The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Dennisch]

They're in Austria, and I'd be surprised if they didn't conform to the law in terms of brightness, visibility and illuminated surface area. They're for pedestrian users rather than vehicles so the regulations aren't as stringent. They seem to have paid off too and become something of a tourist attraction, not a bad investment.

It's in Utrecht, the Dutchielands.

Brushed up on your Dutch yet?

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's in Utrecht, the Dutchielands.

Brushed up on your Dutch yet?

Fair enough, they've clearly fitted some in the same style as the ones fitted in 2015 in Vienna

 

[Dennisch]

Fair enough, they've clearly fitted some in the same style as the ones fitted in 2015 in Vienna

We are both right. That's the best right!

 

[novcze]

They're for pedestrian users rather than vehicles so the regulations aren't as stringent.

they are, you wouldn't believe how is everything strict when it comes to traffic signs and it doesn't matter if they are for vehicles or pedestrians

They seem to have paid off too and become something of a tourist attraction, not a bad investment.

Sure, but my point was ... if the law doesn't know this traffic sign, am I legally obliged to obey? Maybe in Austria or Netherlands, I don't know ...



We had similar case in Prague, some "artist" replaced traffic lights

he was fined ($2400 or month in jail) and his actions were deemed as danger for traffic

 

[Scaff]

Wait what? Do we still talking about situation in USA and Europe or did you shift it somewhere else?

Pick a country, don't mind which, but can you honestly state, with a straight face, that the LGBT community is treated exactly the same and/or has the exact same rights as the rest of society in any country?

Let me be quite frank, the last part of your sentence clearly shows that you seem happy to not do so, or did you mean 'special snowflake' is some way that wasn't a pejorative?

 

[TenEightyOne]

they are, you wouldn't believe how is everything strict when it comes to traffic signs and it doesn't matter if they are for vehicles or pedestrians

It does matter, the legislation has different sections for each. For example, the UK legislation (drawn from the EU standard) explicitly separates the two and requires that the pedestrian lights are clearly distinguishable from the vehicle lights.

Note that the legal challenges against the lights have been based on spending, not on legislation - there would be no such case. I'm happy to link the UK TSMs that we used in Highways Engineering if they're any help to you?

 

[novcze]

It does matter, the legislation has different sections for each. For example, the UK legislation (drawn from the EU standard) explicitly separates the two and requires that the pedestrian lights are clearly distinguishable from the vehicle lights.

I was referring to strictness of the law requirements for all traffic signs as reaction to yours

They're for pedestrian users rather than vehicles so the regulations aren't as stringent.

 

[novcze]

Pick a country, don't mind which, but can you honestly state, with a straight face, that the LGBT community is treated exactly the same and/or has the exact same rights as the rest of society in any country?

Let me be quite frank, the last part of your sentence clearly shows that you seem happy to not do so, or did you mean 'special snowflake' is some way that wasn't a pejorative?

Define LGBT community, I refer to them as humans who have same human rights as everyone else. If you know about any breach of human rights in your country visit nearest police station.
Aren't LGBT individuals sort of excluded from the society when you establish term "LGBT community"?

 

[Scaff]

Define LGBT community, I refer to them as humans who have same human rights as everyone else.

No, you refered to them as 'Special Snowflakes'.

If you know about any breach of human rights in your country visit nearest police station.

I will take that as a no then, you are not able to name a single country.

Aren't LGBT individuals sort of excluded from the society when you establish term "LGBT community"?

Not at all, particularly given that its a term they use themselves, its perfectly possible to use terms to describe people within society as a whole, the key part is that the terms are accurate, acceptable and do not serve to victimise or ridicule them. What I think would exclude them is to use pejorative such as "special snowflakes" to ridicule a desire for equal treatment both in law and in society.

 

[novcze]

No, you refered to them as 'Special Snowflakes'.

no

... don't we just need to put more focus on universal human rights instead of search for the most special snowflake.

You are the one who is searching for the most special snowflake who needs protection, LGBT rights are human rights, this should be main point when you want to teach something in the school along with education on variations in sexual orientation.


I suspect that your understanding of 'rights' include things I didn't include in my assumptions, can you name a few?

I will take that as a no then, you are not able to name a single country.

Czech Republic

or

Britain, as I read in this piece from my favourite gay Milo Yiannopoulos:

"The dirty secret about the gay rights movement in Britain today is that there is no longer any reason for it to exist. All the big battles for equality and recognition have been won, and were won quite a long time ago. The cosmetic row over gay marriage last year didn’t affect the legal rights gay couples were entitled to under civil partnership. And, truth be told, there’s really nothing left to be angry about in this country, unless you count last year’s absurd campaign to ban children from using the word “gay” in playgrounds.

Talk to anyone who works in the gay lobby and they’ll probably agree – but only privately. You won’t hear anything like it, of course, from charities jonesing for taxpayer cash, or from magazines that depend on outrage to shift copies to those unmoved by oiled torsos. There have been widespread changes in staff at gay charities and campaigning groups recently: chief executives are burnt out and, more importantly, they are recognising that there’s little left on the rights checklist to advocate for. Stonewall and the Terrence Higgins Trust are haemorrhaging talent and leadership, and gay conferences and campaigns are descending into trivia and navel-gazing."

 

[Scaff]

no

Really, so you didn't use those words?

You are the one who is searching for the most special snowflake who needs protection, LGBT rights are human rights, this should be main point when you want to teach something in the school along with education on variations in sexual orientation.

Yes they are human rights, but writing an act into law doesn't then automatically mean that everyone is treated the exact same way, that's what you are failing to understand, and the use of language such as 'special snowflakes' only illustrates that further.

I suspect that your understanding of 'rights' include things I didn't include in my assumptions, can you name a few?

I never limited it to just 'rights', you did.

As I said above something being written into law doesn't then suddenly make it accepted by the entire population.

Do you honestly think that the second marriage equality was put in place that every homophobic idiot on the planet suddenly went 'oh that's OK then, let change our previous ways'? Of course not, as such the teaching of specific understanding of the LGBT community is still required, schools are the best place to start that and its need doesn't make them 'special snowflakes!

Czech Republic

or

Britain, as I read in this piece from my favourite gay Milo Yiannopoulos:

"The dirty secret about the gay rights movement in Britain today is that there is no longer any reason for it to exist. All the big battles for equality and recognition have been won, and were won quite a long time ago. The cosmetic row over gay marriage last year didn’t affect the legal rights gay couples were entitled to under civil partnership. And, truth be told, there’s really nothing left to be angry about in this country, unless you count last year’s absurd campaign to ban children from using the word “gay” in playgrounds.

Talk to anyone who works in the gay lobby and they’ll probably agree – but only privately. You won’t hear anything like it, of course, from charities jonesing for taxpayer cash, or from magazines that depend on outrage to shift copies to those unmoved by oiled torsos. There have been widespread changes in staff at gay charities and campaigning groups recently: chief executives are burnt out and, more importantly, they are recognising that there’s little left on the rights checklist to advocate for. Stonewall and the Terrence Higgins Trust are haemorrhaging talent and leadership, and gay conferences and campaigns are descending into trivia and navel-gazing."

Are you honestly going to say no one in the UK or Czech republic is being targeted or discriminated against based on sexuality?

In the UK homophbic attacks have rose 22% between 2014 and 2015, the far right and a number of church bodies still campaigns to have rights revoked, and I also believe that in the Czech Republic you still don't have full Marriage for LGBT and they also are barred from adopting children (which means they don't even have the full rights you claimed).

Not to mention that Northern Ireland) a part of the UK) still bans even civil partnerships and the UK has a record of continuing to send Trans women to male prisons, the tragic results of which are more than predictable.

So while rights have improved dramatically, attitudes have not changed at the same rate and persecution still very much exists.

 

[TenEightyOne]

or

Britain, as I read in this piece from my favourite gay Milo Yiannopoulos:

"The dirty secret about the gay rights movement in Britain today is that there is no longer any reason for it to exist. All the big battles for equality and recognition have been won, and were won quite a long time ago. The cosmetic row over gay marriage last year didn’t affect the legal rights gay couples were entitled to under civil partnership. And, truth be told, there’s really nothing left to be angry about in this country, unless you count last year’s absurd campaign to ban children from using the word “gay” in playgrounds.

Talk to anyone who works in the gay lobby and they’ll probably agree – but only privately. You won’t hear anything like it, of course, from charities jonesing for taxpayer cash, or from magazines that depend on outrage to shift copies to those unmoved by oiled torsos. There have been widespread changes in staff at gay charities and campaigning groups recently: chief executives are burnt out and, more importantly, they are recognising that there’s little left on the rights checklist to advocate for. Stonewall and the Terrence Higgins Trust are haemorrhaging talent and leadership, and gay conferences and campaigns are descending into trivia and navel-gazing."

That article is almost entirely bollocks, understandable from that writer (his gamer-gate statements were particularly eye-watering, iirc). My favourite bit was where he implied that the British gay scene spawned Tchaikovsky.

Interesting that he ends with "Divisive and poisonous hobby horses such as intersectionality and identity politics must be abandoned".

 

[novcze]

Really, so you didn't use those words?

I did use it to describe how they are treated by some.

Do you honestly think that the second marriage equality was put in place that every homophobic idiot on the planet suddenly went 'oh that's OK then, let change our previous ways'? Of course not, as such the teaching of specific understanding of the LGBT community is still required, schools are the best place to start ...

yep, schools are best place to start, because you can't do much with idiots who are already homophobic. But I can't agree on "teaching of specific understanding" (whatever that means) because it is not necessary. Teachers should highlight and promote equality and educate about human sexuality.

Are you honestly going to say no one in the UK or Czech republic is being targeted or discriminated against based on sexuality?

All right, I added Britain just to quote Milo (which should stir up the discussion), but we don't have many issues with gay rights, as mainly atheist country we don't have much prejudice ... if you want to include full marriage and adoption we are getting there, but change needs to be well paced, because we also have loud religious types.

Of course, crimes happen and you know that is impossible to get rid of it completely.

 

[Bo]

But I can't agree on "teaching of specific understanding" (whatever that means) because it is not necessary. Teachers should highlight and promote equality and educate about human sexuality.

I've been in the British education system for over 12 years, and I can safely say that the only way to get such a message across to children of all ages is by specifying certain issues. A lot of people just aren't bright enough, or don't care enough, to apply a cliched message of equality to their everyday lives.

 

[Scaff]

I did use it to describe how they are treated by some.

Then I would suggest you take more care with how you phrase things in future, because that's not how you wrote it at all.

yep, schools are best place to start, because you can't do much with idiots who are already homophobic. But I can't agree on "teaching of specific understanding" (whatever that means) because it is not necessary. Teachers should highlight and promote equality and educate about human sexuality.

It's more than necessary and its certainly more effective that your apparent suggestion of just change some rights (but not all) and everything will be just fine in the end.

Ignorance and prejudice needs to be addressed, discussed and challenged; not ignored.

All right, I added Britain just to quote Milo (which should stir up the discussion), but we don't have many issues with gay rights, as mainly atheist country we don't have much prejudice ... if you want to include full marriage and adoption we are getting there, but change needs to be well paced, because we also have loud religious types.

I'm sorry but you failed in both the examples you gave, neither has equal treatment for all sexuality’s, either in law or in society in general.

Not only that but you freely acknowledge that prejudice still exists and needs to be challenged!

Of course, crimes happen and you know that is impossible to get rid of it completely.

I didn't say it could, but thanks for answering a question I didn't ask.

I was not talking about crime in general, I was talking about crime that specifically targets people of a certain sexuality, crime that is on the rise in the UK and certainly has not been eradicated in any country (answer me this, how many people are targeted for attacks because they are straight).

Your answer is little more than saying 'crime happens, so stop moaning about it', when people are being targeted simply because of their sexuality. I'm sorry, but that kind of attitude alone illustrates exactly how far we still have to go.

 

[novcze]

It's more than necessary and its certainly more effective that your apparent suggestion of just change some rights (but not all) and everything will be just fine in the end.

now you're making stuff up


btw. what needs to be done in mainland Britain, so you would see LGBT rights on the same level as everyone else's rights. Transgender issue in prisons is already recognized and further change in the law is probably in the works, what else?

I'm sorry but you failed in both the examples you gave, neither has equal treatment for all sexuality’s, either in law or in society in general.

Sure I failed, because if you formulate question like this:

Are you honestly going to say no one in the UK or Czech republic is being targeted or discriminated against based on sexuality?

you can predict outcome easily.

Not only that but you freely acknowledge that prejudice still exists and needs to be challenged!

Is this surprising? ... some people will always have prejudice, question is whether their prejudice translates into hate crime or whether their respect for human rights will be stronger. That's why I see emphasis on human rights more important.


btw. who is average perpetrator of hate crime in the UK?

 

[Scaff]

now you're making stuff up

Am I?

I asked you to name a country in which legally and socially the LGBT community is equal, you gave the UK and Czech Rep as examples, neither of which offer either equal rights, nor are the equal socially (how many people get attacked or murdered for being straight?).

As such I can only assume that by using these examples that you believe that represents equality. Why else would you have used them?

btw. what needs to be done in mainland Britain, so you would see LGBT rights on the same level as everyone else's rights. Transgender issue in prisons is already recognized and further change in the law is probably in the works, what else?

The trans-gender issue in prisons is not resolved at all, the case I linked to was the second in a matter of months, an I do like that you have moved the goal-posts.

Like it or not Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, you don't get to remove it because its an inconvenience.

Sure I failed, because if you formulate question like this:

you can predict outcome easily.

It was formulated in that way from the very first time I asked it.....

"Pick a country, don't mind which, but can you honestly state, with a straight face, that the LGBT community is treated exactly the same and/or has the exact same rights as the rest of society in any country?"

....so don't blame me that you answered with countries that don't met that standard. Unless the level of crime targeted at the LGBT community because of sexuality is the same as that of the straight community because of its sexuality then a country doesn't treat them the same way. Nor do they provide the same rights if they don't offer the same rights; I have to be honest those are rather straightforward things to understand, so it not my issue, nor the question that is to blame for the answer you gave.

Is this surprising? ... some people will always have prejudice, question is whether their prejudice translates into hate crime or whether their respect for human rights will be stronger. That's why I see emphasis on human rights more important.

Yes they will, but just changing the law is not the only answer. Nor does it preclude both changing the law to offer equal rights and educating people!

btw. who is average perpetrator of hate crime in the UK?

I would imagine the most common groups would be the far right and religious fundamentalists (from a range of faiths). The former seem to be the main root of physical attacks and the later the main root of attempts to limit equal rights. however even the mainstream right of centre in the UK has members who campaign against equal rights. As such we still have a long way to go in the UK (see how long and how much effort it took to repeal Clause 28 as an example), and as such attempting to use it as an example of everything being fine is both to be ignorant of the reality and rather worrying.

 

[novcze]

I asked you to name a country in which legally and socially the LGBT community is equal, you gave the UK and Czech Rep as examples, neither of which offer either equal rights, nor are the equal socially (how many people get attacked or murdered for being straight?).

As such I can only assume that by using these examples that you believe that represents equality. Why else would you have used them?

Maybe because I wanted to know what you consider wrong in these countries, especially in the UK because you are citizen there. I could have picked France, but you would insist on the fact that some LGBT people are attacked because of their sexuality and therefore they are not equal socially. With this criteria your definition of equality is impossible to achieve, because some idiots will always exist.

The trans-gender issue in prisons is not resolved at all, the case I linked to was the second in a matter of months,

I didn't say it is resolved, I said recognized.

Yes they will, but just changing the law is not the only answer. Nor does it preclude both changing the law to offer equal rights and educating people!

I didn't say anything about not educating people. It was more about where is line before it becomes hysterical.

I would imagine the most common groups would be the far right and religious fundamentalists (from a range of faiths). The former seem to be the main root of physical attacks and the later the main root of attempts to limit equal rights. however even the mainstream right of centre in the UK has members who campaign against equal rights. As such we still have a long way to go in the UK (see how long and how much effort it took to repeal Clause 28 as an example), and as such attempting to use it as an example of everything being fine is both to be ignorant of the reality and rather worrying.

Clause 28 was repealed in 2003, right. And attempts to limit equal rights, do anyone take them seriously in the UK?
Any statistics on those crimes?

 

[squadops]

Is this surprising? ... some people will always have prejudice, question is whether their prejudice translates into hate crime or whether their respect for human rights will be stronger. That's why I see emphasis on human rights more important.

Mind policing is not a good thing, we all have thoughts and feelings, acting upon them is of course another thing 👍

 

[Scaff]

Maybe because I wanted to know what you consider wrong in these countries, especially in the UK because you are citizen there. I could have picked France, but you would insist on the fact that some LGBT people are attacked because of their sexuality and therefore they are not equal socially. With this criteria your definition of equality is impossible to achieve, because some idiots will always exist.

Why is it impossible to achieve given that societies have existed in which sexuality of any nature was not an issue? It even exists within other species (many of which are social and/or pack based) without issue, as such the inequality is the un-natural element, not the other way around.

Now regardless of that you seem to also be implying that just because its not easy then its not worth trying, I disagree and because its not easy is exactly why you can't just put equal rights in place (which we still don't have across the board) and leave it at that.

I didn't say it is resolved, I said recognized.

Yet you still used the UK as an example of equality in society and law, when its clearly not and an example from 2015 shows just that.

I didn't say anything about not educating people. It was more about where is line before it becomes hysterical.

So engaging people in discussion about prejudice against groups that are targeted because on sexuality (or for that matter any trait) is hysterical (is it just as hysterical to discuss with people that Eastern European's are not coming to the UK to steal all your jobs and take all your benefits? That's the sort of view that many of the same people also hold).

I'm sorry but that's nonsense.

Clause 28 was repealed in 2003, right. And attempts to limit equal rights, do anyone take them seriously in the UK?
Any statistics on those crimes?

And you think that in the passing 13 years everything has resolved itself? Given that we have had a rise in homophobic hate crimes in the UK over the last few years and transgender people being attacked and dying because they have been forced into the wrong gender prisons, I would disagree.

Now given that we have moved things along reasonably well in the UK, that we still have so many issues illustrates that we still have a way to go (oh and as for crime stats - I've already provided them).

I volunteer for a number of groups that monitors extremist groups on social media (far right, neo-nazi, extreme religious) with an eye to building a picture of the scale and also to report such activity to whomever can best deal with it. As such I know full well that a loud and violent minority do certainly exist and base a lot of the justification on myth and nonsense.

Mind policing is not a good thing, we all have thoughts and feelings, acting upon them is of course another thing 👍

No one is talking about mind policing and no one is advocating telling people what they must think.

Its about discussing the subject, asking people why they hold a view that they do and looking at the root cause of that view and asking them to question it.

Teaching debate, discussion and critical thinking is not mind policing.

However bottling those feelings up (regardless of if they are based on inaccurate information and/or baseless assumptions) and never discussing them, debating them and analyzing them is sure to end well.

 

[squadops]

Well I stick to my guns, just as novcze seems to do, it's easy to me, be nice is all.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Teaching debate, discussion and critical thinking is not mind policing.

The funny thing is that I teach Nineteen Eighty-Four in senior English. My class regularly debates, discusses and critically analyses it.

 

[novcze]

So engaging people in discussion about prejudice against groups that are targeted because on sexuality (or for that matter any trait) is hysterical

I admire your (hopefully genuine) interest in these things, but I just doubt that any amount of discussion will change those violent idiots who are real problem.

 

[Scaff]

I admire your (hopefully genuine) interest in these things, but I just doubt that any amount of discussion will change those violent idiots who are real problem.

And that's why having the programmes based in school (to bring this back full circle) is so important and, for me, a perfectly valid use of money (not that I ever give up hope that people can't change regardless of age).

 

[TenEightyOne]

I admire your (hopefully genuine) interest in these things, but I just doubt that any amount of discussion will change those violent idiots who are real problem.

So 8 year olds can be violent idiots and the schools should have no policy in their education that seeks to teach them otherwise?

 

[squadops]

No, 8 year olds deserve to be left alone, except for what their parents decide of course.

 

[Imari]

No, 8 year olds deserve to be left alone, except for what their parents decide of course.

So the school having initiatives to teach kids not to punch little Timmy in the face is also something you're against. Gotcha.

 

[squadops]

Of course. You are the one that forced the kid to attend.

 

[huskeR32]

No, 8 year olds deserve to be left alone, except for what their parents decide of course.

I just can't take you seriously anymore. Take a moment and really ponder what our world would be like if the only thing youth were taught is what their parents wanted them to learn.

You can't honestly believe that that would be a better world to live in, can you?

 

[squadops]

Of course I can, but I think of a responsible people. I will never be down with your 'village' approach.

Education is a great thing, if it is educating. I firmly believe that some of you are trying to make up for your own short comings through our children. I do not like that because they know how to get on and they will, just fine without all your meddling.

It is my opinion, I happen to be correct btw. You will die before they do.