Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:You can't honestly compare those two.

You can't honestly say that there is no comparison. You're just saying that reflexively because you don't want to compare yourself with racists even though you're doing the exact same thing that racists were doing.

No. Just no. I doubt there is a gay version of Apartheid anywhere in the world. People with different colours of skin can't hide it thus descriminating is stupid. Being Gay, Lesbian or Bi is harder to proove.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
You can't honestly compare those two. It is ridiculous.

Why?

It is harder to distinguish sexuality than race.

Mellssia- first off Dakota should put a disclaimer. OTF is like crack. Looks, get a grip. Gays are not oppressed as blacks were. Gays have all the rights anyone else has, as they should. Civil unions confer all the rights of marriage. I think if proponents recognized our objections as legitimate instead of falling back on the usual leftist line "hate" we may be closer to a happy resolution. Ok now I'm really gone. Stupid iPhone.

So the only reason they are different is because it's harder to hide skin colour than sexuality?
That is absurd...

rockerbikie wrote:

Melissia wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:You can't honestly compare those two.

You can't honestly say that there is no comparison. You're just saying that reflexively because you don't want to compare yourself with racists even though you're doing the exact same thing that racists were doing.

No. Just no. I doubt there is a gay version of Apartheid anywhere in the world. People with different colours of skin can't hide it thus descriminating is stupid. Being Gay, Lesbian or Bi is harder to proove.

Being gay and living somewhere like Uganda isn't a lot of fun though.

purplefood wrote:So the only reason they are different is because it's harder to hide skin colour than sexuality?
That is absurd...

You did not understand the pun "Gay version of Apartheid". Hiding it can be a big difference. Blacks couldn't hide being black, many of them were forced into slavery. I don't think I have ever heard of a gay slave cast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Being gay and living somewhere like Uganda isn't a lot of fun though.

That is true. They are extreme over there, I think I would even be classed as "Gay" over there for wearing Military style boots. Some of their claims of homosexuality is just stupid.

40kFSU wrote:Gays are not oppressed as blacks were. Gays have all the rights anyone else has, as they should. Civil unions confer all the rights of marriage.

They have all the rights other people have, apart from the right to get married, and you've only just repealed DADT after all. The oppression of gay people and black people is different, just because you think they are not as discriminated against as much as black people doesn't mean that comparisons with civil rights are not valid or that nothing should be done about it. At least being black wasn't a crime in itself, but homosexuality was only decriminalised in the UK less than 50 years ago and similar laws in the US were being repealed into the 2000s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rockerbikie wrote:

40kFSU wrote:So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.

That's the way things are with them.

I find it an issue impossible to debate with liberals crying insults at me. I find it an unimportant issues, economic and financial security should be going through Politicans' mind not some bill which will only satisfy a small percentage of the population, which will take ages to debate and pass through. In the end, I find it not worth the time and energy to bother even to mention the idea.

You could turn it around the other way. Why do some people feel the need to argue over an 'unimportant' issue that affects 'a small percentage of the population'? They don't need to spend ages debating it and preventing it being passed, they could just agree, award equality and get on with other matters. Granting equal rights to minorities should not take a back seat just because the economy is going through difficult times. And people opposing these rights should accept the blame for them wasting time, not those proposing them.

40kFSU wrote:Gays are not oppressed as blacks were.

That's false. Both are minority groups hated by bigots. Both have suffered oppression as brutal as being murdered in the street for what they are, as pervasive as being denied employment or fired for being what they are, as authoritarian as having their marriage rights denied or restricted.

40kFSU wrote: Gays have all the rights anyone else has, as they should. Civil unions confer all the rights of marriage.

Do you watch the news at all? This statement is so ignorant as to be frightening.

1. Civil unions don't always provide all the same rights.
2. Not all states allow civil unions. In fact, some of them have actually changed their state constitutions to FORBID any form of civil union, due to the prejudices of bigots. North Carolina just did so, what, a week ago?

40kFSU wrote: I think if proponents recognized our objections as legitimate instead of falling back on the usual leftist line "hate"

You're welcome to offer a legitimate objection. I haven't seen one yet.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

40kFSU wrote:Gays are not oppressed as blacks were. Gays have all the rights anyone else has, as they should. Civil unions confer all the rights of marriage.

They have all the rights other people have, apart from the right to get married, and you've only just repealed DADT after all. The oppression of gay people and black people is different, just because you think they are not as discriminated against as much as black people doesn't mean that comparisons with civil rights are not valid or that nothing should be done about it. At least being black wasn't a crime in itself, but homosexuality was only decriminalised in the UK less than 50 years ago and similar laws in the US were being repealed into the 2000s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rockerbikie wrote:

40kFSU wrote:So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.

That's the way things are with them.

I find it an issue impossible to debate with liberals crying insults at me. I find it an unimportant issues, economic and financial security should be going through Politicans' mind not some bill which will only satisfy a small percentage of the population, which will take ages to debate and pass through. In the end, I find it not worth the time and energy to bother even to mention the idea.

You could turn it around the other way. Why do some people feel the need to argue over an 'unimportant' issue that affects 'a small percentage of the population'? They don't need to spend ages debating it and preventing it being passed, they could just agree, award equality and get on with other matters. Granting equal rights to minorities should not take a back seat just because the economy is going through difficult times. And people opposing these rights should accept the blame for them wasting time, not those proposing them.

Look, it should stop. It's a stalemate, a cold war. No side has cleary won yet. It would be wise to move on something more important than dwelling on something. In these hard times, we need Countries like America to stand united but Liberalists can't wait until a state of Nation growth. Everything has to be now and they will have no compromise on the matter. We should stand united as one, issues like this are splitting the nation at the moment. We need a more stable economic, not a small affecting social law. Even us, thinking about the idea is a waste of time when we could be implementing better ideas to get the Economy back into gears. What's the point of having Gay Marriage if everyone is starving?

That's a false dichotomy.

There is absolutely no reason we can't have justice in marriage rights, except that bigots object to it and waste our time and money with court battles and bigoted legislation. And opportunistic politicians take advantage of the bigotry to court votes.

People made the same arguments you're making about equal rights for blacks, and about laws forbidding interracial marriage.

It's probably because they don't trust the other side to actually put those laws into place...

Mannahnin wrote:That's a false dichotomy.

There is absolutely no reason we can't have justice in marriage rights, except that bigots object to it and waste our time and money with court battles and bigoted legislation. And opportunistic politicians take advantage of the bigotry to court votes.

People made the same arguments you're making about equal rights for blacks, and about laws forbidding interracial marriage.

I find it quite ironic that you call anyone that apposes Gay Marriage to be bigoted. I don't hate the LGB community, I just think the law is extremely unneeded and debating it is a huge waste to tax payers money in my opinion. Here's the question: Why would I want the tax I payed to spent on a lengthy debate which nothing worthwhile comes out on it for my end or my friends.

One of my friends in fact got raped by lesbians, the Police would not take her case seriously because she is a Nationalists Socialist. No investigation was ever done. Is this fair? I know not all Lesbians do this. Is this equal justice or is that just the Legal System just sliding over it's backside trying to be Politcally correct.

Keep posting this kind of stuff, would you? I think you might guilt the other guys on the anti-side into rethinking their positions.

40kFSU wrote:
Dogma- Sorry, you still arent getting any better with the one liners.

I admit they weren't my best, but this entire argument has become so hackneyed its often difficult to put one's best foot forward.

rockerbikie wrote:
One of my friends in fact got raped by lesbians, the Police would not take her case seriously because she is a Nationalists Socialist. No investigation was ever done. Is this fair?

Sure, she had the option of not being a Nazi.

rockerbikie wrote: In these hard times, we need Countries like America to stand united but Liberalists can't wait until a state of Nation growth.

I like this. Liberals that are part of a nation should wait for national growth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40kFSU wrote: Marriage has been consistent exactly because there has been a common foundation, religion.

How did the police find out that she was a national socialist?

We can't have lesbian rape gangs roaming the streets, targeting innocent Nazis!

Lesbian rape gangs are financed by the Rothschilds.

rockerbikie wrote:I doubt there is a gay version of Apartheid anywhere in the world.

Any Muslim country, and much of the population of South Africa, simply kills homosexuals outright.

This is worse than apartheid. It's effectively genocide.

40kFSU wrote:Gays are not oppressed as blacks were.

In many countries, gay men are killed on sight, and lesbians are raped to "cure" them. Kinda like lynching of black men. Huh, I guess gays ARE oppressed! Even in the US, the hate spewed at homosexuals by the lawmakers of the various states is equivalent to the racist hate spewed by those who supported segregation.

40kFSU wrote:Gays have all the rights anyone else has, as they should. Civil unions confer all the rights of marriage.

Just like separate schools confer all of the same education to blacks as they did to whites!

40kFSU wrote:I think if proponents recognized our objections

Your objections ARE based off of hate. Thus, I recognize them as they hate messages they are.

I'm still trying to figure out what the objections are.

It's gross!

Except when chicks do it, amirite?

dogma wrote:I'm still trying to figure out what the objections are.

I think Monster Rain pretty much covers it.

Of course, there's also those that pull from the bible, but that's actually rather worse considering that the bible has been changed over time for political reasons to attack homosexuals, witches, etc.

The Flood was really KY.

God was preparing to give 'ol Lucifer some lovin'?

There were a lot of animals on that Ark, all I'm sayn'.

OH NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Dogma found the chart!! Everyone is gonna see!! Christianity is finished!!! Quick!! Lock the thread! Lock the thread!

Wait, wait, be cool, man. Stay cool, breathe. Ok.

Dogma, my friend, the bible is a historical document as well as a holy book. It talks about things that occurred in that time. Being the open minded person you are, I suggest you read the passages in the bible. You may better understand. In the meantime, you may want to try researching beyond whatever little brain anti christian bigot website you got that from.

Mellssia- What are you talking about? Do you have any idea what year it is? Have you walked down the street? Are you actually going to tell me gays are treated as blacks before civil rights? And again, my objections have nothing to do with hate. If thats all you see, its a sign of your own narrow minded thinking and squarely a you problem.

rockerbikie wrote:
One of my friends in fact got raped by lesbians, the Police would not take her case seriously because she is a Nationalists Socialist. No investigation was ever done.

I'm sure that before taking her report the first thing the cops asked was "are you now or have you ever been a National Socialist?" and then refused to do their duty based on her political affiliation.

dogma wrote:

This graphic is missing Woman+Woman from Ruth 1:14 where Ruth binds herself to Naomi in the eyes of god using the exact same language as the marriage between Adam and Eve...and the same vows that modern Christians use today...from a homosexual binding.

40kFSU wrote:
Dogma, my friend, the bible is a historical document as well as a holy book. It talks about things that occurred in that time. Being the open minded person you are, I suggest you read the passages in the bible. You may better understand. In the meantime, you may want to try researching beyond whatever little brain anti christian bigot website you got that from.

This is funny, because I'm a PK and I've been in and around the Church since I was born. I'm not even really hostile to Christianity, I've read the Bible numerous times, and own several versions of it. I've even gone on those favorites trips of heathen atheists, mission trips.

Outside that, I'm wondering how a document, featuring holy men, can talk about the marriages of said holy men without disrupting your claim that marriage is a constant. Also, why would Lord Eddard send Lannister men?

40kFSU wrote:
And again, my objections have nothing to do with hate.

What are your objections, then?

40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- What are you talking about?

Let's see...

I might be talking about this. Or the fact that Saudi Arabia punishes homosexuality by death penalty. Iran punishes homosexuality by forced gender change or execution. Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania, Nigeria, Gambia, Somalia have similar laws.

And of course, there's always the list of counties that criminalize homosexuality, without using the death penalty Allow me to post the list: Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Burma, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, the Palestinian National Authority, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad, and Tobago.

Afghanistan had it criminalized until 2001, but homosexuals are still persecuted in that country without the use of the legal system. Same with India, who abolished its anti-gay penal code in 2009. Brazil has a large amount of homophobic violence even though it doesn't officially imprison homosexuals, as evidenced by the fact that there have been well over 3000 hate-motivated murders of homosexuals in the last thirty years there. When violent hate crimes ARE directed at homosexuals, they tend to be extremely brutal even compared to other forms of hate crime. Multiple stab wounds, mutilation, strangulation, and other forms of torture are frequently used. And homosexuals suffer a disproportionately large percent of hate crimes, especially violent ones, even in western countries (in Canada, about 10% of hate crimes are against homosexuals who make up an estimated 3-5% of the population, and more than half of them are classified as violent, compared to a third of the total of hate crimes).

Shall I go on, or are you going to stop living in denial? You don't know what the feth you're talking about.

40kFSU wrote:And again, my objections have nothing to do with hate.

Prove it.

What is PK? When I highlightwith the mouse it says powerclaw. If you say you are not hostile to Christianity and have done all those things, fine. Who am I to say you haven't? Im not spending another 4 pages repeating myself. My opinions and reasons are clearly spelled out above. If you do not wish to respect my opinion, so be it.

Preacher's/Pastor's Kid.

40kFSU wrote:My opinions and reasons are clearly spelled out above.

Not really.

40kFSU wrote:My opinions and reasons are clearly spelled out above.

As clear as a brick.

Oh for pete's sake Mellssia, I thought we were talking about gay marriage in the US. You are telling me the 3rd world is filled with ignorant knuckleheads? Well nice reporting scoop.

As I said to Dogma, I am quite direct about my opinions and beliefs. I refer you to the above 4 pages. If you think my faith is based in hate, thats not something I will be able to talk you out of. As far as proving it, I can't. You will just have to take my word for it.