Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

..for gay rights ahead of Sochi Olympics.

I hope our government takes a hint. This is getting ridiculous. Watched the Simpsons episode (Russian dubs) few days ago, they deleted a scene where Bart said "gay". Just cut it out of the episode. Dumb and pointless. And they wonder why other nations look down on our country.

I never saw the point in discriminating against gays. They are just regular people like everyone else. Nor do I see the need for gay rights. If they are just normal people why do they need rights to give them equal say in anything if they are just normal people.

On this issue, a recent Onion video got uncharacteristically realistic:


u6vSejda71w

Originally posted by SamZED

Google Doodle goes rainbow ...
... for gay rights ahead of Sochi Olympics.



One question: At what point did you know the Doodle had this as its message and was not simply an alternate disguised logo for Google (as most of its Doodles are), which has nearly identically the same color scheme?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
One question: At what point did you know the Doodle had this as its message and was not simply an alternate disguised logo for Google (as most of its Doodles are), which has nearly identically the same color scheme?

The colours are arranged like they would be in a rainbow.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
One question: At what point did you know the Doodle had this as its message and was not simply an alternate disguised logo for Google (as most of its Doodles are), which has nearly identically the same color scheme? Because the logo links to the Olympic Charter values and articles discussing the gay-rights issue surrounding Sochi.

Originally posted by Supra
Nor do I see the need for gay rights. If they are just normal people why do they need rights to give them equal say in anything if they are just normal people.

You realize they're discriminated against, right? They're fighting for gay rights because they don't have many of the same rights, especially in places like Russia.

I think this is just poorly worded, but it's very confusing.

Digi, same question put to you, for it's going (presumably) to be different for each person:


At what point did you know the Doodle had this as its message and was not simply an alternate disguised logo for Google (as most of its Doodles are), which has nearly identically the same color scheme?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The colours are arranged like they would be in a rainbow.


I actually did not recognize this until you said that.

Once you did, I could see it as the classic "Roy G. Biv" pattern of the rainbow

Red,
orange,
yellow,

Green,

Blue,
indigo, and
violet bands,

respectively.


As such, it is a symbol that communicates without a single word being spoken;
the quote and article are scarcely more than confirmation.



Again, communication by color arrangement pattern.
Simple. Subtle. Effective.



Reminds me of something I alluded to earlier:


Advertising is designed to work on a SUBconscious level, the level below your actively thinking awareness.

It is therefore effective in ways and degrees that are very, very hard for most people to detect or fully appreciate.


Consider the following for a remarkable illustration of just how powerful advertising can be, in an experiment done with advertisers THEMSELVES being subjected to standard advertising technique:

Derren Brown, the power of advertising (subliminal suggestions, etcetera)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQXe1CokWqQ
6 min 45 sec



Thank you for your response.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
On this issue, a recent Onion video got uncharacteristically realistic:


u6vSejda71w



"Uncharacterstically realistic", indeed.

That is amazingly realistically done for a spoof video, at least until the 2 min 30 sec mark where that football player gets shown.

The bulk of the clip looks nothing stylistically like the parody screen shot suggests.

The Onion is essentially a once every 3 week local college paper here.
Guess that colored my perceptions.

They must have a far bigger production budget than I initially thought.

Originally posted by Digi
You realize they're discriminated against, right? They're fighting for gay rights because they don't have many of the same rights, especially in places like Russia.


How so?

What in Russia specifically are they barred from doing that other people are able to do legally?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How so?

What in Russia specifically are they barred from doing that other people are able to do legally?

Like marrying?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Digi, same question put to you, for it's going (presumably) to be different for each person:


At what point did you know the Doodle had this as its message and was not simply an alternate disguised logo for Google (as most of its Doodles are), which has nearly identically the same color scheme?

When I read this thread. I use the google search bar at the top of my browser, so I rarely see the main page.

But really, I was responding to Supra. I don't much care about the Google thing.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How so?

What in Russia specifically are they barred from doing that other people are able to do legally?

You serious? Do a Google search. Russia is insanely backward with LGBT rights. Here's a couple I stumbled across earlier today:

zMTbFSJ_Tr4

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/02/03/russia-sochi-games-highlight-homophobic-violence

...and again, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Originally posted by Digi
zMTbFSJ_Tr4

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/02/03/russia-sochi-games-highlight-homophobic-violence

...and again, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Doesn't that look similar to the 1960s equal rights movement? The differences are, of course, the addition of modern technology into these situations (and a whole let less lynching).

I am now irritated, ass. Why did you have to link the video?

Why do people care so damn much about what two consenting adults do in private with their privates? Why...does it matter???

Originally posted by Digi
They're fighting for gay rights because they don't have many of the same rights, especially in places like Russia.


Originally posted by bluewaterrider

What in Russia specifically are they barred from doing that other people are able to do legally?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Like marrying?



Marriage is a bit different from the sort of thing Digi is describing, AG.

Actually, marriage is quite a bit different from the way most people describe it when a topic like this comes up, at least from a legal standpoint.

The following is still probably the best illustration and response for why that is:





Gay "Marriage" (part 1 of 2)

(Thomas Sowell)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being heard.

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gay "Marriage" (Part 2)

(Thomas Sowell, August 15, 2006)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.

There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.

Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.

Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.

In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.

Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?

And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2006/08/15/gay_marriage/page/full/

Originally posted by dadudemon

Why do people care ...
about what two consenting adults do in private ... ?



1) What Digi showed with that video was pure, indefensible thuggery.
Don't misinterpret this post as a response to that video.

2) I learned this today; the age of consent in Russia ... is 16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Russia

I never said anything about marriage or legal stuff. BWR did. That's a separate discussion. But they're being discriminated against...verbally, physically, politically. Do we really have to think about why they're fighting for rights? They're being treated as less than human.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Doesn't that look similar to the 1960s equal rights movement? The differences are, of course, the addition of modern technology into these situations (and a whole let less lynching).

I am now irritated, ass. Why did you have to link the video?

Why do people care so damn much about what two consenting adults do in private with their privates? Why...does it matter???

Exactly. It's soured the whole Olympics for me. I can't in good conscience put it out of my mind to try to enjoy a sporting event.

Originally posted by Digi
I never said anything about marriage or legal stuff. BWR did. That's a separate discussion.



Be fairer than this, Digi.


"BWR" said something about "marriage" and "legal stuff" because the poster ArtificialGlory brought up the topic of marriage immediately before him.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Be fairer than this, Digi.


"BWR" said something about "marriage" and "legal stuff" because the poster ArtificialGlory brought up the topic of marriage immediately before him.

Ok, sure, w/e. I wasn't a part of that conversation, so I was unaware. It looked liked you were speaking with me at one point, so I clarified my position.

srug

Originally posted by bluewaterrider



Originally posted by bluewaterrider

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2006/08/15/gay_marriage/page/full/


I am a Mormon whose religious beliefs hold that it is a sin to have any sex outside of a marriage. Also, sex is only supposed to be employed between a man and a woman. There are exceptions to this (like hermaphrodites) but to call attention to the exceptions is to miss the point to just argue.


Basically, I am saying there should differences between religion and what the state does.** I think gay marriage and adoption rights for gays should be legal. Just the same as I think the state should not infringe upon my Church's right to teach that homosexual sex is a sin (and the state should not force us to marry non-heterosexual couples).


As long as these things remain separate, I fully support gay rights or any rights for consenting* adults who wish to form a civil union.

*If a religion wants to preach that black people are not humans and Jews are ugly people, well okay, then. Let them. As long as they do not incite harm or cause harm to the people they hate, let them practice their religion. This is how I partially view the hate the LGBT community receives from religious groups, to be honest. It is not very Christlike.


**This word is extremely important. That compound of polygamists they busted up in Texas probably does not fall under "informed consent" for even some of the adult females. I believe they were brain-washed and subject to conditioning that took away their ability to think more objectively about their situation. IIRC, some of the women, despite religiously and faithfully participating in that community, later cried and expressed regret about their atrocious situation. I conclude that they did not give consent even though, at the time, it fully appeared that they did. Growing up in that and decades of conditioning make it difficult to give genuine consent.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I am a Mormon whose religious beliefs hold that it is a sin to have any sex outside of a marriage.
Also, sex is only supposed to be employed between a man and a woman.


Okay.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I am saying there should differences between religion and what the state does.** I think gay marriage and adoption rights for gays should be legal. Just the same as I think the state should not infringe upon my Church's right to teach that homosexual sex is a sin (and the state should not force us to marry non-heterosexual couples).


Okay. I acknowledge you're saying as much now.

I'm a little curious as to why you mention religion here, though.
I've not said anything about religion.
The Thomas Sowell paper was looking at the issue from a nearly completely secular and legal standpoint.

Mind you, I don't mind in the least discussing religion here; I'm just pointing out I have not said anything derived from religious writings to this point.


Originally posted by dadudemon

As long as these things remain separate, I fully support gay rights or any rights for consenting* adults who wish to form a civil union.


Civil unions are very different from marriage, legally and religiously.

As far as consenting adults go, the age of consent in Russia, again, is 16.

I doubt most people in America would think the average 16 year old a mature enough adult to meet your definition.

I suspect a great many people in Russia feel the same.


Originally posted by dadudemon

*If a religion wants to preach that black people are not humans and Jews are ugly people, well okay, then. Let them. As long as they do not incite harm or cause harm to the people they hate, let them practice their religion. This is how I partially view the hate the LGBT community receives from religious groups, to be honest.







Originally posted by dadudemon

**This word is extremely important. That compound of polygamists they busted up in Texas probably does not fall under "informed consent" for even some of the adult females. I believe they were brain-washed and subject to conditioning that took away their ability to think more objectively about their situation. IIRC, some of the women, despite religiously and faithfully participating in that community, later cried and expressed regret about their atrocious situation. I conclude that they did not give consent even though, at the time, it fully appeared that they did. Growing up in that and decades of conditioning make it difficult to give genuine consent.

A lot of people can, and apparently do, feel the same way about 16 year olds supposedly able to give genuine consent.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Okay.



Okay. I acknowledge you're saying as much now.

I'm a little curious as to why you mention religion here, though.
I've not said anything about religion.
The Thomas Sowell paper was looking at the issue from a nearly completely secular and legal standpoint.

Mind you, I don't mind in the least discussing religion here; I'm just pointing out I have not said anything derived from religious writings to this point.




Civil unions are very different from marriage, legally and religiously.

As far as consenting adults go, the age of consent in Russia, again, is 16.

I doubt most people in America would think the average 16 year old a mature enough adult to meet your definition.

I suspect a great many people in Russia feel the same.











A lot of people can, and apparently do, feel the same way about 16 year olds supposedly able to give genuine consent.

Why is religion being introduced into my posts?

1. These arguments are being pushed in the US almost entirely from the religious, not the secular. An extremely small amount of Americans are pushing back against gay rights for completely secular reasons. I'm American. We hare still having LGBT rights issues here in the US. They didn't magically get solved overnight, here. Glass house n'all that.

2. "Russian lawmakers and church officials still believe that heterosexuals can be 'propagandized' into becoming LGBT."

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-roots-of-russias-homophobia/485634.html

I highly doubt you thought the issue in Russia was purely secular. Because, hey, the oppression of the rights and the killing of millions of people is perfectly okay if you're doing it for secular reasons, right?. RIGHT? RIIIGHT?*


Regarding civil unions:
1. I've not said anything about civil unions.
The comment I made that you quoted was looking at the issue from a nearly completely secular and legal standpoint.

Mind you, I don't mind in the least discussing civil unions, here; I'm just pointing out I have not said anything about civil unions writings at this point.] I'm a cheeky bastard, aren't I?

To be more specific, I was talking about the legal considerations of marriage, not civil unions. Calling them "civil unions" is an unnecessary sentimentality that amounts to explicative** right-wing pandering. You can even check my posting history to see the very moment I gave up the idea of calling them "civil unions." Good times.

But, if you REALLY want to get into my point, I think marriage should be disbanded (sort of...read on) and the only thing allowed are civil contracts. Then, all marriages would be useless under the law. Get married in a church! Who cares! It does nothing for you legally. If you do it because of your belief in God, well, by God (no pun intended, I mean actually "by God", you are now married under God's law which should, in our eyes, take precedence over the laws of the land. Am I right, or what?



*The point I just made is important. You want to use your secular position as a launch-pad for the many thousands of words you will probably reply to me with. It is important to your position to appear as objective as possible because, "I am approaching this from a secular perspective. You cannot attack my position because of my belief in a Skyfather! Aha!" Unfortunately, the topic is not regarding you and your particular brand of evading the motives of your position. You probably know, by now, that you cannot really argue from a religious perspective, with educated and informed people regarding the rights of the LGBT community without appearing to be an idiot (because the "God said so" argument is infantile, at best). You also implicitly patting me on the back for my religious beliefs (because they run parallel to your own regarding homosexuality and sin) is also indicative of your true motives. "But...but! Attacking someone's motives is poor form in debate!" This is not debate class. This is the internet where I can and will pick apart your motives for articulating intelligently disguised homophobic talking points. I could also get into the "secular source" you used. He's a Christian and a right-wing political pundit (and economist...and a bunch of other things...a brilliant man, really). I must say, though, his argumentation style is similar to my own but I will not pretend to place myself on his level of aptitude for arguing these points from a secular perspective. TL : DR on this footnote: IDGAF about your thinly veiled but still dishonest secular approach to the topic. If you're a Christian, don't be afraid to say why you approach a topic from a particular perspective. Don't be ashamed of your religious beliefs. Be proud of them. THEN present your arguments in purely secular form. I'll still reject them as having horrible motivations but you'll gain more respect from God for not being ashamed of Him (and me...and probably several others on KMC).


**"Ahhh, but you see! It's not "marriage", per se! It's "civil unions"! Look at us, not offending God with an institution that looks like marriage, talks like marriage, walks like marriage, functions like marriage, and looks like marriage. Let's go home, boys, our job here is done. The gays still don't have marriage rights and we can feel great about ourselves for oppressing millions of people. haha! Jesus is so proud of us."

Originally posted by dadudemon

I highly doubt you thought the issue in Russia was purely secular.


Actually, until yesterday, I more or less DID think that ...



Originally posted by dadudemon

Because, hey, the oppression of the rights and the killing of millions of people is perfectly okay if you're doing it for secular reasons, right?

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789


... and what you listed above as a supposed counterexample was exactly WHY I more or less thought that.
For the former Soviet Union, synonymous with Russia for any practical intent, had no great claim to any religion I'm aware of, yet oppressed nearly every group I can think of.

The history of Russia says no religious reasons are needed to limit peoples rights, privileges, expressions, or anything else.

The State can do it without such justification just fine.

And did so throughout much of the 20th Century.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just the same as I think the state should not infringe upon my Church's right to teach that homosexual sex is a sin (and the state should not force us to marry non-heterosexual couples).

*If a religion wants to preach that black people are not humans and Jews are ugly people, well okay, then. Let them. As long as they do not incite harm or cause harm to the people they hate, let them practice their religion. This is how I partially view the hate the LGBT community receives from religious groups, to be honest. It is not very Christlike.


**This word is extremely important. That compound of polygamists they busted up in Texas probably does not fall under "informed consent" for even some of the adult females. I believe they were brain-washed and subject to conditioning that took away their ability to think more objectively about their situation. IIRC, some of the women, despite religiously and faithfully participating in that community, later cried and expressed regret about their atrocious situation. I conclude that they did not give consent even though, at the time, it fully appeared that they did. Growing up in that and decades of conditioning make it difficult to give genuine consent.

How do you separate religious bias and discrimination from conditioning, coercion, or just plain bigotry, really? It's not like the majority of religious families openly advocate their children to make their own choices and tell them to find their own truths; most are either loosely or heavily indoctrinated into their families' chosen sect. It's not quite "Crazy guy abducts young girls for a cult harem", but you can't say their world-views are shaped entirely by their own moral judgments. This is why after thousands of years we still have people adamantly fighting over 'traditional values'; even if those values are entirely selective (no gay sex, but it's okay to cut your hair at the temples, etc.).

I agree that no one should force churches to marry those they don't want to; there's plenty of other alternatives and there are priests and so on who ARE willing to marry gay couples either on their own or because their church is open-minded. But I have a concern with the loose 'allowing' of religious bodies being given an exemption from engaging in behavior that is inappropriate in a workplace, school place, or in a public area; that is not morally defend-able except as a 'faith-based practice', and brings up large groups of people to hate or distrust other groups of people for being different.

I would hope that you would express concern for a secular/atheist/agnostic household that raised their children to be bigots or created a special group having its own insular ideas and bias, and then crying for exceptions when called out for it. And for the exact same reason I'd hope you'd reconsider the idea that religious bodies should be exempt from something I like to call common decency. If a religious body hates black people, Jews, gay people, whatever, it is a sick, decadent body and should not be given an ounce of leniency.

I mean, if people can get exceptions to be bigots or call other people's lifestyles as sinful (regardless of their actual moral character as a human being), and we the people should defend this right to be intolerant, then that seems to be incredibly backwards movement. As it is here in the US, religious bodies of worship/churches enjoy non-Constitutional benefits such as tax exemption, exemption from caps on political lobbyist spending, preferential treatment in zoning laws, being allowed to license state marriage contracts, being exempt from worker's laws and so on. They enjoy a great deal of leniency already which I think is entirely unfair, because religion is still a large part of Western society.

The idea that they should be allowed to practice hatred - whether or not it degrades into physical violence - frankly is something I find troubling. No amount of special pleading should be entertained.

Those guys getting beat up on has nothing to do with the anti gay propaganda law. They're just thugs. Sadly there's a clear lack of tolerance among average people too but they do not wonder the streets looking for gays to beat up.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
How do you separate religious bias and discrimination from conditioning, coercion, or just plain bigotry, really?

It's super easy: it's none of yours or my business. It's between God and that individual.

It becomes even easier when you subscribe to morality like a Mormon does: sins and transgressions are not necessarily the same thing.

Action 1 is performed by Person A and B. 1 is a transgression for both A and B but 1 is only a sin for B because B believes that action 1 is a sin.

A transgression is just simply a violation of Eternal Laws (God's laws) and it is entirely up to God to perfectly judge whether or not the transgression constitutes a sin. Since I am not omniscient, I have no business judging others' transgressions as being worthy of the label "sin." If you think it is a sin to do something, and you do it, it counts as a sin for you n'stuff. But not always: since everyone is different (sanity, genetics, environment, etc.), just believing it is a sin is not enough for it to be counted as a sin for you when you commit the transgression: that's still a judgement only God can judge.

This is getting into morality and ethics, though: that's for the philosophy and religion forum.


Originally posted by Stealth Moose
But I have a concern with the loose 'allowing' of religious bodies being given an exemption from engaging in behavior that is inappropriate in a workplace, school place, or in a public area; that is not morally defend-able except as a 'faith-based practice', and brings up large groups of people to hate or distrust other groups of people for being different.

Nah, I'm okay with it. They should get to choose how to practice their religious beliefs how they want to as long as it does not physically harm others. If you want to remove rights from them because they don't believe as you believe, you could setup a law (and make sure the majority of the voting public are on board with you...or at least the congressional public) that removes tax exemption status for any religious hate groups that meet your particular set of criteria (that list would be simple: hate based on race, gender, religious belief, uhhh...sexual orientation, age, and uhhhh....uhhhh....I'm out).

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I would hope that you would express concern for a secular/atheist/agnostic household that raised their children to be bigots or created a special group having its own insular ideas and bias, and then crying for exceptions when called out for it.

When or if I ever see one, try and imagine my jimmies getting rustled.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And for the exact same reason I'd hope you'd reconsider the idea that religious bodies should be exempt from something I like to call common decency.


Oh HHHAAAAIL no. Definitely **** your idea of common decency. I hate that shit. It's so petty, bullshitty, pretentious, and volatile.

For example, I find it common decency to not be passive aggressive and tell me what you don't like about me or my ideas. The exact opposite is true for almost everyone else.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If a religious body hates black people, Jews, gay people, whatever, it is a sick, decadent body and should not be given an ounce of leniency.

"leniency"?

Edit - I see what you're talking about: you list some examples, below.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I mean, if people can get exceptions to be bigots or call other people's lifestyles as sinful (regardless of their actual moral character as a human being), and we the people should defend this right to be intolerant, then that seems to be incredibly backwards movement.

?

"Movement"? If you mean hundreds of years dedicated to this ideology, sure, we can call it a movement. But it's not really a social movement, imo. It's one of the fundemental building beliefs of the US (freedom of religion n'stuff).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment



Also, you seem to think your opinion is objective with your side comment about a person's moral character: not so. To the person that views a person's homosexual actions to be a sin, that is indicative of a poor moral character. For you, you have a different set of measures for what constitutes a "good moral character." Your set and their set can both be hand-waived as arbitrary. You're both full of shit. Once we all realize we are all full of shit with our morals, then we can agree on how to best live with each other. This is where we get our laws n'stuff.

lol

wtf am I doing...

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
As it is here in the US, religious bodies of worship/churches enjoy non-Constitutional benefits such as tax exemption, exemption from caps on political lobbyist spending, preferential treatment in zoning laws, being allowed to license state marriage contracts, being exempt from worker's laws and so on. They enjoy a great deal of leniency already which I think is entirely unfair, because religion is still a large part of Western society.

I'm okay on doing away with tax exemption status for religions mostly because my Church already separates out much of the business aspects of our organization and pays taxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Management_Corporation. Most people, including some Mormons, do not know about the "for-profit" arm of the LDS church existing as a non-exempt entity. The logic is, it is dishonest to hide behind tax exemption status and run a for profit organization. So make that shit public and pay your damn taxes.


It ("it" being how a "Christian" leader justifies running a for-profit organization as a non-profit tax entity) goes like this:

God: "So, you took advantage of your fellow US Citizens by feeding off of their tax dollars to make yourself richer?"
Typical US Church Leader (TUSCL): "Well...uh...yes."
God: "And you believed this was part of Jesus' teachings about giving to the poor and laboring continually to do His work?"
TUSCL: "Well, no. We just wanted to get ahead in life."
God: "Uh-huh."
TUSCL: "No, it's not like that! We did tons of good charity work! Tons! You are omniscient, you know how many people we helped!"
God: "Uh-huh."
TUSCL: "Okay...we really got rich and prospered using Your name in vain."
God: "You sure did. Tis okay; I forgive you. But my Tommy Gun don't!"



It is a tougher battle for the "rights" laws concerning churches. Licenses to marry people? If the majority want licenses clergy to marry people, doesn't matter: let them get licensed. But the other stuff you mention: getting exempt from employment laws: that is the fault of the American Civil Rights Act. I think employers should legally be able to require their employees to dress and act in a certain way and as long as the employees can give informed consent to those rules, it should be legal. So if they want you to remove your Muslim or Mormon attire while on the job, as long as you agree to it, you should have to remove it. :O


Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The idea that they should be allowed to practice hatred - whether or not it degrades into physical violence - frankly is something I find troubling. No amount of special pleading should be entertained.

I disagree, entirely.

I would reword your comments to the following:

"The idea that they should be disallowed to think the way they want to think - specifically if it does not degrade into physical violence - frankly is something I find troubling. No amount of special pleading should be entertained. It is quite horrible to think there are people in the world that feel they can force others to think and feel a specific set of acceptable thoughts."

You fascist. 313



Edit - We largely agree but I take issue with "thought-police" bullshit. I hate it n'stuff. Don't legislate how people are supposed to think and feel as long as they are not committing violence or inciting violence.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1) What Digi showed with that video was pure, indefensible thuggery.
Don't misinterpret this post as a response to that video.

2) I learned this today; the age of consent in Russia ... is 16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Russia The age of consent in over thirty of the United States is also 16.

Originally posted by NemeBro
The age of consent in over thirty of the United States is also 16.

There are probably lots of and lots of laws around that which make the 30 number not really 30:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws


That's too much shit to read.


However, reading the Oklahoma law, you can rape someone who is your student, who is 20, but you are 18.

So, if you are 18 years old, and you make it as a high school teacher because you're smart n'stuff and graduated college early, passed the exams, etc. and you sex up a student who was held back twice and just turned 20, it is considered rape under Oklahoma law.


haha...oh man....these laws.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I highly doubt you thought the issue in Russia was purely secular.


Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Actually, until yesterday, I more or less DID think that ...

... and what you listed above as a supposed counterexample was exactly WHY I more or less thought that.

For the former Soviet Union, synonymous with Russia for any practical intent, had no great claim to any religion I'm aware of, yet oppressed nearly every group I can think of.


Corroboration for the above.

Although Putin is apparently a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, his baptism, according to his mom (according to Putin),
was done in secret, to hide the fact from his father, a member of the Communist Party.

Soviet Russia was apparently less kind than today's Russia, even where family was concerned.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" told me that when she and a neighbor brought me here to be Baptized ...
they did it in secret from my Father ...
who was a member of the Communist Party ...
and a loyal and uncompromising man.

In any case, they believed that it was in secret ..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3d_yxJhmjk
(relevant portion: 1st 57 seconds of clip)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why is religion being introduced into my posts?

1. These arguments are being pushed in the US almost entirely from the religious, not the secular. An extremely small amount of Americans are pushing back against gay rights for completely secular reasons. I'm American. We hare still having LGBT rights issues here in the US. They didn't magically get solved overnight, here. Glass house n'all that.

2. "Russian lawmakers and church officials still believe that heterosexuals can be 'propagandized' into becoming LGBT."

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-roots-of-russias-homophobia/485634.html

I highly doubt you thought the issue in Russia was purely secular. Because, hey, the oppression of the rights and the killing of millions of people is perfectly okay if you're doing it for secular reasons, right?. RIGHT? RIIIGHT?*


Regarding civil unions:
1. I've not said anything about civil unions.
The comment I made that you quoted was looking at the issue from a nearly completely secular and legal standpoint.

Mind you, I don't mind in the least discussing civil unions, here; I'm just pointing out I have not said anything about civil unions writings at this point.] I'm a cheeky bastard, aren't I?

To be more specific, I was talking about the legal considerations of marriage, not civil unions. Calling them "civil unions" is an unnecessary sentimentality that amounts to explicative** right-wing pandering. You can even check my posting history to see the very moment I gave up the idea of calling them "civil unions." Good times.

But, if you REALLY want to get into my point, I think marriage should be disbanded (sort of...read on) and the only thing allowed are civil contracts. Then, all marriages would be useless under the law. Get married in a church! Who cares! It does nothing for you legally. If you do it because of your belief in God, well, by God (no pun intended, I mean actually "by God", you are now married under God's law which should, in our eyes, take precedence over the laws of the land. Am I right, or what?



*The point I just made is important. You want to use your secular position as a launch-pad for the many thousands of words you will probably reply to me with. It is important to your position to appear as objective as possible because, "I am approaching this from a secular perspective. You cannot attack my position because of my belief in a Skyfather! Aha!" Unfortunately, the topic is not regarding you and your particular brand of evading the motives of your position. You probably know, by now, that you cannot really argue from a religious perspective, with educated and informed people regarding the rights of the LGBT community without appearing to be an idiot (because the "God said so" argument is infantile, at best). You also implicitly patting me on the back for my religious beliefs (because they run parallel to your own regarding homosexuality and sin) is also indicative of your true motives. "But...but! Attacking someone's motives is poor form in debate!" This is not debate class. This is the internet where I can and will pick apart your motives for articulating intelligently disguised homophobic talking points. I could also get into the "secular source" you used. He's a Christian and a right-wing political pundit (and economist...and a bunch of other things...a brilliant man, really). I must say, though, his argumentation style is similar to my own but I will not pretend to place myself on his level of aptitude for arguing these points from a secular perspective. TL : DR on this footnote: IDGAF about your thinly veiled but still dishonest secular approach to the topic. If you're a Christian, don't be afraid to say why you approach a topic from a particular perspective. Don't be ashamed of your religious beliefs. Be proud of them. THEN present your arguments in purely secular form. I'll still reject them as having horrible motivations but you'll gain more respect from God for not being ashamed of Him (and me...and probably several others on KMC).


**"Ahhh, but you see! It's not "marriage", per se! It's "civil unions"! Look at us, not offending God with an institution that looks like marriage, talks like marriage, walks like marriage, functions like marriage, and looks like marriage. Let's go home, boys, our job here is done. The gays still don't have marriage rights and we can feel great about ourselves for oppressing millions of people. haha! Jesus is so proud of us."

I think this may be the most convoluted post you ever posted, and that's saying something.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The idea that they should be allowed to practice hatred - whether or not it degrades into physical violence - frankly is something I find troubling. No amount of special pleading should be entertained.

People have a right to their beliefs, as long as they don't infringe on the rights and well-being of others. Freedom means being free to be a douche too.

I disagree.

Kill everyone whose thoughts do not correlate with the norm.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think this may be the most convoluted post you ever posted, and that's saying something.

It's pretty easy to follow, imo. I think you're out of practice on writing papers in college.

Originally posted by Nephthys
People have a right to their beliefs, as long as they don't infringe on the rights and well-being of others. Freedom means being free to be a douche too.

Dammit. You said what I was trying to say in just 2 sentences.

I really suck at concise writing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's pretty easy to follow, imo. I think you're out of practice on writing papers in college.


I'm definitely the latter. I don't see how the two relate though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm definitely the latter. I don't see how the two relate though.

It's okay: I'll explain it to you, later.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's okay: I'll explain it to you, later.

Explain this to me like I am a 6 year old.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I disagree.

Kill everyone whose thoughts do not correlate with the norm.

Most people don't believe this should happen. As a result, you should die.

Originally posted by BackFire
Most people don't believe this should happen. As a result, you should die. But since they don't believe it should happen, I never will.

My hypocrisy has made me immortal.

Impressive work.

Originally posted by Nephthys
People have a right to their beliefs, as long as they don't infringe on the rights and well-being of others. Freedom means being free to be a douche too.

True, but my right to swing my fist ends right before your face. For the same reason, my right to use discriminatory rhetoric ends in front of everyone else's figurative face. It's socially unacceptable to hate gay people/Jews/women/people from Ireland in a school, work place, or even sitting in a cafe; the idea that this belief is reinforced by the rules of shepherds thousands of years ago who seemingly got it from a deity is not suddenly a reason to provide exceptions.

I'm not talking 'thought-police'; that's entirely off mark. No, I'm saying religious bodies who advocate that homosexuals are sinful/not good people should be checked depending on the level they spread these beliefs, because these beliefs are harmful and intolerant.

The idea that it's okay for religion to do this is again, special pleading.

Yeah, **** Freedom of Speech. :V

I'm sure you don't need me to point this out, but there is a world of difference between violence and saying hateful things to people. Hint: Your use of the word 'figurative' is telling. In fact, that you belittle religion in your own statements seems to paint you as something of a hypocrite in this regard. I guess its ok to be a bigot towards other bigots. And just because something is socially unacceptable doesn't make illegal. Sure, if they say those things in the workplace or start making hate-speeches, they should be told to leave or stop. But for different reasons than that they're hateful beliefs. We shouldn't impeach upon their rights to those beliefs.

That is thought-police stuff though. You are saying that we should limit the ability of a church to preach their beliefs to others because you/we disagree with them. You said that you find them being able to practice these beliefs troubling. You are saying that there are things that it is unacceptable for people to believe and that they should not legally be allowed to argue that they are true. You are being just as intolerant to others as they are and believing that your intolerance should be made law.

So why do you deserve special pleading?

Because I'm special. I think I'm being entirely too extreme in representing my views. I guess I should present a simple explanation for what I feel is wrong in a certain situation.

A: Hey, I don't like gay people/black people/Jewish people/Gypsties/etc.
B: Why would you say that? This is school/work/social area here.
A: Because my religion reaffirms this dislike.
A: Oh okay. Continue then. I don't want to tread on your ability to express yourself at my expense.

^ That's a social problem.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Because I'm special. I think I'm being entirely too extreme in representing my views. I guess I should present a simple explanation for what I feel is wrong in a certain situation.

A: Hey, I don't like gay people/black people/Jewish people/Gypsties/etc.
B: Why would you say that? This is school/work/social area here.
A: Because my religion reaffirms this dislike.
A: Oh okay. Continue then. I don't want to tread on your ability to express yourself at my expense.

^ That's a social problem.
I thought you were a gay black Jewish Gypsies.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Because I'm special. I think I'm being entirely too extreme in representing my views. I guess I should present a simple explanation for what I feel is wrong in a certain situation.

A: Hey, I don't like gay people/black people/Jewish people/Gypsties/etc.
B: Why would you say that? This is school/work/social area here.
A: Because my religion reaffirms this dislike.
A: Oh okay. Continue then. I don't want to tread on your ability to express yourself at my expense.

^ That's a social problem.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I appreciate your fervor, asshat.

What more is there to say?

Not much. Good quote usage though.

Also good attributing of quote...