Check out our blog!
Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Gay The latest in CA - the Prop 8 debacle

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

There’s no way I can answer every post attacking me, and so far in the process I’ve already tripped over myself at least once trying to keep up.

So, I’ll just say this: I’m not trying to play “keepaway,” I’m trying to think of a way to compromise that leaves the most people happy.

So far, I’ve not seen any sort of beneficial or positive solution even touched on in this thread, just a bunch of people attacking the lone dissenter. I would appreciate a discussion instead of borderline trolling. Posts like Samildanach, telling me to STFU are not necessary or productive in any fashion. Excuse me for having an opinion on an issue that differs from yours. If you’d like to have a debate with no one except people who agree with you, I believe you’ll find it to be very boring indeed.

The only way to satisfy people in this debate, as I’ve said like 5 times now, is to find a way to remove religion from the debate. Religions are inherently discriminatory to some extent by their very nature, so to integrate parts of them within legal government doesn’t work. They don’t work the same way.

That’s why I’ve suggested that the ritualistic side of it be eliminated from the governmental viewpoint, turning them into civil unions for EVERYONE. Government agrees everyone should have equal rights; religion doesn’t. Religion is ****ed at what it feels is an affront to its rituals, so, therefore, make the legal side of it have nothing to do with any specific religion.

People will call them whatever they want; I’m sure both gays and Christians will still refer to them as “marriages.” I’m also just as sure that people will still bicker about what the “word” marriage applies too, but those semantics are meaningless when the rights beneath the words are equal.

Again, instead of trying to tear me apart for holding a different belief, I’d appreciate an attempt at thinking up a better solution, if mine sucks so much.

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

Bill_Murray_Fan_7383 Posted:

Segregation was ended by a Supreme Court decision, not a vote. Are you saying we’d have been better off waiting for voters to accept equal rights for blacks?

Wait, don’t answer that, I just realized you’re Generic Racist. Log in to see images!

Well the argument the being gay is equal to being black didn’t hold water with black voters. 7 out 10 voted against it. Discrimination against people is different then discrimination against different kinds of behavior. No one has the right to force people’s approval of these behaviors.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

Generic Racist Posted:

Well the argument the being gay is equal to being black didn’t hold water with black voters. 7 out 10 voted against it. Discrimination against people is different then discrimination against different kinds of behavior. No one has the right to force people’s approval of these behaviors.

Thank you.

And believe me, this does affect me when I say this. I might not be gay, but I enjoy a lot of very socially unacceptable behaviors.

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

spacekadt Posted:

I’ll come back and actually read this later… but what I didn’t see in my quick skim is a mention of the fact that it now only takes a majority vote to not just deny, but *strip*, the rights of a minority. And the court upheld it. That right there is a really ****ing scary thought.

Marriage is not a right. It is a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a legal interest in unions that have, among other things, the potential to produce children. No one is trying to “strip” homosexuals of their rights. What “really ****ing scary” is that i have been stripped of my RIGHT to bear arms as I please.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

Generic Racist Posted:

Marriage is not a right. It is a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a legal interest in unions that have, among other things, the potential to produce children. No one is trying to “strip” homosexuals of their rights. What “really ****ing scary” is that i have been stripped of my RIGHT to bear arms as I please.

That’s a good point, actually. Marriage is never bumigned as a right anywhere. I hadn’t thought of that.

Just for the record though, no one has stripped the right to bear arms. Though people are certainly trying.

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Generic Racist Posted:

Well the argument the being gay is equal to being black didn’t hold water with black voters. 7 out 10 voted against it. Discrimination against people is different then discrimination against different kinds of behavior. No one has the right to force people’s approval of these behaviors.

I don’t expect every disenfranchised minority group to recognize that other minorities are in exactly the same position that they are in. We see racism between racial and ethnic minority groups all the time even with groups who really “ought” to be on the same side. So sorry, but I don’t much care how many black voters do or don’t support gay marriage. I see it as a fundamental civil right and I’m not okay with bull**** watered down civil unions for gays as long as there are some people who will get to call themselves married. Didn’t we learn a long time ago that separate but equal is inherently unequal?

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

plk Posted:

I don’t expect every disenfranchised minority group to recognize that other minorities are in exactly the same position that they are in. We see racism between racial and ethnic minority groups all the time even with groups who really “ought” to be on the same side. So sorry, but I don’t much care how many black voters do or don’t support gay marriage. I see it as a fundamental civil right and I’m not okay with bull**** watered down civil unions for gays as long as there are some people who will get to call themselves married. Didn’t we learn a long time ago that separate but equal is inherently unequal?

Except no one is calling for “bull**** watered down civil unions.”

Currently the only dissenting opinion in this thread up until right now has been me, and I’ve said repeatedly I support equal rights within civil unions, and that heterosexual marriage should be called civil unions too.

Do you read opposing posts?

spacekadt

MODERATOR
Avatar: 16186 2011-11-01 00:02:40 -0400
78

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

meh

Generic Racist Posted:

Marriage is not a right. It is a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a legal interest in unions that have, among other things, the potential to produce children. No one is trying to “strip” homosexuals of their rights.

So hetero couples that have no desire/ability to produce children shouldn’t be able to get married?

Why should a hetero person be able to act as next of kin, but not a gay person? Look up marriage, it has nothing to do with children and everything to do with legal rights and responsibilities.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

spacekadt Posted:

So hetero couples that have no desire/ability to produce children shouldn’t be able to get married?

Why should a hetero person be able to act as next of kin, but not a gay person? Look up marriage, it has nothing to do with children and everything to do with legal rights and responsibilities.

Which is why I’ve said repeatedly to make civil unions completely equal as far a legal issues are concerned, since that is ALL THEY DEAL WITH.

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Shii Posted:

Except no one is calling for “bull**** watered down civil unions.”

Currently the only dissenting opinion in this thread up until right now has been me, and I’ve said repeatedly I support equal rights within civil unions, and that heterosexual marriage should be called civil unions too.

Do you read opposing posts?

The very phrase “civil unions” is what makes it bull**** and watered down to me. Because who, then, will be married? Are you saying you want the word “marriage” to just change everywhere to “civil unions?” That’s not quite what I’m getting from you, and I’m not sure what the point of that would be.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

Because “marriage” carries a lot of religious and controversial attitudes by a lot of people.

If you make it equal legally and use the nice, sterile, unbumuming term “civil unions” for everyone, and let people call them what they want, and carry out their marriages in the fashion they choose, everyone should be happy.

Christians can call them marriages and do their religious thing, I’m sure gays will call them marriages too, and will do their thing in their own way. Taxes and next of kin will be equal, everyone wins.

EDIT: I mean changing the term as far as government is concerned. You’re not going to be able to keep people from using the word “marriage” in day to day life.

Shii edited this message on 06/03/2009 12:58AM

spacekadt

MODERATOR
Avatar: 16186 2011-11-01 00:02:40 -0400
78

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

meh

Shii Posted:

Which is why I’ve said repeatedly to make civil unions completely equal as far a legal issues are concerned, since that is ALL THEY DEAL WITH.

here’s the thing though… we’re not discussing terminology here (here being state of california), we’re discussing removing rights from a minority by a simple majority vote. it’s not the label that was taken away from these people, it was the rights that go along with it. in ca today, gay people only have access to “bull**** watered down civil unions”. I don’t give a **** what they call it, bt everyonhould have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of which type of anatomy they have/prefer.

twas

Avatar: 40896 2011-11-01 00:47:59 -0400
15

[Forumwarz One Act -
Players
]

Level 35 Troll

Wher Have My Poor Imaginary Wife and Child Gone

Shii Posted:

Except no one is calling for “bull**** watered down civil unions.”

Currently the only dissenting opinion in this thread up until right now has been me, and I’ve said repeatedly I support equal rights within civil unions, and that heterosexual marriage should be called civil unions too.

Do you read opposing posts?

I can see and respect how you are trying to compromise with both positions and find something to work for all, but it is not a question of semantics. It is ridiculous to suggest rebranding as a solution. It’s a civil rights issue, not a problem of vocabulary. Frankly, there probably isn’t a compromise.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

was Posted:

I can see and respect how you are trying to compromise with both positions and find something to work for all, but it is not a question of semantics. It is ridiculous to suggest rebranding as a solution. It’s a civil rights issue, not a problem of vocabulary. Frankly, there probably isn’t a compromise.

*sighs* I know. I appreciate the acknowledgement, but I hate it when threads like this come up and it just turns into a slugfest. There’s no point to debating if no solution can ever be reached.

It just bothers me when people compare stuff like equality between races and equality in lifestyle.

Do we have to respect and uphold pedophiles? It’s just a sexuality difference like being gay is, but the vast majority doesn’t agree with it and therefore prevents it.

And anyone who claims that pedophilia is any different from any other fetish just doesn’t understand how fetishes work. They’re as powerless to not like kids as gays are to not like guys, or heteros are to not like women. And before you stick words in my mouth, I am only playing devil’s advocate and in no way support pedophile’s rights.

There is a fundamental difference between “people” and between “lifestyle.” Even in the Bible, if we’re looking at religion. The Bible says all men are equal. The Bible doesn’t say all lifestyles are equal, so the previously stated notion that people were using the Bible to support racism isn’t valid. Maybe they were, but it was fallacious interpretation.

Shii edited this message on 06/03/2009 1:03AM

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Shii Posted:

Because “marriage” carries a lot of religious and controversial attitudes by a lot of people.

If you make it equal legally and use the nice, sterile, unbumuming term “civil unions” for everyone, and let people call them what they want, and carry out their marriages in the fashion they choose, everyone should be happy.

Christians can call them marriages and do their religious thing, I’m sure gays will call them marriages too, and will do their thing in their own way. Taxes and next of kin will be equal, everyone wins.

EDIT: I mean changing the term as far as government is concerned. You’re not going to be able to keep people from using the word “marriage” in day to day life.

I think that’s pretty messed up to give “marriages” performed in a church one name and the same marriages performed civilly another name. That leads to inequality and I bumure you that those two types of relationships will not be treated equally because, if for no other reason, they don’t have the same name.

I find it interesting that until gays wanted to get married, there was no movement to make non-religious unions “only” civil unions. You can get a civil marriage anytime you want, but what you are once you have signed your marriage certificate is married. And I know of no big religious movement to change that. To me, that right there demonstrates that this issue is about bigotry rather than preventing unbelievers from sharing the same word.

And boy, Canada must be a nation of heathens or something. I hear that gay marriage has been legal there for 4 years! They must not have any Christians in their country.

plk edited this message on 06/03/2009 1:08AM

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

plk Posted:

I think that’s pretty messed up to give “marriages” performed in a church one name and the same marriages performed civilly another name. That leads to inequality and I bumure you that those two types of relationships will not be treated equally because, if for no other reason, they don’t have the same name.

I find it interesting that until gays wanted to get married, there was no movement to make non-religious unions “only” civil unions. You can get a civil marriage anytime you want, but what you are once you have signed your marriage certificate is married. And I know of no big religious movement to change that. To me, that right there demonstrates that this issue is about bigotry rather than preventing unbelievers from sharing the same word.

And boy, Canada must be a nation of heathens or something. I hear that gay marriage has been legal there for 4 years! They must not have any Christians in their country.

Do you watch the Canadian news a lot? Do you have any idea about what the Christians in that country think about gay marriage? (I don’t, but you seem too.)

Given how leftist/socialistic the country is, it’s not surprising.

As far as your point about non-religious marriages before gays wanted to marry, that makes sense, considering before they wanted to marry there was no conflict of interests at all. The Bible doesn’t say unbelievers are not to be allowed to marry. It does say homosexuality is a perversion of nature. There’s your reasoning why there was no prior movement.

There’s a difference between trying to be accommodating and changing religious views.

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

plk Posted:

I don’t expect every disenfranchised minority group to recognize that other minorities are in exactly the same position that they are in. We see racism between racial and ethnic minority groups all the time even with groups who really “ought” to be on the same side. So sorry, but I don’t much care how many black voters do or don’t support gay marriage. I see it as a fundamental civil right and I’m not okay with bull**** watered down civil unions for gays as long as there are some people who will get to call themselves married. Didn’t we learn a long time ago that separate but equal is inherently unequal?

No minority is discriminated against in the country. People just think that if something doesn’t benefit homosexuals, minorities, women then it is discrimination. Marriage is not a right. No where in the bill of rights does it say marriage is a right. Civil rights are rights IMPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT. NOT AN INHERITANCE RIGHT. So if gays want marriage rights the government has to give it to them. Since we are self governing we must vote on the issue.

spacekadt

MODERATOR
Avatar: 16186 2011-11-01 00:02:40 -0400
78

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

meh

Shii Posted:

*sighs* I know. I appreciate the acknowledgement, but I hate it when threads like this come up and it just turns into a slugfest. There’s no point to debating if no solution can ever be reached.

It just bothers me when people compare stuff like equality between races and equality in lifestyle.

Do we have to respect and uphold pedophiles? It’s just a sexuality difference like being gay is, but the vast majority doesn’t agree with it and therefore prevents it.

And anyone who claims that pedophilia is any different from any other fetish just doesn’t understand how fetishes work. They’re as powerless to not like kids as gays are to not like guys, or heteros are to not like women. And before you stick words in my mouth, I am only playing devil’s advocate and in no way support pedophile’s rights.

There is a fundamental difference between “people” and between “lifestyle.” Even in the Bible, if we’re looking at religion. The Bible says all men are equal. The Bible doesn’t say all lifestyles are equal, so the previously stated notion that people were using the Bible to support racism isn’t valid. Maybe they were, but it was fallacious interpretation.

Log in to see images!

twas

Avatar: 40896 2011-11-01 00:47:59 -0400
15

[Forumwarz One Act -
Players
]

Level 35 Troll

Wher Have My Poor Imaginary Wife and Child Gone

Shii Posted:

Do you watch the Canadian news a lot? Do you have any idea about what the Christians in that country think about gay marriage? (I don’t, but you seem too.)

Given how leftist/socialistic the country is, it’s not surprising.

As far as your point about non-religious marriages before gays wanted to marry, that makes sense, considering before they wanted to marry there was no conflict of interests at all. The Bible doesn’t say unbelievers are not to be allowed to marry. It does say homosexuality is a perversion of nature. There’s your reasoning why there was no prior movement.

There’s a difference between trying to be accommodating and changing religious views.

Marriage is beyond religion, Shii. It is a convention of society. Religious views do change, but the only part about this regarding religion is the opposition.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

spacekadt Posted:

Log in to see images!

Apparently NO ONE reads entire posts.

Did you completely miss the part where I bluntly said that I have no support for pedophiles and that I am only playing the Devil’s Advocate?

Seriously, I’m starting to really get ****ed off at the choosiness of what you guys reply too.

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!