• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
He has the right to do so, and everyone else has the right to 'levy aspirations' against him. There are no opinion police, but there are social expectations that many people share. Just like many people quietly respect someone's practices if they happen to religious and find it impolite to tell them their religion is wrong, other people find it impolite and too forward to say that homosexuality is wrong.

The right to free speech works both ways. It does not make it any less a right for us to scold each other for saying something particular than it is to say something. The right to free speech makes it so that we can't make it against the law to express ourselves in a certain way. It doesn't make sense to invoke it when someone accuses you of being rude because they are just as free to accuse you. It's freedom of speech, not freedom to have the last word.
 

Jerp

Lurker...
If you are willing to pick and choose your beliefs(which you clearly do, as you would likely be imprisoned if you obeyed the Bible word for word), like so many of your faith do; why not overlook the absurdity that perpetuates the persecution of a trait people are born with?

Because they have the right to form their own opinions on matters such as gay rights. I support gay rights, and while I don't think that they should use the Bible as support against gay rights, their vote counts just as much as mine.
 

FE21

Well-Known Member
I think it's fair as a means to an end. Blood banks are always in need of more blood for sick patients, and I think anyone who wants to give blood should be given a big hug and accomodated in whatever way they need.

I'm reading that the questionaire doesn't ask whether you are gay, but whether or not you've had sex with other men or women. Which is...subtly different. At first glance, it's not really discriminatory because it has a solid reasoning behind it: there is a apparently a higher rate of HIV and other STD's amongst sexually active gay men and women, and they don't want to pay for inspecting the blood if they're going to get contaminated blood too often. So basically, it's a combination of a medical reason and a limit to $$$. Not disciminatory, but they could definately do better to make it so that they don't look so damn discriminatory.

It doesn't make sense to me anyway; instead of turning away people who are gay and sexually active, why not at least allow them to give blood if they give documentation of a full physical and testing for all sorts of STD's on their own time and their own insurance? It's dumb to turn away someone who wants to donate blood. They could easily compromise.

I don't see too much of a risk of lying in order to donate blood...I highly doubt that it will get under their radar if there's anything wrong with it.

I "deleted" that post because when I read it back to me it sounded like poor word choise for what I was trying to say. I didn't know they had that question, since I've never donated blood (I was always "sick" on those days), so I didn't have the right to say anything. However, they should have the question alot more straightforeword "Do you have an STD, or think you have a possibility of one?" type question consitering the fact that "contaminated" blood poses a dangerous risk to public health. Example: One of our good family friends, a mother of two, caught an STD (not sure which one) through a blood transfusion. My point is, the current question is out of context, but has the right idea behind it. Public health is more important then not offending someone. Just my two cents.

*Oh, and all your posts are well writen, just FYI :)
 

Psychic

Really and truly
However, they should have the question alot more straightforeword "Do you have an STD, or think you have a possibility of one?" type question consitering the fact that "contaminated" blood poses a dangerous risk to public health. Example: One of our good family friends, a mother of two, caught an STD (not sure which one) through a blood transfusion. My point is, the current question is out of context, but has the right idea behind it. Public health is more important then not offending someone. Just my two cents.
Unfortunately, a lot of people with STDs/STIs aren't even aware of it. You can get something from a sexual partner and not see any symptoms, and accidentally pass it on to another partner. It's a huge issue, no matter your gender or orientation.


Because they have the right to form their own opinions on matters such as gay rights. I support gay rights, and while I don't think that they should use the Bible as support against gay rights, their vote counts just as much as mine.
Gotta agree that the idea of people who are uneducated on basic points like whether the earth is flat, or who want to remove the basic human rights of others, count just as much as I do, is slightly frightening. Definitely not saying they shouldn't get a vote, but it's a scary prospect.



~Psychic
 

Jerp

Lurker...
Unfortunately, a lot of people with STDs/STIs aren't even aware of it. You can get something from a sexual partner and not see any symptoms, and accidentally pass it on to another partner. It's a huge issue, no matter your gender or orientation.



Gotta agree that the idea of people who are uneducated on basic points like whether the earth is flat, or who want to remove the basic human rights of others, count just as much as I do, is slightly frightening. Definitely not saying they shouldn't get a vote, but it's a scary prospect.



~Psychic

I honestly don't see why orientation makes a difference in STD/I's. They spread equally fast regardless of whom it is transferred from. What really scared me was how close Rick Santorum came to winning the Republican Nomination... I mean, how can we bash Islamic Republics for violating human rights when we suppress gay rights ourselves?
 

Jerp

Lurker...
because unlike Islamic Republics we don't stone people for being gay


says the man who supports homosexual marriage

And yet there is a large segment of the population who are against gay marriage because it is sacrilegious with respect to Christianity, the same viewpoint of Islamic Republics with respect to Islam. So you're right, we don't stone them to death... yet.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
I think a lot of us get the idea that while institutionalized Christianity is against extremism like stoning gay people, it's not for lack of trying to get there. I also think a lot of us get the idea that Christians who support gay marriage support it in spite of their Christianity, that Christian movements become more progressive because of outside perspectives. Of course, nothing changes without respect to how it already is, so there's always a connection to existing Christian practices, but the catalyst is mostly attributed to the outside, the other.

If we could find a monotheistic theocracy with laws based on their holy book and traditional practice without pandering to the diversity of cultures in their nation, then we'd have a safe metric in which to see what a religion could truly do without outside pressure. And the only real example of that seems to be the Islamic Republics.

*Underlining used to specify that I'm talking about what the case seems to be, not what I sincerely believe. For all I know, this hypthesis is completely wrong. Maybe the true face of Christianity is the mainstream Christianity. It's all so fractured, it's hard to ever say anything for certain and logically feel right about it. Plus, although I consider myself a Christian, here I'm talking about the Christianity that is not so sorely conflicted about the Bible.
 
Last edited:

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
I think a lot of us get the idea that while institutionalized Christianity is against extremism like stoning gay people, it's not for lack of trying to get there. It's simply not possible to do that in the U.S. ...Again
I hope you don't mind my fixing this lil oversite Sunny. lynch mob mentality isn't to far off with the way the media fans stories into a frenzy. There is enough hate in the world and I have already lost one gay friend to three straight jackholes with no brains between them.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Probably a better statement would be, "It's simply not possible for a society to do that legally in the U.S."
 
Last edited:

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
(don't read with a raised voice... just asking questions) :D
We riot after our sports teams win championships!!! How can you say "It's not possible."? It's frighteningly easy. Mob mentality is a Stone's throw(Yeah... I went there) from looting. I'm inclined to believe we are to close to being able to cast stones than being above it. There just aren't enough police to truly handle the populace if they decide to take matters into their own hands.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Key word being 'legally'. I'm talking about an entire society within the US getting away with openly making a law that homosexuality has be punished with stoning, and getting away with it without intervention to protect someone from a murder under federal law.

I'm sure a mob can together and easily stone people if they put their mind to it. : /
 

Jerp

Lurker...
Key word being 'legally'. I'm talking about an entire society within the US getting away with openly making a law that homosexuality has be punished with stoning, and getting away with it without intervention to protect someone from a murder under federal law.

I'm sure a mob can together and easily stone people if they put their mind to it. : /

It's possible that could happen. If things get desperate enough, people will look for somebody to blame... and those laws could be passed, legally. That said, the mob idea is more likely.
 
Because they have the right to form their own opinions on matters such as gay rights. I support gay rights, and while I don't think that they should use the Bible as support against gay rights, their vote counts just as much as mine.

This is a fallacy. The rights of homosexuals are the rights of a minority. They shouldn't be decided by a majority.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Democratic society is however a majority ruled society. So until the majority changes, the minority must endure.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
This is a fallacy. The rights of homosexuals are the rights of a minority. They shouldn't be decided by a majority.

It isn't a falacy, it is how a democratic society works.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Democratic society is however a majority ruled society. So until the majority changes, the minority must endure.

It isn't a falacy, it is how a democratic society works.

That's not true. The U.S. is not a direct democratic society; it is a democratic republic, because the U.S. founders were afraid of the majority oppressing the minority. That's why they made it a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy, and also added a judicial and executive branch, so there would be checks and balances rather than just everything being decided by the votes of the entire population.
 
Top