|
|
|
On June 26 2013 18:46 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports. Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports. Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. you don't really believe that, do you? In fact, in at least some countries there is some sort of legal partnership for gay couples with similiar benefits to marriage, but conservative parties/people are fighting against it being called "marriage".
If we want to have true equality for the LGBT community, then we need to have the SAME partnership for gay couples that we have for straight couples. Separate but equal didn't work in the past, and I will bet you that it won't work in the future. If we create "civil unions" or whatever instead of just legalizing gay marriage, there will always be rights that gay people do not enjoy. Here in the US in states where there are civil unions but not gay marriage, gay couples miss out on rights that straight couples get.
|
On June 27 2013 01:36 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:34 PassiveAce wrote: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 Those slaves looked like they were having so much fun singing and dancing in their fields.
Because im obviously talking about slavery.
|
On June 27 2013 01:44 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:46 Keniji wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. you don't really believe that, do you? In fact, in at least some countries there is some sort of legal partnership for gay couples with similiar benefits to marriage, but conservative parties/people are fighting against it being called "marriage". If we want to have true equality for the LGBT community, then we need to have the SAME partnership for gay couples that we have for straight couples. Separate but equal didn't work in the past, and I will bet you that it won't work in the future. If we create "civil unions" or whatever instead of just legalizing gay marriage, there will always be rights that gay people do not enjoy. Here in the US in states where there are civil unions but not gay marriage, gay couples miss out on rights that straight couples get.
He raises a good point. We can just rename everything. Marriages accompanied by a religious ceremony can be called 'Religious Unions'. Marriage contracts submitted to the state can be called 'Legitimate Marriages'. That way, people can learn the goddamn difference.
|
On June 27 2013 01:52 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:44 codonbyte wrote:On June 26 2013 18:46 Keniji wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. you don't really believe that, do you? In fact, in at least some countries there is some sort of legal partnership for gay couples with similiar benefits to marriage, but conservative parties/people are fighting against it being called "marriage". If we want to have true equality for the LGBT community, then we need to have the SAME partnership for gay couples that we have for straight couples. Separate but equal didn't work in the past, and I will bet you that it won't work in the future. If we create "civil unions" or whatever instead of just legalizing gay marriage, there will always be rights that gay people do not enjoy. Here in the US in states where there are civil unions but not gay marriage, gay couples miss out on rights that straight couples get. He raises a good point. We can just rename everything. Marriages accompanied by a religious ceremony can be called 'Religious Unions'. Marriage contracts submitted to the state can be called 'Legitimate Marriages'. That way, people can learn the goddamn difference.
I'm not really into renaming marriage for folk who can't be bothered to look into the issue. Those folks can just remain confused and not understand how the marriage contract works.
|
On June 26 2013 18:47 AlgeriaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 11:50 LarJarsE wrote:
Quite frankly, if you are against equality & equal rights, you are an asshole. LOL, so good. They should just make this the website title right now. I mean, can it be put any more simply than that?
Yep, and that makes everyone on this site an asshole. We all oppose equal rights for all.
There are lots of good arguments in favor of gay marriage. Just saying the words "equal rights" over and over is not one of them. It's mindless, since it completely ignores the dozens of groups who we don't afford equal rights now, which no one has a problem with. It's also circular logic, since calling it rights to begin with already carries the implication that it should be accepted.
I can hear people now thinking up justifications for why children shouldn't be allowed to vote, buy alcohol, join the military. That's perfectly fine if you can justify it, but don't go around chanting "equal rights" as if there are no exceptions or qualifications to be made. It's not simple, it's simplistic.
|
I agree wholeheartedly with jormundr. It boggles the mind how people confuse a legal contract with the state and a religious ceremony. they are not at all the same thing.
|
On June 27 2013 01:57 PassiveAce wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with jormundr. It boggles the mind how people confuse a legal contract with the state and a religious ceremony. they are not at all the same thing.
You know that whole "in God we trust" on our currency? There are some people who do legitimately believe that we are a theocracy and that their religion has legal standing.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:51 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:36 RockIronrod wrote:On June 27 2013 01:34 PassiveAce wrote: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 Those slaves looked like they were having so much fun singing and dancing in their fields. Because im obviously talking about slavery.
They're both oppression. Do you have to be super-duper oppressed before you care then?
|
|
|
On June 27 2013 02:01 PassiveAce wrote:
nvm
Well, those people have significant influence in our government and national policies. Hence their ability to stick their religion on our currency. Yeah a religious ceremony and a legal contract aren't the same, but you have to admit our government hasn't done a terribly good job of making that clear.
|
On June 26 2013 20:58 xSNRx wrote:
Thus, this whole issue hinges not just on definitions of marriage, but also one’s views on the morality of homosexuality itself. If you are one who believe that morality is a social construct that shifts with cultural paradigms, perhaps to maximize happiness or survival, then you might agree with same-sex marriage, or child-adult marriage, or whatever suits the shifting tastes of society as a whole. If you are one who believes that morality exists regardless of human affirmation/denial, then you might want to think a bit deeper about what that morality really is, why it exists, and its purpose.
Wow ... you have it completely backwards. Historically homosexuals were denied to basic right to bond with the life partner of their choice based on nothing more than societal whim. For instance, because it was considered "not normal" or "unnatural" or considered a sin in the prevailing religion of said society. More recently these relativistic arguments became "marriage is just defined to be between a man and a woman" or "it has always been like this, so why should we change". The understanding that there are no rational arguments that speak against a union of two consenting adults is especially turning the moral debate on it's feet again or could you otherwise enlighten me which "deep and cosmic law of morality" is violated here?
|
On June 27 2013 01:57 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:47 AlgeriaT wrote:On June 26 2013 11:50 LarJarsE wrote:
Quite frankly, if you are against equality & equal rights, you are an asshole. LOL, so good. They should just make this the website title right now. I mean, can it be put any more simply than that? Yep, and that makes everyone on this site an asshole. We all oppose equal rights for all. There are lots of good arguments in favor of gay marriage. Just saying the words "equal rights" over and over is not one of them. It's mindless, since it completely ignores the dozens of groups who we don't afford equal rights now, which no one has a problem with. It's also circular logic, since calling it rights to begin with already carries the implication that it should be accepted. I can hear people now thinking up justifications for why children shouldn't be allowed to vote, buy alcohol, join the military. That's perfectly fine if you can justify it, but don't go around chanting "equal rights" as if there are no exceptions or qualifications to be made. It's not simple, it's simplistic.
This is a logical fallacy. By your reasoning, you shouldn't apply pressure to a wounded man's artery because he's still going to be bleeding from other cuts on his body.
|
On June 27 2013 02:03 Klondikebar wrote:Well, those people have significant influence in our government and national policies. Hence their ability to stick their religion on our currency. Yeah a religious ceremony and a legal contract aren't the same, but you have to admit our government hasn't done a terribly good job of making that clear.
I'm inclined to agree with you on your larger point about how the argument is framed in America but I think the presence of stuff like "in god we trust" on the $ has more to do with no one caring enough to reverse some Red Scare era law.
|
On June 27 2013 02:06 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 02:03 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 02:01 PassiveAce wrote:
nvm Well, those people have significant influence in our government and national policies. Hence their ability to stick their religion on our currency. Yeah a religious ceremony and a legal contract aren't the same, but you have to admit our government hasn't done a terribly good job of making that clear. I'm inclined to agree with you on your larger point about how the argument is framed in America but I think the presence of stuff like "in god we trust" on the $ has more to do with no one caring enough to reverse some Red Scare era law.
Or to quote the West Wing on the subject of church and state(in reference to Red Mass, which is mostly just a chior singing to members of the court and president): Sometimes we say "Who cares?!".
|
On June 27 2013 02:06 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:57 PCloadletter wrote:On June 26 2013 18:47 AlgeriaT wrote:On June 26 2013 11:50 LarJarsE wrote:
Quite frankly, if you are against equality & equal rights, you are an asshole. LOL, so good. They should just make this the website title right now. I mean, can it be put any more simply than that? Yep, and that makes everyone on this site an asshole. We all oppose equal rights for all. There are lots of good arguments in favor of gay marriage. Just saying the words "equal rights" over and over is not one of them. It's mindless, since it completely ignores the dozens of groups who we don't afford equal rights now, which no one has a problem with. It's also circular logic, since calling it rights to begin with already carries the implication that it should be accepted. I can hear people now thinking up justifications for why children shouldn't be allowed to vote, buy alcohol, join the military. That's perfectly fine if you can justify it, but don't go around chanting "equal rights" as if there are no exceptions or qualifications to be made. It's not simple, it's simplistic. This is a logical fallacy. By your reasoning, you shouldn't apply pressure to a wounded man's artery because he's still going to be bleeding from other cuts on his body.
That wasn't my reasoning at all.
|
On June 27 2013 01:52 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:44 codonbyte wrote:On June 26 2013 18:46 Keniji wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. you don't really believe that, do you? In fact, in at least some countries there is some sort of legal partnership for gay couples with similiar benefits to marriage, but conservative parties/people are fighting against it being called "marriage". If we want to have true equality for the LGBT community, then we need to have the SAME partnership for gay couples that we have for straight couples. Separate but equal didn't work in the past, and I will bet you that it won't work in the future. If we create "civil unions" or whatever instead of just legalizing gay marriage, there will always be rights that gay people do not enjoy. Here in the US in states where there are civil unions but not gay marriage, gay couples miss out on rights that straight couples get. He raises a good point. We can just rename everything. Marriages accompanied by a religious ceremony can be called 'Religious Unions'. Marriage contracts submitted to the state can be called 'Legitimate Marriages'. That way, people can learn the goddamn difference.
No need to rename anything. Marriage predate modern religion anyway and is present in every culture in some form. You just have different kind of marriage; religious (christian, muslim, etc) marriage and civil marriage. They should be the same thing, except with different belief and ceremony.
|
On June 27 2013 02:10 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 02:06 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 01:57 PCloadletter wrote:On June 26 2013 18:47 AlgeriaT wrote:On June 26 2013 11:50 LarJarsE wrote:
Quite frankly, if you are against equality & equal rights, you are an asshole. LOL, so good. They should just make this the website title right now. I mean, can it be put any more simply than that? Yep, and that makes everyone on this site an asshole. We all oppose equal rights for all. There are lots of good arguments in favor of gay marriage. Just saying the words "equal rights" over and over is not one of them. It's mindless, since it completely ignores the dozens of groups who we don't afford equal rights now, which no one has a problem with. It's also circular logic, since calling it rights to begin with already carries the implication that it should be accepted. I can hear people now thinking up justifications for why children shouldn't be allowed to vote, buy alcohol, join the military. That's perfectly fine if you can justify it, but don't go around chanting "equal rights" as if there are no exceptions or qualifications to be made. It's not simple, it's simplistic. This is a logical fallacy. By your reasoning, you shouldn't apply pressure to a wounded man's artery because he's still going to be bleeding from other cuts on his body. That wasn't my reasoning at all.
I would say your reasoning is mired in semantics and could be summed up with "Well technically, equal rights doesn't mean equal for everyone. Like children."
And in response I say: No shit.
|
On June 27 2013 01:57 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:47 AlgeriaT wrote:On June 26 2013 11:50 LarJarsE wrote:
Quite frankly, if you are against equality & equal rights, you are an asshole. LOL, so good. They should just make this the website title right now. I mean, can it be put any more simply than that? Yep, and that makes everyone on this site an asshole. We all oppose equal rights for all. There are lots of good arguments in favor of gay marriage. Just saying the words "equal rights" over and over is not one of them. It's mindless, since it completely ignores the dozens of groups who we don't afford equal rights now, which no one has a problem with. It's also circular logic, since calling it rights to begin with already carries the implication that it should be accepted. I can hear people now thinking up justifications for why children shouldn't be allowed to vote, buy alcohol, join the military. That's perfectly fine if you can justify it, but don't go around chanting "equal rights" as if there are no exceptions or qualifications to be made. It's not simple, it's simplistic.
That's a stupid argument. Of course other group are also discriminated in our society (like myself, as a trans person). Doesn't mean we shouldn't give homosexual equal rights to heterosexual just because other people are also being discriminated. If we have that reasoning we would still have slave.
Your example with children is stupid, because eventually they become old enough to have to rights anyway. So they have equal right already.
|
On June 27 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 02:10 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 02:06 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 01:57 PCloadletter wrote:On June 26 2013 18:47 AlgeriaT wrote:On June 26 2013 11:50 LarJarsE wrote:
Quite frankly, if you are against equality & equal rights, you are an asshole. LOL, so good. They should just make this the website title right now. I mean, can it be put any more simply than that? Yep, and that makes everyone on this site an asshole. We all oppose equal rights for all. There are lots of good arguments in favor of gay marriage. Just saying the words "equal rights" over and over is not one of them. It's mindless, since it completely ignores the dozens of groups who we don't afford equal rights now, which no one has a problem with. It's also circular logic, since calling it rights to begin with already carries the implication that it should be accepted. I can hear people now thinking up justifications for why children shouldn't be allowed to vote, buy alcohol, join the military. That's perfectly fine if you can justify it, but don't go around chanting "equal rights" as if there are no exceptions or qualifications to be made. It's not simple, it's simplistic. This is a logical fallacy. By your reasoning, you shouldn't apply pressure to a wounded man's artery because he's still going to be bleeding from other cuts on his body. That wasn't my reasoning at all. I would say your reasoning is mired in semantics and could be summed up with "Well technically, equal rights doesn't mean equal for everyone. Like children." And in response I say: No shit.
But stating the obvious and pretending you contributed is like...the basis of all forum activity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qcRj2Ad.jpg)
