|
On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places.
So then why do infertile couples qualify for those privileges? Or how about couples that just don't have kids?
|
On June 25 2013 04:33 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:27 Qwyn wrote:
I interact with gay people every day. I have a close friend who is gay.
How does he react to your opinion on homosexuality? I'm genuinely curious.
I explained to him that while I disagree with the practice on principle, that I will never use it to judge his character or slight him. I also told him that his relationships are none of my business unless he reaches out to me for help.
He's a very chill dude. As I recall he said thank you for my opinion and we moved on, lol.
Religion should be a matter of the individual's enlightenment and growth. As long as you're clear about that there shouldn't be any problems. It's on the same level as having Muslim, Hindu or atheist friends. If they ask, I tell them respectfully and let them know that I didn't become their friend to convert them to my way of thinking.
|
On June 25 2013 04:41 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:35 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage. The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Yes those 2 are about rights. If, as you claim, the only difference between a homosexual couple that is married without legal status, and a heterosexual couple that is married with legal status, is the heterosexual gets a tax benefit, then the homosexual couple is being monetarily discriminated against. Are potato farmers being discriminated against because they don't qualify for corn subsidies? Are potato farmer's rights being violated by corn subsidies they don't qualify for?
They are if they don't get to choose between being a corn farmer and a potato farmer  .
|
On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage. The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all.
The "right" being discussed, is the right to be treated equally. Not the right for a specific benefit, but for the benefits that are distributed to be distributed equally and fairly.
|
On June 25 2013 04:41 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:35 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage. The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Yes those 2 are about rights. If, as you claim, the only difference between a homosexual couple that is married without legal status, and a heterosexual couple that is married with legal status, is the heterosexual gets a tax benefit, then the homosexual couple is being monetarily discriminated against. Are potato farmers being discriminated against because they don't qualify for corn subsidies? Are potato farmer's rights being violated by corn subsidies they don't qualify for?
The potato farmer can grow corn. A gay person cannot gain the benefits of being straight.
|
On June 25 2013 04:35 wei2coolman wrote:
I think it's pretty funny that if you have an argument or reasoning why you think homosexual marriage is wrong (in the legal sense, not social sense), that you still have to preface your argument with "I'm not a homophobe." Which makes the whole discussion disingenuous; the argument should stand for itself.
My arguments do stand for themselves. Yet people call me a homophobe anyhow. So I tell them I'm not.
|
Why does TL feel the need to be such a pro-gay advocacy organization? What does that have to do with e-sports? Absolutely nothing. There are other organizations dedicated to the issue of gay rights. It's completely inappropriate here.
|
On June 25 2013 04:41 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:35 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage. The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all. Yes those 2 are about rights. If, as you claim, the only difference between a homosexual couple that is married without legal status, and a heterosexual couple that is married with legal status, is the heterosexual gets a tax benefit, then the homosexual couple is being monetarily discriminated against. Are potato farmers being discriminated against because they don't qualify for corn subsidies? Are potato farmer's rights being violated by corn subsidies they don't qualify for?
Whether or not they grow potatoes or corns is ENTIRELY THEIR OWN CHOICE. They are selling a commercial product. An owner of a non-profit business makes less money than the owner of a for profit business, but the non-profit gets more tax writeoffs. Doesn't mean either one is being discriminated against because neither was BORN to do that. They weren't BORN potato farmers. Holy shit, next you are going to tell me that being gay is a choice. Again quit being absurd,
|
On June 25 2013 04:40 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:30 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. So you are suggesting that because they are a gay couple they shouldn't be able to see their loved one on their deathbed in some hospital situations? That they should have a harder time buying a house together, and that they should have separate credit histories, and should get discriminated against based on the tax code due to people's religious sensibilities? Don't you realize how absurd that is? I don't think you quite get his argument; he's merely bringing up a reason why people might have against homosexual marriage; and he does bring up a good point imo. It's the same idea behind "why should I pay for a war I don't agree with." The two situations are not analogous. Should we then, in the spirit of consistency, say that when interracial marriage was finally legalized, even though it was controversial, there was some credence to the other side being against it? There was no GOOD argument against interracial marriage, and saying that they have a good argument because they don't wanna pay for it, well then tough. KKK clan members pay taxes and pay for all sorts of things, like a black president's salary. This is a simple human rights issue, not a 50/50 grey area discussion. They are analogous; It's the very same reason Gov't doesn't allow federal funding for creating stem cells from embryos. Because it would be "wrong" for taxpayer money to be used on something that isn't universally agreed upon. I'm not saying I agree with the argument; but it's definitely something to think about. So it's wrong for the president to be black then because the KKK doesn't agree, therefore the entirety of the united states of america is not universally agreeing upon something? The federal government stepped in and did the right thing and desegregated schools across all states. The federal government did the right thing and abolished slavery. This is a human rights issue, so I couldn't give a rats ass what the "majority" thinks.
Government takes a chunk of your paycheck, and then does something with it so horrendously wrong (at least in your point of view) with that money, that you would be just "ok" with it? Also; no one is saying this argument is the end all be all, for why homosexual marriage is still not allowed in majority of states. It's definitely something to think about though. Also, don't forget, this is also a "rights" issue. What right does the gov't have over the money that is publically sourced?
If you go back a few pages you'll see that I do take apart this argument.
|
On June 25 2013 04:43 Zaqwert wrote:
Why does TL feel the need to be such a pro-gay advocacy organization? What does that have to do with e-sports? Absolutely nothing. There are other organizations dedicated to the issue of gay rights. It's completely inappropriate here.
Why does Zaqwert feel the need to tell private companies how to conduct their business? What does that have to do with e-sports? Absolutely nothing. There are other organizations that are dedicated to "traditional marriage".
|
I love the fact that TL decided to take a stance in LGBT rights. Though I can't comprehend that this topic is so heavily discussed in this thread. Seriously, it's just a gesture. Everyone could just calm down a little.
And take religion out of the topic. Discussing that never works.
|
On June 25 2013 04:43 Zaqwert wrote:
Why does TL feel the need to be such a pro-gay advocacy organization? What does that have to do with e-sports? Absolutely nothing. There are other organizations dedicated to the issue of gay rights. It's completely inappropriate here.
I'm sure you will get over it. The site has always been pro-gay, you just never noticed. Just go back to not noticing.
|
On June 25 2013 04:34 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:22 valium wrote:
Christians... meek? Oh boy, you are so far off it is amazing you can even function. Go pick up a history book or just look at the world today, Christians are the least meek of all religious people.
Do not mistake bashing Christians with people defending themselves against Christians. While I am not so naïve as to think people do not genuinely bash Christians, I am fairly certain most instances of "Christian bashing" is actually someone legitimately defending themselves against intolerance. One should not be tolerant of intolerance, that is referred to as apathy. Bull. "Intolerance" is an arbitrary line. I have a few friends that are openly "racist" in a colloquial sense, and they're perfectly good people who have no problems being around other races. It's overt and violent intolerance which is the problem, and even then the problem is not the prejudice, it's the actions which can precede from those views. It's the action, not what causes it, that's the problem. People can be as intolerant as they want, if they don't actively hurt someone else, they're welcome (though ignorantly so) to be racist. Also, Christian bashing is par for the course in most Collegiate level Social science courses. Nothing too rough (and usually quite humorous actually), but it's there. Particularly Baptists. I tried getting away with a similar Muslim themed joke once and got crickets my freshman year.
You are absolutely right, it is bull... that Christians can bully everyone but it is Christian bashing when someone argues a point or defends non-Christian ideologies in any way they can.
|
TL can do whatever they want, however I think it cheapens their purpose to take political and social stances.
I would prefer they aren't pro or anti gay.
|
On June 25 2013 04:44 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:40 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:30 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:25 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. So you are suggesting that because they are a gay couple they shouldn't be able to see their loved one on their deathbed in some hospital situations? That they should have a harder time buying a house together, and that they should have separate credit histories, and should get discriminated against based on the tax code due to people's religious sensibilities? Don't you realize how absurd that is? I don't think you quite get his argument; he's merely bringing up a reason why people might have against homosexual marriage; and he does bring up a good point imo. It's the same idea behind "why should I pay for a war I don't agree with." The two situations are not analogous. Should we then, in the spirit of consistency, say that when interracial marriage was finally legalized, even though it was controversial, there was some credence to the other side being against it? There was no GOOD argument against interracial marriage, and saying that they have a good argument because they don't wanna pay for it, well then tough. KKK clan members pay taxes and pay for all sorts of things, like a black president's salary. This is a simple human rights issue, not a 50/50 grey area discussion. They are analogous; It's the very same reason Gov't doesn't allow federal funding for creating stem cells from embryos. Because it would be "wrong" for taxpayer money to be used on something that isn't universally agreed upon. I'm not saying I agree with the argument; but it's definitely something to think about. So it's wrong for the president to be black then because the KKK doesn't agree, therefore the entirety of the united states of america is not universally agreeing upon something? The federal government stepped in and did the right thing and desegregated schools across all states. The federal government did the right thing and abolished slavery. This is a human rights issue, so I couldn't give a rats ass what the "majority" thinks. Government takes a chunk of your paycheck, and then does something with it so horrendously wrong (at least in your point of view) with that money, that you would be just "ok" with it? Also; no one is saying this argument is the end all be all, for why homosexual marriage is still not allowed in majority of states. It's definitely something to think about though. If you go back a few pages you'll see that I do take apart this argument.
Letting two men or two women marry is "horrendously wrong"? Having a black president is "horrendously wrong"? This is why it is an improper analogy.
I'm sorry but you shot your argument in the foot.
|
44 pages about gay rights and only 1 ban? I am deeply disappointed of the TL trolls.
|
On June 25 2013 04:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:43 Zaqwert wrote:
Why does TL feel the need to be such a pro-gay advocacy organization? What does that have to do with e-sports? Absolutely nothing. There are other organizations dedicated to the issue of gay rights. It's completely inappropriate here. I'm sure you will get over it. The site has always been pro-gay, you just never noticed. Just go back to not noticing.
Oh I've noticed it, it's just becoming more and more in your face and more distracting.
Is this an esports site or a gay esports site?
|
On June 25 2013 04:45 Zaqwert wrote:
TL can do whatever they want, however I think it cheapens their purpose to take political and social stances.
I would prefer they aren't pro or anti gay.
Its one or the other. They can't be neither. You are either for equality or aren't.
|
As far as the "right to marry" goes; while I would greatly appreciate the government acknowledging my boyfriend as myself as married under law, I really don't give a damn what they think. I don't need their permission to love someone. Just because it isn't government official doesn't mean I don't have a serious relationship with another human being.
My boyfriend and I have made a commitment to one another in same way that two people (man and woman) would do in a more orchestrated scenario. I hold my commitment to him stronger than any bond I have with any other person, and that's nothing any religious fanatic or government absolutest can do to get in between.
I love my partner.
[edit]
On June 25 2013 04:46 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:45 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:43 Zaqwert wrote:
Why does TL feel the need to be such a pro-gay advocacy organization? What does that have to do with e-sports? Absolutely nothing. There are other organizations dedicated to the issue of gay rights. It's completely inappropriate here. I'm sure you will get over it. The site has always been pro-gay, you just never noticed. Just go back to not noticing. Oh I've noticed it, it's just becoming more and more in your face and more distracting. Is this an esports site or a gay esports site?
I don't know, why don't you browse through the thousands of other starcraft related threads instead of the 3 or 4 LGBT rights ones?
|
On June 25 2013 04:43 Zaqwert wrote:
Why does TL feel the need to be such a pro-gay advocacy organization? What does that have to do with e-sports? Absolutely nothing. There are other organizations dedicated to the issue of gay rights. It's completely inappropriate here.
Why do you feel the need to tell TL what their site is about? What do you have to do with TL? Absolutely nothing. There are other people dedicated to the issue of running TL. It's completely inappropriate here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
