LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:55 pm

Yeah, I think that was an overreaction and not really needed.


Not really an overreaction but more like the norm for the gay rights movement these days to bully, harass, demean and insult anyone who dares disagree with them.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257628 ... age-bigots

An interesting article: The writer by the way supports Gay Marriage and Gay rights and isn't too fond of Christians.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:25 pm

I'd say this is a case of "You're not Helping" when it comes to those that raised a big ruckus regarding Eich, and like I said, I don't see anyone calling out Hillary Clinton...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Amirya » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:36 pm

Io.Draco wrote:Not really an overreaction but more like the norm for the gay rights movement anyone these days to bully, harass, demean and insult anyone who dares disagree with them.

Fixed that for ya.

It's true of anyone anywhere. It is never anyone's own fault, it is always The Fault of the Other Person.
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 Koatanga » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:36 pm

Io.Draco wrote:
Yeah, I think that was an overreaction and not really needed.


Not really an overreaction but more like the norm for the gay rights movement these days to bully, harass, demean and insult anyone who dares disagree with them.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257628 ... age-bigots

An interesting article: The writer by the way supports Gay Marriage and Gay rights and isn't too fond of Christians.

The problem as I see it is that there are people who are against gay marriage and want to express that belief as if it's merely disagreeing with someone else's idea. That's not the case at all. People are pissed off because they can't deny rights to gay people anymore. That's fundamentally different to a mere opinion.

Seriously, we've been through this time and time again. Women shouldn't vote. Businesses shouldn't have to serve black/jewish/asian/mexican/whatever people. It's all based on some ancient books allegedly written by god as copied down by man and then subsequently translated, interpreted, re-translated, re-interpreted, edited, and cherry picked until it supports something that aligns with some man's prejudices, then it's shoved down children's throats with threats of hellfire and damnation, until they believe it, except they lack the theological background to understand any of it except "god hates fags".

It's such a load of utter bullshit.

There are 76 laws in Leviticus that are routinely ignored by even the most devout of Christians, up to and including "letting your hair become unkempt" and "eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof". Trust me - those same poor assailed Christians being forced to serve gays have no trouble at all selling a pack of bacon to a guy with dreadlocks.

Yet take one of those 76 - "having sex with a man 'as one does with a woman'" and it's the end of the freaking world as far as their religion is concerned.

It's artificial cherry-picking to support bigotry. It has failed over and over throughout history, and will again. Christians need to learn to live with that, just like they learned to live with women having the vote and black people eating at the same counter.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:40 am

The argument in favor or against Gay Marriage is irrelevant, the point I brought here is about the actions of those in LGBT movement following their victory. They would go after those that opposed them on a legal issue. Much can be said about the women rights movement, the black rights movement and so on, but when it comes to those movement gaining the legal victories they desired they did not go hunting for those who had opposed them.

The LGBT movement would see businesses close, people jobless and so on. Instead of trying to sugar coat it how about accepting that this course of action is bullshit and just as bad as some of the more extreme actions by the anti-LGBT movement, as indeed some people who do support Gay Rights and Marriage have called it out.

It's ridiculous to demand this kind of action against anyone who has ever been a public figure simply because they were against marriage.

Here another article, from someone who is Gay ( and supports gay marriage ) http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/ ... he-day-63/
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:33 am

The arguments about gay marriage are entirely relevant, since the type of criticism you're espousing here is created and propagated for the express purpose of distracting from those arguments and redirecting attention on to the supposed intolerance of those speaking out against intolerance. It belongs to the same category as concern trolling and tone policing.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4960
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:20 pm

It's relevant because the anti-gay-rights people are basically saying "they are being intolerant of me wanting to deprive them of rights".

My point is that they - and we - should be intolerant of someone trying to deprive them of rights.

This "oh the poor business owners" stuff is a load of rubbish. People have religions; businesses don't. People may want to discriminate on the basis of religion, but businesses operating in an environment in which people have rights cannot deprive people of those rights on the basis of religion, because the business doesn't have a religion. It's a legal entity, not an actual one. It's birth was brought about not through the miracle of life, but the tedium of paperwork, and its death will simply be more paperwork. It has no afterlife to be concerned with. It has no soul to save.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:04 pm

since the type of criticism you're espousing here is created and propagated for the express purpose of distracting from those arguments and redirecting attention on to the supposed intolerance of those speaking out against intolerance. It belongs to the same category as concern trolling and tone policing.


Except that it's propagated also by a number of people who do actually support gay rights, marriage and tolerance but are willing to call the LGBT side on their own intolerance.

People have religions; businesses don't.


The case in point had nothing to do with a business seeking to deny Gay couples services. It was about a man who supported a political campaign years ago and then being essentially lynched from his job because of it even though there was nothing to indicate he was discriminating against gay employees or customers.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:14 pm

Io.Draco wrote:The case in point had nothing to do with a business seeking to deny Gay couples services. It was about a man who supported a political campaign years ago and then being essentially lynched from his job because of it even though there was nothing to indicate he was discriminating against gay employees or customers.

I'm not concerned with individual cases - I'm concerned with the issue of gay rights and people fighting to protect their religious freedom by being able to discriminate through the companies they own. If you want to talk individual cases, I can cite plenty were people were beaten or killed for being gay. I believe being put to death trumps the hell out of being "lynched from a job".

Besides, Douthat's article was all about business and how they'll be forced to allow blacks to sit at their lunch counters - oops, I meant to say provide services to gay couples. He may not be doing it, but he supports and endorses it in his article.

But there’s another possibility, in which the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion. In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business — which is the intent of recent legal actions against a wedding photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington State, and a baker in Colorado.


He says that like it's a bad thing that people should be treated equally by businesses. I can see the issue if the photographer is being asked to film something he finds abhorrent. In that case it's an individual refusing to perform a task for the business based on his religious belief, and I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with a bakery or florist refusing service because the products will be used in a gay service. Nobody is asking anyone to do something they find offensive - just bake a cake and arrange some flowers. If that's offensive, they're in the wrong line of business.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:54 pm

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... ia-sharia/

When we lived in Brooklyn, we routinely shopped at a local food store owned by Yemeni Muslim immigrants. If I had to bet, I would guess they held strongly anti-gay views, strongly anti-feminist views, and probably strongly anti-Christian views. But you know what? They were always polite to us — friendly, even — and their products were good. They were good neighbors. Who cares what they think privately, as long as they treat customers with respect?

When we lived in Philly, we shopped all the time at a local organic food co-op that was fairly Portlandish in its progressivism. But the food was good and the people were really nice to us. If they had known that they were dealing with a right-wing Christian troglodyte every time they saw me at the register buying food, it probably would have appalled them. And I’m sure that at least some of those workers held offensive prejudices about Christians and conservatives. But you know what? They were nice and we were nice and we enjoyed sharing the same neighborhood with them. Who cares what they think privately, as long as they treat customers with respect?

In the Philadelphia area, you run into Amish folks at farmer’s markets, selling their produce. I was told by a local foodie that long before farmer’s markets became popular, the Amish were holding the line on locally-grown fresh food. According to this person, the reason the farmer’s market movement started so early and became so strong in Philly was because of the presence of the Amish from Lancaster County and elsewhere. People love them. You think the Amish are for gay marriage? You think the Amish hold properly progressive views on sex, gender roles, or anything else? Who the freak cares?! At the Baton Rouge farmer’s market, the best local milk comes from Mormon dairy farmers, and the best chicken comes from Muslim chicken farmers. You think they are pure enough for Portlandia? In my town, which is fairly conservative, some of the most beloved businesses are run by liberals, and employ gay people. Nobody cares. Nobody should care. You are a bad neighbor if you care, and not just a bad neighbor, but an asshole.


Bit of an interesting article, tangentially related to this. THAT SAID, while its ok to be polite with everyone across the board, it is still bad to undermine people's rights behind their back.

Conversely, the problem here is that there's a dichotomy. As a private individual, you have the right to support whatever cause you want, be it pro-lgbt or anti-gay marriage, pro-life, pro-choice and even a white supremacist organization. The problem arises when you take a position where you publicly represent others. You are the face of an organization, and your actions and statements can make that organization look bad through such representation, and thus the company has the right to limit the damage.

Eich had every right to support that anti-gay marriage group. Mozilla also has every right to put pressure on him, and society has every right to judge him based on political stances. If anything, the problem is that Eich did very little damage control outside of resigning, EVEN if he never, at any point, wanted Mozilla to adhere to his private views.

Now, my problem, again is that it was for something that happened somewhat long ago, and like I said before, it doesn't look like he wanted to make Mozilla share his anti-gay marriage views. And that I don't see the same criticisms being applied towards Clinton, seeing how she is on the record spouting the whole "traditional" marriage argument when it came to DOMA, which caused more damage to LGBT rights in its time than Prop-8 did.

So if you're criticizing Eich, as a public figure, for something he did in 2008, you should also openly criticize Clinton as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, otherwise its cherry picking.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:18 pm

Klaudandus wrote:So if you're criticizing Eich, as a public figure, for something he did in 2008, you should also openly criticize Clinton as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, otherwise its cherry picking.

I disagree that you have to criticise each and every person who has ever had an anti-gay opinion if you want to criticise one person. It would be far too tedious to name all of them, in no small part because there are so gosh darned many of them. I do think Clinton is wrong to hold that opinion, obviously, if she still does (and she probably does).

As far as cherry picking, that's definitely true. Cherry-picking should be reserved for those who pick one of the 76 laws in Leviticus and decide that law, above all others, is an affront to their religion and impinges upon their religious freedom, while the other 75 are of little to no importance. They can be happy to serve bacon-eaters and people with unkempt hair, those who cheat on their spouses, or have sex with animals. It's just the gays they can't serve.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:36 pm

Clearly any behavior can be rationalized, whether it's the same behavior one is otherwise critical of or not.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:54 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Clearly any behavior can be rationalized, whether it's the same behavior one is otherwise critical of or not.


That much is very true.

Klaudandus: I think Clinton is a dumb old hag who can go fuck herself. That's not because of her support for DOMA, since I really don't care and don't want to care about internal american politics, but because of things like comparing Putin to Hitler...and her reaction to Gaddafi's brutal murder.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:03 am

Koatanga wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:So if you're criticizing Eich, as a public figure, for something he did in 2008, you should also openly criticize Clinton as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, otherwise its cherry picking.

I disagree that you have to criticise each and every person who has ever had an anti-gay opinion if you want to criticise one person. It would be far too tedious to name all of them, in no small part because there are so gosh darned many of them. I do think Clinton is wrong to hold that opinion, obviously, if she still does (and she probably does).

As far as cherry picking, that's definitely true. Cherry-picking should be reserved for those who pick one of the 76 laws in Leviticus and decide that law, above all others, is an affront to their religion and impinges upon their religious freedom, while the other 75 are of little to no importance. They can be happy to serve bacon-eaters and people with unkempt hair, those who cheat on their spouses, or have sex with animals. It's just the gays they can't serve.


Clinton did more harm to the LGBT movement with her open support of DOMA than Eich ever did with his donation to the Prop-8 group.

She did change her tune on DOMA -LAST- year.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:50 am

Draco, you may want to make peace with that, for your own sake. Unless the Democrats birth another media darling, she's the next president.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:21 am

Fridmarr wrote:Draco, you may want to make peace with that, for your own sake. Unless the Democrats birth another media darling, she's the next president.


Or she gets a stroke in the middle of the primaries.

For the record: I don't mind Hillary Clinton, I just don't like it how the same people that blasted Eich for his Prop-8 donation seem to give Clinton a free pass.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:39 pm

Klaudandus wrote:
Koatanga wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:So if you're criticizing Eich, as a public figure, for something he did in 2008, you should also openly criticize Clinton as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, otherwise its cherry picking.

I disagree that you have to criticise each and every person who has ever had an anti-gay opinion if you want to criticise one person. It would be far too tedious to name all of them, in no small part because there are so gosh darned many of them. I do think Clinton is wrong to hold that opinion, obviously, if she still does (and she probably does).

As far as cherry picking, that's definitely true. Cherry-picking should be reserved for those who pick one of the 76 laws in Leviticus and decide that law, above all others, is an affront to their religion and impinges upon their religious freedom, while the other 75 are of little to no importance. They can be happy to serve bacon-eaters and people with unkempt hair, those who cheat on their spouses, or have sex with animals. It's just the gays they can't serve.


Clinton did more harm to the LGBT movement with her open support of DOMA than Eich ever did with his donation to the Prop-8 group.

She did change her tune on DOMA -LAST- year.

They can change their tune, but leopards don't change their spots. I'm pretty sure if she was to tell the truth she would espouse the conservative view of marriage. However, she didn't have Bill and whatshername put to death, so Hillary's flying in the face of Leviticus anyway.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:48 pm

Oh, I agree, it just that I am miffed at the double standard going on here between Eich and Clinton.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby fuzzygeek » Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:13 pm

Check the tribes. What's done by a tribe member can always be explained, rationalized, forgiven, or ignored. Other tribe members, however, are to be burnt at the stake.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:48 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Draco, you may want to make peace with that, for your own sake. Unless the Democrats birth another media darling, she's the next president.


Or a republican might just won. Keep in mind Romney got 47% of the vote despite all the crap he did. Personally I'd hope for a more reasonable candidate like Rand Paul. I am not a republican fan mind you, but if the Democrats are going to go with that hag Clinton then the only preferable outcome for me is a republican.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:51 am

Io.Draco wrote:I am not a republican fan mind you, but if the Democrats are going to go with that hag Clinton then the only preferable outcome for me is a republican.

They have these things called "other parties" that aren't Democrat or Republican. Sure, they may not have a snowballs chance in hell of winning, but that's because pretty much everyone keeps to the same mentality of "they can't win so it's a wasted vote..."

If everyone who couldn't stand the "big two" voted for someone else, then I'd bet it'd be more than just a blip in the radar...

Anywho... back to the topic at hand:
There ARE extremists (aka bigots in this instance) on both side of the fence. That's true for pretty much any argument ever made. But outside of these individual cases, the underlying issue is still at hand: Is it okay for businesses to segregate a portion of the populace based on an individuals beliefs?

This question has been answered time and again in the past with a resounding "no." Why should it suddenly be different when a new case presents itself?

Koatanga wrote:They can change their tune, but leopards don't change their spots. I'm pretty sure if she was to tell the truth she would espouse the conservative view of marriage.

If this is true, then she knows which way the wind is blowing and is willing to compromise her beliefs to get what she wants. The ends justify the means.
"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: 3588
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:01 am

Io.Draco wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Draco, you may want to make peace with that, for your own sake. Unless the Democrats birth another media darling, she's the next president.


Or a republican might just won. Keep in mind Romney got 47% of the vote despite all the crap he did. Personally I'd hope for a more reasonable candidate like Rand Paul. I am not a republican fan mind you, but if the Democrats are going to go with that hag Clinton then the only preferable outcome for me is a republican.

Image

John Huntsman was the more reasonable option in the last election cycle among the republican candidates that were vying for the presidency. Of course, he lost right away because the tea party republican movement, including likes like Sen. Ted Cruz, labels anything to the left of them as bad, like Bob Dole getting labeled a RINO.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Io.Draco » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:28 pm

Between Rand Paul's brand of idiocy and Clinton's brand of idiocy I'll take Paul. Granted I vastly prefer his father but eh what can you do.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:38 pm

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause the thread to shift to the next presidential election. That was my fault. To continue that presidential discussion, please use the politics thread and let this thread work its way back to the LGBT topic.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:42 pm

My fault as well for bringing Clinton up, although I was bringing her up in the context of the past, rather than an election context.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
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

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