[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.

[KaVir]

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]

...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]

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]

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.

[Ilkidarios]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ May 16 2005,09:38) 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.

[Ilkidarios]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Fifi]

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]

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.

[Fifi]

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]

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]

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

[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