Hi ^^ this is a controversial issue, but one which I must face in an upcoming mock debate. I realize that I'm purposely attempting to start a flame (*crosses fingers*), but I'd like to be prepared with all sides of both argument, so I'd like to hear the responses of others. I may interject a few times because I get rather uppidy about the issue.

Keep it clean, and no personal attacks or deragatory terms if you please.

What on earth has this got to do with muds?

And don't you think there's enough flamebait on these forums already? Coming from the person who's been whining about other people flaming, I'd have thought you'd show a little more common sense.

...I was under the impression that, in the Tavern, it doesn't have to have anything to do with MUDs.

Also, KaVir, try comprehending what someone has written. I wasn't complaining about the flaming itself (which I actually said was amusing if you've forgotten) I was complaining about the redundancy. Almost every thread has gone into the same Medievia debate.

At any rate, this isn't a resolved issue in different parts of the country, very much unlike the Medievia issue, and it is for a purpose. A selfish purpose, yes, but purpose nonetheless.

So if anyone with a CONTRIBUTION would like to participate, I'd still like to hear what they have to say.

I'd prefer to not see TMS overrun with non-MUD-related traffic. There's any number of political websites that fill the niche you're looking for.

I'd say Kupribear's thread fits the description perfectly. If Orion or Synozeer intended for the Tavern to include only posts that were mud-related, I'm sure both of them are intelligent enough to have mentioned that. There've been plenty of threads in this folder that weren't mud related.

I don't particularly feel that the topic of gay rights is conducive to no-spam no-flame discussion or debate, however. Given the obvious lack of self-restraint exhibited by several regular contributors, it probably should've been reserved for a forum that welcomes intelligent thought and maturity.

Even so, she's not breaking any rules, or even coming close to crossing any lines by posting this thread here.

Sure, when some Iron Realms lap dog starts a poll, people agree with her point that the Tavern is an okay medium for this sort of thing. But God forbid someone like me start a poll, otherwise everyone tells me to "stop posting things like this". What the #### is happening here? Is Realms staging a takeover?

This thread is too vague. It doesn't say what kind of rights. For instance, I support civil unions but not marriage. I still think they should get equal treatment in the eyes of government and in their everyday lives, but there's no need to get married. I also don't think the government has the authority to reform the rules of marriage, after all, marriage is a religious practice. Besides, they can have all the benefits of marriage in a civil union.

I never stated (nor intended to state) that it was a rules problem, or that anyone should be banned. Rather that I'd prefer if irrelevant-to-MUDs topics didn't become common.

You could use TMS for all kinds of discussions, but I think the forums as a whole would profit if people did use them for the reason people would read forums on a site dedicated to MUDs.

For a parallel experience, feel free to visit the ACLU's Lesbian/Gay rights and ask them what features they look for in a MUD client. Let me know how it turns out.

Isn't there a seperation of church and state? Don't priests marry people? Since when can some lawman from Massachusetts determine who can get married?

Sorry, specifications:

Civil unions. Not marriage. Marriage is a church thing. I mean rights granted by state and country.

Also, I'd prefer not to be called a lapdog. I didn't attack you, I'd appreciate the same treatment in return.

This thread is total garbage.

Can SOMEONE start moderating?

Political crap has no place here, even in the general discussion forum. There are enough flames as is, no?

Yes. Muaha, we are planning a takeover. A hostile one. Involving massive gummybear troops. *rolls eyes*

And this hasn't become a flame now, has it? It's currently just a discussion. If you don't like it, lovely, then stop opening the thread, and stop replying to it. You're just boosting it to the top of the list.

Well, in that case, I don't see what the problem is with gays having civil unions. Seems fine to me.

Gay rights in regard to some specific political contraversy, or just generally?

Generally, and this applies to the rights of everyone in the united states, as long as you as a group are taxed at the same rate per capita you are entitled to the privileges and protections afforded every other tax payer. (This includes the right to leave your worldly goods to your significant other without those goods falling subject to death tax.)

Yes, you have the right to leave your estate to your SO. But a blood relative *or legally married spouse* has the legal right to overturn it.

Your SO is not allowed into your hospital room if you're involved in a car accident. Family only, and your significant other is not considered family unless legally married to you.

Your SO is not allowed to benefit from your health insurance in most situations (though this is changing slowly).

You and your SO are not allowed to file "married, filing jointly." You MUST file single, even if filing as a joint/married couple would benefit you.

These are all discrimatory practices by the government, all because they have chosen to define marriage as requiring one male and one female - something typically and historically reserved for Judeo-Christian religions.

This is why many people support civil unions - it allows the churches to continue doing what they do - while at the same time, recognizing the *legalities* involved in gay couples who choose to live in a life-partnership with each other.

Actually the issue I am referring to is this:

When you die you can leave your estate to anyone. However, if you leave it to anyone but a spouse there are taxes on those monies or goods. However, anything your spouse inherits is not subject to that same tax. So, the whole moral issue of marriage vs civil union aside, if someone spends a life with someone not a legal spouse that person doesn't have that tax privledge. I can't help thinking it's easier to rewrite tax law than the constitution, but I'm no politician, so what do I know?

I didn't vote. Saying "gay rights, yes or no?" doesn't even begin to address the complexity of the issue, besides to perhaps be biased towards "yes".

I hope for your sake, you're in the middle of the bible belt. Then you'd have an excuse for your spiteful ignorance.

-H

Sure it has- complete with name calling (e.g. ignorant).

How entertaining..

What's the problem with civil unions? How is her statement ignorant? Marriage is an invention of the church, and it should be allowed to regulate it the way it pleases. There IS a seperation of church & state. The church should be allowed to make its decisions and the government should stay out of it. Gays don't need to be married, marriage is between a man & a woman, but they should be allowed civil unions that afford all the benefits of marriage because they should be held equal by the government.

*takes notes* thank yooou...

But the semantics about my statement of judgement... no, I didn't mean that it was from the bible. That was a personal interjection... and I think you know that I didn't mean a man with a bloody knife. I meant don't judge others by sexuality, or any other unchangeable factor that makes them different.

We can judge, and do judge, people by their differences all the time. In fact it's pretty important to do so.

Examples:

I wouldn't hire someone with a severe speech impediment to work as a switchboard operator in my company. I have nothing against people with speech impediments, but they just plain aren't qualified to do the job.

I wouldn't hire a man as a model for womens' swimsuits, for the same reason. He is not qualified.

Both examples are judgments. And both are completely valid.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way...

Homosexuals aren't any more or less qualified than heterosexuals to visit their SOs in the hospital, inherit estates without counter-claims by blood relatives, adopt children, jointly own property and be responsible -and benefit- from joint tax returns.

And because they are no more or less qualified, because there is nothing to distinguish any criteria specific to heterosexuals that would disqualify homosexuals *according to law and not religion*, they should have the exact same rights as heterosexuals to each of those things, and anything else that applies.

I'll just slip in a note here:  

Over the past seven years, republicans have made an alarming move to take control over the branches of government.  Regardless of the facts, I'm sure it has something to do with being unsatisfied at filibustering Clinton's nominees in the past.

During these seven years, republicans have:

Taken over congress by means of redistricting texas and slipping into the majority.

Created an extensive abuse of lobbying practices almost effectively making it a fourth branch.



Consistently abused the sacred barrier of the seperation of church and state- A) Using pulpits to influence voting B) Allowing the audacious pursuits to allow creationism into schools just to name a few

Squandered the national spending and the foriegn policies of the world - A) The oil for food scandal was actually a US creation B) Money laundering in texas  C) Illegal activity within the congressional house D) Tyranny












You want to have a gay rights debate?  I suggest you take a look at where it comes from first.

I shouldn't even have to supply every reference.

I'm quite unsure as to how one can compare two adults being civilly united to pedophilia. I see your point, it just doesn't seem likely at all. Congress knows how to draw lines. But they also know how to cross them. I'd like to see a pedophile's argument as to why he/she can marry a child. That pursuit of happiness is infringing upon parental rights... and the well being of the child.

As for everything else... *takes more notes*

I'll have you know that the theory of Intelligent Design has the same right to be taught as the theory of Evolution.  I myself think that they should teach both in school.  My family happens to believe in Evolution, but I wouldn't want to force my beliefs on someone else who has different ideas. Intelligent Design and Evolution are both theories on equal footing, Intelligent Design isn't strictly a religious belief, but there are all kinds of people who believe in some form of it. We haven't proven either, so right now they're both on the same level as String Theory.

Oh the tangents =).

I wouldn't say so. While we will never have exact proof for either theory, evolution is in a much stronger position because of a fatal flaw in the arguments used by the proponents of non-religious intelligent design.

If life was too complex to have come about on its own, this makes intelligent design entirely irrelevant as the initial origin of life, because at the very beginning there were obviously no designers in the first place. If there were designers, then they must have come about on their own by some means. If we argue that intelligent design created life on Earth, we have only pushed the question of the origin of life up one level of abstraction, and thus have only solved a very narrow problem which evolution can easily address.

All gay people have the right to be shot.
And that is the only right they get.

Hey, I didn't say it was a -good- arguement, but it is one I've seen advocates of "preservering the traditional definition of marriage" use durring interviews on TV. So there is a chance someone might use it in a debate.

Both theories have the same problem when dealing with the prime mover, the first thing. Where did the creator come from? If the universe did not exist before the big bang, then what banged, where was it when it banged, and what caused it to bang? Random inorganic chemical soup spontaniously becoming life also sounds a little dodgy. Ok, stuff left in my fridge too long spontaniously begins to host life, but I assume the mold spores were pre-existing. When you get to the first things, all theories are basically speculation. So it doesn't make much sense to me to argue about it. In the end it doesn't really matter if life occured spontainiously, was created, or some combination of the two. What matters is how you live the life you have right now.


Angela Christine

Look man, I don't WANT to shoot you, but... If you say so...

Well, evolution doesn't easily address the dilemma itself. As many of those pro-intelligent design people have brought up, it is very difficult for evolution to work. It's hard for random chance to create anything decent. Also, we don't have our missing link that proves that humans evolved from apes. I think humans evolved from apes, but until we find a link fossil we can't prove the point. And furthermore, none of the I-design theorists said that evolution doesn't occur. They just think that life was created with external help besides pure chance. For example, alien species could have evolved on their own and then come and screwed around with earth for a while before producing a pet project of sentient beings. Intelligent design is not a denial that evolution exists, but a suggestion that perhaps there was external help in the development of life on earth.

Well, time doesn't necessarily exist now.  There is an inner time that scientists like to call "soul-time" which is an internal sense of something passing.  Humans can sense the passing of moments, and can recollect past moments, but that isn't really time.  There is also external time, which is time on a clock, not necessarily time but a measurement of the hand going around the clock.  The time we think of as "before" isn't really "before" but a "now" trillions of "nows" ago.  Many scientists have asked "what is time?" and "how long is a now?" but we will never have an answer.  There is no way to measure something that isn't actually a force or anything physical.  Time is more mysterious than a black hole, in that it is a force, but then again, it isn't a force.  It is nothing that is quantifiable in physical terms, but can only be thought of.  I don't think we'll ever know what time is, but we'll just keep measuring the hands going around the clock face and forget about it.  I also believe the common theory about the bang is that there was a large ball of energy in the center of what is now the universe, and it blew up.  It melted all the forces together and then when it cooled down we gained the four forces of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and one more that I can't think of right now.

Isn't this all a bit silly?

I mean yes, there's a debate over what lengths an emotional attachment between two same sex partners has in law. But, the US is inherently puritanical in belief since Plymouth Rock and the controversy about "gay" will always exist just like the "right to life" movement will never go away regardless of law.

Religious dogma promotes propagation to increase membership in that form of faith to gain power from sheer numbers, has been that way for centuries and won't change. Gay doesn't make babies, ergo religion denies them freedom of choice and the subsequent rebellion we all have to deal with in the news.

My perception is regardless of sex, two people can love each other. I love my wife and I understand that emotional dedication. Sexuality is a demonstration of the love by nature and two people in love perform pleasing acts together to satisfy physical and emotional needs. I firmly believe hormones and life experiences dictate what your preferences are, and I also consider there's a bit of rebellion in some "wannabe" types that adopt the lifestyle just because it gets attention. Should it be legal? Well, any adult can sign a piece of notarized paper stating exactly what their wishes are so a lot of this controversy is pure hype intended for stabbing at the stoicisms of both religion and law.

Jazuela...I again commend you on what I perceive to be well thought out and enlightening comments.

Ilkidarios...

Those have got to be amazing drugs, can I have the formula?

What kind of a sick sonofabitch says something like that? You have the right to dislike homosexuality. You have the right to express it... but not the right to make such disgusting comments about fellow HUMAN BEINGS. You never know, one of your closest friends could be gay and afraid to tell you because you're so disgustingly ignorant about the whole topic. Would you shoot them if you had the choice? In my opinion, people like YOU should have only the right to have a frontal lobotomy... but that's not the way it is. It's NEVER your right to decide whether someone should live or die, ESPECIALLY not based on something like sexuality.

Maybe you should make the eyeholes on your white hood a little bigger, because it seems as though you have trouble seeing the big picture. Your kind of self-righteous, supremicist mentality went out of style a long time ago. Do you hate people of other races, too? Better yet, are you a misogynist? Because if you detest those of differences that they cannot change, why stop at sexuality?

Please realize that the only reason I'm reacting this way toward you is your blatant _expression of generalized hatred for people that you don't even know. Had you expressed yourself a little better, maybe you would have merited a little respect. Remember this: hate breeds hate. In short... go to h e l l.



Love and smoochies,

Kopri

The Bible definitely says Homosexuallity is wrong with

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  Leviticus 20:13

as just one example. Using the bible to prove homosexuallity is right won't get you anywhere, sorry.

Oh, and I'm not saying I think Homosexuallity is wrong, I tend not to agree with the bible on a lot of issues.

Oh, and by the way if Delstro is called a sick sonofabitch for saying something that is definitely stated(except "put to death" instead of shot as they didn't have guns back then) in the Bible, maybe it is the Bible that is sick?

Oh, and intelligent design is solely a religious concept as it requires a god or other supernatural entity to create life(for as people say if a natural entity did it, how did they evolve?). Evolution, however, is a theory in the scientific meaning of the word. The same way that the Theory of Gravity is a theory. Evolution is pretty well proven. And frankly, there doesn't need to be any intelligent design for life to exist. Maybe there was, but since it could have happened anyway, why not focus on the evolution part and not on the part that may or may not have happened depending on your religion?

Though, I must say that if there was intelligent design, you'd think they would have designed it without things like poisoness snakes and plants, tsunamis, plagues, and such.

Delstro is a human being, just as any human being. If homosexuality is indeed a sin (I wasn't saying the bible advocated it, I was saying the bible teaches tolerance... not as an argument in itself but as a retort to any Christian claiming its sin. Take the plank out of your eye first kinda thing.) and Delstro is looking at it in that sense, then he needs to think about all of his sins first and then talk about who needs to be put to death. From above the wicked shall recieve their just reward.

But I'm thinking that he was not speaking as a Christian, but as a potential member of a certain supremicists club I know of... burn any crosses lately, Delstro?


Anyway, back to the bible thing, the bible is full of lots of contradictions. That's all I was trying to say by quoting it so much. There are arguments either way. I tend to not agree with it a lot of the time as well.

It's important to remember that evolution is not a theory on the origin of the universe, so arguments about the big bang are wider in scope than I am addressing.

But even then, both theories do not have the same problem when it comes to the origin of life.  Non-religious intelligent design specifically disproves itself in this context, while evolution has no such fatal flaw.

Using religion as an argument against homosexuality is a cop out. For one thing if we were still following Old Testament law verbatim we'd stlil have slavery, women would have few if any property rights, men could have concubines, children would belong to their husbands, and etc. AND if you do believe in the things the Bible says you'll believe that the New Testament washed away the old (barring that you're not a Muslim or Jewish) and that the laws of 'do unto others' and 'turn the other cheek' and 'tolerance' are the laws we are to be following today.

Now...all that said... As long as the Constitution states that all men (and presumably women) are created equal we must assume that they are all created equal... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is their business (this of course is a US argument, those of you elsewhere will have to discuss this from your p.o.v). As long as their rights do not infringe on anyone elses who they sleep with is no one's business.

I personally don't give two cents who sleeps with who as long as they are doing their jobs and letting me do mine.

It's interesting to me that we are talking about gay rights and evolution in the same topic. Because a gay friend of mine once told me he thought that homosexuality was essentially the human race's own mechanism for preventing overpopulation. It is interesting to ponder over...

And yes, I would shoot him.
I promise.

The same can be said for any other aspect of science. The internal flaws inherent in non-religious intelligent design are due to its own internal inconsistency and have nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

Not 'exactly'. Much like most things in the bible there are instances where things are not quite so clear cut or even in direct contradiction. For example, the same King condemned by god for the rape of Bestheba (I think it was) is earlier quoted saying that "my love for you is greater than any love I could have for a woman." I don't have the exact quote, but that is more or less what it said. Of course I am sure believers in 'Bible = anti-gay' will 'try' to claim this is mere friendship. But these are the same morons that insist it all must be taken literally, only as usual, in this case they are 'choosing' to believe that such a statement is about friendship, when it would have been much easier and less ambiguous for him to have proclaimed, "My friendship with you is greater than that I could have with any woman. Why their god, being perfect would even 'allow' such ambiguity, unless there truly isn't any and more than friendship was involve, it totally beyond me. lol

There are other examples as well that are a bit... iffy about what they mean, though I can't remember what they where. The only thing the Bible seems to explicitely condemn is not homosexuality, but sodamy, which can happen with a woman as well as a man. So, saying that laying with a man as with a woman would imply sodamy, even if the relationship itself is never explicitly condemned. Its also interesting that there is no mention of women sleeping with other women 'at all', so the Bible, if it is against gays, has a **major** double standard.

Umm. No, they are not on equal footing. ID has *no* evidence supporting it. It isn't even a theory. A theory has to provide not just some lame assed attempt to explain things, it must present tests that can prove it. It has to say, if ID is really true, then we should see X, Y and Z. ID starts with the premise that something are irreducible, impossible to happen by chance, then sits back and says, "So there!!". Well, problem with that is we know of many irreducible things that happen by random chance and are even testing the basics of 'how' that kind of systems develop with Avida:



Numerous ID and creationism proponents have 'tried' to prove this simulation is flawed or that the people that developed it somehow 'stacked' the system in favor of producing irreducible complexity through mutation. The best they managed is to find a few software bugs. So, their #1 premise is false. There #2 premise, that a thing cannot be science if you do not personally witness it is purely stupid. By that logic forensics isn't a 'science', because unless someone witnesses the event, any evidence you collect or theories you derive from it are pure nonsense. After all, the evidence could have gotten there through miriad unknown means and any theories derived from it is by definition mere speculation. Must make double murders, where there isn't even anyone left to arrest real interesting... For another similar example, there is this piece:



Now, evolution says, "Random mutations give rise to changes, which overtime result in beneficial changes forming new species. For this to be true we need: a) fossil records showing a progression from primitive to complex forms, DNA profiles showing common ancestry and traits that can be tracked back to more primitive forms, evidence of significant mutations that give rise to something radically different (no big animals yet, unless you count some fish species that when cut off from others by natural disasters became hermaphrodites, but there are also 'plenty' of cases of this in micro organisms). In fact, there is also what are called 'ring' species, where a landslide or other change to the environment cut off two groups from each other, but the entire 'range' forms a ring around the mountain. While each subgroup can breed with its nearest neighbor, with as many as a dozen or more sub-species, the two groups that have been completely cut off from each other for thousands of years cannot breed with each other. I.e. A-B-C-D-E-F-G / A, where / is the landslide)" There is evidence of 'all' of these things. Where is IDs 'evidence'? Oh right, I forgot, you have to actually have a 'theory' before you can find evidence of it... After all, its pretty hard to find something if you don't have the slightest clue what you are looking for. ID is nothing more than creationism wearing a mask (the cheap paper bag type you made as a kid in first grade...)