Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
LGBT+
#31
hey, everyone here is homo sapiens

where they were born, what they look like, what gender they are and who they love doesn't matter, we are the same species!
--------------------------------
Ad astra per aspera, through hardships to the stars

STL Ernst / ASRN Rocket builder

https://micronations.wiki/wiki/Aphelia_S...rch_Nation
#32
Nice try at helping everyone get along, but I'd like to disagree. It does matter. At least, gender matters. Where they were born, what they look like, you're right, that doesn't matter, and that's not what this thread is about. But if I may, I'd like to put forward my view of things.

I'm really disappoint with English when it comes to the word "love." There are far more types of love than one single word can encompass. For example, I love God, and I love having pizza on Saturday night. The two aren't really the same thing at all, and anyone can see that. But I use the same word. In this case, the difference isn't quite so glaring. There's such a thing as brotherly love, but it's not the same as the love between two people who want to get married. I also think that part of the reason why this whole debate exists is because we've gotten our priorities mixed up. Marriage is intended to bring both people closer to God and each other in a special way. It is intended to rear children so that they, too, might become good and holy people. And it's been proven time and again that gay and lesbian couples just don't do this as well as straight couples. Why would we settle for second-best? Now, I honestly don't care who you love. But you must ask yourself if you love their soul (or personality, if you prefer that), or their body. If you just love their body, than no matter what gender you two are, your relationship is going to crash and burn. If you love their soul, than why bother with the body? It's a fleeting pleasure, and one that often brings more regrets than otherwise.
 
#33
(30 Apr 2017, 18:08:55)SoD Woods Wrote: Nice try at helping everyone get along, but I'd like to disagree. It does matter. At least, gender matters. Where they were born, what they look like, you're right, that doesn't matter, and that's not what this thread is about. But if I may, I'd like to put forward my view of things.

I'm really disappoint with English when it comes to the word "love." There are far more types of love than one single word can encompass. For example, I love God, and I love having pizza on Saturday night. The two aren't really the same thing at all, and anyone can see that. But I use the same word. In this case, the difference isn't quite so glaring. There's such a thing as brotherly love, but it's not the same as the love between two people who want to get married. I also think that part of the reason why this whole debate exists is because we've gotten our priorities mixed up. Marriage is intended to bring both people closer to God and each other in a special way. It is intended to rear children so that they, too, might become good and holy people. And it's been proven time and again that gay and lesbian couples just don't do this as well as straight couples. Why would we settle for second-best? Now, I honestly don't care who you love. But you must ask yourself if you love their soul (or personality, if you prefer that), or their body. If you just love their body, than no matter what gender you two are, your relationship is going to crash and burn. If you love their soul, than why bother with the body? It's a fleeting pleasure, and one that often brings more regrets than otherwise.

quite complicated to understand for me but it is "love them as who they are > love them at appearance", am I right?
--------------------------------
Ad astra per aspera, through hardships to the stars

STL Ernst / ASRN Rocket builder

https://micronations.wiki/wiki/Aphelia_S...rch_Nation
#34
(30 Apr 2017, 11:24:58)MarquisofNewCharter Wrote: I think that is a pretty poor argument. Would you be saying the same thing if the shop owner refused to make a cake for an interracial wedding because the owner doesn't believe in mix raced couples? Or even just refused to serve a black couple?

That would be the very definition of liberty, and I would have to say yes.

Absolutely. It's that person's business, and no one but that person should have the right to dictate what that business will do. Again, if a racist's opinions aren't safe, then why should mine be?
Such a person would go out of business anyway, that's survival of the fittest.

Your rights end where someone else's begin. If you want to have the right to be different from one another, you have to also have the right to disagree with, and quite frankly hate one another. That is what a free country is—one where you have the right to disagree.

If your idea of "progress" is to decide that someone no longer has the rights to make their own decisions in their own place of business because you don't agree with them, then by all means, go ahead and enforce a fascist state.
[Image: 9768554.png]
Siwa Sopako Wogo Sani-Hong Kunoku
Manu ku awaso yo Tongowa Manuka hehe yoma tise.

If a post doesn't have a question mark, it isn't a question.
If it isn't a question, I'm not asking you anything, I'm telling you.
#35
(30 Apr 2017, 18:57:20)Kounotori Wrote: quite complicated to understand for me but it is "love them as who they are > love them at appearance", am I right?

Define "love."
 
#36
(30 Apr 2017, 22:30:53)kingjohnthefirst Wrote:
The problem is, historically that has allowed hate to breed whether it is the KKK lynching black people or Hitler exterminating Jews.

It's a dangerous precedent to allow.

It leads onto the old arguements: 'What if it was my belief that I had to kill a virgin every Friday to appease the Virgin God?' 'That would be committing a crime.' 'But it is my belief and my right to do so, who is the government to tell me what is right or wrong?'

On top of this, are you suggesting the sellers rights are more important than the buyers rights? Because that opens a whole other can of worms.
His Grace, Lord Mike Lewis, the Marquis of New Charter, Prime Minister of Lundenwic, General of the Imperial Armed Forces, Baron of Bedfunta, Minister of the Foreign Office, Duke of Pausanias, Count of Imvrassia, Officer of the Most Imperial Order of the Grand Duchy, Officer of the Most Honourable Order of Lundenwic, Kinght of the Royal Order of St. Stephen and Knight of the Most Noble Order of St. Peter
http://lundenwic.wordpress.com
#37
(1 May 2017, 10:53:15)MarquisofNewCharter Wrote: The problem is, historically that has allowed hate to breed whether it is the KKK lynching black people or Hitler exterminating Jews.

It's a dangerous precedent to allow.

It leads onto the old arguements: 'What if it was my belief that I had to kill a virgin every Friday to appease the Virgin God?' 'That would be committing a crime.' 'But it is my belief and my right to do so, who is the government to tell me what is right or wrong?'

On top of this, are you suggesting the sellers rights are more important than the buyers rights? Because that opens a whole other can of worms.

Refusing to make a cake for someone is legal, and does not create any tort. Lynching people, and the systemic killing of people are not legal. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean anything. Have you heard the saying "my rights don't end where your feelings begin"?

Fascism. When you allow people to be entitled to their own opinions and allow them to have autonomy and don't strip it away from them doesn't mean you are making it legal to kill black people, and it doesn't mean you are allowing them to gas Jews. I'm offended that you would mention the holocaust, because the Jews themselves weren't given a voice. What I'm talking about is taking away someone's voice because you think it is "hate". That is fascism. The same fascist government that would kill Jews is the same fascist government that would strip you of the rights of a business owner just because they don't like your opinion of gays.

Outlawing opinions you call "hate" is a bad precedent to follow. The problem with your usage of the word "hate" is that it is quite clearly a weapon, and if we continue down this road of labelling and censoring people based on their beliefs, this weapon will fall into the wrong hands. If you want to outlaw "hate" you create a system by which you can call anything "hate" and have your thought police arrest somebody.

If I have a cake-shop that discriminates against tweekers and members of the Aryan Brotherhood, and refuses to make a cake for them, your system has to force me to make a cake for them because otherwise what I'm doing is "hate", because I disagree with their opinions and their lifestyle. However, you may also disagree with this, and that would make you a hypocrite.

You don't get to decide who's opinions are legitimate, and who's opinions are "hate".

If you put a drop of sewage in a barrel of wine, you have a barrel of sewage. When you put a drop of wine in a barrel of sewage, you still have a barrel of sewage. You either have 100% complete liberty of expression regardless of people's opinions, or you have no freedom of expression at all. There is not a spectrum, this is a binary state.

When I say "fine, let your cake shop go out of business", for some reason you equate that to "fine, let's go lynch us some n***ers". There is a HUGE valley between "making someone's opinion illegal" and "making genocide legal".
[Image: 9768554.png]
Siwa Sopako Wogo Sani-Hong Kunoku
Manu ku awaso yo Tongowa Manuka hehe yoma tise.

If a post doesn't have a question mark, it isn't a question.
If it isn't a question, I'm not asking you anything, I'm telling you.
#38
(1 May 2017, 10:53:15)MarquisofNewCharter Wrote: The problem is, historically...

The problem is, historically, that is hypocrisy and fascism. Someone's voice cannot be worth less than someone else's just because you don't agree with it (Unless you are Unser Führer, Adolf Hitler, then I'm sure it's fine.). Today it's "he has to make a cake for those two queers because he's not allowed to be a homophobe" but tomorrow it's "he can't own a wedding cake shop because he's a Muslim, and we all know what Muslim's think of gays...".
[Image: 9768554.png]
Siwa Sopako Wogo Sani-Hong Kunoku
Manu ku awaso yo Tongowa Manuka hehe yoma tise.

If a post doesn't have a question mark, it isn't a question.
If it isn't a question, I'm not asking you anything, I'm telling you.
#39
(30 Apr 2017, 22:30:53)kingjohnthefirst Wrote:
(30 Apr 2017, 11:24:58)MarquisofNewCharter Wrote: I think that is a pretty poor argument. Would you be saying the same thing if the shop owner refused to make a cake for an interracial wedding because the owner doesn't believe in mix raced couples? Or even just refused to serve a black couple?

That would be the very definition of liberty, and I would have to say yes.

Absolutely. It's that person's business, and no one but that person should have the right to dictate what that business will do. Again, if a racist's opinions aren't safe, then why should mine be?
Such a person would go out of business anyway, that's survival of the fittest.

Your rights end where someone else's begin. If you want to have the right to be different from one another, you have to also have the right to disagree with, and quite frankly hate one another. That is what a free country is—one where you have the right to disagree.

If your idea of "progress" is to decide that someone no longer has the rights to make their own decisions in their own place of business because you don't agree with them, then by all means, go ahead and enforce a fascist state.
For me I just wouldn't shop there. I would go somewhere that would serve me regardless of anything about me. I would also tell me friends and family to shop there as they serve you regardless.
 Joshua W. Bates
President of the Etruscan Federation
#40
(1 May 2017, 19:27:43)President Josh Wrote: ...

Same here. Let Darwinian economics take its course.
[Image: 9768554.png]
Siwa Sopako Wogo Sani-Hong Kunoku
Manu ku awaso yo Tongowa Manuka hehe yoma tise.

If a post doesn't have a question mark, it isn't a question.
If it isn't a question, I'm not asking you anything, I'm telling you.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)