On June 26 2013 22:24 Nymzee wrote: If you search for anything remotely associated to "homosexuality" on Google the search bar is coloured with a rainbow banner. Like TL, Google are must be so totally pro-gay that they're willing to let all other equality issues subside. That's the extent to how stupid some of the posts are in this thread (IMO).
Yes, showing support for a particular movement means that Google/TL are putting all other equality issues out of the way. It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with all of the Gay Pride stuff going on this week in the country, or the two landmark cases that were expected to be handed down today. Nope, nothing to do with those...
On June 26 2013 22:13 Alexstrasas wrote: After having built a monopoly, you now pass to the second phase and start with the LGBT agenda.
Its not like people can go somewhere else.
Well played sirs(?), well played.
I'm sorry but I have to repeat myself. How ist this an "agenda" or ideology in any way?
TL shows support for people who suffer, because they are discriminated against (if they are lucky) and physically hurt (if they are not lucky). So why do you oppose supporting people who suffer? How can you possibly be against something like that or even be offended? The answer is easy: you think they deserve to suffer. It is their own fault, they don't need support they need a cure. They are a threat and an insult to your own way of life (They try to destroy marriage..)
This answer is ugly, so you create arguments like "Dude, politics/ideology/religion should have no place on an esports site, you shove your left-wing agenda in my face" and ironically try to lift yourself on the moral high ground (it's almost funny if you think about it) This analogy might sound a little weird but imagine if there was a pink ribbon next to the TL Logo in support of people who suffer from breast cancer. (no I don't compare an illness to homosexuality I compare two groups of people who suffer, one from intolerance and hate the ohter from cancer.... actually it is quiet fitting... intolerance and hate are a disease of society) Do you think anyone in the world would have the idea to post "Dude, this ribbon shoves a political oppinion in my face, remove it"?
There is no morally salient difference between a homosexual and heterosexual couple. However, there is a morally salient difference between heterosexuals/homosexuals and pedophiles/animal lovers. This difference is called consent.
Polygamy is an interesting issue, as everyone is consenting. However, it was traditionally an institution that oppressed women in a significant way, so I think this is the reason that it has a certain level of taboo attached to it.
On June 26 2013 22:13 Alexstrasas wrote: After having built a monopoly, you now pass to the second phase and start with the LGBT agenda.
Its not like people can go somewhere else.
Well played sirs(?), well played.
Oh no ~_~ He found us out ! The rest of you are just forgetting to extrapolate
I just choked I'm laughing so hard. Thank you for this.
This pseudo-intellectual stuff gets really annoying.
There is no morally salient difference between a homosexual and heterosexual couple. However, there is a morally salient difference between heterosexuals/homosexuals and pedophiles/animal lovers. This difference is called consent.
You can't just leave that out of the discussion to sound intelligent. "But what about pedophiles!" without actually addressing the consent issue (which is an incredibly obvious point in this discussion) just makes you sound like a dick for comparing homosexuals to pedophiles.
Polygamy is an interesting issue, as everyone is consenting. However, it was traditionally an institution that oppressed women in a significant way, so I think this is the reason that it has a certain level of taboo attached to it.
On June 26 2013 22:13 Alexstrasas wrote: After having built a monopoly, you now pass to the second phase and start with the LGBT agenda.
Its not like people can go somewhere else.
Well played sirs(?), well played.
Oh no ~_~ He found us out ! The rest of you are just forgetting to extrapolate
I just choked I'm laughing so hard. Thank you for this.
This pseudo-intellectual stuff gets really annoying.
There is no morally salient difference between a homosexual and heterosexual couple. However, there is a morally salient difference between heterosexuals/homosexuals and pedophiles/animal lovers. This difference is called consent.
You can't just leave that out of the discussion to sound intelligent. "But what about pedophiles!" without actually addressing the consent issue (which is an incredibly obvious point in this discussion) just makes you sound like a dick for comparing homosexuals to pedophiles.
Polygamy is an interesting issue, as everyone is consenting. However, it was traditionally an institution that oppressed women in a significant way, so I think this is the reason that it has a certain level of taboo attached to it.
I'm assuming you meant to quote me with this. I think you missed the point of my post. The entire point of it was that paedophilia and homosexuality will never be on the same grounds, not because we arbitrarily decided to put a limit there, but because we discussed it and gave reasoning behind it. I plainly stated, then restated that that was the case. I'll do it again more clearly if it it helps; stopping at "it's equality" opens up comparisons to paedophilia and zoophilia, accepting discussion and providing reasoning as to why they're different and why homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality will stem those comparisons and openly show that the "slippery slope" idea is a non-issue. I think the debate is already well in-favour of "no" in terms of paedophilia and zoophilia, as I stated before, though age of consent arguments will always touch on the former, and the currently irrelevant act of xenophilia might touch on the latter in the far, far future, as I stated before, but polygamy will be the next big debate in my opinion.
On June 26 2013 22:13 Alexstrasas wrote: After having built a monopoly, you now pass to the second phase and start with the LGBT agenda.
Its not like people can go somewhere else.
Well played sirs(?), well played.
Oh no ~_~ He found us out ! The rest of you are just forgetting to extrapolate
I just choked I'm laughing so hard. Thank you for this.
This pseudo-intellectual stuff gets really annoying.
There is no morally salient difference between a homosexual and heterosexual couple. However, there is a morally salient difference between heterosexuals/homosexuals and pedophiles/animal lovers. This difference is called consent.
You can't just leave that out of the discussion to sound intelligent. "But what about pedophiles!" without actually addressing the consent issue (which is an incredibly obvious point in this discussion) just makes you sound like a dick for comparing homosexuals to pedophiles.
Polygamy is an interesting issue, as everyone is consenting. However, it was traditionally an institution that oppressed women in a significant way, so I think this is the reason that it has a certain level of taboo attached to it.
I'm assuming you meant to quote me with this. I think you missed the point of my post. The entire point of it was that paedophilia and homosexuality will never be on the same grounds, not because we arbitrarily decided to put a limit there, but because we discussed it and gave reasoning behind it. I plainly stated, then restated that that was the case. I'll do it again more clearly if it it helps; stopping at "it's equality" opens up comparisons to paedophilia and zoophilia, accepting discussion and providing reasoning as to why they're different and why homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality will stem those comparisons and openly show that the "slippery slope" idea is a non-issue. I think the debate is already well in-favour of "no" in terms of paedophilia and zoophilia, as I stated before, though age of consent arguments will always touch on the former, and the currently irrelevant act of xenophilia might touch on the latter in the far, far future, as I stated before, but polygamy will be the next big debate in my opinion.
Yea, my bad, not reading very thoroughly while I am at work.
On June 26 2013 22:13 Alexstrasas wrote: After having built a monopoly, you now pass to the second phase and start with the LGBT agenda.
Its not like people can go somewhere else.
Well played sirs(?), well played.
Oh no ~_~ He found us out ! The rest of you are just forgetting to extrapolate
I just choked I'm laughing so hard. Thank you for this.
This pseudo-intellectual stuff gets really annoying.
There is no morally salient difference between a homosexual and heterosexual couple. However, there is a morally salient difference between heterosexuals/homosexuals and pedophiles/animal lovers. This difference is called consent.
You can't just leave that out of the discussion to sound intelligent. "But what about pedophiles!" without actually addressing the consent issue (which is an incredibly obvious point in this discussion) just makes you sound like a dick for comparing homosexuals to pedophiles.
Polygamy is an interesting issue, as everyone is consenting. However, it was traditionally an institution that oppressed women in a significant way, so I think this is the reason that it has a certain level of taboo attached to it.
I'm assuming you meant to quote me with this. I think you missed the point of my post. The entire point of it was that paedophilia and homosexuality will never be on the same grounds, not because we arbitrarily decided to put a limit there, but because we discussed it and gave reasoning behind it. I plainly stated, then restated that that was the case. I'll do it again more clearly if it it helps; stopping at "it's equality" opens up comparisons to paedophilia and zoophilia, accepting discussion and providing reasoning as to why they're different and why homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality will stem those comparisons and openly show that the "slippery slope" idea is a non-issue. I think the debate is already well in-favour of "no" in terms of paedophilia and zoophilia, as I stated before, though age of consent arguments will always touch on the former, and the currently irrelevant act of xenophilia might touch on the latter in the far, far future, as I stated before, but polygamy will be the next big debate in my opinion.
Yea, my bad, not reading very thoroughly while I am at work.
No problems, we've all been there, and at a glance my post could seem extremely insulting.
Also I'd like to make an amendment, before polygamy there will be the trans debate. I somehow managed to forget it because I was focused on the LGB parts of the LGBT umbrella, despite the fact that in a lot of LGBT communities there's sadly internal conflict about the T part of it (and kind of the B part now that I think about it). I don't know if this is the appropriate time and place to discuss it though.
Im gay and im fucking tired of this gay shit, gay this, gay that, equality this, equality that, back in my day you didnt need equal rights to be happy.
On June 27 2013 01:26 D10 wrote: back in my day you didnt need equal rights to be happy.
im not sure what I find so funny about this but it cracks me up XD
I dunno man, im a straight white dude so I dont really have to worry about my rights, but I always figured that if I wasnt any of those things then I might be pretty bitter
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0DLy2RX.png)
![[image loading]](http://rebelwife.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tin-foil-viking-hat-man.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dZDpcw6.png)
![[image loading]](http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/lb.jpg)
