Are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people mistreated?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
It matters to A LOT of people on both sides (people who are pro or against gay rights). As Ari said, it would be a first; just like the first female prez, first gay prez, first Muslim prez, etc...
Ask a black person who was alive during MLK's time and you'll understand why it's so important. Many gay people today are still harassed, beaten and killed SOLELY because of their sexuality. Having a gay president of the United States would send an unequivocal message to the country and the rest of the world, saying WE ARE EQUAL.
...steps down from his soapbox

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
But there's a difference between statistical curiosity ("Hey look, this is the first president who's never been a state governor before") and things that are of major personal interest, like the three you mention above.

The fact is, though, that that equality simply doesn't exist. The more people talk about it, the more obviously it doesn't exist. By the way, can I please put a [citation needed] tag on most of your statements?

---

Rosuav is absolutely right. The strides towards equality African Americans have made, which is exemplified by the existance of an African American President, doesn't exist for GLBT (see topic header for what this acronym means) Americans.

I am puzzled by the call for citations in response to Kestra's statement that "many gay people today are still harassed, beaten and killed SOLELY because of their sexuality."

Nonetheless, here are some cites (most of these are America only, or at best America focussed, but I don't have time at the moment to try to find some more global statistics. I hope you can trust that in America gays are relatively safe, so you can imagine the violence they suffer in other parts of the world):
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/disc...s=lgbt&p=index
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table1.html
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/offender_motivation.pdf
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/hatew...rtherecord.jsp

I heard gays don't even exist in Iran.

Not if you kill them, no.

Quote:

---

I heard gays don't even exist in Iran.

---

Quote:

---

Not if you kill them, no.

---

What does this mean?

Does this mean:

1.) GLBT should be happy with what they have here in America.

2.) This should be done to GLBT in America/there shouldn't be any here, either.

3.) Some other meaning which you are chuckling about in private?

4.) No meaning at all.

5.) ?????

Comments like these posts are bait on an oiled roof, just so someone pounces on them and runs with what may be implied by these kinds of statements. So, instead of pouncing on the bait and charging you with these possible meanings, or any other possible meanings, I am asking that you clarify what you meant by posting these posts. I am sure everyone would like to know.

I don't think Darion was saying any of that at all, he's not insulting g/l/b/t people, rather making fun of the Iranian regime who squash them.

Uh, the hidden meaning behind the comment was that Iran executes gay people, and Ahmadinejad is a petty and cruel dictator with a limited knowledge of the world or his head stuck in the sand to think that Iran does not "have the gays" (this is a quote from him from way back).

Columbia invited the President of Iran to speak about 9-12 months ago, during which he stated that there were no gays in Iran. I'd be willing to bet that "Iran has no gay people" in Google would turn up the details.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolen
5.) ?????

---

Iran does not have this phenomenon.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolen
What does this mean?

Does this mean:

1.) GLBT should be happy with what they have here in America.

2.) This should be done to GLBT in America/there shouldn't be any here, either.

3.) Some other meaning which you are chuckling about in private?

4.) No meaning at all.

5.) ?????

Comments like these posts are bait on an oiled roof, just so someone pounces on them and runs with what may be implied by these kinds of statements. So, instead of pouncing on the bait and charging you with these possible meanings, or any other possible meanings, I am asking that you clarify what you meant by posting these posts. I am sure everyone would like to know.

---

http://www.geocities.com/vibestothemax/chill_pill.jpg

Darion, he forgot:

6.) PROFIT!

I was under the impression that Graeblyn was commenting on points raised about the GLBT community and the US presidency. I'm with Jolen in wondering what the hell Iran's policies has to do with the position of the GLBT community in the US.

But while we're still derailed, I just want to comment that whatever I think about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he's not actually a dictator. I don't actually see any point in stating non-facts about things like this. People also say it about Chavez and Hamas.

These people aren't dictators. They were elected, and are following their countries constitutions with respect to terms etc.

If you object to these people being in power, then you have to acknowledge that they are actually supported by a majority (or plurality) of voters. It makes the arguments about how you get these people out of power more difficult, but there you go.

Malacasta -

You do realize that dictators can be elected (or obtain power by otherwise legitimate or constitutionally mandated means), correct? "Dictator" does not just mean "illegitimate ruler" - quite the contrary, many countries' constitutions provide for the election* of a unitary executive with amounts of power regarded as extreme by the Western world. This level of power - typically to sidestep or cow any kind of legislative assembly - is what is traditionally understood by a "dictator," or, colloquially, "that guy who can do whatever the hell he wants."

By this definition, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are both most definitely dictators.

* - I asterisk 'election' because you're essentially saying I have to cede, by virtue of your axiomatic declaration, that elections in Venezuela and Iran are, by Western standards, transparent, fair, and otherwise uncorrupted by sectarian or fundamentalist pressures.

The entirety of my first retort to that statement: Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Finally, a note on Hamas: I don't think anyone's stated Hamas is a dictatorship - I'd more label it a thugocracy - but I think it would be the perfect launching pad for a thread on "lamentably elected parties across the world." If you wanted to create a category of "entities that hold power within a group of people that the United States finds abhorrent," Hamas is your best bet - say what you will about their platform (and I'll say, for one, it's genocidal - at best), but they do appear to hold, or at least recently have held, the legitimate support of a plurality of Palestinians.

I think my original response, however, was germane to this thread and speaks for itself.