Caitrin

ClutchClark, that's a very common opposing viewpoint. I'm afraid, I disagree.

When individuals in marginalised positions are killed because of those marginalised positions, it reinforces oppressive frameworks which are already against those individuals. So, yes, it is worse, because a person without that intersection of oppression could still have been murdered, but was much less likely to be murdered. Murder rates are higher amongst those in marginalised positions. Violence is higher. Harassment is higher. Discrimination in work environments is higher.

Hate crimes legislation takes this into account judicially, and recognition of such crimes as hate crimes takes this into account ethically.

If murder was murder was murder, we wouldn't have different classes. We wouldn't have manslaughter. We wouldn't consider mitigating factors. We wouldn't have "negligent homicide." We would have "murder" and that's it. Yet, we do not. So I find your argument lacking in merit in our current social fabric--one where individuals in marginalised positions are more likely to be murdered because of their marginalised traits and a judicial system which recognises differences between types of murders.

*shrug*

I'd like to remind people that Hillary, under Obama, made pro-transgender changes at the State department. Most notably, making it pretty darn easy for trans people to change gender markers on passports. This is HUGE for transgender expats, as it means they can often get their countries of residence to recognise them as their actual gender, because the passport is used as the gender of record.

The states can go screw themselves (Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, I'm looking at you, among others).

Jingthing, hate crimes are hate crimes whether they are classified as such or if such legislation recognises their existence or not. If I'm murdered because of hatred of queer people, given that I am queer, then my murder was a hate crime. Just because I believe it should be recognised legally doesn't mean I believe legal recognition is required to speak about the crime as a non-professional (non-lawyer, non-judge, etc) as a hate crime. It was a crime committed because of hatred of a trait that I possess, rather than just a personal animus. De facto, it's a hate crime.

I met Judy Shepard at Atlanta Pride in the mid-2000s. I can tell you this: his mother certainly, unequivocally believes her son was murdered because of his orientation. Crystal meth addiction is very difficult to hide, and while I am sure that if he had been a user he could have kept her in the dark for some amount of time, it wouldn't have been for a very long time.

In the end, "martyrs" like Matthew Shepard area always greater than the sum of their parts. We are often ill at ease with moral ambiguities, so when we have the chance to make someone into a symbol of the cause, a cause which in and of itself is just and right but needs a symbol for wider recognition, we often lose historical truths about the person in the process.

Was Matthew Shepard killed for his orientation? I think so. At the very least, it probably played a significant role. Does it matter to the symbol? Probably not. The fact it could have, the fact that if it did, it would be completely believable and representative of other hate crimes, that's what matters.

Nope, nope. I'm Irish-American. So it sounds like it's no better than here in Japan, ok. Good to know. :/

Important to add, Cardinal Raymond Burke bitched about this and called Pope Francis out.

Francis fired him. This pope ain't playing. He's also making sure reformers have majority committee assignments and he's keeping African cardinals (those who often supported anti-gay laws in their home countries) off the committees entirely.

I don't care about the words, or the supposed "retraction." This pope is angling for a reformer majority among the college of Cardinals. This signals he's biding his time until he has the "votes" so to speak. Shrewd, Francis, very shrewd.

Lapsed Catholic here.

It's pretty difficult to get in Japan, even in big cities, and it's expensive as hell. How is the situation in Thailand, I might want to pick up some while I am there.

This is now a make up thread, you can deviate from the topic if the answer is quickly forthcoming.

Oh'm quite familiar with Judith Butler and Gender Trouble. :3

You can buy S1 director's cut on DVD. I bet it has Thai subs.

I'm glad this is taking off. Sorry for putting it in the wrong forum!

I like Sprite a lot, but she's not personally my type. Toei is totally my type. I like all of the girls, and most of the boys, too. And I'm really loving the queer inclusion. Yay representation.

I mean, honestly, the only person I outright hate is Win, because he's like the King Midas of shit. Everything he touches turns to shit. He's got narcissistic personality disorder or something, I swear.

Also, there are S2 fansubs, but I don't know if sharing the fansubber website is against the rules.

Oh, I totally get that, but I thought David48 was speaking in theoretical terms. As a political theorist (my graduate work was political science/government), my own brand of political philosophy means I pretty much oppose the idea of representatives of any religion simultaneously operating as agents of the State. Be a minister, or be the person who validates the civil contract we know of as "civil marriage." But don't be both. I realise it's easier on people getting married to be able to have those two people (say their parish priest, their imam, or their rabbi) be the same person, but I consider it a conflict of interests.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Since we are being religious, so I can play the devils advocate.

Your statement of 'they are refusing to do their jobs and should be fired' ... they are conscientious objectors. Don't they have a Civil Right also as such?

.

No.

"By the power invested me by the State of" whatever whatever. That is an official position to act as an agent of the State. The State cannot discriminate.

They have a civil right not to sanctify a marriage if they are a religious leader, but if they are invested with a position to act as an agent of the State, they do not have a "civil right" to refrain from the performance of their duties as a State agent.

I was curious if anyone has been watching the lakorn Hormones, it's just ended Season 2, and I think it got picked up for Season 3. I'm really enjoying it so far, and if you are a viewer, you probably realise my avatar is a character named Toei. I'm pretty amazed by its content, which I tend to think is fairly realistic for teenagers in general, and I've learned quite a bit of Thai from it.

Thoughts?

My name is Cat, I'm 31 years old, originally from the United States, now living as a permanent immigrant in Japan and will be giving up US citizenship after obtaining Japanese citizenship. I will be coming to Thailand over Christmas/New Year's, returning for a few months around March, and will likely visit Thailand every so often going forward.

I identify as a lesbian, specifically as a tomboy femme. I'm interested in other tomboy femmes, primarily. I'm not really into that whole heteronormative roleplay that is "butch/femme" or "tom/dee." The Japanese approach, "neko/tachi" is maaaaaybe better, as it tends to be related to aggression/passivity and less about masculinity and femininity as opposites.

Do your job or quit your job. That is to say, if you have an official position, it must be applied equally. If you don't want it applied equally, quit the position. You can sanctify marriages you like, but you still have to send everyone to the city clerk for the official license. You can't do both.

Not my choice, it's for a review. Boss wants a Ranger. Will take a Vigo. But wants a Ranger. Mine is not to question why.

Too far away, I guess I should be clearer: bangkok and east coast. And the Vigo is seriously, seriously a last resort. Really want that Ford Ranger.

I've contacted the two I've found, one has told me "Ask me closer to your date of arrival, might have some pick ups available." Not exactly confidence inspiring. The other hasn't responded at all.

So I'm really looking for names here if anyone knows names.

Perhaps. Ford Ranger, preferred. Toyota Vigo Hilux, maybe okay. Not a Mitsubishi Triton.

So, I'm having some issues finding a place that will rent me exactly what I need. Not "or comparable vehicle." I actually need this specific vehicle. Certainly this seems doable. Is this a case of TiT: This is Thailand?

Agree with Bung and Cruisemonkey: if it's got China in it, run. I don't know how the Taiwanese airline, China Airlines is, but I imagine a lot better. When I booked my tickets to BKK, I made sure that I didn't book anything like that. I ended up going with Cathay Pacific, which is a Hong Kong airline, and seems to be a pretty normal international carrier.

Best airline I've ever flown? Air New Zealand. Worst airline I've ever flown? Spirit.