itself.”

Asked to respond to these criticisms, FIDE wrote in an email, “Of course men and women are equally intellectually capable. However, in chess as a sport other factors like physical endurance may play a role.”

FIDE approved the policy at a meeting earlier this month, and it will go into effect next week. The new regulations “are aimed at clearly defining” the procedure for registering a gender change in the FIDE system, the organization said, adding that FIDE will monitor developments in “transgender legislation” around the world to “see how we can apply them to the world of chess.”.

FIDE did not respond to a question about how the new policy will affect transgender players already registered in the system.

Global athletic bodies as well as conservative legislators across the United States have in recent years sought to ban transgender athletes from participating in sports competitions matching their gender identity, arguing that trans women have an unfair physical advantage over cisgender women. Advocates say such policies further marginalize and endanger transgender people and reflect long-standing efforts to “shut trans people out of public spaces.”

But “there’s not that physicality dimension to chess, it’s a game of strategy,” said Richard Pringle, a professor of sociology and education who studies gender and sexuality in the context of sport at Monash University in Australia.

“It suggests that males are somehow strategically better. … It’s not just transphobic, it’s anti-feminist too,” he said of the ban, adding that it was “likely a political decision rather than an issue of fairness.”................

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/08/17/fide-transgender-ban-chess-women/