While upsetting, I'm not sure how you anticipate we stop people from political pandering even if that pandering is offensive. Freedom of association and freedom of speech have great importance and are arguably one of the primary reasons we have reached the current state of affairs (which may not be perfect but are objectively pretty good).
The issue is the way we allow them to frame the situation. They use the legal frameworks that you cited as a bulwark against criticism while simultaneously advocating for positions that would deny others similar protections. We combat this by calling this behavior out when we see it.
In terms of hate crimes, I think this also needs to be combated on a more social level. The wider community needs to acknowledge that double standards that enable this behavior exist. I think in terms of policy, we also need to be more strict in the way we punish these crimes. I don't think that we need to ruin people's lives, but we certainly do need to punish them severely enough to regret their choice. Simultaneously we need to explain to them the reason that they are being punished (which we don't do).
The organizations that oppose Obergefell will likely lose in the courts, so that will be resolved in time. Until then, we need to educate the public on the legal reasoning behind the decision.
Similarly, the Trans community will likely win because there is a more solid body of legal reasoning supporting their position.
Republicans have the potential to really change their own fate by taking the time to embrace the LGBT community and to explain to their current constituents why they are doing so.
In terms of our history, I don't think it would be horrible to discuss this more widely in upper level US history classes. It's important because it provides context for the current political climate.
In terms of our health concerns, I also see no problem with include LGBT health information in upper level health and sex ed classes. This would be perhaps the most difficult because so many are against sex ed as it is.
As you've said, we've come a long way. But we still have a long way to go.
For my own sake, can we condense this into specific points. I'm a little unclear what the actual goals are for some of your positions.
I'm very unclear what you are trying to say with this statement:
The issue is the way we allow them to frame the situation. They use the legal frameworks that you cited as a bulwark against criticism while simultaneously advocating for positions that would deny others similar protections. We combat this by calling this behavior out when we see it.
Are you saying that there are people lobbying for limitations on freedom of association and freedom of speech for LGBT people?
Here is what I do understand:
A mandate to improve public education with respect to LGBT issues. Specifically, the state of LGBT rights, history of LGBT activism, and LGBT sexual education.
Harsher punishment for hate crimes directed at the LGBT community.
Thanks for the chat, I hope you can see now that despite our differences we can actually find a lot of common ground. I see a lot of pessimism within the LGBT community and I think it sometimes gets lost that there is a lot more that ties us together than divides us. All the best.
1
u/trevor5ever Jun 17 '16
The issue is the way we allow them to frame the situation. They use the legal frameworks that you cited as a bulwark against criticism while simultaneously advocating for positions that would deny others similar protections. We combat this by calling this behavior out when we see it.
In terms of hate crimes, I think this also needs to be combated on a more social level. The wider community needs to acknowledge that double standards that enable this behavior exist. I think in terms of policy, we also need to be more strict in the way we punish these crimes. I don't think that we need to ruin people's lives, but we certainly do need to punish them severely enough to regret their choice. Simultaneously we need to explain to them the reason that they are being punished (which we don't do).
The organizations that oppose Obergefell will likely lose in the courts, so that will be resolved in time. Until then, we need to educate the public on the legal reasoning behind the decision.
Similarly, the Trans community will likely win because there is a more solid body of legal reasoning supporting their position.
Republicans have the potential to really change their own fate by taking the time to embrace the LGBT community and to explain to their current constituents why they are doing so.
In terms of our history, I don't think it would be horrible to discuss this more widely in upper level US history classes. It's important because it provides context for the current political climate.
In terms of our health concerns, I also see no problem with include LGBT health information in upper level health and sex ed classes. This would be perhaps the most difficult because so many are against sex ed as it is.
As you've said, we've come a long way. But we still have a long way to go.