PDA

View Full Version : Gay Awareness



Pages : [1] 2 3

Woogiemush
6th Feb 2014, 04:31
Mod edit: This is now a general discussion thread for LGBT topics. Feel free to discuss anything here regarding LGBT related issues, but remember to keep things civil and remember to practice tolerance towards people who hold views different than your own :)

-------------
Original thread OP:


This isn't at all related to Tomb Raider (it could be), but I wanted everyone to know about this and how horribly cruel some people can be, especially this specific group in Russia.

This group operates all across Russia. They trick gay, or people who look gay, into fake dates. After, they humiliate them and make them do horrible things sometimes even beaten. I think this needs to be spread, and I think everyone should know about how horrible this group is.

Everybody needs to know that this is real. And very wrong:

[video removed]

Being a hard-core LGBT supporter, this really took an effect on me, and I feel and care for everyone who has problems out there with their sexuality, who are confused, who are wanting to end their own life's because they're done with being poked and humiliated, just because they don't like women/men, and prefer the same sex. Some people are so disgusting...

Thank you for taking a notice. Spread the word, let's try and get it out there and make a change!

THANK YOU, to whoever fixed the "awareness" spelling mistake on the title of the thread.

:wave:

larafan25
6th Feb 2014, 04:53
Yee. All of this started to bother me today. Like as in anger me tbh.

As random as this is.

They're lucky I wasn't one of their victims. http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg295/randomperson_2008/Emoticons/k_zps3b22b468.png (http://s251.photobucket.com/user/randomperson_2008/media/Emoticons/k_zps3b22b468.png.html)

AdobeArtist
6th Feb 2014, 05:02
I hate to be the buzz kill here, but I guess it's gotta be said. You can treat a cold, a flu, fever, tumors, and a host of viral infections. There may one day be a cure for cancer. But there is no cure for ignorance or intolerance.

larafan25
6th Feb 2014, 05:05
Wat. There is a cure for ignorance, it's learning. And the cure for intolerance is exposure.

The cure for all dat is... having the will to change your mindset, and stop being stubborn. Sometimes we have to accept that we're wrong, and have done wrong, it's like this huge ego thing, but ya gotta give iinnnnn.

Everything is possible for a possible. http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg295/randomperson_2008/Emoticons/tumblr_inline_muhn2tR7o51qid2nw_zpsbf4ee585.gif (http://s251.photobucket.com/user/randomperson_2008/media/Emoticons/tumblr_inline_muhn2tR7o51qid2nw_zpsbf4ee585.gif.html)

AdobeArtist
6th Feb 2014, 05:27
Wat. There is a cure for ignorance, it's learning. And the cure for intolerance is exposure.

The cure for all dat is... having the will to change your mindset, and stop being stubborn. Sometimes we have to accept that we're wrong, and have done wrong, it's like this huge ego thing, but ya gotta give iinnnnn.

Everything is possible for a possible. http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg295/randomperson_2008/Emoticons/tumblr_inline_muhn2tR7o51qid2nw_zpsbf4ee585.gif (http://s251.photobucket.com/user/randomperson_2008/media/Emoticons/tumblr_inline_muhn2tR7o51qid2nw_zpsbf4ee585.gif.html)

Just because the cure is there does not necessarily mean it is an automatic antidote, like digesting a pill. The body is a series of biochemical responses, but the mind, as a construct of individual experience and perception is much much harder to "cure".

It's just human nature. As the old expression goes, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink". If someone has made up their mind, they can't be given a treatment they don't believe they need in the first place. And throwing all the books at them won't matter if they don't accept the information contained therein.

Metalrocks
6th Feb 2014, 05:48
the only treatment they need is called "respect". injecting them with that is not a an easy task.

a_big_house
6th Feb 2014, 08:41
So, the gay version of the KKK? The GGG? :lol:

Jurre
6th Feb 2014, 08:52
Some people are going to hate gays or any other kind of group that's not like them forever, but overall the majority of the population can be made to stop the hate by way of prosperity.

Once a country is prosperous they start to drop their old ways of ignorance and hate and xenophobia and embrace the ideals of personal freedom and tolerance. And then they start abolishing laws against gays, abortion and marijuana and such.

I can't believe I am saying this but yeah, but money is the solution :D

CakeLuv
6th Feb 2014, 13:05
Wat. There is a cure for ignorance, it's learning. And the cure for intolerance is exposure.

The cure for all dat is... having the will to change your mindset, and stop being stubborn. Sometimes we have to accept that we're wrong, and have done wrong, it's like this huge ego thing, but ya gotta give iinnnnn.

Everything is possible for a possible. http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg295/randomperson_2008/Emoticons/tumblr_inline_muhn2tR7o51qid2nw_zpsbf4ee585.gif (http://s251.photobucket.com/user/randomperson_2008/media/Emoticons/tumblr_inline_muhn2tR7o51qid2nw_zpsbf4ee585.gif.html)

SLAYYY http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg295/randomperson_2008/Emoticons/awwaa_zps824fd08c.png

Ellie92
6th Feb 2014, 16:35
I've already seen some articles and reports about all that. It's horrible! And government isn't even doing something against it... :(

Do you think it is everywhere like that? TV always makes it look like this is spread over the entire country, especially in huge cities. Yet I kinda don't believe these "gangs" have that many followers... or at least I don't want to.
Because I have got the chance to visit Moscow this summer for some weeks and I would love to see that city but because of all those videos I'm really ******* terrified to actually go there... I don't want this to be a one way ticket.

Can someone tell me something positive? :/

Jurre
6th Feb 2014, 16:44
Can someone tell me something positive? :/
Uruguay legalized gay marriage 2 months ago. As well as pot and abortion:

yC1YZDpXwK0

It kinda surprised me: when I think of South America I think of a lot of devoted catholics.

pirate1802
6th Feb 2014, 16:50
Lawl that guy..

Kerem
6th Feb 2014, 19:47
I saw Hunted on channel 4 last night for the first time after a friend told me how she couldn't watch it without feeling sick. Being gay myself I couldn't watch it and got so angry and stopped watching 5 minutes later. I just wish people were more aware of what is going on in the world :(

Woogiemush
6th Feb 2014, 20:03
So, the gay version of the KKK? The GGG? :lol:

It really isn't funny. This is a serious thread, no more jokes please.

CakeLuv
6th Feb 2014, 21:56
It kinda surprised me: when I think of South America I think of a lot of devoted catholics.

There's a bunch of those here, but like look Bogota ( Colombia) Civil Unions with same sex couples are legal but like, to prove it's lov you have to be with tat person at least 2 years.

AdobeArtist
7th Feb 2014, 03:29
Uruguay legalized gay marriage 2 months ago. As well as pot and abortion:

It kinda surprised me: when I think of South America I think of a lot of devoted catholics.

Canada's had all that for a few years already. The legal abortion for much much longer.

Though there's a misconception about legal medicinal marijuana. For a medicinal treatment it's taken through injection (in a dissolved solution as far as I know) not smoked. So it's not "legal pot" in the sense most people think :p

Woogiemush
7th Feb 2014, 05:07
I've already seen some articles and reports about all that. It's horrible! And government isn't even doing something against it... :(

Do you think it is everywhere like that? TV always makes it look like this is spread over the entire country, especially in huge cities. Yet I kinda don't believe these "gangs" have that many followers... or at least I don't want to.
Because I have got the chance to visit Moscow this summer for some weeks and I would love to see that city but because of all those videos I'm really ******* terrified to actually go there... I don't want this to be a one way ticket.

Can someone tell me something positive? :/

The only reason it's THAT bad in Russia is because it's tolerated. The Governor of Russia, Vladmir Putin, says that you can be banned, deported and fined for supporting LGBT laws, or expressing your thoughts/statements on the subject.

In my hometown, it's not bad here. There may be some people who are homophobic, but, it's really nice here and I have many gay friends. :)

Mikaela111
7th Feb 2014, 10:59
The only reason it's THAT bad in Russia is because it's tolerated. The Governor of Russia, Vladmir Putin

I can't believe people are still that retarded... and no improvement in sight?

Irina
7th Feb 2014, 13:10
I dont have anything against gay people but I want the family unit to remain as it is. :)

I'm extremely conservative admittedly.

Those barbarian acts should of course be condemned.

Jurre
7th Feb 2014, 13:16
I think of marriage as completely archaic but it gives people certain rights: like for example: when someone is in the hospital a married partner can visit them outside regular visit hours, but when the partner is of the same sex and can't be married they cannot visit them.
It's for reasons like that that same sex marriage should be allowed, or at least be given the same rights - there are some countries who give same sex couples the same rights as married couples, without having to use the word marriage.

VaBanes
7th Feb 2014, 13:26
there are some countries who give same sex couples the same rights as married couples, without having to use the word marriage.
Yet what is the point of not allowing marriage then, I'm wondering...

Anyway, Russia has much bigger problems regarding all that which need to be dealt with first. Yet as long as the same retards stay in charge there, I doubt something will change in near future... :/

CakeLuv
7th Feb 2014, 13:31
I think of marriage as completely archaic but it gives people certain rights: like for example: when someone is in the hospital a married partner can visit them outside regular visit hours, but when the partner is of the same sex and can't be married they cannot visit them.
It's for reasons like that that same sex marriage should be allowed, or at least be given the same rights - there are some countries who give same sex couples the same rights as married couples, without having to use the word marriage.

Can't remember the name for it. Damnit.

pirate1802
7th Feb 2014, 13:31
Barbarian acts? :|

Jurre
7th Feb 2014, 13:44
Yet what is the point of not allowing marriage then, I'm wondering...


Then it will be easier to shallow for the people who think marriage as a god given institution and such things, when it's de jure forbidden but de facto allowed.

Just like in Iran prostitution is officially forbidden, but you can get a 'temporary marriage' - temporary as in: 5 minutes or so :D

Ellie92
7th Feb 2014, 13:47
Canada's answer to anti-gay propaganda:

effb2JYiKXM

Murphdawg1
7th Feb 2014, 13:48
Can't remember the name for it. Damnit.

Civil Union.

CakeLuv
7th Feb 2014, 13:51
Oh yus, lol silly me, I even wrote it some posts ago

Irina
7th Feb 2014, 14:30
Barbarian acts? :|

I meant the brutality against gay people in Russia.
I'm against gay marriage but I will never support violence against them.

CakeLuv
7th Feb 2014, 14:31
I meant the brutality against gay people in Russia.
I'm against gay marriage but I will never support violence against them.

Why are you against it hun?

a_big_house
7th Feb 2014, 17:34
It really isn't funny. This is a serious thread, no more jokes please.
Perhaps you should stop telling me what I can and cannot do, yeah.

CakeLuv
7th Feb 2014, 17:36
Perhaps you should stop telling me what I can and cannot do, yeah.

You sound like such a rebelious teenager xD

a_big_house
7th Feb 2014, 17:36
You sound like such a rebelious teenager xD

I am a rebellious teenager :lol:

Ellie92
7th Feb 2014, 17:41
It really isn't funny. This is a serious thread, no more jokes please.


Perhaps you should stop telling me what I can and cannot do, yeah.

Don't know if you were being serious but seriously? C'mon, it was only a request Woogiemush nicely asked you for... Plus he/she is totally right.

CakeLuv
7th Feb 2014, 17:43
I am a rebellious teenager :lol:

Well slap my ass an call me Sally!

a_big_house
7th Feb 2014, 17:46
Don't know if you were being serious but seriously? C'mon, it was only a request Woogiemush nicely asked you for... Plus he/she is totally right.
I was being serious, it's not the first time she's said something like that

Well slap my ass an call me Sally!
Whatever floats your boat ;)

CakeLuv
7th Feb 2014, 17:49
I don't like that lil ;) face, it's creepy and cocky get off me i dont like you.

a_big_house
7th Feb 2014, 17:52
:lol: What about this one then? :naughty:

a_big_house
7th Feb 2014, 17:56
Hopefully ^_^

CakeLuv
7th Feb 2014, 17:58
Ooooh ma gaed. D;

Driber
7th Feb 2014, 18:57
Sorry woogymush, but the video in the OP is inappropriate for this forum due to the violence in it, so I had to remove it.

As an alternative, I can highly recommend a documentary I watched a few months back by Stephen Fry called Out There. He travels the world to expose the dark nature of anti-gay sentiments and the many lies and propaganda that comes with it. If you guys haven't seen this documentary, go check it out:

HCp_5-CsYuM

lPxV_V0TzBA

In part 2, Fry even visits Russia to talk to a minister on the recently implemented anti-gay propaganda law (which I think is complete BS, BTW :mad:). Scroll to the 32 minute mark in the second video above.


I've already seen some articles and reports about all that. It's horrible! And government isn't even doing something against it... :(

Yeah, don't count on the government doing something against it. They even support anti-gay sentiments, regardless of Putin's diplomatic words and spin that he's trying to give it.

The sad thing is that many Russians don't like Putin and already wished him away decades ago. But unfortunately, the Russian government is ridiculously corrupt and they manage to stay in power by rigging elections. The previous president, Dmitry Medvedev (a puppet of Putin) even changed the constitution so that Putin could serve a third term (which wasn't possible before) :mad2:


Do you think it is everywhere like that? TV always makes it look like this is spread over the entire country, especially in huge cities. Yet I kinda don't believe these "gangs" have that many followers... or at least I don't want to.
Because I have got the chance to visit Moscow this summer for some weeks and I would love to see that city but because of all those videos I'm really ******* terrified to actually go there... I don't want this to be a one way ticket.

Okay, super serious advice here - if you plan on visiting Russia, do NOT make it known that you are gay, in public.

I know, this will probably go against everything you stand for, but unless you want trouble, that's what you gotta do to stay safe.

I've seen too many documentaries and reports in the past on the wide spread homophobia in Russia to know that it is a serious problem there.

Even gay activists in Russia recommend foreigners to keep a low profile about their sexuality (if they are gay, of course).

Ellie92
7th Feb 2014, 19:59
Okay, super serious advice here - if you plan on visiting Russia, do NOT make it known that you are gay, in public.


But those people in that video even attacked a guy because he "dressed gay". I mean, how the hell can you dress gay??? Sure you can dress like an idiot but that doesn't have anything to do with your sexuality. I don't think I look any different than all the other girls yet those people kinda seem to judge out of nowhere.
What if some ****heads approach me in an underground car park and beat me to death because of my second earring on my right ear?! And no one will ever hear me screaming there. Should I even scream? Or will that draw the attention of even more people to kick in my face while laying in my own blood? O_o

As a bisex girl I probably won't even realise when I behave gay in what way ever since my subconscious might consider everything as normal...




I know, this will probably go against everything you stand for, but unless you want trouble, that's what you gotta do to stay safe.


I think I'd be too fricking scared to give a damn about the things I stand for, anyway...



I'm probably just scaring myself even more by writing texts like that... it just kinda doesn't get out of my head. :(

Driber
8th Feb 2014, 01:15
But those people in that video even attacked a guy because he "dressed gay". I mean, how the hell can you dress gay???

Uhm, like Bruno? :D


But seriously, you should be able to imagine that there's typical masculine clothing and also typical feminine clothing, right?


Sure you can dress like an idiot but that doesn't have anything to do with your sexuality.

In a world without prejudice and stereotypes, sure. But we don't live in that world.


I don't think I look any different than all the other girls yet those people kinda seem to judge out of nowhere.

It might be worth keeping in mind (and perhaps comforting, for you at least) that it's easier to give off gay signs if you're a man, than if you're a lesbian or a bi-sexual women.


What if some ****heads approach me in an underground car park and beat me to death because of my second earring on my right ear?!

Is that a gay thing?


And no one will ever hear me screaming there. Should I even scream? Or will that draw the attention of even more people to kick in my face while laying in my own blood? O_o

Not sure if this is a serious question or just a dramatization to draw attention, but in case it's the former - I see no point in taking a quiet beating and I'd scream my lungs out in the hopes it'll either scare them off or alert a helpful bystander.


As a bisex girl I probably won't even realise when I behave gay in what way ever since my subconscious might consider everything as normal...

I actually have a gay friend who didn't realize he was acting really gay until he asked me if he does and I answered "yes, you do". (I didn't mention it to him out of my own before he asked me, because I didn't want him to possibly feel embarrassed about it, but since he specifically asked me, I couldn't lie to him :/ )


I think I'd be too fricking scared to give a damn about the things I stand for, anyway...



I'm probably just scaring myself even more by writing texts like that... it just kinda doesn't get out of my head. :(

Well, if you really want to make that trip to Moscow, I'd recommend getting in touch with the Russian LGBT community first and ask for their feedback. I'm sure they have a forum or blog somewhere on the web, where you can ask them questions about it. It could indeed very well be that you're scaring yourself too much (especially if you're asking serious questions like if you should scream if you're being beaten :/ ) and I bet it'll also depend on what kind of neighborhood you're planning to go to.

Wh1t3Kn1te
8th Feb 2014, 01:44
i read about the atrocities going on in russia a couple weeks ago, it seems all this world knows how to do is persecute those they dont understand or care to understand.

as of right now (from what i can remember) there are:

gays being persecuted in russia and africa
christians being persecuted in syria, egypt, libya, and a few others
mormon fundamentalists being persecuted in utah and other places
muslims being persecuted for just being muslim (not ALL are terrorists)
and jews because, well i dont fully know why, but they just are.

I don't know why people feel that if someone is different than them they have to put them down to feel "superior".

maybe one day humanity will wake up and realize we are all on the same boat and the sooner we can respect each other and treat each other equally (like we would treat our most loved individual) the better off we would be.

Driber
8th Feb 2014, 02:05
Yeah, persecution, discrimination and bigotry happens all over the world, folks; not just in Russia.

Even in my own country, Holland, the first place in the world that made it possible for gays to get married, gays are still being discriminated against and being bullied and terrorized out of their homes on a regular basis.

Or remember what happened in Paris earlier last year? http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1905822&postcount=1085

I don't want to sound cynical, but this big media attention about gays in Russia is only because of the olympics. I bet in a few months or so when the games are long over, the media will turn its back on Russia and goes back to report BS like what Justin Bieber latest "outrageous" act of rebellion is, or the next piece of "controversial" news about what part of her body Miley Sirus showed this time :rolleyes:

Don't we all remember the constant news reports on violations of human rights in China around the last olympics? Where did that news go? You just know conditions are most likely still just as bad in China as before the olympics.

....if not worse.

Ellie92
8th Feb 2014, 13:15
Uhm, like Bruno? :D

But seriously, you should be able to imagine that there's typical masculine clothing and also typical feminine clothing, right?


I was thinking about Justin Bieber. I hate it when people call him gay or say he dresses like a "gay farmer" (http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/justin-bieber-meets-prime-minister-of-canada.jpg) (yet websites like 9gag etc. are probably not the best source for seriousness anyway) but people always make it look like it is something bad. I mean, yes, he looks like an idiot in that picture (and also is one) but doesn't he have a girlfriend? I know some guys who all behave kinda feminine and also dress like that yet none of them is actually gay. Vice versa, I know lots of gay men who dress like everyone else. Hell, that one guy is even some kind of Marine (judging by his looks, none of them could harm him anyway, probably neither the police without weapons).

I just think these people are too much overgeneralising, probably because of all these stereotypes.




It might be worth keeping in mind (and perhaps comforting, for you at least) that it's easier to give off gay signs if you're a man, than if you're a lesbian or a bi-sexual women.


Is that a gay thing?

I hope so. Lots of people judge women by their haircut regarding this. My hair is long...

Not directly. There is this "gay ear" (the right one) and having an earring there is considered as a sign of being gay or something like that. At least for men. For women probably as well yet since the average woman is wearing more of such things in general than the average man, it is probably seen as just something "decorative". Don't know.

Yet those groups in Russia might probably see it as "a sign" to justify their actions.


I have never worn earrings since shortly after E3 2011. Lara made me realise how great it looks. :D




Not sure if this is a serious question or just a dramatization to draw attention, but in case it's the former - I see no point in taking a quiet beating and I'd scream my lungs out in the hopes it'll either scare them off or alert a helpful bystander.


Well, by thinking about it now, it indeed looks like some kind of dramatisation to draw attention. Can't believe I actually wrote that.

But if you knew what was going on in my head that moment... ergh... I still have stomachache...




I actually have a gay friend who didn't realize he was acting really gay until he asked me if he does and I answered "yes, you do".


Now that's not really comforting...




Well, if you really want to make that trip to Moscow, I'd recommend getting in touch with the Russian LGBT community first and ask for their feedback. I'm sure they have a forum or blog somewhere on the web, where you can ask them questions about it. It could indeed very well be that you're scaring yourself too much (especially if you're asking serious questions like if you should scream if you're being beaten :/ ) and I bet it'll also depend on what kind of neighborhood you're planning to go to.

Thanks for the advice. Probably the best. :)


Hey folks, look what I have found. I think it's great. The video. :o
G5Dv9uLRLJs

Metalrocks
8th Feb 2014, 14:54
ok, just watched the 2 part documentary you have posted driber. was really interesting and i have to agree with the russian part. this guy really dint made any sense and was just absurd what he said and how/what he thinks.

it is a shame that things still havent changed that much yet but who knows what the future will bring.

Driber
8th Feb 2014, 14:57
I was thinking about Justin Bieber. I hate it when people call him gay or say he dresses like a "gay farmer" (http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/justin-bieber-meets-prime-minister-of-canada.jpg) (yet websites like 9gag etc. are probably not the best source for seriousness anyway) but people always make it look like it is something bad. I mean, yes, he looks like an idiot in that picture (and also is one) but doesn't he have a girlfriend? I know some guys who all behave kinda feminine and also dress like that yet none of them is actually gay. Vice versa, I know lots of gay men who dress like everyone else. Hell, that one guy is even some kind of Marine (judging by his looks, none of them could harm him anyway, probably neither the police without weapons).

I just think these people are too much overgeneralising, probably because of all these stereotypes.

lol, I think the Biebs is bad for measurement on just about any subject :p

And don't confuse haters with actual homophobes. I'm sure a lot of people call JB gay simply because...

lOHg8pt3yOI&start=459&end=461

:D

Anyway, getting back to your question - sure, how one dresses does not necessarily say something about their sexuality. But a lot of times it does. And especially in places that have that more "traditional value", such as Russia.

You can't really compare your country, Germany, a country that has widely embraced LGBT people, with a country like Russia, where there is a predominantly macho culture. There, a man dressing up in a feminine fashion is probably most of the time a tell-tale sign of their sexuality.

Maybe my perception on it is entirely wrong; I have never been to Russia, myself, but that's what seems most logical to me, judging by the information I received on the country so far.

Also keep in mind that in a country like yours, metrosexual men are quite common. In Russia (and many other countries in the world; let's not specifically single out one of them. Iran has it much worse :whistle:) you'll be lucky to find one, I'm betting.


Not directly. There is this "gay ear" (the right one) and having an earring there is considered as a sign of being gay or something like that. At least for men. For women probably as well yet since the average woman is wearing more of such things in general than the average man, it is probably seen as just something "decorative". Don't know

Ah yes, I think I've heard that about the right ear thing before.

Well, yes, as a women you probably wouldn't be scrutinized about earrings as much as a man. Again, this comes back to the whole macho culture thing.


Yet those groups in Russia might probably see it as "a sign" to justify their actions.

My guess is that a "gay earring" is seen as a sign, yes, at first, but then the response of the victim is also going to play a role. If he's indeed gay, he'll likely act shy/ashamed about it, which then becomes the actual confirmation for these bullies that they got their assumption correct and then become violent.


Well, by thinking about it now, it indeed looks like some kind of dramatisation to draw attention. Can't believe I actually wrote that.

But if you knew what was going on in my head that moment... ergh... I still have stomachache...

I understand. It's not a pretty scenario to picture going through, yourself :(


Now that's not really comforting...

Heh, sorry, I know that probably wasn't the thing you were hoping to hear.

But I guess it's better to be aware of things and try to prevent bad scenarios from happening, rather than being blissfully unaware and having the bad thing catch you off guard and ending up like the Dutch guy in Paris that I linked to earlier :/


Thanks for the advice. Probably the best. :)

No problemo. Let us know if you get to know anything worth sharing :)


Hey folks, look what I have found. I think it's great. The video. :o
G5Dv9uLRLJs

Good video.

Allow me to share one with ya'all, as well. It's a song which I like very much. So a little lighter than yours, heh, but with the same, powerful message :)

hlVBg7_08n0

a_big_house
8th Feb 2014, 14:59
Hey folks, look what I have found. I think it's great. The video. :o
G5Dv9uLRLJs

See, the issue with that is that the video targets specific countries, most, if not all of those countries in that video follow the Islamic religion. Now, I don't mean to be religion-ist but perhaps instead of going after countries you should be going after the source of the hate; their beliefs, their religion.

(Please note that I'm not suggesting that everyone goes out and attacks a muslim, I do have muslim relatives after all haha)

Driber
8th Feb 2014, 16:20
ok, just watched the 2 part documentary you have posted driber. was really interesting and i have to agree with the russian part. this guy really dint made any sense and was just absurd what he said and how/what he thinks.

Heh, of course the guy didn't make any sense. He's a typical example of someone who has - up until Fry got in his face - has only heard the dogma of the establishment and parroting the lies told to him by others.

When you've been kept in the dark for such a long time, and then someone comes along and rebuts your indoctrinated views with actual logic and reason, there is not much you can say.

That of course doesn't make the guy stupid (I know you didn't say this), nor does it make other homophobes stupid. If all your life you've been told lies that being gay is infectious and that gays are paedophiles out to hurt your children, and it's even backed up by laws a very media savvy president, you can't blame those people for feeling a genuine fear.

Who we should feel angry about are people who are spreading said lies while knowing they are lies...

Thetford
8th Feb 2014, 16:50
I thought it was the left ear that was the gay one?

Anyway, I wonder what will happen if a foreign national (tourist, exchange student, diplomat etc) was attacked? What would the international response be? Take for example, what is happening in Italy: if Knox wasn't American, and Kircher wasn't British, would we know about the incident, and would it have received such international coverage?

Metalrocks
8th Feb 2014, 17:12
Heh, of course the guy didn't make any sense. He's a typical example of someone who has - up until Fry got in his face - has only heard the dogma of the establishment and parroting the lies told to him by others.

When you've been kept in the dark for such a long time, and then someone comes along and rebuts your indoctrinated views with actual logic and reason, there is not much you can say.

That of course doesn't make the guy stupid (I know you didn't say this), nor does it make other homophobes stupid. If all your life you've been told lies that being gay is infectious and that gays are paedophiles out to hurt your children, and it's even backed up by laws a very media savvy president, you can't blame those people for feeling a genuine fear.

Who we should feel angry about are people who are spreading said lies while knowing they are lies...

yeah, he was more or less brainwashed to think like this. more amazing that he still has been given power as well. but well, politicians pretty much follow instructions from others without thinking about logic and reason. thats why i never believe their speeches because pretty likely it was written for them. if they would made it for them self, i dont think they have look at the notes on the podium.
also possible that im just being ignorant about politics.

Jurre
8th Feb 2014, 17:58
Regarding Bieber: Justin Bieber is a cultural phenomenon that is fabricated from beginning to end: he was selected by a businessman who began to use him to appeal to teenage girls by putting him in the spotlights and convincing the impressionable girls that he was cool and sexy.

This is a practice that has been going on for decades by the way and was even parodied on a cartoon show many years ago: an episode of the Angry Beavers. And on this show the beavers Norbert and Dagget were being made stars by their moneymaking manager with their hit song 'Beaver Fever'... Yes really! And this happened like a decade before someone even heard of Bieber, it's almost too good to be true...

Anyway, so when I'm saying that Justin Bieber is most likely gay (which I think I didn't do on this board by the way...) that is not intended as a slur against him and gays: it's to point out what a hack he is: he is being sold as a sex object to teenage girls whilst he is most probably not even interested in them. That of course is something his managers never want the public to find out, which is why they, I think, have fabricated that relationship with Selene Gomez, whoever the hell that is...

Woogiemush
8th Feb 2014, 21:04
Sorry woogymush, but the video in the OP is inappropriate for this forum due to the violence in it, so I had to remove it.

As an alternative, I can highly recommend a documentary I watched a few months back by Stephen Fry called Out There. He travels the world to expose the dark nature of anti-gay sentiments and the many lies and propaganda that comes with it. If you guys haven't seen this documentary, go check it out:

HCp_5-CsYuM

lPxV_V0TzBA

In part 2, Fry even visits Russia to talk to a minister on the recently implemented anti-gay propaganda law (which I think is complete BS, BTW :mad:). Scroll to the 32 minute mark in the second video above.



Yeah, don't count on the government doing something against it. They even support anti-gay sentiments, regardless of Putin's diplomatic words and spin that he's trying to give it.

The sad thing is that many Russians don't like Putin and already wished him away decades ago. But unfortunately, the Russian government is ridiculously corrupt and they manage to stay in power by rigging elections. The previous president, Dmitry Medvedev (a puppet of Putin) even changed the constitution so that Putin could serve a third term (which wasn't possible before) :mad2:



Okay, super serious advice here - if you plan on visiting Russia, do NOT make it known that you are gay, in public.

I know, this will probably go against everything you stand for, but unless you want trouble, that's what you gotta do to stay safe.

I've seen too many documentaries and reports in the past on the wide spread homophobia in Russia to know that it is a serious problem there.

Even gay activists in Russia recommend foreigners to keep a low profile about their sexuality (if they are gay, of course).


Of course, the video is brutal. I understand. :)

And, I agree completely with you, Driber. It's safe to keep a low profile in Russia, it's not a BAD place, but for homosexual people and supporters of, it can be a VERY bad place. People have been robbed, raped, killed and humiliated over just a little thing; their sexuality.

Driber
8th Feb 2014, 21:57
yeah, he was more or less brainwashed to think like this. more amazing that he still has been given power as well.

It's not amazing for Russia.


Of course, the video is brutal. I understand. :)

And, I agree completely with you, Driber. It's safe to keep a low profile in Russia, it's not a BAD place, but for homosexual people and supporters of, it can be a VERY bad place. People have been robbed, raped, killed and humiliated over just a little thing; their sexuality.

Yeah. And it can be a bad place for people who want to simply speak their mind, regardless of their sexuality, if those opinions go against the establishment :whistle:

But yeah, Russia is not an inherently bad place. The country and its culture have many interesting and valuable things to offer. And although more than half the Russian population rejects homosexuality and a vast majority supports the new anti-gay law, I tend to believe that most Russians, or at least a large chunk of them, are good in nature, but have merely been subjected to misinformation and propaganda (ironically).

And again, let's not forget that these bad things are happening in many other countries as well.

Metalrocks
9th Feb 2014, 08:58
It's not amazing for Russia.


lol, true. actually the same for the whole world.

Driber
9th Feb 2014, 11:56
Heh.

Yeah, I can name another few brainwashed politicians in other countries, too :whistle:

Woogiemush
14th Feb 2014, 06:00
Thought this was quite humorous, thought I'd post it in this thread since Vladi is a part of these discussions. :)

http://deidealewereld.vier.be/vladibird/

Ellie92
14th Feb 2014, 09:26
GAY OVER! :lol:

16 is my record. :D

Driber
14th Feb 2014, 11:17
Apparently I'm a better gay than Ellie because I scored 24.

I could probably score even higher, but can't be arsed.

Driber
14th Feb 2014, 13:51
lol, love the broken leg :lol:

PS. use the thumb button for large images, pls :)

Edit: Ellie, don't know why, but your post broke the forum somehow. I had to remove it. Try posting again, but use a link to that image instead of embedding it.

Metalrocks
14th Feb 2014, 14:08
22 is my highest.

CakeLuv
14th Feb 2014, 14:13
Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"

lol k.

Driber
14th Feb 2014, 14:26
^ I'd be careful with posts like that, Eros. Remember that we've got both Christians and non-Christians on this forum.

CakeLuv
14th Feb 2014, 14:29
^ I'd be careful with posts like that, Eros. Remember that we've got both Christians and non-Christians on this forum.

It's a quote from the bible... The same that says that laying in bed with another man is a sin and the punisment for rapists is to marry their victim. :)

Driber
14th Feb 2014, 14:53
It's a quote from the bible... The same that says that laying in bed with another man is a sin and the punisment for rapists is to marry their victim. :)

I know it's a quote from the bible, that's why I advised caution in the way you express yourself, as it is of a sensitive nature ;)

CakeLuv
14th Feb 2014, 14:55
Edited it, better now? :)

Ellie92
14th Feb 2014, 15:31
lol, love the broken leg :lol:

PS. use the thumb button for large images, pls :)

Edit: Ellie, don't know why, but your post broke the forum somehow. I had to remove it. Try posting again, but use a link to that image instead of embedding it.

Okay... strange, it looked fine for me. I tried to make that "thumb" thing a bit smaller by writing "width=150" in it or something like that...


Anyway, I am the better gay of us! :p :D (http://s1.directupload.net/images/140214/7jq9yux4.png)

SamanthaScofield
14th Feb 2014, 16:26
Yeah, I made it to 12! :lol:

Ellie92
14th Feb 2014, 16:29
So... either I am the King (http://s7.directupload.net/images/140215/qjhubl6y.png) or I just don't have a life... xD


EDIT: UNEDIT.

(not that I need to hide something... :P)

SamanthaScofield
14th Feb 2014, 16:51
Ellie, you should take a look at that screenshot again. I think you forgot something... :P

Driber
14th Feb 2014, 17:01
Ellie, you should take a look at that screenshot again. I think you forgot something... :P

OMG, Ellie is objectifying women!!!

:lol:

Ellie92
14th Feb 2014, 17:08
Ellie, you should take a look at that screenshot again. I think you forgot something... :P


OMG, Ellie is objectifying women!!!

:lol:

???

Ellie92
14th Feb 2014, 17:12
OH CRAP!


EDIT: Alright, haha! Thx, Samantha. :lol:

Driber
14th Feb 2014, 17:19
You know I'm never going to let you forget about this. Be prepared :p :D

Ellie92
14th Feb 2014, 17:26
You know I'm never going to let you forget about this. Be prepared :p :D

I am prepared for everything. :p

But anyway, you both recognised it! Isn't that just as bad? :lol:

SamanthaScofield
14th Feb 2014, 17:30
But anyway, you both recognised it! Isn't that just as bad? :lol:

How is that bad? :p

Driber
14th Feb 2014, 17:36
But anyway, you both recognised it! Isn't that just as bad? :lol:

I wasn't the one who "recognized" that pornsite open in your browser, nor is it me who is proclaiming that objectification is wrong :p

Ellie92
14th Feb 2014, 17:47
Yeah, go ahead! Just tell everyone... -.-

And it is a bookmark!

Driber
14th Feb 2014, 17:53
Don't be ashamed, we all objectify and watch naked women / men. It's natural :cool:

SamanthaScofield
14th Feb 2014, 18:11
Yeah, Ellie, nothing to worry about. I have a thousand of such bookmarks in my browser. Something like that just doesn't happen everyday and it is kinda funny because most people are always ashamed about it although there is no reason to be. :p :D

Ellie92
14th Feb 2014, 18:48
Yeah, sure. But it kinda feels odd. I'm always getting super red when something like that happens to me in real life. :D

AdobeArtist
14th Feb 2014, 22:01
OMG, Ellie is objectifying women!!!

:lol:

What did I miss? What did I miss?? :scratch: :(

Ellie92
14th Feb 2014, 23:22
What did I miss? What did I miss?? :scratch: :(

Nothing. :) Nothing at all...

AdobeArtist
14th Feb 2014, 23:34
Nothing. :) Nothing at all...

grrrrrrr :mad2::mad2:

Wh1t3Kn1te
15th Feb 2014, 00:47
Don't be ashamed, we all objectify and watch naked women / men. It's natural :cool:

speak for yourself :p

@eros you may want to be careful about quoting the bible out of context, bad things can happen.
(the verses you quoted were from a parable Jesus was teaching about, continue reading and you learn that the whole point of him quoting moses was that people like to look at what each other do instead of where their heart is at. he was teaching that all sin starts in the heart and proceeds out of the mouth.)

Metalrocks
15th Feb 2014, 04:54
grrrrrrr :mad2::mad2:

when i read the quote from driber and other comments, ellie left something open that is surly 18 rated. :naughty:
but i guess we will not be informed about it since we both missed it.

Driber
15th Feb 2014, 10:16
speak for yourself :p

Heh, okay, I'll nuance it and say that almost everyone does.

:D

Thetford
15th Feb 2014, 11:33
What one of major "terrestrial" broadcasters decided to do.

-6RID82Ru-k

If you are not seeing anything, it means I'm still trying to figure out this forum's coding. I did it before somehow with the Lucozade ads!

Ellie92
15th Feb 2014, 12:46
when i read the quote from driber and other comments, ellie left something open that is surly 18 rated. :naughty:

but i guess we will not be informed about it since we both missed it.

Yes, that game is indeed very brutal. Putin's leg broke off and there was blood everywhere.

Well, it's not that I have deleted something. Just added some additional colour. Maybe you want to play Sherlock? :p


I don't know maybe we should go back to what this thread was in first place? We kinda became a bit off-topic, didn't we? :D

Woogiemush
18th Feb 2014, 21:23
Thank you all for your well-thought responses and support to this thread and the LGBT community!

Driber
20th Feb 2014, 12:41
On the bright side.... this just happened yesterday :)

OuVnnrFF6II

Zoe Weiss
20th Feb 2014, 17:08
Now THIS is totally amazing! :D

Ellie92
20th Feb 2014, 17:18
YEAH *****!

AdobeArtist
20th Feb 2014, 23:35
Reason triumphs!! :D

Metalrocks
21st Feb 2014, 07:58
that is sure interesting. good to hear that things are slowly changing. :thumb:

Wh1t3Kn1te
22nd Feb 2014, 01:01
just watched that video and i think my country is taking things a bit too far.

its really simple, no matter what lifestyle, religion, beliefs, or anything else that is not illegal decide how you treat another human being. it makes the whole state/country/religion look hypocritical.

Driber
28th Feb 2014, 21:05
A similar bill has been proposed in Arizona recently. And it seems to have actually gotten further than the one in Kansas, but now people are waking up and realizing what the bill was actually about (go figure) and it's getting a stooooooooorm of controversy in America right now!

Although the controversy storm is a good thing (it's for sure going to defeat the bill from what I'm seeing so far) it is also at the same time a pretty sad thing, because one of the main reasons why it has become so controversial - $$$ http://driber.net/os/facepalm.png

pidipidi39
28th Feb 2014, 21:35
I don't know if ya'll have seen this, but, if not, please watch it: it's extremely touching :)

Ka9ybs5L-bY

Driber
28th Feb 2014, 21:49
Meh. That didn't really move me. But that's probably the cynic inside of me telling me it was a publicity stunt.

The song on its own and its videoclip (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1981920&postcount=47) I think are much more pure and powerful :)

pidipidi39
28th Feb 2014, 22:28
Meh. That didn't really move me. But that's probably the cynic inside of me telling me it was a publicity stunt.
To be quite honest, even if that was just publicity stunt, I would still support it cause it promotes a good message and humanity anyways :)

Driber
1st Mar 2014, 00:18
To be quite honest, even if that was just publicity stunt, I would still support it cause it promotes a good message and humanity anyways :)

With so many commercial companies trying everything to get a piece of the LGBT pie, it's hard for me to see the good message of humanity in things like this. It's like I said 2 posts ago; gays would have a more difficult life if there weren't any companies trying to profit from them.

A lot of companies nowadays do charity stuff to get their brand out there, while they themselves wouldn't lift a finger to help out those in need.

Pampers' shady 1 Pack = 1 Vaccine program, anyone?




Sorry. My Daria-mode seems to be on today, lol. If that video inspires you, by all means, please be inspired! I'm not trying to take that away :)

CakeLuv
1st Mar 2014, 00:28
They may be doing it for publicity, but they are still helping somehow. (?

VaBanes
2nd Mar 2014, 20:09
http://abriluno.com/ugandan-presidents-daughter-admits-she-is-gay/

Wh1t3Kn1te
3rd Mar 2014, 01:03
^somehow this article doesnt surprise me, its usually how life works. one decides to stand against something and a short time later a family member opposes that view, has happened countless times through history and will continue to happen, however this does put the president in an awkward position. on the one hand he loves his daughter and has to show that to her, but on the other hand he has to respect the law that he signed, it will be interesting to see what he does.

by the way, this is why it doesnt make sense to criminalize gays, some people do it as a means to try to stop homosexuality from spreading, but it doesnt work and if anything it just makes it spread faster with all the humanitarians coming against those who pass such laws.

Murphdawg1
3rd Mar 2014, 19:09
DQVzyS-l0ZA

Considering the topic I think this fits here. Also I think BG does bring up some valid points in his video.

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 10:22
http://abriluno.com/ugandan-presidents-daughter-admits-she-is-gay/

Ouch!


on the one hand he loves his daughter and has to show that to her

Who says he loves his daughter...

:whistle:


by the way, this is why it doesnt make sense to criminalize gays, some people do it as a means to try to stop homosexuality from spreading, but it doesnt work and if anything it just makes it spread faster with all the humanitarians coming against those who pass such laws.

Man-made laws neither slows down nor speeds up the spreading of homosexuality. It's mother nature who chooses who will be straight and who will be gay :)


DQVzyS-l0ZA

Considering the topic I think this fits here. Also I think BG does bring up some valid points in his video.

Indeed some excellent points there.

I also don't like people or companies trying to ride the hype train. Pretty much what I said about that video about the grammies earlier in the thread.

And people worshipping a gay videogame character just because he or she is gay is undoubtedly going to happen. Even if devs try not to make a big deal out of it. (and even then, it remains questionable if we can actually believe the devs. you just know some companies will try to ride the hype train while pretending they don't, just because it's good for business :p)

Metalrocks
4th Mar 2014, 10:48
he does have interesting points. i also woulndt really like it if they point out his/her sexuality all the time like its the main thing of the story. having romance is fine and seeing a bit of kissing, if not even a minor sex scene to indicate that they are close.
again, just like in ME. it wasnt forced, it wasnt in your face, you had a quick sex scene then it was back in to the story.

a_big_house
4th Mar 2014, 10:58
...just like in ME. it wasnt forced, it wasnt in your face, you had a quick sex scene then it was back in to the story.

Yes, in all three games :lol:

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 11:25
Metal's idea of "just a bit of not-so-in-your-face kissing" - http://sig.driber.net/pIKjLAKAbBdfGLEbPyey.png



:D

Metalrocks
4th Mar 2014, 11:39
i knew i will get addressed about it. :p my sig just shows the support for these 2. nothing more :D

never the less, i still stick to what i said earlier and still support the laraxsam ship :D
i know, weird but i dont care. so far i have never claimed that some once sexuality, even with lara, should be shown every 10 min or so.

yes, ME had them in every title but it dint break the story and it wasnt the main factor of teh game and character even when it was an option direction you want to take the character.

a_big_house
4th Mar 2014, 11:47
..yes, ME had them in every title but it dint break the story and it wasnt the main factor of teh game and character even when it was an option direction you want to take the character.

Maybe not, but it does in fact effect the story, as can be seen by romancing Kaiden in ME1 - he's slightly nicer to you in ME2 :3

Metalrocks
4th Mar 2014, 12:32
Maybe not, but it does in fact effect the story, as can be seen by romancing Kaiden in ME1 - he's slightly nicer to you in ME2 :3

lol, hardly romanced him. even when i played mainly as femshep. but when do you really see him? just half way through the game for like a min, after facing the collectors for the first time. then you never see him again (or ashley). except for a photo, if you havent changed partners at that stage. but that also is only for a brief moment then its to the suicide mission.
so i cant say that this had a major impact on the main plot or even on shepard that he/she coulndt focus anymore on the mission and whats at stake.

and i just see now that i wrote "option" instead of "optional" :rolleyes:

Wh1t3Kn1te
4th Mar 2014, 12:39
It's mother nature who chooses who will be straight and who will be gay :)



if this were true, how do you explain the thousands that have changed their ways and reverted to heterosexuals?

SamanthaScofield
4th Mar 2014, 13:07
What that guy in the video says would make all totally sense if "non-straights" would actually be accepted and considered the same as straight people in the world, if it actually wouldn't make any difference if you are straight or gay or whatever yet it's definitely NOT like this. And even if many people accept gays, being gay is still considered as something "strange" by most.

I mean, why is it considered "shoving their sexuality in other people's face" if devs create gay characters just out of randomness? Why do you always need to give that a "deeper meaning"? Why can't someone be gay just as someone else is straight?

Sure their sexuality shouldn't be a focus of a game like that yet I kinda feel like this whole "in your face" thing is considered different between straights and gays. Being gay is much easier considered "in your face" than being straight even if people do the exact same things.

a_big_house
4th Mar 2014, 13:34
...Stuff...

Yeah... Until the third game where the first mission contains a large chunk of dialogue which is about that encounter :lol:
Of course it doesn't do that much to the game, but it still has an impact on the perception of the characters. At least to me it did :)

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 14:21
never the less, i still stick to what i said earlier and still support the laraxsam ship :D

LMAO, I didn't even go there, and you went there all by yourself this time! :rasp:

And at the same time crying about being "picked on" for his shipping :lol:


if this were true, how do you explain the thousands that have changed their ways and reverted to heterosexuals?

Oh that's dead easy to explain:

- Lying
- Denial
- Brainwashing

Don't think for a second that those people who claim to have been "cured" of homosexuality are telling you the truth.


What that guy in the video says would make all totally sense if "non-straights" would actually be accepted and considered the same as straight people in the world, if it actually wouldn't make any difference if you are straight or gay or whatever yet it's definitely NOT like this.

But that isn't what he was saying, so it doesn't negate his point ;)

SamanthaScofield
4th Mar 2014, 14:34
Hmm... I don't know. :/

He kinda says that, I think. I just think people are overreacting when it is about that "shoving gay stuff into other people's face" thing...

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 14:41
Hmm... I don't know. :/

He kinda says that, I think. I just think people are overreacting when it is about that "shoving gay stuff into other people's face" thing...

But that's just assumption and generalization. The guy really doesn't sound like that stereotypical anti-gay person who is fed up with the "gay agenda" and can't stand anything to do with gays. On the contrary, he sounds like someone very reasonable and open-minded, which I think makes his points all the more valid :)

Metalrocks
4th Mar 2014, 14:55
Yeah... Until the third game where the first mission contains a large chunk of dialogue which is about that encounter :lol:
Of course it doesn't do that much to the game, but it still has an impact on the perception of the characters. At least to me it did :)

well, its part of the character development. cant really recall that much dialog in the first mission about that encounter but it was a wile since i have played it.
to me, its still not a huge distraction of the main plot.

SamanthaScofield
4th Mar 2014, 14:59
The guy really doesn't sound like that stereotypical anti-gay person who is fed up with the "gay agenda" and can't stand anything to do with gays. On the contrary, he sounds like someone very reasonable and open-minded, which I think makes his points all the more valid :)
Maybe you are right. I just kinda don't like what he says about "devs are creating gay characters just to say 'we have a gay character in our game' "
I don't see anything bad in creating a gay character for no specific reason except for "just having one". It doesn't always need to have a "deeper meaning". There are tons of straight characters without anything like that either.

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 17:23
Maybe you are right. I just kinda don't like what he says about "devs are creating gay characters just to say 'we have a gay character in our game' "

He said IF they do that, then he wouldn't like that. He didn't say they are doing it.


I don't see anything bad in creating a gay character for no specific reason except for "just having one".

I've heard a lot of straight AND gay people say that this should be avoided. They want a gay character that makes sense in the narrative. Otherwise you just end up with a token gay character.


It doesn't always need to have a "deeper meaning"

In my view, there's a vast difference between shoe-horning in token gay characters and creating characters for a deep meaning. I think the middle-ground is probably best.


There are tons of straight characters without anything like that either.

I think the fallacy with this line of thinking is that you're too focused on what the other side (for the lack of a better term) is doing, and trying to balance things out by doing exactly the opposite bad thing.

If a straight romance is just shoe-horned into a story just for the sake of it, it won't work either.

The answer isn't "let's shoe-horn an equal amount of gay characters into media as well". The answer is creating content that makes sense and is relevant.

If it's irrelevant to a game to introduce a gay character (which IS going to be seen as making a statement, because it IS controversial, regardless if we think so or not, and regardless of the intentions of the game's dev team), you're only going to cheapen the experience, IMO :cool:

SamanthaScofield
4th Mar 2014, 17:31
I mean, yes, you are kinda right. I just think being gay shouldn't be seen as something "special". It shouldn't be a big deal if a character is gay or straight regardless of shoe-horning. Why not just randomly pick a sexuality? Nature does as well.

In RPGs for example. I like walking through a world and seeing two girls or guys kissing or doing things even if it is totally irrelevat for everything else. Or if you start talking to a woman (Skyrim - like) and she tells you about her girlfriend. It just seems normal.
I mean, these NPCs are no real characters but I think this works for real characters as well. I don't think it would make much of a difference if Ezio hooked up with guys instead of girls.. Or in The Witcher series. There is one lesbian sex scene (sort of) of a "main side character" which didn't add anything to the story or her character, yet it still felt kinda right..
yet I must say, CD Projekt RED kinda doesn't give a damn about any potential controversy in general, anyway...

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 17:44
SS, I completely agree with you - it totally shouldn't. And for a lot of people (myself, you, and the guy in the video) it really doesn't.

In a perfect world, it will not matter to a single human being on this planet. However, the reality is different. We don't live in a perfect world. So you cannot blame game devs or other media content creators (who have to deal with the real world) from making certain decisions that may not have been made in a perfect world.

:)

SamanthaScofield
4th Mar 2014, 17:50
But that's what I mean with this whole "in your face" stuff. It's NOT "in your face". That's just what people think..
I wish people would finally stop with their straight propaganda in every new Disney movie... :whistle:

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 17:52
But that's what I mean with this whole "in your face" stuff. It's NOT "in your face". That's just what people think..

I don't follow. Isn't your whole argument based on that there are virtually no gay characters in videogames? If there aren't any, how can you possibly say "it's not in-your-face stuff. that's just what people think"? :nut:

What do you base that assumption on?

SamanthaScofield
4th Mar 2014, 17:58
I kinda don't understand...

I just think people consider gay relationships as "in your face" much easier than straight relationships.

Like having gay characters for no reason. I don't think this is "in your face". Or "shoe horned". Yet many people think so. Nature gives us gays for no reason as well. Isn't it the same with being black? Or being a woman?
Like what people say about "gay character just for the sake of having a gay character". They never say "straight character just for the sake of having a straight character". And that's totally understandable. Because it doesn't matter. But why does it matter if the character is gay?

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 18:05
I wish people would finally stop with their straight propaganda in every new Disney movie... :whistle:

See, this is exactly the kind of talk that is slowing down diversity and gender equality.


I kinda don't understand...

Alright, let's get this cleared up then. You post a video or image of something that you consider to be "in-your-face stuff".

Then we can use that as a basis to discuss our opinions, instead of just going by terminology. Hell, for all we know we actually agree on that point, but we don't know it yet! :D


I just think people consider openly being gay "in your face" much easier than being straight.
Like having gay characters for no reason. I don't think this is "in your face".

Context is important. You can't make blanket statements like this and claim that all portrayal of gay people in media is the same.


And I also don't really understand how something like this can be "shoe horned". Isn't it the same as being black? Or being a woman?

Yes, it is the same! We also have token black characters, which can be just as bad as token gay characters, or token female characters, or token Asian characters, etc etc

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/shared/characters/kids/token-black.jpg

SamanthaScofield
4th Mar 2014, 18:15
Yes, it is the same! We also have token black characters, which can be just as bad as token gay characters, or token female characters, or token Asian characters, etc etc

Token... :lol:

I know. But I think people see a token gay female Asian as much more "critical" than a token straight white dude with brown hair..

I mean, "token" is always bad. But it shouldn't have anything to do with being gay or straight. Or black or blue. Or green.

(Don't know if "token" is the right term for all that. But I hope you know where I'm coming from...)

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 18:27
Token... :lol:

Heh, thought you'd get a kick out of that :D


I'll be honest, I actually didn't get Trey and Matt's joke with Token until several seasons after he was introduced to the series :o


I know. But I think people see a token gay female Asian as much more "critical" than a token straight white dude with brown hair..

lol, because the latter isn't tokenable (it's a word. really. look it up :whistle:) at all. Well, not in Western culture, that is. I'm sure in Japan they'll have token white people, too :p


I mean, "token" is always bad.

I'd say that tokenism is inherently an undesirable thing.


But it shouldn't have anything to do with being gay or straight. Or black or blue. Or green.

Uhm, yes it does. That's the whole point.


(Don't know if "token" is the right term for all that. But I hope you know where I'm coming from...)

Not quite, actually.

I really think you should post that video or image I suggested, else we could be going back and forth like this forever, lol.

SamanthaScofield
4th Mar 2014, 18:33
I really think you should post that video or image I suggested, else we could be going back and forth like this forever, lol.
But what video? :eek:


But isn't it a bad thing that a gay person is "token" in general? (<- this is where I'm coming from)

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 18:38
But what video? :eek:

A YT video, or an image plucked from google images of what in YOUR opinion is a good example of something that is "in-your-face stuff".

Then we can truly understand how YOU personally define that term :)


But isn't it a bad thing that a gay person is "token" in general? (<- this is where I'm coming from)

Nooooooooo!!!

That isn't what I am saying :lol:

Read this, please - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism :cool:

SamanthaScofield
4th Mar 2014, 18:44
I just think straight people and gay people should be considered the same. Having a gay character in a game, even if it doesn't add anything to the story or her character or whatever, shouldn't be a big deal. Just as having a straight character is no big deal either.

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 18:51
Yeah I get it, SS.

To that, I can only say what I said in post #123 (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1992357&postcount=123) :cool:

SamanthaScofield
4th Mar 2014, 18:53
But I don't even have a video of "in your face"... :/

And my main point isn't even about that "in your face" stuff, more about the difference between "gay in your face" and "straight in your face"... that sounds strange..

EDIT: Oh, that's the post you meant..

Driber
4th Mar 2014, 19:07
SS, why is it so difficult for you to present an example of "in your face"? I can find you tons of material with a 15 seconds google search. You obviously have a strong opinion about it, so why don't you at least just describe an example to us? I really think we will get absolutely nowhere if you just cling onto a phrase which you yourself don't even seem to understand all that well :/

AdobeArtist
4th Mar 2014, 21:16
SS, I completely agree with you - it totally shouldn't. And for a lot of people (myself, you, and the guy in the video) it really doesn't.

In a perfect world, it will not matter to a single human being on this planet. However, the reality is different. We don't live in a perfect world. So you cannot blame game devs or other media content creators (who have to deal with the real world) from making certain decisions that may not have been made in a perfect world.

:)

This completely reminds me of that pivotal scene in Philadelphia, when the Judge is addressing Denzel Washington (his character);

Judge: In this court justice is blind to race, gender, age, and sexual orientation.
Denzel: We all don't live in this court, do we?
Judge: No... we do not.

a_big_house
4th Mar 2014, 23:58
SS, why is it so difficult for you to present an example of "in your face"? I can find you tons of material with a 15 seconds google search...

I CAN!

This web page (http://forums.eidosgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=290)


:D

Not only is there a thread about two female characters that contains heavy Lesbian themes, but also another thread dedicated to homosexuality

I don't see a single thread about Lara & Alex or heterosexuality

:D

Murphdawg1
5th Mar 2014, 00:57
I kinda don't understand...

I just think people consider gay relationships as "in your face" much easier than straight relationships.

Like having gay characters for no reason. I don't think this is "in your face". Or "shoe horned". Yet many people think so. Nature gives us gays for no reason as well. Isn't it the same with being black? Or being a woman?
Like what people say about "gay character just for the sake of having a gay character". They never say "straight character just for the sake of having a straight character". And that's totally understandable. Because it doesn't matter. But why does it matter if the character is gay?

Sure and maybe that's because straight people don't really go around announcing their straightness(I know I don't) and they just go about their daily lives. At least in media and entertainment it seems that for gay and lesbian famous people it's more of a "Hey look at me" type thing. I mean if Ellen Page or Jason Collins were straight we wouldn't be hearing a word about their sexuality now would we? It doesn't really help that some on the American left seem to perpetuate this idea that gays are defined by their sexuality, minorities are defined by their skin color and women are defined by their gender.

larafan25
5th Mar 2014, 02:30
Sure and maybe that's because straight people don't really go around announcing their straightness(I know I don't) and they just go about their daily lives. At least in media and entertainment it seems that for gay and lesbian famous people it's more of a "Hey look at me" type thing. I mean if Ellen Page or Jason Collins were straight we wouldn't be hearing a word about their sexuality now would we? It doesn't really help that some on the American left seem to perpetuate this idea that gays are defined by their sexuality, minorities are defined by their skin color and women are defined by their gender.

Gay people need to come out.

a_big_house
5th Mar 2014, 10:26
Gay people need to come out.

I agree and disagree.

I think gay people should be known and not have to hide, but I don't think saying "hey, I'm gay" is the right way to go about it.

Driber
5th Mar 2014, 10:47
Guys, we are just going in circles stating the obvious.

If queer people feel the need to make a big deal out of their sexuality, fine. If they need extravagant pride marches to feel empowered, power to them! If they feel the need to hijack everything and make it about sexuality, that's their prerogative.

But that then also inevitably means it's going to be more "in your face" than if they just treat it like a non-issue.

Just accept this simple, neutral fact. It really makes no sense trying to argue both sides of the coin ("it's a big deal, but it isn't a big deal") :nut:

Wh1t3Kn1te
6th Mar 2014, 01:06
^any time you have two groups of people who disagree on an issue, they will fight tooth and nail about what they "think" is right. a great example of this is walking into a room full of scientists and asking them one question, are viruses alive? some will argue till they're blue in the face one way or the other.

this is the age of disagreement.

btw if you live in the U.S. and you're gay, you may want to read this.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/05/pf/taxes/same-sex-taxes/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

larafan25
6th Mar 2014, 01:50
I agree and disagree.

I think gay people should be known and not have to hide, but I don't think saying "hey, I'm gay" is the right way to go about it.

Well, that's just become the way it is. I guess.

I haven't "come out" really. My Facebook makes it clear I'm gay, and my family knows. And I make the assumption that everyone knows (as silly as I know that is) simply because I don't think I should have to come out, and make something of it. But given reality, coming out is a thing.

The fact is, I don't make being gay a thing, and I don't make a thing out of being gay. Straight people do. *shrugs*

And you know, I hate this idea that seems to float around, that we should not make a big deal about it, because somehow that makes it more jarring or harder to swallow. I'm just angry and stubborn, but I think that's BS tbh.

Driber
6th Mar 2014, 10:22
^any time you have two groups of people who disagree on an issue, they will fight tooth and nail about what they "think" is right.

I don't think that is what happened here, though.

And what's with the quotes around "think"? Are you implying people are being insincere? :scratch:


a great example of this is walking into a room full of scientists and asking them one question, are viruses alive? some will argue till they're blue in the face one way or the other.

Not to be picky or pedantic, but that isn't such a great example. Scientists don't typically go around "arguing until they are blue in the face" on scientific matter that do not affect their personal lives. They usually have calm, rational discussions to work towards a consensus, which is more often than not, reached in the end.

I think you can hardly compare a subject like homosexuality, discussed by ordinary folk (for the lack of a better term) whose lives it directly affects (in lesser or greater degree) and where religion plays a major role in people's opinion on the subject, to a scientific discussion about the terminology of "life".

(BTW, last time I checked, the general consensus in the scientific community on viruses is that they are non-living particles of living cells.)


The fact is, I don't make being gay a thing, and I don't make a thing out of being gay. Straight people do. *shrugs*

Are you serious? It's just straight people who make being gay a "thing"? No offence, but that's preposterous.

width='500'

width='500'

width='500'


And you know, I hate this idea that seems to float around, that we should not make a big deal about it, because somehow that makes it more jarring or harder to swallow. I'm just angry and stubborn, but I think that's BS tbh.

You do realize that also gay people think like that, don't you? I'm asking, because of the comment you made earlier and because here you write "we" instead of "I", as if to indicate that you belong to a group where all members think exactly like you do. There are plenty of gays that don't agree with other gays. Case in point post #140 :whistle:

Yeah, there is the idea floating around there that gays should not make a big deal out of their sexuality. And there is also the idea floating around there that gays should be as much "in your face" about their sexuality as possible.

They are ideas. They are personal opinions. And in no way does either idea represent an entire gender. It would be sexist to think so.

Personally, I don't like to make blanket statements about what gays should do to improve their personal lives or the lives of other gays who struggle with their sexuality or with gender inequality or discrimination. I think it all depends on context. Sometimes it may be better to not make a big deal out of it, and sometimes it may be better to be "in your face" about it, depending on where you do it, when you do it, and who your audience is.

For example, pride parades are generally a good thing, IMO. But making an appointment with a conservative president of a country to discuss the anti-gay laws in his country and showing up in the attire depicted below probably wouldn't be a good idea, heh.

width='150'

(I love Bruno, BTW :D)


Similarly, I don't agree with everything FEMEN does. Nor do I think it is a good idea for people who are being oppressed to vent their anger onto people who are not involved with said oppression. Also something you often see happening...

a_big_house
6th Mar 2014, 11:09
Well, that's just become the way it is. I guess.

I haven't "come out" really. My Facebook makes it clear I'm gay, and my family knows. And I make the assumption that everyone knows (as silly as I know that is) simply because I don't think I should have to come out, and make something of it. But given reality, coming out is a thing.
In a similar fashion, I don't say that I am gay because it's no ones business, if someone ask me, I say no but I'll duscyss homosexual things with people who I know know and I'm comfortable discussing those things with.


The fact is, I don't make being gay a thing, and I don't make a thing out of being gay. Straight people do. *shrugs*
Yeah, I think Driber provided the perfect counter argument to that haha
I personally don't care for parades and flags and stuff, it's a waste of time to me.

SamanthaScofield
6th Mar 2014, 12:51
But straight people aren't being attacked, murdered and told they are 'not normal'.
It's a sad state of affairs when people are forced to summon bravery to be honest about who they love.
People saying 'Why is Ellen Page getting so much support just for being gay' - the answer is she needs it because of people like this.

The reason there's no 'straight pride' parade is because unless you live on Tumblr you're not made to feel ashamed about being straight.

Driber
6th Mar 2014, 15:22
But straight people aren't being attacked, murdered and told they are 'not normal'.
It's a sad state of affairs when people are forced to summon bravery to be honest about who they love.
People saying 'Why is Ellen Page getting so much support just for being gay' - the answer is she needs it because of people like this.

The reason there's no 'straight pride' parade is because unless you live on Tumblr you're not made to feel ashamed about being straight.

Once again, you are just stating the obvious. You're not bringing anything valuable to this debate if you're just throwing random facts in the air without providing any kind of context. Hey, I can do that, too. Look:


People in Africa are starving!
Innocent straight people are thrown into jail!
Asian countries have a patriarchy!
Big greedy companies are evil!
The price of bread is increasing!

If you think that all of the above is bad, you must agree with me and my world view!

ItsAdventureTime
6th Mar 2014, 16:02
But straight people aren't being attacked, murdered and told they are 'not normal'.
It's a sad state of affairs when people are forced to summon bravery to be honest about who they love.

Actually in this short movie it shows a different view on society if If heterophobia was what people feared rather than homophobia. It's kind of eye opening in a different perspective.

*warning - video graphically depicts suicide. not recommended for viewing by sensitive people*

CnOJgDW0gPI

Driber
6th Mar 2014, 19:16
^ That is the most stupidest thing I've seen :/


It's kind of eye opening in a different perspective.

How was this eye opening for you?

-----

@Wh1t3Kn1te: You didn't respond to my answer to your question in this post (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1992225&postcount=116). I'm curious why? :)

ItsAdventureTime
6th Mar 2014, 20:39
How was this eye opening for you?


Well in the sense of how some younger people act in regards to "differences". In that society it is totally natural for people to be homosexual, paralleled to that of ours which the norm is to be heterosexual. The way that Ashley is treated for being heterosexual is unfortunately similar to the way gays are treated in the USA. However, not by everyone, and not everywhere. But in some instances why do people who hate gays make it a point to go out of their way in public to make it known to everyone they don't like you. More than likely you have never talked to the gay person before and are just passing judgment on them, when they have done nothing to you except be in your presence.

But if we can just teach acceptance to different lifestyles at an early age, then it won't be so hard to live with in the future. Because people being homosexual are not going away anytime soon. So if we can change our thinking and try to bring up our children with the lesson of acceptance then we wouldn't have to have talks with our kids on why it is wrong to be one way or the other. We would just go about our lives with that anger not present anymore. Because like it or not older people who have a problem with being gay will be long gone while the younger generation is still here being happy and making their choices that shouldn't affect any other person.

Driber
6th Mar 2014, 21:40
Well in the sense of how some younger people act in regards to "differences". In that society it is totally natural for people to be homosexual, paralleled to that of ours which the norm is to be heterosexual. The way that Ashley is treated for being heterosexual is unfortunately similar to the way gays are treated in the USA. However, not by everyone, and not everywhere. But in some instances why do people who hate gays make it a point to go out of their way in public to make it known to everyone they don't like you. More than likely you have never talked to the gay person before and are just passing judgment on them, when they have done nothing to you except be in your presence.

But if we can just teach acceptance to different lifestyles at an early age, then it won't be so hard to live with in the future. Because people being homosexual are not going away anytime soon. So if we can change our thinking and try to bring up our children with the lesson of acceptance then we wouldn't have to have talks with our kids on why it is wrong to be one way or the other. We would just go about our lives with that anger not present anymore. Because like it or not older people who have a problem with being gay will be long gone while the younger generation is still here being happy and making their choices that shouldn't affect any other person.

That doesn't really answer my question.

In your first paragraph, you summarize the movie and its message. I have seen it. I understand it.

In your second paragraph, you explain what people should do to achieve acceptance/tolerance of homosexuality. I think we all know how to do it.

What I asked is what exactly did that movie do to you to change your opinion or perception on the issue? You said it's an eye-opener. So that means that before the movie you had a different mindset than you do now. So I'm curious to know what exactly changed for you and how exactly did that movie achieve that?

:)

ItsAdventureTime
6th Mar 2014, 22:03
That doesn't really answer my question.

In your first paragraph, you summarize the movie and its message. I have seen it. I understand it.

In your second paragraph, you explain what people should do to achieve acceptance/tolerance of homosexuality. I think we all know how to do it.

What I asked is what exactly did that movie do to you to change your opinion or perception on the issue? You said it's an eye-opener. So that means that before the movie you had a different mindset than you do now. So I'm curious to know what exactly changed for you and how exactly did that movie achieve that?

:)

If you read the first sentence it sums up what I will be talking about and why it was eye opening to me. ;) The point I was making is how mean people can be and how they grow up not realizing they are "shutting" people out, people who they could be very good friends with. It is all in how a person is raised. I thought that children where always so kind and didn't care what your differences are. But as the movie points out our parents make us they way we are in regards to our beliefs. So if the new generation of parents out there can make their children respectful to different ways of life than that would make for a better world to live in.

Driber
6th Mar 2014, 22:38
If you read the first sentence it sums up what I will be talking about and why it was eye opening to me. ;) The point I was making is how mean people can be and how they grow up not realizing they are "shutting" people out, people who they could be very good friends with. It is all in how a person is raised. I thought that children where always so kind and didn't care what your differences are. But as the movie points out our parents make us they way we are in regards to our beliefs. So if the new generation of parents out there can make their children respectful to different ways of life than that would make for a better world to live in.

Thanks, it's a bit more clear now :)

Oh I agree that parents raising their children to be respectful of other people's differences can make a huge difference. Though at the same time I wouldn't ascribe all the bad influences children receive to parents. A lot of anti-gay sentiments (or bullying in general) is simply peer-driven.

One thing I don't quite understand about what you said, though - you didn't know that there are mean and intolerant kids until you saw that video? :scratch:

ItsAdventureTime
6th Mar 2014, 23:08
One thing I don't quite understand about what you said, though - you didn't know that there are mean and intolerant kids until you saw that video? :scratch:

I am glad I could make it more clear. :) And well no, I mean, I do know that there was always mean and intolerant kids. But the short film helped to show the ways in which they could act, which is not always shown. And is thus enlightening to the audience to see how children can act in such situations.

Wh1t3Kn1te
7th Mar 2014, 02:11
And what's with the quotes around "think"? Are you implying people are being insincere? :scratch:

simply that what one person thinks is right may not be right according to the other person.




Not to be picky or pedantic, but that isn't such a great example. Scientists don't typically go around "arguing until they are blue in the face" on scientific matter that do not affect their personal lives. They usually have calm, rational discussions to work towards a consensus, which is more often than not, reached in the end.

I think you can hardly compare a subject like homosexuality, discussed by ordinary folk (for the lack of a better term) whose lives it directly affects (in lesser or greater degree) and where religion plays a major role in people's opinion on the subject, to a scientific discussion about the terminology of "life".

(BTW, last time I checked, the general consensus in the scientific community on viruses is that they are non-living particles of living cells.)

don't take everything so literally, it was a figure of speech. :p




-----


@Wh1t3Kn1te: You didn't respond to my answer to your question in


i was just gonna leave it alone, but i will say one thing. my wife has a friend (female) who liked girls and acted like a guy (like working on cars and doing outdoor activities like fishsing) and couldnt understand why. she didnt want to act on that desire because she felt it was wrong and against nature so she chose to be with no one. one thing she noticed is every time she saw a woman she would get a pain in her abdomen, it got so bad that one day she went to the doctor for it and it turned out she had male parts tucked up inside of her.

this was a relief to her because it explained so much, since she knew what she desired she chose at that time to have the doctor pull out her male parts and do away with the female parts, and to this day is living a productive life as a heterosexual male (he is now married with 2 children).

yes this is rare, but don't think for a moment that gays are being forced to act on a desire to be with someone on the same sex, if they choose to act on it then thats their choice, but at the same time people shouldnt be mistreating them because they choose to act like that either, the latter is more of an offensive than anything in this world.

larafan25
7th Mar 2014, 05:04
Are you serious? It's just straight people who make being gay a "thing"? No offence, but that's preposterous.


Yes. I'm serious. The parades didn't come first. The hate did. If nobody gave half a **** about homosexuality, we wouldn't have the parade. That's just it.


You do realize that also gay people think like that, don't you? I'm asking, because of the comment you made earlier and because here you write "we" instead of "I", as if to indicate that you belong to a group where all members think exactly like you do. There are plenty of gays that don't agree with other gays. Case in point post #140 :whistle:

Yeah, there is the idea floating around there that gays should not make a big deal out of their sexuality. And there is also the idea floating around there that gays should be as much "in your face" about their sexuality as possible.

It's not about making a big deal about your sexuality for no reason. It's about being comfortable enough to say "I'm gay" and to let it be a known thing, because that should be okay. There should be no consequence to being out.

When I say "We", I mean homosexuals. Because yes, there is that idea, that homosexuals shouldn't make a deal out of it.


They are ideas. They are personal opinions. And in no way does either idea represent an entire gender. It would be sexist to think so.

Quel. what. :scratch:


Personally, I don't like to make blanket statements about what gays should do to improve their personal lives or the lives of other gays who struggle with their sexuality or with gender inequality or discrimination. I think it all depends on context. Sometimes it may be better to not make a big deal out of it, and sometimes it may be better to be "in your face" about it, depending on where you do it, when you do it, and who your audience is.

Clearly, if your living in Uganda you might not want to run down the street shouting "I'm gay", or express pride in it. You might be sentenced to death. The reason this is not okay, is obvious.


In a similar fashion, I don't say that I am gay because it's no ones business, if someone ask me, I say no but I'll duscyss homosexual things with people who I know know and I'm comfortable discussing those things with.

Why? Is this out of fear, are you in a dangerous situation? If so, then yeah, that is probably a smart move. But the fact is, that where you can be open about yourself, you should be brave, it's for the greater good. It's not necessarily everyone's responsibility however.


Yeah, I think Driber provided the perfect counter argument to that haha
I personally don't care for parades and flags and stuff, it's a waste of time to me.

I don't get it. It's a celebration if anything. It has it's historical rooting in an uprising against oppression. There are parades, months, days, symbols and flags dedicated to many movements. Why not the LGBT movement?

I just don't get why it needs to be quiet, or subtle. That's the whole deal, people had to hide themselves, lie about themselves to be accepted. Thus the last thing I want, is to tone down a pride parade commemorating that very thing. Whether it does it well or not.

Driber
7th Mar 2014, 12:22
I am glad I could make it more clear. :) And well no, I mean, I do know that there was always mean and intolerant kids. But the short film helped to show the ways in which they could act, which is not always shown. And is thus enlightening to the audience to see how children can act in such situations.

I see what you mean. Thanks for indulging my curious mind, hehe :)


simply that what one person thinks is right may not be right according to the other person.

Ah I see, the quotes were meant to be around "right". Gotcha :)


don't take everything so literally, it was a figure of speech. :p

Heh, I know it was. I just hate seeing these implications about scientists being a bunch of "hot headed, indecisive people who can never agree on anything" :p


i was just gonna leave it alone, but i will say one thing. my wife has a friend (female) who liked girls and acted like a guy (like working on cars and doing outdoor activities like fishsing) and couldnt understand why. she didnt want to act on that desire because she felt it was wrong and against nature so she chose to be with no one. one thing she noticed is every time she saw a woman she would get a pain in her abdomen, it got so bad that one day she went to the doctor for it and it turned out she had male parts tucked up inside of her.

this was a relief to her because it explained so much, since she knew what she desired she chose at that time to have the doctor pull out her male parts and do away with the female parts, and to this day is living a productive life as a heterosexual male (he is now married with 2 children).

I think it's good to talk about it, though.

Interesting story. I'm gonna disagree with your conclusion, though. But I'm sure you saw that coming, heh. I'll explain below why. If you don't want to get into it deeper, then consider I'm writing the below just for the sake of other readers and you and I can agree to disagree on this subject :)

----

So here's my take on that case. Assuming what you said is 100% correct (not assuming you're lying or anything) then I don't understand why you would choose to see that as evidence that homosexuality is a choice, rather than a disposition which you're born with. I think if anything, that case screams of evidence pointing towards the latter.

So the guy was born with 2 genders, right? And with what you'd call a traditional male sexual identity (he was attracted to women, not men), right? Okay, so once he found out that he doesn't fit the general natural standard of "men are attracted to women and women are attracted to men" and had himself examined, he found out that there was something wrong in his body, so he had an operation to match his outer appearance to what he felt inside of his brain, right?

So taking that into account, isn't it logical to assume that nature plays these kinds of tricks for all the time, making people look different to what they feel inside?

Let's not forget that we can see deviations of the norm in nature for all the time. Plenty of humans are born with body parts that do not make any sense, like a dead foetus attached to a head, or siamese twins, or having an extra limb, or born as an albino. And we see the exact same thing in the animal kingdom. There are thousands of observed cases of homosexuality occurring in nature. And we can safely say that those animals didn't choose to be gay due to watching too many episodes of The L Word, heh.

BTW, you say "a productive life as a heteosexual male with 2 children" - are you implying that homosexuals cannot live productive lives?


yes this is rare, but don't think for a moment that gays are being forced to act on a desire to be with someone on the same sex, if they choose to act on it then thats their choice, but at the same time people shouldnt be mistreating them because they choose to act like that either, the latter is more of an offensive than anything in this world.

I indeed do not think that gays are being forced to act on a gay desire. I in fact think that if they act on a desire, it is their natural desire to whatever is hardwired in their brains, generally speaking.

I think the only cases of gays being forced to act on their feelings, it is due to people and religion brainwashing them to act in accordance with the norm. Why do you think there are so many suicides in straight camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy)? Why do we have confirmed cases of many gays marrying women and even having children and later on divorcing their wives and confessing that they have been living in a lie because they felt they needed to suppress the urges that their culture and/or religion told them is wrong?


Yes. I'm serious. The parades didn't come first. The hate did. If nobody gave half a **** about homosexuality, we wouldn't have the parade. That's just it.

Okay, you kinda expressed it poorly before, but I get your point now.

Still, why even make this point again? We already established the reason why some gays want to make a big deal out of their sexuality. But like I said before - not all gays want (or even agree) with doing parades and all that.

If you personally want to make a big deal out of your sexuality, fine. But you should accept the fact that many people (including gays) do not wish to make a big deal out of it and are happier not screaming it from the top of the roofs.

And you can't honestly tell me that is wrong, can you?


It's about being comfortable enough to say "I'm gay" and to let it be a known thing, because that should be okay.

I agree, it should be okay. And for me personally, it totally is.


There should be no consequence to being out.

I agree, there shouldn't be any. And speaking for myself, there won't be.


When I say "We", I mean homosexuals. Because yes, there is that idea, that homosexuals shouldn't make a deal out of it.

Yes, an idea being shared with gay people as well. So isn't it pointless to say "we" when "you guys" don't even all agree?


Quel. what. :scratch:

You assume that all gay people share your opinion. That's wrong.


Clearly, if your living in Uganda you might not want to run down the street shouting "I'm gay", or express pride in it. You might be sentenced to death. The reason this is not okay, is obvious.

I agree, it's not okay. So?

There are gay people living in Holland who don't want to run down the street screaming "I'm gay", either.


Why? Is this out of fear, are you in a dangerous situation? If so, then yeah, that is probably a smart move. But the fact is, that where you can be open about yourself, you should be brave, it's for the greater good.

Excuse me for butting in between you and ABH here, but who are you to tell anyone what to do?

Isn't that the exact same thing you are fighting against? (people telling you how to be behave)


I don't get it. It's a celebration if anything. It has it's historical rooting in an uprising against oppression. There are parades, months, days, symbols and flags dedicated to many movements. Why not the LGBT movement?

I just don't get why it needs to be quiet, or subtle. That's the whole deal, people had to hide themselves, lie about themselves to be accepted. Thus the last thing I want, is to tone down a pride parade commemorating that very thing. Whether it does it well or not.

You completely missed ABH's point. He feels that his sexuality is of nobody's business than his own.

So again, who are you to tell him to march in line with your movement, so that he would serve a "greater good", while completely disrespecting his personal freedom to choose how he wants to live his life?

Isn't what you're trying to do right now a form of oppression, too?

larafan25
7th Mar 2014, 18:10
K. This has revealed itself to be a very weird, and mostly unnecessary discussion. I popped in because I read things that made sirens go off in my mind. But apparently it was a decoy, I don't really know. I stand by what I originally said with my original intentions, everybody should come out, with a hint of context and it may have been an exaggeration.

I did mention somewhere in that last post that it's not necessarily everybody's responsibility to be out, and at the forefront of the movement. Thus I'm not forcing that ABH come out and be public about his sexuality... though I guess this is quite public already considering we're talking about it. The fact is, if you can come out, be gay in a safe place, or as safe as it gets, then you impact the world's view of homosexuality, even if on such a small scale, you're being a hero for people who possibly can't.

Again, not everybody's responsibility, and in fact I'm stubborn and annoyed, so I don't think I should have to do anything to enhance the freedom of my people against the oppression of some other force. However, yeah, being out is constructive and productive. And I cannot tolerate the concept that it would be unproductive, if someone were to be perhaps "too gay" or too loud about it. Or, if someone should be out, but just not pink. I think that's just a way of extending the leash, but there is no true acceptance there in my eyes.

Regardless of whatever I say or how much longer I ramble, the point is, again regardless of what I say, my intention is that I want a better world, and one where this is not a problem. So we can argue about what we're saying, but mostly we have our eyes set on the same prize, I'd assume.

Then again, I really don't understand the concept of keeping sexuality private for the sake of personal privacy and nothing more. Not that I disagree with ABH's intentions, but simply disagree with the concept of sexuality being private, because it's not. You cannot step foot on this planet without relating somehow to sexuality. Gravity is not private, the force of the wind is not private, neither is sexuality. Heterosexuals cannot escape sexuality any more than homosexuals. If you're not gay you're straight, everyone will always know that you're part of sexuality somehow, even if you're asexual. So to me, this is a concept of "I am a different sexuality, and given a different circumstance, thus I will be private about it" or, I'm gay so I'm tip-toeing around. Which is logical in some situations, however to simply chose to be private about your sexuality for privacy sake, that has me scratching my chin. I don't think that's a discussion most heterosexual people will have, as it's mostly inescapable.

Driber
7th Mar 2014, 22:54
LF25, since you're still scratching your head at what in my eyes is a VERY simple concept (what people do in their bedroom is private, unless they choose to make it public) but you show a willingness to learn, allow me to use a simple analogy here...

Do you think that all straight people who are into BDSM should come out, and go around screaming "I LOVE LATEX!" and hold massive pride parades promoting the wonderfully perverted world of bondage and simulated torture?


This has revealed itself to be a very weird, and mostly unnecessary discussion.

That's your opinion.

If you don't like the discussion, you're free to leave it any time you want. No one is forcing you to participate.

Wh1t3Kn1te
9th Mar 2014, 01:49
So here's my take on that case. Assuming what you said is 100% correct (not assuming you're lying or anything) then I don't understand why you would choose to see that as evidence that homosexuality is a choice, rather than a disposition which you're born with. I think if anything, that case screams of evidence pointing towards the latter.

So the guy was born with 2 genders, right? And with what you'd call a traditional male sexual identity (he was attracted to women, not men), right? Okay, so once he found out that he doesn't fit the general natural standard of "men are attracted to women and women are attracted to men" and had himself examined, he found out that there was something wrong in his body, so he had an operation to match his outer appearance to what he felt inside of his brain, right?

So taking that into account, isn't it logical to assume that nature plays these kinds of tricks for all the time, making people look different to what they feel inside?

Let's not forget that we can see deviations of the norm in nature for all the time. Plenty of humans are born with body parts that do not make any sense, like a dead foetus attached to a head, or siamese twins, or having an extra limb, or born as an albino. And we see the exact same thing in the animal kingdom. There are thousands of observed cases of homosexuality occurring in nature. And we can safely say that those animals didn't choose to be gay due to watching too many episodes of The L Word, heh.

BTW, you say "a productive life as a heteosexual male with 2 children" - are you implying that homosexuals cannot live productive lives?


yes, this is one topic that we will just have to agree to disagree. we have two different worldviews and two different beliefs as to what drives a person to be like they are.

yours is a naturalistic worldview that believes everything about a human is derived from the animal kingdom and we are just a collection of random chemicals, our thought processes are simple elictrical currents running through different parts of our brain, producing whatever outward response we see.

i have a spirit led, Christ centered worldview (not to be confused with a religious worldview, the two are polar opposites), that believes humans are created to be seperate, but better, than animals who have a purpose to being here and our heart determines everything we desire, which then goes to our brain to be computed into data, which in turn produces an outward response.

i think what happens is people confuse the terminology that is used by folks like us, and they immediately think we are attacking them, when in fact we love them as a person, we are just trying to warn them that all choices made have consequences and to be very careful about how they walk their respected path through life. so when i say someone is not born gay, what i am actually saying is that i realize they are born with a desire to be with someone of the same sex, but this does not make them gay. choosing to act on this desire is what makes them gay, thus they still have to make that choice.

i was born with the desire to lie, but this does not make me a liar. if i choose to act on this desire and tell a lie, then THAT makes me a liar. i struggle every day with this desire but God helps me tremendously and i would not want to do anything to lose the trust that i have with other people i care about.
if i were to have a naturalistic worldview then i would just assume that nature created me with a tendency to lie as a survival tool so that i could decieve others to increase my own fortunes, AKA be a conman. this however is not a good lifestyle to have, and can lead to a host of problems.

according to God, ALL sin is the same, so to him the act of lying is the same as the act of rape, and the act of murder is the same as the act of bestiality. this means that all of humanity is in the same boat and no one is better or worse than anyone else. this is also means that if God can forgive the sins of someone like jeffery dahmer, then he can forgive anyones sin just the same.

where i am getting at with my point is that all mankind is born with a sinful desire, but we do not become something until we act on that desire.


this is how i believe, you can agree or not but i will still be respectful and loving toward others for however long i am on this planet. Jesus taught many things about how to live and the one i believe in the most is to live peacefully with all mankind; that is one of my many goals, and i hope i did not offend too many people with my words. :)

larafan25
9th Mar 2014, 02:23
yes, this is one topic that we will just have to agree to disagree. we have two different worldviews and two different beliefs as to what drives a person to be like they are.

yours is a naturalistic worldview that believes everything about a human is derived from the animal kingdom and we are just a collection of random chemicals, our thought processes are simple elictrical currents running through different parts of our brain, producing whatever outward response we see.

i have a spirit led, Christ centered worldview (not to be confused with a religious worldview, the two are polar opposites), that believes humans are created to be seperate, but better, than animals who have a purpose to being here and our heart determines everything we desire, which then goes to our brain to be computed into data, which in turn produces an outward response.

i think what happens is people confuse the terminology that is used by folks like us, and they immediately think we are attacking them, when in fact we love them as a person, we are just trying to warn them that all choices made have consequences and to be very careful about how they walk their respected path through life. so when i say someone is not born gay, what i am actually saying is that i realize they are born with a desire to be with someone of the same sex, but this does not make them gay. choosing to act on this desire is what makes them gay, thus they still have to make that choice.

i was born with the desire to lie, but this does not make me a liar. if i choose to act on this desire and tell a lie, then THAT makes me a liar. i struggle every day with this desire but God helps me tremendously and i would not want to do anything to lose the trust that i have with other people i care about.
if i were to have a naturalistic worldview then i would just assume that nature created me with a tendency to lie as a survival tool so that i could decieve others to increase my own fortunes, AKA be a conman. this however is not a good lifestyle to have, and can lead to a host of problems.

according to God, ALL sin is the same, so to him the act of lying is the same as the act of rape, and the act of murder is the same as the act of bestiality. this means that all of humanity is in the same boat and no one is better or worse than anyone else. this is also means that if God can forgive the sins of someone like jeffery dahmer, then he can forgive anyones sin just the same.

where i am getting at with my point is that all mankind is born with a sinful desire, but we do not become something until we act on that desire.


this is how i believe, you can agree or not but i will still be respectful and loving toward others for however long i am on this planet. Jesus taught many things about how to live and the one i believe in the most is to live peacefully with all mankind; that is one of my many goals, and i hope i did not offend too many people with my words. :)

So... would there be something wrong with acting on the desires...? Is that what you're implying? :scratch:


so when i say someone is not born gay, what i am actually saying is that i realize they are born with a desire to be with someone of the same sex, but this does not make them gay. choosing to act on this desire is what makes them gay, thus they still have to make that choice.

Actually this makes very little sense to me. If someone is born with the desire for the same sex (ie. Homosexual) then that does make them gay. And acting on it, would change nothing of that. And what is the difference between being "gay" and being "born with desires", if we're going to acknowledge that it's there, it doesn't matter whether or not we slap a world on it... that word being gay.


LF25, since you're still scratching your head at what in my eyes is a VERY simple concept (what people do in their bedroom is private, unless they choose to make it public) but you show a willingness to learn, allow me to use a simple analogy here...

Tomb Raider:

Condescension.



Do you think that all straight people who are into BDSM should come out, and go around screaming "I LOVE LATEX!" and hold massive pride parades promoting the wonderfully perverted world of bondage and simulated torture?

Sure, where ya lil doggy tail in the mall for all I care.

Because homosexuality is comparable, in this instance, to bondage.

What I mean, is it's okay to be open about being gay. As in attracted to the same sex/ gender. That's not too raunchy or explicit.

Driber
9th Mar 2014, 13:03
yes, this is one topic that we will just have to agree to disagree. we have two different worldviews and two different beliefs as to what drives a person to be like they are.

Yes, we'll agree to disagree on the core issue of how someone becomes gay. Still, you bring up some interesting side-points in your response which I'd like to respond to :)


yours is a naturalistic worldview that believes everything about a human is derived from the animal kingdom and we are just a collection of random chemicals, our thought processes are simple elictrical currents running through different parts of our brain, producing whatever outward response we see.

That's kinda putting words into my mouth, because I never actually stated this. What I believe is actually slightly different to how you just put it, but for the sake of not digressing too much I'll just say that you're mostly correct with your assumption, heh.


i have a spirit led, Christ centered worldview (not to be confused with a religious worldview, the two are polar opposites), that believes humans are created to be seperate, but better, than animals who have a purpose to being here and our heart determines everything we desire, which then goes to our brain to be computed into data, which in turn produces an outward response.

Don't want to venture too much into the religious topic in this thread, but IMO it's a little dishonest to try to distance yourself from religion while making these pseudo-scientific claims. This really sounds like something that comes from religion, rather than from a pure form of theism.


i think what happens is people confuse the terminology that is used by folks like us, and they immediately think we are attacking them, when in fact we love them as a person, we are just trying to warn them that all choices made have consequences and to be very careful about how they walk their respected path through life. so when i say someone is not born gay, what i am actually saying is that i realize they are born with a desire to be with someone of the same sex, but this does not make them gay. choosing to act on this desire is what makes them gay, thus they still have to make that choice.

Oh there's definitely a lot of knee-jerk reactions to the terminology being used by all "sides", due to the prejudices people have, generally speaking. It's easy to stick labels onto people, and while I understand the reasons to a certain degree, it's often very ironic (to put it mildly) to see people projecting their hang ups and anger onto the wrong people. I won't cry a river over it, though. It's the internet, after all. Heh.

Though in this particular case, I would strongly recommend to not define "gay" as strictly as "having homosexual desires and acting upon them". I know that a lot of christians tend to use the term "gay" like this loosely, but I think it just creates unnecessary confusion and you're setting yourself up to misunderstandings. To most people (judging by the dictionary), being gay simply means being attracted to a person of the same sex, whether people choose to act upon those feelings or not.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual


i was born with the desire to lie, but this does not make me a liar. if i choose to act on this desire and tell a lie, then THAT makes me a liar.

There are a couple of problems with this analogy, though.

First off all, to people who do not share your worldview, being "born with a natural desire to lie" is an concept that is completely meaningless. Lying is a social construct that we are taught from our parents and other people we interact with.

Second, even if we would believe that we are born with these supposed urges to tell untruths, then it's arguable how many lies actually make you a liar. I do not agree with the premise that telling 1 single lie makes you a liar.

Similarly, I do not believe that making 1 single racist remark makes you a racist by definition.

So bringing it back to the term "gay" - it's entirely possible to have a homosexual experience and not actually being gay. There are plenty of people who tried to experiment with people of their own gender once, discovering it wasn't their thing, and ended up never having a single homosexual desire after that and living a life as a heterosexual.


i struggle every day with this desire but God helps me tremendously and i would not want to do anything to lose the trust that i have with other people i care about.
if i were to have a naturalistic worldview then i would just assume that nature created me with a tendency to lie as a survival tool so that i could decieve others to increase my own fortunes, AKA be a conman. this however is not a good lifestyle to have, and can lead to a host of problems.

Getting a little OT, but I would just like to say that lying is not inherently bad. Sure, being a pathological liar is bad; I think we can all agree on that. But lying is, as I mentioned, a social construct. And as such can be used for selfish reasons (like being a successful conman) but at the same time it this social construct can also be used for good.

For example, if your wife asks you, "Do I look fat in this dress", to use a cliché, and said dress is not the most flattering one she owns, but you're late for the wedding of your daughter, I'm sure the preferable option in that situation is to tell a little fib so to not hurt your wife's feelings and be late to said wedding and having your daughter hate you for it, than telling the cold, hard truth and having peace of mind (which is arguable moreselfish).


according to God, ALL sin is the same, so to him the act of lying is the same as the act of rape, and the act of murder is the same as the act of bestiality. this means that all of humanity is in the same boat and no one is better or worse than anyone else. this is also means that if God can forgive the sins of someone like jeffery dahmer, then he can forgive anyones sin just the same.

Well if you believe this, then your god is immoral.

If doing something as innocent as telling a lie would get rid of the most horrible decease on this planet (cancer) but your god still insists on not doing it because he considers lying a sin akin to rape and murder, and he rather let millions of people suffer because his will is absolute law, then I don't even understand why you'd want to believe in such a horribly selfish being.

But that's just my view. No offence intended :cool:


this is how i believe, you can agree or not but i will still be respectful and loving toward others for however long i am on this planet. Jesus taught many things about how to live and the one i believe in the most is to live peacefully with all mankind; that is one of my many goals, and i hope i did not offend too many people with my words. :)

You didn't offend me, but let me ask you this - if you believe the most important thing is love, would you willingly commit a sin that in the secular world would not have any major ramifications, if said sin would save a human life?


Tomb Raider:

Condescension.




Sure, where ya lil doggy tail in the mall for all I care.

Because homosexuality is comparable, in this instance, to bondage.

What I mean, is it's okay to be open about being gay. As in attracted to the same sex/ gender. That's not too raunchy or explicit.

Alright man, I think I'm done trying to reason with you on this point. You obviously are so full of hate and anger that you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot by being a jerk to those who actually support your cause and who are fighting your battles :(

larafan25
9th Mar 2014, 23:56
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg295/randomperson_2008/Emoticons/sogud_zpse3ea0685.png (http://s251.photobucket.com/user/randomperson_2008/media/Emoticons/sogud_zpse3ea0685.png.html)

I em definitely ultra confused.

What point are we trying to reason with? :scratch: I'm really not that angry or annoyed. I am, about things in this world, however not anything here and now. This is all pretty chill (though I'm still lost with where this discussion has gone).

The point about gay people not having to make their sexuality public?

You can make your sexuality public without detailing what goes on in your bedroom, or living room, or shower, or maybe even the balcony for that matter. It's not that much of a private thing in the first place.

I'm not saying I would support some sort of rule, forcing everybody to be open about their sexuality. I simply don't trust this idea, that someone wants to keep their sexuality private for the sake of privacy. When really, there's no such thing in this context. You're assumed straight until proven gay or otherwise, for most people. Which is a pretty cozy spot to be in. I just can't help but think that if you're keeping you homosexuality private, it's out of fear or discomfort. Which is to be expected in some cases., however in others, it's something you should definitely try to conquer, for the good of yourself and the world.

Perhaps I should be asking you, what you're trying to say. Maybe that will make things clear.

Wh1t3Kn1te
10th Mar 2014, 00:20
Getting a little OT, but I would just like to say that lying is not inherently bad. Sure, being a pathological liar is bad; I think we can all agree on that. But lying is, as I mentioned, a social construct. And as such can be used for selfish reasons (like being a successful conman) but at the same time it this social construct can also be used for good.

i want to reply to this in a positive way, but i am finding it hard to put the words together in my head to come out like i want it to, but ill do my best.

isaiah 5:20 comes to mind on this one. even though you can come up with a situation in which it seems right to lie, lying is still wrong and to call it good is not only indecent, but manipulative of the use of it.







Well if you believe this, then your god is immoral.

james 2:10

how ironic that one who is of a lesser morality mocking the one who KNOWS morality. what do you base your morality on?


If doing something as innocent as telling a lie would get rid of the most horrible decease on this planet (cancer) but your god still insists on not doing it because he considers lying a sin akin to rape and murder, and he rather let millions of people suffer because his will is absolute law, then I don't even understand why you'd want to believe in such a horribly selfish being.

this is exactly the questions Jesus dealt with in his day, the saducees and pharicees were constantly trying to trap him with questions similar to these and his response was simple, well thought out, and all inclusive.

love, life, and freedom overrule any action on this earth. if one has to do something even remotely wrong, but it produces a life saving result, then it is better to do that to save the life.

the reason for this is because of His sacrifice and ressurrection any sin we do commit will not be remembered by Him and thus not be recorded.

now this isn't a free pass for us to just do as we please as some teach today, but rather its a way for us to totally serve humanity with no limits or excuses.

if i were in a situation like this, the first thing i would do is go to God in prayer and see what He leads me to do, after receiving my answer i would then go through with it, but not before making sure that answer lines up to His written word, for it is just as easy for an evil spirit to influence your decision making.

i don't want to lose you too much, but i have to tell the truth. :)

in the end though it comes down to one simple thought that determines if you even have the capability to understand these things 1 corinthians 2:14

Driber
10th Mar 2014, 10:31
What point are we trying to reason with? :scratch: I'm really not that angry or annoyed. I am, about things in this world, however not anything here and now.

That's not what you said earlier.


This is all pretty chill

Yet you're being a jerk when I'm trying to help you...


You can make your sexuality public without detailing what goes on in your bedroom, or living room, or shower, or maybe even the balcony for that matter. It's not that much of a private thing in the first place.

I'm not saying I would support some sort of rule, forcing everybody to be open about their sexuality. I simply don't trust this idea, that someone wants to keep their sexuality private for the sake of privacy. When really, there's no such thing in this context. You're assumed straight until proven gay or otherwise, for most people. Which is a pretty cozy spot to be in. I just can't help but think that if you're keeping you homosexuality private, it's out of fear or discomfort. Which is to be expected in some cases., however in others, it's something you should definitely try to conquer, for the good of yourself and the world.

You're not saying anything new here. You already said all of this before.

You think there is nothing private about someone's sexuality just because for you it isn't. (Yet I'd like to know what you do in public to proclaim your sexuality). You seem to only be able to reason something from your own POV, and you seem to be unable to sympathise (i.e. putting yourself in someone else's shoes) with those who wish to keep their sexuality private or low key. If that is the case, there is probably nothing I could say to make you understand the opposite POV that some people have about their sexuality.


Perhaps I should be asking you, what you're trying to say. Maybe that will make things clear.

I'm all in favour of asking direct questions so that people can give direct answers!


isaiah 5:20 comes to mind on this one.

As an FYI for the rest of this discussion - you'll have to quote (or rather, shortly summarise) passages if you want to use them in the debate with me; I'm not going to look them up for you :)


even though you can come up with a situation in which it seems right to lie, lying is still wrong and to call it good is not only indecent

Indecent? Okay, then consider this...

Let's say for example there is a father and daughter. The father is 40 years old, heavily built, and is known to beat up his 10 year old daughter for the most insignificant reasons, like getting a bad grade in school, or not cleaning her plate after dinner. So the guy is a real piece of scum.

Now, one day, when the father is not at home, the daughter is doing the dishes and a drinking glass accidentally slips from her hand and shatters on the floor. She cleans up the mess, quickly finishes the dishes and rushes out to the store to buy a new glass to replace the broken one. The glasses look identical and there is no way the father would know what happened unless the daughter were to tell him.

You happen to know this girl and she asks you "Should I fess up and tell my dad I broke the glass?"

So, you'd have 2 options:

1) Advice her to let it be.
2) Tell her that she shouldn't lie to her father, because your god says it's a sin to lie.

You know the father is going to beat her up really bad if she tells the truth. Hell, this time it could even be the last straw that finally breaks her internal organs from all the previous beatings combined, and he'd end up killing his own daughter in his misguided rage.

Are you really going to tell me that choosing option 2) would be the decent thing for you to do?


but manipulative of the use of it.

Say that to the pope who lied about child abuse in the church and consciously allowed it to continue.

Say that to Bush who lied about god telling him to invade Iraq.

Say that to the countless of politicians and religious leaders who lied and destroyed lives only for selfish, personal profit.

All of these people still daring to call themselves moral and righteous, that's what I'd call manipulation. Telling a little white lie to avoid hurting the feelings of your loved ones, or even to avoid them getting hurt or killed, does not deserve the label "manipulation". Not by a long shot.


how ironic that one who is of a lesser morality mocking the one who KNOWS morality.

I wasn't mocking your god. I was just stating my opinion that in my eyes, he is immoral, if he would want innocent people to suffer for the most mundane reasons, and if he judges a little white lie that literally does no harm to anyone as harsh as rape and murder.

As for him "knowing" morality - he simply proclaims anything he does, thinks or says as moral by default, thus rendering the term completely meaningless.


what do you base your morality on?

Reason, common sense and empathy.

I completely disagree with the notion that people need your god (or any god, for that matter) to understand morality and to make moral judgements. All we need are 2 basic things:

- A brain
- The ability of said brain to empathise with others and think "how would I feel if someone did that to me?"

Humans have been making moral judgements far before your god started to tell people what is moral and what immoral.

Recent studies even indicate that primates have the ability to make moral judgements. And we know animals haven't been studying religious scriptures or going to church to have said scriptures read to them. So we can reasonably conclude that morality is simply the result of a thought process of a highly evolved brain.


this is exactly the questions Jesus dealt with in his day, the saducees and pharicees were constantly trying to trap him with questions similar to these and his response was simple, well thought out, and all inclusive.

love, life, and freedom overrule any action on this earth. if one has to do something even remotely wrong, but it produces a life saving result, then it is better to do that to save the life.

the reason for this is because of His sacrifice and ressurrection any sin we do commit will not be remembered by Him and thus not be recorded.

now this isn't a free pass for us to just do as we please as some teach today, but rather its a way for us to totally serve humanity with no limits or excuses.

if i were in a situation like this, the first thing i would do is go to God in prayer and see what He leads me to do, after receiving my answer i would then go through with it, but not before making sure that answer lines up to His written word, for it is just as easy for an evil spirit to influence your decision making.

i don't want to lose you too much, but i have to tell the truth. :)

in the end though it comes down to one simple thought that determines if you even have the capability to understand these things 1 corinthians 2:14

Evangelism (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism) isn't going to work on me :)

If all of that makes sense to you, fine. But I see no reason nor logic in believing in your god, and pointing to ancient scrolls that I reject as evidence in the first place is pointless. Might as well ask me to believe in Horus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus) because it was recorded on papyrus thousands of years ago.

larafan25
10th Mar 2014, 20:42
That's not what you said earlier.



Yet you're being a jerk when I'm trying to help you...

I wasn't trying to be. I'm sorry. Text is just text, more or less.

What angers me, is the idea that some express (and I mean this very specifically), that gay people should be silent about their sexuality. And not for their own safety or satisfaction, but because these people think it shouldn't be spoken about, or perhaps they don't want to hear of it. That is what I meant. That is what angers me, and I'd hate to see any of the pressure of this world cause people to become silent and shut-off out of fear, when they're strong enough to express otherwise. I guess what I mean is, oppression in a way.



You think there is nothing private about someone's sexuality just because for you it isn't. (Yet I'd like to know what you do in public to proclaim your sexuality). You seem to only be able to reason something from your own POV, and you seem to be unable to sympathise (i.e. putting yourself in someone else's shoes) with those who wish to keep their sexuality private or low key. If that is the case, there is probably nothing I could say to make you understand the opposite POV that some people have about their sexuality.

I think there is nothing private about sexuality, because there isn't. That is sort of... my argument, or angle on this whole sitch. I don't think a single person on this planet has that sort of privacy, I think we all are unconsciously, or consciously aware that people have sexual desires. That is why I do not think it's private, and that is why I think any effort to keep your sexuality private, will only keep you from being seen as a deviant sexuality, as opposed to the norm.

CakeLuv
10th Mar 2014, 20:44
So like I was walking today and I was like "ohh I'm gaay."

EDIT: I see what is going onn, some of you say "Ohh why do you have to scream that you're gay? do straight yell at ya face with their straightness" but like yall have to understand that most of the time people just assume you're gay so they are all straight on yaa





I don't even know why am I allowed to post anymore....

Driber
10th Mar 2014, 22:18
Guys, I think you should just drop it. Ya'll are being very repetitive. You really need to take your oppression issues up with those who are trying to oppress you. No one here is oppressing you, so let's just move on.

Wh1t3Kn1te
10th Mar 2014, 23:23
@driber i don't want this debate to ruin this topic, so i will not add anything to it other than answer your hypothetical situation with the father and daughter.

i would take the option that is there but you did not supply, call the police to report child abuse and if the daughter ends up in foster care i would pray that she would end up with a family that loves her dearly and shows her what love means. telling her to lie would be wrong because it would keep her in that situation until she got frustrated to the point of killing her father, or moving out before she is an adult and more than likely ending up as a prostitute. telling her to tell the truth is just going to give her unneccesary pain. a 10 year old should not be faced with such situations and its the adults job (even if it's not the parent) to make sure that child has the best chance at happiness and peace as possible.

(by the way my wife went through these things, she still loves the Lord cause He helped her through all of it.)

Leon S. Kennedy
11th Mar 2014, 06:33
How is this relevant to Tomb Raider?

Driber
11th Mar 2014, 09:39
Matt, you're avoiding the question by coming up with a third option that does not exist in my hypothetical. My question was - IF those were the only 2 options available to you at that time, which one would you consider to be the most decent one?

Sorry to hear that your wife went through such ordeals :( People close to me did, too, hence I used the scenario as an example; I'm familiar with it. I'm happy to hear your wife managed to pull through those tough times. And kudos to anyone who helped her with that :thumb:

(On a side-note: Personally, I prefer to give credit to the people who helped these victims to get through it, and of course the victims themselves for being strong enough to endure it and in the end overcome it and not taking revenge upon their perpetrators (which would be more than understandable if you ask me :whistle:). I really think it would be unfair to praise a god for what I believe to be great personal achievements, because it belittles the victims and their supporters (including professionals who've dedicated their lives to helping people in emotional turmoil), but I know you think differently and I understand why.)


How is this relevant to Tomb Raider?

It isn't. We'll move this thread to a more suitable forum soon.

Wh1t3Kn1te
12th Mar 2014, 02:24
o.k. ill play your game but this will be the last comment about this from me, k? :)

IF given ONLY those two options i would choose the most merciful one and have her tell him a lie to keep her from getting undue abuse. i have always leaned toward mercy above anything else, and that is why i would choose that option, plus the bible says mercy rejoices against judgement.

however. in reality i can think of no less than 12 options to handle this situation, and i gave the option that i would choose.

:)

Driber
14th Mar 2014, 17:00
IF given ONLY those two options i would choose the most merciful one and have her tell him a lie to keep her from getting undue abuse. i have always leaned toward mercy above anything else, and that is why i would choose that option,

Alright, so in that scenario to lie is surely not an indecent thing to do :)


plus the bible says mercy rejoices against judgement.

Yeah, well, the bible also says to put to death homosexuals and condones slavery. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't agree that the book is a very good moral beacon. You can get just as much bad stuff from it as good stuff. But that's a whole nother discussion, heh.


however. in reality i can think of no less than 12 options to handle this situation, and i gave the option that i would choose.

lol, that sounds like a challenge :naughty:

I'm sure I can refine my hypothetical to make it so that the 2 options (to lie or not to lie) are the only ones you would realistically be able to choose from :whistle:


but this will be the last comment about this from me, k? :)

Alright, no problem, Matt :)

I'd just like to end our discussion by recommending that, in addition to the religious literature you're focusing on, to also read up on actual unbiased, scientific literature on the subject.

The scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice is really piling up and I have no doubt one day scientists will actually irrefutably proof it, just like modern science can proof that having freckles or the colour of your hair are things that are genetically determined for us and that it's not something we can just wish away or "cure" with religious indoctrination.



Well... you could dye your hair with chemicals, but doing that too often is bad for you, too. Heh :D

Wh1t3Kn1te
15th Mar 2014, 00:32
Well... you could dye your hair with chemicals, but doing that too often is bad for you, too. Heh :D

yeah, just look at the Joker. hah!

i just had to throw that in sorry lol

Driber
15th Mar 2014, 09:29
^ Ha :D

---

So I came across this YT short on the science behind homosexuality. It goes into a bit more detail about what I was talking about earlier.

(Not posting this to necessarily get a response from you, Matt. Just leaving this here for anyone who would like to educate themselves on the matter, which I'm sure includes some queer people, too :))

70I7Nag4Eu8

Lara_Fan_84
17th Mar 2014, 01:41
How is this relevant to Tomb Raider?


I was wondering the same thing, but then I thought about the whole Lara and Sam as a couple thing that people make fan fics about and make images for so I guess I can see that as being related. :scratch:

CakeLuv
17th Mar 2014, 02:03
some queer people, too :))

Not sure about the rest of the "queer" people, but I don't really like being called that way e-e why not homosexual? or fabulous? :D jk.

Driber
17th Mar 2014, 08:44
Not sure about the rest of the "queer" people, but I don't really like being called that way e-e why not homosexual?

"Homosexual" doesn't cover what I want to say; I also include bisexuals, transgender, etc. And trying to write that initialism "LGBT" every time doesn't really work smoothly. (And then there will be some folks who'll want you to say LGBTQ :nut:)

So I looked for an easier term to describe all non-heterosexual people in a neutral way, and I found that the LGBT community prefers the term "queer", so that's why I'm using it.

Sorry if that word offends you, but I'm using it in a non-derogatory manner, and until a better term comes along, that's what I'm sticking with. You can blame the LGBT (last time I'm writing this! :D) community for embracing and promoting the word :p


or fabulous? :D jk.

Not every queer person is fabulous :p :D

Briareos200
25th Mar 2014, 21:10
I'm sorry to inform you that Dark Horse Comics has hired anti-christian racist bigot Gail Simone to write the official Tomb Raider comic that came out recently. She has a long history of posting vile attacks on Christians and believes that minorities are inferior to Caucasians. I feel you should learn more about her bigoted beliefs and I doubt you want someone like this representing your company.

Here is just one of many examples of her bigotry this is from her official blog.


http://gailsimone.tumblr.com/post/28642997410/muttluver-gailsimone-sonofbaldwin-just-in

Driber
26th Mar 2014, 09:41
I'm sorry to inform you that Dark Horse Comics has hired anti-christian racist bigot Gail Simone to write the official Tomb Raider comic that came out recently. She has a long history of posting vile attacks on Christians and believes that minorities are inferior to Caucasians. I feel you should learn more about her bigoted beliefs and I doubt you want someone like this representing your company.

Here is just one of many examples of her bigotry this is from her official blog.


http://gailsimone.tumblr.com/post/28642997410/muttluver-gailsimone-sonofbaldwin-just-in

Hi and welcome to the forum.

You might want to be careful with how you phrase things. What you're saying sounds quite slanderous.

I won't bother replying to your wild (i.e. without anything to back it up) accusations, but I will respond to the post you're quoting. That one doesn't show any anti-christian nor racist sentiments as far as I can see. What Gail did there was calling out bigots for being bigots. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those people were there to protest against equal rights for queer people, so that by definition makes them bigots. Simply calling them out for what they are is neither bigoted in itself, nor anti-christian.

Now, you could make the argument that what Gail said in that post was rude and insensitive. But then again, so are the people in that picture who are lining up to make a deliberate anti-gay statement, so I'm not sure how hypocrisy would get you any sympathy points.

PS. I merged your new thread with this thread, as we're discussing the subject homosexuality here, and one thread about it on a forum about gaming is enough.

Briareos200
26th Mar 2014, 17:12
Hi and welcome to the forum.

You might want to be careful with how you phrase things. What you're saying sounds quite slanderous.

I won't bother replying to your wild (i.e. without anything to back it up) accusations, but I will respond to the post you're quoting. That one doesn't show any anti-christian nor racist sentiments as far as I can see. What Gail did there was calling out bigots for being bigots. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those people were there to protest against equal rights for queer people, so that by definition makes them bigots. Simply calling them out for what they are is neither bigoted in itself, nor anti-christian.

Now, you could make the argument that what Gail said in that post was rude and insensitive. But then again, so are the people in that picture who are lining up to make a deliberate anti-gay statement, so I'm not sure how hypocrisy would get you any sympathy points.

PS. I merged your new thread with this thread, as we're discussing the subject homosexuality here, and one thread about it on a forum about gaming is enough.

Nonsense she has a long repeated history of treating anyone who disagrees with her on LBGT issues as evil and with contempt. And she always couches her arguments in anti-christian sentiment. I'm just wondering if Square-Enix and Crystal Dynamics are ok with having their work represented by someone who behaves so reprehensibly.

Ellie92
26th Mar 2014, 17:15
Nonsense she has a long repeated history of treating anyone who disagrees with her on LBGT issues as evil and with contempt.
I'm wondering... on what do people disagree actually? What Gail says about LGBT issues always makes totally sense for me.


EDIT:
Damn, what the hell?! What is wrong with those people??

Oh God, just look at this bull****:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/thousands-celebrate-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day

It was two years ago but seeing things like that always makes me so angry... Jesus... :mad2:

AdobeArtist
26th Mar 2014, 18:09
Nonsense she has a long repeated history of treating anyone who disagrees with her on LBGT issues as evil and with contempt. And she always couches her arguments in anti-christian sentiment. I'm just wondering if Square-Enix and Crystal Dynamics are ok with having their work represented by someone who behaves so reprehensibly.

Can you provide some credible examples of this? Because right now you're attacking someone's character with no real evidence except for what seems to be... and have to be very blunt here, coming out of your arse :rolleyes: :scratch:

Ellie92
26th Mar 2014, 18:26
Gail is not against Christians. She is against a-holes. And if a-holes happen to be Christians, that's a coincidence.

Driber
26th Mar 2014, 19:06
THANK YOU, to whoever fixed the "awareness" spelling mistake on the title of the thread.

:wave:

YW ;)


Nonsense she has a long repeated history of treating anyone who disagrees with her on LBGT issues as evil and with contempt. And she always couches her arguments in anti-christian sentiment. I'm just wondering if Square-Enix and Crystal Dynamics are ok with having their work represented by someone who behaves so reprehensibly.

So I debunked your evidence (the blogpost you quoted) and your retort is "nonsense" followed by more unsubstantial accusations?

Like AA said - how about you come up with something to actually back up your claims. Maybe then we can take what you say seriously...


I'm wondering... on what do people disagree actually? What Gail says about LGBT issues always makes totally sense for me.

I've read things from her that didn't make much sense, TBH. We actually talked about it in this thread, I believe.


EDIT:
Damn, what the hell?! What is wrong with those people??

Oh God, just look at this bull****:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/thousands-celebrate-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day

It was two years ago but seeing things like that always makes me so angry... Jesus... :mad2:

Money saves the day... again:

YgMKTsSKmAk

This happened last week, IIRC.


Gail is not against Christians. She is against a-holes. And if a-holes happen to be Christians, that's a coincidence.

It's not a coincidence.

Ellie92
26th Mar 2014, 19:10
Wait... this is a new video. Is this still a thing in those chicken**** shops??

Driber
26th Mar 2014, 19:31
Wait... this is a new video. Is this still a thing in those chicken**** shops??

It wasn't just that one "traditional marriage appreciation day" or whatever it was called a few years back; Chick-fil-A has been donating millions of dollars to anti-gay and conservative christian organizations to help try to keep same sex marriage away.

Though recently they are clearly trying to separate their political views from their company's image, because they found out (duh) that it's bad PR for them.

Like I said - money talks :whistle:

Ellie92
26th Mar 2014, 19:42
What the hell...

I kinda feel like going there just to watch some lesbo porn at full volume on my laptop in front of the boss... whoever that is.

Driber
26th Mar 2014, 19:48
What the hell...

I kinda feel like going there just to watch some lesbo porn at full volume on my laptop in front of the boss... whoever that is.

You don't fight hate with hate.

Ellie92
26th Mar 2014, 20:19
Yeah...

Btw, I kinda find it strange that I'm still not allowed to marry in Germany.. I always thought Germany was some sort of "open" and tolerating regarding things like that...

Driber
26th Mar 2014, 20:26
Yeah...

Btw, I kinda find it strange that I'm still not allowed to marry in Germany.. I always thought Germany was some sort of "open" and tolerating regarding things like that...

You already have civil union in Germany for same sex couples, so I have no doubt same sex marriage will follow sooner or later. It's just a matter of time :)

Ellie92
26th Mar 2014, 20:40
I'm wondering if I can go to California, marry and then go back to Germany...

Driber
26th Mar 2014, 20:47
Why all the way to Cali? Just hop onto a train and drive a few hours to my country :D

Ellie92
26th Mar 2014, 20:47
Where do you live?^^ I like California. :D

Driber
26th Mar 2014, 20:52
Ich bin ein Hollander ;)

Ellie92
26th Mar 2014, 21:05
Haha, alright. :D Netherlands... they allow smoking weed as far as I know.

Back to my question, is that possible to get married as a lesbian somewhere else and then come back as a couple to where it is actually illegal? Or do they "unmarry" you then?

AdobeArtist
26th Mar 2014, 22:04
I'm wondering if I can go to California, marry and then go back to Germany...


Why all the way to Cali? Just hop onto a train and drive a few hours to my country :D

Or you could come to Toronto Canada ;) :whistle: :flowers: :flowers:

Ellie92
26th Mar 2014, 22:25
Or you could come to Toronto Canada ;) :whistle: :flowers: :flowers:
Yeah... naw... hm... I should probably find a girlfriend first before even thinking about marriage. :lol:

Wh1t3Kn1te
27th Mar 2014, 00:50
Haha, alright. :D Netherlands... they allow smoking weed as far as I know.

Back to my question, is that possible to get married as a lesbian somewhere else and then come back as a couple to where it is actually illegal? Or do they "unmarry" you then?

yes it is possible todo this, people do it in the states all the time, but here is where you will run into a problem. since your country does not recognize the marriage, if things dont work out between the two of you (and according to studies there is a substantial chance of that happening) then you will NOT be able to get a divorce.

on top of that, there could also be several tax issues to deal with as well, i don't know the tax laws of your country, but here in the states people who got married recently found that out the hard way. (i posted a link to that earlier in this thread)

Driber
27th Mar 2014, 08:49
Haha, alright. :D Netherlands... they allow smoking weed as far as I know.

Yeah, your country has quite a difference stance on drugs, as I was fortunate enough to find out first hand when travelling through Germany :p


Back to my question, is that possible to get married as a lesbian somewhere else and then come back as a couple to where it is actually illegal? Or do they "unmarry" you then?

I think "illegal" is not the right word to use. The marriage would simply not be recognized by the state. So no, your government won't "unmarry" you, lol.

If you were to go to Holland to get married to another woman, it would be just a ceremonial thing, really. You can already get most of the rights of a married couple through a civil union in your country.


yes it is possible todo this, people do it in the states all the time, but here is where you will run into a problem. since your country does not recognize the marriage, if things dont work out between the two of you [...] then you will NOT be able to get a divorce.

Well that's kind of stating the obvious, isn't it. If you can't get married to a person of the same sex in Germany, you can't divorce either. If someone were to want to get married so badly (I say marriage is overrated anyway, but that's a whole nother discussion :D) that they are willing to travel to a different country for it, then they can simply do the same to get divorced.


and according to studies there is a substantial chance of that happening

Not sure what is the point of throwing this statistic in there, since divorce rates are even higher for straight couples in many places, including parts of your own country :whistle:


on top of that, there could also be several tax issues to deal with as well, i don't know the tax laws of your country, but here in the states people who got married recently found that out the hard way. (i posted a link to that earlier in this thread)

I believe I read that tax benefits for same sex couples in Germany is already covered by civil union, so I'm guessing that wouldn't be a factor at all.

Ellie92
27th Mar 2014, 11:38
Alright...



If you were to go to Holland to get married to another woman, it would be just a ceremonial thing, really. You can already get most of the rights of a married couple through a civil union in your country.

I say marriage is overrated anyway, but that's a whole nother discussion :D

Hmm... I don't even really know what "rights" married couples have and what the "advantages" are but I kinda think so, too, actually.
I mean, what is the definition of a marriage? I feel like the whole point of a marriage is that ceremonial thing, anyway whereas all that connected "law stuff" is making even more problems. xD
And if I am in a civil union I can still put a ring on someone else's finger and party hard afterwards. :D



Yeah, your country has quite a difference stance on drugs, as I was fortunate enough to find out first hand when travelling through Germany :p

What do you mean? Did the police catch you or what?? xD

And I have a question.

The forum rules say it's not allowed to talk about illegal stuff here. But if I told you about me smoking pot last weekend (for whatever reason I should tell you that), does this count as illegal activity or not? I mean, it's not legal in Germany but maybe I was in the Netherlands doing that?

Wh1t3Kn1te
28th Mar 2014, 02:23
Hmm... I don't even really know what "rights" married couples have and what the "advantages" are but I kinda think so, too, actually.
I mean, what is the definition of a marriage? I feel like the whole point of a marriage is that ceremonial thing, anyway whereas all that connected "law stuff" is making even more problems. xD
And if I am in a civil union I can still put a ring on someone else's finger and party hard afterwards. :D



as far as rights for married couples, i can help a bit with that. one right that we have is if one spouse becomes disabled for whatever reason, and they dont qualify for disability due to their own work history they will have the option to tap into the disability benefits of their spouse, but only after they reach a certain age.

if one spouse dies, the other gets widow/er benefits paid to them monthly from the government, though im not entirely sure all the details associated with it.

as far as the definition of marriage goes, that depends on one's beliefs, my belief is that is between a male and female.. however, no matter your beliefs, a true marriage is a life long commitment to one person, a covenant if you will. no matter what good, bad, or indiffernet things happen you are promising to be there for your partner. you put your own needs behind the needs of your partner, as they do the same for you, and the two of you are no longer two individuals, but rather one unit.

too many nowadays take marriage too lightly, which is why divorce rates are just so darn high. they either dont know the full ramification of marriage or they just view marriage as a contract that can be cancelled when things don't go their way. a lot of people today are entirely too self centered to experience the great joys this life can offer.

Driber
28th Mar 2014, 10:14
What do you mean? Did the police catch you or what?? xD

I mean the German cops are extremely zealous with trying to catch people carrying (soft) drugs. I often went for trips through Germany by coach and we were almost every time stopped at the border and had the bus and/or passengers searched.

On one occasion every single passenger even had to take out their luggage and line it up on the floor so that a sniffing dog could go through them. Or another time the bus was pulled over on the middle of the highway by a police patrol car and led to an abandoned place in the woods where the police came into the bus in the middle of the night while people were trying to sleep, and going through their belongings.

All of that I found to be completely unnecessary, a waste of everyone's time, and a waste of the German tax payers' money. The police spends millions of euros on this nonsense and only catch like a hand full of people every YEAR who are carrying one or two pieces of soft drugs for personal use.


And I have a question.

The forum rules say it's not allowed to talk about illegal stuff here. But if I told you about me smoking pot last weekend (for whatever reason I should tell you that), does this count as illegal activity or not? I mean, it's not legal in Germany but maybe I was in the Netherlands doing that?

You just answered your own question - drugs are illegal in Germany, so saying that you committed a crime would be against the TOU. As the TOU states - if it's something you wouldn't say to a cop, you shouldn't post it here, either.

Adding that you were in Holland at the time would be an obvious lie and attempt to try to circumvent the rules. Don't :p

I don't know if we would even allow Dutch people to talk about their pot smoking habits on the forum, heh. Although recently we're starting to see a change in the way (soft) drugs is being viewed and slowly being legalized in certain countries, it's still illegal in most places and we're nowhere near the subject being uncontroversial, so for that reason alone I'd say - better not go there :cool:

Ellie92
28th Mar 2014, 12:26
Thanks for the explanation, Harvey.


@Driber
I could slander about the German police the whole day but that would be a waste of time. I'm not saying all of them are bad but the ones I have met were all kinda totally... "useless"... not what a police man or woman should be like...



Adding that you were in Holland at the time would be an obvious lie and attempt to try to circumvent the rules. Don't :p

I don't know if we would even allow Dutch people to talk about their pot smoking habits on the forum, heh. Although recently we're starting to see a change in the way (soft) drugs is being viewed and slowly being legalized in certain countries, it's still illegal in most places and we're nowhere near the subject being uncontroversial, so for that reason alone I'd say - better not go there :cool:
Actually smoking pot is legal here... you're just not allowed to own it. You commit a crime the moment you are holding a joint in your hand... what kinda takes away the possibility of smoking anyway... theoretically. :P

And Holland is actually not THAT far away from here. So I think it's not THAT obviously a lie. :D

Driber
28th Mar 2014, 15:44
lol, that wasn't slander. Anyway, enough with the drugs subject. Time to get back on topic, heh.

Ellie92
28th Mar 2014, 15:53
I wasn't talking about you. Just "I could". ^^

Driber
28th Mar 2014, 16:14
Heh, gotcha :cool:

Ellie92
9th Apr 2014, 13:42
I just googled the definition of "transsexuality" because I never really understood how that works and what it actually is... and I'm kinda confused right now.
If a transsex girl (what means it feels like a guy? but how can you even feel like a guy? if you like football? and beer? O_o or what do they mean?) likes women, does that make her hetero or gay? Vice versa, if she likes men, is she gay or straight then?
I mean, being transsex doesn't tell anything about what you like, only what you are yourself if I understood that right?

I really don't want to make fun of that, I just try to understand... :o

Driber
9th Apr 2014, 16:25
* moved thread to our OT forum section *


i understand exactly how you think, however i must pose a question. what is the point of having an opinion or belief if you don't act on it?

Let me answer that question with a counter-question:

If my religion tells me that homosexuals should be put to death, what is the point of having that religion if I can't go around killing homosexuals?


this is the single reason why it is going to be so hard to have complete and total equality in this world, no matter how "civilized" we get. there will always be a difference of beliefs and because of this people will act on those beliefs.

There will always be people who will harm others in the name of their religion. What we need to focus on is making sure those people are not backed by actual laws to harm others. The more anti-gay laws, the more people will feel justified to harm gays.



to judge someone without being innocent yourself is wrong, and no matter how you spin it that is what happened in this situation, that is the only thing i am offended at (and as you know i don't get offended easily).

You're being a bit vague here. You'd need to explain into detail who exactly you're referring to and why, if you want me to respond to it :)


I just googled the definition of "transsexuality" because I never really understood how that works and what it actually is... and I'm kinda confused right now.
If a transsex girl (what means it feels like a guy? but how can you even feel like a guy? if you like football? and beer? O_o or what do they mean?) likes women, does that make her hetero or gay? Vice versa, if she likes men, is she gay or straight then?
I mean, being transsex doesn't tell anything about what you like, only what you are yourself if I understood that right?

I really don't want to make fun of that, I just try to understand... :o

The concept itself is simple, really - a transsexual woman feels like she's a man, and a transsexual man feels like he's a woman.

Unless you're transsexual yourself, there is probably not much more to be said that would enable you to understand it better. You'd have to feel it to know what it's like.

Ellie92
9th Apr 2014, 16:28
Yes, I already know that. What it is exactly that makes you feel "man-like" or "woman-like" I will probably never understand anyway.

But my main question was:

If a transsex woman likes other women, is she a lesbian then or straight?

Driber
9th Apr 2014, 16:52
^ A transsexual woman who's (sexually) attractive to women and not to men would be a lesbian.

Though she probably wouldn't feel like a lesbian, because she doesn't consider herself to be a women, but a man.

However, if she undergoes surgery to turn herself into a man, then she would be a straight, transgender man.

Ellie92
9th Apr 2014, 16:55
Is there a difference between transsexual and transgender actually? I feel like there is..

Driber
9th Apr 2014, 17:05
Didn't I just basically explain that? :p

A transsexual still has the physical gender they were born with; a transgender had their gender surgically altered to match their gender identity.

Ellie92
9th Apr 2014, 17:06
But are you sure? I'm not.

EDIT: I just looked it up.. apparently "transgender" is about the gender roles of our society wherease "transsexual" is about feeling like a man (in a sexual way) while being a woman. Or something like that.
I think you should check it. Apparently many people have serious problems when people say wrong things about that.. But I'm not quite sure...

Driber
9th Apr 2014, 17:24
But are you sure? I'm not.

EDIT: I just looked it up.. apparently "transgender" is about the gender roles of our society wherease "transsexual" is about feeling like a man (in a sexual way) while being a woman. Or something like that.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_would_you_call_a_person_that_has_had_the_operation_for_sex_change


Apparently many people have serious problems when people say wrong things about that..

Then those people need to get their heads checked :p

Ellie92
9th Apr 2014, 17:44
I used Wikipedia... for both terms..

Driber
9th Apr 2014, 21:26
Wikipedia is not necessarily correct.

I looked into it some more and ironically, it seems that it's the opposite - it's transsexual that usually describes a person who went physical change to alter their gender, etc.

From the dictionary:


trans·sex·u·al
noun \(ˌ)tran(t)s-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -shəl\

: a person who tries to look, dress, and act like a member of the opposite sex; especially : someone who medically changes himself or herself into a member of the opposite sex

Still kinda weird, because I could SWEAR I've heard many people using the term transgender for that, but there you have it - it's called transsexual, lol.

Ellie92
9th Apr 2014, 21:36
But transsex is not only when people change their sexuality. The feeling alone is enough. Surgery is just additionally. And transgender is about gender roles in our society...

That's what I found out at least...

But I am wondering, is a woman who makes "sex change" considered a man or a woman in their ID? Or does this depend on the country you live in? Because if she was still a woman, then she would theoretically be a lesbian if she likes other women, even if she doesn't feel like a lesbian... but if she is considered a man in another country...
It might be possible you turn gay when you cross the borders. O_o Or not?

Driber
9th Apr 2014, 21:58
But transsex is not only when people change their sexuality. The feeling alone is enough. Surgery is just additionally.

Read the definition I quoted. It is especially those who undergo a physical change.


And transgender is about gender roles in our society...

Transgender says nothing about gender roles:


trans·gen·der
adjective \tran(t)s-ˈjen-dər\ (Medical Dictionary)
Medical Definition of TRANSGENDER
: of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or a transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth

Anyway, we can go back and forth about the definition, but it's not really important. Your original question about if that person is lesbian or straight has been answered, has it not?


But I am wondering, is a woman who makes "sex change" considered a man or a woman in their ID? Or does this depend on the country you live in? Because if she was still a woman, then she would theoretically be a lesbian if she likes other women, even if she doesn't feel like a lesbian... but if she is considered a man in another country...
It might be possible you turn gay when you cross the borders. O_o Or not?

I think the best answer to this is: WHO CARES ;)

People really shouldn't get hung up on labels so much. Especially when they are not even all that sure about what exactly they are, in the first place. Heh.

Ellie92
9th Apr 2014, 22:03
I have read different definitions than you...

Anyway, it just kinda confused me. I don't like labeling people anyway. I only label products. I write "lesbian" on everything so everyone knows it is mine. :P

(ok, I stole that joke...)

Driber
9th Apr 2014, 22:24
I guess due to the nature of queer folks it makes it so that definitions gets blurred; half of the time they themselves don't even know what to call the abnormalities they are faced with. It's understandable. In fact, I have even seen members of the queer community heavily arguing among themselves what labels to apply and when. Heh.

Anyway, when different sources give different and/or unclear definitions of the same word, I always find it's better to stick with what the dictionary says. Less hassle that way :)

Wh1t3Kn1te
10th Apr 2014, 00:47
Let me answer that question with a counter-question:

If my religion tells me that homosexuals should be put to death, what is the point of having that religion if I can't go around killing homosexuals?

it doesnt stop muslims, even here in the U.S. where there are laws against murdering someone based on what your religion says.

and please don't confuse religious teaching with national laws, i know where you're going with this, just don't please :)


There will always be people who will harm others in the name of their religion. What we need to focus on is making sure those people are not backed by actual laws to harm others. The more anti-gay laws, the more people will feel justified to harm gays.


i agree with this, it's the main reason i don't support the anti-gay laws that have been passed in uganda, among other places.


You're being a bit vague here. You'd need to explain into detail who exactly you're referring to and why, if you want me to respond to it :)


ok, the LGBT community is judging the ex-ceo of mozilla for supporting prop 8, while at the same time said community killed dozens of priests in south america simply because they believed homosexuality is a sin.

yes i am aware they may not be the same people, but the world at large uses these situations as fuel for their anti gay campaign. they do the same thing with their anti-religion campaign as well.

i believe what people want is to just live and let live, to not have anyone tell them what is right or wrong, and just let them do whatever they want with no consequences. this just isnt possible realistically, there would be chaos everywhere.

Driber
10th Apr 2014, 09:04
it doesnt stop muslims, even here in the U.S. where there are laws against murdering someone based on what your religion says.

When did I say that laws stop crimes? I think you're missing the point. I am saying that a religious belief never trumps a country's laws. And lately, some religious people seem to be having it backwards.

People are free to have any religious believe (in a civilized, secular country) and I personally think they are free to say whatever they want, but those beliefs are never a justification to discriminate against groups of people, which is exactly what bills like prop 8 are seeking to legally facilitate.

In the US, the right to not be discriminated is a constitutional right. Any laws that enable religious people to discriminate based on their religious beliefs is therefore unconstitutional. Not to mention immoral.

Your country abolished slavery because it's immoral, even though the bible teaches otherwise. There are now laws against slavery. Your country used to massively discriminate against black people. Then people stood up for that injustice and now there are laws against racism. A similar fight is now going on with gays. They are being discriminated against because religious people think their religion makes their discrimination justified. So soon there will be laws implemented that will force people to stop discriminating against gays.

Now, a law will not entirely stop it, no, just like laws against murder doesn't entirely stop people murdering others, BUT having those laws in place does drastically cut down these instances.

Conversely, when pro-discrimination laws are passed, it is saying to the people who were already prone to discrimination: "go ahead and discriminate in the name of your religion, it's officially sanctioned now". One just has to look at Russia to see what'll happen if pro-discrimination laws are passed :whistle:


and please don't confuse religious teaching with national laws, i know where you're going with this, just don't please :)

Honestly don't know what you're implying here.


i agree with this, it's the main reason i don't support the anti-gay laws that have been passed in uganda, among other places.

I was talking about discriminatory, unconstitutional laws like prop 8 and the recently shot-down Arizona anti-gay bill.


ok, the LGBT community is judging the ex-ceo of mozilla for supporting prop 8, while at the same time said community killed dozens of priests in south america simply because they believed homosexuality is a sin.

yes i am aware they may not be the same people, but the world at large uses these situations as fuel for their anti gay campaign. they do the same thing with their anti-religion campaign as well.

i believe what people want is to just live and let live, to not have anyone tell them what is right or wrong, and just let them do whatever they want with no consequences. this just isnt possible realistically, there would be chaos everywhere.

Okay, first off all - that argument is completely ridiculous. And how on earth can you of all people judge an entire community based on what a few of its members have (supposedly) done? You are for all the time trying to make the case that people shouldn't judge the religious community based on the bad things that "some bad apples" are doing. Yet here you are doing the very same thing!

Secondly - I seriously doubt your claim is even true and accurate. I have never heard of a single case of that. And if this happened in the last 10 years or so, I think I would have heard about it. Can you link me to news articles about this?

As for the "anti-religion campaign", that's such an overused (and factually wrong) cliché. I hear religious people use that cliché for all the time when they feel attacked. But here's the thing - wanting equality is not an "anti-religion campaign". I think you should spend more time talking to sensible and respectable members of the queer community (which make up the vast majority, and many of whom are religious!) and less time listening to -- and parroting -- idiots like Bill O'Reilly and Rick Wiles who are using terms like that to rile groups of people up against each other.

Wh1t3Kn1te
12th Apr 2014, 01:11
When did I say that laws stop crimes? I think you're missing the point. I am saying that a religious belief never trumps a country's laws. And lately, some religious people seem to be having it backwards.

People are free to have any religious believe (in a civilized, secular country) and I personally think they are free to say whatever they want, but those beliefs are never a justification to discriminate against groups of people, which is exactly what bills like prop 8 are seeking to legally facilitate.

In the US, the right to not be discriminated is a constitutional right. Any laws that enable religious people to discriminate based on their religious beliefs is therefore unconstitutional. Not to mention immoral.

Your country abolished slavery because it's immoral, even though the bible teaches otherwise. There are now laws against slavery. Your country used to massively discriminate against black people. Then people stood up for that injustice and now there are laws against racism. A similar fight is now going on with gays. They are being discriminated against because religious people think their religion makes their discrimination justified. So soon there will be laws implemented that will force people to stop discriminating against gays.

Now, a law will not entirely stop it, no, just like laws against murder doesn't entirely stop people murdering others, BUT having those laws in place does drastically cut down these instances.

Conversely, when pro-discrimination laws are passed, it is saying to the people who were already prone to discrimination: "go ahead and discriminate in the name of your religion, it's officially sanctioned now". One just has to look at Russia to see what'll happen if pro-discrimination laws are passed :whistle:



Honestly don't know what you're implying here.



I was talking about discriminatory, unconstitutional laws like prop 8 and the recently shot-down Arizona anti-gay bill.



Okay, first off all - that argument is completely ridiculous. And how on earth can you of all people judge an entire community based on what a few of its members have (supposedly) done? You are for all the time trying to make the case that people shouldn't judge the religious community based on the bad things that "some bad apples" are doing. Yet here you are doing the very same thing!

Secondly - I seriously doubt your claim is even true and accurate. I have never heard of a single case of that. And if this happened in the last 10 years or so, I think I would have heard about it. Can you link me to news articles about this?

As for the "anti-religion campaign", that's such an overused (and factually wrong) cliché. I hear religious people use that cliché for all the time when they feel attacked. But here's the thing - wanting equality is not an "anti-religion campaign". I think you should spend more time talking to sensible and respectable members of the queer community (which make up the vast majority, and many of whom are religious!) and less time listening to -- and parroting -- idiots like Bill O'Reilly and Rick Wiles who are using terms like that to rile groups of people up against each other.

first off i want to apologize for the news article, i read it wrong and these people were being accused of being gay, and they were actually just extremist femenists. here is the article http://www.lifesitenews.com/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend.html

secondly, i normally don't watch the colbert report, but my "confirmation bias" asked me to tune in yesterday and i am glad i did, right at the start he had on a man named andrew sullivan to comment about the whole mozilla situation. what that man said is exactly how i believe, anyone who wants to know how i feel can look up that segment. (if possible can someone post it as i have been kind of pressed for time lately.)

as far as your comment about religious beliefs should not be higher than national laws, this is how i feel about it. as long as the laws that are passed do not infringe on the religious beliefs of others then everything is fine, but when laws start forcing those of religion to act a way contrary to their beliefs, that is where the problem is. i.e. forcing pastors who are opposed to same sex marriage to perform same sex marriages.

as far as what i was alluding to with the religious teaching/national law confusion. a lot of people like to use the old testament israeli laws as religious teaching, when in fact it is not. it is simply a record of the laws that israel had 3500 years ago that were a foreshadowing of what needed to be fulfilled by Jesus when he came 2000 years ago.

Driber
12th Apr 2014, 16:24
first off i want to apologize for the news article, i read it wrong and these people were being accused of being gay, and they were actually just extremist femenists. here is the article http://www.lifesitenews.com/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend.html

LOL

Dozens of priests killed by outraged gays for their religious views, or some extremist feminists protesting in a provocative yet non-violent way where no one got hurt..... quite a difference there!

I know you already said sorry, and I'm not trying to rub it in or anything, but how on earth can you make such an extreme claim and be so incredibly wrong about it?

I mean, we're not talking about a minor detail of the story that you got wrong here; you were actually using multiple fascistic murders to argue against what happened to the Mozilla CEO. How is it possible to even make such a huge claim, while that didn't even happen, at all.

Are you sure that the reason you used that story about murdered priests isn't because you actually heard that somewhere from one of those right wing extremist who are constantly trying to spread false facts in the media to get people riled up against the queer community?

You know, idiots like these...

ZsAD-hNwGdI


secondly, i normally don't watch the colbert report, but my "confirmation bias" asked me to tune in yesterday and i am glad i did, right at the start he had on a man named andrew sullivan to comment about the whole mozilla situation. what that man said is exactly how i believe, anyone who wants to know how i feel can look up that segment. (if possible can someone post it as i have been kind of pressed for time lately.)

I looked it up. Here is a direct link to the episode: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/full-episodes/vk9n20/april-9--2014---sheryl-sandberg

So I watched the show and I partly agree with Andrew. I agree with him that the "internet mob" should not be getting people fired or forced to step down. I have in fact made this same argument before, in the Justine Sacco case (http://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/this-is-how-a-womans-offensive-tweet-became-the-worlds-top-s) (quick summary: she posted an inappropriate message on her Twitter about aids in Africa, the internet mob wanted her head for it, and she got fired from her job). So, so far we are on the same line.

However, as I said, the Mozilla CEO case is a bit different. It was not just an opinion or a stupid tweet that drew a target on his back. It was the fact that he actually actively campaigned for discrimination against gays.

So let's draw an analogy here for a second. Let's say for example that Justine Sacco donated money to an organization that lobbies for a law that would make it illegal to sell or possess condoms in Africa. Then it would be an entirely different ballgame, because then it wouldn't just be a stupid remark that got her fired, but a stupid and immoral action that got her fired, as she would have been directly responsible for making the aids problem in Africa worse.

So while I would meet you on the point that people shouldn't end up getting fired from their jobs for what they do in their personal life, and while I support gay marriage but also support religious people to think and say what they want, I just keep having to stress that actions which directly harm the well-being of others is where I draw the line. Religious freedom does not supersede discrimination, no matter what someone's god may say about it.

But again, to be clear - I do condemn any internet mob that tries to get people fired from their jobs, if their jobs are in no way related to the issue at hand. If the CEO campaigned against gay marriage in his official function as Mozilla CEO, or if he used his status of CEO to influence the political landscape around gay marriage, okay, then it would be totally justified to public rally to get him fired. But that wasn't the case here AFAIK. Plus, he made that donation before he became CEO.

One thing I will admit, though, is that after watching the interview with Andrew on the Colbert Report, and after discussing the subject with my GF, I have changed my mind on the okCupid thing. Initially, I was of the opinion that their protest was legitimate, but now I'm thinking that they went too far, and that they were part of said "internet mob" for targeting the Mozilla CEO. It's of course their right to pull of such a protest, but as a company, I think they should have gone about it differently, and not publicly target Firefox users like that.

I think what would probably have been a more fair protest is if okCupid would have donated the same amount of money that the Mozilla CEO donated, but in the opposite direction - to a equal rights organization that fights for legalizing gay marriage.

What do you think?


as far as your comment about religious beliefs should not be higher than national laws, this is how i feel about it. as long as the laws that are passed do not infringe on the religious beliefs of others then everything is fine, but when laws start forcing those of religion to act a way contrary to their beliefs, that is where the problem is. i.e. forcing pastors who are opposed to same sex marriage to perform same sex marriages.

I think you may have gotten your stories wrong again. As far as I know, it's not priests who are being forced to wed same sex couples (I would agree with you that that would be too much) but civil servants. And that I completely agree with. As a civil servant, you are a representative of the government / state. And if the law says that gay people can get married, then as a representative of the government / state you cannot go around denying people what they are legally entitled to.

If your religion tells you that marrying gays is a sin (even though the bible doesn't say it is, so you'd be completely wrong about it anyway :whistle:) then I'm sorry but you'll just have to go look for a job that doesn't conflict with your religion. That's the only appropriate and fair way to solve your problem.

The bible also condones slavery. Well, if you are a judge and you happen to be of the opinion that owning slaves isn't wrong, should you as a judge be allowed to acquit a man who's on trial for enslaving people? Hell no.

So then where would we draw the line, exactly....


as far as what i was alluding to with the religious teaching/national law confusion. a lot of people like to use the old testament israeli laws as religious teaching, when in fact it is not. it is simply a record of the laws that israel had 3500 years ago that were a foreshadowing of what needed to be fulfilled by Jesus when he came 2000 years ago.

Well then you were wrong to assume I was going to "go there"; I wasn't. My example works regardless of how people interpret the bible. In fact, I wasn't even talking about the christian religion specifically :)

Wh1t3Kn1te
13th Apr 2014, 02:30
@driber i will research a lot more before i make a statement like that again, i know you don't mean to rub it in, but i deserved that for not being thorough enough in my research. again i am sorry.

as far as this comment

"I think what would probably have been a more fair protest is if okCupid would have donated the same amount of money that the Mozilla CEO donated, but in the opposite direction - to a equal rights organization that fights for legalizing gay marriage.

What do you think?"

i agree with this approach. it would have been fair and much more presentable and realistic.

as far as what the bible says about gay marriage, well lets just see what it says shall we?

Genesis 2:22-24
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

Deuteronomy 24:5
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

Matthew 19:4-6
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Jesus' own words)

1 Corinthians 7:1-16
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

every time marriage is mentioned it's always between a male and female, not a male/male or female/female.


also sorry for assuming you were going to go there, thanks:)

Driber
13th Apr 2014, 10:28
@driber i will research a lot more before i make a statement like that again, i know you don't mean to rub it in, but i deserved that for not being thorough enough in my research. again i am sorry.

Fair enough, moving on :)


as far as what the bible says about gay marriage, well lets just see what it says shall we?

Genesis 2:22-24
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

This part of the bible does not say that gay marriage is a sin. Any attempts by christians to make it so is religious interpretation, not biblical rule.


Deuteronomy 24:5
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

This part of the bible does not say that gay marriage is a sin. Any attempts by christians to make it so is religious interpretation, not biblical rule.


Matthew 19:4-6
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Jesus' own words)

This part of the bible does not say that gay marriage is a sin. Any attempts by christians to make it so is religious interpretation, not biblical rule.


1 Corinthians 7:1-16
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

This part of the bible does not say that gay marriage is a sin. Any attempts by christians to make it so is religious interpretation, not biblical rule.

Additionally, the context of this part of the bible makes it even less relevant to your claim that gay marriage is a sin, because these are not the words of god at all, but rather letters containing the personal views of an apostle. Apostles are not really all that special; they were normal humans that were just "close" to Jesus. This particular apostle even specifically said in Corinthians "I have no command of the lord".


every time marriage is mentioned it's always between a male and female, not a male/male or female/female.

Yes, because these biblical stories were (supposedly) written thousands of years ago, when the concept of gay marriage was non-existent.

Just because the bible has gaps, doesn't give anyone the right to just fill in those gaps however they like, based on their personal views. If you want to stay true to the bible, you have to admit that the bible does not explicitly forbid gay marriage and that it does not say it is a sin. The only thing you'll be able to claim is that the bible forbids sex between two men, nothing more.

The bible also doesn't say anything about hermaphrodites getting married, because that also wasn't known back then. So I ask you - if someone has both a p.enis and a vagina, who is that person allowed to marry according to god? Only a woman? Or only a man? Or can the person marry either a man or a woman, since they would be marrying someone of the opposite sex? ;)

Wh1t3Kn1te
13th Apr 2014, 11:48
Just because the bible has gaps, doesn't give anyone the right to just fill in those gaps however they like, based on their personal views. If you want to stay true to the bible, you have to admit that the bible does not explicitly forbid gay marriage and that it does not say it is a sin. The only thing you'll be able to claim is that the bible forbids sex between two men, nothing more.

ok, lets use some basic logic.

1. the bible condemns same sex, sex.

2. the bible teaches not to have sex until marriage

using the 2+2=4 concept it's safe to think the bible is saying same sex marriage is a no go, unless you think people are going to be fine being married and not having sex? :scratch:



The bible also doesn't say anything about hermaphrodites getting married, because that also wasn't known back then. So I ask you - if someone has both a p.enis and a vagina, who is that person allowed to marry according to god? Only a woman? Or only a man? Or can the person marry either a man or a woman, since they would be marrying someone of the opposite sex? ;)

i already gave you the answer to this question, look at my earlier post about my wife's friend. :)

Driber
13th Apr 2014, 15:32
ok, lets use some basic logic.

1. the bible condemns same sex, sex.

2. the bible teaches not to have sex until marriage

using the 2+2=4 concept it's safe to think the bible is saying same sex marriage is a no go

1. Well, to be precise, it condemns male on male sex. It does not condemn lesbian sex. So if you're staying true to the laws of the bible, you should have no reason to oppose lesbian sex. Do you?

2. The bible does at no point state "thou shall not have sex before marriage" as a direct command from god. So sex out of wedlock is not a biblical sin. Any person claiming it is, is again using personal interpretation and/or religious teaching from their church.

I'm afraid the 2+2=4 concept doesn't work here, because you're dealing with assumptions and interpretations, not biblical laws. You don't know what god thinks of same sex marriage; the best you can do is guess.


unless you think people are going to be fine being married and not having sex? :scratch:

Lesbians aren't forbidden from having sex by god, so is it okay for them to get married?

And let's do assume there are gays who just want to marry for love or tax breaks, and who are not interested in sex at all (these people exist), is it then allowed?

I'm sorry, but your bible arguments against gay marriage really fall apart when applying basic logic. So I stand by my original statement - the bible does not say that gay marriage is a sin.

Wh1t3Kn1te
14th Apr 2014, 00:06
you may want to read this, and very carefully, it clearly says both male and male and female on female sex is a sin.

romans 1:24-26
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

as far as sex before marriage, its called fornication and its all over the bible heh

Driber
14th Apr 2014, 09:11
Matt, you didn't respond to this question:

"And let's do assume there are gays who just want to marry for love or tax breaks, and who are not interested in sex at all (these people exist), is it then allowed?"

Also, I forgot to respond to one of your points from an earlier post, sorry:


i already gave you the answer to this question, look at my earlier post about my wife's friend. :)

The example of your friend doesn't really answer my question, as it does not involve any surgery. (Unless you're saying what I am now thinking you're saying, and that would be absolutely horrible :eek:) Please can you answer the question directly, so I know what your stance on it is?

Here is the question again:

The bible also doesn't say anything about hermaphrodites getting married, because that also wasn't known back then. So I ask you - if someone has both a p.enis and a vagina, who is that person allowed to marry according to god? Only a woman? Or only a man? Or can the person marry either a man or a woman, since they would be marrying someone of the opposite sex?


you may want to read this, and very carefully, it clearly says both male and male and female on female sex is a sin.

romans 1:24-26
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.


Nope, sorry, that is not going to cut it.

First of all, this is again religious interpretation. All you can get from that verse is that the person who wrote it thinks that lesbian sex is "unnatural". And we already know through modern science that homosexuality is not unnatural; it occurs naturally in nature for all the time, so he's wrong about that anyway. I posted a video about that earlier in this thread.

Secondly, these are not the words of god. These are again the personal views of an apostle; a mere human. You're going to have to find a verse where god explicitly pronounces lesbian sex as a sin.


as far as sex before marriage, its called fornication and its all over the bible heh

You're going to have to quote specific verses where god explicitly forbids sex before marriage before I take your claim as true.

Wh1t3Kn1te
15th Apr 2014, 00:48
Matt, you didn't respond to this question:

"And let's do assume there are gays who just want to marry for love or tax breaks, and who are not interested in sex at all (these people exist), is it then allowed?"

Also, I forgot to respond to one of your points from an earlier post, sorry:



The example of your friend doesn't really answer my question, as it does not involve any surgery. (Unless you're saying what I am now thinking you're saying, and that would be absolutely horrible :eek:) Please can you answer the question directly, so I know what your stance on it is?

Here is the question again:

The bible also doesn't say anything about hermaphrodites getting married, because that also wasn't known back then. So I ask you - if someone has both a p.enis and a vagina, who is that person allowed to marry according to god? Only a woman? Or only a man? Or can the person marry either a man or a woman, since they would be marrying someone of the opposite sex?



Nope, sorry, that is not going to cut it.

First of all, this is again religious interpretation. All you can get from that verse is that the person who wrote it thinks that lesbian sex is "unnatural". And we already know through modern science that homosexuality is not unnatural; it occurs naturally in nature for all the time, so he's wrong about that anyway. I posted a video about that earlier in this thread.

Secondly, these are not the words of god. These are again the personal views of an apostle; a mere human. You're going to have to find a verse where god explicitly pronounces lesbian sex as a sin.



You're going to have to quote specific verses where god explicitly forbids sex before marriage before I take your claim as true.

as far as your question about a hermaphrodite, they would be a unique case seeing as it is a rare occurance, and according to the law they would be both male and female, so they uniquely would be allowed to choose which sex to identify as (although once they choose they must stick with that choice).

as far as your other responses, that the words quoted was from a man and not God himself, 2 timothy 3:16 states that all scripture (old and new testament) are words breathed by God himself and are useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training in righteousness.

in the end though, the real problem is 3 simple words that have been used since the beginning of creation, "Has God said".

i can point to one verse after another in the bible that can say anything at all, but in the end you, and the vast majority of people on the internet unfortunately, don't believe a word it says. you can say im interpreting it wrong if you like, you can say the bible is just a coincidental collection of fables at best and fairy tales at worst. that is for you to decide. there is one last verse i will quote though,

Joshua 24:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

you can also choose to serve no god at all if you wish. i will treat you no different than i do anyone else and i will not force anyone to live in a way they do not wish to. this is not the way i live or practice my faith. :)

Driber
15th Apr 2014, 17:04
Matt, you again avoided this question:

"And let's do assume there are gays who just want to marry for love or tax breaks, and who are not interested in sex at all (these people exist), is it then allowed?"

Sorry for not letting it go. If you rather not answer it, please say so, so I know, and I'll move on :)


as far as your question about a hermaphrodite, they would be a unique case seeing as it is a rare occurance, and according to the law they would be both male and female, so they uniquely would be allowed to choose which sex to identify as (although once they choose they must stick with that choice).

Where exactly are you getting these rules from? Surely they cannot be in the bible?


as far as your other responses, that the words quoted was from a man and not God himself, 2 timothy 3:16 states that all scripture (old and new testament) are words breathed by God himself and are useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training in righteousness.

So let me get this straight, you are making the claim that all scriptures in the bible are the word of god? All 66 books and their entire contents?

If not, please clarify why exactly you're quoting 2 timothy 3:16.


in the end though, the real problem is 3 simple words that have been used since the beginning of creation, "Has God said".

I don't see the relevance of quoting those 3 words.


i can point to one verse after another in the bible that can say anything at all, but in the end you, and the vast majority of people on the internet unfortunately, don't believe a word it says.

Please don't put words into my mouth. When have I ever said that I don't believe a single word in the bible?

As for "the vast majority of people on the internet not believing a word of the bible" - that's an absurd statement. Are you telling me that christians are not well (in numbers) presented on the internet? You must be joking! What makes you think so?


you can say im interpreting it wrong if you like, you can say the bible is just a coincidental collection of fables at best and fairy tales at worst. that is for you to decide. there is one last verse i will quote though,

Joshua 24:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

you can also choose to serve no god at all if you wish. i will treat you no different than i do anyone else and i will not force anyone to live in a way they do not wish to. this is not the way i live or practice my faith. :)

When did this become a personal discussion? :scratch:

No one was saying anything about you forcing anything on anyone. We are discussing the Mozilla CEO case, aren't we?

Wh1t3Kn1te
16th Apr 2014, 01:00
im sorry driber, i have been getting a little personal with this conversation and misunderstood where some of your questions have been directed at. im gonna have to take a break for a few days and cool down a bit heh

but i will answer the one question. i honestly don't know the correct answer to this, seeing the term gay marriage itself is only around 150 years old (according to gay historians) and the bible was translated into english 450 years ago.

that being said, and what the bible clearly states about same sex relationships, I believe God would be against same sex marriage seeing how He has defined marriage over and over again as between a man a woman. but, if you looking for the actual words "same sex marriage is a sin" you wont find them in the bible.

Driber
16th Apr 2014, 12:06
Yeah, most of the time when I write "you" I mean it like "people" or "christians" in general, etc. Not necessarily you, personally, heh. NP, take the time you need :)

In the meantime I'll address your latest post, as well as some other points I wanted to make earlier, but forgot about.

As far as I know, the bible says nothing "clearly" about same sex relationships. Nothing clear enough that christians can claim that same sex marriage is a biblical sin, anyway. According to the bible, god ONLY condemns man on man sex, explicitly. The rest are assumptions, personal opinions of apostles*, religious interpretation by the church, etc.

*And you can't use 2 timothy 3:16 to dismiss the fact that said apostles even explicitly stated that they do not speak in god's name. That just doesn't fly, logically, because then you're basically trying to override one apostle's word with another apostles word when it doesn't fit with your religious views on the subject. That's intellectual dishonestly, in my book.

If you're going to use verses that just mention marriage between a man and a woman, you can only say that that was the norm back when the bible was written, nothing more. I would never claim that man-women marriage isn't the norm (because it is; we can all agree on that) but just because something is the norm, doesn't automatically make the opposite bad, or a biblical sin (unless explicitly stated).

It also wasn't the norm 2000 years ago that people would be flying like birds in airplanes, watch television, use the internet, wear google glass, play videogames, etc. And I'm sure we can find some religious fundamentalists that'll claim that all those things are unnatural, too, and that they are against god.

*cough* Amish *cough*

And if you're going to use the argument "well, gay couples are going to commit unnatural sexual acts once they get married", think about this - they are already doing that, without marriage. So them getting married or not is not going to make any big difference in their level of sexual "sinning". And since you're making the strong argument that the bible teaches that you shouldn't have sex outside of wedlock, wouldn't it therefore be logically speaking less sinful if same sex couples had sex inside wedlock? ;)

---

This is not directed at you, Matt, but I have a strong feeling that most christians are simply using the bible as an excuse to hate on gays and to try to pass anti-gay laws because of their personal views on gays. While (IMO) religion certainly doesn't help to spread acceptance of different lifestyles, I'm pretty sure that if there was no religion in this world at all, there would still be many people against gays, simply because it's considered deviant and "icky". And that's what for many religious folk seems to lay at the foundation of their anti-gay sentiments.

Religious texts and teachings are just a convenient way of saying "it's out of my hands; it's god's will", when in reality, if it would really come down to it, their feelings about gays are mainly coming from inside of themselves. In a world without religion, there would still be many dads who would be disgusted with the thought of their son having sex with a goat, and many moms would be horrified with their daughter committing sodomy every weekend with a different man.

My guess is that because christians are clearly going to lose this anti-gay battle, after some decades when same sex marriage is legally adopted throughout most of the western world, christians are going to massively change their position and embrace same sex marriage to save their religion.

We've seen the exact same thing happening in the past, repeatedly. And in the end I'm sure the churches will (once again) claim that they've "always supported it", and try to wash their hands clean of ever having been on the wrong side of history, just like with any other reforms that the church had to go through in the past because society smartened up, for example with slavery, witch burnings, the crusades, etc. :whistle:

We're already seeing the beginning of the churches adjusting their views on gays, for example pope Francis making implications that being gay is okay, or for example this church in America letting some gays join clergy: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2009/08/22/ELCA.ART_ART_08-22-09_A1_PUERG0K.html

Edit: Looking at the last page, we seem to be getting into a long drawn-out discussion about religion, heh. If you prefer to continue this in the dedicated debate forum, just say the word and I'll move some stuff around :)

Wh1t3Kn1te
21st Apr 2014, 11:55
^ well if you havent seen in the abode thread im back from my break, and it was necessary to clear my mind and examine myself. it will not be necessary to debate this any longer. i know where you stand, and i'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

on a side note, the only reason i am against same sex marriage is because i believe it is an oxymoron, i believe the defnition of marriage is a committed lifelong relationship between a man a woman, however just like other words throughout history, the meaning is being changed. i guess im just an old soldier (simple a phrase, i have never served in the military).

I do enjoy picking your brain though and will continue to in the other threads. :)

Driber
11th May 2014, 10:58
^ well if you havent seen in the abode thread im back from my break, and it was necessary to clear my mind and examine myself. it will not be necessary to debate this any longer. i know where you stand, and i'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

on a side note, the only reason i am against same sex marriage is because i believe it is an oxymoron, i believe the defnition of marriage is a committed lifelong relationship between a man a woman, however just like other words throughout history, the meaning is being changed. i guess im just an old soldier (simple a phrase, i have never served in the military).

I do enjoy picking your brain though and will continue to in the other threads. :)

No problem, Matt. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree and move on from that particular side-discussion :)

But I would just like respond to your note about definitions, because what you just said truly amazes me. You're saying that the only reason you're against same sex marriage is because you believe it to be an oxymoron? No offense, but that's crazy!

How on earth can you be against two people who love each other making the ultimate commitment and expression of their love (marriage) just because of a definition of a mere word?! That to me is just ridiculous and I just don't buy that, because I can't help but feel that your religion and/or your personal opinions on homosexuality are the main factors in your opposition to gay marriage, never mind the terminology.

Because if the word itself is the only thing that's standing in the way of you being supportive of gay marriage, as you stated, then it might actually be more easy to change your mind than I thought, heh. (Not that I'm on a mission to change people's mind here or anything, but I guess it would be a nice plus if through our dialogue you'd end up joining me in supporting gay marriage :))

So consider the following:

I don't agree that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron (more on that later), but let's say for argument's sake that it is. Then surely you must agree that "open marriage" is an oxymoron as well, correct? After all, that's what I'm hearing folks on Fox News etc chanting for all the time (and I'm guessing that's how you got to your stance that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron - correct me if I'm wrong :)) because their argumentation is that "marriage" means "a relationship between TWO people".

Well then, what about polygamy? That's a marriage between more than 2 people, and it is actually legal in some parts of the world. Even more so, polygamy is in the bible, and even explicitly condoned in certain situations :whistle:

So if the bible, the very book with holy scriptures you claim to live by and consider to be the word of god, as per your admittance in your earlier post, is basically saying that what some modern christians consider to be an "oxymoron", is actually perfectly okay, then where's the logic in being against gay marriage on the sole premise that that term is supposedly an oxymoron?

---

Anyway, I don't think the term "gay marriage" or even "open marriage" are oxymorons anyway. The mere existence of gay marriage and polygamy makes the oxymoron label null and void.

Also, as per the dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage):


mar·riage
noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other


So as you can see, it's not even about "changing" definitions; the definitions already officially say that marriage is not exclusively between a man and a woman.

---

Okay, that response became a bit longer than I expected :D

Definitions aside, may I ask why you are against something that doesn't affect you anyway? Or am I being ignorant and does it indeed affect you in some way? :scratch:

Wh1t3Kn1te
12th May 2014, 00:40
so i've been doing some research, just because it's been about 10 years since i last researched this subject and just wanted to see how things have changed. i was surprised by my results and i see that my beliefs are in the minority now, i'm fine with that.

i don't want to offend anyone so i wont say much, but i will say if that is the definition for marriage that is being used today then its no wonder things are like they are regarding this matter.

the definition back in 1995 used to be a lifelong committed relationship between two individuals, usually one male and one female. (webster's dictionary 1995 edition)

so applying that definition to gay marriage brings up a question and its an important question that can be asked of both gays and straights.

if one wants to get married, can one commit to a life-long monogamous relationship with the person one wants to get married to?

from the research i have conducted the vast majority of gays and even a good amount of straights simply can't. this is the thing i just can't understand, why would someone want to get married if they know they can't stick with just one individual for their entire life?

from the time i hit puberty i knew i only wanted one person for my whole life, apparently now a days thats unnatural and odd behaviour based on some of the comments i have seen in my studies. if so and i am the odd one of the bunch then so be it.

i will end with this though, if more gays were to step forward and commit to monogamous relationships, it would be easier to sway people with mindsets like i have. from what i have read, seen, observed, this isnt happening and its making a mockery out of marriage.

Driber
12th May 2014, 08:52
You didn't really answer my question at the end of my post, Matt. I get that you're against weddings that don't work out, but I'd like to understand why. Even if, for argument's sake, 99% of all weddings - gay or straight - would end up in divorce, how does that fact affect you, personally, if you happen to be part of that 1% that enjoys a good, healthy, long-lasting marriage? :scratch:


so i've been doing some research, just because it's been about 10 years since i last researched this subject and just wanted to see how things have changed. i was surprised by my results and i see that my beliefs are in the minority now, i'm fine with that.

i don't want to offend anyone so i wont say much, but i will say if that is the definition for marriage that is being used today then its no wonder things are like they are regarding this matter.

the definition back in 1995 used to be a lifelong committed relationship between two individuals, usually one male and one female. (webster's dictionary 1995 edition)

By specifically using the word "usually", that definition clearly includes marriages other than between one male and one female, so already back in 1995 marriage wasn't defined as strictly between two people of the opposite sex. So in essence, nothing has actually changed since then, apart from just being more clear now by providing specific examples of same-sex marriage.


so applying that definition to gay marriage brings up a question and its an important question that can be asked of both gays and straights.

if one wants to get married, can one commit to a life-long monogamous relationship with the person one wants to get married to?

Even your 1995 dictionary entry doesn't define marriage as a strictly monogamous relationship. You could interpret "committed" to mean "exclusive", but you can just as well interpret that word to mean "dedicated", as in sticking by your partner through thick and thin. If you happen to marry 2 people, you commit yourself to stick with those persons through thick and thin.


from the research i have conducted the vast majority of gays and even a good amount of straights simply can't. this is the thing i just can't understand, why would someone want to get married if they know they can't stick with just one individual for their entire life?

from the time i hit puberty i knew i only wanted one person for my whole life, apparently now a days thats unnatural and odd behaviour based on some of the comments i have seen in my studies. if so and i am the odd one of the bunch then so be it.

i will end with this though, if more gays were to step forward and commit to monogamous relationships, it would be easier to sway people with mindsets like i have. from what i have read, seen, observed, this isnt happening and its making a mockery out of marriage.

I think you should do some more research. Studies have actually shown that same sex marriages last longer and have a better chance of surviving than straight marriages. So if anyone is "making a mockery out of marriage" (a statement I disagree with anyway) then it's us straight folks. So this argumentation to be opposed to same sex marriage is nonsensical.

And if you think about it, it actually makes sense. Straight people, especially religious folks (which is the majority in the US at least) are pressured into getting married because of their religion and culture. And they have no problem getting married, because they've got the law on their side. So of course all those folks who get into marriage for the wrong reasons are much more likely to end up getting divorced or cheating on their partners, whereas gay couples are having a really hard time getting married, so once they can get married, they actually make a more concious and rational decision to get married to the person they are sure they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

Let's also not forget that religion foolishly teaches children and young people not to have sex. And studies have proven time after time again that practising abstinence just does not work. So this causes mass teen pregnancies, which in turn cause forced marriages, which eventually adds up to the number of divorces. In contrast, gay people do not have this problem. They do not get knocked up unexpectedly. Gays having children is actually a carefully planned thing, because most of the time it takes a lot of work and red tape to get through, even IF it is possible in their state/country to begin with.

So which marriage do you think has a better chance of surviving - the straight teen pregnant couple, where the guy likely doesn't want the kid, or the gay marriage where both partners made a concious and reasoned decision to raise children together?

:)

Metalrocks
13th May 2014, 06:09
i thought this would suit in here.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9181-Tomodachi-Strife

Driber
13th May 2014, 09:04
i thought this would suit in here.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9181-Tomodachi-Strife

Interesting video. Thanks for posting :)

On the whole, I agree with Jim, but I also disagree with him on a couple of points.

He is bashing Nintendo for "not living in the real world" for their statement about not wanting to make a political statement. Well, guess what, Jim, you are the one who is not living in the real world if you think that such a thing would not be making a political statement.

Don't get me wrong, I support gay marriage and I absolutely agree with Jim that including it in a videogame shouldn't be automatically a political statement, and I honestly look forward to the time when same sex marriage has completely turned into a non-issue like women wearing pants (big taboo only a century ago), but unfortunately we're not living in that utopia (yet). And unlike Jim, Nintendo actually has to face the consequences of the real world we live in, where same sex marriage is still a taboo, whether you want it to be or not.

Jim is also arguing "this is 2014; gay marriage / homosexuality is not considered abnormal in this day of age anymore". Well, he probably should consider the fact that same sex marriage is illegal in Japan, home of Nintendo headquarters (as well as in most states of his own country, for that matter). So yeah, it shouldn't be abnormal, but it is.

So I really can't agree with him in his outrage towards Nintendo and I refuse to join the pitchfork mob people who irresponsibly label Nintendo as "bigots" over this :rolleyes: It isn't like the game was intentionally programmed to have same sex marriage but later on it was taken out due to pressure from conservatives. That would have been making a political statement.

And by the way, if people get outraged over this, where the hell were they when Rockstar was under fire over the hot coffee controversy, huh? :whistle:

Metalrocks
13th May 2014, 09:27
these were my issues as well that he complains about that gay marriage should be seen as normal. if he would have said that having gay people as such would be normal, dating, etc, yes, but marriage on the other hand is a different matter.

didnt know that gay marriage is illegal in japan but i also never look it up what countries allow it and not.

unless i misunderstand you, but the coffee mod had nothing to do with same sex. just an interactive sex moment. still remember that SA was removed from the shelfs in australia because this version was able to run it. i think few later they released it again but this time you are not able to install the mod.
the version i got i could install it but i never bothered to get it. was never good installing mods anyway.

Driber
13th May 2014, 09:43
No, what I meant was that (AFAIK) the general consensus about the hot coffee controversy was that having a sex sim element in a videogame was bad. And "bad" is putting it mildly if I recall some of the things that people were saying about it :whistle:

And unlike with the Nintendo game, the Rockstar devs did actually intentionally program that part of the game. And before release, they deliberately took it out. And it wasn't until hackers forced the content to be available again.

Sex is something completely normal. Everyone does it. But having it in a videogame, even as a DISABLED part in the code that the player wasn't meant to access, was somehow horribly wrong.

And here with this Nintendo game we have same sex marriage; something that isn't normal (see my previous post what I mean by "abnormal"), and we've got people outraged that it isn't included in a videogame and was patched out because it wasn't meant to be there.

See the hypocrisy I'm getting at? heh

Metalrocks
13th May 2014, 12:08
now i understand :)

just like with mass effect sex scene. even when you didnt see anything besides a naked butt for ruffly 3 seconds. :rolleyes:
and that also was a huge problem.

Wh1t3Kn1te
14th May 2014, 01:00
You didn't really answer my question at the end of my post, Matt. I get that you're against weddings that don't work out, but I'd like to understand why. Even if, for argument's sake, 99% of all weddings - gay or straight - would end up in divorce, how does that fact affect you, personally, if you happen to be part of that 1% that enjoys a good, healthy, long-lasting marriage? :scratch:

there are several reasons, some controversial, some not so much. out of respect for the LGBT members here i wont publicly say the controversial reasons, but i can give you two reasons.

1. i don't support behaviour that is harmful physically, emotionally, relationally, or spiritually.

2. i can see the consequences that will be brought about once this becomes a worldwide acceptable thing. i choose to not be apart of those decisions, even though i know it will come about.



By specifically using the word "usually", that definition clearly includes marriages other than between one male and one female, so already back in 1995 marriage wasn't defined as strictly between two people of the opposite sex. So in essence, nothing has actually changed since then, apart from just being more clear now by providing specific examples of same-sex marriage.

yes it does, i don't deny that. i'm just old fashioned i guess.




Even your 1995 dictionary entry doesn't define marriage as a strictly monogamous relationship. You could interpret "committed" to mean "exclusive", but you can just as well interpret that word to mean "dedicated", as in sticking by your partner through thick and thin. If you happen to marry 2 people, you commit yourself to stick with those persons through thick and thin.
so by this statement i', guessing you aren't just for gay marriage, but also support polygamy? if so then where do you draw the line with freedoms?

let me mention a little quote here,“Discipline without freedom is tyranny; freedom without discipline is chaos.”
Cullen Hightower

its ok to have freedom, but you also must have temperance, or the consequences could be disastrous.




I think you should do some more research. Studies have actually shown that same sex marriages last longer and have a better chance of surviving than straight marriages. So if anyone is "making a mockery out of marriage" (a statement I disagree with anyway) then it's us straight folks. So this argumentation to be opposed to same sex marriage is nonsensical.

would you mind linking the results of these studies, every study i have seen as been inconclusive due to too many variables.


And if you think about it, it actually makes sense. Straight people, especially religious folks (which is the majority in the US at least) are pressured into getting married because of their religion and culture. And they have no problem getting married, because they've got the law on their side. So of course all those folks who get into marriage for the wrong reasons are much more likely to end up getting divorced or cheating on their partners, whereas gay couples are having a really hard time getting married, so once they can get married, they actually make a more concious and rational decision to get married to the person they are sure they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

this isn't because of religion, or lack of religion. this is because of individuals decisions. yes they may be influenced by certain teachings, but ultimately it's up to the individual to decide if what they are being taught is worth believing in.

now some religions do force marriage on people (islam, judaism) but the vast majority allow freedom to decide to marry or not.


Let's also not forget that religion foolishly teaches children and young people not to have sex. And studies have proven time after time again that practising abstinence just does not work. So this causes mass teen pregnancies, which in turn cause forced marriages, which eventually adds up to the number of divorces.

this is a mis-statement. abstinence does work, but one has to make the choice to abstain. if individuals obeyed the message (and some do) then no pregnancies happen and std's are mitigated. unfortunately schools today are teaching too many that we are simply animals and as such shouldn'y be ashamed to act like it. then people wonder why 7 million teenagers get pregnant every year in the u.s., around half of our minors have admitted to having an STD, 9 year olds are sexually assaulting other children, 12 year olds are getting high/drunk several times a week. too many children are being taught there is no hope, no future, no reason to better themselves. this is a disgrace in my opinion.



In contrast, gay people do not have this problem. They do not get knocked up unexpectedly. Gays having children is actually a carefully planned thing, because most of the time it takes a lot of work and red tape to get through, even IF it is possible in their state/country to begin with.

this is because male/male female/female can't reproduce. however they do suffer from other side effects.


So which marriage do you think has a better chance of surviving - the straight teen pregnant couple, where the guy likely doesn't want the kid, or the gay marriage where both partners made a concious and reasoned decision to raise children together?
this is comparing apples to oranges.

the correct way to ask this is what if you had a gay couple that wanted kids versus a straight couple that wants kids, which marriage would last longer?

or what if you had a straight couple where one didnt want a child vs a gay couple where one did not want a child?

in either case there are too many variables to answer accurately.

do their personalities get along?
can they put their partners needs ahead of their own?
how good are they with problem solving?
how do they handle stress?

there are soo many factors that go into whether a marriage will work or not, this is why it so hard to study conclusively.

Driber
14th May 2014, 11:05
1. i don't support behaviour that is harmful physically, emotionally, relationally, or spiritually.

Me neither. What does that have to do with gay marriage?


2. i can see the consequences that will be brought about once this becomes a worldwide acceptable thing. i choose to not be apart of those decisions, even though i know it will come about.


Which would be....?

---

The points you gave still don't really answer my question why you're against gay marriage. You're just saying "it's harmful" and "it will lead to bad consequences", which is useless information, really. I can say the same about anything else without backing it up with actual reason. You might as well just say "I'm against gay marriage because I'm against it".

I hear ya when you say you don't want to get too open about it because it may offend the queer community, and I'm in no way trying to pressure you to answer my question, but the reason I'm asking this question is because think this may be a good opportunity for people (including myself) to learn what's really behind all this hate towards gays and gay marriage (I'm not saying you are hating, I'm saying that your reasons are probably shared among those who do hate) and you are like the nicest, most civil christian that I've seen on the web talking about his anti-gay sentiments, heh. Usually it's just vile hatred that's being spewed out.

If you don't want to answer my question here in this thread, would you consider answering it in the Serious Debate forum? Or in PM?


so by this statement i', guessing you aren't just for gay marriage, but also support polygamy? if so then where do you draw the line with freedoms?

let me mention a little quote here,“Discipline without freedom is tyranny; freedom without discipline is chaos.”
Cullen Hightower

its ok to have freedom, but you also must have temperance, or the consequences could be disastrous.

This is where I draw the line with freedoms: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=2000639&postcount=2

I wouldn't say I "support polygamy", because that sounds like I'm advocating everyone to just go around cheating on their partners whenever they please, heh, and that's certainly not the case. But I do support the right for people to be in consensual relationships with multiple partners.

Now, I do make a big distinction between polygamy and gay marriage. Unlike gay marriage, polygamy can be a reeeeeeealy tricky thing to pull off, successfully, because jealousy can be a real b***, even for the most open-minded people, heh. So it's definitely not for everyone. And on top of that, there are unfortunately a lot of abusive polygamous relationships (for example in Mormon Utah, and undeveloped Muslim countries), which I of course don't support whatsoever.

But it can be done; there people out there who are in a loving, stable, productive polygamous relationships, and usually involving one man and two bisexual women, that all love one and another as equals. You can't tell me that if those partners manage to make it work, and if their children grow up in a healthy, loving environment, that such a thing is inherently wrong :)


would you mind linking the results of these studies, every study i have seen as been inconclusive due to too many variables.

Here you go: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf


this isn't because of religion, or lack of religion. this is because of individuals decisions. yes they may be influenced by certain teachings, but ultimately it's up to the individual to decide if what they are being taught is worth believing in.

now some religions do force marriage on people (islam, judaism) but the vast majority allow freedom to decide to marry or not.

I'm sorry, but I find that reasoning a ridiculous cop-out. Just because a church leader isn't putting a gun to people's heads to physically force them to get married doesn't mean that religious people get married entirely out of their own free will.

Religion is most definitely forcing people to get married through mental force and emotional blackmail. Which pastor doesn't preach that if people want to be in a long term relationship and/or want to have children that they should get married so to that god can approve of their union. Pretty much every church preaches this.

Or what about the millions of young couples that have sex out of wedlock and/or accidentally get pregnant? Don't tell me there is no pressure from religion that they should get married. And don't tell me christianity is any better than islam or judaism in this regard - in the bible god explicitly commands these people to get married, thus forcing them into something they often times do not want, under the threat of going to hell in the next life and being social outcasts in this, thus completely eliminating their so-called "free will".


this is a mis-statement. abstinence does work, but one has to make the choice to abstain. if individuals obeyed the message (and some do) then no pregnancies happen and std's are mitigated.

It's not a mis-statement. You're taking what I said too literally. What I was saying is that the practice of abstinence (i.e. religious folks saying "don't have sex before you're married" to young people and having them take a purity pledge, etc), just does not work.

And by "it just does not work" I am not saying that there are no cases of people practising abstinence who actually do manage to abstain from having sex until they are wed (although we should probably ask ourselves how many of those are being truthful about it); I am saying that it's a massively flawed program because it has an enormous failure rate, and I'm sure you'll agree with that fact.

On paper, abstinence sounds easy. Just make pledge and restrain yourself, right? But you said it yourself - 7 million teenagers are getting pregnant in the US every year, so that IMO just proves that the abstinence program just doesn't work, in practice.


unfortunately schools today are teaching too many that we are simply animals and as such shouldn'y be ashamed to act like it.

That is a mis-statement. No school says such a thing :/


then people wonder why 7 million teenagers get pregnant every year in the u.s., around half of our minors have admitted to having an STD, 9 year olds are sexually assaulting other children

These are serious issues you listed and should be addressed in a serious way. But just telling these children "don't do it" (which is basically what the abstinence program is, really) while keeping them ignorant of practical solutions (good sexual education, including learning about the risks and about condoms and contraception) to avoid the bad aspects of the actions that they are going to do anyway, is not doing anything to relieve the problem. On the contrary, it only makes the problem bigger.

Let me ask you - do you support the pope's words that people in Africa shouldn't be using condoms? From what you're telling me, it sounds like you agree with that philosophy.


12 year olds are getting high/drunk several times a week.

That's a different problem. And not something you're going to solve with practising abstinence.


too many children are being taught there is no hope, no future, no reason to better themselves. this is a disgrace in my opinion.

Red herring.


this is because male/male female/female can't reproduce.

Well, yeah, that's stating the obvious. So? It doesn't invalidate my point.


however they do suffer from other side effects.

Another red herring.


this is comparing apples to oranges.

the correct way to ask this is what if you had a gay couple that wanted kids versus a straight couple that wants kids, which marriage would last longer?

or what if you had a straight couple where one didnt want a child vs a gay couple where one did not want a child?

in either case there are too many variables to answer accurately.

do their personalities get along?
can they put their partners needs ahead of their own?
how good are they with problem solving?
how do they handle stress?

there are soo many factors that go into whether a marriage will work or not, this is why it so hard to study conclusively.

You're making it too complicated.

My point was that straight couples are more likely to end up in an unwanted marriage because of unexpected pregnancies (consequently more likely to end up in a divorce) than gay couples.

I was merely trying to provide a logical reason that may explain why there are more divorces among straight couples than among same sex couples.

Of course there are many more variables why people get divorced, I know that. I'm just throwing this up as one of the possible reasons why straight couples have such a high divorce rate.

:)

Thetford
14th May 2014, 14:01
About the STD thing, back in the 1980s(?) at the beginning of the HIV epidemic, the UK decided to do an educational campaign about safe sex, it was considered so effective, other nations started following suit, this early intervention has resulted in the UK having one of the lower HIV rates in the world, in fact, if I recall, you are three times more likely to contract HIV in the US (which has the highest rate in the developed world) than in the UK. I'm sure preaching abstinence has its merits, but teaching safe sex is much more important, it is even good practice for those who are married or in committed relationships, especially if you are not ready for kids just yet.

In regards to marriage, I see it as no longer as a religious institution, but more of a legal one. In short, the state regulates, registers, records, dissolves, gives tax breaks to marriages, meanwhile, the only unique thing religion has to offer is a particular venue and officiator (anyway, country homes make way better wedding venues). The whole thing is made even more ridiculous when you can essentially boil down the reason for my country being Protestant is because Catherine of Aragon gave birth to a girl.

Wh1t3Kn1te
17th May 2014, 12:10
The points you gave still don't really answer my question why you're against gay marriage. You're just saying "it's harmful" and "it will lead to bad consequences", which is useless information, really. I can say the same about anything else without backing it up with actual reason. You might as well just say "I'm against gay marriage because I'm against it".

I hear ya when you say you don't want to get too open about it because it may offend the queer community, and I'm in no way trying to pressure you to answer my question, but the reason I'm asking this question is because think this may be a good opportunity for people (including myself) to learn what's really behind all this hate towards gays and gay marriage (I'm not saying you are hating, I'm saying that your reasons are probably shared among those who do hate) and you are like the nicest, most civil christian that I've seen on the web talking about his anti-gay sentiments, heh. Usually it's just vile hatred that's being spewed out.



you should have clarified this sooner, i will be happy to point you to the finality of this.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/15478/man-sues-right-marry-computer/

this attempt failed for now, but this is the main thing that Christians are concerned with. eventually we are concerned that marriage will be one big joke with no purpose, and eventually people will stop getting married because they wont see a point to it anymore. as it is in the U.S. less people are getting married, in fact its at a historically low level.

also thank you for the compliment :) however i find it kind of sad that so many are so full of hate, but at the same time i know it must be this way.

Ellie92
17th May 2014, 12:21
Today is International Anti Anti Gay Day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Day_Against_Homophobia_and_Transphobia

Wh1t3Kn1te
17th May 2014, 12:29
^shouldn't this be like Christmas, and be everyday? heh