So Francoise, you do not think the brochure should include bisexual or transgender rights? (I'm assuming that you are including lesbians under the term "gay".) Advocates for bisexual and transgender rights had to fight to get those rights included in the movement. The fact that they largely succeeded should not obscure the facts that it was a fight, and that it was not immediately obvious or agreed upon at the outset that they should be included. I see current efforts to protect poly and BDSM rights in the same spirit.
Many of ANSWER's goals, and I presume those of the Women's March platform, do not accord with libertarianism. But we as libertarians can agree that where laws exist, poly and BDSM rights should be legally protected. If the most effective way to get them legally protected is to append them to an existing movement, under the umbrella of protecting sexual and gender non-conformity, why shouldn't we do that? Surely the gay rights movement, like other movements, should be seen as a means, a vehicle to achieve greater liberty and justice, not a sacred thing unto itself?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
So, there are a bunch of issues here.
I am going to engage in what you may consider a digression but I want you to understand where I am coming from in my take on this.
First LGBT etc etc:
My understanding is that the word "Gay" refers to people who love others of the same sex i.e. homosexuals. The etymology of homo is the greek "homos" which means the "same" so homosexual. although originally used for men who loved men also can mean women who love women i.e. lesbians.
I've never understood "Gay Pride" anyway. I have no more pride or shame at being gay than I do about being brown-eyed.
I do understand discrimination altho I believe that discrimination by private individuals, however regrettable, is allowed by the right of Assembly under the First Amendment. You have the right to assemble or not assemble with whomever you choose. If a store does not want to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple, I believe they are within their rights.It is only a problem if the person who discriminates receives government funds.
The only discrimination I see as objectionable is governmental discrimination. So the fact that heterosexuals can marry (with all the governmental rights that come with that) and gays can't or couldn't is not appropriate.
Bisexuals are only discriminated against insofar as they manifest as gay so they fit under the "Gay" umbrella.
Transexuals are a completely different matter insofar as gayness is concerned since it is more about the fact that they are uncomfortable with the gender they are and not who they are attracted to. They can be homosexual before the change and hetero after the change or vice versa.
My understanding of polyamory is that it is the practice of intimate relationships where individuals may have more than one partner, male or female. Obviously if that is heterosexual it has not been discriminated against. If it is between same sex partners it no longer is. Ditto if it is between partners of both sexes.
Therefore as to the issue of marriage for polyamorous partners which is what I assume you are referring to, that is more a discussion of whether polygamy should be allowed and does does not come under a "Gay" discussion umbrella.
I don't like the idea of marriage as a government sanctioned thing whether between two people or a dozen. To me it should be a matter of contract between two people. Rather than extend the idea of marriage and government influence, I would prefer to work for the abolition of marriage as a government entitlement and promote it as a contract entitled to the protection of courts (governmental or not).
It is on this basis that I don't want to see Mike's pamphlet amended to include polyamory.
Francoise Fielding 820 Stanyan Street,#5 San Francisco, CA 94117 415-386-8643