LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nikachelle » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:29 pm

Wasn't sure where to put this, but I found it hilarious:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 17777.html
User avatar
Nikachelle
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8406
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:39 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Levantine » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:43 pm

Saw that on my facebook earlier today. Shit was lost.
User avatar
Levantine
 
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: NQ, Aus

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:30 am

I probably shouldn't be giggling like a fiend just before I go to bed. That was, indeed, hilarious.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2959
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:16 am

A motherfucking quiche.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Sabindeus » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:43 am

Nikachelle wrote:Wasn't sure where to put this, but I found it hilarious:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 17777.html


What if you DO support gay marriage but DON'T have a girlfriend???




Then... nothing... I guess...

/sigh
Image
Turn In, an NPC interaction automator - http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addo ... rn-in.aspx
User avatar
Sabindeus
Moderator
 
Posts: 6050
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:24 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nikachelle » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:58 am

You're still allowed to see the humour!

Or go learn to make a quiche. That should pull in all the ladies.
User avatar
Nikachelle
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8406
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:39 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Levantine » Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:20 pm

Bitches love quiche.
User avatar
Levantine
 
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: NQ, Aus

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:16 am

Sabindeus wrote:
Brekkie wrote:I'll get excited when we can elect an athiest.


we're getting closer and closer


Not that it would really matter in the end. As a Christian I don't consider the people leading America as real Christians. You don't act to cause suffering to anyone as a real christian which they have so many times through their foreign policy and internal policy.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:59 am

Io.Draco wrote:Not that it would really matter in the end for me.

FIFY. Sure, others might also think like you, but there are many that don't, so electing an atheist would cause people to go more apeshit insane than Romney's loss.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:05 am

Sure people would go insane over it, I don't doubt that, my point however was about the fact that it would not change how decisions in Washington are made.

I think what America really needs is to drop the religion issue when electing politicians. It shouldn't fucking matter, but it sadly does.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Sabindeus » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:55 pm

Io.Draco wrote:I think what America really needs is to drop the religion issue when electing politicians. It shouldn't fucking matter, but it sadly does.


Yeah, that's what I was saying.
Image
Turn In, an NPC interaction automator - http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addo ... rn-in.aspx
User avatar
Sabindeus
Moderator
 
Posts: 6050
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:24 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:03 am

Well it's a bit hypocritical to say it doesn't matter on one hand and say you'd like to see an athiest elected on other. Having read through most of this thread and the politics thread, it seems to me that the presence of religion means more to those who aren't religious than those who are.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Treck » Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:20 am

Fridmarr wrote:Having read through most of this thread and the politics thread, it seems to me that the presence of religion means more to those who aren't religious than those who are.

Just like it seems people eating meat means more to those who dont eat meat, than for those who do.
User avatar
Treck
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:10 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Invisusira » Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:21 am

Fridmarr wrote:Well it's a bit hypocritical to say it doesn't matter on one hand and say you'd like to see an athiest elected on other. Having read through most of this thread and the politics thread, it seems to me that the presence of religion means more to those who aren't religious than those who are.

You're absolutely right, it DOES matter a lot more to us. Why? Because, as non-religious or non-Christian Americans, we're the ones who are forced to live with it every single day. When half a country is so gung-ho to elect an candidate based on the fact that he is so openly Christian and vows to get the country back to God and cure it of the gay instead of ACTUAL POLITICAL ISSUES, there is something absolutely disgustingly wrong with how shit works.

America was founded on the principle of freedom of - and freedom from - religion. We all know the separation of church and state is... not quite there. When we have someone looking to set the country back 50 years with his views on basic civil rights for women and gays almost get elected, you damn well better believe religion matters to us.
User avatar
Invisusira
Moderator
 
Posts: 5848
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: alt-tabbed

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:13 pm

Invisusira wrote:You're absolutely right, it DOES matter a lot more to us. Why? Because, as non-religious or non-Christian Americans, we're the ones who are forced to live with it every single day. When half a country is so gung-ho to elect an candidate based on the fact that he is so openly Christian and vows to get the country back to God and cure it of the gay instead of ACTUAL POLITICAL ISSUES, there is something absolutely disgustingly wrong with how shit works.

America was founded on the principle of freedom of - and freedom from - religion. We all know the separation of church and state is... not quite there. When we have someone looking to set the country back 50 years with his views on basic civil rights for women and gays almost get elected, you damn well better believe religion matters to us.
.
But it ought to be about that candidate's views, and not one's own prejudices about religion in general. That is the same sort of gross generalization used to justify the worst sorts of human behavior.

That said, if someone hates religion that's fine with me, they just shouldn't say that religion shouldn't matter to anyone, while it clearly does to them.

For the record, freedom "from" religion, is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That would imply that anyone who makes a public comment about religion is violating your rights and is therefore committing a crime. There could not possibly be anything less American than that. The government isn't responsible to keep you free from religion, they are responsible to protect your religious choices and to treat religions equally.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Invisusira » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:50 pm

I completely and totally agree 100%, Fridmarr. I do not support voting on candidates based on prejudices towards religion at all; in fact, that's precisely what my post was talking about - the thousands upon thousands of people who voted for Romney based solely on the fact that he's an Honest Christian trying to Return the Country to God.

My freedom from religion comment is simply based in the fact that I do not want any sort of religious morales forced on my by law. Gay marriage is an excellent example of something which is outlawed simply because Christians find it offensive; there is no actual reason for it to be illegal. I have zero problems with public comments about religion or any of that other sort of stuff you mentioned; that's precisely the ridiculous self-important attitude (not talking about you, talking about the I DONT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING I DONT LIKE people) I despise.
User avatar
Invisusira
Moderator
 
Posts: 5848
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: alt-tabbed

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Paxen » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:15 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Well it's a bit hypocritical to say it doesn't matter on one hand and say you'd like to see an athiest elected on other. Having read through most of this thread and the politics thread, it seems to me that the presence of religion means more to those who aren't religious than those who are.


Right now an atheist wouldn't stand a chance in the general election, and certainly not in the primaries (as he would appear to be unelectable solely for that).

The nutters who won't vote for an atheist aren't posting in this thread; that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:40 pm

Fridmarr wrote:But it ought to be about that candidate's views, and not one's own prejudices about religion in general. That is the same sort of gross generalization used to justify the worst sorts of human behavior.


But that's just it - the candidate in question doesn't espouse the views of Christianity. He didn't want to feed the hungry or clothe the naked or love his neighbour as himself or anything of the kind. He's not even mainstream Christian - Mormon is anything from a sect to a cult depending on who you ask. He was using religion as a tool to get himself elected, and that's it.

The core beliefs of his party revolve around the rights of businesses to prey on consumers without interference from government in the form of regulations such as the kind that would have prevented the credit collapse and the current recession. There's nothing Christian there. They just wave the Christian banner because if they didn't they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected.

I find that to be morally reprehensible. And while I agree there shouldn't be any laws banning candidates from talking about their religion, I hate the idea that candidates can be elected on the basis of religion.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Darielle » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:05 pm

Well it's a bit hypocritical to say it doesn't matter on one hand and say you'd like to see an athiest elected on other. Having read through most of this thread and the politics thread, it seems to me that the presence of religion means more to those who aren't religious than those who are.


To be completely fair, it isn't really hypocritical to say that you'd to see an atheist elected unless you were also saying that you want him elected because he's an atheist. The attitude is more that he/she would like to see one elected in spite of the fact that the candidate is atheist (which you're not advanced enough socially to handle).

Or at least, that's how I read it.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:02 pm

Koatanga wrote:But that's just it - the candidate in question doesn't espouse the views of Christianity. He didn't want to feed the hungry or clothe the naked or love his neighbour as himself or anything of the kind. He's not even mainstream Christian - Mormon is anything from a sect to a cult depending on who you ask. He was using religion as a tool to get himself elected, and that's it.

The core beliefs of his party revolve around the rights of businesses to prey on consumers without interference from government in the form of regulations such as the kind that would have prevented the credit collapse and the current recession. There's nothing Christian there. They just wave the Christian banner because if they didn't they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected.

I find that to be morally reprehensible. And while I agree there shouldn't be any laws banning candidates from talking about their religion, I hate the idea that candidates can be elected on the basis of religion.
...ok so then it's even more stupid to vilify religion then isn't it? That's my point.

You're dead wrong on the rest though, if you're going to look at regulations/or the lack thereof, that led to the credit collapse the GOP has rather clean hands in comparison. Specifically, Just look at those regulations that exist around incentivizing lenders to create high risk loans, the politics around that whole issue and why they were promoted, and those regulations that reclassified those loans into a less risky security class. You can see the discussion in the politics thread for that though, this isn't the thread for that discussion.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:35 am

Fridmarr wrote:
Invisusira wrote:You're absolutely right, it DOES matter a lot more to us. Why? Because, as non-religious or non-Christian Americans, we're the ones who are forced to live with it every single day. When half a country is so gung-ho to elect an candidate based on the fact that he is so openly Christian and vows to get the country back to God and cure it of the gay instead of ACTUAL POLITICAL ISSUES, there is something absolutely disgustingly wrong with how shit works.

America was founded on the principle of freedom of - and freedom from - religion. We all know the separation of church and state is... not quite there. When we have someone looking to set the country back 50 years with his views on basic civil rights for women and gays almost get elected, you damn well better believe religion matters to us.
.
But it ought to be about that candidate's views, and not one's own prejudices about religion in general. That is the same sort of gross generalization used to justify the worst sorts of human behavior.

That said, if someone hates religion that's fine with me, they just shouldn't say that religion shouldn't matter to anyone, while it clearly does to them.

For the record, freedom "from" religion, is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That would imply that anyone who makes a public comment about religion is violating your rights and is therefore committing a crime. There could not possibly be anything less American than that. The government isn't responsible to keep you free from religion, they are responsible to protect your religious choices and to treat religions equally.


Freedom "from" Religion, isn't implying that anyone who makes a public comment about religion is violating your rights and is therefore committing a crime.

Freedom From Religion, in this aspect, is more about removing religion from government. Not from the people who run the government. If you are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, Atheist, Catholic, Protestant, Wiccan, Satanist, Etc... it shouldn't matter. That should not be a part of the job of governing the United States. As an elected official, you are chosen to represent your district / state / county / city / nation, not your personal religious affiliation. Your job (in regards to religion) is protecting the rights of all religious (and non religious) groups, not pushing your personal religious group's agenda.

There is a difference between making sure that each person has the right to worship the way that they choose, in the religious denomination that they choose and pushing to make / keep things illegal based on your own religious views.

That is the problem. That is where Religious Freedom needs to work, and that is where it is currently failing.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:42 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:46 am

On one hand, I understand the problem with the ideology. On the other hand, I see a business that is going to work the system to save them the most money, and that.... is capitalism.

But it also highlights the problem, and shows perfectly why this needs to be a federal issue, and not a state by state issue. Until the Federal Government steps in, this is what we are going to see. Companies who will take every avenue they can to save money, to not have to pay, to not have to recognize. Until we see the Federal Government wade into it, we will have problems like this.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:36 pm

Fridmarr wrote:You're dead wrong on the rest though, if you're going to look at regulations/or the lack thereof, that led to the credit collapse the GOP has rather clean hands in comparison. Specifically, Just look at those regulations that exist around incentivizing lenders to create high risk loans, the politics around that whole issue and why they were promoted, and those regulations that reclassified those loans into a less risky security class. You can see the discussion in the politics thread for that though, this isn't the thread for that discussion.


And the major shareholders and board members who determine how the lending institutions behave - are those Republicans or Democrats, generally?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:21 pm

Koatanga wrote:And the major shareholders and board members who determine how the lending institutions behave - are those Republicans or Democrats, generally?


I don't know if that information is readily available and it is of rather dubious value anyhow (but I'd bet it's more even than you think). About the only thing you can really look at is the flow of the money.

Campaign contributions are honestly a bit of a wash over the last 12 years. Generally groups like Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, even Bank of America have trended Democratic but barely (overall). Then in the 2008 election cycle the Dems peaked and got significantly more money from these financial institutions than the GOP.

This year however, that flip flopped with Romney getting getting a strong clean sweep from the financial sector.

(see opensecrets.org (could be .com) for your own research)

That said, this topic has absolutely no value in a LGBT Rights thread. If you want to continue this discussion, revisit it in the politics thread, it does not belong here and will be moderated going forward.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest