Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[kladner]

Many evil things can be said of Snyder. I am hard put to come up with anything positive. He has acted in clear disregard of the will of the citizenry, especially on the Emergency Manager law. This was passed once, and taken down by referendum. It was then rammed through again, with a caveat which made it immune to referendum. It has since been used to sideline elected local officials, and to sell off public assets, such as parks, to corporate interests.

[Brian-E]

While progress on legal rights for same sex couples and for LGBT people in general seems to be advancing fast in much of the Western world now, progress on some aspects of acceptance amongst the general public may be lagging behind, in the USA at least. A study conducted at Indiana University has shown much less acceptance of public displays of affection by same sex couples than acceptance of equal legal rights for those couples.

http://www.idsnews.com/article/2014/...ouples-not-pda

“Support for legal benefits for gays and lesbians should not be conflated with favorable attitudes toward same-sex couples in general,” [study author Long] Doan said in the release. “We come to the conclusion that although heterosexuals may be increasingly willing to grant legal benefits to gay and lesbian couples, entrenched prejudice that takes on subtler forms may remain.”

[only_human]

Of course. I consider myself fairly open-minded and I still am less comfortable with gay public displays of affection. Some things are visceral and bypass whatever enlightenment we try to possess especially when exposed to things that vary from upbringing. Quite some time back I was watching the movie Death Trap in a theater at the plot twist where Michael Caine kissed Christopher Reeve. Someone shouted out "not Superman!" and there was a general murmur of agreement.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by only_human

Of course. I consider myself fairly open-minded and I still am less comfortable with gay public displays of affection. Some things are visceral and bypass whatever enlightenment we try to possess especially when exposed to things that vary from upbringing. Quite some time back I was watching the movie Death Trap in a theater at the plot twist where Michael Caine kissed Christopher Reeve. Someone shouted out "not Superman!" and there was a general murmur of agreement.

You're right, it isn't at all surprising. Actually I find your frank admission of your own difficulty with public displays of affection between two men or two women truly admirable (when your open-mindedness and humanitarian attitudes are so well known here). Saying what you say is a bit like admitting to ourselves (let alone to others!) that we are racist. We have to do it, though, because if we don't we can never succeed in tackling our attitudes properly.

[kladner]

Uh.....no offense intended, but is hand holding over the line? I too respect your humanitarian credentials, and your openness. The question is not meant literally. I agree that sloppy, lascivious, public displays which involve inter-(intra?)-mucosal contact are in poor taste, regardless of the relative genders of the participants.

But where is the line of discomfort in terms of Public Displays of Affection?

[only_human]

Originally Posted by kladner

Uh.....no offense intended, but is hand holding over the line?

Hand holding is great. I think people should do more of it. It displays a connection is not lascivious or anything that even a child should be unprepared to witness. In her later years my sweetheart could not walk well and always held my hand. I loved that continual contact and awareness.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by kladner

But where is the line of discomfort in terms of Public Displays of Affection?

Context is a key factor, of course. An obvious situation that comes to mind is at a busy railway station or an airport. When one partner is going away for an extended period or returning from a long absence, our basic human instincts make us want to hug and kiss our loved one. The longer the absence will be or was, the more intensely we will want to do this.

Both you and I have plenty of first-hand experience of the double standards at work here concerning what we are safe doing and what opposite sex couples can and will do without any qualms.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Both you and I have plenty of first-hand experience of the double standards at work here concerning what we are safe doing and what opposite sex couples can and will do without any qualms.

It's not balanced or even remotely fair.
On a slightly different but not entirely unrelated topic, I was thinking one day about how I didn't like receiving even a slight flirting innuendo from gay men but was quite surprised when I realized that if I make a mild flirting comment to a female secretary who's wearing a wedding ring, it is almost the same thing.

I don't think I would mind as much now, but I had to consciously think about it first.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by only_human

It's not balanced or even remotely fair.
On a slightly different but not entirely unrelated topic, I was thinking one day about how I didn't like receiving even a slight flirting innuendo from gay men but was quite surprised when I realized that if I make a mild flirting comment to a female secretary who's wearing a wedding ring, it is almost the same thing.

I don't think I would mind as much now, but I had to consciously think about it first.

Yes, society's norms are so deeply entrenched that it takes some serious thinking to realise when they are illogical or unfair.

The fact that you realised the double standards regarding flirting means, I think, that you are a particularly enlightened person. Many people would not see the problem even when it was spelt out to them.

Several points do spring to my mind with your particular example. One is that, whether married or not, the woman might not even be attracted to men in general. Another point is that flirting with a "secretary" of either gender (any gender! we are moving away from universal male/female division for everyone nowadays since some people are transgender or intersex) has problematic connotations because it is a work environment, the "secretary" has no choice about being there, and there may be hierarchical considerations such as a boss-employee relationship which can shed a different light on the dynamics of flirting. Thirdly, there has historically been, and largely still is, an unequal status in flirting for women and men: in most societies it seems to be understood that men do the flirting and women wait passively to be approached. This leads too often to women getting the feeling that they constantly have to fend off men's advances when these are not welcome whilst men don't have that problem regardless of how physically attractive they are.

[wblipp]

The movie "Dear White People," in theaters now in the US, has a quick kiss between males that comes as a small surprise. A gay man I know was watching this in a California theater and was shocked when a woman in the audience exclaimed "Ewww," but encouraged when another patron challenged her with "Really? Did you just say Ewww?"

[only_human]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

(any gender! we are moving away from universal male/female division for everyone nowadays since some people are transgender or intersex)

Google+ to offer 'infinite' gender identity options

Google+ will expand the range of options it offers when it asks users to identify their gender.

The Chocolate Factory's social network has, to date, offered “Male”, “Female” and “Other”.

Gooogle developer Rachael Bennett writes it's now possible to select a “Decline to State” or “Custom” option. Selecting the latter will mean “a freeform text field and a pronoun field will appear” and users won't be restricted in their choices.

Google's move will go down well with gender equity activists, who feel it is only fair that they be offered an accurate way to express their identity. Those who would rather Google just doesn't know their gender will also be pleased.