Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles

Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> Out of Context >> RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles
Page 4 of 7«<23456>»
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
8/14/2012 10:54:15   

Why is it hate to want to be treated equally, to be able to get married like straight people? Do you know how many people would protest if the roles were reversed and they were trying to abolish marriage? Would you say that is hate, for Christians to try to stop the abolishing of marriage?

Also, Chick-fil-a donates to hate groups that are trying to make it illegal to be gay. The protesters don't hate them, in fact many like the food, they just can't stomach Chick-fil-a's policy of funding hate groups. Not to mention that Winshape, Chick-fil-a's branch that does the donating does in fact discriminate against anyone who doesn't believe like they do. You can not work for them (Winshape) if you are gay. If I had to guess, the same would hold true if you followed any path other than their particular brand of Christianity.

As for traditional marriage, according to Christianity anyways, there is far more than just 1 man + 1 woman. There's... you know what, just look at this pic. All of those are "traditional marriage", according to the bible. Suddenly two dudes or two chicks wanting to get married doesn't seem so bad.

Let me pose this question to you, if those same groups that are trying to make it illegal to be gay were trying to make it illegal to be or get divorced, would you have the same attitude? I mean, divorce is forbidden in the bible (as a part of "Traditional Marriage"), but odds are, if that went through you'd know criminals, possibly even be related to some.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 76
8/14/2012 20:56:47   

If I may interrupt again, there's a point that keeps coming up that is slightly upsetting me. It isn't all of Christendom that condemns such trivial things as sexuality. I'd like to just mention a point on Eastern Orthodoxy beliefs, since it's beginning to look like Christendom as a whole is being grouped together once again, which seems to be all-the-more common during such a conversation as this. It should be made clear immediately that being of a homosexual orientation is not seen as a moral issue, or would it be considered sinful in the Eastern Orthodox Church. All sexuality, and anything pertaining to love based on a divine love; a love that is beyond any human feeling, empathy, or ethical standardization for anyone and everyone to judge. Essentially, let people do what feels right to them because it does for a reason. There is more to this, but I feel it beyond my likely stretched limits to go on with this subject. I only ask you don't try to group together every branch of a much larger religion as it can become pretty offensive and hurtful doing the very thing that some in said religion do. Thank you very much for hearing me out, at least.

As far as donating to hate-groups goes... I don't think that this should be something that anyone knows but the donor, unless they choose for it to become public. That being said, I don't think that this is a good thing, but I'm sure few do. There's not really much more to say other than I know a lot of people who oppose this would refuse to eat their food, no matter the actual quality of the food, which friends tell me is some of the better fast food chains. I can't say I'd think anyone who decides to eat there based off of their food rather than anything else is a bad person, but I personally would not prefer to eat at such an establishment if I was knowing. I do think that this is something I don't completely understand, so I won't say any more on this subject, either.
AQ AQW  Post #: 77
8/15/2012 16:01:20   


Pardon my ignorance, but I don't see why something like this should be seen as a lifestyle at all. I'm sure everything must be different where you all are, though, so I probably can't perfectly relate. I feel a little shy coming into a thread like this, honestly. I believe in equal rights for everyone, but this comes at a cost. It is honestly something that can not happen overnight, as much as everyone on the one side wants it to, or as much as everyone on the other doesn't. Allow me to explain where I'm coming from.

This. *Claps at Art, while holding back tears*

I, too, believe in equal rights. I feel as if the words that I wanted to say, but didn't have the proper English to put into, you just put into the simplest words ever. This applies not only to the bolded, but to the rest of your posts, the one on the previous and current pages.


Post #: 78
8/15/2012 18:07:49   

I think it's important to differentiate between being gay and the idea of "gay culture." Being gay doesn't have to be a lifestyle, but it certainly has been made into one - for better or worse. Pride parades and similarly flamboyant (I use this term advisedly) displays of solidarity may empower the gay community, but they can also come off as a bit... well, exotic (and in some cases, erotic), but maybe that's just my impression. Does being gay mean acting gay? What does it mean to act gay? Do you have to parade about in highlighter-yellow booty shorts?

Of course not, but people do it anyway - and good for them! The problem is when people (on both sides of the issue) fail to make a distinction between homosexuality and gay culture. A gay lawyer is a lawyer. A female politician is a politician. A transsexual actress is an actress. A person's sex/sexuality/gender should only be as important as that person makes it out to be, and judging somebody else based solely on preconceived notions is rarely, if ever, a good/just idea.

In a nutshell: wear what you want, eat where you want, and believe what you want, but keep an open mind.
Post #: 79
8/16/2012 15:46:03   


< Message edited by Shirefolk -- 10/6/2015 14:46:05 >
AQ  Post #: 80
8/17/2012 4:28:22   

I think that the fact that people are going for gay marriage is quite a simplistic thing. It's more of a, "They have it so we should have it too!" type thing. Look at it like this: Gay marriage has absolutely no religious standing, and marriage is, of itself, a religious institution. The civil part of it is incredibly dumb, to say the least. Why can't I be in a civil union with my best friend and have the same benefits that a spouse has? The fact of the matter is that marriage is not a right, will never be a right, and should not be a right. It's a privilege. And in fact, what we should be doing is removing marriage as a civil institution. Making a civil union simply a way for people to get the same benefits that a spouse gets now. So let's say I want a tax return, if I'm living with my brother or friend, I want the same tax benefits that a married couple gets. That way gays get what they want.

Edited to remove topic that is not allowed. Others have had it edited, you are no exception.
Eukara Vox
AE Admin
OOC Head

< Message edited by Eukara Vox -- 8/17/2012 12:49:00 >
AQ MQ  Post #: 81
8/17/2012 4:45:18   

^: Exactly the point I made one page ago. One party must back down on its claim to perform marriage rites. The chief point of contention, though, is that, for the government, marriage is classified as a legally binding contract. Every bit of legislature related to marriage would need to be rewritten to accommodate civil unions as well as past marriages. Were the church to back down (which it never would, and can not be expected to, as marriage was originally a religious institution), such a problem would not arise. Thus, there arises a conflict. Such a conflict cannot be resolved when two parties are both unwilling to forfeit what they view as their jurisdiction. Both church and state are at fault in this instance, the church for its unwillingness to adopt a more modern view on human rights, and the state for its unwillingness to separate itself fully from the church.
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 82
8/17/2012 7:27:30   
The fanciest of moustaches

I've been pondering posting this for a little bit, and seeing this line:

The fact of the matter is that marriage is not a right, will never be a right, and should not be a right.
At least in the United States, marrige is a right. Scrolling down to the Decisions section of that article has a quote which states quite clearly that marrige is one of the "basic civil rights of man." It was cited in the decision to overturn California's Proposition 8, so this interpretation (that outlawing marrige based on an intrinsic characteristic, unchangable) is completely precedented. I wouldn't be shocked at all to see Loving v. Virginia turn up again should a gay marriage law (for or against) be taken all the way up to the Supreme Court. Actually, I wholly expect it to, and to have gay marriage become the new law of the land.

Marriage is not only a religious institution. It is also a political one. That's something we've got to accept. There's a difference between the religious and the political. A marriage can be recognized by a religion without being recognized by the government and vice versa (example: If a wedding isn't in a Catholich church presided over by a Catholic priest, the Catholic church doesn't consider it valid, so I've been told by my Catholic father). No one is saying "RELIGIONS SHOULD HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE." Okay, there's probably a some people, but... The idea is to get the benefits from the government. Religion doesn't even play in this. The movement in favor if gay marriage is after acknowledgement from the government, not from religious organizations.

Also, marriage wasn't originally religious. It was originally more of a political/economic arrangement. Religion adapted it later.

< Message edited by Teh Cataclysmic One -- 8/17/2012 8:59:23 >
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 83
8/17/2012 19:23:14   
 Strange World

Mo: That's an interesting stance to take. Besides resolving the gender-pairing issue, your argument brings to light that legal marriage brings economic impacts (often advantages) to people who "marry," and it's worth considering that it confers advantages to those who adhere to the social norms for marriage. Many families are not defined foremost by two romantically-linked individuals, and legal guardianship, hospital visitation, and economics tend to have more issues for more complex families (like two siblings raising kids, or two grandparents [from separate families] and a parent raising kids). Society would probably benefit from developing more generalized contracts (not specializing in romantically-joined pairs) that focus on the needs of individuals and families, so the proper people get the protections and access they have been entrusted with. It might make for an interesting new thread to explore what sort of privileges should be allowed for these kinds of contracts, especially since one might contemplate how they be used and abused (much like legal marriage can now) and thus need to be fine-tuned accordingly.

That said, I could possibly see legal marriage (inclusive of same-sex pairs) surviving in addition to civil unions. Many romantically-paired people may like the idea of a contract which implies that one person who "cheats" on their partner would pay some kind of penalty (less visitation rights to children, uneven property split from a divorce), but they'd rather not deal with unromantic process of consciously attaching a prenuptial agreement beforehand. That said, I agree that such a contract must otherwise be equitable to two-head civil unions, and that insurance/etc that offers its services for married couples must provide the same packages to them as well.

< Message edited by Kaelin -- 8/17/2012 19:24:15 >
AQ  Post #: 84
8/18/2012 4:53:35   

To basically everyone: See, the thing is, religious people who are against gay marriage are against it strictly for the label. They're fine with civil unions (well, the ones that aren't against gay people in general). It's a rather simple solution to an argument that shouldn't really still be talked about. And much in the same, I'm tired of people saying about how gay people don't have equal rights because they can't marry (I'm talking strictly in the US of course). Everyone is making mountains out of mole hills, which I really find just annoying. Perhaps it's my apathy speaking, but this issue isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be, so change the label, and most people will be just dandy.

Teh Cataclysmic One: I was talking more about marriage in its modern role. Apart from its benefits from the civil marriage, which I discussed, the only real reason it still exists in the US is because of religion, which is why people are so up in arms about it. What we've really seen is that there are quite a few romantically attached couples living together yet not being married. The difference between a theoretical couple doing that and a theoretical married couple is a certificate, and a few things. In accordance to the government, they get tax benefits, benefits upon the death of a spouse, and more. On the religious side, well, apparently I'm not allowed to say it according to Euky. In the US it no longer plays a political role, and it truly is an outdated institution.

With that being said, I would have to disagree with that court ruling about marriage being a right. I mean, the UN placed internet service as a right. Marriage is not as ridiculous as that, but it's close. Now, my opinion, as someone who isn't a lawyer sure doesn't hold any ground in court, but in terms of common sense, why would marriage be a right? What about marriage makes it a right? In religious times, it was a privilege. If you got excommunicated, you would no longer be allowed to get married. So why is it a right now?

If you look at the definition of a right: "A moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way," you see that it's place as a right holds ground only so long as it is a civil institution. Since it is asinine that you have to be romantically-linked to get the benefits imparted onto spouses today, once marriages turn into civil unions (and I don't expect them to), marriage no longer has any grounds as a "right" in the US.

Superemo: I think telling the Church to change its stance on anything is rather unfair. The basis of the Church is the Bible, and according to their interpretation, gays aren't allowed to be married. (I know the verses, but with the restrictions on certain words, it's rather hard to discuss). You're basically telling them, follow how I view your book, or change your religion. Religion is an ideology, politics is not. It's hypocritical, in my opinion, for any religion that doesn't believe in a living prophet to change their religion even the slightest, and so your saying that they should change their stance is something I would oppose entirely.

Kaelin: Having conditional civil unions would make sure that cheating nullifies the civil union. It would also protect business partners and other people in different scenarios. If civil unions were drawn up like wills, it would make the system a lot more fool-proof.

< Message edited by Mo -- 8/18/2012 4:58:10 >
AQ MQ  Post #: 85
8/18/2012 11:12:49   

^: Significant dogma from the Christian church states that Jesus never died, but ascended directly to heaven, thereby giving the Christian church a "living prophet". What's more, the Catholic branch of Christianity has the Pope, who is selected as the interpreter of God's will, giving them a second living prophet. Thus, your argument on the grounds of hypocrisy is invalid. Now, for other religions that with sects that are avowedly anti-gay, your argument may stand, but few of those exist at the level that Christian anti-gay sects exist.
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 86
8/18/2012 11:39:18   
How We Roll Winner

So after much consideration, I have decided to contribute to this thread.

In direct address to the subject of this thread, I would like to say that the fact that there exist people who belong to such diverse sexual orientations is proof in itself that people's minds are evolving, growing to accept newer ways of life, ones that even though are not considered mainstream are still unique in their own ways.

To all those out there who consider the LGBT community to be outcasts and freaks of nature, I ask you this:
What if they think the same of you?

I am 100% sure that they don't, but whats the point of driving them to a point where the contrary becomes a part of even their thoughts. And then, it won't be long before a worldwide civil war breaks out. Well, not to hope that it ever comes to that.

Okay, now I read in this very thread that someone talked of not eating in a restaurant which is funded by anti-gay organisations. Again, I would emphasize my abovementioned point, if in a different light altogether. Its no point driving people to a point where they break and retaliate with all their force. Thoughts need to be changed, and so do ways. Only then can harmony come.

So that was all I could come up with as of now. Very very generic, I know. But hook me up with a specific in-Topic debate and I shall funnel in my thoughts.

DF MQ AQW  Post #: 87
8/18/2012 18:54:05   
 Strange World


See, the thing is, religious people who are against gay marriage are against it strictly for the label.

This survey suggests otherwise. While roughly 24% of Americans support civil unions but not marriage, 33% are against *any* sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples (including civil unions). I suspect very few of those 33% would be willing to give up legal recognition of mixed-sex marriage to be neutral (and is thus mostly a group that basically cannot be appeased by an equitable system) -- you are more likely to find allies to your viewpoint from the other 67%.


I think telling the Church to change its stance on anything is rather unfair. The basis of the Church is the Bible, and according to their interpretation, gays aren't allowed to be married.

The adoption of legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not require religion to recognize or perform marriages against its rules (an issue which is not limited to the sex-pairing of couples). For similar reasons, a denomination that is against mixed-race marriage does not have to recognize mixed-race couples, but people are guaranteed that legal/civil option nonetheless.

As far as "romantic relationship-conditional civil unions" are concerned, as to whether they can be called "marriages" or "civil marriages" (even if as a subset of "civil unions") or not, I think it is probably a losing battle to insist they be referred to by a long name. Simplicity tends to win out, and while I think one might be able to manage to force romantic unions under a "civil union" umbrella and use the desired wording in legal documents, people will still call them marriage, and the civil service workers who deal with the people asking a "marriage license" will invariably be trained to offer an appropriate conditional civil union form. And a transition to such a scheme requires care -- people seeking these kinds of relationships are going into them with the idea that they will last, and they may not be well-served if they spend too much time laying out the consequences in the event of a divorce/dissolution. Granted, it is a legal mess for courts to try to work out such things without strong rules to guide them, but having a couple strong cookie-cutter contracts available helps people achieve peace of mind without agonizing over hypothetical negatives. Great foresight is needed for a smooth transition, or the outcome can be far worse for anti-gay people than legalizing same-sex marriage (it's one thing to see other people get something that goes against their own religion, but it's quite another for them to lose something that is theirs).
AQ  Post #: 88
8/26/2012 7:51:47   

Mo, the Supreme Court (as has been previously noted) disagrees

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
Your characterization of marriage as a solely religious institution may be applicable in certain areas, but it's certainly not in the western world and hasn't been for hundreds of years.

As to what legally-recognized gay relationships ought to be called, the ninth circuit court's decision in Perry v., the Californian gay marriage case, makes for interesting reading. Marriage isn't just a word:

All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples
we emphasize the extraordinary significance of the official designation of ‘marriage.’ That designation is important because ‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ‘registered domestic partnership’ does not.
Homophobia is an interesting cultural phenomenon. In the last fifty years, gays have become visible and vocal in society. Now, everyone has a gay sibling, child, friend, or coworker, and over time exposure to gay people has shifted opinions about them. It's difficult for people to maintain hatred for the abstract homosexual when they discover their loved one is gay.


If the gay gene was normal, our population should be decreasing, not increasing.
An interesting observation: as a male child's number of older brothers increases, so does the chance he will be gay. The biological imperative is to increase the prevalence of your genes. This doesn't mean that it's to have children. My own children share half of their genes with me; my brother's children, one quarter. If I, as an uncle with no children, were to expend twice as much energy assisting my brother's child as I would my own, I've helped my own genes exactly as much in either case.
Some other observations: there is no gay gene, the causes of homosexuality are unclear and include both genetic and environmental factors, and your assertion is plainly, factually, and scientifically wrong.


Now as far as the claim that "being gay is not a choice".. I can't pass any judgement on that. I'm not gay, so I can't understand how a homosexual person thinks or feels.
Sure you can! You like members of the opposite gender. You just do. That's exactly how gay people feel, only towards members of their own gender.

Surveys have also shown that numerous homosexuals have actually chosen their sexual preference for a variety of reasons such as social pressure. Disregarding surveys, I have also come across homosexuals/bisexuals who have chosen their way of life simply because of the hedonistic nature behind it.
This is nonsensical. While some research has suggested that sexual orientation can be flexible in females, no credible research supports the idea that people choose their sexual orientation, or that it can be changed. 'Ex-gay' groups, like Exodus International, have altogether given up on the idea that sexual orientation can change. And "the hedonistic nature behind it"? Seriously? OkCupid, a dating site, does great statistical work with the massive dataset their users provide. As it turns out, gay people have as many partners as everyone else.

I (occasionally) eat at Chick-fil-A. I can't find anywhere else nearby that makes good milkshakes.

< Message edited by Beo -- 8/26/2012 13:43:22 >


AQ  Post #: 89
8/26/2012 13:30:49   
The Extinguisher

Beo, I agree with everything you said, and I just wanted to give you props for using OkTrends. I love that blog.

Also, I've known some people who are bisexual and restrict their relationships to hetero- or homosexual for their own reasons, but that's hardly the same thing.
Post #: 90
8/31/2012 3:16:21   

I hate to correct you Beo, but you made a mistake with your choice of words. The correct word is sex instead of gender when you were explaining how a gay/lesbian person feels. Gender is how one views themself. I'm a real nitpicker for that since it seems its okay to use the two interchangeably in everyday speech when a difference does exist.
Post #: 91
2/24/2013 6:59:13   
James Lu

Yes, there are those who are genderqueer (not identifying with either man or woman, i.e. non-binary gender identity) and those who are genderfluid (whose gender identities are protean in nature).

The verses in the Bible that speak against homosexual acts, not homosexuals, (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) and based on my own studies of the Bible (I used to do Biblical hermeneutics), it most probably refers to adulterers committing these acts with those of the same sex, since laws on adultery only covered adulterous relationships of those of opposite sexes. In fact, Sodom and Gomorrah were never destroyed because of homosexual acts, but rather because they were too immersed in their own pride and wealth that they forgot to uphold basic Biblical teaching.

Over the course of the history of the Biblical authors, those views were strengthened and as the context of the time changed and social attitudes with it, so too did they develop the belief that it was non-adulterous as well as adulterous homosexual relationships that were against God and his divine Will.


AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 92
2/24/2013 13:14:37   
King Helios

^ It speaks against two men sleeping together, as opposed to two women.
AQ MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 93
2/24/2013 14:16:39   
Onyx Darkmatter

Well... I can only say that I'm glad and sad to live in a new era in this world: Yes, everyone shall feel welcomed no matter what in this world, regardless on what you are and who you are (Although, there are things that must be included, like respect to everyone else, and respect for yourself toward others.), which I'm glad to see many people has respect. Does this mean that this new society is great? I'd say both yes and no (For the yes answer: I already answered it, being respect in people). For the no answer: There's always people that will throw hatred and rage to anyone, meaning, they're basically humans with negativity within them (Could it be part of Human Nature? Yes, but, there are unhealthy negativity that's not normal to be part of Human Nature. Let's say Homosexuals: There are people that dislikes/"hates" them, but for most of the time, they decided to keep their comments to themselves and/or respect them as part of their society; Then there's those that are completely extreme toward them, they'll do whatever they can to try and eliminate them, even if it means replaying the holocaust. Again, this is just an example, while I don't like/interested in Homosexual people, I have nothing against them, which I don't really care about them).

So overall, I'm partly liking this new Society, but not fully supporting. I know people will disagree with me, and I honestly don't care, I'm just giving out my opinion.


AQ DF MQ  Post #: 94
2/25/2013 2:43:30   

Quite frankly, I see no reason for the LGBT community to be called much of a community for the simple reason it has no reason to be. I don't care about whatever your orientation is, just try not to be too flamboyant about it and we'll get along fine. Though that really is the same reaction I have to most things. I'm not against homosexuality in any way, but I am against the whole rainbow flags, "Pride Parade", giant show routine. There's no real reason for it. You want to be gay, fine. You want to strut down Main Street waving rainbows at everyone to show that you're normal.people and shouldn't be treated differently? Seems a bit strange to me...
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 95
2/25/2013 2:57:26   

^ They need to show that they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. "We will always exist, so if you want to bury us, want us to hide ourselves, here's what you get instead -- a massive Roy G Biv protest." While it may seem tolerant to say "I'm fine as long as you don't shove it down my throat," you have to understand you're talking to a community who's constantly being told "Why not just pretend to be straight? Why not just hide who you are? Nobody wants to see it."
AQ DF  Post #: 96
2/25/2013 11:06:39   

I tried to stay away from this thread, but I guess not. For reference, I am a bisexual woman in a committed heterosexual relationship.


tons of gay organizations that protest anything that seems to be slightly unfair to them, but if a group comes out that opposes homosexuality, they are instantly labeled as a "hate group."

Tdub, that's because they usually are. There is no need to 'speak out' against homosexuality just because you disagree with it; they're not hurting anyone. In my experience, those people, usually men, that have 'spoken out' against my sexuality have been bigoted, angry people that wanted to force their own world view onto others.

UnderSoul, I found your post quite offensive, though I am sure you did not mean it to be.


Quite frankly, I see no reason for the LGBT community to be called much of a community for the simple reason it has no reason to be.

Why? For as long as I can remember while I've been out, I've had stupid, uninformed or frankly offensive comments thrown my way. I am more likely to gravitate to those who understand me or feel the way I do, thus I'm more like to make friends with members of the LGBTQ group. That is not to say I don't have straight friends, I have more straight than gay or bi, in fact, but they simply do not understand what I and my peers go through. For exactly this reason, LGBTQ is a community, and one that I feels needs to more visible, not less.


I don't care about whatever your orientation is, just try not to be too flamboyant about it and we'll get along fine.

Is that what you say to people at carnivals or raves or people who dress in a counter culture way? No? Why is being 'flamboyant' okay for clothes or the like but not okay for Pride parades? It is the way it is to draw attention to our community because we have been 'under the radar' for so long. To be part of that, to be surrounded by people who know and understand what it feels like to have hurtful and derogatory comments thrown their way and to carry on as they were was an emotional and empowering thing.


Though that really is the same reaction I have to most things. I'm not against homosexuality in any way, but I am against the whole rainbow flags, "Pride Parade", giant show routine. There's no real reason for it. You want to be gay, fine. You want to strut down Main Street waving rainbows at everyone to show that you're normal.people and shouldn't be treated differently? Seems a bit strange to me...

If at a Pride parade you see the leather chaps wearing gays, and that weirds you out, remember that everyone in that parade who comes after them are 'normal', as you put it, and wants to be accepted as they are. They are so overt and visible because the entire community has been oppressed for so long that we NEED to draw attention to ourselves to prove that we exist and we deserve equal rights. Even anecdotally, I know so many gays or lesbians who have had to act 'normally' ie. not effeminate (for the men) or overly masculine (for the women) and have been unhappy or depressed in themselves because they acted as society expected of them, not how they wanted to act.

< Message edited by Helixi -- 2/25/2013 11:43:40 >
AQ DF  Post #: 97
2/25/2013 12:25:44   

I may not know what LGTB means, but I get the gist of this thread.

I just can't understand how people can be biased like that. My primal rule in life is to let everyone have an opinion, unless that opinion harms anyone else. People can hate another person as much as they like, but if they or their words harm that person, enforcement should be put in place to protect that person being harmed. The only thing they are is different, and why some people despise others for that is beyond me.

That's also why I enjoy literature like "To Kill a Mockingbird." Tolerance is without a doubt (In my humble opinion) one of the most necessary virtues needed for peace.
I don't trust myself enough to continue in a thread where flames could spring up any moment, so I'm really just going to leave my opinion and leave. It's very likely already been said as it is, but that's my take on the issue.
DF MQ Epic  Post #: 98
2/26/2013 11:19:30   
 Strange World

The extent that "gay communities" exist can be attributed to the power structures denying GLBTs the human rights and full participation available to the majority. The more they are restricted in society, the more they will be grouped together (often against their will) and will work with each other to optimize their chances of survival. "Black communities" exist for related reasons, and they tend to offer various expressions some people have found objectionable (whether it is do-rags or ragtime), but that contempt for such culture owes itself in great part to it being someone else's culture rather than a practical problem.

Is there any moral difference between a man being expressive (be it with clothes, speech, or whatnot) than a woman being expressive? Differential treatment here seems to point to sex discrimination more than anything. It may seem on the surface that the select subset of expressive of men who show off their bodies in the process are going too far, but women who do the same are generally accepted (clubs, beaches, parades, etc) and at times have men paying to see them (as "calendar girls," cheerleaders/dancers at sporting events, etc) -- if straight women can deal with many of peers showing off in that way, then their straight male counterparts can suck it up and do the same.

As I mentioned months ago back on the front page, "pride" can be understood as a counter to "shame." Many power structures in society have gone to great lengths to shame gay people throughout history, and pride is their way of sticking up for themselves. Pride can be obnoxious, but consider what is worse: people defiantly saying they have a right to be themselves, or other people denying them (or trying to deny them) that basic human right? Whatever contempt one can have for someone who is over-the-top should pale compared to what one has for someone who denies people their identity and forces their ideology on them. It may be difficult to appreciate how lopsided this comparison is, but the day *you* are the one told you are a sinful criminal with second-class rights, it'll be hard to forget where the criticism deserves to go.
AQ  Post #: 99
2/27/2013 0:04:54   
James Lu

@King Helios: I know, but the Bible uses gender-specific pronouns. If the Bible were to be taken at face-value, the world would be a grim place. When considering the 613 Mitzvot, one must make sure that they conform to the practices of the time. The Bible does not specifically mention homosexuals as being sinners, this only occurs in the Pauline Epistles. Leviticus does mention adulterous homosexual acts as being sinful, but not homosexuality per se.

Kaelin hits the nail on the head, the flamboyance and extravagance of gay pride events is not to attract the ire of the public, but to call attention to the iniquitous treatment of the LGBT community as second-class citizens being denied fundamental human rights.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> Out of Context >> RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles
Page 4 of 7«<23456>»
Jump to:


Icon Legend
New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition