Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Tavern of the Blue Hand
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-16-2005, 07:22 AM   #1
Kopribear
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA, Michigan
Posts: 72
Kopribear is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Kopribear Send a message via MSN to Kopribear Send a message via Yahoo to Kopribear
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.
Kopribear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 07:37 AM   #2
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
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.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 07:44 AM   #3
Kopribear
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA, Michigan
Posts: 72
Kopribear is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Kopribear Send a message via MSN to Kopribear Send a message via Yahoo to Kopribear
...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.
Kopribear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 09:30 AM   #4
Valg
Moderator
 
Valg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Carrion Fields
Posts: 643
Valg will become famous soon enough
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.
Valg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 09:38 AM   #5
Jazuela
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New England
Posts: 843
Jazuela will become famous soon enoughJazuela will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tavern of the Blue Hand
Come in, have a drink! The place to post about anything, as long as it doesn't belong in one of the other forums.
Forum Led by: Orion Elder, Synozeer
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.
Jazuela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 01:26 PM   #6
Ilkidarios
Senior Member
 
Ilkidarios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Name: Lamont
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Posts: 436
Ilkidarios is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ May 16 2005,09:38)
I'd say Kopribear's thread fits the description perfectly.
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 01:29 PM   #7
Ilkidarios
Senior Member
 
Ilkidarios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Name: Lamont
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Posts: 436
Ilkidarios is on a distinguished road
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.
Ilkidarios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 03:35 PM   #8
Valg
Moderator
 
Valg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Carrion Fields
Posts: 643
Valg will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ May 16 2005,09:38)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tavern of the Blue Hand
Come in, have a drink! The place to post about anything, as long as it doesn't belong in one of the other forums.
Forum Led by: Orion Elder, Synozeer
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.
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 page and ask them what features they look for in a MUD client. Let me know how it turns out.
Valg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 04:40 PM   #9
Ilkidarios
Senior Member
 
Ilkidarios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Name: Lamont
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Posts: 436
Ilkidarios is on a distinguished road
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?
Ilkidarios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 04:46 PM   #10
Kopribear
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA, Michigan
Posts: 72
Kopribear is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Kopribear Send a message via MSN to Kopribear Send a message via Yahoo to Kopribear
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.
Kopribear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 04:49 PM   #11
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
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?
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 04:54 PM   #12
Kopribear
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA, Michigan
Posts: 72
Kopribear is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Kopribear Send a message via MSN to Kopribear Send a message via Yahoo to Kopribear
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.
Kopribear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 04:58 PM   #13
Ilkidarios
Senior Member
 
Ilkidarios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Name: Lamont
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Posts: 436
Ilkidarios is on a distinguished road
Well, in that case, I don't see what the problem is with gays having civil unions. Seems fine to me.
Ilkidarios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 06:44 PM   #14
Fifi
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 227
Fifi is on a distinguished road
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.)
Fifi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 07:03 PM   #15
Jazuela
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New England
Posts: 843
Jazuela will become famous soon enoughJazuela will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Fifi @ May 16 2005,18:44)
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.
Jazuela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 07:10 PM   #16
Fifi
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 227
Fifi is on a distinguished road
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?
Fifi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 07:21 PM   #17
tehScarecrow
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 66
tehScarecrow is on a distinguished road
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".
tehScarecrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 07:47 PM   #18
Hardestadt
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 84
Hardestadt is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Kopribear @ May 17 2005,02:46)
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.
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
Hardestadt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 08:33 PM   #19
Kopribear
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA, Michigan
Posts: 72
Kopribear is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Kopribear Send a message via MSN to Kopribear Send a message via Yahoo to Kopribear
Spiteful ignorance? I'm sorry that I didn't have time to give a lengthy explanation of what exactly I meant. But you asked for it... oh yes, hold on to your seats, this is going to be long.

Just a pre-note... this isn't aimed at anyone, and it isn't in response to any argument going on. It's something I wrote to get my thoughts in order... and to reply to an ignorant and hateful comment made on a different forum. Enjoy.



If men exist solely to spread their seed, and women solely to bear children, then why are there sterile men and infertile women? This chauvinistic and inhumane belief is unfounded without religion, thus it is no argument against homosexuality. Unless the claim that it is an ‘act of God’ is made, the argument cannot be founded… and dogma is a very weak foundation.

To say that homosexuals should be shunned because they bear no children is to say that all couples that can bear no children should be shunned, and the individuals incapable be destroyed, for they have no use to humanity. If not, then they be forced to lead a life of solitude, or at least a life without marriage. Yet we discriminate. It is not different, be that the sole argument. A man and a man bearing no children is the same as a man and a woman bearing no children. Neither couple bears children. Just because one thinks a man and a woman are the only acceptable couple does not mean that it is a founded or just argument, nor does it make it correct.

If sex is not for pleasure, but for procreation, then condoms and all form of birth control should be gotten rid of. There is no need if this self-righteous belief is correct. To say that homosexuals are in the wrong because their sexual activity bears no offspring and then to turn around and use a contraceptive in one’s own sexual relationship is one of the purest forms of hypocrisy. Anti-gay for this reason? Quit using condoms and only have sex if you plan on having children. Don’t want children? No sex for you. Otherwise this argument loses all credibility and validity.

For the people who say it is against Christian beliefs, I ask you this: is hypocrisy not also against Christianity? Is one not a hypocrite if he condemns his brother for his sins, and turns around to mask his own? Does the Bible not ask:

For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?
Job 27:8

Nowhere in the Good Book is the quote “Thou shalt deny thy brother healthcare be he of the homosexual persuasion.” Nor does it state anything to do with homosexuality being a choice! Yes, the lifestyle is, but I refer you to my previous arguments.
The Bible does state, however….

Job 20:4-5
4 Knowest thou not this of old, since man was placed upon earth,
5 That the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the
hypocrite but for a moment?

Job 27:4
4 My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit.

Proverbs 11:9
9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through
knowledge shall the just be delivered.

Matthew 7:1
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:46
46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Luke 6:31
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them
likewise.

Luke 6:36
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Matthew 5:43-44
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you;

Matthew 19:19
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself.

Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:27
27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them
which hate you,

John 13:34
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Galatians 5:14
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself.

Galatians 5:25
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

1 Thessalonians 3:12
12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward
another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:

1 Thessalonians 4:8
8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath
also given unto us his holy Spirit.

1 Peter 2:17
17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

1 Peter 3:8
8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another,
love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

I John 3:11
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
should love one another.

I John 3:14
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love
the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

I John 3:23
23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of
his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us
commandment.

I John 4:7
7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one
that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

I John 4:11
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

I John 4:12
12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God
dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

I John 4:16
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and
God in him.

I John 4:20
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:
for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he
love God whom he hath not seen?

And so on. Believe it right or wrong, it is not anyone’s place to judge anyone else. Believe it right or wrong, homosexuals are not a sexuality, but human. That is undeniable.

Also undeniable are the rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

The ONLY stipulation to these rights is that if, in exercising one’s rights, one interferes with the rights of another, they have gone too far and, beyond that boundary, it is no longer their right. Homosexuals are no exception. Civil union interferes with the rights of no one. “I have to see it,” isn’t a valid argument, because I have to see people pick their noses in public. I have to see bad grammar all over the internet. I have to see HETEROsexual PDA, which is no less disgusting (and is even sometimes more) than any of that. PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I have no right to stop them from pursuing that happiness, because though may bother me, it’s not harming me or infringing upon my rights.
Giving gays the ability to share benefits with their partners is not infringing upon anyone’s rights. Legally binding them hurts no one. They aren’t asking to be recognized by God, or to be wed in a church while the Pope douses them with holy water. They just want the same rights as every other human in the USA has. Denying them their pursuit of happiness to wed takes away a right that is guaranteed to them! Perhaps the Framers didn’t have gays in mind when they wrote it, but for heaven’s sake, they didn’t have women, racial minorities, or for that matter anyone not a rich white male in mind either! Yet look at America now. Denying civil unions is just as unconstitutional as denying an American citizen 18 years of age or older who is properly registered the right to vote.

So perhaps you are thinking that homosexuality is wrong because there is something wrong with gay people. Well, physically there’s nothing wrong aside from health problems that everyone has. No difference there. Brain-wise? Again, physically their brain waves are the same as heterosexual people’s brainwaves, or as similar as two different brain’s waves can be. Psychologically the only problems are those that straight people develop, too… depression, bipolarity, DID, schizophrenia… all usually caused by either an abusive home life (likely because the parents of said homosexual is anti-gay and tried to beat it out of them) or because of the ignorant, self-righteous, oppressive bigots who spurn and chastise them… same way heteros develop problems, just that the event happen for different reasons. Hate does tend to make people sick when exposed to it for very long…

Another argument is that the gay community is indiscriminate. Well, if the worry is of promiscuity, how about you make up your damned mind? Either allow them the opportunity to bind themselves to a single partner of their choice, or realize that the denial of such an opportunity tends to lead to a less monogamous lifestyle. If marriage did not exist, few humans would remain bound to one partner forever. Marriage for love wasn’t an idea introduced until much after the Renaissance, and judging by the divorce rate (of heterosexuals alone) in the United States, the novelty of the idea seems to have worn off. There are more practical reasons to marry, now, so why marry for a silly thing called love? ß your secret mentality? Then stop the hypocrisy, and stop assuming that homosexuals wouldn’t unite out of love. That’s not for anyone to decide, because no one baby-sits the heteros who marry, lest it be the church in which case that has nothing to do with civil unions anyway.

No one’s asking you to be gay, or an activist in the new civil rights cause, or even to like the idea. The only request is this: stop the hypocrisy, stop the discrimination, and start looking at everyone as a human, not as a sexuality.




So... I'm ignorant? Okay...

~Kopri


(Sorry about the length!!
Kopribear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 09:13 PM   #20
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Kopribear @ May 16 2005,16:54)
And this hasn't become a flame now, has it?
Sure it has- complete with name calling (e.g. ignorant).
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Gay rights? - Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Iron Realms acquires Feist rights the_logos MUD Announcements 2 08-28-2003 06:59 AM
Area Rights Agreement? Neranz Laverani MUD Administration 38 09-07-2002 09:46 PM
Intellectual Property Rights Ntanel Legal Issues 2 05-19-2002 06:09 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014