Top Mud Sites Forum

Top Mud Sites Forum (http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/index.php)
-   Tavern of the Blue Hand (http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Gay rights? (http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1501)

Kopribear 05-16-2005 06:22 AM

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.

KaVir 05-16-2005 06:37 AM

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.

Kopribear 05-16-2005 06:44 AM

...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.

Valg 05-16-2005 08:30 AM

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.

Jazuela 05-16-2005 08:38 AM

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.

Ilkidarios 05-16-2005 12:26 PM

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?

Ilkidarios 05-16-2005 12:29 PM

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.

Valg 05-16-2005 02:35 PM

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.

Ilkidarios 05-16-2005 03:40 PM

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?

Kopribear 05-16-2005 03:46 PM

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.

Threshold 05-16-2005 03:49 PM

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?

Kopribear 05-16-2005 03:54 PM

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.

Ilkidarios 05-16-2005 03:58 PM

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

Fifi 05-16-2005 05:44 PM

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.)

Jazuela 05-16-2005 06:03 PM

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.

Fifi 05-16-2005 06:10 PM

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?

tehScarecrow 05-16-2005 06:21 PM

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".

Hardestadt 05-16-2005 06:47 PM

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

Kopribear 05-16-2005 07:33 PM


Threshold 05-16-2005 08:13 PM

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2022