Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Field Researcher
#51 Old 22nd Apr 2013 at 3:55 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Rawra
I don't understand why this is even up for debate.


Thank you!

History does not look kindly on inequality, whatever its form.

Should women be allowed education, despite the fact its been scientifically proven that their brains are smaller and therefore incapable of handling most educational subjects?
This was once a serious debate. Now of course its seen as stupid, a way to keep women in a lower class, to control them. That's what inequality is about - control, fear, hate. There is nothing in it of value.
Advertisement
#52 Old 17th May 2013 at 2:36 AM
I think anyone should watch this video:

Test Subject
#53 Old 17th May 2013 at 3:32 AM
Idiot quesition
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#54 Old 17th May 2013 at 10:12 AM
Yeah, I wasn't really very impressed by that video. It's a nice idea and all, but I suspect that people define themselves far more by being majority or minority than by being straight or gay. So all that video achieves is to say "Hey, if gays were the sexual, religious and political majority, they'd treat straights just as bad as straights treat gays.*", which encourages the idea that the majority wins even if they're wrong. After all - how many of the non-straight people here identified more with the parents, or the bullies, than they did with the girl? None, I suspect. So why would homophobes identify more with the girl than with the -phobes?


*Check yo generalisation for the purposes of the illustration.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
#55 Old 17th May 2013 at 2:06 PM
My first reaction to the short film was that it was focused more on bullying based on sexual orientation in general. I view the hetero-homo reversal as a way to make the statement more powerful, so anti-gay heterosexual people would know what it must feel like to be bullied and teased for their sexual orientation.
Top Secret Researcher
#56 Old 17th May 2013 at 6:45 PM
Creme: the problem is that bigots do not think the same way you do. They don't want to learn the message, because the message means that they're horrible people. Therefore, the vast majority will look for another message. That message will be what White-rider said: that if they were the majority, they would be just as bad as us. And thus their behavior is justified and they're not bad people, because homosexuals would be jerks if they were in charge.
#57 Old 17th May 2013 at 10:28 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Creme: the problem is that bigots do not think the same way you do. They don't want to learn the message, because the message means that they're horrible people. Therefore, the vast majority will look for another message. That message will be what White-rider said: that if they were the majority, they would be just as bad as us. And thus their behavior is justified and they're not bad people, because homosexuals would be jerks if they were in charge.


I find it distasteful to call names or belittle people with rude names. Just because a person is perceived to be a bigot does not mean that that person is significantly any less worthy than a person who is not perceived to be a bigot. I am not saying that bigots should be tolerated. I am just saying that we should view people holistically instead of viewing them by the things they do. Whether the behavior is alcoholism or drug addiction or bigotry, I would personally identify people who succumb to those behaviors as "people who have problems with alcohol" or "people who have problems with drug addiction" or "people who give in to their prejudice and ignorance". I think that sort of identification would view the person as a person. I find the terms "alcoholic", "drug addict", and "bigot" distasteful, and I would discourage calling people those terms. A person may call themselves those terms to describe their shady past, but labels can be very hurtful because they reduce the person to the label. Suffice it to say, I think this is what "love the sinner, hate the sin," means. The purpose is to look down upon or discourage the behavior that harms society, but still accept or love the person who performed it in order to help them cope with repentance and change.
Scholar
#58 Old 17th May 2013 at 10:51 PM
I only read one post in this topic, but yes it should be called marriage! I don't like it when a gay couple gets married, but they have to called it "domestic partnership'. I'm just like, "No, they're married."
Instructor
#59 Old 18th May 2013 at 6:03 AM Last edited by The SimWhisperer : 18th May 2013 at 6:26 AM.
I deleted my message, not because I said anything insulting. But, I copied a text from my facebook page, and it had my info on it. I like the mystery of on line user names!

But, while I'm here, I will say there's always going to be a group that is discriminated against. Marriage should be for consenting adults, that give them the same rights whomever is being married. I'm generally not for polygamy, because it's usually young girls being raped by old men, and hide behind the Bible and religious freedoms to justify it.

However, if adults whom haven't been brought up in an isolated commune, where they have no choice in the matter. Want to marry more than one person, then so be it. Just pay your taxes and your dependants.

If someone chooses to be part of an arranged marriage, then that's their choice. But, if marrying a stranger that two father's worked out for their own gain, and is based on cultural history, regardless of love and compatibility. Is considered legit and honourable. then I don't see why a gay couple whom, already know each other can't also be recognized as a legit married couple, rather than a civil union.

Check out Bridegroom marriage on Face Book. There's a mini story of his life with his partner, very sad. But makes you think.
Top Secret Researcher
#60 Old 18th May 2013 at 5:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by CrèmedelaCrème
I find it distasteful to call names or belittle people with rude names. Just because a person is perceived to be a bigot does not mean that that person is significantly any less worthy than a person who is not perceived to be a bigot. I am not saying that bigots should be tolerated. I am just saying that we should view people holistically instead of viewing them by the things they do. Whether the behavior is alcoholism or drug addiction or bigotry, I would personally identify people who succumb to those behaviors as "people who have problems with alcohol" or "people who have problems with drug addiction" or "people who give in to their prejudice and ignorance". I think that sort of identification would view the person as a person. I find the terms "alcoholic", "drug addict", and "bigot" distasteful, and I would discourage calling people those terms. A person may call themselves those terms to describe their shady past, but labels can be very hurtful because they reduce the person to the label. Suffice it to say, I think this is what "love the sinner, hate the sin," means. The purpose is to look down upon or discourage the behavior that harms society, but still accept or love the person who performed it in order to help them cope with repentance and change.


My point exactly. You read my post and ignored most of it in order to rant about the poor bigots, getting called bigots on the internet. If they don't like being labeled bigots, then maybe they shouldn't act bigoted.

For that matter, the reason we call them bigots is to let them know that we have a problem with them. And not that we have a problem with them as a person, but with that one part of them that's bigoted. Calling someone a "person who succumbs to prejudice and ignorance" doesn't work the same way. It's like trying to exfoliate with a throw pillow. The point is that it's supposed to be hard enough to be abrasive.

For that matter, YOU have shown a consistent lack of "love" and tolerance for other people on this site. Or consideration for other people as people and not as say, examples of how you display godly love by forgiving the heinous sin of disagreeing with you on the internet and even worse, sharing their non-religious diversity on your own Cultural/Religous/Ethnic Diversity thread(insert scare chord here)! Quit ranting about the poor bigots until you clean up your own act.

Now, shall we get back to the topic and not turn this into another feud thread that the mods have to lock?
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#61 Old 18th May 2013 at 7:32 PM
The only part of that post which was helpful was the last sentence.

And possibly the second paragraph.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Instructor
#62 Old 19th May 2013 at 5:36 AM
Quote: Originally posted by CrèmedelaCrème
"people who give in to their prejudice and ignorance"


I don't even know where to begin. First of all, the quoted portion implies, quite absurdly, that all people are prejudiced and ignorant, and that most of us just don't "give in" to those parts of our personality. That's just false on the face of it.

Secondly, people should absolutely be judged by their actions. That's just part of living in a free and open society. It almost sounds like you don't want to refer to anti-gay people as bigots because it's a word that has negative implications. That's a load of bull. Bigots are people who deserve a word that has negative implications to it. Trying to give them a 'neutral' sounding label is just letting them control the public discourse, in which case they've already won.
And all the maladies of the world burst forth from Pandora's cooch
#63 Old 19th May 2013 at 6:04 AM
A "person who has problems with alcohol" is an alcoholic. a "person who has problems with drug abuse" is a drug addict. And a "person who gives in to their prejudice and ignorance" is a bigot. Speaking as a person who has family members who represent all three of those, I can tell you, first hand, that these are distasteful and destructive behaviors. Acting all nicey-nicey and avoiding "labels" does not help their behavior. It only enables that person even more. These labels ARE confrontational, but that is the point. An alcoholic and drug addict cannot get help until they realize that they are alcoholics and drug addicts, and confronting that head on may be the only way to accomplish that. Luckily, bigots can achieve the same goals, as most such behavior is learned. But not until they realize that such behavior is harmful, to themselves and to others, and have a desire to change.
Top Secret Researcher
#64 Old 27th May 2013 at 6:22 AM
Quote: Originally posted by ButchSims
... But not until they realize that such behavior is harmful, to themselves and to others, and have a desire to change.
The desire to change is hard to achieve when someone starts from a position of fear -- when they assume that they owe loyalty to something that they'll lose if they soften their position.

I wouldn't try to argue a religious person about whether their religion is correct or incorrect, but there are two questions I am OK about asking:
(1) "Does your faith sit comfortably with the suffering caused by homophobia?"
and,
(2) "You know that some segregationists, who believed at the time in a Biblical justification for their actions, later repented of it. With that change of heart, do you suppose their faith was weaker or stronger?"
Lab Assistant
#65 Old 16th Jun 2013 at 2:37 AM
Yes. Love is love and deserves to be recognised, no matter what gender.
I am a believer in God and consider myself to have Christian views but I believe in love as well, no matter what gender.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#66 Old 16th Jun 2013 at 9:19 AM
It's sad when anyone has to say "I have Christian views but I believe in love as well".

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Mad Poster
#67 Old 16th Jun 2013 at 3:13 PM
Quote: Originally posted by frankokomando
I only read one post in this topic, but yes it should be called marriage! I don't like it when a gay couple gets married, but they have to called it "domestic partnership'. I'm just like, "No, they're married."
I agree with you. It's been impossible for me to understand how anyone can feel that marriage is "protected" by either a) not allowing certain groups to marry or b) insisting that it get another name.

The people who claim this do not own marriage. "Marriage" has been around for a long time, longer than their religion. All that is accomplished by fighting tooth and nail to keep some sort of a legal distinction is that those who do not fit the narrow definition are denied their civil rights.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Inventor
Original Poster
#68 Old 16th Jun 2013 at 3:39 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
It's sad when anyone has to say "I have Christian views but I believe in love as well".


Indeed, it is. As I have said before I believe in God with my whole heart, but also think gay marriage should be legal and called marriage. I openly admit that it is not something I would do, but I have no problem with others doing it. I will NOT shun or hate them for it either. Who am I to tell someone else (who is not hurting anyone or a criminal) how to live their life and who to love/marry?
Lab Assistant
#69 Old 6th Jul 2013 at 1:02 AM
Well, many "straight marriages" don't fit the traditional meaning of marriage either. Traditionally, there was no divorce, there was no remarriage (widows and widowers had lower remarriage rates than now), there were no marriages recognized by any governments that were not recognized by a church. There were certainly no drive-thru weddings either! However, consent to marry was defined quite differently back then. It was not unheard of for adolescents (people who have barely hit puberty even) to get married and have children. Therefore, either all government-recognized "marriages" should be called something different (possibly "Civil Union") regardless of orientation (leaving "true" marriages as ceremonies and sacraments within churches) OR modern marriages should be more inclusive. It sickens me to see drive-thru and Las Vegas weddings (and the unions that arise from them) to have more legitimacy than same-sex weddings.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Inventor
#70 Old 3rd Jan 2014 at 11:17 AM
[QUOTE=CrèmedelaCrème]I think anyone should watch this video:
[QUOTE]
I am not sure that teaching or modeling suicide as an effective resolution to bullying is the best way to teach people to be non bigoted. The bullies in my High School would have kept a kill count. But then they kept track of the girls fertile days and tried to get girls raped as well. Dealing with a psycho is part of the whole teen package and somehow teaching your teen how to deal with a psycho without being labled a psycho yourself or having them labeled a psycho is the hardest part of parenting. No wonder some people think there is a norm and cling to it.

Some people have a Guardian Angel, you know a little guy sitting on your shoulder that tells you right from wrong, but mine is an Idiot.
Inventor
#71 Old 3rd Jan 2014 at 11:36 AM
When I was a teen I read a scifi story about cryogenic sleep where people lived one day out of seven and carbon freeze slept the other six. If you really think about it, Tuesday as gay day would seem like an effective solution to the problem. Say for instance you were a Thursday kid and grew up in a Thursday with all the other Thursday people and as a teen realized you were gay. That meant that for social reasons you had to move to Tuesday. Your Thursday family wanted to stay Thursday because their jobs and family and everything else happened on Thursday, but its still messed up. Does the Grandchild live a half day on Tuesday and the other half on Thursday? What if the Child is hetro and its an advantage to live on Thursday? Its a great idea but it had its flaws. Each day would have its bigots. No matter the social solution for the day like Monday is white day and Friday is Native American day, and Wednesday is who gives a flying fuck day. There will be people that want to mess with who gives a flying fuck day cause someone did give a fuck at least one time.

Some people have a Guardian Angel, you know a little guy sitting on your shoulder that tells you right from wrong, but mine is an Idiot.
Top Secret Researcher
#72 Old 3rd Jan 2014 at 2:36 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Kestie Freehawk
I am not sure that teaching or modeling suicide as an effective resolution to bullying is the best way to teach people to be non bigoted. The bullies in my High School would have kept a kill count. But then they kept track of the girls fertile days and tried to get girls raped as well.


...Does anyone know where I can get a time machine and a dozen of those things they use to geld horses? Just...for no reason.

For your other post, that doesn't sound like a great idea. Firstly, how are you supposed to get rid of bigots if you're separating them from the people they're bigoted towards? Secondly, I wouldn't want my entire life defined by my sexuality, and that's kind of what that would do. Plus, even if there were no straight people on Tuesday, you'd still have a lot of trouble. There are some lesbians who are incredibly nasty to bi- or pansexual women and transwomen. Would we get our own days, too? I think we're running out of days, here. Also, only having 10% of people on one day means that you need to fit 90% of people in 6 days, or 15% per day, except on Tuesdays. And since confining them to their own day would increase homophobia for the people of other days, then you won't be able to recruit many people who'll accept living on Tuesday. For that matter, since heterosexuality would be a minority on that day, you'd get some heterophobia.
Although I do like the idea that we could put all male homophobes on their own day and all female on another. Then who are they going to sleep with?

Also, have you ever posted about this before? I think I remember seeing something like this. Or I'm having precognitive dreams again. And do you remember the name of that story? I'd like to check it out.
Scholar
#73 Old 3rd Jan 2014 at 8:37 PM
..This thread isn't fair because we're all simmers. Is there someone who play Sims that's against gay marriage?
And all the maladies of the world burst forth from Pandora's cooch
#74 Old 4th Jan 2014 at 12:38 AM
Yes, there are simmers who are against gay marriage. Remember, we are not just all simmers, we are all people, and quite a wide variety at that. People have vastly different opinions on many different subjects, and simmers are no exception. The thing that constantly amazes me about the simmer community is, that even with all the drama in some circles, and some vast differences of viewpoints, we still manage to have a more cohesive connection than many other game fandoms. Perhaps it is because the main focus of the game is social interactions, and not blowing stuff up or racking up a huge kill streak. (Except for Sprog, but that is a special case.)
Lab Assistant
#75 Old 28th Jan 2014 at 9:48 AM
if you look from a Christian's perspective it should still be called "Gay Marriage" because when god made humans they were meant to marry the opposite sex now i'm not saying this HAS to be ILLEGAL what? its there choice but got didn't make humans to be gay he made adam and eve not adam and steve

now i dont CARE if you disagree with me i don't CARE if you think i'm weird because i'm christian and anyways it's impossible for the same sex to legitemently have a baby but they can have a adopted child but the fact that they cant have a baby is evidents that people aren't meant to be gay your aloud to be gay if you want to but you should just keep it in your head that humans weren't made to be gay

now i know these days there are ALOT of people who are only attracted to the same sex and they can't help it so i am sorry if you are offended by this post and if i sound mean i am not usally this mean

and this is a debate thread so people ARE allowed to have there own opinion so don't be shy and copy others put in your own opinion!

not trying to be rude but i was actually happy when they announced that gay marriage will be illegal after canberra made it legal for a little while because i dont like gay marriage
 
Page 3 of 8
Back to top