Social Question

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Would things change overall if people voted based on improving things for those who are LGBT?

Asked by Simone_De_Beauvoir (38863 points ) December 3rd, 2011

I find this to be an informative chart. Now, I’m not one to generally talk about the assimilationst gay agenda but it is startling to see across the board just how little so many candidates would do to make sure that people who are LGBT have equal rights as all others. I know that people think these matters are ‘special interest’ but what would happen if they weren’t treated as such? What if every voter thought about LGBT issues first (hypothetically) – would things change in terms of other issues as well? Or what is the utility in thinking about the rights of those on the fray rather than the rights of those who are in the majority? What if instead of catering to the lowest common denominator, we catered to the highest?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

67 Answers

cazzie's avatar

Are you suggesting that the interests of the LGBT group are the highest common denominator? Why do I feel this is an extremely loaded question, coming from you? (and I write that as a fan of yours and as a full supporter of human rights… ALL humans. and living in a country that is Christian and also has legal marriages for all people in love and wanting to make that commitment to each other.)

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@cazzie No, not necessarily. You can pick any ‘fringe rights’ group you want. Say Native Americans. What would happen if every person voted based on what those candidates would do for Native Americans. Would that change things overall? I just picked LGBT ‘cause I was looking at that chart. The question is more philosophical, not loaded.

cazzie's avatar

Well, that is not comparing apples with apples. Giving one group the right to marry doesn’t equate with increasing funds, subsidies and special interest public investment to the detriment of other special interest groups.

I think I know what you are getting at though. If the entire voting block suddenly got a conscience and decided to put their own personal issues aside and looked at issues and people who had it more unjust and unfair than themselves, would it create a better society. My answer is ABSOLUTELY YES!

If the US grew a conscience and an active, engaged, interested voting public, they would be unstoppable. Unfortunately, they are instead victims of misinformation, special interest lobbiests, ‘divide and conquor’, and , not least of all, under-education and the Bread and Circus routines that distract them from caring and create a culture of apathy.

I think all smart people in the US should move to other countries or agree to populate certain states, so they can effect chances on a state level, like Oregon or Massachusetts. Then, those smart states should succeed from the Union. ‘nuff said.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@cazzie My partner always says the same thing, in terms of secession. It’s just that I think when people take care of the ‘worst in society’( based on discrimination), everyone in society benefits. Kind of like when women are thought of as human and are taught how to read, the entire country benefits economically.

cazzie's avatar

I feel bad for the USA. I was born there and spent the first 19 years of my life there. I go back and visit now and I don’t recognise the place. It’s size is daunting, something I didn’t realise before I moved away. It’s historical ticks and eccentricities are self destructive.

If you have not been to New Orleans, I strongly suggest you go there. Spend some time with it’s residents, the older ones, if you can still find them. Volunteer with Volunteers of American with their Lighthouse program that helps kids with after school activities. Talk about a group of disenfranchised. Sad, horrible stories. There’s little room there for most people to feel sorry for themselves. If you think you’re hard done by, talk to your neighbour. They found strength in that, oddly enough. They found the strength to do what they had to do to help themselves AND their neighbour. Truly enlightening stuff. I was able to look past all the ‘Amens’ and ‘Praise the Lords’. It was how they dealt with things. I never had the heart to tell them I was an atheist and did as my mother would have done in those situations to be as gracious as possible. Keeping her in my mind and heart helped sooo much, it was really to the point, I would go back to the apartment at night and have conversations with her after a glass or two of wine. (My mother has been dead since 2002.)

There will always be someone worse off than yourself. It behoves a society to look after those suffering. I really hope, one day, that the USA realises this.

HungryGuy's avatar

I think things would improve dramatically for everyone, including LGBT people, if a majority of people voted to let people, any people (regardless of their particular cultural affiliation), live their lives any way they want to that is peaceful and mutually consensual.

muppetish's avatar

Honestly, I do. I have no support for this, but I know that I would personally feel safer and happier living in a country led by someone supportive of all persons. In fact, it is my deal breaker with candidates. Don’t support me and I won’t support you.

judochop's avatar

I think things will start to improve once we move past all the labels and pigeon holing that goes on. Once we start to actually have educated voters that view the issue at hand and have some compassion we will improve as humans. I know that’s asking a ton though.

Aethelflaed's avatar

I think it would (though, for LGBT? Only if “LGBT Rights” means more than just “making marriage possible for otherwise normative gay and lesbian people”), but I have doubts as to our ability to actually look at the fringe. It seems like we don’t really become more accepting so much as shift who the acceptable target is. It often seems like having an Enemy, an Other, is an integral part of human nature and society.

Blackberry's avatar

Of course things would be better, but it is the simple fact that rights for everyone have to be labeled as “special interest”. There’s no special interest in making sure people are treated fairly, that’s just an “interest”.

This won’t happen because we still live in a reptilian brain-like society. There are too many people that just think of these people as “gross” or “weird”.

Sueanne_Tremendous's avatar

As a lesbian of over 50 years i don’t trust anyone to advocate for me. Equal rights? That ain’t never gonna happen and not just for LBGT. The world is an unequal place. It will remain so for time eternal. Those who feel they are treated “unequally” need to strap it on (sorry) and fight the good fight by being who they are. Let their light shine. sorry if this is disjointed…I am playing poker while typing this People buy into a cause more often when they are not forced into it. In the 60’s and 70’s when our generation started “coming out” it was difficult but g-damn were accepted more than anyone would have ever thought.

SuperMouse's avatar

I think things would change dramatically. Anyone who outwardly supports equal rights for any so called fringe group would by definition have to be compassionate and not only accepting, but quite possibly welcoming of the diversity that has the potential to make this country great. As @HungryGuy said, I think that coming at things from that perspective could do nothing but improve things for all people. That is all people except the ones who are voting for Gingrich et al based on their stances as graphically depicted on the chart you linked. Who knows eventually they might even learn to let go of their fear and hatred and accept that an open mind is actually a good thing.

garb's avatar

I don’t think things would change in other issues as well because from my personal experience I have found the LGBT community supporting economic systems that violate an individuals freedom of choice. Like they support large social welfare systems, regulations or markets, etc.. A person cannot exercise their freedom of choice to opt-out of these programs and cannot make his/her own decisions on who they hire. If a Corporation doesn’t want to hire homosexuals, then he/she is exercising his/her freedom of choice. Denying it, is denying their right.After-all, Corporations and business’s are privately owned. I can deny/kick someone out of my house if I don’t want them in it.

So I vote against LGBT rights and do everything I can to oppose their cause out of spite for this reason. Otherwise I have no problem with them, well accept if this stuff is taught to my children in school(another right violation), but thankfully private schools won’t allow any of that.

In other words, if you they expect to have rights, then they must not be hypocritical in denying rights to others and influencing those who don’t want to be influenced.

Blackberry's avatar

@garb I’m not sure if you know this, but markets need to be regulated to prevent the same thing that happened in 2008, and so we don’t have to recall toys for having dangerous chemicals in them.

Also the market is already a large welfare system, because organizations make risky investments and are bailed out when they fail.

Also, I gave you a great answer on accident.

And…..what do you mean by teaching kids in school?

Aethelflaed's avatar

@Blackberry I believe the user is referencing the “homosexual agenda”, in which gay people secretly infiltrate schools so as to convert children into being gay.

garb's avatar

@Blackberry,

I’m not going into a fact argument with you, but markets don’t need to be regulated because the people in the market regulate the market, and you can thank Mr. Obama, and the democrats who controlled congress and the senate under Bush’s regime for the bailouts. They turned a free market into welfare. A real market would allow banks to fail, as it allows any Corporation to go bankrupt when they make bad investments.

It’s none of your business what a private institution does with its investments. All transactions were legal and those that were not, they got sued over it, case closed, they paid their fines.

But even before you get into regulations, regulations are funded with taxes, and you cannot opt-out of paying for regulations, thus your freedom of choice is violated.

I mean that I don’t want schools teaching my children that homosexuality is alright. I don’t want my kids exposed to that. I want them to be in a heterosexual environment only. That’s my choice.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@garb Wow, can we drop the homophobic sentiment on my thread – its offensive. Please take it elsewhere.

cazzie's avatar

@garb, what colour is the sky in your world, Baldric? We all live in a homosexual and heterosexual environment. It’s called being part of the human race. If you don’t want to be in the race, by all means, separate yourself to a little island somewhere to create your perfect fantasy land that already apparently exists in your head. (free market is perfect as it is… what a load of clap trap.) Take your Aryan Rand books with you.

garb's avatar

Yes, we all live in an environment with homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Now what does this have to do with rights or anything I said?...

cazzie's avatar

@garb wrote: I don’t want my kids exposed to that. I want them to be in a heterosexual environment only. That’s my choice.

garb's avatar

Yes, choice is one of my rights. If homosexuals support economic and social systems that violate my choice, then I will out of spite violate theirs.

If you say we all live together in society, then we should respect each others rights, correct?

If I don’t want my kids exposed to homosexuality, I’m exercising my freedom of choice. It doesn’t affect you, or homosexuals.

cazzie's avatar

So… you’re both delusional and spiteful. By stating you don’t want your children ‘exposed’ to homosexuality, then you must have to ban a terrible load of things from their world. Your demand would make it impossible for gays to teach or be doctors that treat children, not to mention entertainers and artists. By making that demand, you do, indeed, infringe on the rights of others. Can you not see that?

If it doesn’t hurt you, you can’t enforce your will on others, by your own definition of discrimination.

garb's avatar

No, gays can teach, gay doctors can treat people, just not mine.

What is the big deal? Not enough straight teachers and doctors?

You’re worried about things that don’t concern you. What we’re discussing is me exercising my right of choice. If you expect homosexuals to have rights, then I expect you to support my freedom of choice.

HungryGuy's avatar

@garb – One the one hand, it is a defensible position to say you oppose goverment regulation that forces people to interact with people they don’t want to interact with.

On the other hand, you’re going way beyond that by saying that you, personally, don’t believe that certain people have a right to exist in society; but since they do anyway, they need to live apart and build their own independent economy separate from everyone else.

Please don’t take this as a personal attack, I’m just saying that this position is indefensible and abhorrent to most people.

You’re gonna have to make sure your flame-proof undies comply with government safety regulations, I’m afraid…

cazzie's avatar

@garb, that is the definition of discrimination. It’s long been decided that that type of thinking is both outdated and ignorant. Good luck finding that island to live on. It sounds like it is your ‘choice’ to not live in a civil society. So be it. I think I would make that choice for you if I was in the position to do so.

Aster's avatar

@Aethelflaed ”....... in which gay people secretly infiltrate schools so as to convert children into being gay.” Is this happening? You can’t convert kids into being gay; you’re born gay. Are you serious?

cazzie's avatar

@Aster, .... @Aethelflaed is simply clarifying something @garb wrote. @Aethelflaed isn’t suggesting that is a valid suggestion, just simply clarifying to @Blackberry what was meant by @garb.

Aster's avatar

Oh. I’m slow today, cazzie. lol Thanks.

garb's avatar

@HungryGuy,

I’m not trying to convince you, cazzie, or the questionnaire of my views. I simply gave my personal take on it.

It’s just one of many things to consider for gays on why there are still those who deny them rights. If they want progress, they have to have mutual respect. Respect the rights of others to attain theirs.

Obviously you can still try and work around those who deny you rights. I do it all the time on a economic level.

cazzie's avatar

is wondering how many gays are in @garb‘s life without him even knowing it. Also wondering how much spit he has ingested from waiters and waitresses who have served him food.

garb's avatar

I live in a private community. I only go out to private locations. My kids are in private schools.

And what I mean by private, I mean everyone knows each other. Word would come out quickly if someone was a homosexual.

In a sense, I do live in my own world within a society. I shield myself and those I care for, from what I don’t want to be exposed to.

garb's avatar

Oh, and cazzie, you said discrimination is long gone, but why is it that my entire community is white, all the workers and business’s are white, all the classrooms have white students and teachers.

I haven’t seen an actual minority in years. So obviously it is alive and well. The reason they’re not in the community is because 1. they cannot afford it, and 2. no one hires them.

The practical is far different then how it ought to be on paper. Discrimination/Segmentation is a live and well and there is nothing wrong with it. It causes no one physical harm. It’s simply individuals exercising their rights.

cazzie's avatar

When did I say it was long gone? You are living, breathing, writing proof bigotry is alive and well. I think the word you meant, instead of Segmentation is Segregation and you seem to encourage it and enjoy it in your life.

garb's avatar

Oh, that’s an awkward typo, heh.

@cazzie wrote, “that is the definition of discrimination. It’s long been decided that that type of thinking is both outdated and ignorant.”

Discrimination doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. It doesn’t deny it either. It doesn’t cause physical harm, therefore, it’s not a problem. A owner of his/her private property can decide who he/she wants to let in the store, who to hire, how much to pay. A Corporation and a business is no different then someone’s home. It’s privately owned and they set the rules of their property. They’re exercising their rights. If you want to violate these rights, then you will be paid back in kind.

Bigotry is only an issue when physical harm is involved. None are presented here.

bkcunningham's avatar

Please, tell me you live somewhere other than the South, @garb.

cazzie's avatar

(I call troll.)

garb's avatar

@bkcunningham,

Yes, I live in New York.

bkcunningham's avatar

Thank you God. Not that I agree or disagree with you @garb, I actually understand where you are coming from. I just didn’t want those who are quick to stereotype southerners to fire off more of their bigotry against the south.

garb's avatar

Let them stereotype, free speech. :)

They are the one’s that don’t want you to stereotype. There utopian theories are meaningless on a practical level.

cazzie's avatar

you forgot a third reason (and probably the only real reason) minorities don’t live in your area. 3: They would have to deal with bigots like you. (You only THINK you haven’t come in contact with minorities.)

garb's avatar

Your reason works just as well. Your reason is basically saying they cause their own segregation by willingly leaving. Thanks for making my point.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

In NY? LOLOL. What community in NY isn’t ‘infiltrated’ by us queers? That’s crazy. All I can think of is how difficult it must be for people in your ‘private community’ to be gay, since trust me there are LGBT people in that community. It’s called being in a closet and not saying anything, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

bkcunningham's avatar

New York is a big state, @Simone_De_Beauvoir. Not just a city.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@bkcunningham I know. It doesn’t matter. You can’t actually believe that in any given community, all people are ‘devoutly’ straight.

bkcunningham's avatar

I don’t believe it for a second,, but whatever floats their boat. It is their fantasy and I hate to prick their insulated bubble with reality. Who knows? It might be in the covenents and deed restrictions and they all take a pledge to drown any children who show signs of not being “normal.”

garb's avatar

Oh, there are more then a few communities in Suffolk/Nassau County that are LGBT free.

Even if there are closeted homosexuals as you claim, I don’t have a problem with them as long as they keep it to themselves. It’s when they come out of the closet, or when some form of influence is present, only then will I be pissed.

SuperMouse's avatar

@garb what kind of influence are you afraid homosexuals can exert over your life and the life of your family?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@garb Wow, you are contributing to a terrible world. I’m sorry for your kids. As, I’m sure, you are for mine. Can you believe their mother is queer, a feminist and doesn’t believe in gender norms? And their father totally agrees with all of this?! Crazy shit. I’m planning on having more kids, how many do you have?

Aethelflaed's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Careful, he might not know those big words like “queer”...

garb's avatar

@SuperMouse,

I think homosexuality is wrong and I’m living it at that. Since I think it’s wrong, I don’t want my kids, my wife, or anyone I know to be apart of something I find to be wrong. My wife’s in agreement, and my kids look to me for guidance. So I move to environments that offer such an environment.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir,

No, I’m exercising my rights. It’s amazing how you demand rights when you cannot even start by tolerating the rights of others. I have 6 children. 3 boys, 3 girls.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Aethelflaed Actually, people afraid of us know our language more than you think. @garb I’m sorry, I demand rights in terms of equality, not in terms of segregation. Kind of a big difference.

garb's avatar

Right, we should all be allowed to equally have the freedom of choice. That’s socially and economically. Race, wealth, gender should be a non-issue.

bkcunningham's avatar

@garb, I get what you are saying. Honestly. I agree that you have every right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. It isn’t even a right. You think homosexuality is wrong. Period. That isn’t even a right in my book. That is how you feel and think. Cool. But don’t kid yourself for a minute and think you can insulate yourself from having a neighbor a co-worker or a parishioner at your church, someone visiting your neighbor ... who doesn’t at least struggle with feelings of attraction for someone of the same sex. That isn’t reality. Your reality is your reality. I get that you think homosexuality is wrong. But your reality doesn’t make people disappear.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@garb See, freedom of choice can mean things like abortion or not abortion, private or public school, where to live, etc. It doesn’t mean you can discriminate against whole groups of people. I mean, I guess you can since that’s what you’re actively doing and you can insulate yourself all you like but as long as you and I are both clear that it is discrimination. You don’t get to think some people are ‘dirty’ and then claim that’s about equality.

augustlan's avatar

garb has left the building. Returning troll.

bkcunningham's avatar

OMG. My reality did make someone disappear. Cool.

cazzie's avatar

I think garb is new to puberty and is still trying to make sense of his own sexuality.

but I called it, didn’t I? I called TROLL about 12 hours ago.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@cazzie You did. And it made sense, because why would someone who so emphatically loves segregation and isolation from undesirables want to argue with a bunch of random liberals on the internet (and @bkcunningham).

Blackberry's avatar

@cazzie I had a feeling as well. I should have said something to save you the time.

HungryGuy's avatar

I guess since he has abandoned the submarine, it’s within the rules to talk about him now :-p

Although the Libertarian creed opposing any government regulation over the consensual behavior of people and disproportionate percentages of taxation has some basis in logic, and is defensible in theory (even though such principles have been thoroughly discredited by recent history), his hatred of minorities is appalling.

bkcunningham's avatar

It strikes me as so funny that my name is segregated from the “group,” @Aethelflaed.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@bkcunningham Sorry, it’s just that I thought I remembered you identifying as a conservative, so I didn’t want you to be left out but also didn’t want to place a label you reject on you. If that was presumptuous of me or I remembered incorrectly, I apologize.

bkcunningham's avatar

No, it was appropriate in the context of your statement, @Aethelflaed. It just looked funny to me to see (and @bkcunningham) hanging out there by itself. No apology necessary. I’m just happy you remembered me.

Brian1946's avatar

@bkcunningham and the Random Liberals performed at my high-school prom. ;-p

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther