| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
On September 22 2015 08:28 AssyrianKing wrote: what if it's not homophobia, but a moral reason instead You can have a moral objection to gay people having rights. It's just a homophobic set of morals. You can have any set of morals you like, morals are not always moral. | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
As I understand, the idea is that you would ensure civil partnerships for homosexual people DO grant all the rights as one has in marriage (currently in Australia it's nearly the same, but I believe there are a few exceptions here and there). If people are so in favour of tearing down "traditional" views from older times and allowing people to maintain their own culture, their own rights etc., then given that marriage has been a part of heterosexual religious culture, isn't forcing a change in "their" tradition of marriage just suppressing their culture for the sake of enforcing your own? The idea is to promote equality, to make sure that the law considers them equal and that society will adapt to this at least over time because cultures are influenced by the law (just as they also influence the law), but it's ironic how we're all supposed to be different but equal (which I completely agree with) but then civil partnerships that would grant all the rights are apparently not good enough and the term marriage is *needed*, even though it's supposedly only equal to civil partnerships anyway. I thought it was not so much about denying homosexuals equal rights or terms as not having "traditions" taken away when they didn't interfere with other people's rights. Homosexuals get all the same rights (in this scenario at least). Now I would object to this more as a matter of practicality. If they're really the same, then there's not any real point in having two official terms for two different version of the same thing if a solid portion of the population would be happy to just call it marriage. It's like if you had a country with two ethnic backgrounds and one wanted to call all apples "apples" while the other thought that Granny Smith apples were their god's gift to their people, and thus everyone should be calling those Granny Smiths but not "apples" and only they, the chosen people should be able to eat said Granny Smiths, but as the fruit is largely the same sort of thing, the other ethnic group may of course eat the other apples. To me? Stuff your impressions of what is sacred, everyone gets to share each type of apples, including the sacred Granny Smiths, because it's not actually hurting you unless you suffer depression as a result of the sacrilege, but that's basically all in your head. I totally understand how some people might feel like this is unfair and like people taking away their culture though. Now, AssyrianKing, let me know if that is at all what you were getting at. :Þ EDIT: From the AU thread though, I think I'd strongly disagree with his politics though.... It looks like his might be the homophobic reasons. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
| ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 22 2015 23:22 KwarK wrote: That's a very long way of saying "you don't have to hate gays to have a firm moral belief that they should be second class citizens". The right to marry is not apples. but then please explain to me why the right to marry does not extend to non-monogamous relationships. If marriage is not bound to reproduction, why should marriage not be open to any consensual relationship? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On September 23 2015 02:10 Nyxisto wrote: but then please explain to me why the right to marry does not extend to non-monogamous relationships. If marriage is not bound to reproduction, why should marriage not be open to any consensual relationship? Because it's a social construct, it doesn't have to make sense. Are you ok with clubs which don't allow Jews? If you are then you're an antisemite. It's pretty straightforward. Can we please now go back to talking about serious stuff, like that time our Prime Minister put his cock in that dead pigs mouth? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
On September 23 2015 02:10 Nyxisto wrote: but then please explain to me why the right to marry does not extend to non-monogamous relationships. If marriage is not bound to reproduction, why should marriage not be open to any consensual relationship? Marriage is open to non monogamous relationships. It always has been. Extra marital sex has never caused the automatic legal dissolution of a marriage, at most it has been grounds for a party within the marriage to invoke their right to voluntary dissolution. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 23 2015 02:28 KwarK wrote: Marriage is open to non monogamous relationships. It always has been. Extra marital sex has never caused the automatic legal dissolution of a marriage, at most it has been grounds for a party within the marriage to invoke their right to voluntary dissolution. I'm talking about marriages between more than two people. Why can't three people marry if the only requirement for marriage is love or mutual responsibility? Surely this can be the case in a relationship of three people. The point is really that homosexual marriage tries to emulate a deeply conservative institution without any good reason. If gay marriage is just an expression of "everybody in modern society is supposed to design his family life as they want"(which is a very reasonable thing to believe), we can abolish marriage altogether, we don't need to annoy conservatives by trying to conquer their institutions just to make a point. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
Let's bring this a little closer to home. I believe pretty strongly that 1v1s on approved Kespa maps are the only right way to play Starcraft. I know that if you look closely at the history of Starcraft you will find a time before Kespa maps where barbarians played on Challenger but those were the old days and now we're civilized. I believe this passionately and if I found the right echo chamber I could present this as a consensus and appear to be some kind of authority on how Starcraft should be played. But that wouldn't actually make me one, it'd just mean that I care way too much about it and that people who don't give a fuck are humouring me because they don't want me to go off on another rant. One day I log onto US East and I find that I can't get a 1v1, the only hosted games are Fastest Possible Map. I decide that Fastest Possible Map is a perversion, as are all player made maps such as Cat and Mouse or Strip Idra, I want them banned. I can say with absolute honesty that I would not want my child to grow up only playing 4v4 FPM no rush. Obviously a lot of people are upset and some of them may point out my hypocrisy, as Fighting Spirit is also a player made map and if I examine the history I would find that I don't like any of the original maps, only player made maps which conform with my own prejudices. However I am angrier about Starcraft and more passionate about it and I have a legion of nerds at my back and we collectively decide to legislate on this issue and define Starcraft as just 1v1s on Kespa maps. I offer to set up conversion camps to teach the FPM players the virtues of 1v1s and explain to them that they can still play sc2, it'll be separate but equal. But Starcraft 2 is not equal. Nerds get mad about a lot of things and feel that their passion gives them some kind of special ownership over it. It happens with games, with music, with comic books. People get mad at artists who produce things different to the early work which they heard before the artist was even popular. Black actors offered parts which are white in comics get a shitton of hate mail over it because it contradicts the nerd's version of the story which they seriously believe is the only true version. I don't doubt that some conservatives believe very strongly that they own marriage and that they have the right to decide what marriage means for everyone, it's just that pretty much every group of nerds feels that exact way about pretty much anything and they're all wrong. I don't like the 2nd gen Pokemon, I think Pokemon Red is the best but I'm self aware enough to recognise that I don't get to decide that for everyone. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On September 23 2015 03:16 Nyxisto wrote: I'm talking about marriages between more than two people. Why can't three people marry if the only requirement for marriage is love or mutual responsibility? Surely this can be the case in a relationship of three people. The point is really that homosexual marriage tries to emulate a deeply conservative institution without any good reason. If gay marriage is just an expression of "everybody in modern society is supposed to design his family life as they want"(which is a very reasonable thing to believe), we can abolish marriage altogether, we don't need to annoy conservatives by trying to conquer their institutions just to make a point. Sorry, since when did conservatives "own" marriage?! edit: should probably have just read Kwark's post first xD | ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
On September 22 2015 23:22 KwarK wrote: That's a very long way of saying "you don't have to hate gays to have a firm moral belief that they should be second class citizens". The right to marry is not apples. This is incorrect Kwark, I assume your use of second class citizen is a "they are treated badly compared to others and this is not morally good" (as second is below first, not equivalent but different). Many people in a modern progressive society have different rights based upon discrimination, and yet it is a better society than if this discriminating didn't exist. For example age, my grandmother was dined adopting a dog because she was deemed too old (this is kinda stupid because she is legally allowed to buy a much younger puppy from a breeder in this case!) but this does make sense, she is very likely to pass away before a younger dog and cause trauma ect to it. My little cousin is not 16, she cannot drink, drive, vote or gamble. She also cannot enter the Olympics as a male athlete. None of these things make my Grandmother or my little cousin somehow less human, or worth less in society. Granted this is not the same as gender equality as I'm sure someone will jump on, but that was never my point. I was simply refuting the notion that everyone should have exactly the same rights regardless of who they are, and it seems society is ok with this. Another point, what actually is a right? What I mean by this is take for example gay marriage. When it is legal does this mean that two men CAN marry under the law. Ok, well what about a priest, is he able to deny the two men his service? Is that his right? Or do the rights of the two men overrule the right of the priest and he must marry them? Also what about a business, can they refuse to print flyers with LGBT support on them? (apparently not in Ireland) Ok, so what about a charity then, or an individual, can they deny their own giving based upon the recipient? Can a charity that provides free childcare to married individuals choose not to recognize a gay marriage? What about the same 'charity' that doesn't doesn't take any tax breaks but is just a loosely defined collection of people? What about an individual? Could an American Charity operating in the UK that gives away free alcohol deny a recipient that was between he age of 18 and 21? (we can drink at 18) | ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The UK is alone among G7 nations in dramatically increasing its fossil fuel subsidies, despite an earlier pledge to phase them out, a new report has found. The revelation will embarrass ministers who want to take a leading role at a crunch UN climate change summit in Paris in December, but who have been sharply cutting support for green energy at home. The report from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Oil Change International found that as a whole, G20 nations are responsible for $452bn (£297bn) a year in subsidies for fossil fuel production. The G20, which meets on Sunday in Turkey, pledged in 2009 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. In the UK, production subsidies of £5.9bn have already benefited major fossil fuel companies operating in the country, most foreign-owned, while £3.7bn is used to subsidise fossil fuel production overseas in countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia and China, the new analysis found. New tax breaks for North Sea oil and gas production announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, earlier in 2015 will cost taxpayers a further £1.7bn by 2020, according to government figures. Shelagh Whitley, an author of the ODI report, said: “The UK has been cutting back support for solar power and energy efficiency, arguing that the burden was too high. Our figures reveal that in spite of supposed budget constraints the government is giving ever increasing handouts to oil and gas majors.” The report, entitled Empty Promises, states: “The UK stands out as a member of the G20 that, despite its pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, has dramatically increased its support to the production of fossil fuels in recent years.” Whitley said: “No other G7 country has done this.” Earlier UK tax breaks for North Sea exploration from 2009-14 were worth £551m to the French company Total, £131m to the US-based Apache and £267m to Norway’s state-owned Statoil, the ODI said. The International Energy Agency (IEA) revealed on Tuesday a further $490bn a year in subsidies for fossil fuel consumption, mainly cheap fuel. Subsidies for renewable energy are far smaller, with the IEA estimating them at $135bn a year. Source | ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/mao-did-it-come-to-this#.lrynwRQLpz | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g8348 Doublelift2283 JimRising  541Day[9].tv346 C9.Mang0343 PiGStarcraft294 Maynarde140 CosmosSc2  29 |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Soulkey
INu's Battles
SHIN vs Cure
ByuN vs Zoun
PiGosaur Cup
Patches Events
The PondCast
INu's Battles
Percival vs TBD
TBD vs herO
OSC
Replay Cast
OSC
BSL: Ladder Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
