Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
soxking

Gay Marrige/ Adoption

Recommended Posts

Egghe, if you can't read the posts, what the hell are you doing here?

 

Our point is simple.

 

Gay Pride parades do nothing but hurt the gay rights movement.

 

If homosexuals DID NOT PARTICIPATE in Gay Pride events, they would experience much less difficulty in convincing people to JOIN their side.

 

Myself, CQ, heb0, and Gillis ARE NOT AGAINST GRANTING RIGHTS TO HOMOSEXUALS.

 

NOBODY IS TRYING TO BAN GAY PRIDE EVENTS.

 

I don't know if I can make these points any simpler or clearer.

then why are you/we arguing :)

 

Gillis, D-Jizzy, Cow Queen and I are trying to argue that flambouyant behavior at gay rights parades isn't practical. We all believe it is perfectly fine based on principle and that people should be able to act how they choose (just like you do), but we are saying that prejudiced people don't think this way. Someone who hates gays will look at a man on television dressed in a bikini and think "omg that's disgusting". However, if that same prejudiced person sees on television a person dressed normally, calmly appealing to reason and asking that they be given the same rights as everyone else, the prejudiced person might be able to better identify and empathize with them.

 

In short, in this case, calmer approaches to changing public opinion do better to convince the opposition than "over-the-top" ones, even though we all believe there is nothing wrong with "over-the-top" actions and attire.

 

Even shorter: What is practical > Principle. At least in this case.

 

We're debating the practicality of the technique, not the principle of it. You automatically assume that, because we are saying dressing and acting "over-the-top" at a gay rights rally actually hurts the movement, we are biased and against gay rights.

 

No -- I am providing you with a historical frame of reference to demonstrate that you're mistaken.

 

The argument, in those days, was that women should not get the vote, because the Suffragettes' tactics, behaviour and public displays, demonstrated that women were "too emotional" and "could not think logically as men".

 

YOU are trying to equate "Rights for Gays" with "Gay Pride" in the very same manner.

 

Whether you claim to be anti-gay or not, you're still demonstrating the limits of your own prejudice.

 

-.-

 

And you're demonstrating your reading comprehension skills.

 

Please. I'm taking time to read your posts and consider what you're saying. All I ask is that you do the same for us and not jump to conclusions before you even get done reading the entire post.

 

I'm not prejudiced--I'm simply using a line of thinking that is pragmatic rather than based on principle to the point of silliness.

Edited by heb0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cow queen what the hell are you on about????

 

 

on way you are saying that they are free to act that way

the other way you are saying that it is a untrue stereotype

and just before that you say the have the right to be the stereotype

the other way you are saying that them acting that way has averse effects

Funnily enough, that's almost a semi-accurate summary of a few of the things I've said. Good job! You can read! :P

 

Yes, the stereotype is nonsense, but if someone decided to dress that way, they can go on ahead, nobody has or should have a right to stop them. However, it doesn't help Gay Rights in general, as explained below, above, to the left, right, center, and anywhere else you could possibly look.

 

 

so what do you propose?

 

You know full well what I propose, if you read my first post in this topic:

 

I've been following this debate for quite a while, but I think I'll take this time to note a few things.

 

Egghebrecht, while you've got a lot of enthusiasm for the topic, you don't seem to realize that things are not "Either this, or that". It is possible to do something to get attention to the gay rights issue without causing shock and disgust by those who feel men in bikinis are shocking and disgusting. If the people you're trying to convince are unable to look past something as silly as the clothing the protesters are wearing, then they'll never hear a word that's said, and all of those fantastic points about how gays have every right to marry and how they're perfectly natural and normal and moral will just be utterly lost. Yes, you have a great point, having a gay rights rally is a lot cheaper than making commercials, and will get a lot more attention than any symposium. But wouldn't it be better for the cause, wouldn't it get the point across so much better, if those news cameras showed gays looking like your average person off the street? Wouldn't that convey that they're exactly like everyone else infinitely better than seeing a street full of drag queens?

 

 

I'd also like to note that your comparison with Martin Luther King actually takes away from your point: You seem to be trying to convey that more extreme measures need to be taken for anything to happen, and that MLK did the same thing. Funnily enough, he's famous for bringing attention to his cause despite not being extreme. While others wanted to fight, to protest violently, he instead resisted passively, modeling his protests after Gandhi. And it worked! While riot police were releasing dogs on them and spraying them with hoses and beating them, they did not fight back, and pictures and videos of them not fighting back were spread throughout the country. The logic was that by nonviolently protesting, onlookers would sympathize and identify with them, instead of with those who are opposing them.

 

But see, if you apply that logic to Gay Rights, it's clear that it's far easier for your average Joe to empathize with a middle-aged man in jeans and a rainbow T-shirt than it is to empathize with a middle-aged man in a bikini. Yes, drawing attention plays its role, but change will only come when the rest of the world empathizes with those being discriminated against, when they feel their pain and what they go through. Once you've got empathy, the next step is acceptance. Then we can break out the tights :P

 

 

but what do you suggest?

 

are you going to forbid over the top gay prides because it hurts the gay movement? :)

 

 

i really don't get what you want to do about it...

 

Aw, darn it to heck, seems you can't read. That, and everything you see is in black and white, which explains ooooh so much. Nobody's forbidding a thing, nobody even suggested anything remotely that extreme until you did, as, it seems, is usually the case. Read the post I quoted above. Read any of Heb0, Gillis, or D-Jizzy's posts. Or, if you have to, get someone who can read to come and help you.

 

 

because those extreme stereotypical flamboyant gay people exist, like most stereotypes they also exist

a minority of the gay population yes

but still existing and very much loved by the media for obvious "sensational" reasons

:P If you happen to know any gay men who actually exist, and follow all the high-pitched, effeminate, absurdly dressed stereotypes for reasons other than getting attention (and don't live in Vegas), please, introduce me. I must just live in the wrong area.

 

 

in the above post you have raged but against what?????

..... Really?

 

 

Really?

 

 

You misinterpret half of what's said, ignore the other half, call everyone who opposes you discriminatory bigots, and fail to understand the basic ideas of nearly every opposing post, and then you wonder why people are irritated with you? :)

 

 

Gillis is right. Now you're just F***ing with us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

~CQ -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when do right and wrong exist? Since the dawn of humanity. The belief in right and wrong is essential to the world we live in. If you really believe there is no right and wrong, go tell that to someone like a holocaust victim.

 

Really? Are "right" and "wrong" absolutes, then? Or does it change with the passage of time?

 

I'm curious ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on gay marriage/adoption itself? And have you read any of Aquinas' writings (seeing as you're a Christian)?

 

I don't have a lot of time to read, exactly. I'm quitting RS soon so that should free up some time -.-

 

I heard about Aquinas in an apologetics class I took, but I forget who he was or what he did :)

 

I personally believe that two homosexuals can't raise a child from birth the same way a traditional family can. I personally believe that homosexuality is much more about a physical attraction than an emotional or spiritual one, and relationships based on physical attraction tend to break apart easily. That doesn't mean that strait parents are perfect and homosexual family's are destined to fail, as there are many cases were gay parents are great parents to their kids and strait parents aren't. Morally I believe it's not the right way to raise kids, and if I was a homosexual I wouldn't want to adopt.

 

Since when do right and wrong exist? Since the dawn of humanity. The belief in right and wrong is essential to the world we live in. If you really believe there is no right and wrong, go tell that to someone like a holocaust victim.

 

Really? Are "right" and "wrong" absolutes, then? Or does it change with the passage of time?

 

I'm curious ...

 

I believe they are absolutes, and society cannot function without them, and thus they are timeless. What would life be like if you could get away with murder just because you didn't believe it was wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heb0, Gillis

 

 

i won't quote your posts but it is the kind of thinking i dislike

and i'll try to explain why so you understand it

 

first: i understand that the gay prides can have an averse effect in the USA

 

We are not against Gay Pride parades. Others are. These people are voting against equality. We want to change that by stopping, or at the very least calming down, these parades for the time being.

 

but stopping it i think is just as bad as discrimination itself

and that is the big problem i have with it

 

the analogy Blyaunte used with the suffragette movement is quite the same indeed

it caused lots of fuss also

damaged them in a similar way

but still they got what they wanted not long afterward

the movement worked, soon after woman were allowed to vote too

and the media also focused on the most sensational extremes

the women with unshaved legs and armpits, burning their bras, the stereotypical "feminist lesbian" really

but it worked

 

 

and that is one of the major reasons why I don't see much in what you propose, or at least in disallowing it

i don't think it is that bad

 

 

 

 

 

blablabla

if you disagree you can at least do it in a polite way

and in that massive wall of text aside from calling me an idiot you once again proposed nothing

 

and yes i know people like the stereotype

one of em even is it 100% like you wouldn't believe it

someone with a hair and clothing style that would make Bruno proud, wears lip gloss, drives a pink rolls royce an goes to the masked ball in Monaco dressed like Marilyn Munroe (he showed me the pics)

he now runs a restaurant but before that he had a (over the top) gay bar, which attracted people like said stereotype (the bar was named translated: The tomcat - a jetset bar)

 

so yes contrary to popular belief they actually exist

In Belgium however no one cares

Edited by Egghebrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when do right and wrong exist? Since the dawn of humanity. The belief in right and wrong is essential to the world we live in. If you really believe there is no right and wrong, go tell that to someone like a holocaust victim.

 

Really? Are "right" and "wrong" absolutes, then? Or does it change with the passage of time?

 

I'm curious ...

 

I believe they are absolutes, and society cannot function without them, and thus they are timeless. What would life be like if you could get away with murder just because you didn't believe it was wrong?

 

Absolutes, eh? Really?

 

So -- washing your feet in the blood of the wicked -- is this right or wrong?

 

Is killing innocent women and children is right or wrong?

 

Is slavery right or wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blablabla

if you disagree you can at least do it in a polite way

and in that massive wall of text aside from calling me an idiot you once again proposed nothing

A textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black. You've called me an idiot for believing in the existence of God how many times, again?

Edited by Golf Foxtrot Sierra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when do right and wrong exist? Since the dawn of humanity. The belief in right and wrong is essential to the world we live in. If you really believe there is no right and wrong, go tell that to someone like a holocaust victim.

 

Really? Are "right" and "wrong" absolutes, then? Or does it change with the passage of time?

 

I'm curious ...

 

I believe they are absolutes, and society cannot function without them, and thus they are timeless. What would life be like if you could get away with murder just because you didn't believe it was wrong?

 

Absolutes, eh? Really?

 

So -- washing your feet in the blood of the wicked -- is this right or wrong?

 

Is killing innocent women and children is right or wrong?

 

Is slavery right or wrong?

If you tell yourself there are no absolutes, then what standard are you going to hold yourself to?

 

The views of right and wrong can differ from society to society, and it's one of the main reasons war happens. However, every society has a standard of right and wrong, and those that didn't fell apart. One of the reasons Rome fell apart so abruptly is because they abandoned their standards, and one of those was their sense of right and wrong, and I fear the same will happen to America.

 

As for what you believe, I don't really care. You can have your opinion, same as I can have mine. However, I challenge you to go talk to a victim of genocide, or someone who had a loved one murdered, or anyone else that has had to go through something tragic because of what someone else did to them, and tell them that there is no right or wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the reasons Rome fell apart so abruptly is because they abandoned their standards, and one of those was their sense of right and wrong
Barbarian hordes notwithstanding, I imagine. Besides that, if "abruptly" means "over three centuries and a half"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blablabla

if you disagree you can at least do it in a polite way

and in that massive wall of text aside from calling me an idiot you once again proposed nothing

A textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black. You've called me an idiot for believing in the existence of God how many times, again?

zero times

 

for just taking things from a book without thinking or for discrimination or hypocrisy i lost count tho

 

how much as you would like it don't confuse those 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when do right and wrong exist? Since the dawn of humanity. The belief in right and wrong is essential to the world we live in. If you really believe there is no right and wrong, go tell that to someone like a holocaust victim.

 

Really? Are "right" and "wrong" absolutes, then? Or does it change with the passage of time?

 

I'm curious ...

 

I believe they are absolutes, and society cannot function without them, and thus they are timeless. What would life be like if you could get away with murder just because you didn't believe it was wrong?

 

Absolutes, eh? Really?

 

So -- washing your feet in the blood of the wicked -- is this right or wrong?

 

Is killing innocent women and children is right or wrong?

 

Is slavery right or wrong?

If you tell yourself there are no absolutes, then what standard are you going to hold yourself to?

 

Gee -- I dunno -- how about the standard that I would not inflict upon another person that which I would not want inflicted upon myself?

 

So, if I don't go around hurting people and taking their stuff -- maybe they will leave me be and not take mine?

 

It's called mutual respect -- is that so far fetched?

 

The views of right and wrong can differ from society to society, and it's one of the main reasons war happens.

 

Actually, the main reasons war happens is that there is a limited amount of resources and an unlimited demand for said resources and there is always someone who thinks that they have the might and authority to control these limited resources over and above everyone else.

 

However, every society has a standard of right and wrong, and those that didn't fell apart.

 

Please tell me ONE single society that hasn't "fallen apart" in one way or another?

 

One of the reasons Rome fell apart so abruptly is because they abandoned their standards ...

 

When you say, "the abandoned their standards", you mean by "adopting Christianity and abandoning their polytheistic religion", right? Because, you know, THAT *is* what happened. Rome went to shizzle AFTER the Christians got their hands on it.

 

Really -- you should try reading some history every once in a while, it's most enlightening ...

 

... and one of those was their sense of right and wrong, and I fear the same will happen to America.

 

So, by "abandoning it's standards", you mean, like, abolishing slavery in the US was bad? Was allowing women to vote in America, bad? That was an abandonment of standards too. Oh oh, allowing black people to vote -- that was an abandonment of standards too -- that was bad too, right? Oh, and the whole thing about allowing inter-racial marriage -- that's bad, too right?

 

Wow -- how far back to the stone age do you go? -.-

 

As for what you believe, I don't really care. You can have your opinion, same as I can have mine.

 

Yes -- no matter how misinformed you are -- you are entitled to your opinion. Sad, isn't it?

 

However, I challenge you to go talk to a victim of genocide ...

 

Have you ever met a Holocaust survivor? I have. And you know what? Their vision of what is "right" and "wrong" is just as flexible as mine.

 

... or someone who had a loved one murdered ...

 

You know, when my best friend, Monika was murdered back in 2005, the Priest at her funeral said that we should not question what "god's plan" was, nor ask "why does this happen", but that rather that we "should know that there is good and evil in this universe, and know that her death was a result of pure evil".

 

Personally, I felt that the Priest's "answer" then was a total piece of bullshizzle -- I still do. I mean, really, talk about a total cop-out. The Priest didn't have any answers either, but he wasn't about to try to question his faith at that moment in time because he would have found it wanting.

 

Monika died because her boyfriend beat her unconscious and then strangled and drowned her in her bathtub. I know this because I found her body. He did this because he was a piece of shizzle -- not because he was evil. Then Monika's boyfriend did society a favour, and hung himself before the police could arrest him.

 

Was he "evil"? Hell no -- just an goosedown with some bad wiring.

 

Case closed.

 

-----------------------------------

 

Now -- I seem to notice that you've avoided answering my questions, so I am putting them to you again:

 

Is slavery good or bad?

 

Is the killing of innocent people (women and children) good, or bad?

Edited by Blyaunte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Liger is correct. One of the primary factors (primary, not sole) in Rome's fall was apathy. Even coins of the latter part of the Roman era were carelessly made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Liger is correct. One of the primary factors (primary, not sole) in Rome's fall was apathy. Even coins of the latter part of the Roman era were carelessly made.

 

Indeed, those lazy useless Christians totally ruined a perfectly good empire ... -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Liger is correct. One of the primary factors (primary, not sole) in Rome's fall was apathy. Even coins of the latter part of the Roman era were carelessly made.

 

Indeed, those lazy useless Christians totally ruined a perfectly good empire ... -.-

If you recall, it was actually the period under emperor worship.

 

Nice try, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Liger is correct. One of the primary factors (primary, not sole) in Rome's fall was apathy. Even coins of the latter part of the Roman era were carelessly made.

 

Indeed, those lazy useless Christians totally ruined a perfectly good empire ... -.-

If you recall, it was actually the period under emperor worship.

 

Nice try, though.

 

Constantine declares himself a Christian in around 346 CE. His successors were all Christian. The Roman Empire fell circa 476 CE, roughly 130 years after Christianity took over.

 

Your move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Against my religion so no.

I don't suppose you'd like to expand on this a bit more, eh?

I am a Christian and in the bible it says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev 18:22) This right here tells you that a man and woman are suppose to be together not a woman and woman or man and man.

I though it said Abortion not Adoption. My bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Liger is correct. One of the primary factors (primary, not sole) in Rome's fall was apathy. Even coins of the latter part of the Roman era were carelessly made.

 

Indeed, those lazy useless Christians totally ruined a perfectly good empire ... -.-

If you recall, it was actually the period under emperor worship.

 

Nice try, though.

 

Constantine declares himself a Christian in around 346 CE. His successors were all Christian. The Roman Empire fell circa 476 CE, roughly 130 years after Christianity took over.

 

Your move.

The Christianity practiced by Constantine was highly similar to emperor worship in nature, and was very religious. It was not based in the Reformation, and in some cases, in canonical Scripture. Also, the apathy had taken over long before 346 CE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liger you cannot state something incorrect as fact then call it your opinion. Homosexuality is not a choice and you can love someone of the same sex. I don't care what you believe; you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waitwaitwait, you're basing your entire views on a subject like this on a small extract from Leviticus? Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian, but I think you should at least slightly think for yourself. I'm not telling you to ignore it, but don't go "This sentence says this so I believe this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Emanick
Against my religion so no.

I don't suppose you'd like to expand on this a bit more, eh?

I am a Christian and in the bible it says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev 18:22) This right here tells you that a man and woman are suppose to be together not a woman and woman or man and man.

I though it said Abortion not Adoption. My bad

 

What does a man lying with a man have to do with adoption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Against my religion so no.

I don't suppose you'd like to expand on this a bit more, eh?

I am a Christian and in the bible it says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev 18:22) This right here tells you that a man and woman are suppose to be together not a woman and woman or man and man.

I though it said Abortion not Adoption. My bad

 

What does a man lying with a man have to do with adoption?

I think that was in regards to his first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called mutual respect -- is that so far fetched?

 

It's far fetched if you don't believe in morals. If there was no right or wrong, there would be no such thing as mutual respect.

 

Wow -- how far back to the stone age do you go? -.-

 

That depends on how far your willing to go with me, baby :P

 

Yes -- no matter how misinformed you are -- you are entitled to your opinion. Sad, isn't it?

 

Freedom is the right of all sentient beings. Optimus Prime told me so, and you never argue with a giant talking robot that can turn into a truck, especially if he isn't real.

 

Have you ever met a Holocaust survivor? I have. And you know what? Their vision of what is "right" and "wrong" is just as flexible as mine.

 

Explain what you mean by "flexible". Are you now saying you do believe in right and wrong? You twisting your words around. I'm v confused here :)

 

Was he "evil"? Hell no -- just an goosedown with some bad wiring.

 

Bad wiring seems like a poor excuse for murder.

 

Now -- I seem to notice that you've avoided answering my questions, so I am putting them to you again:

 

Is slavery good or bad?

 

Is the killing of innocent people (women and children) good, or bad?

 

I believe slavery is bad, because I have a sense of right and wrong. If I didn't I probably wouldn't care.

 

I believe killing of the innocents is bad, because I have a sense of right and wrong. If I didn't I probably wouldn't care.

 

Are you comparing gay "discrimination" to slavery and the killing of innocents?

 

Slavery was once called a "necessary evil". That's the excuse they came up with for it. I've already pointed out the excuses for a homosexual lifestyle, so while your comparing things that don't belong in the same category you might as well compare those as well.

 

Liger you cannot state something incorrect as fact then call it your opinion. Homosexuality is not a choice and you can love someone of the same sex. I don't care what you believe; you're wrong.

How do you know your right and I'm wrong? How do I know I'm right? We don't.

 

I love my same-sex friends. Does that mean I'm gay? Your definition of love seems shallow.

 

Love can easily be mistaken as infatuation.

 

Just because something comes naturally to you doesn't mean it's right. It's called sin nature and it's what makes us do stupid things, like rape and pillage (talking stone age here :)).

 

Who are you to define what's right and wrong? If you believe I'm doing that, what do you think you'll accomplish by doing the same thing? Your definitely not proving anything to me.

 

At least I've stated reasons why I believe homosexuality is wrong and challenged the other side to do the same. You just simply tell me I'm wrong, without anything to back you up. How typical. I expected more from a "distinguished" member".

 

 

One of the reasons Rome fell apart so abruptly is because they abandoned their standards, and one of those was their sense of right and wrong
Barbarian hordes notwithstanding, I imagine. Besides that, if "abruptly" means "over three centuries and a half"...

Well, it was more like a buildup of pressure, and then several things went to crap at once. The barbarians, masterful tactitions they were, decided that was the best time to invade. Soon all that was left was the eastern roman empire and a thousand years of social absence.

Edited by Its a Liger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.