|
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'm sorry that a few colors in the TL Logo was distracting and "in your face". Should we give you a "manly" "'murrican" cookie?
|
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?
Its a community site. There is a huge thread about tea, cooking, movies, anime and TV shows. Esports is but one part of the site.
|
On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote: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. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. Show nested quote +If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual.
Even your source explicitly calls them benefits.
Benefits are not rights. They are privileges.
You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you.
However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands.
I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views.
|
On June 25 2013 04:46 Stol 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. 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.
Additionally, why does TL have a Korean Music thread? What does that have to do with e-sports? Absolutely nothing. There are other organizations dedicated to Korean Music. It's completely inappropriate here.
|
On June 25 2013 04:45 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:44 wei2coolman wrote: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.
Are you really this dense? To some of those people who are paying into the taxes; yes they do have an issue with homosexual marriage, and yes they have an issue with a black president (he's always half white in my books). It is a horrendous wrong TO THEM. Just like I don't like my taxpayer money going towards guns to rebels in Syria, they have the right to have their money not be used with something they disagree with.
|
On June 25 2013 04:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Equality is a make believe term that means different things to different people.
Your definition of it is not everyone else's.
|
On June 25 2013 04:41 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote: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?
Because laws aren't perfect.
Infertile couples qualifying for benefits doesn't change the intention or nature of these benefits. Nor does it make benefits into rights.
|
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?
Not even a gay esports site, just a gay site now. From now on new accounts will have to watch 8 hours of gay porn before they're allowed to post. Oh wait no, 99% of the content on here is esports related and one fabulous horse isn't gonna change that.
|
On June 25 2013 04:36 Leafren wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:25 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Conti wrote:On June 25 2013 03:49 Qwyn wrote:
You can insult the Bible and the books of the disciples all you want, that's fine by me. But for millions of Christians, the Bible IS the final authority on homosexuality. I suppose I can respect your opinion on that. But then you've got to respect my opinion that your opinion is, to put it mildly, very silly, and that I want nothing to do with someone having that opinion. You exist. I exist. As part of a social contract and being rational human beings, we mutually agree to not kill each other over something as small as our opinions on an issue. I can respect you calling my opinion silly, and I'll just ignore you calling me silly. As for wanting nothing to do with me, I heard TL+ has a nice ignore feature that you can use. Same from me: kudos for keeping it cool. Personally, my issue with religiously motivated "disagreement with the gay lifestyle" is that it often is not just a disagreement is it? Many religious people, like roman catholics, muslims, ... , are required to believe that gay people do not have access to heaven and shall instead suffer eternal torment. For a matter they have no choice in what so ever (people who still think being gay is a choice are just ignorant). Disagreement is one thing. Believing it is just to be tortured for something you can't help is something completely different.
That depends entirely on your interpretation of the Bible and your denomination/beliefs. Many sects are taught that to be gay is a great sin, some are more progressive. Equally the punishment for sin varies according to denomination/beliefs.
Many Catholics do believe that "Hell" is a literal lake of fire and ash, eternal torment. Others believe it to be eternal separation from God and salvation. I did express my opinion regarding homosexuality earlier in this thread, - I believe it to be a mix of nature and nurture, so to speak.
For me, it is the understanding that religion is ultimately about bettering the INDIVIDUAL, not others. What use are you as an example if you cannot discover truth for yourself? It's important to keep an open mind. There are as many types of Christians as there are people in the world. At its heart, the faith is about an individual relationship.
|
On June 25 2013 04:42 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:33 Conti wrote: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.
That's perfectly fine. I'm pretty sure that you're not as crass as you appear, and personally, you don't qualify as a homophobe under my personal definition of the word.
But I'm sure you knew what you were getting yourself into here, and if you are going to start to explain your opinion in detail, people are going to respond and pick your opinion apart. That's just how it works.
You've made me wonder how I would react if a friend I respect would tell me that he's opposed to homosexuality. Honestly, I don't think it would work out for me, even if he said to me what you said to your friend. I mean, would I invite that friend to my wedding? How would I feel kissing my boyfriend in front of him if I'd knew how much he disapproves of what I am doing? There'd be a constant feeling in the back of my head that one of my friends sees me as something less just because of what I am. I don't think I could live with that.
|
On June 25 2013 04:50 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:41 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Because laws aren't perfect. Infertile couples qualifying for benefits doesn't change the intention or nature of these benefits. Nor does it make benefits into rights.
It's awfully convenient how the imperfections in the laws only leave out a minority and let the majority enjoy certain benefits whether or not they qualify.
|
On June 25 2013 04:49 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:45 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:44 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Are you really this dense? To some of those people who are paying into the taxes; yes they do have an issue with homosexual marriage, and yes they have an issue with a black president (he's always half white in my books). It is a horrendous wrong TO THEM. Just like I don't like my taxpayer money going towards guns to rebels in Syria, they have the right to have their money not be used with something they disagree with.
Nope, thats incorrect. The majority has the right to use your money in more or less any way they want.
|
On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote: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:
[quote]
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. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views.
Your confusing the word "rights" with the benefits that are received from being married. Homosexual people don't argue that they are entitled to those benefits as rights. They argue that they have the "right" to be treated equally by the government as a couple. Currently, in may states, they are not and they feel they should be.
|
Little gestures like this are why I'm proud to be a part of your community. Despite varying levels of entrenched idiocy, ignorance, and bigotry (including, disappointingly, plenty on display in this very thread), equal rights for our gay friends, family members and neighbors are only a matter of time.
What small-minded bitterness to want to deny that right. Based on an ancient, "magical" book. (lol)
|
On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote: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:
[quote]
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. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views.
You realize that the bill of rights could be called a bill of privileges right? I mean we haven't extended them to everybody in the past, and still do not today. Changing a word around doesn't change the fact that our laws set a gay couple at a disadvantage when compared to a straight couple, for completely arbitrary reasons.
|
On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote: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:
[quote]
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. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views.
If a heterosexual couple benefits over a homosexual couple, and that is the ONLY reason for the benefit, THAT is discrimination.
I AM using logic when I call that discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. It is discrimination. That isn't an appeal to emotion, quit attacking strawmen, and fucking stick to the issue.
By your definition, you should instead by lobbying the government to get rid of tax incentives for married couples altogether. And I'm sure you have that view. Which do you think is easier to attain, tax incentives being removed from EVERY couple, or tax incentives not being a discriminatory issue?!
What logic is there, when your argument relies on a semantics debate. I don't care if you call them benefits, priveliges or rights. The fact that NONE OF THOSE things are granted equally on the issue of marriage is the issue. If one party gets benefits, rights, or privileges that another party does not, based on how they are born, how is that correct?
|
Will TL begin advocacy for other issues? What is the official TL stance on animal rights? Or abortion? Or reperations for slavery?
I visit this page for news about StarCraft, not for advocacy of social causes.
Games are an escape from the real world, at least to a lot of people.
|
On June 25 2013 04:51 A Wet Shamwow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote: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:
[quote]
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. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views. You realize that the bill of rights could be called a bill of privileges right? I mean we haven't extended them to everybody in the past, and still do not today. Changing a word around doesn't change the fact that our laws set a gay couple at a disadvantage when compared to a straight couple, for completely arbitrary reasons.
Don't go down that road, he is just arguing semantics. He'll move to a new flawed argument once that once starts to cave. I've seen this all before.
|
On June 25 2013 04:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:46 Zaqwert wrote: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? Its a community site. There is a huge thread about tea, cooking, movies, anime and TV shows. Esports is but one part of the site.
Where's my Anime TL banner? or even better yet, my Korean Music TL Banner?
I personally don't have an issue with the banner (though really; it's still majority blue, moar color plox). Google always has random wonky banners for random things, sometimes even equality banner. If a big ol' company like google can get away with it, I don't see why anyone should have any grief with TL doing it.
|
On June 25 2013 04:52 Zaqwert wrote:
Will TL begin advocacy for other issues? What is the official TL stance on animal rights? Or abortion? Or reperations for slavery?
I visit this page for news about StarCraft, not for advocacy of social causes.
Games are an escape from the real world, at least to a lot of people.
1. THIS IS OUR HOUSE
You are our guests. We will make all attempts to treat everyone with due respect and to accommodate everyone's wishes as far as reasonably possible. But, this is a private site. We are not funded by any governments. This means we run the site the way we see fit. We are not obligated to observe anyone's notions of "free speech" or even "fairness." We try of course, and that's why we're consistently considered one of the best gaming sites on the web, and you are always free to give us suggestions (Website Feedback Forum). But, we have our limits. If we don't like you, we simply ban you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
16400
1274
297
356
EPT
