• 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

Agree with you on most of the post but this one. The debt really isn't an issue and you can see my post in the other thread for that reasoning.

Is that the one where you said America owes Brazil 500 billion and Brazil owes America 800 billion (when their debt is c. 450 billion)?

Oh yeah, that post.

Or the other one where you point out just how much debt America is in? Really helped your argument. Of course, that isn't to mention the trillion dollar deficit at the heart of government.

Snorunt conservationist is probably right. We should just ignore the issue of gay marriage until we have fixed every other problem in the world.

This thread should be renamed to the Debt Debate.

Not my point.

I agree, we should also stop funding abortions because we can use the money to better fund our economy. Besides, abortion is a small trifling issue anyway.

Damn straight. **** should people who are vehemently opposed to abortion fund taxpayer initiatives to have abortions carried out?

I'm pro-abortion btw. Very much so.

yes, those samples of 0.0005% of the american population are surely strong indicators

just because "most people don't care" doesn't make it a non-issue. i'm sure in the 1930s not many people would have cared about black people getting equal rights either, but that doesn't mean **** when they do deserve the same human rights as every straight, cis, white, middle class man

Such an awful comparison.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100201581/gay-marriage-meh/

A decent article that further highlights just how antipathetic most people are towards this non-entity.
 

Psychic

Really and truly
It should be painfully obvious that talk about the US's debt does not belong in this thread. Stay on-topic, people.

~Psychic
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
It should be painfully obvious that talk about the US's debt does not belong in this thread. Stay on-topic, people.

~Psychic

They were just using the debt as a red herring. Just because marriage equality isn't the most important thing ever doesn't make it not important.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Snorunt conservationist was not arguing about any kind of "slope." In fact, what he said was not even remotely like "giving gay marriage to gay couples results" in something else. CSolarstorm, despite showing genuine evidence of being able to look past the popular stereotypes on this issue, you do tend to see people's arguments as slippery slope arguments when they aren't (or as changing the subject when they aren't). Just because he mentioned something else that could, in theory, "be next" doesn't mean he was saying that this was next, in some kind of "Oh, that's a horrifying possibility that we have to prevent" type of way. His point was perfectly clear.

I was using the term 'slope' as shorthand to refer to the progression of events, because I gathered from his description of 'fake progressivism that he was suggesting that was the kind of ridiculousness that too much unnecessary progressivism would make people demand, that eventually unmarried couples would claim oppression as their own group and campaign for the same benefits. But I see what you mean; he didn't actually say that, he only compared it to his opinion of the gay marriage issue; but the comparison is still absurd. Why shouldn't non-married couples get the same benefits married couples do? Because that's just called getting married, and they do it all the time. There's not much 'unfairness' there. It's not comparable to the problem gay couples face in not being able to get married.

Strawmen are par for the course in this debate, because people have trouble understanding each other and don't always make a big effort to.
 

Kaiserin

please wake up...
They were just using the debt as a red herring. Just because marriage equality isn't the most important thing ever doesn't make it not important.

It'd be a hell of a lot less important if people stopped getting their heterosexual panties in a twist over the idea of gays marrying, at that. I guarantee you, if it were legalized, and given ten years or so, it would become a non-issue to the point that only the diehards would still be pitching a fit over it.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
It'd be a hell of a lot less important if people stopped getting their heterosexual panties in a twist over the idea of gays marrying, at that. I guarantee you, if it were legalized, and given ten years or so, it would become a non-issue to the point that only the diehards would still be pitching a fit over it.

True, same sex marriage has been legal here for almost 12 years here now. It is well normal now. Ofcourse there are still small groups of people who are against it.
 

Kaiserin

please wake up...
True, same sex marriage has been legal here for almost 12 years here now. It is well normal now. Ofcourse there are still small groups of people who are against it.

I don't doubt there will always be people against it for a long time to come; there are still people against racial equality, or rights for women, even though the United States and many other European countries have since smoothed out all of the major legal biases against anyone who wasn't white or male a long time ago. But I'd put money on the idea that if it were legalized, God would not rain fiery wrath down on the planet for it, and tension would flatten out a hell of a lot more if there were no legal basis to discriminate against anyone not heterosexual.
 

miles0624

Wrath of Fire
I don't doubt there will always be people against it for a long time to come; there are still people against racial equality, or rights for women, even though the United States and many other European countries have since smoothed out all of the major legal biases against anyone who wasn't white or male a long time ago. But I'd put money on the idea that if it were legalized, God would not rain fiery wrath down on the planet for it, and tension would flatten out a hell of a lot more if there were no legal basis to discriminate against anyone not heterosexual.

I honestly believe there will come a time when we start discriminating against ignorance. That would be good.

Also, even though I am against gay marriage (as seen throughout the thread), I feel it should be noted that Christians, and other groups, shouldn't discriminate based on religion, tradition etc. I remember readin a bible verse to live in the world and not be of it. That means that as a Christian, we should realize that our values won't always match up with the values of society. Does that mean someone has to embrace it? No. But it does mean we need to be respectful.

As for the traditional aspect, tradition will always change between groups. There will always be those clingy to old ways, but I think everything will go for the best.

Interesting thought though: if gay marriage does become legal in the majority of the united states, after a while, those who oppose it would be defined as the liberals.
 

dynamitedawsen

Active Member
I honestly don't have a problem with Gay marriage. I think that no harm is committed to the couple because of a gay couple and it is unfair that we are holding them back
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I honestly believe there will come a time when we start discriminating against ignorance. That would be good.

Also, even though I am against gay marriage (as seen throughout the thread), I feel it should be noted that Christians, and other groups, shouldn't discriminate based on religion, tradition etc. I remember readin a bible verse to live in the world and not be of it. That means that as a Christian, we should realize that our values won't always match up with the values of society. Does that mean someone has to embrace it? No. But it does mean we need to be respectful.

As for the traditional aspect, tradition will always change between groups. There will always be those clingy to old ways, but I think everything will go for the best.

Interesting thought though: if gay marriage does become legal in the majority of the united states, after a while, those who oppose it would be defined as the liberals.

Why exactly are you against gay marriage?

I don't think you understand what a liberal is. According to you, someone who is pro-slavery would be considered a liberal.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
I don't doubt there will always be people against it for a long time to come; there are still people against racial equality, or rights for women, even though the United States and many other European countries have since smoothed out all of the major legal biases against anyone who wasn't white or male a long time ago. But I'd put money on the idea that if it were legalized, God would not rain fiery wrath down on the planet for it, and tension would flatten out a hell of a lot more if there were no legal basis to discriminate against anyone not heterosexual.

Ofcourse there will always be people against the idea. It is what I said, for a very big part of the population it simply isn't a problem anymore.
 

miles0624

Wrath of Fire
Why exactly are you against gay marriage?

I don't think you understand what a liberal is. According to you, someone who is pro-slavery would be considered a liberal.

The reason I am against homosexual marriage is partly in both tradition and religion. The religion aspect is in doctrine that is expressed. I am Methodist and we follow closely to Catholics. It is not because we hold that it is wrong for a man and a man to get married, as it is that they can't reproduce. It is held in both these doctrines that if either a woman or man are unable to reproduce, they cannot be married within the church. The only difference in this is that a straight couple can fake like they can reproduce, but if they are found out, their marriage is void through the church. However, like I said, that is how I feel, but you can't force that view on people.

In reality, in the 21st century, someone who is pro-slaverly is a modern day liberal. A liberal is defined as someone who is favorable to progressiveness or reformation. That is why you were a liberal if a Republican in 1840s, but now you are a conservative. When you go against something that is ingrained in society (slavery is no longer ingrained in American Society) you are now liberal in that aspect.

Likewise, if homosexual marriage were to become ingrained in American Society, those who then try to abolish Gay marriage on the basis that it would help would be liberals no. Anyways, a little off topic, was just stating who things shift in politics. (The idea will become a liberal/radical idea, they won't be full liberals. Just on that idea.)
 
Last edited:

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
The reason I am against homosexual marriage is partly in both tradition and religion. The religion aspect is in doctrine that is expressed. I am Methodist and we follow closely to Catholics. It is not because we hold that it is wrong for a man and a man to get married, as it is that they can't reproduce. It is held in both these doctrines that if either a woman or man are unable to reproduce, they cannot be married within the church. The only difference in this is that a straight couple can fake like they can reproduce, but if they are found out, their marriage is void through the church. However, like I said, that is how I feel, but you can't force that view on people.

In reality, in the 21st century, someone who is pro-slaverly is a modern day liberal. A liberal is defined as someone who is favorable to progressiveness or reformation. That is why you were a liberal if a Republican in 1840s, but now you are a conservative. When you go against something that is ingrained in society (slavery is no longer ingrained in American Society) you are now liberal in that aspect.

Likewise, if homosexual marriage were to become ingrained in American Society, those who then try to abolish Gay marriage on the basis that it would help would be liberals no. Anyways, a little off topic, was just stating who things shift in politics. (The idea will become a liberal/radical idea, they won't be full liberals. Just on that idea.)

The opposite of conservative is actualy progesiveness. I think you might have confused liberal and progresiveness. For example in some countries the liberal party can be the conservative party. (I believe Australia is such a country)
 

miles0624

Wrath of Fire
The reason I am against homosexual marriage is partly in both tradition and religion. The religion aspect is in doctrine that is expressed. I am Methodist and we follow closely to Catholics. It is not because we hold that it is wrong for a man and a man to get married, as it is that they can't reproduce. It is held in both these doctrines that if either a woman or man are unable to reproduce, they cannot be married within the church. The only difference in this is that a straight couple can fake like they can reproduce, but if they are found out, their marriage is void through the church. However, like I said, that is how I feel, but you can't force that view on people.

Just decided to clarify something else. That is why in these two denominations, the person being gay in not a sin in itself, it is engaging in the actual act that makes it an actual sin. (By church doctrine.)
 

WizardTrubbish

much more beastly
In reality, in the 21st century, someone who is pro-slaverly is a modern day liberal. A liberal is defined as someone who is favorable to progressiveness or reformation. That is why you were a liberal if a Republican in 1840s, but now you are a conservative. When you go against something that is ingrained in society (slavery is no longer ingrained in American Society) you are now liberal in that aspect.
You're confusing liberal and progressive. Besides, that wouldn't be progressive, it would be reactionary.
 

Kaiserin

please wake up...
The reason I am against homosexual marriage is partly in both tradition and religion. The religion aspect is in doctrine that is expressed. I am Methodist and we follow closely to Catholics. It is not because we hold that it is wrong for a man and a man to get married, as it is that they can't reproduce. It is held in both these doctrines that if either a woman or man are unable to reproduce, they cannot be married within the church. The only difference in this is that a straight couple can fake like they can reproduce, but if they are found out, their marriage is void through the church. However, like I said, that is how I feel, but you can't force that view on people.

I feel it might be pertinent to mention here that marriage is largely a social institution, has been for thousands of years, and is generally not made invalid if, you know, a couple never has kids. There are historical couples long before choosing not to have children was an acceptable option who were just never able to reproduce, even if they tried. Based on this argument, we should be going back and retroactively nullifying any marriages between people who did not/could not ever have biological children.

At least you're not being hypocritical when it comes to the having kids thing, I'll give you credit for that much -- most people hold the double standard of "well, gays can't have kids, but it's okay if they're straight but can't/won't have kids" -- but I personally find that even more restrictive and unfair than the usual stance on it. I don't know what you religion says about it, but from a secular standpoint, marriage is not all or even mostly about the offspring that can come from the pairing. Not in this day and age, anyway.
 

miles0624

Wrath of Fire
I feel it might be pertinent to mention here that marriage is largely a social institution, has been for thousands of years, and is generally not made invalid if, you know, a couple never has kids. There are historical couples long before choosing not to have children was an acceptable option who were just never able to reproduce, even if they tried. Based on this argument, we should be going back and retroactively nullifying any marriages between people who did not/could not ever have biological children.

At least you're not being hypocritical when it comes to the having kids thing, I'll give you credit for that much -- most people hold the double standard of "well, gays can't have kids, but it's okay if they're straight but can't/won't have kids" -- but I personally find that even more restrictive and unfair than the usual stance on it. I don't know what you religion says about it, but from a secular standpoint, marriage is not all or even mostly about the offspring that can come from the pairing. Not in this day and age, anyway.

That is why in the Methodist faith (I believe Catholics hold to this too, but don't take my word on it) we separate being married through the church under God, and being married through the public institution. You can still be married, just not recognized by the church. Our doctrine holds that marriage is a sacrament recognized by God between two people to do what he commanded. (Be fruitful and multiply.)

Anyways, that is the reason we have separations between church/state and the like. One can't impose their views on those that don't agree. (Within reason.)
 

BigLutz

Banned
NY Post said:
Just weeks after the Brooklyn College political science department co-sponsored a hate fest advocating boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel, the City University of New York psychology and philosophy departments are now cosponsoring another hate fest against the Jewish state.

“Homonationalism and Pinkwashing,” sponsored by CUNY’s Gay and Lesbian Studies Center, is scheduled for April 10-11, 2013; the cosponsors include New York University’s Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality and several other centers and programs at both schools. We’re told the conference will be academic, but much of the emphasis plainly will be on the claim that Israel is “pinkwashing” its mistreatment of Palestinians by promoting gay rights in Israel.
The only Middle Eastern country where drag queens needn’t fear: From Tel Aviv’s 2012 gay pride parade.

The conference’s coordinator and inspiration is gay activist Sarah Shulman. In a New York Times op-ed and elsewhere, she has argued that Israel’s positive approach to gay rights is “a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violation of Palestinians human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.”

In other words, she accuses Israel of feigning concern over the rights of gay people in order to whitewash — “pinkwash” — its lack of concern for Palestinian people.

This absurd, obscene argument is nothing more than anti-Semitism with a pink face.

Israel is easily the most gay-friendly country in the Middle East, and among the most supportive of gay rights in the world. Openly gay soldiers have long served in the military and in high positions in both government and the private sector.

In the West Bank and Gaza, by contrast, gays are murdered, tortured and forced to seek asylum — often in Israel. Indeed, in every Arab and Muslim country, homosexual acts among consenting adults are criminal, often punishable by death.

But all this doesn’t matter to the “growing global gay movement” against Israel, which (Schulman insists) regards these positive steps as nothing more than a cover for malevolent Israeli actions.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_next_hate_fest_SkBbx8UR7iKUIEbqRs3rZO

So there is a protest happening because Israel is Gay Friendly... not that the other countries kill Gays, but Israel accepts gays. That country seriously cannot win no matter what.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_next_hate_fest_SkBbx8UR7iKUIEbqRs3rZO

So there is a protest happening because Israel is Gay Friendly... not that the other countries kill Gays, but Israel accepts gays. That country seriously cannot win no matter what.

Wait what? She is a gay activist, complaining Israels pro-gay approach is to hide their palestina policies? Seriously she lost me there.

Last part isn't completly true, homosexual acts aren't illegal in Turkey and Jordan. Israel is just far more gay friendly.
 
Top