• 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

thetamale

Well-Known Member
Power in numbers, if a Alpha Male bully and his friends pick out a target, they are usually going to be ones that they see as weaker be it physically or socially. That way they have less of a chance to fight back or have friends help them fight back.

Yeah I have to agree with Sogeking here, you are blaming the people who are different instead of addressing the perception that different from you is a negative thing.

Also I can't help but notice your entire argument is based around very area specific circumstances and your own observations, something you yourself invalidate.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Moogles, don't forget, this guy has previously said that he approves of Social Darwinism.

Yes, he does approve of doing nothing about it. If the weak starve and die out so that the strong survive, so be it. That's the whole point.

Yes lets avoid my whole post about suggesting posting additional adults supervision to counteract bullying.

Yeah I have to agree with Sogeking here, you are blaming the people who are different instead of addressing the perception that different from you is a negative thing.

Because so far it has done nothing to protect other bullying victims?

Also I can't help but notice your entire argument is based around very area specific circumstances and your own observations, something you yourself invalidate.

I have already posted one link to back up my point and have no problem posting more, so far I seem to be the only person that has actually done so.
 

thetamale

Well-Known Member
I have already posted one link to back up my point and have no problem posting more, so far I seem to be the only person that has actually done so.

No your link finds reasons why people are bullied, it really does look like your blaming the victims. You haven't offered anything that backs up your point that bullying is this hormonal/animalistic impulse that can't be controlled and that everyone different will always be targeted by large groups and will unwaveringly end up a victim due to their race/sexuality somehow rendering them incapable of forming social groups or standing up for themselves.

Your points and observations are based around an intolerant community where any attempt to combat the issues would take considerably longer and you assume that this applies to schools everywhere. Racial and disability based bullying are not as common these days as you make them out to be. And as you yourself said your life is not applicable to millions of people.
 

BigLutz

Banned
No your link finds reasons why people are bullied, it really does look like your blaming the victims. You haven't offered anything that backs up your point that bullying is this hormonal/animalistic impulse that can't be controlled and that everyone different will always be targeted by large groups and will unwaveringly end up a victim due to their race/sexuality somehow rendering them incapable of forming social groups or standing up for themselves.

Never have argued that they can't form social groups or stand up for themselves, infact I think I have made it clear in previous posts that bullies wont go after those in which they feel outnumbered.

As for being different being targeted...

"Targets have an illness or disability. Oftentimes, bullies target special needs children. This can include children who have Asperger’s, autism, ADHD, dyslexia or any other condition that sets them apart. What’s more, kids with conditions like food allergies, asthma, down’s syndrome and other conditions also can be targeted by bullies.

Targets have a different sexual orientation. More often than not, kids are bullied for being gay. In fact, some of the most brutal bullying incidents have involved children who are bullied for their sexual orientation.

Targets have different religious or cultural beliefs. One example of bullying because of religious or cultural beliefs includes the treatment Muslim students received after the 9/11 tragedy. But any student can be bullied for their religious beliefs. Both Christian students and Jewish students are often ridiculed for their beliefs and practices as well.

Targets belong to a different racial group. Sometimes kids will bully others because they are of a different race. For instance, Caucasian students may single out African-American students and bully them. Or African-American students may single out Caucasian students and bully them. It happens with all races and in all directions. No race is exempt from being bullied and no race is exempt from having bullies."

http://bullying.about.com/od/Victims/a/10-Reasons-Why-Kids-Are-Bullied.htm

As for what causes a bully I give you this from my research.

"--Have a strong need to dominate and subdue other students and to get their own way

-- Are impulsive and are easily angered

--Are often defiant and aggressive toward adults, including parents and teachers

--Show little empathy toward students who are victimized

--Are physically stronger (this applies to boys)"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/01/17/what-makes-child-become-bully/

Your points and observations are based around an intolerant community where any attempt to combat the issues would take considerably longer and you assume that this applies to schools everywhere. Racial and disability based bullying are not as common these days as you make them out to be. And as you yourself said your life is not applicable to millions of people.

Umm I have never refereed to my life here infact I have done my best to avoid it, the only time I have refereed to it was when asked about how I know high school. Furthermore I believe I have provided evidence that disability based bullying has continued, so far I have seen no evidence on your part to the contrary.
 

Maedar

Banned
Lutz, the only way to stop bullying is to convince schools to recognize that it's a problem, and for school administrators to adopt zero tolerance policies for students who do it.

If it were up to me, a student who harassed another kid would get detention, while one who physically hurt another kid would be expelled and charged with assault in juvenile court. End of story.

We need more educators who are willing to show backbone like Joe Louis Clark. (Oh, and by the way, don't take the movie Lean on Me at face value. That was a heroic, "badass" depiction and a great movie, but the real Clark actually put more effort into helping the troubled students without abandoning them.)
 

BigLutz

Banned
Lutz, the only way to stop bullying is to convince schools to recognize that it's a problem, and for school administrators to adopt zero tolerance policies for students who do it.

If it were up to me, a student who harassed another kid would get detention, while one who physically hurt another kid would be expelled and charged with assault in juvenile court. End of story.

We need more educators who are willing to show backbone like Joe Louis Clark. (Oh, and by the way, don't take the movie Lean on Me at face value. That was a heroic, "badass" depiction and a great movie, but the real Clark actually put more effort into helping the troubled students without abandoning them.)

You honestly do not think schools don't do that now in some form or another? The problem is that there is not enough staff to catch it, and the problem slips through the cracks.
 

Maedar

Banned
You honestly do not think schools don't do that now in some form or another? The problem is that there is not enough staff to catch it, and the problem slips through the cracks.

Yes, I honestly do, seeing as I saw them getting away with it frequently when I was there.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Yes, I honestly do, seeing as I saw them getting away with it frequently when I was there.

"In response to the national coverage of the harassment and deaths of several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth over the past two years, many legislators and school-safety advocates have demanded "zero tolerance" for bullies."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carolyn-laub/bullying-zero-tolerance_b_1521844.html

"In response to highly publicized violent incidents in schools, such as the Columbine High School massacre, school disciplinary policies have become increasingly severe. These policies have been implemented at the school, district, and state levels with the goal of ensuring the safety of students and staff. Many of these policies have one component in common: zero tolerance. "

http://www.nea.org/home/alt-zero-tolerance-policies.html
 

Maedar

Banned
In other news, Glenn Beck just had a big out-of-character moment:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/glenn-beck-russia_n_4531744.html

I really want to believe you, Glenn, but I'm gonna need more than words.

Still, when a head of state gets both Glenn Beck and GLAAD to condemn him, it might be a sign that he's doing something wrong.

Oh, and other thing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/amazon-pulls-anti-gay-book_n_4532348.html?ref=topbar

How times have changed since 1989 when Barnes and Noble and Waldenbooks caved to threats from Iran and refused to sell The Satanic Verses. It's 2014, and with the current government of Iran still unrepentant from that debacle and refusing to lift their worthless spiritual death sentence on Mr. Rushdie (claiming only the man who ordered it can do that, which is impossible, because Khomeini is dead) Amazon is giving the finger to another hate group by tossing this book.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned

Maedar

Banned
He said "I don't care."
 

John Madden

resident policy guy
i'm pretty sure the libertarian argument is actually "the government shouldn't be mandating who among consenting adults can and cannot marry"
 

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
Yes because he has such a massive track record against gay rights I mean he even said he was for gay marriage, the monster! [/sarcasm]

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-gay-marriage-i-dont-care
There are other things to dislike about Glenn Beck, including his proclivity of slapping a Nazi/Marxist label, his nonsense allusions to his political enemies, not to mention his weird temperament and his general lack of good tastes on almost all subject matters.

Now that I have that out of the way, I'm surprised (not really) that we haven't gotten to the true line of debate: should churches be allowed to forbid same sex marriage. Does the church have such a right when separated from state, or is it outside the "moral authority". Politicians ramble about the surface of the issue, but the decision of a church would seem to be at stake since the government can't make up its mind. Most groups that don't support same sex marriage have a religious perspective on it, which:
A. Is not fair for churches supporting the notion.
B. Has nothing to do with politics and should be disregarded as a political issue.
 

BigLutz

Banned
There are other things to dislike about Glenn Beck, including his proclivity of slapping a Nazi/Marxist label, his nonsense allusions to his political enemies, not to mention his weird temperament and his general lack of good tastes on almost all subject matters.

Now that I have that out of the way, I'm surprised (not really) that we haven't gotten to the true line of debate: should churches be allowed to forbid same sex marriage. Does the church have such a right when separated from state, or is it outside the "moral authority". Politicians ramble about the surface of the issue, but the decision of a church would seem to be at stake since the government can't make up its mind. Most groups that don't support same sex marriage have a religious perspective on it, which:
A. Is not fair for churches supporting the notion.
B. Has nothing to do with politics and should be disregarded as a political issue.

A person can get married with out a church, and since the Separation of Church and State cannot force the Church to do such a thing, I would think it is pretty reasonable to just leave churches alone and let them decide.
 

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
A person can get married with out a church, and since the Separation of Church and State cannot force the Church to do such a thing, I would think it is pretty reasonable to just leave churches alone and let them decide.
Another thing I would like to point out is this: would someone want to marry in a church that condemns their choice? Heck, some mixed race couples have had this problem.
 

Blazekickblaziken

Snarktastic Ditz
I think part of the problem for churches regarding gay marriage, is that some churches might have facilities which are public private. When churches are completely private they can do whatever they want, but once they become public private they have to follow certain guidelines (like no discrimination).

Remember the NOM ad about the gathering storm? In it one actor references a New Jersey state church being forced to marry a gay couple.

NOw, if we read the context surrounding it:

The second actor refers to an Ocean Grove, NJ controversy, in which the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association refused a lesbian couple use of a pavilion for a civil union ceremony. The state ruled that the group could not receive a tax exemption for the pavilion under the state's Green Acres Program, which is intended to encourage availability of property for public use. The Association's beachfront property other than the pavilion itself retained the tax exemption. The Association was assessed approximately $20,000 in back taxes on the pavilion, and was the subject of two related civil rights complaints.

Now, even then, they weren't forced to marry the gay couple, they just lost their tax exempt status because they were no longer a public space.

So, what's the lesson to be learned in this? If a church is private, it can deny gay people the right to get married. But if they want to keep their tax breaks by becoming public private institutions, then they have to get with the times.

Also in this situation the couple didn't want to get married by the church (at least as far as I'm aware) they just wanted to use the facilities.

But why would someone want to get married in a church that discriminates against them? I don't know, maybe they're self absorbed jerks. Gays aren't one giant conglomerates who all have the same personality. Gays are just as varied as heterosexual people.
 
Last edited:

Maedar

Banned
Gays aren't one giant conglomerates who all have the same personality.

No, but bigots would make us believe that. They spread lies and conspiracy theories revolving around the "gays recruit" BS and all that junk. Some folks even suggested that Pope Benedict was "pressured" into resigning by some "gay lobby". (Honestly, if pro-gay groups had that much power, gay marriage would be legal everywhere, and Putin would be on trial at the Hague.)

Here, check out this page and open the "Homosexuals" folder to see all the BS they spew:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ConspiracyTheories/HToN

And as more and more rulings are made against them, the anti-gay people start to make claims that are downright dumb. Check out the slideshow in this article (and notice who's on the number 7 and 13 spots; the only thing scarier than the fact those two wanted to be President is the fact that they actually had supporters)"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...yor-gay-_n_4116387.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

Edit: See this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ike-gay-marriage_n_4537434.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

This man (I use that term loosely) is willing to put his life on the line in his goal to deny rights to gay couples.

When he's rushed to the hospital and they start to feed him using an IV, he's going to get a crash course in Reality 101.
 
Last edited:

Darato

(o,..,o)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked same-sex marriage in Utah, an apparently unanimous order in favor of the state that sends the matter back to an appeals court for expedited consideration.

The case could have sweeping national implications, depending on how the federal appeals panel rules on a challenge to the state’s same-sex marriage ban and whether the case returns to the high court.

Utah asked the Supreme Court to intervene last week after 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay a lower court ruling in December striking down Utah’s voter-approved prohibition of legal wedlock for gays and lesbians.

Hundreds of people sought marriage licenses following U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby’s ruling that said the restriction, approved in 2004, conflicted with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received the Utah petition and then asked her colleagues to weigh in.

The court followed up with a two-sentence order without comment that puts same-sex marriages on hold in Utah only.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said the Supreme Court made the “correct” decision to stay Shelby’s ruling.

“As I have said all along, all Utahns deserve to have this issue resolved through a fair and complete judicial process. I firmly believe this is a state-rights issue and I will work to defend the position of the people of Utah and our State Constitution,” he said in a statement.

The appeals panel in Denver is expected to consider the case again in coming weeks more thoroughly. A ruling there could affect all states within the court’s jurisdiction: Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

More recently, same-sex marriage legal battles have become prominent in states where it is prohibited. But the Utah case is a broad challenge that goes to the heart of constitutional law as it applies to the state ban and could wind up back at the Supreme Court. Same-sex couples say laws like Utah’s violate their equal protection and due process rights.

“It could be the challenge that a lot of people have been waiting for, which is does the United States Constitution guarantee a right to marriage for everyone,” said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. “That’s the issue in this case and it’s now working its way through the courts. It could take quite some time.”

The Supreme Court ruled more narrowly this past summer on separate issues involving same-sex marriage.

It cleared the way for those unions in California to resume and rejected parts of a federal law, concluding same-sex spouses legally married in a state may receive federal benefits.

Most states still ban the practice, but polls show more support for it publicly.

Same-sex advocates look to Shelby’s arguments to sway the appeals panel.

“Despite today’s decision, we are hopeful that the lower court’s well-reasoned decision will be upheld in the end and that courts across the country will continue to recognize that all couples should have the freedom to marry,” Joshua Block, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The lawsuit considered by Shelby was brought by one gay and two lesbian couples in Utah who wish to marry but have been unable to do so because of the state ban.

Same-sex marriage is banned by constitutional amendment or state law in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

It is legal in 17 other U.S states and the District of Columbia: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The case is Herbert v. Kitchen (13A687)

http://fox13now.com/2014/01/06/u-s-supreme-court-halts-gay-marriage-in-utah/

L.F.D.
 
Top