I think you might find there are other forums on the Internet that will give you a better political debate than this one. This forum is generally for people who want to play games and have fun.
I think you might find there are other forums on the Internet that will give you a better political debate than this one. This forum is generally for people who want to play games and have fun.
This is off topic, the one section you DON'T discuss games.
I find that extremely offencive that out of all these potentially controversial issues he and or she felt the need to change LGBT rights to none of the above! Hell its like changing that important issue and saying its a generic problem that can be lumped with all the other unimportant issues.
Okay, I was going to leave you to your conspiracy theory up until now, but this is crossing the line. No options were replaced. "None of the above" was added as an extra option. I felt that the there should be an option to represent people who legitimately just don't feel that strongly about any of these issues. I do not appreciate you insinuating that there was any discrimination involved in the edit. And as a good faith action, I've added "LGBT Rights" to the poll options.
Okay, I was going to leave you to your conspiracy theory up until now, but this is crossing the line. No options were replaced. "None of the above" was added as an extra option. I felt that the there should be an option to represent people who legitimately just don't feel that strongly about any of these issues. I do not appreciate you insinuating that there was any discrimination involved in the edit. And as a good faith action, I've added "LGBT Rights" to the poll options.
Im sorry for going out of control I thought he was telling the truth about the LGBT rights being replaced. I hope I didn't offend you with my rant .
Samus that was completely out of order lying about The Mods discriminating. You seriously need to apologise to Guru for that.
yanno. I'm for gun control...because really. who wants to be shot in the face by a crazy person. I know it's a touchy issue in the states, but c'mon, it's not like (insert current perceived enemy here) is going to drop troopers down or come over by boat and you'll start man on man combat... Trust me, a nice big sword deters burglers just as well lol personal firearms really arent necessary, especially in this day and age.
Now 75% of the forum hates me, and if they don't like my opinion, **** 'em.
We've been talking about gun control in other threads and, judging the entire forum from these moments, I'd estimate that at least 9 out of 10 regular forumites agree with you.
My strongest issues are the government restrictions with regards to drugs and sex, and neither of them are on the poll. Thus it was a tie up between gun control and the military, neither of which I am massively in support of (odd for a Briton). I ended up choosing gun control.
Also, what was up with the raging above guys? Hear both sides first
That being said I disagree with LBGT rights too. The government isn't currently restricting the LBGT community in any way. So they need no more specific attention.
That being said I disagree with LBGT rights too. The government isn't currently restricting the LBGT community in any way. So they need no more specific attention.
Well, you're mostly right, but in the UK, you can't get married, and yeah there is a difference. Also gay men can't donate blood which is pretty ridiculous.
Well, you're mostly right, but in the UK, you can't get married, and yeah there is a difference. Also gay men can't donate blood which is pretty ridiculous.
Gay people can get married. They can go to a big building, and have all their family come along, and have a priest declare them united under any religion they want, and then go off on a honeymoon.
The only part they cannot do is get the government to formally notice it, and good! Mind you, I wish they wouldn't waste time formally noticing straight marriage either.
Also true on the blood thing. I wasn't allowed to donate blood cos of that. Needs to change.
Completely depends on what region you're considering. Gay rights is a massive issue in Uganda, for example, compared to the situation in the UK. Unemployment might be a big problem in Spain, not so much in the Netherlands. The Australian economy sailed through the global financial crisis relatively unscathed, and the Aussie dollar topped 110 US cents last week (the highest since the AUD was floated in the 80s). I probably wouldn't say any single one of the issues listed is "most important" on a global scale, except possibly energy & environment.
Gay people can get married. They can go to a big building, and have all their family come along, and have a priest declare them united under any religion they want, and then go off on a honeymoon. The only part they cannot do is get the government to formally notice it, and good!
...But your statement was that the Government wasn't restricting lgbt in any way. This is a way. Just because you think hetero marriage recognition shouldn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
...But your statement was that the Government wasn't restricting lgbt in any way. This is a way. Just because you think hetero marriage recognition shouldn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I don't see it as restricting LGBT. It's unnecessarily boosting monogamous straight relationships. It restricts LGBT to the same level it restricts those who are unable to hold down a straight relationship - not very much. If we say the answer to this is to waste more time and money getting the government to officially notice gay couples, then could we not be said to be restricting the single folk? They are the only group left not getting the privelege of some bureaucrat entering their names into a computer.
That's... still not equality in the eyes of the government. Shit, if you don't like it then go right ahead, but it's still not equality. Especially since there's no reason NOT to allow it when male-female couples can.
It wouldn't be equality if it were allowed. The only equality would be to stop government-officiated straight marriage (which is what I'd go for) or to declare everyone married, which surely robs the ceremony of some of its meaning for people?
If gay people really are not content with marriage unless it involves a government guy tapping into a computer and changing all future forms so they list the people as married, then hey, I want to feel important to that nameless government dude too! Is it unfair that the government doesn't officially recognise my love of sticky toffee pudding?
I doubt that the government bit of it is really the most profound for the couple either. They promise, in front of everyone in their life, that they will spend the rest of their days with one person, and yet we still spend time pushing for this to also be written down on a piece of paper by a dude we never met?
It most definitly is. The idea probably is that kids will come from them upon which we can eventually dump our problems, and the discrimination is unintended, but here we go: The discrimination is undoubtedly there.
I fully endorse that the state should help families financially when there are children, but before that, just because of marriage? I don't see the need. I am for equal rights, but for me, that also means limiting the benefits of "marriage". It's a discrimination of single people also. Bad luck finding your soul mate? In that case, the state doesn't like you as well.
Still, this is not a governmental invention, this is the persistent grip of the church in so many countries who still claim to separate state from religion. If we are to reach equal rights, we must completely reevaluate the status of this institution. Quite possibly, we must conclude that it doesn't have a place in matters of the government at all.
It wouldn't be equality if it were allowed. The only equality would be to stop government-officiated straight marriage (which is what I'd go for) or to declare everyone married, which surely robs the ceremony of some of its meaning for people?
If gay people really are not content with marriage unless it involves a government guy tapping into a computer and changing all future forms so they list the people as married, then hey, I want to feel important to that nameless government dude too! Is it unfair that the government doesn't officially recognise my love of sticky toffee pudding?
I doubt that the government bit of it is really the most profound for the couple either. They promise, in front of everyone in their life, that they will spend the rest of their days with one person, and yet we still spend time pushing for this to also be written down on a piece of paper by a dude we never met?
This is about civil marriage. Let's be frank, the government is never going to take this benefit away from hetero marriage. While there are civil partnerships in the UK for those in same gender pairings, the fact that it's everything but the name is eerily close to Jim Crow laws which made African Americans to be "separate but equal" up until 1965.
There is no reason to keep these separate. The only thing keeping them from doing this is people thinking gay sex is squicky. Which is no reason at all.
Also, the meaning of the ceremony is different for everyone. I bet you that there are people in your country disgusted that someone would marry one of a different ethnicity and feel that their meaning marriage has been robbed. Does that mean we should outlaw interracial marriage again? I know in Mormonism, anything but temple marriage is considered not a true marriage. Does that mean we should cater one group's needs and cut out everything else?
Marriage is so ingrained into our society's cultures. It's something the vast majority can relate to on one scale or another. Not recognizing that one is married by calling it "civil partnership" is essentially the government telling those getting one that they aren't as good as hetero pairs. That one group is inherently superior to the other. This is discrimination.
UK's got it good, I really can't lie, but saying it's full equality is bullshit.
I would outlaw interracial marriage, yes.
We shouldn't cater to anyones needs when it comes down to little declarations of love. Cut out that bit altogether and give the tax money back.
It isn't equality right now because successful monogamous straight people are given an unfair ride in that they get to have the government waste time over their weddings.
It wouldn't be equality if they started wasting time and money doing the same for gay couples too. It would be more unequal because you'd need to waste more time and money to do it. It would be a big step backwards for equality.
I said that gay people are not restricted in any way. This is true (apart from the blood example which got pointed out). Gay people can marry. They just cannot get significant monetary gain from it, or waste the governments time by forcing them to notice. That's a good thing.
I'm always perturbed by comments like yours because people say "outlaw civil marriage in general!" whenever gay marriage is brought up as an excuse, yet outside this conversation, no action is ever taken. It becomes a move of spite.
You don't like civil marriage. Cool, I get that. It still doesn't mean gays are equal to straight in the eyes of the government. Which was the the thing you claimed in the beginning.
There's two options here. Either get rid of civil marriage (never going to happen) or let gays officially get married (far more likely).
Taking action against gays who desperately want their union to be recognized like everyone elses just because you don't like marriage is just plain cruel.
So... if education isn't fixed, I hope everyone realizes how well and truly fucked we are down the road. As far as I'm concerned, everything else is secondary to ensuring the safety and security of our future. We're all pretty much going to depend on today's youth while we're old. Unless, well, we plan on dying around age 50. Brb, vodka.
I'm always perturbed by comments like yours because people say "outlaw civil marriage in general!" whenever gay marriage is brought up as an excuse, yet outside this conversation, no action is ever taken. It becomes a move of spite.
You don't like civil marriage. Cool, I get that. It still doesn't mean gays are equal to straight in the eyes of the government. Which was the the thing you claimed in the beginning.
There's two options here. Either get rid of civil marriage (never going to happen) or let gays officially get married (far more likely).
Taking action against gays who desperately want their union to be recognized like everyone elses just because you don't like marriage is just plain cruel.
I don't understand what you mean by move of spite, or me being cruel. Ultimately, gay marriage means me paying for someone to have a piece of paper signed at the end of a ceremony, followed by me paying for those people's tax breaks. It's not even that. It's worse than that. It's me being robbed under threat of prison in order to pay for that. I think we should agree to disagree on this though probably A lot of people are very passionately pro-gay marriage. And it hardly helps that, as you said above, almost all people on my side are there because they think gay sex should be punishable by death, etc.
So... if education isn't fixed, I hope everyone realizes how well and truly fucked we are down the road. As far as I'm concerned, everything else is secondary to ensuring the safety and security of our future. We're all pretty much going to depend on today's youth while we're old. Unless, well, we plan on dying around age 50. Brb, vodka.
I don't know about you, but I plan on never retiring. They will have to pry my work out of my cold, dead hands...
Well, you're mostly right, but in the UK, you can't get married, and yeah there is a difference. Also gay men can't donate blood which is pretty ridiculous.
But they might spread the gay gene!!!!1111!
Yeah, that is pretty ridiculous.
I think openly gay people have issues getting into the military too (at least in the states). I understand it can be grounds for instant dismissal (but the operate a don't ask/don't tell policy, and I would imagine most commanders would turn a blind eye). Obama tried to get that changed, but I think it was blocked.
I have no idea what the policy on that stuff is over here. But then it doesn't really concern me. I have no plans to join the military any time soon.
But they might spread the gay gene!!!!1111!
Yeah, that is pretty ridiculous.
I think openly gay people have issues getting into the military too (at least in the states). I understand it can be grounds for instant dismissal (but the operate a don't ask/don't tell policy, and I would imagine most commanders would turn a blind eye). Obama tried to get that changed, but I think it was blocked.
I have no idea what the policy on that stuff is over here. But then it doesn't really concern me. I have no plans to join the military any time soon.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed, but it won't take affect until Obama and the Pentagon say the armed forces are "ready for it," whatever that means.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed, but it won't take affect until Obama and the Pentagon say the armed forces are "ready for it," whatever that means.
If I may simplify the whole Civil Partnership in my own wee way. If it looks like marriage and does all the same things as marriage just call it marriage. Maybe cos i'm not gay I don't see the bruhaha about the name cos it gives the same rights, but it does seem like it's a way of putting up walls as if to say 'marriage is only for the breeders'
Back to the actual poll. If we're talking America I think health care's a big issue, letting someone die simply because they can't afford treatment is... well it's just not on. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of Americas healthcare system, but rallying against healthcare for all as far as I can see it is a bit selfish. You're afraid to take a potential hit to a service you can afford and happy to let those who can't afford it to fall by the wayside and get sick. That's not really how civilised society works in my eyes, we all chip in.
If you can afford private fancy pants healthcare they're always be a market for it, there is in the UK even with the NHS
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed, but it won't take affect until Obama and the Pentagon say the armed forces are "ready for it," whatever that means.
Comments
This is off topic, the one section you DON'T discuss games.
This. Also, pot.
What was the topic?
The moderator replaced "LGBT Rights" with "None of the above"
No fucking way!
Im sorry for going out of control I thought he was telling the truth about the LGBT rights being replaced. I hope I didn't offend you with my rant
Samus that was completely out of order lying about The Mods discriminating. You seriously need to apologise to Guru for that.
Now 75% of the forum hates me, and if they don't like my opinion, **** 'em.
We've been talking about gun control in other threads and, judging the entire forum from these moments, I'd estimate that at least 9 out of 10 regular forumites agree with you.
Also, what was up with the raging above guys? Hear both sides first
That being said I disagree with LBGT rights too. The government isn't currently restricting the LBGT community in any way. So they need no more specific attention.
Well, you're mostly right, but in the UK, you can't get married, and yeah there is a difference. Also gay men can't donate blood which is pretty ridiculous.
Gay people can get married. They can go to a big building, and have all their family come along, and have a priest declare them united under any religion they want, and then go off on a honeymoon.
The only part they cannot do is get the government to formally notice it, and good! Mind you, I wish they wouldn't waste time formally noticing straight marriage either.
Also true on the blood thing. I wasn't allowed to donate blood cos of that. Needs to change.
...But your statement was that the Government wasn't restricting lgbt in any way. This is a way. Just because you think hetero marriage recognition shouldn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I don't see it as restricting LGBT. It's unnecessarily boosting monogamous straight relationships. It restricts LGBT to the same level it restricts those who are unable to hold down a straight relationship - not very much. If we say the answer to this is to waste more time and money getting the government to officially notice gay couples, then could we not be said to be restricting the single folk? They are the only group left not getting the privelege of some bureaucrat entering their names into a computer.
If gay people really are not content with marriage unless it involves a government guy tapping into a computer and changing all future forms so they list the people as married, then hey, I want to feel important to that nameless government dude too! Is it unfair that the government doesn't officially recognise my love of sticky toffee pudding?
I doubt that the government bit of it is really the most profound for the couple either. They promise, in front of everyone in their life, that they will spend the rest of their days with one person, and yet we still spend time pushing for this to also be written down on a piece of paper by a dude we never met?
It most definitly is. The idea probably is that kids will come from them upon which we can eventually dump our problems, and the discrimination is unintended, but here we go: The discrimination is undoubtedly there.
I fully endorse that the state should help families financially when there are children, but before that, just because of marriage? I don't see the need. I am for equal rights, but for me, that also means limiting the benefits of "marriage". It's a discrimination of single people also. Bad luck finding your soul mate? In that case, the state doesn't like you as well.
Still, this is not a governmental invention, this is the persistent grip of the church in so many countries who still claim to separate state from religion. If we are to reach equal rights, we must completely reevaluate the status of this institution. Quite possibly, we must conclude that it doesn't have a place in matters of the government at all.
This is about civil marriage. Let's be frank, the government is never going to take this benefit away from hetero marriage. While there are civil partnerships in the UK for those in same gender pairings, the fact that it's everything but the name is eerily close to Jim Crow laws which made African Americans to be "separate but equal" up until 1965.
There is no reason to keep these separate. The only thing keeping them from doing this is people thinking gay sex is squicky. Which is no reason at all.
Also, the meaning of the ceremony is different for everyone. I bet you that there are people in your country disgusted that someone would marry one of a different ethnicity and feel that their meaning marriage has been robbed. Does that mean we should outlaw interracial marriage again? I know in Mormonism, anything but temple marriage is considered not a true marriage. Does that mean we should cater one group's needs and cut out everything else?
Marriage is so ingrained into our society's cultures. It's something the vast majority can relate to on one scale or another. Not recognizing that one is married by calling it "civil partnership" is essentially the government telling those getting one that they aren't as good as hetero pairs. That one group is inherently superior to the other. This is discrimination.
UK's got it good, I really can't lie, but saying it's full equality is bullshit.
We shouldn't cater to anyones needs when it comes down to little declarations of love. Cut out that bit altogether and give the tax money back.
It isn't equality right now because successful monogamous straight people are given an unfair ride in that they get to have the government waste time over their weddings.
It wouldn't be equality if they started wasting time and money doing the same for gay couples too. It would be more unequal because you'd need to waste more time and money to do it. It would be a big step backwards for equality.
I said that gay people are not restricted in any way. This is true (apart from the blood example which got pointed out). Gay people can marry. They just cannot get significant monetary gain from it, or waste the governments time by forcing them to notice. That's a good thing.
You don't like civil marriage. Cool, I get that. It still doesn't mean gays are equal to straight in the eyes of the government. Which was the the thing you claimed in the beginning.
There's two options here. Either get rid of civil marriage (never going to happen) or let gays officially get married (far more likely).
Taking action against gays who desperately want their union to be recognized like everyone elses just because you don't like marriage is just plain cruel.
I don't understand what you mean by move of spite, or me being cruel. Ultimately, gay marriage means me paying for someone to have a piece of paper signed at the end of a ceremony, followed by me paying for those people's tax breaks. It's not even that. It's worse than that. It's me being robbed under threat of prison in order to pay for that. I think we should agree to disagree on this though probably
I don't know about you, but I plan on never retiring. They will have to pry my work out of my cold, dead hands...
Yeah, that is pretty ridiculous.
I think openly gay people have issues getting into the military too (at least in the states). I understand it can be grounds for instant dismissal (but the operate a don't ask/don't tell policy, and I would imagine most commanders would turn a blind eye). Obama tried to get that changed, but I think it was blocked.
I have no idea what the policy on that stuff is over here. But then it doesn't really concern me. I have no plans to join the military any time soon.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed, but it won't take affect until Obama and the Pentagon say the armed forces are "ready for it," whatever that means.
They need to get enough lube for each unit.
Back to the actual poll. If we're talking America I think health care's a big issue, letting someone die simply because they can't afford treatment is... well it's just not on. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of Americas healthcare system, but rallying against healthcare for all as far as I can see it is a bit selfish. You're afraid to take a potential hit to a service you can afford and happy to let those who can't afford it to fall by the wayside and get sick. That's not really how civilised society works in my eyes, we all chip in.
If you can afford private fancy pants healthcare they're always be a market for it, there is in the UK even with the NHS
pretty sure it's not enforced no more
Huh huh.. huh huh huh... unit.