Yes, draug. Marry whomever you want. I don't care. I have said this over and over again. You acting like the rest of the illiterate bitches disappoints me.

And Draug - I'm not certain what part of "you want to join in with the little bo's" part you don't grasp. Bo wants to talk about balls (but he's not a homophobe...) and you jump on the bandwagon.

Way to be sensitive to the homosexuals -- funny, if I were to may a joke about homosexuality/balls/whatever, the likes of bo, and even you, Draug, would get all offended. Fagnaur....that's one of your pet names, right? Offends you to no end, right? But if you make a joke that strays into homosexual humor/insult, that's OK?

I see...

@mister_trying to have a conversation? Mutes those who respond... em. Yeah.

What do I think? You can marry a shoe for all I care.

Your wife keeping your balls im a jar by the door is hardly homosexual. In fact nu virtue of women not having balls and yours being kept by hour wife (wives are women) it is specifically a heterosexual joke saying your wife neutered you. So before lumping me in with those you call illiterate, I suggest you brush up on *your* reading comprehension.

What is the point of states being in charge of marriage? It's not like they have an interest in increasing progeny. The federal government does, which is why they're involved and provide a goody bag for getting married.

State's have the same motivation on a smaller scale and offer the se goody bag on a smaller scale.

Why should the government verify marriage? They don't verify other life cycle events (though they rigorously track them).

Because marriage is a legal status and the government is involved in making and enforcing laws. They're also involved in social policy.

I don't know why this question gets asked so much.

Well, technically they do some of them. Birth certificates and death certificates both come to mind.

Draug, I don't often agree with you, but you're right on this one.

One thing I will say though is that it was mentioned earlier in the thread, I forget who by, that gay folk can't have kids. This actually isn't true - gay couples can have children if one of the partners is trans.

If civil unions and marriages result in the *exact* same outcomes, then it's a matter of labels that we're discussing. But they don't result in the exact same outcomes, as other have pointed out above. If it gets you all worked up to say it's marriage, then call it something else if you like. Just make sure the involved parties get the tax benefits and legal recognition, etc.

As far as government involvement in the bedroom goes, the illegality of homosexual marriage seems to be a fairly large government intrusion into the private sphere. Yes, LGBT+ people can have sex with each other under the status quo, but marriage is a method of participating in society--both publicly and privately--and denying it to them is to pass moral judgment upon them.

There are always some harms to a particular action. In the case of Australia, it seems to be a question of legal sovereignty, but it all traces back to intolerance. If you pass a law allowing gay marriage, there will be groups of people who are upset. The Family Values Party or whatever they want to call themselves. But these harms are marginal when compared to the benefits of allowing a previously disadvantaged group of people participate more fully in the society they live in.

I am curious to read the expression LBGT+. I must live a very sheltered life, but what does the plus sign refer to? Have we reached a stage where we are inclusive of every preference? If so any attempt at differentiation is rendered meaningless. What exactly do we still exclude, if anything?

+ is shorthand for including identities such as queer, intersex, and others. I know Fulham cannot function unless he is hating or excluding somebody but actually people can still differentiate without exclusion. I don't see how one follows from the other.

Putin, I just have to ask... what did fulhamish do to deserve an insult?

Oh wait, nothing.

I got my own answer, we're all good here.

Fulham said something at some point in the past that Putin found insulting or offensive. In Putin's view this entitles him to be aggressive towards fulhamish in every thread he contributes to, until the end of time itself.

Also, Putin, as a care point, the gender identity of an intersex person is generally independent of their sexuality, so I'm not sure most LGBT people would include them in the "+"

I will address this:
"+ is shorthand for including identities such as queer, intersex, and others"

I will not address the rest of your post as, from at least from my perspective,
to bandy insults with you is entirely non-productive.

It is the word "others" in your response that interests me. Presumably we are talking about what I might call sexual minorities. I am just wondering what the plus sign might, or might not, cover. Polygamy/polyamorous is an interesting one, are they a sexual minority included within the plus sign and therefore worthy of advocacy/respect? How about for example, proponents of necrophilia or paedophiles of varying sexual orientation? So, to repeat my question, does the plus sign represent a full and comprehensive inclusion of each sexual minority? Alternatively, does it imply that a selection/differentiation is made and, if so, on what basis?

I can't speak for SillyPutty, but in my view the plus would include any relationship involving consenting adults only (regardless of numbers) so necro and paedo is out as would be beastiality, but polyamorous or any other label, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, is perfectly acceptable in my view. Who am I to judge a person on who they find A) attractive and B) want to spend the rest of their life.

The Alphabet soup contains both gender identity and sexual identity. Hence the T.

The others might be Asexual (Ace), Genderfluid (as opposed to Genderqueer) Agendered, and Pansexual (as identified seperately from Bisexual)

Necro/Paedo-philia and beastiality are consider seperate as they all involve non-consenting partners.

Polyamoury is not currently included by any advocay group that i'm aware of.

The LGBTQA might also sometimes refer to A as Allies rather than Ace

(dammit Draug, you continue to pre-empt me, i think i should rename myself 'parrot-draug')

On polyamory, just a couple of examples:

LGBTQ Polyamory Chicago
http://www.meetup.com/LGBT-Poly/
and
Is it Bigotry to Advocate Gay Marriage but Oppose Polyamory?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2012/05/is-it-bigotry-to-advocate-gay-marriage-but-oppose-polyamory/

Trouble with the consent hypothesise is who draws the line? Let's take paedophilia as an example. In the UK we once had the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) it had some very prominent sympathisers if not supporters, particularly on the left (e.g., Harriet Harman - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9614516/Jimmy-Savile-Labour-faces-embarrassment-over-former-child-sex-claims.html). Moreover, the international age of consent is also somewhat of a movable feast e.g., Germany @ 14 compared to the UK @ 16. So might the plus sign appended to LGBT include advocacy for those adult Britons who have sex with a 14 year old? I am sure that there are states where bestiality is not illegal e.g., Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming and the District of Columbia (http://www.examiner.com/article/states-where-bestiality-sex-with-animals-is-legal). Are those gentle people in California being victimised if they are to be prosecuted for shagging a dog, who is to be an advocate for them?

So, to repeat my question, does the plus sign represent a full and comprehensive inclusion of each sexual minority? Alternatively, does it imply that a selection/differentiation is made and, if so, on what basis?

Arguably - the states were bestiality isn't expressly forbidden by law do still prosecute it under animal cruelty, so that is a disingenuous misnomer. As far as the lovers of 14 year olds in Britain, their community standard is enshrined int he law. So I would say the + does not include them. But it would for Germans if 14 is acceptable in Germany (I somehow doubt an adult having sex with a 14 year old is legal in Germany but am at work at a new job and don't want a search like that showing up on the firewall).

Jamie, I don't know why you enjoy piling on your own allies but it got irritating a long time ago. I've never said a critical word to you and you continue with this shit.

Fulham has always been nasty to me, since the beginning of time. And he's the most dishonest and evasive person here. He deserves everything he gets.

There is nary a post where Fulham isn't slandering scientists (particularly social scientists and climate scientists), Darwinians, atheists, planned parenthood, doctors, etc. Basically any epistemic community whatsoever gets abused in toto by Fulham, accused of every nasty thing under the book without a shred of evidence.

@fulham, i already addressed your question to the best of my ability - my undersanding is that the umbrella term does not include various things you mentioned.

What polyamoury movement there is exists along side the LGBT+ umbrella. You don't have to be an ally of that group to support poly-relationships or redefining marriage to include multiple partners.

I believe there are some cis-hetro group marriages with their own reality tv show in the US. I don't know that they have ever identified as LGBT-allies.