Gay StarCraft Players - Page 319

On November 16 2012 07:56 Troxle wrote:
Oh no a philosophy major...phd at that...

On November 16 2012 07:40 neoghaleon55 wrote:


Couple of things.
1. This isn't the right place to talk about this issue.
It is a sensitive issue and going in this thread....THIS THREAD, of all threads to talk about gay rights....
is about as stupid as going into Harlem to debate whether or not black people should vote.

You can look up the variety of discussions already on TL about this issue here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/search.php?q=gay marriage

use the fucking search bar.

2. There are entire court cases going on about this, and they argue a hell of a lot better than you nor I will ever be able to articulate.

Read up on this: http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/04/Perry Trial Decision.pdf

3. Stop shitting up our thread.

thank you.

On November 16 2012 21:00 Rabiator wrote:

Well what IS this thread for then? The title has "gay" and "Starcraft 2" in it and yet there is an official guideline of "dont say gay Starcraft players are just like every other Starcraft player". The "discussion" about gay marriage is all fine and well, but doesnt seem to have anything to do with the combination of gay and Starcraft. I am really confused as to what could possibly be talked about here ...

On November 19 2012 23:17 Zaros wrote:
I am back in business internet is here :D http://www.speedtest.net/result/2317829702.png

On November 16 2012 07:02 jyuj wrote:


-To the warning-
I was not trolling. Maintaining the definition of marriage as between man and women is a legitimate position. A position that maybe some don't agree with on TL.net but just the mere mention of it is not a troll. If this is not the right place to voice that opinion, I am 100% sorry. Where on TL.net should I voice it? Because clearly this is a type of conversation about social justice that TL.net is ok with having on its forums.( Tyrannical people censors when they hear things they don't like)

-To Drekkonis-
Civil unions if properly constructed would give all the same rights and privileges as marriage. The problem is it is a legal quagmire with all the complication that comes forth, so in the name of simplicity most states just amend marriage to include same sex. This band-aid solution also is vexed with complication. The main issue which actually trumps the entire issue is that "States, government or any power should not have the power to police sexuality". It is unconstitutional and a terrible oppression of so many rights, for example the right to pursue happiness. Everyone should have the freedom to express "love" however they so chose, in a manner that makes them happy. BUT am I for the simple redefining what marriage means? NO!

52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

a. PX0707 at RFA No 38: Proponents admit that there is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage;

b. PX0707 at RFA No 4: Proponents admit that the word “marriage” has a unique meaning;

c. Tr. 207-208:6 (Cott, describing the social meaning of marriage in our culture: Marriage has been the “happy ending to the romance.” Marriage “is the principal happy ending in all of our romantic tales”; the “cultural polish on marriage” is “as a destination to be gained by any couple who love one another.”);

d. Tr. 208-17 (Cott: “Q. Let me ask you this. How does the cultural value and the meaning, social meaning of marriage, in your view, compare with the social meaning of domestic partnerships and civil unions? A. I appreciate the fact that several states have extended-maybe it's many states now, have extended most of the material rights and benefits of marriage to people who have civil unions or domestic partnerships. But there really is no comparison, in my historical view, because there is nothing that is like marriage except marriage.”);

e. Tr. 611:1-7 (Peplau: “I have great confidence that some of the things that come from marriage, believing that you are part of the first class kind of relationship in this country, that you are * * * in the status of relationships that this society most values, most esteems, considers the most legitimate and the most appropriate, undoubtedly has benefits that are not part of domestic partnerships.”);

f. Tr. 1342:14-1343:12 (Badgett: Some same-sex couples who might marry would not register as domestic partners because they see domestic partnership as a second class status.);

g. Tr. 1471:1-1472:8 (Badgett: Same-sex couples value the social recognition of marriage and believe that the alternative status conveys a message of inferiority.);

h. Tr. 1963:3-8 (Tam: “If ‘domestic partner’ is defined as it is now, then we can explain to our children that, yeah, there are some same-sex person wants to have a lifetime together as committed partners, and that is called ‘domestic partner,’ but it is not ‘marriage.’ ” (as stated)).

On November 16 2012 21:00 Rabiator wrote:

Well what IS this thread for then? The title has "gay" and "Starcraft 2" in it and yet there is an official guideline of "dont say gay Starcraft players are just like every other Starcraft player". The "discussion" about gay marriage is all fine and well, but doesnt seem to have anything to do with the combination of gay and Starcraft. I am really confused as to what could possibly be talked about here ...

On November 20 2012 12:37 p4NDemik wrote:
Please everyone, just let sleeping dogs lie in this case, in the interest of getting the thread back to the purpose it was originally intended for.

On November 22 2012 01:45 Klondikebar wrote:
Enterprise ... cathartic.

On November 22 2012 08:49 Unshapely wrote:
Awesome thread, wish I had the patience to read all 319 pages but I somehow managed to read the first 6-7 and the questions/answers were really interesting. Specifically the one where you've discussed that people do not realise they're bi-sexual or gay till a certain point in their life.

I am attracted to women, but somehow, sometimes I also feel attracted to non-hairy, clean, men. I'd say I'm about 80% attracted to women, and about 20% attracted to very specific men. Guess that makes me bi-sexual, to some extent?

On November 22 2012 09:08 RaZorwire wrote:


I'm not an expert, but I can imagine that rather than everyone being clear-cut cases of Gay, straight or bi, it's more like a sliding scale, or something like that? I know of guys who are mainly attracted to guys, but can find some girls attractive in certain situations.

I'm sure i'm not the best to talk about this, because I can't say even what the name of it is, but there is a theory out there that sexuality is a bit of a scale, that you can have people who are 99% of the way to straight or 99% of the way towards gay but have that one awkward night, and that everyone is a LITTLE straight, or a LITTLE gay.

I'll just leave that until someone who remembers the theory talks about it here instead. X3