By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Porn site xHam*** blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

reggin_bolas on 12 April 2016
SuperNova said:
reggin_bolas said:

According Gallop. the American public estimates that over 20% of the US population is gay or lesbian. According to Gallop, it's estimated that only 3.8% actually identify as gay or lesbian. If we extrapolate to the world population, this figure is likely to remain as low or maybe even lower. So why on earth are we giving so much attention and why are we investing so many societal resources for such a small minority group? I mean, there are toilets now in Sweden that are specifically designed and built for transpeople, yet there aren't many people who are actually trans. 

And even Gallop agrees with my thesis:  "The overestimation may also reflect prominent media portrayals of gay characters on television and in movies, even as far back as 2002, and perhaps the high visibility of activists who have pushed gay causes, particularly legalizing same-sex marriage."

Is there an agenda to make gay and lesbian perceived as "cool" and normalized when it's statistically not? Is it ethical?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

You do realize that being gay or lesbian has absolutely nothing to do with being transgender right?

There are gay and lesbian transgender people of course, the only numbers I could find on it suggest that about 21% of them identify as gay. Incidentally that is the exact same number that identifies as heterosexual.

My point is that the numbers above actually only includes about a fith of transgender (the 21% that identify as homosexual) people and don't accord for the rest of them.

Hence, I'm not quite sure what the point of your post was with regards to this topic, other than to imply that we should deny people human rights and equality based on their minority status.

My point? Greater good prevails: Religious freedom > gay rights. Very few people are actually affected by these laws that dont violate any human rights. No idea why you mentioned human rights. 



Around the Network
elektranine on 12 April 2016

Lol this is a horrible precedent.
They should be sued.
What happens when Google gets mad at your state mad at your state for not giving them enough tax 'incentives' and just decides to block your entire state from checking emails.



SuperNova on 12 April 2016
reggin_bolas said:
SuperNova said:

You do realize that being gay or lesbian has absolutely nothing to do with being transgender right?

There are gay and lesbian transgender people of course, the only numbers I could find on it suggest that about 21% of them identify as gay. Incidentally that is the exact same number that identifies as heterosexual.

My point is that the numbers above actually only includes about a fith of transgender (the 21% that identify as homosexual) people and don't accord for the rest of them.

Hence, I'm not quite sure what the point of your post was with regards to this topic, other than to imply that we should deny people human rights and equality based on their minority status.

My point? Greater good prevails: Religious freedom > gay rights. Very few people are actually affected by these laws that dont violate any human rights. No idea why you mentioned human rights. 

What you call 'greater good' is a completely subjective and personal opinion. You choose to not only completely disregard a goup of several million people, but also everyone who doesn't agree with discriminatory laws based on the personal beliefs of a few. State and religion need to remain seperate, otherwise you end up with sharia laws and mandatory religions.

This law specifically exist to cater to a specific group in order to discriminate against another. That is not in favor of religious freedom if the only religion 'benefitting' from this is christianity. It's in favor of christianising the state.

Religios freedom has to end where it harms others. You wouldn't tolerate human sacrifices either with the same excuse that 'it only affects a few people' in defense of religous freedom. (At least I very much hope you wouldn't.) Murder is against the law, so is discrimination, no matter your religion.

 

 

For clarification this is directly from the human rights act:

 

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

 

This law is a blatant incitement to discrimination aimed against a specific group of people and as such a violation of human rights.



LudicrousSpeed on 12 April 2016

I guess I just don't get the outrage. I don't have any problems preventing someone who has not taken the medical steps required to actually change genders from using restrooms with the opposite sex. I don't really care how you identify yourself, if you have a penis between your legs, I would not want you in a restroom with my wife or daughter. Maybe I am just reading the law wrong but it seems if you've completed the legal steps to actually change genders, then you're good?



TruckOSaurus on 12 April 2016
LudicrousSpeed said:
I guess I just don't get the outrage. I don't have any problems preventing someone who has not taken the medical steps required to actually change genders from using restrooms with the opposite sex. I don't really care how you identify yourself, if you have a penis between your legs, I would not want you in a restroom with my wife or daughter. Maybe I am just reading the law wrong but it seems if you've completed the legal steps to actually change genders, then you're good?

Nope, your sex at birth what counts. Always.



Signature goes here!

Around the Network
o_O.Q on 12 April 2016
reggin_bolas said:
Normchacho said:

That's your bar for injustice? Jesus.

In all seriousness though, the law is discriminatory. It really doesn't take any real ties to the LGBT community to see it either.

You can't completely advance gay rights while simultaneously preserving the inveterate practices and beliefs of various Christian groups. They have an inverse-relationship. Considering that less than 4 percent of the entire US population is affected by this law, I'd say it's fair and reasonable to side with religious freedom. There are more Christian practioneers in the the US than there are gays and lesbians. The greater good determines the winner here. 

How is it discrimminatory? Now government officials are finally allowed to object to an act they consider incongruent with their long-held beliefs and values. It's a major victory for religious freedom, something on which the US was principally founded. This law does not prohibit gays from marrying. It's just they can't force people to violate their spiritual beliefs anymore. 

 

now i can tell you that i know with certainty that there's an agenda to completely wipe chrisitianity off the face of the earth... i have done the research and know this for a fact

 

but, you have to understand that if you want to be free to practice your religious doctrine... you must also allow others to be free to live their lives in whatever way they see fit

 

...the minute you start persecuting people and pushing to take away their freedoms, you have also by extension created the environment where your own freedoms can be taken away

 

what you should be advocating for is freedom for all above all else because it is only in such an environment that your own freedoms can be preserved

 

that being said the whole transgender thing is a complex issue and i do think that in some ways necessary boundaries are being broken down that could lead to chaos

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/07/living/feat-planet-fitness-transgender-member/



vivster on 12 April 2016

WTF? Why censor the name of the website? It's xHamster and it's a really nice website. Are we gonna censor the names of R rated games and movies next?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

LudicrousSpeed on 12 April 2016
TruckOSaurus said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
I guess I just don't get the outrage. I don't have any problems preventing someone who has not taken the medical steps required to actually change genders from using restrooms with the opposite sex. I don't really care how you identify yourself, if you have a penis between your legs, I would not want you in a restroom with my wife or daughter. Maybe I am just reading the law wrong but it seems if you've completed the legal steps to actually change genders, then you're good?

Nope, your sex at birth what counts. Always.

Everything I have read says it's what is on your birth certificate, which NC allows you to change. The only issue for some might be if they were born out of state, some states have harder paths to change the sex on it than others. But it seems if you have had the medical work done and the legal work, this doesn't affect you at all.

So essentially it's people who identify one way or the other but haven't taken the steps to actually make the change.



TruckOSaurus on 12 April 2016
Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:
WTF? Why censor the name of the website? It's xHamster and it's a really nice website. Are we gonna censor the names of R rated games and movies next?

Really nice? I dunno... maybe for you, but I personally don't find hamsters (or any other rodents for that matter) sexually attractive...

But polar bears on the other hand...



Signature goes here!

elektranine on 12 April 2016
reggin_bolas said:
Normchacho said:

That's your bar for injustice? Jesus.

In all seriousness though, the law is discriminatory. It really doesn't take any real ties to the LGBT community to see it either.

You can't completely advance gay rights while simultaneously preserving the inveterate practices and beliefs of various Christian groups. They have an inverse-relationship. Considering that less than 4 percent of the entire US population is affected by this law, I'd say it's fair and reasonable to side with religious freedom. There are more Christian practioneers in the the US than there are gays and lesbians. The greater good determines the winner here. 

How is it discrimminatory? Now government officials are finally allowed to object to an act they consider incongruent with their long-held beliefs and values. It's a major victory for religious freedom, something on which the US was principally founded. This law does not prohibit gays from marrying. It's just they can't force people to violate their spiritual beliefs anymore. 

I take it you never heard of a thing called the Constitution or the Supreme Court?

It is long held US Supreme Court precedent to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. Religious freedom is usurped by that. Any intro level government class at a high school/community college/university will teach you this.