So now that gay marriage is legal..

[Wegra]

What big issue should we push for to be taken care of next ?

[Feoric]

At 6/29/15 03:20 PM, Wegra wrote: What big issue should we push for to be taken care of next ?

Making straight marriage illegal.

[Dr-Worm]

Campaign finance reform?

Hahaha, just kidding. Weed.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/29/15 03:57 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Campaign finance reform?

Citizen's United killed that dead.

Hahaha, just kidding. Weed.

I expect weed to be de-criminalized (if not outright legalized) within the next 5 years with very little outcry.

[orangebomb]

At 6/29/15 07:44 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I expect weed to be de-criminalized (if not outright legalized) within the next 5 years with very little outcry.

Unlike gay marriage which was a civil right, weed legalization isn't exactly a high priority among folks other than stoners and moral guardians, even with approval rates of marijuana (either medicinal or otherwise) are above 50% and growing. I do expect weed to be legalized (skipping decriminalization) though I expect that individual states will do so instead of a SCOTUS decision, on the federal level, weed legalization isn't that high of a priority.

[Radaketor]

Male rights.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/29/15 08:07 PM, orangebomb wrote: Unlike gay marriage which was a civil right, weed legalization isn't exactly a high priority among folks other than stoners and moral guardians, even with approval rates of marijuana (either medicinal or otherwise) are above 50% and growing. I do expect weed to be legalized (skipping decriminalization) though I expect that individual states will do so instead of a SCOTUS decision, on the federal level, weed legalization isn't that high of a priority.

Oh, agreed 100%, I see this being individual states continue to do it, and then a President who sees the way the momentum is going signs a bill from a Congress who has done same, and the game is over.

[Heretic-Anchorite]

At 7/1/15 04:55 PM, NekoMika wrote:

At 7/1/15 04:42 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 7/1/15 02:39 PM, NekoMika wrote: I've lost two jobs after I came out as trans. One was fast food and another was at a factory recently. Most of it being on the grounds that they don't feel the need to address you correctly.

Wait...you quit, or they fired you?

First time, quit, second time fired.

You where fired on the grounds of how they felt like addressing you?

Have you considered talking to the ACLU, or any general attorney about this? I'm not an expert in law, but I hope such actions would give you a strong case of wrongful termination.

[Neoslayre]

At 7/1/15 04:55 PM, NekoMika wrote:

At 7/1/15 02:39 PM, NekoMika wrote: I've lost two jobs after I came out as trans. One was fast food and another was at a factory recently. Most of it being on the grounds that they don't feel the need to address you correctly.

First time, quit, second time fired.

They fired you for being trans? That's really messed up.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/1/15 08:57 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: NekoMika, I say this with no ill intent, but I think you need to grow a thicker skin.

I'll hold him to that when you can scrounge up a modicum of compassion.

[Malachy]

At 7/1/15 05:22 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: Have you considered talking to the ACLU, or any general attorney about this? I'm not an expert in law, but I hope such actions would give you a strong case of wrongful termination.

In many states it is totally legal to fire somebody because of their sexual orientation or for being transgender. That's probably the next big fight after marriage equality because anti-discrimination laws have not advanced as quickly as marriage equality in the US.

[Warforger]

At 7/1/15 08:57 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: NekoMika, I say this with no ill intent, but I think you need to grow a thicker skin.

-_- That seems awfully strange coming from you.

At 7/3/15 01:57 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: It's still just being petty over pronouns. If you're going to sabotage your career over something as piddling as that, then you will always stay where you are, on the corporate ladder. Entry-level and bitter.

You can't change the world, but you can change how you react to the world.

You know something about that coming from you is strange.....

Actually, it is completely compassionate. I don't know why you keep insisting that it is not.

Hmm I can't quite put my finger on it.

If I had a child who complained of being bullied, I'd say "Birds always peck at the best fruit."

So you boost up their confidence to arrogance levels..

or "Tough it out; act like it doesn't bother you, and they'll stop it."

Which doesn't work. You must know nothing about bullying.

You see the reason this sounds strange coming from you is because you've been the #1 voice for a right wing brand of Political Correctness on this forum. Let just explain... oh wait that would mean I would have to post what I think and that takes too long because the average person can't read a paragraph. So the guy who complains about long posts on here, as even being offensive, tells someone else to adapt to their world instead of trying to change it, even though he himself refuses to become knowledgeable about issues and to debate his point of view? You've said that you were complaining to mods that this forum has been an echo chamber because posts are too long, so they should be shortened so the average General user feels welcome. You know what's called? Political Correctness. The exact thing you're complaining about here. Apparently people with low attention spans are worthy of our accomodation, but trans people are not.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/3/15 01:01 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: But that's simply not realistic in the current cultural climate. To most Americans, an overwhelming majority, there are two sexes, male and female, and that's that. Over and out. No in-betweens, no gray area. It's as stark as black and white, on or off, there or not there. And this is what they really believe.

Which ok, that's their right to believe that...but what does that have to do with giving them a legal right to treat someone who doesn't identify in the standard way with discrimination, and in the second case Neko mentioned, out and out fire her from her job solely because she used to be one sex and is now another? That's the issue. Not trying to create a certain cultural standard of belief, but promoting fairness and protecting people from unjust and unfair treatment.

[Ericho]

At 6/29/15 03:57 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Campaign finance reform?

Hahaha, just kidding. Weed.

Yep, most of us were thinking the same thing, and then prostitution. In terms of things that should be illegal, I'm against capital punishment.

[Little-Kinky]

Pollution, corruption, gentrification, deforestation, the American Psychiatric Association.

[Ericho]

At 7/4/15 11:11 AM, Little-Kinky wrote: corruption

Corruption will always be around. It's simply something that you can't prohibit because it's inevitable. It would be like prohibiting death...which some people have actually tried. Seriously, look that crap up!

[Radaketor]

At 7/1/15 04:55 PM, NekoMika wrote:

At 7/1/15 04:42 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 7/1/15 02:39 PM, NekoMika wrote: I've lost two jobs after I came out as trans. One was fast food and another was at a factory recently. Most of it being on the grounds that they don't feel the need to address you correctly.

Wait...you quit, or they fired you?

First time, quit, second time fired.

You quit the first one because they didn't call you by your preferred pronoun? Maybe it's just me but if i they'd be paying me i wouldn't give a fuck if they called me Miss Piggy or any other name.

[Devsonx]

The cause to legitimize transgenderism is even more absurd than the cause to legalize same-sex marriage. Transvestism is one thing. Blue for boys, pink for girls, etc. — as far as I can tell, these norms are entirely customary. A man who cross-dresses and wears mascara may look odd based on the prevailing fashions of a society, but he hasn't yet stumbled into the twilight zone of insane subjectivism. The problem with transgenderism is that a man, for example, claims he is in fact a woman, despite all evidence to the contrary. And here I am not talking about genuinely tragic cases in which the physical or physiological markers are either ambiguous or missing (e.g., hermaphroditism, aphallia), but rather someone like Bruce Jenner whose only "proof" that he is in fact a woman is his desire to be one.

The only thing more absurd than this sort of aesthetic transgenderism is the inconsistent application of self-identity principles by many of those who claim to be champions of self-identity. (See, for example, the public backlash against Rachel Dolezal and her claim that she identifies as a black woman.) But then, the modern-day identity movement has never been known for its logical acuity. This is a little engine powered almost entirely by the warm coals of unbridled passion and self-love.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/12/15 03:24 PM, Devsonx wrote: The cause to legitimize transgenderism is even more absurd than the cause to legalize same-sex marriage.

So you've explained how it would be an issue were it to pose any harms. So, what harms does this pose?

[Devsonx]

Camaro,

I didn't make any claims about harm.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/12/15 07:33 PM, Devsonx wrote: I didn't make any claims about harm.

OK, then so what?

[Devsonx]

So nothing, if you're not opposed to compelling society—either by law or by custom—to participate in the delusions of others. There's certainly no immediate physical harm in making that sort of demand. But in my experience, those who adhere to the no-harm principle never do so in an unqualified sense. This was on full display during the fortnight that Bruce Jenner called himself a white woman (and received praises galore) while Rachel Dolezal called her herself a black woman (and was vilified as a sham). And of course there are many other activities that we prohibit but which do no incontrovertibly "harm" anyone, such as necrophilia, incest, polygamous relationships, and certain variations of pedophilia and zoophilia. Again, in my experience, I have yet to come across anyone who is willing to permit all harmless activities, but perhaps you'll be the fellow who surprises me with a consistent application of that old libertarian principle. Then again, there's also no inevitable "harm" in being inconsistent or being a hypocrite. I admit, it's a nifty little principle.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

what gay marriage has been legalized?! the sanctity of the institution between man and wife sullied because of this godless country, there will be riots in the street wives and daughters raped before their necks bleed, fire rain from the sky!

oh wait whats that its been nearly a month since its been legalized? and none of that is happening, what happened to the Rapture?!

I saw something like this on facebook which made me laugh.

[Devsonx]

Nor would society violently collapse if we legalized many of the more exotic sexual practices that are still outlawed. It also wouldn't violently collapse if we subjected elementary schoolchildren to pornographic films every Friday, or if the government required every television show to be preceded by a recording of a priest reciting Holy Scripture. Many things currently outlawed would not bring about bloodletting and pandemonium if tomorrow they were made lawful. And even if they did, just as the LGBT would not accept a violent reaction against the legalization of same-sex marriage as a reason to return to traditional norms, so too would it be unacceptable for us to change any other policy simply because a faction violently opposes it.

[ChiralAnomaly]

You can arrive at whatever conclusion you prefer by comparing apples and oranges and restricting the focus to physical harm.

The moral aspects such as society acceptance of gay marriage and gay rights and the concept and purpose of marriages in modern times are also important considerations.

I think whether limiting marriages to opposite sexes constitutes a deprivation of the right to dignity is arguable.

[Devsonx]

At 7/13/15 01:26 PM, Sobolev wrote: You can arrive at whatever conclusion you prefer by comparing apples and oranges and restricting the focus to physical harm.

In what way have I compared apples to oranges?

[NeonSpider]

At 7/3/15 12:11 AM, Malachy wrote:

At 7/1/15 05:22 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: Have you considered talking to the ACLU, or any general attorney about this? I'm not an expert in law, but I hope such actions would give you a strong case of wrongful termination.

In many states it is totally legal to fire somebody because of their sexual orientation or for being transgender. That's probably the next big fight after marriage equality because anti-discrimination laws have not advanced as quickly as marriage equality in the US.

Thank you! I would actually say it should go further than that.

Presently, we have this list of things employers are not allowed to discriminate. Like, you can't discriminate based on religion or race, for example. Merely adding new items to this list (for example, sexual orientation), isn't going far enough, in my opinion.

How far should we go? IMO, it should be illegal to discriminate for any reason which is not job-relevant. If they have the qualifications and can do the job and aren't putting the company at legal risk, you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate for any other reason. That should umbrella just about everything.

As-is someone could discriminate for just about any reason other than the few which are cherry-picked on the "not allowed" list. Don't like the same sports team your boss does? He could fire you for that. It's downright silly.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/13/15 07:41 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: It would solve everything; no more belly-aching from anybody.

Yes, let's replace a single problem only to some with a ton of logistical and actual problems. That'll end up better.

[Helii]

At 7/8/15 01:23 PM, UltraAusterity wrote: Increasing minimum wage.

And maximum

[Ericho]

After weed, a lot of people will want to legalize LSD. We'll probably also have to legalize all the other drugs eventually. It looks like it's going to take a long time, because there's so many drugs out there! Prostitution will probably come after...most of those.