I've got a whole cast of characters I've designed for a anthro webcomic that I'm working on. I've got no intention of having much in the way of sexual themes, but I'm sure rule 34 will kick in if it gains any kind of popularity. That'll be a fun* discovery.
There's a big difference between furry and just anthropomorphic. Donald Duck is anthropomorphic. To be furry, you need to have that creepy "I'm really a fox, and this is my inner self" vibe. Not necessarily a sexual thing.
See, I've got a very different opinion on that. But I honestly don't think delving further into discussion about this subject will anywhere good. I also don't think I have much chance at changing the way anyone around here sees things, so I'll just leave it at "I disagree, but I don't feel like arguing about it."
This isn't even an issue of gay marriage or civil partnership or religion at all. This person wouldn't do her job, so she was fired. It's pretty cut and dry.
I wonder if she or someone else will play the "Discrimination"-card anyways.
Rhan9 on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
This isn't even an issue of gay marriage or civil partnership or religion at all. This person wouldn't do her job, so she was fired. It's pretty cut and dry.
This isn't even an issue of gay marriage or civil partnership or religion at all. This person wouldn't do her job, so she was fired. It's pretty cut and dry.
I wonder if she or someone else will play the "Discrimination"-card anyways.
She's taking it to a tribunal. People on the whole don't think she'll get anywhere with her complaint though, for all the reasons we've all stated.
Honestly; Eating meat on the wrong day? Wearing clothes made from two kinds of cloth? What the fuck is that even supposed to protect against?
Its basically codified xenophobia, once you're past the hygiene rules. Those manky heathen bastards in the next valley wear clothes like that so we're not gonna, sort of thing.
See, I've got a very different opinion on that. But I honestly don't think delving further into discussion about this subject will anywhere good. I also don't think I have much chance at changing the way anyone around here sees things, so I'll just leave it at "I disagree, but I don't feel like arguing about it."
If you've got something substantial to say about it you might as well start a thread. People here are generally very willing to listen. So long as it's not too icky.
See, I've got a very different opinion on that. But I honestly don't think delving further into discussion about this subject will anywhere good. I also don't think I have much chance at changing the way anyone around here sees things, so I'll just leave it at "I disagree, but I don't feel like arguing about it."
If you've got something substantial to say about it you might as well start a thread. People here are generally very willing to listen. So long as it's not too icky.
Yeah.... I'm gonna go ahead and not do that, mmkay?
Interesting. I really need to read up on the bible more, but it's such a dense book. x.x
Really, it's not that good. There are occasional decent bits, but as a book, I wouldn't rate it very high. It's highly inconsistent, doesn't make sense much of the time, and it's thick and slow to read as hell. I tried reading it couple of times, but found it to be a pretty dull experience.
Another current topic on the whole homosexuallity and religion thing.
Now, I agree that people have every right to express their opinion on something (though to be fair, I think people would go crazy if someone started spouting racist opinions or expressed religious intollerance in this country), but the amendment to this new bill that some people are suggesting just takes things too far.
A small group of Christian MPs are attempting to weaken the proposal by introducing an amendment allowing:
"discussion of, criticism of, or expression of antipathy towards conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct according to that orientation."
So.... they think they should be allowed to ask people to refrain from being gay? There is such a thing as a socially acceptable code of conduct, something that isn't written, but all people know. You don't go around snogging the faces off people in public, gay or straight, or flaunt your latest sexual conquests if you know the person you're speaking to wouldn't appreciate it. What this section of the amendment to the bill is doing, is letting biggots have a legal way of blocking out something they don't like. And the thing is, its so ambiguous... it could relate to anything perceived as homosexual. To me, it's like having a law which states that you can ask people of a different racial or cultural background to yourself to change how they are because you don't agree with it.
To me, it's like having a law which states that you can ask people of a different racial or cultural background to yourself to change how they are because you don't agree with it.
Ooh, it makes me so angry!
Then you must really hate Kansas. It's one of the states where gay sex is still outlawed, and giving consent to homosexual relations can get you arrested.
Interesting. I really need to read up on the bible more, but it's such a dense book. x.x
Really, it's not that good. There are occasional decent bits, but as a book, I wouldn't rate it very high. It's highly inconsistent, doesn't make sense much of the time, and it's thick and slow to read as hell. I tried reading it couple of times, but found it to be a pretty dull experience.
I bet it would be a lot more magical if you believed.
Interesting. I really need to read up on the bible more, but it's such a dense book. x.x
Really, it's not that good. There are occasional decent bits, but as a book, I wouldn't rate it very high. It's highly inconsistent, doesn't make sense much of the time, and it's thick and slow to read as hell. I tried reading it couple of times, but found it to be a pretty dull experience.
I bet it would be a lot more magical if you believed.
Oh snap!
Ironically, it was reading the bible that made me lose my idiotic kiddie belief in Christianity.
@oddment: Yeah, what's up with that? Why do people keep trying to get vague laws through, that don't really help anyone, and probably cause more harm?
Interesting. I really need to read up on the bible more, but it's such a dense book. x.x
Really, it's not that good. There are occasional decent bits, but as a book, I wouldn't rate it very high. It's highly inconsistent, doesn't make sense much of the time, and it's thick and slow to read as hell. I tried reading it couple of times, but found it to be a pretty dull experience.
I bet it would be a lot more magical if you believed.
Oh snap!
Ironically, it was reading the bible that made me lose my idiotic kiddie belief in Christianity.
@oddment: Yeah, what's up with that? Why do people keep trying to get vague laws through, that don't really help anyone, and probably cause more harm?
There are only about 8 MP's who are wholly supportive of the amendment though, so with any luck they'll pass the bill without including the proposed amendment. If the amendment IS included, then I really hope people kick off about it. I know I'll take an active role in lobbying for its removal.
Can anyone actually point me to a part of the Bible that specifically states something along the lines of "thou shalt not get funky with thine own sex's nasty bits?"
Leviticus doesn't count.
I'm pretty sure it only appears in Leviticus, but I could be wrong.
Why doesn't it could though? I'm pretty sure that part of the whole Jesus thing that was he wasn't trying to get rid of the OT, rather update it.
[FONT=Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica]26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
[/FONT]
let it be said I am not a fan of the Apostle Paul.
I can understand why she would object if they were getting MARRIED but they're getting a union! That's not even "marriage = man+woman but gays are swell" disguised bigotry, it's just plain old hatin'
She needs to get a new job. This isn't some underhanded practice or some morally objectionable task that was slipped in, it was was bloody well passed by the government.
Can anyone actually point me to a part of the Bible that specifically states something along the lines of "thou shalt not get funky with thine own sex's nasty bits?"
Leviticus doesn't count.
I'm pretty sure it only appears in Leviticus, but I could be wrong.
Why doesn't it could though? I'm pretty sure that part of the whole Jesus thing that was he wasn't trying to get rid of the OT, rather update it.
[FONT=Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica]26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
[/FONT]
let it be said I am not a fan of the Apostle Paul.
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (OUTE MALAKOI OUTE ARSENOKOITAI) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the mane of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Though this site does make the argument that Paul was talking about sex hetero and homo. I will have to agree though. Paul is, in my opinion, of about zero religious authority who is unfortunately mistaken by organized religion for having some.
So, really you've got Leviticus and Paul (to what extent depends on translation).
She could make an argument that she should be given other duties if this new act (two years new?) came into effect after she was employed, however that would depend I think on her job description and how much time she spent doing the various activities. If this role of marriage celebrant is only a very small part of her day to day job then in theory it could be quite easy to work around.
However I do not like the precedent of someone feeling they can opt out of applying law designed to remove discrimination, especially as an employee of the one part of society that should never be allowed to opt out of such laws. Personally I hope she doesn't win her case. How would she have liked it if the government had said she couldn't be employed because the job required someone without her kind of Christian religious beliefs?
Has anyone read some of the chatter on The Sun forum I linked to in the OP? Some people are just plain stupid... their arguements make no sense and aren't based on fact or even science in some cases. It's scary that people with their beliefs have a say in the laws that govern us. I was pleasantly suprised at the number of people supporting gay marriage though... I usually think of The Sun and its readers of holding rather biggoted points of view, and the fact they're the nations number one newspaper would indicate their views are that of the majority. However, as I say the number of people sticking up for gay people, many of whom are not themselves gay, is pleasing. It has restored at least some of my faith in the British public to not be complete morons.
Has anyone read some of the chatter on The Sun forum I linked to in the OP? Some people are just plain stupid... their arguements make no sense and aren't based on fact or even science in some cases. It's scary that people with their beliefs have a say in the laws that govern us. I was pleasantly suprised at the number of people supporting gay marriage though... I usually think of The Sun and its readers of holding rather biggoted points of view, and the fact they're the nations number one newspaper would indicate their views are that of the majority. However, as I say the number of people sticking up for gay people, many of whom are not themselves gay, is pleasing. It has restored at least some of my faith in the British public to not be complete morons.
I had a look through - I do agree, the forums are far more moderate, polite and accepting than I thought they would be, based on how I view the Sun. Colour me surprised
Kalkino on
Freedom for the Northern Isles!
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Jesus, why the hell can't people just let other people be gay and do gay things together. Why does everyone feel that a two thousand year old book has to be used to determine the laws of civilization, when we've explicitly separated the two on several occasions. It makes no sense.
Jesus, why the hell can't people just let other people be gay and do gay things together. Why does everyone feel that a two thousand year old book has to be used to determine the laws of civilization, when we've explicitly separated the two on several occasions. It makes no sense.
Tell that to a poster called moreality on The Sun discussions page (linked to in OP). He is one of the most biggotted people I have come across. I've even joined the discussion to counter him, and another poster. Thankfully, as I was saying, many people in the discussion are very pro-gay marriage.
Jesus, why the hell can't people just let other people be gay and do gay things together. Why does everyone feel that a two thousand year old book has to be used to determine the laws of civilization, when we've explicitly separated the two on several occasions. It makes no sense.
It's not the bible. It's bigger than that, it's a whole societal values thing. The reason people can't do what you ask is because nothing unites people like a common enemy. A lot of "way of the world" shit these people have grown up with and become comfortable with is threatened by "the left". "Boys like girls and girls like boys" is a universal law to them, just like "women belong in the kitchen" was for their parents/grandparents/whatever. And hey looky-there, people are still trying to fight that battle too, they've just lost a lot of ground and are currently fighting for "husbands are for putting bread on the table please don't take this away from us". And it has never been only men or all men, just like the gay marriage attack isn't just being executed and backed by straight people nor by all straight people.
When you use "because that's the way the world works" to back every aspect of your social norms in a culture or sub-culture you can't afford to go back and question those rulings without invalidating all of them. That's terrifying to a lot of people. They really do see gay marriage as the first step in the descent into anarchy. It's not a purely religious thing. When you say "boys can also like boys, and girls can also like girls", you break the foundation upon which all of their cultural rules against stealing, killing, raping, etc. etc. etc. are based. It's "we have to band together to fight all these people who want to destroy our society!".
But again, people associating homosexuality with rape/theft/other sins are generally the bible beaters, so it just goes in a continuous loop.
Big reason why a lot of people simply can't accept gay marriage, is because it would require that they accept that homosexuals are simply trying to live life the only way they can. Many of them stand firmly against this, and justify their attitude through the mindset that homosexuality is a choice and not a matter of brain chemistry hard-wired into a person.
For many Christians, to accept that homosexuality is not a choice, means accepting that maybe being opposed to it isn't as fair and moral as it used to seem, which means invalidating the good book. And that's where the conflict comes in.
If you hold to the belief that homosexuals are only homosexuals by choice, it's much easier to accept that they're willingly sending themselves to Hell. To think otherwise means that the bible says these people are going to Hell for a sexual orientation they have no control over, and that doesn't make much sense even by fundamentalist Christian standards. The fact that the bible abolishes it means;
A: It is a choice, and the people making that choice are therefore lobbed in with child molestors rapists and murders.
B: It is not a choice, and the parts on the bible that abolish it are outdated bullshit.
Guess which option the bible beaters are going to choose on this issue?
I'm confused; Weren't civil partnerships designed as a legal means for gay couples to circumvent the ban on gay marriage?
Yep. And now that the fundies have managed to shoot down marriage in most the of the continental United States, they're setting their sights on civil partnerships.
Don't be a fool here. Those fuckers won't stop until homosexuals are rounded up in the middle of the night and sent off to "reeducation" camps.
I'm confused; Weren't civil partnerships designed as a legal means for gay couples to circumvent the ban on gay marriage?
Yep. And now that the fundies have managed to shoot down marriage in most the of the continental United States, they're setting their sights on civil partnerships.
Don't be a fool here. Those fuckers won't stop until homosexuals are rounded up in the middle of the night and sent off to "reeducation" camps.
That's what makes films like V For Vendetta all the more unsettling... it COULD happen. It has happened before, and unfortunatley as a race, humans don't often learn from their mistakes. One can only hope that logic and equality win the day though.
how is it that is hasn't been ruled that all these damn gay marriage bans (be they laws or state constitutional amendments) are a violation of the establishment clause of the US constitution
There are a lot of religious practices that aren't directly mentioned in religious texts: celibate priesthood, a lot of Catholic and Episcopalian sacramental practice... I don't think "show me where Jesus says to hate gays" is a good counter-argument, it kind of misunderstands organized religion. Better to get mad at the government than the religious establishment.
matisyahu on
i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
how is it that is hasn't been ruled that all these damn gay marriage bans (be they laws or state constitutional amendments) are a violation of the establishment clause of the US constitution
how is it that is hasn't been ruled that all these damn gay marriage bans (be they laws or state constitutional amendments) are a violation of the establishment clause of the US constitution
I'd say it's probably because many of those bible thumpers have seats on the US Senate.
Posts
See, I've got a very different opinion on that. But I honestly don't think delving further into discussion about this subject will anywhere good. I also don't think I have much chance at changing the way anyone around here sees things, so I'll just leave it at "I disagree, but I don't feel like arguing about it."
I wonder if she or someone else will play the "Discrimination"-card anyways.
She's taking it to a tribunal. People on the whole don't think she'll get anywhere with her complaint though, for all the reasons we've all stated.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Its basically codified xenophobia, once you're past the hygiene rules. Those manky heathen bastards in the next valley wear clothes like that so we're not gonna, sort of thing.
If you've got something substantial to say about it you might as well start a thread. People here are generally very willing to listen. So long as it's not too icky.
Yeah.... I'm gonna go ahead and not do that, mmkay?
Really, it's not that good. There are occasional decent bits, but as a book, I wouldn't rate it very high. It's highly inconsistent, doesn't make sense much of the time, and it's thick and slow to read as hell. I tried reading it couple of times, but found it to be a pretty dull experience.
Now, I agree that people have every right to express their opinion on something (though to be fair, I think people would go crazy if someone started spouting racist opinions or expressed religious intollerance in this country), but the amendment to this new bill that some people are suggesting just takes things too far.
So.... they think they should be allowed to ask people to refrain from being gay? There is such a thing as a socially acceptable code of conduct, something that isn't written, but all people know. You don't go around snogging the faces off people in public, gay or straight, or flaunt your latest sexual conquests if you know the person you're speaking to wouldn't appreciate it. What this section of the amendment to the bill is doing, is letting biggots have a legal way of blocking out something they don't like. And the thing is, its so ambiguous... it could relate to anything perceived as homosexual. To me, it's like having a law which states that you can ask people of a different racial or cultural background to yourself to change how they are because you don't agree with it.
Ooh, it makes me so angry!
*Thanks Thanatos!
Then you must really hate Kansas. It's one of the states where gay sex is still outlawed, and giving consent to homosexual relations can get you arrested.
Oh snap!
Ironically, it was reading the bible that made me lose my idiotic kiddie belief in Christianity.
@oddment: Yeah, what's up with that? Why do people keep trying to get vague laws through, that don't really help anyone, and probably cause more harm?
There are only about 8 MP's who are wholly supportive of the amendment though, so with any luck they'll pass the bill without including the proposed amendment. If the amendment IS included, then I really hope people kick off about it. I know I'll take an active role in lobbying for its removal.
*Thanks Thanatos!
let it be said I am not a fan of the Apostle Paul.
Edit: Shit, I thought this was the US, it's the UK though. Stil, the same principle applies there too, doesn't it?
She needs to get a new job. This isn't some underhanded practice or some morally objectionable task that was slipped in, it was was bloody well passed by the government.
http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/heights/7608/1corin.htm
Though this site does make the argument that Paul was talking about sex hetero and homo. I will have to agree though. Paul is, in my opinion, of about zero religious authority who is unfortunately mistaken by organized religion for having some.
So, really you've got Leviticus and Paul (to what extent depends on translation).
However I do not like the precedent of someone feeling they can opt out of applying law designed to remove discrimination, especially as an employee of the one part of society that should never be allowed to opt out of such laws. Personally I hope she doesn't win her case. How would she have liked it if the government had said she couldn't be employed because the job required someone without her kind of Christian religious beliefs?
*Thanks Thanatos!
Hindus are fascists!
I had a look through - I do agree, the forums are far more moderate, polite and accepting than I thought they would be, based on how I view the Sun. Colour me surprised
Tell that to a poster called moreality on The Sun discussions page (linked to in OP). He is one of the most biggotted people I have come across. I've even joined the discussion to counter him, and another poster. Thankfully, as I was saying, many people in the discussion are very pro-gay marriage.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Discuss.
It's not the bible. It's bigger than that, it's a whole societal values thing. The reason people can't do what you ask is because nothing unites people like a common enemy. A lot of "way of the world" shit these people have grown up with and become comfortable with is threatened by "the left". "Boys like girls and girls like boys" is a universal law to them, just like "women belong in the kitchen" was for their parents/grandparents/whatever. And hey looky-there, people are still trying to fight that battle too, they've just lost a lot of ground and are currently fighting for "husbands are for putting bread on the table please don't take this away from us". And it has never been only men or all men, just like the gay marriage attack isn't just being executed and backed by straight people nor by all straight people.
When you use "because that's the way the world works" to back every aspect of your social norms in a culture or sub-culture you can't afford to go back and question those rulings without invalidating all of them. That's terrifying to a lot of people. They really do see gay marriage as the first step in the descent into anarchy. It's not a purely religious thing. When you say "boys can also like boys, and girls can also like girls", you break the foundation upon which all of their cultural rules against stealing, killing, raping, etc. etc. etc. are based. It's "we have to band together to fight all these people who want to destroy our society!".
Big reason why a lot of people simply can't accept gay marriage, is because it would require that they accept that homosexuals are simply trying to live life the only way they can. Many of them stand firmly against this, and justify their attitude through the mindset that homosexuality is a choice and not a matter of brain chemistry hard-wired into a person.
For many Christians, to accept that homosexuality is not a choice, means accepting that maybe being opposed to it isn't as fair and moral as it used to seem, which means invalidating the good book. And that's where the conflict comes in.
A: It is a choice, and the people making that choice are therefore lobbed in with child molestors rapists and murders.
B: It is not a choice, and the parts on the bible that abolish it are outdated bullshit.
Guess which option the bible beaters are going to choose on this issue?
I think determinism is as good a foundation for policy as the old testament.
I feel sorry for Hindus who now have to suffer from the controversial and pejorative image of the swastika in the West as a Nazi icon.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
Yep. And now that the fundies have managed to shoot down marriage in most the of the continental United States, they're setting their sights on civil partnerships.
Don't be a fool here. Those fuckers won't stop until homosexuals are rounded up in the middle of the night and sent off to "reeducation" camps.
That's what makes films like V For Vendetta all the more unsettling... it COULD happen. It has happened before, and unfortunatley as a race, humans don't often learn from their mistakes. One can only hope that logic and equality win the day though.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Flimsy "societal benefits" arguments.
I'd say it's probably because many of those bible thumpers have seats on the US Senate.