Page 56 of 187 FirstFirst ... 64652535455565758596066106156 ... LastLast
Results 1,376 to 1,400 of 4669

Thread: Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

  1. #1376
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    64

    Default

    (Post Deleted. Hopefully...)
    Last edited by FE21; 20th July 2012 at 2:42 AM. Reason: offensive/bad/I shouldn't have posted this

  2. #1377
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FE21 View Post
    Um... not sure how to react to this. My imagination cancompose a number of possible theories, but I recommend you NOT donate blood if you need to lie about it. Sorta off topic, and possibly offensive which makes me wonder why I even bothered to post it, but I felt morally obligated to. Sorry if I was 100% wrong (I think I am).
    I think it's fair as a means to an end. Blood banks are always in need of more blood for sick patients, and I think anyone who wants to give blood should be given a big hug and accomodated in whatever way they need.

    I'm reading that the questionaire doesn't ask whether you are gay, but whether or not you've had sex with other men or women. Which is...subtly different. At first glance, it's not really discriminatory because it has a solid reasoning behind it: there is a apparently a higher rate of HIV and other STD's amongst sexually active gay men and women, and they don't want to pay for inspecting the blood if they're going to get contaminated blood too often. So basically, it's a combination of a medical reason and a limit to $$$. Not disciminatory, but they could definately do better to make it so that they don't look so damn discriminatory.

    It doesn't make sense to me anyway; instead of turning away people who are gay and sexually active, why not at least allow them to give blood if they give documentation of a full physical and testing for all sorts of STD's on their own time and their own insurance? It's dumb to turn away someone who wants to donate blood. They could easily compromise.

    I don't see too much of a risk of lying in order to donate blood...I highly doubt that it will get under their radar if there's anything wrong with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  3. #1378
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    3,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gothitelle K View Post
    On the topic of homosexuality, there was a news piece on the boy scouts and how someone is trying to fight for gays to join. Those who don't know, they had this rule for quite some time that gays were banned from being in the boy scouts.

    What are you thoughts on it?

    Also my thoughts are that while I can understand that they are for the safety of the children (yes there ARE some creeps that are after young boys), I wish that they and others could know how easy it is for someone to lie about their sexuality. Like if someone were to ask me whether orally or on paper what my sexuality was, I'd say straight. If I was asked that on a job application, I'd say straight, tho that's not really... what I am. Well, it's easier for someone like me to say they are the norm but for others, it seems hard but in the end it's not that difficult. Can others actually lie about their sexuality in order to draw blood? etc
    Pedophiles and Homosexuals aren't the same.

    About the blood thing, they have to check the blood for diseases anyway so it really doesn't make much sense.
        Spoiler:- My latest challenge:

  4. #1379
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    An archive's alcove.
    Posts
    852

    Default

    I'm allowed to be a camp councilor, when some of the kids are girls, when it should be obvious to everyone that because I'm a man I have perverse interest in children.

    .....

    Can someone lend a towel? I'm sick of dripping in sarcasm.

    Following that path of logic is absurd, but whatever, the world isn't going to change.
    __

    I would say that is not necessarily true. My reasons for opposing homosexuality are based in my religious convictions. I have no inherent dislike of homosexuals. I do take what the Bible says about homosexuality as a sin seriously. It does me no good to hate homosexuals merely for being effeminate or being attracted to the same sex. I don't approve of christians (or anyone for that matter) bashing homosexuals with derogatory remarks. There are people who dislike homosexuals merely for those reasons I previously stated. But please don't assume that all religious people hate homosexuals merely because we don't understand them. I have spent much thought about this subject before coming to the conclusions that I have.
    I don't understand why aspirations levied against you were retracted based on this. Why should religious conviction give you the right to dislike something? <.< *cough*

    I take it you're alright with the killing of women who aren't virgins on their wedding night. Perhaps you also believe that a woman is unclean for sixty six(?) days after giving birth to a girl, and only thirty three(?) days after giving birth to a boy. Right? Riiighhhttt?

    If you are willing to pick and choose your beliefs(which you clearly do, as you would likely be imprisoned if you obeyed the Bible word for word), like so many of your faith do; why not overlook the absurdity that perpetuates the persecution of a trait people are born with?
    Last edited by Zevn; 19th July 2012 at 9:38 PM.
    "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."
    Gandalf to Saruman

  5. #1380

    Default

    why should your personal logic give you the right to support homosexuality?
    no one needs any reason to like or dislike anything.
    there are no opinion police.
    we have the freedom to form whatever opinions we want for whatever reason.
    even if he was picking and choosing, which he is probably not, he has the right to do so.

  6. #1381
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    He has the right to do so, and everyone else has the right to 'levy aspirations' against him. There are no opinion police, but there are social expectations that many people share. Just like many people quietly respect someone's practices if they happen to religious and find it impolite to tell them their religion is wrong, other people find it impolite and too forward to say that homosexuality is wrong.

    The right to free speech works both ways. It does not make it any less a right for us to scold each other for saying something particular than it is to say something. The right to free speech makes it so that we can't make it against the law to express ourselves in a certain way. It doesn't make sense to invoke it when someone accuses you of being rude because they are just as free to accuse you. It's freedom of speech, not freedom to have the last word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  7. #1382
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zevn View Post

    If you are willing to pick and choose your beliefs(which you clearly do, as you would likely be imprisoned if you obeyed the Bible word for word), like so many of your faith do; why not overlook the absurdity that perpetuates the persecution of a trait people are born with?
    Because they have the right to form their own opinions on matters such as gay rights. I support gay rights, and while I don't think that they should use the Bible as support against gay rights, their vote counts just as much as mine.

  8. #1383
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SunnyC View Post
    I think it's fair as a means to an end. Blood banks are always in need of more blood for sick patients, and I think anyone who wants to give blood should be given a big hug and accomodated in whatever way they need.

    I'm reading that the questionaire doesn't ask whether you are gay, but whether or not you've had sex with other men or women. Which is...subtly different. At first glance, it's not really discriminatory because it has a solid reasoning behind it: there is a apparently a higher rate of HIV and other STD's amongst sexually active gay men and women, and they don't want to pay for inspecting the blood if they're going to get contaminated blood too often. So basically, it's a combination of a medical reason and a limit to $$$. Not disciminatory, but they could definately do better to make it so that they don't look so damn discriminatory.

    It doesn't make sense to me anyway; instead of turning away people who are gay and sexually active, why not at least allow them to give blood if they give documentation of a full physical and testing for all sorts of STD's on their own time and their own insurance? It's dumb to turn away someone who wants to donate blood. They could easily compromise.

    I don't see too much of a risk of lying in order to donate blood...I highly doubt that it will get under their radar if there's anything wrong with it.
    I "deleted" that post because when I read it back to me it sounded like poor word choise for what I was trying to say. I didn't know they had that question, since I've never donated blood (I was always "sick" on those days), so I didn't have the right to say anything. However, they should have the question alot more straightforeword "Do you have an STD, or think you have a possibility of one?" type question consitering the fact that "contaminated" blood poses a dangerous risk to public health. Example: One of our good family friends, a mother of two, caught an STD (not sure which one) through a blood transfusion. My point is, the current question is out of context, but has the right idea behind it. Public health is more important then not offending someone. Just my two cents.

    *Oh, and all your posts are well writen, just FYI

  9. #1384
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Off doing something important
    Posts
    4,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FE21 View Post
    However, they should have the question alot more straightforeword "Do you have an STD, or think you have a possibility of one?" type question consitering the fact that "contaminated" blood poses a dangerous risk to public health. Example: One of our good family friends, a mother of two, caught an STD (not sure which one) through a blood transfusion. My point is, the current question is out of context, but has the right idea behind it. Public health is more important then not offending someone. Just my two cents.
    Unfortunately, a lot of people with STDs/STIs aren't even aware of it. You can get something from a sexual partner and not see any symptoms, and accidentally pass it on to another partner. It's a huge issue, no matter your gender or orientation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerp View Post
    Because they have the right to form their own opinions on matters such as gay rights. I support gay rights, and while I don't think that they should use the Bible as support against gay rights, their vote counts just as much as mine.
    Gotta agree that the idea of people who are uneducated on basic points like whether the earth is flat, or who want to remove the basic human rights of others, count just as much as I do, is slightly frightening. Definitely not saying they shouldn't get a vote, but it's a scary prospect.



    ~Psychic

    I'm making 151 Pokémon as cupcakes
    Check out Project Cupcakedex


    ~Psychic's Nerdy Desserts Thread~

  10. #1385
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychic View Post
    Unfortunately, a lot of people with STDs/STIs aren't even aware of it. You can get something from a sexual partner and not see any symptoms, and accidentally pass it on to another partner. It's a huge issue, no matter your gender or orientation.



    Gotta agree that the idea of people who are uneducated on basic points like whether the earth is flat, or who want to remove the basic human rights of others, count just as much as I do, is slightly frightening. Definitely not saying they shouldn't get a vote, but it's a scary prospect.



    ~Psychic
    I honestly don't see why orientation makes a difference in STD/I's. They spread equally fast regardless of whom it is transferred from. What really scared me was how close Rick Santorum came to winning the Republican Nomination... I mean, how can we bash Islamic Republics for violating human rights when we suppress gay rights ourselves?

  11. #1386

    Default

    because unlike Islamic Republics we don't stone people for being gay


    says the man who supports homosexual marriage

  12. #1387
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    because unlike Islamic Republics we don't stone people for being gay


    says the man who supports homosexual marriage
    And yet there is a large segment of the population who are against gay marriage because it is sacrilegious with respect to Christianity, the same viewpoint of Islamic Republics with respect to Islam. So you're right, we don't stone them to death... yet.

  13. #1388
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,151

    Default

    Since the genetic theory of homosexuality only applies to males, does that mean that male and female homosexuality is different somehow?
    We can all agree that the second generation was either Pokémon's Golden Age or its Silver Age.

    I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  14. #1389
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    I think a lot of us get the idea that while institutionalized Christianity is against extremism like stoning gay people, it's not for lack of trying to get there. I also think a lot of us get the idea that Christians who support gay marriage support it in spite of their Christianity, that Christian movements become more progressive because of outside perspectives. Of course, nothing changes without respect to how it already is, so there's always a connection to existing Christian practices, but the catalyst is mostly attributed to the outside, the other.

    If we could find a monotheistic theocracy with laws based on their holy book and traditional practice without pandering to the diversity of cultures in their nation, then we'd have a safe metric in which to see what a religion could truly do without outside pressure. And the only real example of that seems to be the Islamic Republics.

    *Underlining used to specify that I'm talking about what the case seems to be, not what I sincerely believe. For all I know, this hypthesis is completely wrong. Maybe the true face of Christianity is the mainstream Christianity. It's all so fractured, it's hard to ever say anything for certain and logically feel right about it. Plus, although I consider myself a Christian, here I'm talking about the Christianity that is not so sorely conflicted about the Bible.
    Last edited by CSolarstorm; 20th July 2012 at 11:59 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  15. #1390
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Inna House... With Cable!!!
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SunnyC View Post
    I think a lot of us get the idea that while institutionalized Christianity is against extremism like stoning gay people, it's not for lack of trying to get there. It's simply not possible to do that in the U.S. ...Again
    I hope you don't mind my fixing this lil oversite Sunny. lynch mob mentality isn't to far off with the way the media fans stories into a frenzy. There is enough hate in the world and I have already lost one gay friend to three straight jackholes with no brains between them.

    So true!

  16. #1391
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Probably a better statement would be, "It's simply not possible for a society to do that legally in the U.S."
    Last edited by CSolarstorm; 21st July 2012 at 12:03 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  17. #1392
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Inna House... With Cable!!!
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    (don't read with a raised voice... just asking questions)
    We riot after our sports teams win championships!!! How can you say "It's not possible."? It's frighteningly easy. Mob mentality is a Stone's throw(Yeah... I went there) from looting. I'm inclined to believe we are to close to being able to cast stones than being above it. There just aren't enough police to truly handle the populace if they decide to take matters into their own hands.

    So true!

  18. #1393
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Key word being 'legally'. I'm talking about an entire society within the US getting away with openly making a law that homosexuality has be punished with stoning, and getting away with it without intervention to protect someone from a murder under federal law.

    I'm sure a mob can together and easily stone people if they put their mind to it. : /

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  19. #1394
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SunnyC View Post
    Key word being 'legally'. I'm talking about an entire society within the US getting away with openly making a law that homosexuality has be punished with stoning, and getting away with it without intervention to protect someone from a murder under federal law.

    I'm sure a mob can together and easily stone people if they put their mind to it. : /
    It's possible that could happen. If things get desperate enough, people will look for somebody to blame... and those laws could be passed, legally. That said, the mob idea is more likely.

  20. #1395

    Default

    The question is then, if a mob could do it, why aren't they doing it?

  21. #1396
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Inna House... With Cable!!!
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    Because they aren't frustrated or mad enough. Yet!

    So true!

  22. #1397
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    1,179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerp View Post
    Because they have the right to form their own opinions on matters such as gay rights. I support gay rights, and while I don't think that they should use the Bible as support against gay rights, their vote counts just as much as mine.
    This is a fallacy. The rights of homosexuals are the rights of a minority. They shouldn't be decided by a majority.
    Done here.

  23. #1398
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Inna House... With Cable!!!
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    Democratic society is however a majority ruled society. So until the majority changes, the minority must endure.

    So true!

  24. #1399
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    3,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by themightydoof View Post
    This is a fallacy. The rights of homosexuals are the rights of a minority. They shouldn't be decided by a majority.
    It isn't a falacy, it is how a democratic society works.
        Spoiler:- My latest challenge:

  25. #1400
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malanu View Post
    Democratic society is however a majority ruled society. So until the majority changes, the minority must endure.
    Quote Originally Posted by 7 tyranitars View Post
    It isn't a falacy, it is how a democratic society works.
    That's not true. The U.S. is not a direct democratic society; it is a democratic republic, because the U.S. founders were afraid of the majority oppressing the minority. That's why they made it a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy, and also added a judicial and executive branch, so there would be checks and balances rather than just everything being decided by the votes of the entire population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

Page 56 of 187 FirstFirst ... 64652535455565758596066106156 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •