Gay Poll... [Archive]

Spoltage

22-05-2013, 09:04 PM

For... I used to not mind at all, until the recent spike in massive gay campaigns, and laws being passed in countries worldwide. Also, my good mate, Sam, told me that he was gay & I really appreciate him for him not being afraid to show who he is and what he stands for as an individual. Much respect for you Sam.

Lee

awww thanks love ya lee :)

sam

---------- Post added 22-05-2013 at 10:12 PM ----------

The rights & freedoms you hold come from being an individual, not where you stick your willy.

So am I against specific, or the concept of gay 'rights'? absolutely - just as i'm against all other group specific rights and for strong individual rights.

i get your point that everyone should have equal rights... however humanity bas changed, coloured peolle now have rights, wemon have rights. right now i can not think of any other groups fighting for rights apart from lgbt....

sam

---------- Post added 22-05-2013 at 10:13 PM ----------

The rights & freedoms you hold come from being an individual, not where you stick your willy.

So am I against specific, or the concept of gay 'rights'? absolutely - just as i'm against all other group specific rights and for strong individual rights.

i get your point that everyone should have equal rights... however humanity bas changed, coloured peolle now have rights, wemon have rights. right now i can not think of any other groups fighting for rights apart from lgbt....

sam

---------- Post added 22-05-2013 at 10:14 PM ----------

fgs why are my posts double/triple posting, stupid phone and internet

---------- Post added 22-05-2013 at 10:14 PM ----------

fgs why are my posts double/triple posting, stupid phone and internet

Mark

22-05-2013, 09:15 PM

The rights & freedoms you hold come from being an individual, not where you stick your willy.

So am I against specific, or the concept of gay 'rights'? absolutely - just as i'm against all other group specific rights and for strong individual rights.

Lol my thoughts exactly. Gay people have the same rights as anyone else.

Spoltage

22-05-2013, 09:18 PM

Lol my thoughts exactly. Gay people have the same rights as anyone else.

urm.. no we dont.. for one main thing we dont have the right to marrige +uk)

sam

Mark

22-05-2013, 09:20 PM

urm.. no we dont.. for one main thing we dont have the right to marrige +uk)

sam

Please elaborate on what else you're not allowed to do... Also do you really care that you can't get married yet can form a civil partnership? Respect religious beliefs that condemns homosexuality and just ignore it lol, don't see what difference it makes. Btw I'm not a homophobe before the accusations start.

Spoltage

22-05-2013, 09:20 PM

Lol my thoughts exactly. Gay people have the same rights as anyone else.

urm no we dont.. for a start we dont have the right to msrrige (uk) and in many other countries you can be sentenced to death for being lgbt

sam

---------- Post added 22-05-2013 at 10:24 PM ----------

sorry im just going to reply when i go on computer tommorrow, my phone/internet is just ******* posting up for me sorry

sam

Mark

22-05-2013, 09:24 PM

urm no we dont.. for a start we dont have the right to msrrige (uk) and in many other countries you can be sentenced to death for being lgbt

sam

May as well discuss women's rights while we're on the matter of other countries, it's a totally controversial topic. Gay people get exactly the same rights as anyone else, apart from marriage which is an ancient old ritual that goes back YEARS.

Joe

22-05-2013, 09:25 PM

To be honest I'll always be for Gay rights.

I always try to justify this because I'm not gay myself, but I really don't see how people can give a valid reason for why homosexuals should be treated differently.

Spoltage

22-05-2013, 09:51 PM

May as well discuss women's rights while we're on the matter of other countries, it's a totally controversial topic. Gay people get exactly the same rights as anyone else, apart from marriage which is an ancient old ritual that goes back YEARS.

decided to attempt to reply but sorry if this messes up.

yes marrige is ancient but this is moderen times, why cant we get married in a church (one that is happy to do so) like straight people??

yes we have sinilar rights as we are allowed to adopt and more (apart drom northen ireland lgbt couples - only a single lgbt pwrson is allowed to adopt) so what is one more right?!

i have just read that same-sex marrige laws may be in place by 2015 - woo even though im nt planning on being married for a long time lol

really i i made this poll more to see who minded gay people and who discriminste against them, i obvs wordered it as rights but owell

sam

dbgtz

22-05-2013, 09:58 PM

decided to attempt to reply but sorry if this messes up.

yes marrige is ancient but this is moderen times, why cant we get married in a church (one that is happy to do so) like straight people??

Because those religions do not condone it and should be allowed to marry who they want. Why should gay people be allowed to impose their will on these people when they have a clear alternative with equal rights?

yes we have sinilar rights as we are allowed to adopt and more (apart drom northen ireland lgbt couples - only a single lgbt pwrson is allowed to adopt) so what is one more right?!

i have just read that same-sex marrige laws may be in place by 2015 - woo even though im nt planning on being married for a long time lol

really i i made this poll more to see who minded gay people and who discriminste against them, i obvs wordered it as rights but owell

sam

I wouldn't really call marriage a right.

Anyway I'm not for gay rights, I'm for equal rights.

Spoltage

22-05-2013, 10:04 PM

not even goinf to attempt to qoute your paragraphs sepeertly so..

yes they have their belifes and noone should impose which i why i put in brackets "one that is happy to do so"

exactly equal rights.. whicb in turn is fighting for everyone to have the same rights (including lgbt people) so why cant we have the equal right to marrige? even if u dnt see marrige as a right (i kinda get that) it is still a right in the eye of the law

sam

Richie

22-05-2013, 10:05 PM

I voted Against just because the poll is silly. It's like asking 'Do you think paedophiles should go to prison?' besides we all already know that everyone has rights... well apart from women.

Spoltage

22-05-2013, 10:16 PM

I voted Against just because the poll is silly. It's like asking 'Do you think paedophiles should go to prison?' besides we all already know that everyone has rights... well apart from women.

not everyone has equal rights though.. no pedos should be killed, sexist much?

sam

-:Undertaker:-

22-05-2013, 10:24 PM

i get your point that everyone should have equal rights... however humanity bas changed, coloured peolle now have rights, wemon have rights. right now i can not think of any other groups fighting for rights apart from lgbt....

sam

The past circumstances you speak of was because the likes of black people, gay people and women were being denied their individual rights - individual rights are not exclusive to WASPS, it is only because governments have not followed individual rights (and still refuse to via anti-discrinmination laws and affirmative action) that we've never had it implemented properly.

The idea of gay rights for example isn't individual rights. So take the example of anti-discrimination laws and 'hate crimes' - Police actually assign more time and treat a crime more seriously if its given the status of a hate crime (ie, somebody being attacked for being gay) than they do with normal out of the blue attacks. Is that right? I certainly don't think so, I think whats wrong with an attack is that an individual is having his safety and well being taken from him rather than the reasons behind the attack.

“You have to remember, rights don't come in groups we shouldn't have 'gay rights'; rights come as individuals, and we wouldn't have this major debate going on. It would be behavior that would count, not what person belongs to what group.” ― Ron Paul

Does that make sense? in other words, being attacked for being gay shouldn't be treated as any worse as being attacked for having blue socks.

Spoltage

22-05-2013, 10:30 PM

i get what you are saying, ok so rights should be indevidual and everyone should have equal right no matter who they are, so why then are some people who are fighting for equal rights agaisnt gay people having these same rights??

sam

The past circumstances you speak of was because the likes of black people, gay people and women were being denied their individual rights - individual rights are not exclusive to WASPS, it is only because governments have not followed individual rights (and still refuse to via anti-discrinmination laws and affirmative action) that we've never had it implemented properly.

The idea of gay rights for example isn't individual rights. So take the example of anti-discrimination laws and 'hate crimes' - Police actually assign more time and treat a crime more seriously if its given the status of a hate crime (ie, somebody being attacked for being gay) than they do with normal out of the blue attacks. Is that right? I certainly don't think so, I think whats wrong with an attack is that an individual is having his safety and well being taken from him rather than the reasons behind the attack.

Does that make sense? in other words, being attacked for being gay shouldn't be treated as any worse as being attacked for having blue socks.

Richie

22-05-2013, 10:31 PM

http://i.imgur.com/lHT9mXb.png

Just so we're clear prison is a tiny room not a noose, right? 'cause I'm lost, I don't know where you are going with the whole death thing.

-:Undertaker:-

22-05-2013, 10:34 PM

i get what you are saying, ok so rights should be indevidual and everyone should have equal right no matter who they are, so why then are some people who are fighting for equal rights agaisnt gay people having these same rights??

sam

Because a major concern is that when the gay marriage legislation goes through, although safeguards protecting religious liberty have been put in the bill, at some point in the future gay lobby groups or the European Court of Human Rights are going to anull those safeguards and we'll be then in the circumstance of forcing Churches and other religious groups to carry out gay weddings completely against their will.

See, thats my point and problem with 'equality' and 'anti-discrimination' laws. If gay groups accepted the rights of individuals and private venues to not serve them and turn them away (like the Bed and Breakfast example) then many wouldn't have a problem extending gay marriage to homosexuals even if they didn't agree with the concept of gay marriage - because then nobody would be compulsed under the law to serve anybody they did not want to serve. It is the fact that gay rights are triumphing others peoples individual rights (ie the right to free speech, property rights) that pisses people off.

And thats why gay rights and other group specific rights are a terrible idea, and individual rights a good idea.

Spoltage

22-05-2013, 10:54 PM

-:Undertaker:-

22-05-2013, 11:02 PM

the thing is churches are not bding forced.. for example i read the church of england alog with other churxhes in the uk are not bei g included.in this law, i dnt know if this is true or not.

js u sound too good at debates and im crap st em

sam

Not being forced now but i'm sure will be in the future. Am I really expected to believe that the gay lobby groups such as Stonewall will simply pack up and leave it at that once gay 'marriage' has passed? will they hell. They'll keep pushing and pushing until Churches are forced to comply.

In the same way that they've pushed and pushed so now we have the scary situation where B&B owners (who are Christian too) are now forced to accept gay couples sleeping over even when they don't want anything to do with homosexuality in their own property. Now you may and probably do completely disagree with the stance taken by the B&B couple, but the fact the state can compel them to take in two persons whom they don't want into their own property is a complete betrayal of property rights which are a fundemental keystone of liberty.

Spoltage

22-05-2013, 11:10 PM

Not being forced now but i'm sure will be in the future. Am I really expected to believe that the gay lobby groups such as Stonewall will simply pack up and leave it at that once gay 'marriage' has passed? will they hell. They'll keep pushing and pushing until Churches are forced to comply.

In the same way that they've pushed and pushed so now we have the scary situation where B&B owners (who are Christian too) are now forced to accept gay couples sleeping over even when they don't want anything to do with homosexuality in their own property. Now you may and probably do completely disagree with the stance taken by the B&B couple, but the fact the state can compel them to take in two persons whom they don't want into their own property is a complete betrayal of property rights which are a fundemental keystone of liberty.

i paetially agree how some gay groups are going to keep pushing churches and trying to force their belifes and i kinda tthink the b and b owners were kinda in the wrong and the right, i understand why they stuck to their belifes but could they have not offered seperate rooms..

sam

---------- Post added 23-05-2013 at 12:14 AM ----------

altough i guess they are still on their property which they didnt want anyways

-shuts up now

sam

LiquidLuck.

23-05-2013, 12:15 AM

100% forward. This said, I'm straight unlike someone people of this forum think. xD

Succubus

23-05-2013, 05:20 AM

100% forward. This said, I'm straight unlike someone people of this forum think. xD

hxhd.. i dont need to finish the rest of that ;)

and on topic: for

Aiden

23-05-2013, 05:48 AM

Not being forced now but i'm sure will be in the future. Am I really expected to believe that the gay lobby groups such as Stonewall will simply pack up and leave it at that once gay 'marriage' has passed? will they hell. They'll keep pushing and pushing until Churches are forced to comply.

In the same way that they've pushed and pushed so now we have the scary situation where B&B owners (who are Christian too) are now forced to accept gay couples sleeping over even when they don't want anything to do with homosexuality in their own property. Now you may and probably do completely disagree with the stance taken by the B&B couple, but the fact the state can compel them to take in two persons whom they don't want into their own property is a complete betrayal of property rights which are a fundemental keystone of liberty.

Stonewall are amazing XD

tbh Churches should be forced because its not like someone gonna get married where there not liked lmfaooo

LiquidLuck.

23-05-2013, 06:39 AM

hxhd.. i dont need to finish the rest of that ;)

and on topic: for

Oh, I was wondering who the hell Detective was on the top posters.. addict.

Also, yeah, no need to finish that thread specially made for you, Sophie and Charlie. xD

And I just saw what Richie posted lol, he is right, there was a poll about your sexuality in here and way more than half was gay.

Succubus

23-05-2013, 06:46 AM

http://i.imgur.com/lHT9mXb.png

Just so we're clear prison is a tiny room not a noose, right? 'cause I'm lost, I don't know where you are going with the whole death thing.

whoever said that is probably referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory or something idek how accurate that is.

Oh, I was wondering who the hell Detective was on the top posters.. addict.

Also, yeah, no need to finish that thread specially made for you, Sophie and Charlie. xD

And I just saw what Richie posted lol, he is right, there was a poll about your sexuality in here and way more than half was gay.

lol shouldn't be surprised.

LiquidLuck.

23-05-2013, 06:50 AM

Detective; stop being mean to me! I know you want me lots but I like guys. :(

And on topic, yeah, you're probably right but again same-sex marriage is legal in the UK and most of the members here are from there, plus they are gay, so we can say Richie is right too.

Aiden

23-05-2013, 06:51 AM

Mark

23-05-2013, 07:21 AM

Same-sex marriage isn't legal in the UK? :S

Same sex marriage isn't, although a civil partnership is, which is marriage with a different name give or take.

Shar

23-05-2013, 07:21 AM

i used to be homophobic :O

now i am racist instead :L

jskjksskskskskssss

You're really not funny.

Luckelelle

23-05-2013, 08:19 AM

I really don't give a *REMOVED* if someones gay or lesbian. So I really don't know if I'm for or against...

Edited by Lee (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't avoid the filter.

-:Undertaker:-

23-05-2013, 09:31 AM

Stonewall are amazing XD

tbh Churches should be forced because its not like someone gonna get married where there not liked lmfaooo

You mean like the gay couple who took the B&B owners to court in order to enforce their concept of morality on the Christian couple (in their own bloody property?). As the Stonewall adverts go; some people don't agree with homosexuality, get over it.

buttons

23-05-2013, 09:45 AM

Please elaborate on what else you're not allowed to do... Also do you really care that you can't get married yet can form a civil partnership? Respect religious beliefs that condemns homosexuality and just ignore it lol, don't see what difference it makes. Btw I'm not a homophobe before the accusations start.
if you're talking about the bible, it doesn't even condemn homosexuality? people have taken it out of context and governments have condemned homosexuality, ************, sex outside marriage etc for their own gains, not religious reasoning. if ************ was a sin in the bible, would you be for that being illegal? if sex before marriage was a sin, would you want that to be illegal too? idk why people say OO MARRIAGEIS RELIGIOUS, RESPECT THEIR BELIEFS when so many non-religious people get married and have funerals when they aren't even religious and probably sin against the bible anyway lol

anyway im for it but i can see gay rights movement never being happy with the rights they do have, kinda like feminists so it'll always be a "us vs white straight upperclass people" mentality,

Aiden

23-05-2013, 09:51 AM

You mean like the gay couple who took the B&B owners to court in order to enforce their concept of morality on the Christian couple (in their own bloody property?). As the Stonewall adverts go; some people don't agree with homosexuality, get over it.

But a B&B is made for people to go to? I don't practically like a lot of people, but I wouldn't deny them from giving me money lol. ngl religion is very overrated...

-:Undertaker:-

23-05-2013, 09:53 AM

if you're talking about the bible, it doesn't even condemn homosexuality? people have taken it out of context and governments have condemned homosexuality, ************, sex outside marriage etc for their own gains, not religious reasoning. if ************ was a sin in the bible, would you be for that being illegal? if sex before marriage was a sin, would you want that to be illegal too? idk why people say OO MARRIAGEIS RELIGIOUS, RESPECT THEIR BELIEFS when so many non-religious people get married and have funerals when they aren't even religious and probably sin against the bible anyway lol

I think it's pretty clear that the Bible does condemn homosexuality and even if it didn't condemn it outright (which it does, in numerous chapters) it still has condemned it throughout the centuries in its teachings - the same teachings which have formed western morality. Morality after all has to discriminate against something otherwise you end up with the sort of wet and soppy garbage that the Church of England comes out with nowadays, ie 'Jesus loves everyone yeyyyyy and no matter what you do (despite it being condemned in the Bible) you'll be forgiven'.

But a B&B is made for people to go to? I don't practically like a lot of people, but I wouldn't deny them from giving me money lol. ngl religion is very overrated...

Indeed. But being private property the owners of that property ought to have the right to refuse service to anybody they wish for any reason - for they own the property, not the state. As I said earlier, property rights are one of the most basics liberties of all - and yet groups like Stonewall want to kick them over and trash them.

Matthew

23-05-2013, 09:59 AM

But a B&B is made for people to go to? I don't practically like a lot of people, but I wouldn't deny them from giving me money lol. ngl religion is very overrated...

But its their property, and if they don't want certain people in there, then they should be allowed to refuse..

lawrawrrr

23-05-2013, 10:09 AM

Logic in this forum is degrading at an alarming rate guys...

What if someone said "I DON'T WANT THIS BLACK PERSON IN MY HOUSE"? There'd be a hell of kicking up. It's much more equal now than it used to be, race-wise, and one day LGBT+ (because I'm not just going to trivialise all that stands for and just say "homosexuality") people will be in a similar situation. Hopefully. Probably.

Anyway, on topic, I am most definitely for LGBT+ rights. Not just gay rights. That's quite a 1980 POV!!

Aiden

23-05-2013, 10:14 AM

But its their property, and if they don't want certain people in there, then they should be allowed to refuse..

I would understand if they had legit reasons behind it, but not because there gay lmfaoo... If it was a murder or foul mouthed youth then yea but uno...

Indeed. But being private property the owners of that property ought to have the right to refuse service to anybody they wish for any reason - for they own the property, not the state. As I said earlier, property rights are one of the most basics liberties of all - and yet groups like Stonewall want to kick them over and trash them.

Whats that quote? Love your neighbour? Is that from the bible lol? Well if it is then why dont they love each other... or does the bible lie :O

Matthew

23-05-2013, 10:30 AM

I would understand if they had legit reasons behind it, but not because there gay lmfaoo... If it was a murder or foul mouthed youth then yea but uno...

Whats that quote? Love your neighbour? Is that from the bible lol? Well if it is then why dont they love each other... or does the bible lie :O

but it shouldn't matter what the reason is. If you came to my house and said "hey can I come in" and I went "err... no?"...

.. So what? Are you gonna complain that I'm not letting you in because you're gay?

Its my property (well its my parents but you get the idea) and it just seems ridiculous to me that I can be forced to let people into my home who I don't want here... Its my property, it should be my choice.

Aiden

23-05-2013, 10:34 AM

but it shouldn't matter what the reason is. If you came to my house and said "hey can I come in" and I went "err... no?"...

.. So what? Are you gonna complain that I'm not letting you in because you're gay?

Its my property (well its my parents but you get the idea) and it just seems ridiculous to me that I can be forced to let people into my home who I don't want here... Its my property, it should be my choice.

But they let it out to others who aren't gay so its discrimination? THERES NO RIGHT TO DESCRIMATE PEOPLE. Any kind of people, black, white, skinny, fat, gay bi, pans, str8, jew, Christian...

Matthew

23-05-2013, 10:37 AM

But they let it out to others who aren't gay so its discrimination? THERES NO RIGHT TO DESCRIMATE PEOPLE. Any kind of people, black, white, skinny, fat, gay bi, pans, str8, jew, Christian...

But you just said you'd understand if it was a foul mouthed youth.. So surely if they didn't let that person in then they're discriminating against that person because of their behaviour?

The way I see it, if its my property then I should be allowed to reject anyone who I want, forget whether they're gay, black, etc.. If I don't want them in MY property then choice should be MINE.

And btw I'm not homophobic or anything but the idea of forcing a B&B owner to let someone in their property who they don't want just seems stupid to me.

Aiden

23-05-2013, 10:42 AM

But you just said you'd understand if it was a foul mouthed youth.. So surely if they didn't let that person in then they're discriminating against that person because of their behaviour?

The way I see it, if its my property then I should be allowed to reject anyone who I want, forget whether they're gay, black, etc.. If I don't want them in MY property then choice should be MINE.

And btw I'm not homophobic or anything but the idea of forcing a B&B owner to let someone in their property who they don't want just seems stupid to me.

Not letting someone into your house because they are rude is completely different... and NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE YOUR NOT A B&B! lmfao

Matthew

23-05-2013, 10:44 AM

Not letting someone into your house because they are rude is completely different... and NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE YOUR NOT A B&B! lmfao

Well clearly I'm not a B&B because I'm a person..

And clearly I was assuming I owned a B&B for the sake of my argument :l

But oh well, as I've said, I think the choice should be the B&B owner's only but whatever.

Aiden

23-05-2013, 10:47 AM

Well clearly I'm not a B&B because I'm a person..

And clearly I was assuming I owned a B&B for the sake of my argument :l

But oh well, as I've said, I think the choice should be the B&B owner's only but whatever.

If someone killed a gay person yeah and then the b&b owners knew... then they didnt tell the police cuz the ded person is gay... well thats illegal! (i have no idea why i said tht lol)

but if there gay and you're deny to server them because of that, its discrimination :O

what happened to the b&b owners? i can remember hearing about it a while ago but forgot

LiquidLuck.

23-05-2013, 01:37 PM

But its their property, and if they don't want certain people in there, then they should be allowed to refuse..

First, Skandair; this doesn't have to be about religion, because someone may have beliefs without being religious.

Second, Matt, not really. That's like saying a black person can't go to a hotel if the owners don't want it. It would be like the Apartheid for homosexuals and if it's wrong in terms of race, in my opinion it should be wrong in terms of sexuality.

Matthew

23-05-2013, 02:02 PM

First, @Skandair (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=93224); this doesn't have to be about religion, because someone may have beliefs without being religious.

Second, Matt, not really. That's like saying a black person can't go to a hotel if the owners don't want it. It would be like the Apartheid for homosexuals and if it's wrong in terms of race, in my opinion it should be wrong in terms of sexuality.

Yeah I guess. I'm not really sure where the line would be drawn... IMO it just makes sense that as its the owner's property then he should be allowed to decide who is let in/isn't let in. Whatever the reasons behind the decision, its still the owner's decision.

If a B&B owner doesn't want a gay couple staying there, then IMO he is entitled to his decision and should not be forced to let them in. Whether or not his decision is the correct one is surely irrelevant.. and the owner could be slated in the press, looked down upon etc but at the end of the day its still his/her decision.

Its not like being rejected from one B&B means the gay couple then can't go on holiday.. There'll be plenty of places that will accept them.

lawrawrrr

23-05-2013, 02:15 PM

Yeah I guess. I'm not really sure where the line would be drawn... IMO it just makes sense that as its the owner's property then he should be allowed to decide who is let in/isn't let in. Whatever the reasons behind the decision, its still the owner's decision.

If a B&B owner doesn't want a gay couple staying there, then IMO he is entitled to his decision and should not be forced to let them in. Whether or not his decision is the correct one is surely irrelevant.. and the owner could be slated in the press, looked down upon etc but at the end of the day its still his/her decision.

Its not like being rejected from one B&B means the gay couple then can't go on holiday.. There'll be plenty of places that will accept them.

..but when you make a booking at any b&b or hotel you don't have to write down your sexual orientation, ethnicity, beliefs; that would be silly. To be turned away at the door because you are gay is ridiculous when you've already paid and quite offensive if it is a private property.

LiquidLuck.

23-05-2013, 02:21 PM

Yeah I guess. I'm not really sure where the line would be drawn... IMO it just makes sense that as its the owner's property then he should be allowed to decide who is let in/isn't let in. Whatever the reasons behind the decision, its still the owner's decision.

If a B&B owner doesn't want a gay couple staying there, then IMO he is entitled to his decision and should not be forced to let them in. Whether or not his decision is the correct one is surely irrelevant.. and the owner could be slated in the press, looked down upon etc but at the end of the day its still his/her decision.

Its not like being rejected from one B&B means the gay couple then can't go on holiday.. There'll be plenty of places that will accept them.

Would you think that if we weren't talking about homosexuals, and we were talking about black people? Wouldn't you think that would be totally racist and illegal? Those black people could still go anywhere else, but by not being allowed inside the place, the owners would be breaking laws.

I actually searched a bit about this, and in the UK (where this B&B thing happened), the LGBS (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) rights clearly state that there is a law that ''bans all anti-gay discrimination''.

Catchy

23-05-2013, 02:40 PM

The rights & freedoms you hold come from being an individual, not where you stick your willy.

So am I against specific, or the concept of gay 'rights'? absolutely - just as i'm against all other group specific rights and for strong individual rights.

i am actually gonna agree with you for once lol. this

Yawn

23-05-2013, 03:23 PM

i am for the gays!

p.s. dont use my name for a hit thread again!

AgnesIO

23-05-2013, 03:42 PM

Which rights are we talking about?

If we are referring to basic HR, then obviously for..?

Spoltage

23-05-2013, 04:41 PM

i am for the gays!

p.s. dont use my name for a hit thread again!

I didn't expect it to become a "hit thread" and i posted the link to your forum as it was the reason behind make this thread.

Sam

Yawn

23-05-2013, 05:54 PM

I didn't expect it to become a "hit thread" and i posted the link to your forum as it was the reason behind make this thread.

Sam

well any thread that i make or is about me will be a hit thread that is given

Spoltage

23-05-2013, 06:01 PM

well any thread that i make or is about me will be a hit thread that is given

Well this isn't about you so....

Sam

Ardemax

23-05-2013, 06:29 PM

Can I just point out this thread is perhaps the single most frustrating thing I have ever read. Cn weh lrn 2 spell or i'l ******* fling a shoo at u

tbh Churches should be forced because its not like someone gonna get married where there not liked lmfaooo

God your general logic around this issue is so flawed it's hurting my face.

Regarding the poll: No I don't think gay people should be treated the same as other humans. That's just plain wrong am I right guys?

dbgtz

23-05-2013, 06:30 PM

..but when you make a booking at any b&b or hotel you don't have to write down your sexual orientation, ethnicity, beliefs; that would be silly. To be turned away at the door because you are gay is ridiculous when you've already paid and quite offensive if it is a private property.

Then you'd be entitled to your money back which is probably stated in contract law somewhere. People being allowed to get refuse business doesn't mean gays automatically become subject to different laws.

Aiden

23-05-2013, 06:32 PM

Can I just point out this thread is perhaps the single most frustrating thing I have ever read. Cn weh lrn 2 spell or i'l ******* fling a shoo at u

God your general logic around this issue is so flawed it's hurting my face.

Regarding the poll: No I don't think gay people should be treated the same as other humans. That's just plain wrong am I right guys?

ets luckeh ets me logik n nut yurs

dunt wurreh abut et

Spoltage

23-05-2013, 06:52 PM

Regarding the poll: No I don't think gay people should be treated the same as other humans. That's just plain wrong am I right guys?

And can i just ask why you think gay people shouldn't be treated the same as straight people??

Sam

lawrawrrr

23-05-2013, 06:55 PM

Then you'd be entitled to your money back which is probably stated in contract law somewhere. People being allowed to get refuse business doesn't mean gays automatically become subject to different laws.

In that way, gay people have to take a massive risk when they make a booking to go away and might end up paying so much more for a last minute booking somewhere. Is that fair? They might have to make ten bookings in one own just to make sure they have somewhere to stay and that's just ridiculous.

What if I opened a b&b and decided when someone turned up I didn't want to let them in because they were, i don't know ginger?

You wouldn't turn away a straight couple so why do gay people have fewer rights? A ginger person would be allowed to stay so why not gay people?

dbgtz

23-05-2013, 07:14 PM

lawrawrrr

23-05-2013, 07:36 PM

What they could do is ask the business to clarify the position of the company. Should the company lie then will have to pay expenses and suffer other consequences because they have deceived to profit.

They have to ASK in advance?!?! Can you imagine booking a hotel an having to write down EVERY aspect of your personality and beliefs just to make sure you can stay there?? Why stop at gay people? Let's ONLY let purple creatures with green spots stay at this hotel: and people who think they aren't in the slightest bit controversial can be turns away at the door with no prior notice!

They don't have less rights, they can open up a business and turn away who they like. If businesses do turn people away for stupid reasons then I believe it is the position of society to act by not paying for their service.

They have fewer rights because they can't stay at a hotel all other people are allowed to. If they were to open a hotel and say, for example, no black people, there would be such a riot about that, so it's not as easy as saying "they can refuse whoever entry".

Besides, an owner of a b&b which isn't specifically marketed (as a gay retreat, as a Christian retreat etc.) should really be more tolerant as its kind of something expected if you're opening up your home to an unlimited range of people.

Adam

23-05-2013, 07:38 PM

for, if you think its wrong YOURE WRONG.
Bigot.

In which case, for, I don't care what other people do just keep it to yourself. Goes for anything, not just gays.

-:Undertaker:-

23-05-2013, 07:43 PM

In that way, gay people have to take a massive risk when they make a booking to go away and might end up paying so much more for a last minute booking somewhere. Is that fair? They might have to make ten bookings in one own just to make sure they have somewhere to stay and that's just ridiculous.

What if I opened a b&b and decided when someone turned up I didn't want to let them in because they were, i don't know ginger?

You wouldn't turn away a straight couple so why do gay people have fewer rights? A ginger person would be allowed to stay so why not gay people?

There exists no 'right' to gain access to the property of another person. That is individual liberty, property rights being the keystone of western society and civilisation - just as the made up idea of having the 'right' to education, health and so on is flawed on the basis that its basically saying you have a right to the wealth of other people (of which they are funded by) which you do not.

If somebody wants to ban ginger people then fine, let them. The same if somebody wanted to ban me from a hotel for being gay, having black hair or having different political opinions to them - at the end of the day it is their loss financially, and whilst you and I may disagree with them - it remains their individual right (along with property rights) to turn people away.

It is in very much the same way that Christians and/or the state do not have a right to decide what homosexuals get up to in their own bedrooms - turn it around, and homosexuals do not have the right to dictate to others what happens in their [the actual owners] bedrooms.

dbgtz

23-05-2013, 07:47 PM

They have to ASK in advance?!?! Can you imagine booking a hotel an having to write down EVERY aspect of your personality and beliefs just to make sure you can stay there?? Why stop at gay people? Let's ONLY let purple creatures with green spots stay at this hotel: and people who think they aren't in the slightest bit controversial can be turns away at the door with no prior notice!

Can you imagine a hotel actually doing that? They'd lose custom and that's the point. People should speak with their wallet not through government (in these circumstances).

They have fewer rights because they can't stay at a hotel all other people are allowed to. If they were to open a hotel and say, for example, no black people, there would be such a riot about that, so it's not as easy as saying "they can refuse whoever entry".

Besides, an owner of a b&b which isn't specifically marketed (as a gay retreat, as a Christian retreat etc.) should really be more tolerant as its kind of something expected if you're opening up your home to an unlimited range of people.

There probably would be, and that is unfortunate.

They should advertise as what they are, but they can't exactly do that under current legislation.

Ardemax

23-05-2013, 07:52 PM

And can i just ask why you think gay people shouldn't be treated the same as straight people??

Sam

Because gay people aren't humans right? Like it's totally unethical and weird like snow leopards.

lawrawrrr

23-05-2013, 08:00 PM

Can you imagine a hotel actually doing that? They'd lose custom and that's the point. People should speak with their wallet not through government (in these circumstances).

Are you for real? They're losing custom by turning away gay people DESPITE the fact they might have full wallets.

So what you're saying is the state shouldn't intervene in economic transactions in order to ensure equality?

So by that logic, we should have never passed laws to ensure women are paid the same as men?

There probably would be, and that is unfortunate.

They should advertise as what they are, but they can't exactly do that under current legislation.

So they can be racist, sexist, all kinds of -ist as long a they don't advertise it? Because at the moment you seem to be saying that they have the right to turn people away at the door for whatever trivial reason but they can't advertise the fact that they don't let such people stay.

-:Undertaker:-

23-05-2013, 08:04 PM

Are you for real? They're losing custom by turning away gay people DESPITE the fact they might have full wallets.

So what you're saying is the state shouldn't intervene in economic transactions in order to ensure equality?

Indeed, liberty comes above equality.

So by that logic, we should have never passed laws to ensure women are paid the same as men?

Economic fallacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4

So they can be racist, sexist, all kinds of -ist as long a they don't advertise it? Because at the moment you seem to be saying that they have the right to turn people away at the door for whatever trivial reason but they can't advertise the fact that they don't let such people stay.

Do you not see you are being as bad as those who wanted to ban homosexuality via the law all those years ago? you are using the state to force people to act in a moral or just way that you see fit - just as those who opposed the legalisation of homosexuality did all those years ago. Surely morality and private services/choices ought to be decided by individuals rather than one group of individuals using the state to force another group of individuals to comply.

dbgtz

23-05-2013, 08:12 PM

Are you for real? They're losing custom by turning away gay people DESPITE the fact they might have full wallets.

So what you're saying is the state shouldn't intervene in economic transactions in order to ensure equality?

So by that logic, we should have never passed laws to ensure women are paid the same as men?

Yes and they'll suffer for it if it angers people as they should not pay for the service, that's the point.

No they shouldn't as it's not real equality. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

So they can be racist, sexist, all kinds of -ist as long a they don't advertise it? Because at the moment you seem to be saying that they have the right to turn people away at the door for whatever trivial reason but they can't advertise the fact that they don't let such people stay.

No I said they should but at the moment, they can't.

lawrawrrr

23-05-2013, 08:14 PM

Indeed, liberty comes above equality.

Economic fallacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4

Do you not see you are being as bad as those who wanted to ban homosexuality via the law all those years ago? you are using the state to force people to act in a moral or just way that you see fit - just as those who opposed the legalisation of homosexuality did all those years ago. Surely morality and private services/choices ought to be decided by individuals rather than one group of individuals using the state to force another group of individuals to comply.
Do you understand why laws are made? People elect politicians, who make laws (broadly) in line with the wishes of those who elect them. This isn't me, or some non-existent "political class", dictating a set of personal morals to everyone else. The vast majority of people think that they should be paid the same regardless of their gender. This goal is not achievable without state intervention in the form of equal pay laws.

The reason there are no libertarian states is because they're an awful idea.

-:Undertaker:-

23-05-2013, 08:17 PM

Do you understand why laws are made? People elect politicians, who make laws (broadly) in line with the wishes of those who elect them. This isn't me, or some non-existent "political class", dictating a set of personal morals to everyone else. The vast majority of people think that they should be paid the same regardless of their gender. This goal is not achievable without state intervention in the form of equal pay laws.

The reason there are no libertarian states is because they're an awful idea.

The US Constitution and British Constitution are examples of documents based on libertarian ideals. Liberty is the best tool for providing freedom, not democracy - if one truly believed in democracy and the majority being able to impose their morality on others, then surely the repeal of the homosexuality act in the 1960s was wrong then? because back then it would not have had a majority of the public on side.

Yet in that case liberty triumphed over democracy, just as it should do when it comes to equality legislation.

lawrawrrr

23-05-2013, 08:28 PM

The US Constitution and British Constitution are examples of documents based on libertarian ideals.
Have you got a link to the "British Constitution"?

Liberty is the best tool for providing freedom, not democracy - if one truly believed in democracy and the majority being able to impose their morality on others, then surely the repeal of the homosexuality act in the 1960s was wrong then? because back then it would not have had a majority of the public on side.

Yet in that case liberty triumphed over democracy, just as it should do when it comes to equality legislation.

(A slightly more historically accurate version of that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom)

If liberty triumphed over democracy, how did the 1967 Sexual Offences Act come to be passed? Because I'm fairly sure it went through the democratically-elected House of Commons, and even you would struggle to describe the Lords as "liberal" by any meaning of the word.

-:Undertaker:-

23-05-2013, 08:34 PM

Have you got a link to the "British Constitution"?

Look up the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta and habeas corpus - all acts and ideas based in libertarian thought that sought to limit the power of the state over individuals. I take the spirit of those pieces of legislation and oppose your attempts at imposing your morality over other people, just as it was right people did the same and overturned the criminalisation of homosexuality act in the 1960s.

(A slightly more historically accurate version of that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom)

If liberty triumphed over democracy, how did the 1967 Sexual Offences Act come to be passed? Because I'm fairly sure it went through the democratically-elected House of Commons, and even you would struggle to describe the Lords as "liberal" by any meaning of the word.

I never made the claim we've always stuck to libertarian principles, far from it. It's exactly that acts such as the criminalisation of homosexuality passed in the first place which make me more determined to see similar more modern day draconian acts (such as equality acts) defeated. I don't quite see the logic in greatly opening up the personal freedoms for one group [homosexuals] and claiming it a liberation, and then seeking to impose that particular groups 'morality' on those who still happen to disagree with those acts/lifestyles, ie Christian B&B owners.

Near the end of your post you also confuse libertarianism (classical liberalism) with modern day liberalism which is socialism.

dbgtz

23-05-2013, 08:36 PM

Have you got a link to the "British Constitution"?

(A slightly more historically accurate version of that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom)

If liberty triumphed over democracy, how did the 1967 Sexual Offences Act come to be passed? Because I'm fairly sure it went through the democratically-elected House of Commons, and even you would struggle to describe the Lords as "liberal" by any meaning of the word.

A constitution doesn't have to be in one written document.

Few governments actually get the majority of votes and liberals don't even like democracy, it's just the best of the worst if I remember correctly.

Just a couple of points I wanted to make which aren't really developed but are just things to be aware of.

lawrawrrr

23-05-2013, 08:53 PM

Look up the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta and habeas corpus - all acts and ideas based in libertarian thought that sought to limit the power of the state over individuals. I take the spirit of those pieces of legislation and oppose your attempts at imposing your morality over other people, just as it was right people did the same and overturned the criminalisation of homosexuality act in the 1960s.

It's a fairly basic historical fallacy that the Magna Carta had anything to do with protecting the rights and freedoms of the population. The Magna Carta was more concerned with safeguarding the rights of the nobility than it was any rights of the people.

The Bill of Rights similarly was less concerned with individual freedom than it was the power of parliament. One clause allowed Protestants to bear arms at the expense of Catholics - hardly a libertarian principle.

You can't claim every legal principle that establishes or safeguards freedom to be solely libertarian; habeas corpus is as much a fundamental part of democracy as it might be a libertarian state. To use HC to evidence a claim that the British Constitution is based on libertarian principles is misleading.

I never made the claim we've always stuck to libertarian principles, far from it. It's exactly that acts such as the criminalisation of homosexuality passed in the first place which make me more determined to see similar more modern day draconian acts (such as equality acts) defeated. I don't quite see the logic in greatly opening up the personal freedoms for one group [homosexuals] and claiming it a liberation, and then seeking to impose that particular groups 'morality' on those who still happen to disagree with those acts/lifestyles, ie Christian B&B owners.

The way this state (and most others) works, most people have decided that's a good idea. If people thought - oh, actually, you know what, we've taken this a bit far now - then they would change the way they vote at the next election (even starting a new party if they had to). But they don't, because the people chose how they want to be governed and this is what they've chosen. It's great to have these libertarian principles and they can seem quite sensible sometimes. The problem is that they're not great when it comes to actually working.

-:Undertaker:-

23-05-2013, 09:05 PM

It's a fairly basic historical fallacy that the Magna Carta had anything to do with protecting the rights and freedoms of the population. The Magna Carta was more concerned with safeguarding the rights of the nobility than it was any rights of the people.

The Bill of Rights similarly was less concerned with individual freedom than it was the power of parliament. One clause allowed Protestants to bear arms at the expense of Catholics - hardly a libertarian principle.

You can't claim every legal principle that establishes or safeguards freedom to be solely libertarian; habeas corpus is as much a fundamental part of democracy as it might be a libertarian state. To use HC to evidence a claim that the British Constitution is based on libertarian principles is misleading.

Then you fail to understand the English and later British experience. Nobody, not even me, claims that a Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson or Hayekesque group of men surrounded the King and demanded individual rights for everybody - the constitution was ever evolving but was based on those principles. It was only in the 1700s and 1800s that the individual line of thought came into maturity with the flourish in academic liberalism (now called classical liberalism).

The British constitution is the father of libertarianism.

The way this state (and most others) works, most people have decided that's a good idea. If people thought - oh, actually, you know what, we've taken this a bit far now - then they would change the way they vote at the next election (even starting a new party if they had to). But they don't, because the people chose how they want to be governed and this is what they've chosen. It's great to have these libertarian principles and they can seem quite sensible sometimes. The problem is that they're not great when it comes to actually working.

So if the majority voted tommorow to overturn gay marriage (as many American states have done) or voted to make homosexuality illegal once more, is that justified because the majority voted for it? yes or no.

Also, you keep saying it would not work - why not? if we truly followed libertarian principles then gay marriage would have long ago been de facto legalised by getting the state out of it and we wouldn't have the endless debate back and forth about whether or not it should be legal and what safeguards to put in place. It'd be a done and buried issue. The same applies to homosexuality itself.

It was libertarian principles (liberty) that overturned the ban on homosexuality, had it been down to democracy it would have remained illegal.

Spoltage

24-05-2013, 04:36 PM

Because gay people aren't humans right? Like it's totally unethical and weird like snow leopards.

Well someone doesn't like gay people.. we are clearly humans...

Sam

Ardemax

24-05-2013, 05:22 PM

Well someone doesn't like gay people.. we are clearly humans...

Sam

Can you explain to me how gays are humans please?

Aiden

24-05-2013, 05:23 PM

Well someone doesn't like gay people.. we are clearly humans...

Sam

Ignore him. He's winding you up lol!

Kardan

24-05-2013, 05:32 PM

In that way, gay people have to take a massive risk when they make a booking to go away and might end up paying so much more for a last minute booking somewhere. Is that fair? They might have to make ten bookings in one own just to make sure they have somewhere to stay and that's just ridiculous.

What if I opened a b&b and decided when someone turned up I didn't want to let them in because they were, i don't know ginger?

You wouldn't turn away a straight couple so why do gay people have fewer rights? A ginger person would be allowed to stay so why not gay people?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lefsueW2Lp1qf8yek.gif

To be fair, B&B's are a tricky situation. If I opened one, I wouldn't want to allow smokers (even if the law says you can't smoke in them, I wouldn't particularly want a group of people smoking outside my B&B either).

Also, there's all those holiday places that don't allow groups of just 18 year olds... Is that age discrimination? I think people that own B&B's and the like should be able to choose who they want. You might say that's unfair to gay people, but surely it's the same for the B&B owner and their religious beliefs?

--

Also, if I refuse to let in a pair of Jehovah's witnesses into my home, am I discriminating against them?

Aiden

24-05-2013, 05:49 PM

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lefsueW2Lp1qf8yek.gif

To be fair, B&B's are a tricky situation. If I opened one, I wouldn't want to allow smokers (even if the law says you can't smoke in them, I wouldn't particularly want a group of people smoking outside my B&B either).

Also, there's all those holiday places that don't allow groups of just 18 year olds... Is that age discrimination? I think people that own B&B's and the like should be able to choose who they want. You might say that's unfair to gay people, but surely it's the same for the B&B owner and their religious beliefs?

--

Also, if I refuse to let in a pair of Jehovah's witnesses into my home, am I discriminating against them?

But if the gay people haven't done anything besides be gay, there's no reason... but smoking is different ;).

Kardan

24-05-2013, 06:04 PM

But if the gay people haven't done anything besides be gay, there's no reason... but smoking is different ;).

But if a Christian couple own a B&B why should they be legally obliged to accept something that is against their religion in their home/workplace/property?

Aiden

24-05-2013, 06:05 PM

But if a Christian couple own a B&B why should they be legally obliged to accept something that is against their religion in their home/workplace/property?

Because the gay people have done nothing wrong?

Kardan

24-05-2013, 06:06 PM

Because the gay people have done nothing wrong?

No, they haven't :P But surely the people that own their home/property has a say on who stays there?

Aiden

24-05-2013, 06:08 PM

No, they haven't :P But surely the people that own their home/property has a say on who stays there?

But the B&B is there to provide a bed... not friends lol ;) It's pretty much a business, so if it was job and they didn't get it cuz they are gay, that's illegal right lol? so yeah ;)

and did the b&b ppl get in trouble

Kardan

24-05-2013, 06:10 PM

But the B&B is there to provide a bed... not friends lol ;) It's pretty much a business, so if it was job and they didn't get it cuz they are gay, that's illegal right lol? so yeah ;)

and did the b&b ppl get in trouble

Toilets are there to provide toilet facilities, so can I walk into a female toilet and that's okay?

A B&B is a business, but they're not offering jobs to the people that stay.

And just because the B&B got into trouble, doesn't mean that the law is correct, as has been said many times, gay marriage is currently illegal, so that must be wrong by your logic? :P

And you need to forget that sexuality is a part of this, and just consider that the B&B should have a right to say who stays there and who doesn't. For example, would they want a single mum with 4 new born babies to stay in their B&B and wake up everyone else? Probably not.

Aiden

24-05-2013, 06:12 PM

Toilets are there to provide toilet facilities, so can I walk into a female toilet and that's okay?

A B&B is a business, but they're not offering jobs to the people that stay.

And just because the B&B got into trouble, doesn't mean that the law is correct, as has been said many times, gay marriage is currently illegal, so that must be wrong by your logic? :P

And you need to forget that sexuality is a part of this, and just consider that the B&B should have a right to say who stays there and who doesn't. For example, would they want a single mum with 4 new born babies to stay in their B&B and wake up everyone else? Probably not.

It's not illegal, its just not legal lol

and I said if it was a job, they would get in trouble... and the law is correct ;) but theres always a way to improve

Kardan

24-05-2013, 06:14 PM

It's not illegal, its just not legal lol

and I said if it was a job, they would get in trouble... and the law is correct ;) but theres always a way to improve

Whut? Did you really just say that? :S

Yes, if it was an ordinary job, they would get in trouble. But there's still roles within the church that you can't get if you're gay/female... They don't get into trouble?

And if the law is correct, you're saying gay marriage is wrong as well then.

Aiden

24-05-2013, 06:17 PM

Whut? Did you really just say that? :S

Yes, if it was an ordinary job, they would get in trouble. But there's still roles within the church that you can't get if you're gay/female... They don't get into trouble?

And if the law is correct, you're saying gay marriage is wrong as well then.

I didn't say its wrong... I said it was correct... and by the looks of it Gay Marriage will be legal by time I'm old enough to marry. ;)

And what about them gay churches? Do you need perms to make a church? If not, I will make my shed one and give myself the roles (y) lol

Kardan

24-05-2013, 06:20 PM

I didn't say its wrong... I said it was correct... and by the looks of it Gay Marriage will be legal by time I'm old enough to marry. ;)

And what about them gay churches? Do you need perms to make a church? If not, I will make my shed one and give myself the roles (y) lol

I can't say I know much about religion, but I'm pretty sure you can't call any old building a church...

Aiden

24-05-2013, 06:23 PM

I can't say I know much about religion, but I'm pretty sure you can't call any old building a church...

The shed was build a few months ago ;) lol

i dont see the problem tbh, not like we protest to ban church

Kardan

24-05-2013, 06:25 PM

The shed was build a few months ago ;) lol

i dont see the problem tbh, not like we protest to ban church

You don't see the problem about what? And no, I don't think protesting to ban a religion would be a good idea, nor would it get you very far.

Aiden

24-05-2013, 06:26 PM

You don't see the problem about what? And no, I don't think protesting to ban a religion would be a good idea, nor would it get you very far.

c the problem with gay people...

Kardan

24-05-2013, 06:31 PM

c the problem with gay people...

Because in some religions it is considered a sin. Murdering people is forbidden, in some religions eating beef is forbidden, in some religions homosexuality is forbidden...

Aiden

24-05-2013, 06:51 PM

Because in some religions it is considered a sin. Murdering people is forbidden, in some religions eating beef is forbidden, in some religions homosexuality is forbidden...

Well, God strike me down! He's not doing a great job at forbidding it... and if I made a religion up, would you give me the respect and understand how I feel on topics? I doubt it...

Kardan

24-05-2013, 06:55 PM

Well, God strike me down! He's not doing a great job at forbidding it... and if I made a religion up, would you give me the respect and understand how I feel on topics? I doubt it...

The same way God isn't stopping the mass murderers, or the paedophiles(!). And if I was in a place of worship or in someone's own property, then you would respect what they ask you to do, just like you would remove your shoes if you went round someone's house...

It's also worth noting that a large population of the UK identifies themselves as Christian, 60%. If you created your own religion, you would be at 0.0000001% of the population.

Aiden

24-05-2013, 07:21 PM

The same way God isn't stopping the mass murderers, or the paedophiles(!). And if I was in a place of worship or in someone's own property, then you would respect what they ask you to do, just like you would remove your shoes if you went round someone's house...

It's also worth noting that a large population of the UK identifies themselves as Christian, 60%. If you created your own religion, you would be at 0.0000001% of the population.

Hipster religion lol... I'm considering making a religion lol, seems fun

--

Then 60% of us have the wrong opinion... because it is wrong...

Galatians 5:14 ESV / 143 helpful votes

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

1 Corinthians 16:14 ESV / 55 helpful votes

Let all that you do be done in love.

The bible says so...

--

Kardan

24-05-2013, 07:30 PM

Hipster religion lol... I'm considering making a religion lol, seems fun

--

Then 60% of us have the wrong opinion... because it is wrong...

Galatians 5:14 ESV / 143 helpful votes

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

1 Corinthians 16:14 ESV / 55 helpful votes

Let all that you do be done in love.

The bible says so...

--

So you should also love mass murderers and paedophiles as yourself. You don't need to show me the flaws of religion, as I'm not a religious person myself, but that doesn't mean people should respect peoples beliefs. It's also worth noting, not 60% of the country is against homosexuals. Some Christians have no problem with homosexuality.

Aiden

24-05-2013, 07:34 PM

So you should also love mass murderers and paedophiles as yourself. You don't need to show me the flaws of religion, as I'm not a religious person myself, but that doesn't mean people should respect peoples beliefs. It's also worth noting, not 60% of the country is against homosexuals. Some Christians have no problem with homosexuality.

I know lol ;)

But thats what it says... tbqh I couldn't care less what these people do on sundays lol... So they shouldn't care what gay people do in their own time to? If it was a straight couple who weren't married went to that B&B, do you think they'd not let them in?

Kardan

24-05-2013, 07:38 PM

I know lol ;)

But thats what it says... tbqh I couldn't care less what these people do on sundays lol... So they shouldn't care what gay people do in their own time to? If it was a straight couple who weren't married went to that B&B, do you think they'd not let them in?

It's up to the B&B owner to decide whether they let them in or not. And you're looking at it all wrong.

These people are praticising homosexuality under your roof, the people you talk about our practicing religion under their own roof. Christians might not like homosexuality, but they're not saying 'We should ban all homosexuals forever', they just don't want it happening under their own roof.

People like you and me might be okay with that happening, but people like you and me might not be okay with radical muslims, or someone partaking in some strange satanic ritual under our own roof. This isn't about homosexuality, it's about people's rights in their own property. I'm sure many prostitutes have been turned away from B&B's, but I don't hear calls of discrimination against them. And I'm sure many groups of 18 year olds have been turned away from holiday parks.

Aiden

24-05-2013, 07:42 PM

It's up to the B&B owner to decide whether they let them in or not. And you're looking at it all wrong.

These people are praticising homosexuality under your roof, the people you talk about our practicing religion under their own roof. Christians might not like homosexuality, but they're not saying 'We should ban all homosexuals forever', they just don't want it happening under their own roof.

People like you and me might be okay with that happening, but people like you and me might not be okay with radical muslims, or someone partaking in some strange satanic ritual under our own roof. This isn't about homosexuality, it's about people's rights in their own property. I'm sure many prostitutes have been turned away from B&B's, but I don't hear calls of discrimination against them. And I'm sure many groups of 18 year olds have been turned away from holiday parks.

Ageophobic
or
Pozziephobic

will never happen lol.

Personally, I couldn't care less who it was, black white asian prozzie 19 40 gay str8 trans... It's nothing to do with me. I'm there to provide the service... :L

and the b&b owners got in trouble so in that case they was in the wrong... :)

Kardan

24-05-2013, 07:46 PM

Ageophobic
or
Pozziephobic

will never happen lol.

Personally, I couldn't care less who it was, black white asian prozzie 19 40 gay str8 trans... It's nothing to do with me. I'm there to provide the service... :L

and the b&b owners got in trouble so in that case they was in the wrong... :)

But if you actually did own a B&B, you would think otherwise. You would care who was in your property in the middle of the night. And it wouldn't bother you that illegal prostitution was going on in your own property?

And if the B&B owners were in the wrong... I guess these house owners are in the right then? Because there's no law against it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-22511962

Aiden

24-05-2013, 07:48 PM

But if you actually did own a B&B, you would think otherwise. You would care who was in your property in the middle of the night. And it wouldn't bother you that illegal prostitution was going on in your own property?

And if the B&B owners were in the wrong... I guess these house owners are in the right then? Because there's no law against it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-22511962

I wouldn't though? Unless it was illegal for me to let it happen... which I wouldn't know because it's none of my business... I would say I'm quite open minded... I understand everyone believes different stuff, and I am willing to deal with that until it affects others wrongly in my opinion ;)

brackson

24-05-2013, 08:06 PM

As far as the bible goes, Christians have no reason to oppose homosexuality. It says in Leviticus that it's wrong, but Mosaic Code was omitted when Jesus "died on the cross". Christians also ignore the fact that there was a gay couple in the bible (David and Jonathon), but that's a completely different subject, and I can go on and on about it.

Gay couples not being allowed to marry is discriminatory, and that's why it will be legal in time.

Yawn

24-05-2013, 09:14 PM

skandair...u r unbearable in this thread pls stop

:hand:

Edited by Dilusionate (Trialist Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly, thanks!

lawrawrrr

24-05-2013, 09:23 PM

To be fair, B&B's are a tricky situation. If I opened one, I wouldn't want to allow smokers (even if the law says you can't smoke in them, I wouldn't particularly want a group of people smoking outside my B&B either).

Also, there's all those holiday places that don't allow groups of just 18 year olds... Is that age discrimination? I think people that own B&B's and the like should be able to choose who they want. You might say that's unfair to gay people, but surely it's the same for the B&B owner and their religious beliefs?

But the thing is the people who don't let groups of 18 year olds market (usually) as a 'mature' retreat, or maybe even a peaceful retreat and they think groups of 18 year olds are going to be rowdy? Could you really market yourself as an 'anti-gay' retreat?? You think that'd sell really well and not cause any major bad press?

By wanting to run a b&b you sort of have to deal with the fact that you're going to get people you don't necessarily agree with staying, if you want a decent income. If you narrow down your market, even by a tiny bit by saying "NO SMOKERS AT ALL ANY NEAR MY PROPERTY" you're going to scare a great deal of people off. My mum and dad run a villa rental service and hell knows we have a lot of people they don't agree with staying (including a gay couple) but at the end of the day, it's an income... B&Bs are so often unsustainable most owners don't have the luxury of turning down clients.

Also, if I refuse to let in a pair of Jehovah's witnesses into my home, am I discriminating against them?

That's your personal home, not a business.

dbgtz

24-05-2013, 09:50 PM

But the thing is the people who don't let groups of 18 year olds market (usually) as a 'mature' retreat, or maybe even a peaceful retreat and they think groups of 18 year olds are going to be rowdy? Could you really market yourself as an 'anti-gay' retreat?? You think that'd sell really well and not cause any major bad press?

By wanting to run a b&b you sort of have to deal with the fact that you're going to get people you don't necessarily agree with staying, if you want a decent income. If you narrow down your market, even by a tiny bit by saying "NO SMOKERS AT ALL ANY NEAR MY PROPERTY" you're going to scare a great deal of people off. My mum and dad run a villa rental service and hell knows we have a lot of people they don't agree with staying (including a gay couple) but at the end of the day, it's an income... B&Bs are so often unsustainable most owners don't have the luxury of turning down clients.

Do you honestly keep ignoring what I put? If there is bad press on it, then people will stop using it and then the business will fail unless they change their ways i.e. survival of the fittest. It's not your problem is business fails because of this. This would be more effective than simply imposing laws against discrimination as a) law is far more rigid and therefore when the morality of society changes, the law might not reflect that and b) it maximises freedom.

That's your personal home, not a business.

Surely if someone owns a shop they have as much rights to the property as to a house or any other property?

lawrawrrr

24-05-2013, 10:02 PM

Do you honestly keep ignoring what I put? If there is bad press on it, then people will stop using it and then the business will fail unless they change their ways i.e. survival of the fittest. It's not your problem is business fails because of this. This would be more effective than simply imposing laws against discrimination as a) law is far more rigid and therefore when the morality of society changes, the law might not reflect that and b) it maximises freedom.

No I can read perfectly well thank you very much. I wasn't even replying to you so I don't understand how you thought it was in retort to what you said!

We shouldn't impose laws against discrimination? Is that what you're saying? That's hilarious. Seriously, hilarious. The 'law' is not decided by the morality of society, I agree, but wasn't written with a modern mindset, there are far more (openly) gay people now that when it was written and why on earth shouldn't it be updated to reflect this?

The chances of society in a few years time turning round and saying ACTUALLY we don't think these people deserved those rights is so minimal so why shouldn't we lobby for it to be updated? Look at when the slaves were freed, we haven't gone back on that chance for equality, and at the end of the day, what's the difference between one discriminated group and another?

Surely if someone owns a shop they have as much rights to the property as to a house or any other property?

Your private property, aka your house, where you live, is not the same as a commercial property, whether you outright own it or what, it is a commercial space.

Kardan

24-05-2013, 10:21 PM

No I can read perfectly well thank you very much. I wasn't even replying to you so I don't understand how you thought it was in retort to what you said!

We shouldn't impose laws against discrimination? Is that what you're saying? That's hilarious. Seriously, hilarious. The 'law' is not decided by the morality of society, I agree, but wasn't written with a modern mindset, there are far more (openly) gay people now that when it was written and why on earth shouldn't it be updated to reflect this?

The chances of society in a few years time turning round and saying ACTUALLY we don't think these people deserved those rights is so minimal so why shouldn't we lobby for it to be updated? Look at when the slaves were freed, we haven't gone back on that chance for equality, and at the end of the day, what's the difference between one discriminated group and another?

Your private property, aka your house, where you live, is not the same as a commercial property, whether you outright own it or what, it is a commercial space.

What happens if I sell things from my house, am I not allowed to ban Jehovah's witnesses then? I don't see the difference between a home and a B&B. It is your property, you should have the right to say who you want in your establishment.

You're saying you would let anyone into your B&B if you owned one?

lawrawrrr

24-05-2013, 10:34 PM

What happens if I sell things from my house, am I not allowed to ban Jehovah's witnesses then? I don't see the difference between a home and a B&B. It is your property, you should have the right to say who you want in your establishment.

You're saying you would let anyone into your B&B if you owned one?

JFC you're being extremely pedantic now. If you are literally selling odd things from inside your house (which I have literally never heard of anyone doing ever) then it's really up to you who you let on your private property.

Now the thing is I agree that you should have a say in who you let on your property but what I'm really angry about within this context is the fact that the owners do not advertise as such - because as dbgtz has said, it would seriously give them a lot of negative publicity.

That might seem a bit contradictory against some of my other posts: I am completely for LGBT+ rights and will protest vehemently for them but I also believe in the choices of the individual. However, laws should reflect a changing society and it still seems preposterous that gay people would be banned from any commercial establishment.

If you saw this on a B&B nowadays would you think it's perfectly fine?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4QeBZAtzmVY/StXM-e9l4gI/AAAAAAAAAhM/Er8qC8sPJiw/s400/no_irish.jpg

Also, yes, yes I would. Because I don't discriminate.

Yawn

24-05-2013, 10:35 PM

well the key part of the whole B&B story was that it was a business and thats why they weren't allowed to discriminate. although its interesting cos obv its their home as well. basically cos its a business it is against the law to say NO u cant come in cos ur a gay couple

Recorder Claire Moulder said that by refusing the couple access to a double room, Mrs Wilkinson had "treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances".

"If you are running a B&B you have to abide by the law so either change your job or carry on running a B&B and let gay couples stay."

ta dah

dbgtz

24-05-2013, 10:50 PM

No I can read perfectly well thank you very much. I wasn't even replying to you so I don't understand how you thought it was in retort to what you said!

We shouldn't impose laws against discrimination? Is that what you're saying? That's hilarious. Seriously, hilarious. The 'law' is not decided by the morality of society, I agree, but wasn't written with a modern mindset, there are far more (openly) gay people now that when it was written and why on earth shouldn't it be updated to reflect this?

The chances of society in a few years time turning round and saying ACTUALLY we don't think these people deserved those rights is so minimal so why shouldn't we lobby for it to be updated? Look at when the slaves were freed, we haven't gone back on that chance for equality, and at the end of the day, what's the difference between one discriminated group and another?

I know you were not replying to me but it's silly to keep making the same point when it's been explained.

I also never said law wasn't decided by the morality of society because it is for the most part (I've literally just studied this), for example a lot of laws come from old christian teachings. What I said was that law doesn't change as easily to reflect the morality of the public and in addition to this, can never accommodate each individual's own moral stance and basically leads to the oppression of the minority.

Slavery is beyond mere discrimination. Yes you're right, society wouldn't change it's mind, but that doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of individuals subject to the tyranny of the masses.

Your private property, aka your house, where you live, is not the same as a commercial property, whether you outright own it or what, it is a commercial space.

Just because it is commerical does not mean it is free for anyone to come or go as they wish.

lawrawrrr

24-05-2013, 11:15 PM

I know you were not replying to me but it's silly to keep making the same point when it's been explained.

lol

I really don't need you to "explain" to me, no matter how much you might think you do, because I realise that bad press means that less people will go to the place but it really doesn't stop the matter in hand to start with.

I know this is going off topic but Everyday Sexism are trying to persuade companies to pull advertising from Facebook because of their strange policies regarding offensive and discriminatory images (mainly targetted at women)... it's the same situation: just because the companies may or may not pull advertising does not stop the pages circulating on the internet (but let's not get into that because that is off topic)

The point still stands that whether you think you have to explain to me (which you don't, I'm actually quite intelligent believe it or not) there is still a discrimination against LGBT+ people WHETHER THE COMPANIES INVOLVED have good OR bad press and the basic facts that LGBT+ people are discriminated against in the first place is wrong to start with IMO.

I also never said law wasn't decided by the morality of society because it is for the most part (I've literally just studied this), for example a lot of laws come from old christian teachings. What I said was that law doesn't change as easily to reflect the morality of the public and in addition to this, can never accommodate each individual's own moral stance and basically leads to the oppression of the minority.

Slavery is beyond mere discrimination. Yes you're right, society wouldn't change it's mind, but that doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of individuals subject to the tyranny of the masses.

That's how it came across in your post :s right so now you're saying laws are written from old christian teachings and shouldn't be updated to modern circumstances?

Law isn't about the individual, but about the society as a whole. To say that law "basically leads to the oppression of the minority" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard................ your privilege is showing.

Really though, is it? They were enslaved because of the colour of their skin. Nothing else. Discriminatory. For years after they attained their freedom they were still discriminated purely because of the colour of their skin which is basically the entire definition of 'discrimination'. Point in reference, the photo I posted above. That would be horrendously offensive in our society now: and in a good number of years people will look back and say exactly the same thing about gay people.

"that doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of individuals subject to the tyranny of the masses"

oh my you're literally using big words to make yourself sound intelligent now; that sentence doesn't even make sense!!! The tyranny of the masses? What masses?! The same 'masses' that are being subject to that tyranny? I mean, feel free to actually explain that sentence but it's pure rubbish at the moment.

Just because a few select groups (lets face it - mainly religious groups) are opposed to the rights of whichever oppressed group, does that mean we should never try and combat that? Never try to make a difference and try to make it equal? Because that's how it's coming across. In an age where there is already a high of non-religious (let's say non-Christian, for argument's sake) citizens (which is increasing every year)...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Bsa-religion-question.svg/500px-Bsa-religion-question.svg.png
... why should we conform to the minority who protest so vehemently to deny another human being the same rights as them?

Just because it is commerical does not mean it is free for anyone to come or go as they wish.

Hmmm, not really how it works though. Equality Act 2010 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents) - means that shop owners cannot discriminate against people unless it can be objectively justified.

Daltron

24-05-2013, 11:28 PM

I am all for gay rights (liking guys myself :P)

But I understand why people wouldn't be for it and am not going to force it upon anyone to become accepting

dbgtz

25-05-2013, 10:20 AM

lol

I really don't need you to "explain" to me, no matter how much you might think you do, because I realise that bad press means that less people will go to the place but it really doesn't stop the matter in hand to start with.

I know this is going off topic but Everyday Sexism are trying to persuade companies to pull advertising from Facebook because of their strange policies regarding offensive and discriminatory images (mainly targetted at women)... it's the same situation: just because the companies may or may not pull advertising does not stop the pages circulating on the internet (but let's not get into that because that is off topic)

The point still stands that whether you think you have to explain to me (which you don't, I'm actually quite intelligent believe it or not) there is still a discrimination against LGBT+ people WHETHER THE COMPANIES INVOLVED have good OR bad press and the basic facts that LGBT+ people are discriminated against in the first place is wrong to start with IMO.

There may be discrimination against those people, but surely by imposing any sort of law is doing the exact same thing? Oh wait, it is, but they shove "positive" infront of "discrimination" to try and distinguish it when it is equally as bad.

That's how it came across in your post :s right so now you're saying laws are written from old christian teachings and shouldn't be updated to modern circumstances?

Law isn't about the individual, but about the society as a whole. To say that law "basically leads to the oppression of the minority" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard................ your privilege is showing.

Really though, is it? They were enslaved because of the colour of their skin. Nothing else. Discriminatory. For years after they attained their freedom they were still discriminated purely because of the colour of their skin which is basically the entire definition of 'discrimination'. Point in reference, the photo I posted above. That would be horrendously offensive in our society now: and in a good number of years people will look back and say exactly the same thing about gay people.

"that doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of individuals subject to the tyranny of the masses"

oh my you're literally using big words to make yourself sound intelligent now; that sentence doesn't even make sense!!! The tyranny of the masses? What masses?! The same 'masses' that are being subject to that tyranny? I mean, feel free to actually explain that sentence but it's pure rubbish at the moment.

Just because a few select groups (lets face it - mainly religious groups) are opposed to the rights of whichever oppressed group, does that mean we should never try and combat that? Never try to make a difference and try to make it equal? Because that's how it's coming across. In an age where there is already a high of non-religious (let's say non-Christian, for argument's sake) citizens (which is increasing every year)...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Bsa-religion-question.svg/500px-Bsa-religion-question.svg.png
... why should we conform to the minority who protest so vehemently to deny another human being the same rights as them?

No all I was stating is that morals and law overlap which, to me, is problematic.

Law does, for the most part, oppresses the minority as they're forced to conform to the majorities wishes. Though there are some exceptions like minority rights (which are problematic in their own way).

Yes it goes beyond discrimination as it is harming the individuals. I don't really see how you can compare slavery to gay people not being able to attain marriage, especially when there is civil partnership which is virtually identical.

I like how you have to try and attack me personally to get your point across when a simple google search would suffice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

I don't think you even understand the argument anymore. The point is equality should be something shared by everyone but when there is law which goes beyond the protection of citizens, then it is an unneccesary infringement of any individual's liberty.

Hmmm, not really how it works though. Equality Act 2010 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents) - means that shop owners cannot discriminate against people unless it can be objectively justified.

I know it's not how it works, it's what I'm arguing against.

Empired

25-05-2013, 10:44 AM

I'm definitely for gay rights. I don't see why people should be allowed to marry for the eighth time, nor why a couple who met four hours ago at a club should be allowed to get married while gay couples aren't.

Kardan

25-05-2013, 11:17 AM

lol

I really don't need you to "explain" to me, no matter how much you might think you do, because I realise that bad press means that less people will go to the place but it really doesn't stop the matter in hand to start with.

I know this is going off topic but Everyday Sexism are trying to persuade companies to pull advertising from Facebook because of their strange policies regarding offensive and discriminatory images (mainly targetted at women)... it's the same situation: just because the companies may or may not pull advertising does not stop the pages circulating on the internet (but let's not get into that because that is off topic)

The point still stands that whether you think you have to explain to me (which you don't, I'm actually quite intelligent believe it or not) there is still a discrimination against LGBT+ people WHETHER THE COMPANIES INVOLVED have good OR bad press and the basic facts that LGBT+ people are discriminated against in the first place is wrong to start with IMO.

That's how it came across in your post :s right so now you're saying laws are written from old christian teachings and shouldn't be updated to modern circumstances?

Law isn't about the individual, but about the society as a whole. To say that law "basically leads to the oppression of the minority" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard................ your privilege is showing.

Really though, is it? They were enslaved because of the colour of their skin. Nothing else. Discriminatory. For years after they attained their freedom they were still discriminated purely because of the colour of their skin which is basically the entire definition of 'discrimination'. Point in reference, the photo I posted above. That would be horrendously offensive in our society now: and in a good number of years people will look back and say exactly the same thing about gay people.

"that doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of individuals subject to the tyranny of the masses"

oh my you're literally using big words to make yourself sound intelligent now; that sentence doesn't even make sense!!! The tyranny of the masses? What masses?! The same 'masses' that are being subject to that tyranny? I mean, feel free to actually explain that sentence but it's pure rubbish at the moment.

Just because a few select groups (lets face it - mainly religious groups) are opposed to the rights of whichever oppressed group, does that mean we should never try and combat that? Never try to make a difference and try to make it equal? Because that's how it's coming across. In an age where there is already a high of non-religious (let's say non-Christian, for argument's sake) citizens (which is increasing every year)...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Bsa-religion-question.svg/500px-Bsa-religion-question.svg.png
... why should we conform to the minority who protest so vehemently to deny another human being the same rights as them?

Hmmm, not really how it works though. Equality Act 2010 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents) - means that shop owners cannot discriminate against people unless it can be objectively justified.

First of all, I don't know where you got that graph from, but that data is either not for the UK, or inaccurate :P

And you're all busy talking about equality, well what about equality for all the Christians? They're no longer free to practice their religion inside their own property. Is that fair?

Also, I remember reading an article on BBC News, and I cannot find it for the life of me (hopefully someone else can), but some woman (in London I think) opened up either an art gallery or a museum, and only let women in for the first few months. So that's discrimination as well? And she should have legal action taken against her?

You said yourself that people should decide who comes onto their property, and even if it is a 'commerical business', it is still their property at the end of the day, and their rights should extend to that as well. Like I said, if you owned a B&B, would you let some crazy old man with writing all over his arms chanting satanic things in for the night? Probably not :P Clearly the law thinks otherwise, but clearly a few others think the law is wrong :P

Also, how have you never heard people selling things from home? I've heard of many people that do it... Have you never heard of farms, either? :P

And for the record, I'm for gay rights, and I'm probably the least religious person in the world, but it isn't about gay rights and religious rights, it's more about your own rights on your own property.

EDIT: I see where you got your data from, a survey that's 4 years old that surveyed 3,000 people. I think I would rather trust the 2011 census that surveyed nearly everyone in the country...

Yawn

25-05-2013, 12:48 PM

opened up either an art gallery or a museum, and only let women in for the first few months. So that's discrimination as well? And she should have legal action taken against her?

yes thats discrimination and yes legal action could be taken against her :)

as for ur crazy old man example that is a v diff example to not letting in a gay couple for no other reason than them being gay. it clearly isnt discrimination whereas the gay couple is discrimination. and again the law boils down to the fact of whether it is a business or not, not ur own property. pls refer back 2 my quotes in my other post

lawrawrrr

25-05-2013, 07:15 PM

There may be discrimination against those people, but surely by imposing any sort of law is doing the exact same thing? Oh wait, it is, but they shove "positive" infront of "discrimination" to try and distinguish it when it is equally as bad.

No all I was stating is that morals and law overlap which, to me, is problematic.

Law does, for the most part, oppresses the minority as they're forced to conform to the majorities wishes. Though there are some exceptions like minority rights (which are problematic in their own way).

Yes it goes beyond discrimination as it is harming the individuals. I don't really see how you can compare slavery to gay people not being able to attain marriage, especially when there is civil partnership which is virtually identical.

I like how you have to try and attack me personally to get your point across when a simple google search would suffice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

I don't think you even understand the argument anymore. The point is equality should be something shared by everyone but when there is law which goes beyond the protection of citizens, then it is an unneccesary infringement of any individual's liberty.

I know it's not how it works, it's what I'm arguing against.

I can't even like form a response to this because of the lack of logic and common sense... it's like you're literally trying to say that minority groups don't deserve representation and stuff. Also civil partnership might be VIRTUALLY identical but it's not the same and that's why people are 'kicking off' about it.

The argument's kind of changed now, but I'm losing the will to argue (not because I'm "losing" as you'll inevitably think but because I'm fed up of arguing on the internet with children who think they know it all), but the 'point' you make is utter crap. It literally doesn't even make sense. Equality should be shared by everyone, and if it is then there is literally no infringement on anyone's liberty. Protection, physical protection has nothing to do with anything really.

You can't wrap yourself up in a privileged cotton wool ball and pretend that nothing is going to change (this is not aimed at you personally) because of a few outdated ideas you might have when a progressive society is changing it's mass, even majority beliefs, and if a group is being disadvantaged by anyone else then why should we not impose laws (why HAVE we imposed laws) to try and stop that?

Also you think that business owners should be able to turn away whoever they want for any throwaway reason? Bloody hell. That's literally the only response I can even muster. Try being disadvantaged in some way and maybe you'll understand...

First of all, I don't know where you got that graph from, but that data is either not for the UK, or inaccurate :P

EDIT: I see where you got your data from, a survey that's 4 years old that surveyed 3,000 people. I think I would rather trust the 2011 census that surveyed nearly everyone in the country...

Literally, 5 minute google search, seemed up to date. My mistake. There's still a huge amount of Atheists in this country and even you can't deny that.

In the 2011 Census, Christianity was the largest religion, with 33.2 million people (59.3 per cent of the population).....
14.1 million people, around a quarter of the population in England and Wales, reported they have no religion in 2011.
Between 2001 and 2011 there has been a decrease in people who identify as Christian (from 71.7 per cent to 59.3 per cent) and an increase in those reporting no religion (from 14.8 per cent to 25.1 per cent).

Now whilst I see that there are a majority amount of Christians, how many of those are completely orthodox and oppose gay rights? Not that many. There's a graph for that somewhere but I'm far too lazy to go and look for that at the moment for the sake of an internet argument where you're just going to shoot me down and tell me I'm wrong without even considering anything I say. You can also see by the census that Christianity is a RAPIDLY declining majority in the country.

I'm not taking into account the other religions at the moment because I think this is more of the focus we're going for.

And you're all busy talking about equality, well what about equality for all the Christians? They're no longer free to practice their religion inside their own property. Is that fair?

Do you even read what I write? Their own property. Private property. They can do what they want. Like public indecency rules, be as naked as you want inside but keep it to yourself: if you're owning a business you're literally not allowed to discriminate without a completely objective and reasonable reason.

Also, I remember reading an article on BBC News, and I cannot find it for the life of me (hopefully someone else can), but some woman (in London I think) opened up either an art gallery or a museum, and only let women in for the first few months. So that's discrimination as well? And she should have legal action taken against her?

Nope. If you can objectively reason why only one sex should come in then fair enough.

Like, if someone set up a Christian retreat and only let straight couples stay there then that'd probably be a completely fine and objective reason to refuse gay couples to stay.

You said yourself that people should decide who comes onto their property, and even if it is a 'commerical business', it is still their property at the end of the day, and their rights should extend to that as well. Like I said, if you owned a B&B, would you let some crazy old man with writing all over his arms chanting satanic things in for the night? Probably not :P Clearly the law thinks otherwise, but clearly a few others think the law is wrong :P

JFC how many times do I have to say their PERSONAL property. Maybe if I write it in big letters... Personal and commercial are two legally defined spaces of property. End of story. And whether their rights do or do not the literal law says that they don't have the same rights to refuse people entry onto a commercial property.

If he was being loud overnight then he would be warned and eventually ejected for disturbing other guests. If all he did was chant then it seems like he might have an issue with mental problems and I still don't think it's fair to discriminate because of that. Once again it's not like you write down every aspect of your personality when you book a hotel is it?

Also, a 'few others' think a lot of laws are wrong. Doesn't mean that it should be changed......... if you want to go down that path then why not take away women's votes because some groups think that women are less equal than men? Where would you draw the line!?

It's not up to me, you, or even a small (or large for that matter) group of individuals to change the law. Especially to REVERT it to being less equal. One day, hopefully within our lifetime, any human being will have the same rights wherever they go, and if a business owner won't respect that then maybe they shouldn't be running a service to other human beings (unless the want to target it to specific groups or people, objectively.)

Also, how have you never heard people selling things from home? I've heard of many people that do it... Have you never heard of farms, either? :P

On the internet maybe, but that doesn't mean people would come onto their property. Same with farms really, you don't get that many people come onto a farm to personally pick their vegetables, their meats, for example. If the farm has a farm shop then it's commercial property. If it's like a cherry-picking farm or something (which I have heard of and been too!!) then that too, is a commercial property, the second you're providing goods on that piece of property for the sake of money.

Now if we take an example of a hairdresser, dog groomer, massage therapist, music teacher (examples I can think of which would let people into their own home to provide a service) then I do kind of respect their rights to not let people they don't necessarily agree with onto said property. But that is genuinely a personal service and not really a commercial property.

And for the record, I'm for gay rights, and I'm probably the least religious person in the world, but it isn't about gay rights and religious rights, it's more about your own rights on your own property.

YAY LETS EMPOWER THE PRIVILEGED EVEN MORE AND LET THE MINORITY GROUPS SUFFER WOOOOO

Also, please stop using tongue emoticons to belittle and patronise me.

Kardan

25-05-2013, 07:24 PM

I can't even like form a response to this because of the lack of logic and common sense... it's like you're literally trying to say that minority groups don't deserve representation and stuff. Also civil partnership might be VIRTUALLY identical but it's not the same and that's why people are 'kicking off' about it.

The argument's kind of changed now, but I'm losing the will to argue (not because I'm "losing" as you'll inevitably think but because I'm fed up of arguing on the internet with children who think they know it all), but the 'point' you make is utter crap. It literally doesn't even make sense. Equality should be shared by everyone, and if it is then there is literally no infringement on anyone's liberty. Protection, physical protection has nothing to do with anything really.

You can't wrap yourself up in a privileged cotton wool ball and pretend that nothing is going to change (this is not aimed at you personally) because of a few outdated ideas you might have when a progressive society is changing it's mass, even majority beliefs, and if a group is being disadvantaged by anyone else then why should we not impose laws (why HAVE we imposed laws) to try and stop that?

Also you think that business owners should be able to turn away whoever they want for any throwaway reason? Bloody hell. That's literally the only response I can even muster. Try being disadvantaged in some way and maybe you'll understand...

Literally, 5 minute google search, seemed up to date. My mistake. There's still a huge amount of Atheists in this country and even you can't deny that.

In the 2011 Census, Christianity was the largest religion, with 33.2 million people (59.3 per cent of the population).....
14.1 million people, around a quarter of the population in England and Wales, reported they have no religion in 2011.
Between 2001 and 2011 there has been a decrease in people who identify as Christian (from 71.7 per cent to 59.3 per cent) and an increase in those reporting no religion (from 14.8 per cent to 25.1 per cent).

Now whilst I see that there are a majority amount of Christians, how many of those are completely orthodox and oppose gay rights? Not that many. There's a graph for that somewhere but I'm far too lazy to go and look for that at the moment for the sake of an internet argument where you're just going to shoot me down and tell me I'm wrong without even considering anything I say. You can also see by the census that Christianity is a RAPIDLY declining majority in the country.

I'm not taking into account the other religions at the moment because I think this is more of the focus we're going for.

Do you even read what I write? Their own property. Private property. They can do what they want. Like public indecency rules, be as naked as you want inside but keep it to yourself: if you're owning a business you're literally not allowed to discriminate without a completely objective and reasonable reason.

Nope. If you can objectively reason why only one sex should come in then fair enough.

Like, if someone set up a Christian retreat and only let straight couples stay there then that'd probably be a completely fine and objective reason to refuse gay couples to stay.

JFC how many times do I have to say their PERSONAL property. Maybe if I write it in big letters... Personal and commercial are two legally defined spaces of property. End of story. And whether their rights do or do not the literal law says that they don't have the same rights to refuse people entry onto a commercial property.

If he was being loud overnight then he would be warned and eventually ejected for disturbing other guests. If all he did was chant then it seems like he might have an issue with mental problems and I still don't think it's fair to discriminate because of that. Once again it's not like you write down every aspect of your personality when you book a hotel is it?

Also, a 'few others' think a lot of laws are wrong. Doesn't mean that it should be changed......... if you want to go down that path then why not take away women's votes because some groups think that women are less equal than men? Where would you draw the line!?

It's not up to me, you, or even a small (or large for that matter) group of individuals to change the law. Especially to REVERT it to being less equal. One day, hopefully within our lifetime, any human being will have the same rights wherever they go, and if a business owner won't respect that then maybe they shouldn't be running a service to other human beings (unless the want to target it to specific groups or people, objectively.)

On the internet maybe, but that doesn't mean people would come onto their property. Same with farms really, you don't get that many people come onto a farm to personally pick their vegetables, their meats, for example. If the farm has a farm shop then it's commercial property. If it's like a cherry-picking farm or something (which I have heard of and been too!!) then that too, is a commercial property, the second you're providing goods on that piece of property for the sake of money.

Now if we take an example of a hairdresser, dog groomer, massage therapist, music teacher (examples I can think of which would let people into their own home to provide a service) then I do kind of respect their rights to not let people they don't necessarily agree with onto said property. But that is genuinely a personal service and not really a commercial property.

YAY LETS EMPOWER THE PRIVILEGED EVEN MORE AND LET THE MINORITY GROUPS SUFFER WOOOOO

Also, please stop using tongue emoticons to belittle and patronise me.

First of all, I wouldn't say the 25% of non-religious people are atheist. Surely agnostics would describe themselves as non-religious on the census? And yes, Christianity is declining, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it's the majority religion in the country. (It's also worth noting that it's not just Christianity that's against homosexuality, and also worth noting people can be religious and not opposed to homosexuality).

From what I remember, men were not allowed into the gallery/museum because they only wanted women to see what was inside... Anyway, apparently the only difference between our arguments, is that you are saying that the Christians B&B need to identify themselves as Christian, and then it's okay to refuse homosexuals. If that was the case, I would be happy with that, although I'm sure that would probably still break some laws.

And I know many people that sell things from their own home. For example I know someone that makes baby accessories, like bibs, wooden name sign thingies etc. And people come round her house to view them and purchase them... I thought many people knew someone who did things like that, but perhaps not...

And, there's no need to try and get argumentative in a debate, if you look through the history of all my posts ever, I always use :P's, I'm sure people like -:Undertaker:-; have noticed me using them frequently, I use them to try and make it more light hearted, but it seems you like to be deadly serious about your debates, so I apologise if you're offended.

:P

lawrawrrr

25-05-2013, 07:36 PM

First of all, I wouldn't say the 25% of non-religious people are atheist. Surely agnostics would describe themselves as non-religious on the census? And yes, Christianity is declining, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it's the majority religion in the country. (It's also worth noting that it's not just Christianity that's against homosexuality, and also worth noting people can be religious and not opposed to homosexuality).

From what I remember, men were not allowed into the gallery/museum because they only wanted women to see what was inside... Anyway, apparently the only difference between our arguments, is that you are saying that the Christians B&B need to identify themselves as Christian, and then it's okay to refuse homosexuals. If that was the case, I would be happy with that, although I'm sure that would probably still break some laws.

And I know many people that sell things from their own home. For example I know someone that makes baby accessories, like bibs, wooden name sign thingies etc. And people come round her house to view them and purchase them... I thought many people knew someone who did things like that, but perhaps not...

And, there's no need to try and get argumentative in a debate, if you look through the history of all my posts ever, I always use :P's, I'm sure people like @-:Undertaker:- (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233); have noticed me using them frequently, I use them to try and make it more light hearted, but it seems you like to be deadly serious about your debates, so I apologise if you're offended.

:P

It's definitely more important to say that religion doesn't really play a part in who believes in gay rights or not. I know plenty of Christians who actively campaign for gay rights, and even a number of Christian LGBT+ people. It's quite a generalisation to just narrow it down to that, because also some atheists/agnostics might oppose gay rights!!

Arts (in any form) often form quite a political note. Women are, have been, oppressed and by only letting women in it's more of a political point than an outright discrimination. I found this, is this what you were talking about? Even the artist says "it's just issues that men will never come across purely because of the difference between men and women"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-19390354

It's worth saying men were let in eventually. (just like women were given the vote eventually, just saying. Political.)

I'm not saying they should be able to identify as just Christian to be able to refuse homosexuals, but if they advertise their business as a business which is aimed at a particular clientele then I suppose it'd be... dodgy but ok. Because as we just agreed on, Christian ≠ anti gay rights.

No, never heard of anything like that, that's the sort of thing I see on markets or something, not literally from your own from room :s it's hardly a main source of income though is it, and not really applicable because yeah if you're letting people into your private home for a nick nack or two then I suppose you don't have to let anyone in you don't want to. But if you're running a large supermarket, a hotel, a restaurant, something like that, a main, large source of income then to let anyone in buy a select group of people is discriminatory and against commercial law. Someone selling engraved wood from their front room is not really legally defined as a commercial business, as I understand it.

Doesn't seem lighthearted, just seems patronising. I apologise if I offended you by insinuating that or jumping to conclusions but in my debating experience when you're having a serious debate about serious issues it's kinda trivialising (about the issue and the fellow debater) to use emoticons and stuff.

dbgtz

25-05-2013, 08:29 PM

lawrawrrr

25-05-2013, 09:35 PM

The only difference is the name. I don't even understand why gays would want to be "married" when these institutions openly oppose the idea of homosexuals. I would also like to state minority rights is not related to representation which I think is what you're directing the "minority groups don't deserve representation" part at.

Whilst they are essentially very similar and pretty much have the same legal rights there are a few differences... pension, travel restrictions, don't even get me STARTED on gender and the vows and things.

And there is socially less importance attached to a civil partnership: many gay couples who have entered into a civil partnership refer to themselves as "married" but they actually are not. Why does society still see marriage as more important, and why are gay people not allowed to have the same rights and importance?

OK I'll put it clearly then as my view hasn't changed. All these "equality" laws do is infringe on others liberty. Saying that if there is equality, there is no infringement on liberty is completely wrong. For example, if there has to be a certain percentage of men and women employed this could result in those less qualified getting a job because of their sex and not because of their merit because the employer is forced to meet these quotas.

Gender balance is a bit of a grey area for me, I'm not quite decided on it yet. But the thing I'm struggling to see is that if LGBT+ people were to have the same rights as straight people, how would that infringe on anyone's liberty? It might oppose their morality or their thoughts but not literally their liberty (any more than it already does, such as commercial law which I've already covered). To compare it to gender balance at work is a bit far-fetched because people who oppose gay marriage won't be NOT allowed to get married if gay couples can, so they're not physically disadvantaged in any way.

My ideas aren't exactly outdated. I'm not saying no to gay marriage and I'm not advocating racism and sexism. I'm just saying people should act how they want to act (to a certain degree) and not having anybody else telling them what to do. We have to have laws because people thinks it's the role of the state when all it does it give it more power which is rarely a good thing.

You might say all that but your arguments are pretty much the opposite. By basically saying that anyone has a right to treat minority groups as badly as they want that's pretty much condoning racism, sexism, every other ism just for the sake of it.

When it comes to personal property then people should have a right to do whatever they want! But if you're running a commercial service then I don't see why people should be allowed to be discriminatory.

And really, the oppressed minority groups are not going to get any form of equality and respect without a few laws being put in place really are they. Although maybe not everyone might not agree, there is no single rule which NOONE opposes, and seeing as I don't see a case in which anyone's disadvantaged by any gay equality rule I don't see the problem in lobbying and eventually implementing one? Soon?

Sorry but you hardly seem disadvantaged so I don't really get why you keep jabbing at me? Just because my view isn't identical to you, I'm somehow privileged and which somehow makes me stupid without you actually knowing anything about me? Perhaps you should stop trying to insult me and actually counter my arguments.

SERIOUSLY?

No, not because you are opposed to me, but because you are naive as to privilege. If we ignore the materialistic ideas of privilege so many people seem to have (like constructed classes, like material gain etc), then you are actually quite privileged compared to me.

"Check your privilege" is an actual term which is used to remind people that actually they are quite privileged. In the society we live in, me, as a bisexual woman is less privileged than you, a straight white male (I believe). Then again, I am less privileged than an member of an ethnic minority group.

No I may not be at too much of an obvious advantage compared to you but at the end of the day I am slightly less privileged because I was unfortunate enough to be born a woman and like other women (sometimes). It's not too difficult to understand but it's more difficult to explain.

oh I just want to say this is not a rant about how oppressed I am and how lucky and advantaged you are, AT ALL, seriously, I actually like the challenge of competing against those more advantaged for a role they may not believe I would be suited for and campaigning for rights that I believe people like me, and especially those less privileged than me should have.

!x!dude!x!2

25-05-2013, 10:55 PM

for, if you think its wrong YOURE WRONG.

people have a right to there own opinion you cant say some one is wrong if they think something else

Aiden

25-05-2013, 11:23 PM

people have a right to there own opinion you cant say some one is wrong if they think something else

People's opinions can be wrong. :)

DefntlyNotDevin

25-05-2013, 11:30 PM

Gay Rights FTW~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;) <3
Me and My boyfriend are VERY happy together <3

lawrawrrr

25-05-2013, 11:51 PM

People's opinions can be wrong. :)

Facts can be wrong.

An opinion cannot be objectively 'wrong'. Only when the opinion is constructed with purported 'facts' can it kind of be classed as 'wrong'.

A belief, on the other hand, can. Such as when people believed that the world is flat (which people seem to always use as an argument for this) that was not an OPINION that was a belief about a fact

Aiden

25-05-2013, 11:53 PM

Facts can be wrong.

An opinion cannot be objectively 'wrong'. Only when the opinion is constructed with purported 'facts' can it kind of be classed as 'wrong'.

A belief, on the other hand, can. Such as when people believed that the world is flat (which people seem to always use as an argument for this) that was not an OPINION that was a belief about a fact

But can opinions be wrong?

''9/11 is good'' < wrong or right...

lawrawrrr

25-05-2013, 11:57 PM

But can opinions be wrong?

''9/11 is good'' < wrong or right...

lol

that's not a wrong or right thing

Whilst it may be morally wrong to the majority of Western society without even a second thought, some people think it was a good thing, and there is literally no objective judgement for it to be either 'right' or 'wrong'.

OH GOD I am not glorifying terrorism in any way but the hijackers involved thought it was 'right' and other members of Al Qaeda thought, think, it was right, hell even some organisations (like Westboro Baptist Church probably) thought it was 'right' because of whatever reasons...

but i'm not getting into this argument with anyone, especially not you

Aiden

25-05-2013, 11:58 PM

lol

that's not a wrong or right thing

Whilst it may be morally wrong to the majority of Western society without even a second thought, some people think it was a good thing, and there is literally no objective judgement for it to be either 'right' or 'wrong'.

OH GOD I am not glorifying terrorism in any way but the hijackers involved thought it was 'right' and other members of Al Qaeda thought, think, it was right, hell even some organisations (like Westboro Baptist Church probably) thought it was 'right' because of whatever reasons...

but i'm not getting into this argument with anyone, especially not you

we votee yeahh... so if most of us vote for it as wrong, den its wrong init lol

lawrawrrr

26-05-2013, 12:00 AM

we votee yeahh... so if most of us vote for it as wrong, den its wrong init lol

please, for the sake of humanity, go back to school...

That's literally you saying we should oppress minority group. The minority group in the situation of this thread is homosexuals (even though it should be for all LGBT+ people and not just 'G' IMHO). Logic?

Aiden

26-05-2013, 12:01 AM

please, for the sake of humanity, go back to school...

That's literally you saying we should oppress minority group. The minority group in the situation of this thread is homosexuals (even though it should be for all LGBT+ people and not just 'G' IMHO). Logic?

no i dont get ya

lawrawrrr

26-05-2013, 12:02 AM

no i dont get ya

Of course you don't. Don't worry.

Aiden

26-05-2013, 12:03 AM

Of course you don't. Don't worry.

Well i could do but i dont care lol

lawrawrrr

26-05-2013, 12:04 AM

Well i could do but i dont care lol

That just about says it all really.......

FlyingJesus

26-05-2013, 12:05 AM

So by that logic, we should have never passed laws to ensure women are paid the same as men?

That's actually very much unnecessary in the modern world because quite clearly if an entire group of people is able to be paid under minimum wage then all businesses with any sense will snap them up as workers in order to save money, which would then decrease the value of those initially put ahead anyway and create a level of equal pay simply through economic necessity

It's not illegal, its just not legal lol

Christ alive

If you narrow down your market, even by a tiny bit by saying "NO SMOKERS AT ALL ANY NEAR MY PROPERTY" you're going to scare a great deal of people off.

Which is the right of the business, and if they suffer as a result of it then it's their own fault. Same as how A&F are quite entitled to say that they don't want to cater to larger ladies - it might not have been a great idea to broadcast it but it's well within their rights to choose their own target market

That's your personal home, not a business.

...And unless you've sold your business to the state or they own it through mortgages and such it remains a private area. This is an especially bad point in reference to B&Bs in which the owner quite often does use as their personal home as well as business

Your private property, aka your house, where you live, is not the same as a commercial property, whether you outright own it or what, it is a commercial space.

And again, commercial spaces are in general privately owned. The state is not the market and the market is not the state

Also you think that business owners should be able to turn away whoever they want for any throwaway reason? Bloody hell. That's literally the only response I can even muster. Try being disadvantaged in some way and maybe you'll understand...

You now have to be my best friend and buy me gifts because I am disadvantaged and if you don't I will make laws against you. You are literally attempting to argue against freedom of choice, nice one

Do you even read what I write? Their own property. Private property. They can do what they want. Like public indecency rules, be as naked as you want inside but keep it to yourself: if you're owning a business you're literally not allowed to discriminate without a completely objective and reasonable reason.

Do you even read what you write? Most businesses are private property - inviting people in to partake in custom is not the same thing as a space being a public right of way, and yes you literally are allowed to discriminate without a completely objective and reasonable reason; it's written into a huge number of company policies especially in regards to retail and... DA DA DA! guest housing

the literal law says that they don't have the same rights to refuse people entry onto a commercial property.

What the hell are you on about that's not true at all. In the public sector (ie: things actually owned/run by the state) you can't discriminate but otherwise yes you can, for no reason at all

Women are, have been, oppressed and by only letting women in it's more of a political point than an outright discrimination.

Please, go ahead and tell me how women are oppressed in the Western world, and also tell me how you plan to back up your argument that a small section of society (homosexuals) should be allowed freedom of access absolutely everywhere on the planet but half the world's population (men) shouldn't have such freedoms just because a woman said so. It's guaranteed to be hilarious

"Check your privilege" is an actual term which is used to remind people that actually they are quite privileged. In the society we live in, me, as a bisexual woman is less privileged than you, a straight white male (I believe). Then again, I am less privileged than an member of an ethnic minority group.

OH JESUS THE LAUGHTER. Someone's been on tumblr too much and taken in dogmatic buzzwords instead of actually thinking. Let's make privilege ladders! Let's tell people their opinions don't count because of how they were born while in the same breath claiming to be for equality! "Check your privilege" is a term that is under absolute ridicule because it means nothing, does nothing, and helps no-one. Again though I'd LOVE to hear how you're less privileged as a woman than someone who faces a bigger threat of every single type of violent crime (other than domestic violence, which is near enough 50/50), can be forced to pay child support to their rapist and yet be refused by law to see that same child, is 165% more likely to be incarcerated for perpetrating the same crime (ie: if a white woman has 100% chance of being convicted, a white man has a 265% chance), and a whole slew of other legally ingrained discriminatory problems. Please don't come back with "well sometimes men are rude to me"

No I may not be at too much of an obvious advantage compared to you but at the end of the day I am slightly less privileged because I was unfortunate enough to be born a woman

Yeah you poor thing being legally protected against just about everything it's possible to protect you from

http://imagehaul.com/thehauls/b162a843ce35f2486dd6ddd13d627d86.jpg

Seriously you have a lot of reading to do

!x!dude!x!2

26-05-2013, 12:06 AM

People's opinions can be wrong. :)

how can some one opinion be wrong :/ an opinion is a opinion

Kardan

26-05-2013, 01:44 AM

Please, go ahead and tell me...

During that whole post, this is all I could think of, and then you said that line :P

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/37112892.jpg

On topic; woo gay rights. Totally support.

dbgtz

26-05-2013, 12:40 PM

Whilst they are essentially very similar and pretty much have the same legal rights there are a few differences... pension, travel restrictions, don't even get me STARTED on gender and the vows and things.

And there is socially less importance attached to a civil partnership: many gay couples who have entered into a civil partnership refer to themselves as "married" but they actually are not. Why does society still see marriage as more important, and why are gay people not allowed to have the same rights and importance?

Well to me I don't see why they really care but if the state wasn't involved then those who wish to marry gays can, and those who don't want to don't have to. Essentially, everybody will win.

Gender balance is a bit of a grey area for me, I'm not quite decided on it yet. But the thing I'm struggling to see is that if LGBT+ people were to have the same rights as straight people, how would that infringe on anyone's liberty? It might oppose their morality or their thoughts but not literally their liberty (any more than it already does, such as commercial law which I've already covered). To compare it to gender balance at work is a bit far-fetched because people who oppose gay marriage won't be NOT allowed to get married if gay couples can, so they're not physically disadvantaged in any way.

Equal rights would not infringe on anyones liberty (if there is maximum freedom). But what you're assuming is people have the right to marry, enter shops etc. and I don't get why you mentioned commerical law as if I agreed with it. Just because it is law doesn't make it right.

I was comparing the lack of choice by employers and ministers of religions (or whatever they're called). Yeah, those who oppose gay marriage will be able to get married, but that's not really what this is about.

Also I'd like to point you basically compared the slave trade to gay marriage so to say my point was a bit far fetched...

You might say all that but your arguments are pretty much the opposite. By basically saying that anyone has a right to treat minority groups as badly as they want that's pretty much condoning racism, sexism, every other ism just for the sake of it.

When it comes to personal property then people should have a right to do whatever they want! But if you're running a commercial service then I don't see why people should be allowed to be discriminatory.

And really, the oppressed minority groups are not going to get any form of equality and respect without a few laws being put in place really are they. Although maybe not everyone might not agree, there is no single rule which NOONE opposes, and seeing as I don't see a case in which anyone's disadvantaged by any gay equality rule I don't see the problem in lobbying and eventually implementing one? Soon?

I'm not condoning it, it's just not the role of the state. Why can't people use their own brain to influence the views of others rather than have some bit of paper essentially telling how to think, act and dance to the drums of the supreme being of Parliament?

If someone owns the land outright then I don't see how that isn't personal.

I'm pretty sure nobody sane will oppose murder, theft, gbh etc. Surely the religions being forced to act as the law would state are being disadvantaged...

SERIOUSLY?

No, not because you are opposed to me, but because you are naive as to privilege. If we ignore the materialistic ideas of privilege so many people seem to have (like constructed classes, like material gain etc), then you are actually quite privileged compared to me.

"Check your privilege" is an actual term which is used to remind people that actually they are quite privileged. In the society we live in, me, as a bisexual woman is less privileged than you, a straight white male (I believe). Then again, I am less privileged than an member of an ethnic minority group.

No I may not be at too much of an obvious advantage compared to you but at the end of the day I am slightly less privileged because I was unfortunate enough to be born a woman and like other women (sometimes). It's not too difficult to understand but it's more difficult to explain.

oh I just want to say this is not a rant about how oppressed I am and how lucky and advantaged you are, AT ALL, seriously, I actually like the challenge of competing against those more advantaged for a role they may not believe I would be suited for and campaigning for rights that I believe people like me, and especially those less privileged than me should have.

I'd like to see how you are disadvantaged because you are a woman. I can understand ethnic minorities, but to be quite frank that's down to the poor idea and implementation of multiculturalism & poor government.

I stray a bit here but as someone who basically seems to be a feminist I'm sure you've heard of Greer? She was on QT the other week (I think it was her anyway) and basically the topic was rape and every time she spoke it was always presumed that it was a woman who should stand up in court unashamed to the evil man. This pretty much highlights why I do not want "equality" laws as they achieve "equality" by focusing solely on their own ideas without actually taking others into consideration and that's why free choice is required, but also inevitable.