One council member said the plus sign had to be removed due to his personal discomfort...
  •  Sharkwellington   ( @Sharkwellington@lemmy.one ) 
    81•1 year ago

    Can we please move past this puritanical fear of the existence of sexual acts between consenting adults?

    Edited to add:

    Stewart added, “I personally don’t feel comfortable with the plus category only because I don’t understand it and I have never gotten a clear answer.”

    I doubt this person has ever had an honest conversation on the subject. Aside from that, “I don’t understand this” is not an excuse to vote against something, either bring in someone to explain it to you or abstain from voting because you aren’t qualified.

  •  megopie   ( @megopie@beehaw.org ) 
    53•1 year ago

    Ah yes the Ace community, famous for it’s acts of bondage. Yup the those asexuals, really out here tying each other up and whipping each other completely non-sexually just for shits and giggles.

  •  Taleya   ( @Taleya@aussie.zone ) 
    47•1 year ago

    Mmmm i hear those G’s promote butt stuff. Better remove that one too. And the Q’s a slur don’tcherknow. And better take out the T, i hear they bust into women’s toilets wildly waving their penises.

    •  WalrusDragonOnABike   ( @WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social ) 
      3•1 year ago

      I feel like the vast majority of LGBTQIA2S people would be upset by zoophiles and pedophiles* feeling included by LGBTQ+. Personally I don’t care if they’re included or not. They’re definitely GSRMs imo, so I don’t think they need to be included in LGBTQ+. But a lot of them have the same issues of realizing their sexual attraction is not like their peers at some point and dealing with the fear of ostracization and violence if people found out what thoughts they have.

      *Not to be confused with people who practice bestiality or child molestation.

      •  Swiggles   ( @Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 
        14•1 year ago

        How did we get here? What a bad take. Consent is obviously required, it’s that simple.

        Neither children nor animals can consent therefore they are not welcome in any shape or form. This also excludes rape and other forms of abuse from any LGBTQ+ space/group/community.

          •  Swiggles   ( @Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 
            3•1 year ago

            You did not, you said that you do not mind or care. No one wants them there except the pedophiles themselves.

            The people have problems, but they need other help than acceptance. It does not work, it is abuse and the LGBTQ+ community always clearly distanced themselves from them.

            Implying any connection at all is dishonest and a huge disservice to all people under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. Hence it is a terrible take.

            •  WalrusDragonOnABike   ( @WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social ) 
              1•1 year ago

              To quote myself:

              *Not to be confused with people who practice bestiality or child molestation.

              I don’t care if people eventually include them or not. I’m not backtracking on that. The two statements aren’t contradictory. I’m also not saying I want that (I don’t). Its simply not something I care about. Ultimately, language is whatever people want it to do be, so caring about changes is a waste. Even if it makes the language less useful or more confusing.

              But sexual or romantic attraction to a specific group of people certainly has more to do with other categories of sexual or romanic attraction to specific groups of people than preference for BDSM. And even attraction to a non-human group of beings is a more similar. I’m not implying a connection though. My point is that they are separate and there’s even less reason to make kink a letter in the LGBTQ+.

              No one wants them there except the pedophiles themselves.

              I think most of them consider themselves separate as well. Its just homophobes who want to group them together.

        •  WalrusDragonOnABike   ( @WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social ) 
          3•1 year ago

          That’s my point though. We already exclude some sexual and romantic orientations. I’m not suggesting we change that or suggesting anyone (except homophobes) are doing that.

          My point is LGBTQ+ isn’t just a catchall for everything. I don’t see why sex-act preference (or non-sexual BDSM/kink preference) would be included. Just like it doesn’t include people simply for being jewish, neurodivergent, or every other marginalized group.

          Still, even if LGBTQ+ did include the kink community, that still does not justify removing city-sponsored LGBTQ+ pride support. If anything, they should more explicitly state their support for kink community.

    •  TheDorkfromYork   ( @TheDorkfromYork@lemm.ee ) English
      3•1 year ago

      I think the state has a responcability to act impartial. I find lgbt flags (or any none state or national flag, the confederacy flag would be inappropriate) on government buildings and the pledge of allegiance in school to be uncomfortable uses of state privilege to push agendas. Teaching kids in school about the existence of gay people and their normality, to me, is the time and place for the state to be both impartial while normalizing an important group of American citizen

      •  Magnor   ( @magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh ) 
        17•1 year ago

        Except that we are talking about a group that is being actively targeted by political and religious groups within the country (and the world tbh). Manifesting support for minorities falls well within any state’s prerogatives.

        I would concede that this is a mostly empty gesture in most places if not followed by actual tangible measures.

        •  TheDorkfromYork   ( @TheDorkfromYork@lemm.ee ) English
          2•1 year ago

          The abuse that LGBT people have experienced is immense. Any normalization of those who are harmlessly different is good, but normalization isn’t always used for good. A state building can wave an anti LGBT flag in support of some hijacked vision of traditional values. I think it is important for government to host a culture of neutrality. Neutrality builds trust and fairness, and in a time when trust in all forms of government is down and thinning hope for change, I believe fundamentally states must act neutrally, for the sake of the LGBT.

          As a bi man, I frequently find myself giving short lived sympathies to right leaning people because in some aspects, they have a point. I think that Americans have every right to be skeptical of the state to a point, but I disagree that Trump was the solution.

          •  flora_explora   ( @flora_explora@beehaw.org ) 
            8•1 year ago

            I think you no one, and especially not any government, can actually be “neutral” on such a topic. Because there is a status quo of marginalization and structural discrimination. If a government decides to be “neutral”/“impartial” it is actually promoting the status quo to continue going on and thus it indirectly promotes discrimination. It is a false, a pretended neutrality benefitting the hegemonial class. Sure, in an ideal world the government should definitely be impartial and accept everyone as they are. But the problem is that this is not possible in our current society. I see it as necessary that a government takes sides with marginalized and structurally discriminated people in order to be progressive. Obviously not only virtue signalling but actually taking responsibility for the government’s own actions.

            It is a bit like if you argue with someone what is fair. Like, if you share a flat with someone and discuss what everyone pays. Is it totally fair if everyone pays equal amounts even though one person has rich parents who support them and the other person has debts and is working their ass off to make ends meet? It is not so easy as to say what is actually fair or neutral and what’s not. I rather feel like saying that we need to have this fake impartiality is a talking point of privileged people because they will benefit of everything staying the same.