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

Forums - General - Gay Rights - Why is this an issue?

akuma587 on 20 January 2009
Tyrannical said:
I liked it better when the gays were all "in the closet".

Glad to see that no matter how far society comes we will still get comments like these.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 20 January 2009

Are Gay Rights still a contentious issue in the US, now? Methinks I know a characteristic of the next president.

The odd thing about the schools I went to, and the college I go to now is that the only people who aren't called "gay" are the homosexuals. It's like a reverse of the race scenario (where only non-white people can make racist jokes)



perpride on 20 January 2009

All I'm gonna sya is that there's a difference between rights and same sex marriage. I'm all for rights, but completely against marriage.



SamuelRSmith on 20 January 2009

^What about the right to get married?



akuma587 on 20 January 2009

That's apparently not a right.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
The_vagabond7 on 20 January 2009

It's a new day, I am re-invigorated! :)

Apalose, your arguments hold no real world value. Should Akuma simply allow gays to be treated as second class citizens at the behest of a religion because doing anything else would be some sort of paradox? Should he say "forget the rights of the individual, if I tried to fight for them it would be a weird sort of contradiction?"

And what about yourself? If a vocal group of muslims somehow got a degree of political power and were trying to force laws such as "No alcohol" or "Women must conceal their face in public." or "no pre-marital sex", would you oppose such regulation? What if it was a christian group doing the same thing? Would you consider yourself a hypocrite for trying to prevent somebody else from imposing their beliefs on you even if they are hardlined christian beliefs? Keeping in mind Akuma is a christian that argues in a many theological or debates around the existence of god.

Wittgenstein thought the cardinal problem with philosophy was that you could create word problems, ideas expressed linguistically that had no value outside of language. This is one of those problems. Whether or not it's paradoxical to tell somebody not impose their beliefs on others while simultaneously saying it's wrong to murder may make for an interesting word and logic problem, but it has no intrinsic value outside of that. There is no application of that idea other than "Stand aside while I impose my morality, because I think it's fine for me to do so", especially when that person also has an objective morality that disagrees with yours, and you'd do the same if somebody with objective morality tried to force it on you. You can't tell somebody that's anti-prejudice to let people persecute blacks because anti-prejudice is an oxymoron. It may have some sort of linguistic logical truth to it, but outside of language it's nonsense.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

appolose on 20 January 2009
The_vagabond7 said:

It's a new day, I am re-invigorated! :)

Oh, joy! :)

Apalose, your arguments hold no real world value. Should Akuma simply allow gays to be treated as second class citizens at the behest of a religion because doing anything else would be some sort of paradox? Should he say "forget the rights of the individual, if I tried to fight for them it would be a weird sort of contradiction?"

He (or the holders of such positions) should be consistent; he could oppose the issue by trying to show how the Bible doesn't teach this, by trying to disprove Christianity, or by just opposing it because he wants to. If I took his position in the opposite way, "Ban homosexuality, but don't impose morality, so let murderers off the hook", it would be exactly the same, except the subjects are reversed.

And what about yourself? If a vocal group of muslims somehow got a degree of political power and were trying to force laws such as "No alcohol" or "Women must conceal their face in public." or "no pre-marital sex", would you oppose such regulation? What if it was a christian group doing the same thing? Would you consider yourself a hypocrite for trying to prevent somebody else from imposing their beliefs on you even if they are hardlined christian beliefs? Keeping in mind Akuma is a christian that argues in a many theological or debates around the existence of god.

Off topic: Well, actually, I wouldn't mind a ban on alcohol, and would support pre-marital sex banning (if it's constitutionally allowable)   :)  Back on topic: I'd do one of the above methods. 


Wittgenstein thought the cardinal problem with philosophy was that you could create word problems, ideas expressed linguistically that had no value outside of language. This is one of those problems. Whether or not it's paradoxical to tell somebody not impose their beliefs on others while simultaneously saying it's wrong to murder may make for an interesting word and logic problem, but it has no intrinsic value outside of that. There is no application of that idea other than "Stand aside while I impose my morality, because I think it's fine for me to do so", especially when that person also has an objective morality that disagrees with yours, and you'd do the same if somebody with objective morality tried to force it on you. You can't tell somebody that's anti-prejudice to let people persecute blacks because anti-prejudice is an oxymoron. It may have some sort of linguistic logical truth to it, but outside of language it's nonsense.

Is this an excuse to be illogical?  If so, doesn't that kind of defeat the whole point of arguing in the first place? "Well, you may have proved me wrong, but that's intrinsicly useless. 2+2 DOES equal 5". This cannot work.  Either forcing morality is wrong, or forcing a ban on murder is wrong.  You can't have it both ways.

I have no problem with resisting a forced morality.  I just think that this argument for resisting it is wrong.

 

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
The_vagabond7 on 20 January 2009

In a real world situation your way ends in world wide religious war, Apolose :)

Akuma doesn't believe the bible teaches to treat gays as second class citizens, and as an atheist I think Christianity as it exists is extremely flawed and wrong. But trying to make such referendum a nationwide goal would be disastrous, and end violently. Lobbying congress to say "Christianity is false" is not an effective method or argument. How would you even try to refute Islam to Muslims are Judiasm to Jews? It won't happen because religion makes itself unfalsifiable. Saying "do not impose your religious beliefs on others, we should be working towards liberty and protection as a common goal for all people" is effective. Again, real world application is far more important than linguistic exercise.

You say "Either forcing morality is wrong, or forcing a ban on murder is wrong. You can't have it both ways.", actually you can, look outside your window. It exists as both. The reason is pragmatism. Forcing a ban on murder is self preservation that allows liberty and protection. You can argue that it's "wrong" but everyone will disagree, thusly invalidating the assertion. Reality always wins over logic, just ask any Quantum physicist. If I have 2 apple and you have 2 apples and somehow put together we now have five apples, I'm going to believe reality, not an equation.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

FaRmLaNd on 20 January 2009

Laws exist for society to function smoothly because it is advantageous for humans to be social group based animals. If it were better for humans to be loners then we would be. Being gay as far as I'm concerned holds no threat to social order and thus I think we should allow them the same rights as anyone else.

"But but but its against my religious beliefs!" you say, well what if a gay religion was created that allowed for gay marriage? if you wouldn't allow it then, then you might as-well admit that you want the western world to be one big theocracy where no other religions except your own are allowed to be practiced. Thats a world I don't want to live in and don't expect to succeed in such endeavors. What about athiests? Should we not be allowed to marry because we don't believe in God? Don't be hypocritical, either we all can or you are selectively following whatever beliefs you subscribe to.

In the end being gay doesn't hurt you or me, but not allowing the gay community the same rights hurts them. The more gay people the better I say, the world has too much of a population problem anyway.



The_vagabond7 on 20 January 2009

Also, I'd like to ask. Do you think that tolerance of any objective morality other than ones own is hypocritical?



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.