Remove Advertisements

LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:26 pm

Fair enough, and unfortunately brings me to my next inquiry. If you feel that it's not necessary for a couple to procreate (though it's preferred), and I choose to marry but obviously cannot procreate (a little army of demonspawn to produce terror :lol: ), how is my marriage superior to a same-sex marriage?


That would depend on one's view on adoption. Some would view it far more preferable for a man and a woman to potentially adopt a child as opposed to a same sex couple, considering it better for a child to have both a father and mother figure in their life.

I don't exactly subscribe to this view by the way, and I would rather not pronounce myself on the capabilities of same sex couples as parents since I've never been one myself. But it's one argument as to why it could be considered superior.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1637
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:31 pm

Ah, that makes sense. I appreciate it, thanks. :)
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: 3936
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:33 pm

So why, specifically, do you personally disagree with it? I don't think you've actually given a direct answer on that yet.
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:52 pm

Io.Draco wrote:
1.) A Christian History lesson in marriage will tell you that it was not done out of economic benefit, but out of Procreation purposes. This can be found from Old Testament writing, all the way up, and through modern day. The big explosion of this, came in the middle / dark ages, when the church actively engaged in rewriting their own history, and transforming the church.


The Christian view had nothing to do with my points. I was talking of traditional marriage in the sense of how it was from a historical PoV, which really had little to do with the Christian ideals of marriage.



If you want to get into a purely historical view of marriage, devoid of Christian, you sir, are still completely wrong. Remove the religious element of it, and for the past few millenia, it's been a property transaction, where a man takes possession of property. In the grand scheme of things, the last ~100 years or so of Women's rights, have been an infinitesimal speck on the history of it being a property transaction, and not done out of economic reasons.

Io.Draco wrote:
The reason so many people are so adamantly irritable about people who have your opinion, in the same manner that they are with those who are more violent is simple.


It this exactly line of reasoning that makes me see the Gay Rights movement as just as bad as their opponents, two sides of the same coin really.

Seeking to deny someone rights is oppressive, even if that oppression comes in a nice, docile, non violent form.


A "right" that no one had until just over two decades ago and even then in a few select countries. Beg your pardon, but if you think the entire world will accept this as an universal human right in the span of just a few decades just because some people in some people in rich countries do so is just well..delusional.


NO. This is where your logic falls apart. This isn't "Gay people want to get married because other gay people can." Gay people want to get married, because Hetero people have been marrying for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. And in today's society, while they can have all the joys of marriage by living together, and commitment ceremonies, and the like, there are tangible, legal needs and reasons for it. Being treated like a second class citizen by the government is garbage.

*And, if you go back and look at what I wrote, and then go to google, and do some research, you'll see that there is evidence that even homosexual people were marrying a long time ago, before the church poo pooed it in the dark ages.

Io.Draco wrote:A few exceptional cases in history that might have happened, or did happen, does not change the fact that gay marriage was pretty much non-existent until recently.


Because it might have happened, does not change the fact that it was pretty much non existent? What? Are you fucking kidding me? Because people can show proof, you're going to just write off the fucking proof, and call it non existent? Well, that's awesome. Yep. It might have happened, but that doesn't matter!

EDIT:
BY that logic, God is non existent. Even if you take the Bible as literal fact, he hasn't done JACK SHIT since then. The three major religions that pray to the same god (Judaism, Islam, CHristianity) have been warring with each other in some way shape or form for two thousand years since then, and he hasn't stepped in to stop it. Yep. Sitting there, in heaven, letting the ants roast under the magnifying glass.

Or, outside of a few exceptional cases, has been pretty much non existent. I like this line of logic. I might be willing to let that slide.


Io.Draco wrote:Perhaps if you changed your bloody tune, then maybe I would care to view the demands of the gays rights movement as something more then children screaming over and over and over again. If you expect any different how about people stop lumping those who are simply against gay marriage ( which includes GAYS as well by the way, yeah IMAGINE THAT GAYS WOULD BE AGAINST it, but some are since they view it as an institution they don't want to be associated with ) along with those who murders and/or beat gays in the street, or those who call for gays as being less then animals.


Really? That's where you want to fucking go? Change my tune? Ok.

Tell me then. Why in the world, you give two shits what two people do in a marriage, if it doesn't interfere in your marriage? I'm sorry, My first roommmate when I moved out on my own was gay. I got married 10 years ago. He got married 5 years ago. His marriage didn't do a goddamn thing to mine. It didn't invalidate it. It didn't change it. It didn't make it less special. It didn't DO ONE THING.

And, if you're married, it didn't do a damn thing to yours either.

So tell me, Why in the FUCK you could possibly not like the idea of 2 gay people being afforded the same legal, binding safeties, and assurances that any other married couple are offered by the government?

Does this tune suit you better?

And the whole "Some Gays are against marriage because it's an institution" WHy even bring that up? You could say the same thing at heterosexuals! There are PLENTY of Heterosexual people who are against Marriage for the EXACT SAME REASON.

But hey! Since there are gay people against marriage, we have to bring that up and cite it! Because that matters right?

No. It doesn't matter.

Look, I tried to be civil. I went back and edited the big long rant, into a well written list of reasons. I gave you verifiable information. I tried to be civil. And you just want to be ridiculous about it.

I asked for reasons, and you brush those off, "Because I'm against it" But you wont say why you are against it. You just keep barking around the whole thing.

Io.Draco wrote:
Your religious institution isn't being forced to do anything. And, most people wouldn't like the government stepping in, and telling a religion how to handle their business.


My religion as it were has nothing do with this.


And when you finally do get around to posting reasons, then I better not see one thing related to religion as a reason why you want to withhold rights from someone.


EDIT:
That would depend on one's view on adoption. Some would view it far more preferable for a man and a woman to potentially adopt a child as opposed to a same sex couple, considering it better for a child to have both a father and mother figure in their life.

I don't exactly subscribe to this view by the way, and I would rather not pronounce myself on the capabilities of same sex couples as parents since I've never been one myself. But it's one argument as to why it could be considered superior.

It's good that you don't subscribe to that, since it's been debunked by plenty of people in psychology, and psychiatry. It's a bullshit mouthpiece excuse for the right wing homophobes.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6354
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:12 pm

Io.Draco wrote:Perhaps if you changed your bloody tune, then maybe I would care to view the demands of the gays rights movement as something more then children screaming over and over and over again.

The oppressed tend to make noise until they are heard and action is taken to lift the oppression. It's just a function of human nature to resist and even fight against being oppressed. I know their cries can be annoying at times, but since the only real solution is to stop oppressing them, I guess it's something the anti-gay-rights community will just have to deal with.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:41 pm

The children arguments are particularly amusing to me.

Gay couples can't have kids so they shouldn't marry. This one goes way back to the age-old idea that if you are a minority, one way to gain ascendancy is to breed like freaking rabbits so that your people will eventually outnumber the opposition. In today's world, population growth is a bad thing, and overpopulation is a very real hazard lurking over the horizon. Not having children is a socially responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, the only people who understand that are intelligent people, whose genetic stock would produce the best hope for society.

Gay couples shouldn't adopt because it's better for a child to have a mother and father. It's actually better for children to grow up in a stable environment, preferably with two parents who love each other. And we don't have to worry about kids "catching" gay from their gay adoptive parents, because if sexual preference was learned from parental behaviour, nobody would be gay in the first place.

It's better to have your own children than to adopt. There are enough people in the world (see first paragraph). It is best for children to grow up in a stable environment in which people love each other (see second paragraph). Therefore is it not better to provide that environment for an existing child than to create one of your own, and leave the other child in a poor environment with poor prospects?
Last edited by Koatanga on Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Kal » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:10 pm

@Nooska, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are many people outside America that take our loonies seriously. For example, Scott Lively's anti-gay activism in Uganda, and particularly the publication of his book The Pink Swastika. He's hardly a lone-crazy either. Another two people involved in Uganda are Paul Cameron, a psychologist who associates homosexuality with pedophilia, and Rick Warren, author of A Purpose Driven Life. Richard A. Cohen is not directly involved, but his work in gay-to-straight "conversion therapy" is cited by anti-gay activists in Uganda.

@lo.Draco "Do gays have the right to get married?" is quite a different question than "How recently have gays wanted to get married?", and to suggest it is unreasonable to want the right to marry whom I choose in my time and my place, and ultimately to share that right with all people, that itself is unreasonable. We want our Constitutional rights now.

That is the gay agenda, I hope you realize. We want equal rights under the law, nothing special, that's it.

The anti-gay agenda is the imprisonment or execution of all gays. If you think it's just a few wing-nuts saying that, you're wrong. Anti-gay violence is one of the few kinds of violence on the rise in America and world-wide. Coincidentally, Islamism and Dominionist Christianity are also on the rise in places that are most anti-gay. These people want us all dead, and that is the ugly truth you have to realize about not only people like Scott Lively and Rick Warren, but also Mike Priefer, Kevin Swanson, Dave Buehner, Buju Banton, those three jokers in Sochi, Anita Bryant, Tim LaHaye, Peter LaBarbera, the members of Westboro Baptist Church, the list of people who want me and everyone like me dead goes on, and that's just a few from here in America.

Imagine what it would be like to be serving in Iraq under DADT, in a country which publicly hangs gays, serving alongside trained soldiers with loaded rifles who "joke" about rounding up all the faggots and shooting them in the head. I am not a child screaming. I am a man demanding the right to exist.

You make a false equivalency calling these movements two sides of the same coin. They are simply not. Now I won't make a false dichotomy and say "You're either with us or against us", because that is not the case. You can stay out of it. You don't have to be pro-gay, just don't be anti-gay.
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:01 pm

f you want to get into a purely historical view of marriage, devoid of Christian, you sir, are still completely wrong. Remove the religious element of it, and for the past few millenia, it's been a property transaction, where a man takes possession of property


How is that not an economic reason? Sure, transfer of property has nothing with economic reasons, right.

*And, if you go back and look at what I wrote, and then go to google, and do some research, you'll see that there is evidence that even homosexual people were marrying a long time ago, before the church poo pooed it in the dark ages.


It was actually Constantine the Great who explicitly forbidit , not the Church in the Dark Ages. With regards to them being done in history, it was still not widespread.

Or, outside of a few exceptional cases, has been pretty much non existent. I like this line of logic. I might be willing to let that slide.


I like how you try and bring God in this discussion at every turn, because that's the typical gay kneejerk reaction: Bring God up and bash religion at every turn.

I asked for reasons, and you brush those off, "Because I'm against it" But you wont say why you are against it. You just keep barking around the whole thing.


You assume that I owe you those reasons. Well let me make this clear: I don't owe you jack shit. I don't have to justify myself to you.

Although I have already stated my reasons: I am for traditional marriage as it has been over the last few centuries, and you can tell me all you want about the cases of gay marriage but the fact is the view most people have had marriage was that of a union between a man and woman ( among other things ).

I am unwilling to change that view since I care not at all for the Gay Rights movement in light of the shit they've done. When a movement has people issuing death threats and beating people for the mere act of expressing an opinion with regards to gay marriage and when such actions are defended by the social crusaders then you can bet your ass that I have no interest in siding with that movement.

Ultimately all I've done is expressed an opinion. I have not gone to courts against gays or protested on the streets against it.

You make a false equivalency calling these movements two sides of the same coin. They are simply not. Now I won't make a false dichotomy and say "You're either with us or against us", because that is not the case. You can stay out of it. You don't have to be pro-gay, just don't be anti-gay.


I call them two sides of the same coin in that each of the movements has as many radicals as the other. Legions of people that will bash, insult, threaten ( even with death ) and even beat people who simply refuse to subscribe to their ideology fully. My only "sin" against the Gay Rights movement has been that I've expressed a simple opinion in opposition to Gay Marriage, even though I am in favor of all other gay rights ( well except adaptation, but that's something I don't think I should give my opinion on ), and for that yes I have received death threats, insults and verbal lashings.

Then legions of people who will defend such behavior from both sides. The apologists as they were. I find it hard to give a damn for the so called "marriage rights" of gay people considering their reactions to those who simply express an opposing opinion to that.
Last edited by Io.Draco on Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1637
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:26 pm

To reply to this:

Anti-gay violence is one of the few kinds of violence on the rise in America and world-wide. Coincidentally, Islamism and Dominionist Christianity are also on the rise in places that are most anti-gay. These people want us all dead, and that is the ugly truth you have to realize about not only people like Scott Lively and Rick Warren, but also Mike Priefer, Kevin Swanson, Dave Buehner, Buju Banton, those three jokers in Sochi, Anita Bryant, Tim LaHaye, Peter LaBarbera, the members of Westboro Baptist Church, the list of people who want me and everyone like me dead goes on, and that's just a few from here in America.


I agree that this is true, but at the same time why is it so that gay haters have just woken up in the last few years? To me the reason is that gays have been made far more visible thanks to the gay rights movement, and in doing so they've attracted the attention of those who might have disagreed with their sexual orientation but were content to let them since gays stayed in the shadows.

This attention created reactionary movements that were against gay rights, people who wanted for things to remain as they were. A good quote from Morrigan in Dragon Age: "People fear change and will fight it with every fiber of their being." could be used to accurately describe the situation.

But all of that is in the west. In other countries: Like Russia or the African countries, the situation is worsened by the political stance of western heads of state who pressure countries into adopting pro-gay laws, and even threaten some with sanctions if they do not drop anti-gay laws. This is perceived in those countries as once again the imperialistic west interfering in sovereign states, and this in my eyes is a huge mistake on west's part because there will be people going after gays purely on the account that they see them tied to the Western Imperialists trying to force themselves once again on their country.

As an example: The Russian Propaganda law which a great deal of activists have called as increasing the crime rate against gays in Russia by a substantial amount, but was it just the law being passed that did this or was it also the western media reactions along with the political reactions?

The Russian people don't have a very good view of when the west tells them to do something, especially considering the west was hand in hand with the mafias that looted the country during the 90s. They aren't fond of western media, people and heads of states taking concern over gay laws when they didn't give a shit about suffering that people have gone through during that 90s period, and even beyond.

Oh, an anti-propaganda law get's passed then the entire world explodes against the injustice, but rampant poverty, corruption and crime exists for close to a decade and no one really gives a damn. You might just see why the perception exists against the west due to their actions with regards to the gay propaganda law.

Not that I agree that this view or their subsequent actions are justified. I am personally very much against the beating, insulting of gays just because of their sexual orientation but I personally believe things will be getting far worse for gays in a large number of non-western countries due to these reasons.

Short Version: Activism is well and good and it's not that which creates the problem, but western politicians should learn to STFU once in a while.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1637
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:07 am

Io.Draco wrote:You assume that I owe you those reasons. Well let me make this clear: I don't owe you jack shit. I don't have to justify myself to you.

Although I have already stated my reasons: I am for traditional marriage as it has been over the last few centuries, and you can tell me all you want about the cases of gay marriage but the fact is the view most people have had marriage was that of a union between a man and woman ( among other things ).

Note: I'm not going to get involved in any conversation you're having with other forum posters.

That said, I'd like to ask you to clarify "as it has been over the last few centuries." So traditional marriage in other cultures that existed more than a few centuries ago is bad? Or good? Such as polygamy, or harems. How long ago is "last few centuries"? Would that include traditional marriages in other cultures that have existed a few centuries, and still do? The one that comes to mind, and I cannot think of the name of the country, is an extremely mountainous, rural area (in Asia, I think), where one woman has several husbands - usually brothers. That is an acceptable and traditional marriage to them, and has been for centuries. Or do you mean marriages that existed before the relatively new notion of marrying for love? I remember a class I took years ago, in which we studied the history of marriage - marriage was a political and economical issue, and the idea of marrying for love was considered to be stupid or immature or selfish. And in several contemporary cultures, arranged marriages still exist.

That said, you're right in you owe no one any reasons or justification. However, let me lay out my own views.

I have no issue with same-sex marriage. In fact, I wish it were legalized, because I do not see any logical reason to ban it or forbid it. Here are the arguments I've seen against it (also, I lived in Portland, Oregon, for several years, and enjoyed the annual Gay Pride Parade), and my feelings:

1) Marriage is for procreation --- Then that should, logically, ban infertile couples, whether by choice, chance, or age.
2) I don't want my kids to see homosexual couples kissing/making out/PDA of choice --- Unfortunately, I've seen much worse from heterosexual couples, and far more often. If I had kids, I'd rather take them to gay bars than public parks.
3) It's unnatural. --- No, there are numerous studies indicating it's not unnatural, and is quite abundant in the animal kingdom (of which, yes, humans are).
4) It's against <insert religion of choice>. --- Unfortunately, religion is not something shared by everyone. And, in fact, in my own faith, it is encouraged, so long as it harms no one else.
5) It's against <insert holy text of choice>. --- Which bears no empirical evidence that it was written by anyone other than a human being. And therefore, should not be a part of this discussion (see 4).

To my eyes, marriage (at least in the United States), is a legal contract between two adults of consenting age, and not necessarily a religious one. I was married by a JP, and that didn't make my marriage any less invalid than that of the couple who married in a church with a priest presiding. The government still said that my ex and I were married. If it's a legal contract that is binding two adults of consenting age, then it shouldn't matter if it's two penises, two vaginas, or one of each. If it's a religious contract, or a spiritual one, where the government is not involved, that's different.

When I was married, that marriage wasn't threatened by homosexual relationships. In fact, it was destroyed by heterosexual relationships (yes, he found a mistress). The fact that I have precisely zero interest in remarriage has nothing to do with homosexual relationships. The fact that Kal, for example, is gay (by his own admission a few posts ago), isn't the reason I'm going, "NO MORE MARRIAGE!" Why would it? I do not understand that idea.

And now, it's late and I'm rambling, so I'll leave it there. And while you might be in other discussions with other forum posters, I appreciate you taking the time to explain views opposite mine (even if I disagree with them!) :)
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: 3936
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:18 am

Io.Draco, you keep saying you're for "traditional marriage", but you still haven't said why. "Because tradition" is circular reasoning.
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:24 am

Other things that were tradition
- having multiple wives (or concubines)
- selling your daughters in servitude
- underage marriage
- forced/arranged marriage

It's really hard to say "tradition" and list it as the reason why gay marriage should be a no-no, when, stripped down to the basics, marriage is simply a social contract between two consenting adults and that's it. What equipment they have between their legs SHOULD NOT HAVE a bearing on whether their contract is denied or not. Specially when only certain people have been enjoying the rights of such contract.

Also, echoing Amirya. My relationship failed not because there were gays, gay couples or gay marriages, it failed because my ex could not keep her legs crossed when she moved to Mississippi prior to our wedding, while I stayed behind in Texas trying to sell MY house...

Homosexuality also has no bearing whatsoever on my disinterest in having a relationship with another woman, or my disinterest in having offspring, I just don't give a fuck.


Also
Image
Kinda relevant =P
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:07 am

I got a little pissy yesterday. I wont today. Ive got one last post in me, and then I'm done.

Io.Draco. I keep bringing up religion, because you identified yourself as a Christian, and then said that you don't oppose gay marriage because of it. But instead, because you have a "traditional" view of marriage. The only commonality that I have to make analogies with you on, is religion.

And, yes. I'm bashing religion. But, let's be clear. I am an equal opportunity basher when it comes to religion. I grew up in a very bizarre, fundamental way, the son of a pastor. I've seen the downright awful, deplorable, make you want to vomit in your lap side of Christianity. It's a flaw. I won't hide it, but I won't apologize for it either.

But, ok. Let's try this again, using your "traditional" part.

For economic reasons, doesn't cut it for me, because it was not economic from any standard, except the man. It certainly was not economic for the woman. I'm a subscriber to the ideology that if marriage was for "economic" purposes, there should be a benefit to all parties involved. In a "traditional" sense of marriage, the economic benefit was so rarely evident to all parties. But I have that view when it comes to a lot more things than just marriage.

The question I would then have, are you against Women's Rights? Should we go back to the "traditions" that run hand in hand with your ideological traditional marriage? Traditions where
  • Women don't generally work, if they do work they are paid pennies on the dollar compared to men? (I'm not saying that has been eliminated, they still make less, but the margin is getting better)
  • Should we actively pursue keeping women uneducated?
  • What about arranged marriages?
  • Should we be doing our best to keep woman barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen?
  • Can I buy your daughter, or your future daughter for a couple of goats, and a cow?
    I don't know about you, but if some guy asked to purchase my daughter for marriage, I'd beat him senseless. But hey, that's tradition right?


What about, as someone else brought up
  • concubines? That's traditional in parts of the world.
  • Polygamy? Common.
  • Selling woman like property? Sadly, still common today, and sadly, "traditional".

You don't owe anyone jack shit. You are right about that. But if you are going to come into a thread about LGBT Rights discussion, and talk about how you are opposed to the "largest" LGBT right being discussed in today's culture, It is just in good taste, that you would at least attempt to have some form of rational dialogue with people, instead of using circular logic, and insulting language towards people, where you defend yourself with something other than "tradition", without a definition of such, or running and jumping to, "Well, Russia doesn't like the west, and the media, and mafia, and blah blah blah" as your reasoning. That's just more circular logic.

Putting Circular logic into play, I could say I don't like Russia. I don't like the steps they have taken backwards since the end of the "Cold War". I don't like Putin. I don't like that what was looking to be a country headed towards a seemingly more open minded direction, taken massive steps backwards. I don't like the laws, and approaches that have happened there in recent years, which has only furthered to keep the populace under the boot of the government. I could then just completely write off your opinion, because It's Russian, and as we've seen out of Russia's media, and government recently, they are more interested in keeping it's populace in check, than extending rights to it's citizens.

But, this is the internet. It's not America. It's not the West. It's not Russia. It's one of the few places where people have something approaching a neutral ground, and I was hoping to have more of a conversation than that. You can bash the media, and you can bash the west, and you can bash the rest of it, and use your circular logic, but that doesn't really accomplish anything. It certainly doesn't ingratiate your opinion to anyone, or at least not to me. And it doesn't make me want to do anything but bash your opinion senseless, in the most visceral, and demeaning way. Because, this is the internet afterall, and your posts so far have come off more like a troll stirring the pot, than someone who has something to actually say on the matter.

If you want your traditional, man and woman(en) marriages, where you can buy your child bride for some livestock, and maybe a new shanty, I feel bad for you. And I mean that sincerely. I truly have sympathy for you, and the position you hold that someone else should have an inferior set of rights compared to you, purely based on how, who, what, gender, sex, orientation, etc... simply for being born as a woman, or gay. That's a position that I find indefensible. But then, I Also believe that a government should not look to make laws that afford legal safety nets for a portion of it's citizens, that it wont afford to another group of it's citizens. I believe that a government should do everything it can to look at it's people without a bias based on age, sex, orientation, religious affiliation, race, etc..

And that is really what it boils down to for me. This isn't about God. This isn't about your marriage. This isn't about anything else, but the right for 2 people, who love each other, who want to spend their lives together, being allowed to do so, and enjoying the same governmental protections and rights as two other people who have made the same choice.

I don't believe that Gay Marriage has any detrimental affects on man/woman marriages, and short of biased studies performed by (mainly) religious leaning organizations, there is no study to support such an ideology. It's not deteriorating at the moral fabric of a country. It's not destroying families. It's not destroying children. It has been proven time and time again that Gay Couples are not going to damage a child's "psyche" any more than a man / woman marriage of similar status will. If you want to talk about a problem in today's society that does damage those things, we can talk about that. But not here. This isn't a thread about the rampant divorce rate. This is a thread about LGBT rights discussion.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6354
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:46 am

Klaudandus wrote:What equipment they have between their legs SHOULD NOT HAVE a bearing on whether their contract is denied or not. Specially when only certain people have been enjoying the rights of such contract.


I watched a fantastic documentary about Gay Marriage, and the case against "biblical" bans on it, where one of the families talked about the fact that they had been fixated on the idea of "Gay Sex" as their main aversion to it.

For the Bible Tells me So

While it doesn't cover "everything", I was really pleased with the direction they went with it, and I use it as a starting point for a more in depth conversation about the bible, historical context, and homosexuality.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6354
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:14 pm

Well... FUCK YOU Kansas -- They actually managed to pass the bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/1 ... =fb&src=sp

State Rep. Charles Macheers (R), one of the bill’s staunchest advocates, argued that the provision was designed to prevent discrimination against religious individuals during a speech on the House floor Tuesday.

"Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."


Ok, so discrimination is cool, provided you're not the one being discriminated.


Image
VERY VERY RELEVANT
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

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
?php } else { ?