Same Sex Marriage

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Also there are more people covered under the "umbrella" term gay than just homosexuals. That's where you get the LGBT acronym from (or LGBTQQAIPS).

Ok, I know what the LGBT stands for, but what about the rest?

LGBTQQIA = Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Questioning Intersex and Allies. I dunno what the PS means.

A lot of us in the LBGT community are getting a little tired of this nonstop alphabet souping going on. There's a point when you start adding so many groups in that the term becomes too broad. It might as well be "the not hetero community" if they keep glomming more groups on it. Maybe a new term is needed.

Well, once you add the generic "and Allies" in it doesn't even rule out the whole hetero community, does it? It's basically extended to "everyone who's not dragging their knuckles."

 

[Maurice]

Ok, I know what the LGBT stands for, but what about the rest?

LGBTQQIA = Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Questioning Intersex and Allies. I dunno what the PS means.

A lot of us in the LBGT community are getting a little tired of this nonstop alphabet souping going on. There's a point when you start adding so many groups in that the term becomes too broad. It might as well be "the not hetero community" if they keep glomming more groups on it. Maybe a new term is needed.

Well, once you add the generic "and Allies" in it doesn't even rule out the whole hetero community, does it? It's basically extended to "everyone who's not dragging their knuckles."

QFT.

 

[-SS-]

I would think in the 23rd/24th centuries they would be beyond the need for any kind of labels regarding sexuality.

.

 

[T'Girl]

I would think in the 23rd/24th centuries they would be beyond the need for any kind of labels regarding sexuality.

Our various sexualities do separate us into groups which can be labeled, but these separations are part of what makes us unique. Removing the labels won't somehow "bland" us into a single identity.

 

[Deckerd]

It would do a lot towards making sexuality unremarkable.

 

[horatio83]

I would think in the 23rd/24th centuries they would be beyond the need for any kind of labels regarding sexuality.

Our various sexualities do separate us into groups which can be labeled, but these separations are part of what makes us unique. Removing the labels won't somehow "bland" us into a single identity.

Being part of a group or having a label on you is the very opposite of uniqueness.
I think we can witness here the important difference between identity politics which cares about groups and their self-interests and a universal emancipatory struggle where all people fight together.

 

[T'Girl]

unremarkable.

That sounds undesirable.

 

[Deckerd]

unremarkable.

That sounds undesirable.

On the contrary. It sounds utopian.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

unremarkable.

That sounds undesirable.

It's worth looking up the word, then.

 

[T'Girl]

unremarkable.

That sounds undesirable.

It's worth looking up the word, then.

Okay, so I did. If you describe someone or something as unremarkable, you mean that they are very ordinary, without many exciting, original, or attractive qualities. Personal opinion, I believe you should strive to be an individual, different and unique. Being attractive is nice.

Being part of a group or having a label on you is the very opposite of uniqueness.

I disagree. I've not just part of one group, but many. Since we were talking about sexuality, not all gays are bisexual, not all bisexuals are transgender, not all transgenders are bisexual, but where you have overlap there I am. Just from that alone, the beginnings my uniqueness is down to one in a few tens of thousands.

My personal ancestry, education, upbringing, languages, travels and other life experiences places me in a assortment of groups, all of which have convenient (or inconvenient) labels. Where all these many dozens of groups overlap, there stands the individual that is me.

I happen to like being labeled gay, that's why I have a tee-shirt with word in big letters across the chest. I have another shirt that says Trekkie. I like bearing the label "military B.R.A.T." being such was a big part of my childhood. These labels and others define me as a person, pieces of the concoction that makes up the unusual lifeform that I am.

YMMV.

 

[Maurice]

The trouble with categories is that we're still defining people by one or two aspects of their personality. Uniqueness is a whole myriad of elements, not a few of them. I'm not defined by who I am or am not attracted to, any more than I am by what foods I like or hate or where I was brought up. Being part of a group doesn't deny uniqueness, rather, it illustrates one aspect of commonality amongst a diverse range of individuals. And, seriously, who amongst us really fits into a single homogenous group?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If you describe someone or something as unremarkable, you mean that they are very ordinary.

So, in what sense is your - or anyone's - sexual orientation "remarkable?"

Such qualities are treated as remarkable only to make an issue of them - most often, in order to single people identified as possessing those qualities out so as to treat them differently from others.

When Doctor King hoped for a world in which his children would be judged based on character rather than color, he was hoping for a world in which race would be treated as an unremarkable quality of the individual.

What you're promulgating is a kind of "General Theory Of My Specialness" which, however charming it may or may not be, is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[horatio83]

I disagree. I've not just part of one group, but many. Since we were talking about sexuality, not all gays are bisexual, not all bisexuals are transgender, not all transgenders are bisexual, but where you have overlap there I am. Just from that alone, the beginnings my uniqueness is down to one in a few tens of thousands.

My personal ancestry, education, upbringing, languages, travels and other life experiences places me in a assortment of groups, all of which have convenient (or inconvenient) labels. Where all these many dozens of groups overlap, there stands the individual that is me.

I happen to like being labeled gay, that's why I have a tee-shirt with word in big letters across the chest. I have another shirt that says Trekkie. I like bearing the label "military B.R.A.T." being such was a big part of my childhood. These labels and others define me as a person, pieces of the concoction that makes up the unusual lifeform that I am.

Have you ever noticed that you cannot really define a person you love (love in general, it doesn't have to be romantic love)? Precisely because you love him or her you allow him or her to be free and change, to not be limited by a picture you made of him or her.
The stuff between the lines, what you cannot grab and nail down, is what makes a person unique. Gay military brat Trekkie might be a nice and compact self-description but it does not really tell who you are as you are far more than that.

 

[Deckerd]

If you describe someone or something as unremarkable, you mean that they are very ordinary.

So, in what sense is your - or anyone's - sexual orientation "remarkable?"

Such qualities are treated as remarkable only to make an issue of them - most often, in order to single people identified as possessing those qualities out so as to treat them differently from others.

When Doctor King hoped for a world in which his children would be judged based on character rather than color, he was hoping for a world in which race would be treated as an unremarkable quality of the individual.

What you're promulgating is a kind of "General Theory Of My Specialness" which, however charming it may or may not be, is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It's a pleasure watching you in action, sir. I'm chained, like Andromeda, to the rock of the pithy one-liner.

 

[T'Girl]

Being part of a group or having a label on you is the very opposite of uniqueness.

I disagree. I've not just part of one group, but many.

which, however charming it may or may not be, is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It wasn't intended to be on the topic at hand, but in response to the side matter concerning labels and uniqueness.

 

[Deckerd]

Well as I said to Bob through other channels, the only thing that makes human beings unique is what goes on between their ears.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I disagree. I've not just part of one group, but many.

which, however charming it may or may not be, is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It wasn't intended to be on the topic at hand, but in response to the side matter concerning labels and uniqueness.

Yeah, "I am Whositz, watch me roar." That's charming, as I said, but nonetheless a platitude uncontaminated by content.

I'm chained, like Andromeda, to the rock of the pithy one-liner.

I'll get me a winged horse, then.

 

[Kemaiku]

I'll get me a winged horse, then.

 

[Maurice]

^^^That's not a horse. That's an abomination.

 

[Kemaiku]

^^^That's not a horse. That's an abomination.

Oh silly, that's not how you spell pony.