• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

US Department of Justice to defend DOMA

I actually agree with a lot of the points you make. What I disagree with is the base of your argument. As people have said, you seem to think that it is less wrong to discriminate against someone based on race than on sexual orientation, because as we've established, there is some amount of choice involved in sexual orientation, whereas race is something you're born with.

アルセウス七;307046 said:
I've said already that one you are born with and one you are not. Race does not (generally speaking) have any affect on your actions. And as I've said, you can change your sexuality.

I know it is a lot harder for some people to switch than others. It is harder for someone to stop smoking who has a bunch of friends that smoke, too, but it can still be done.
Click to expand...

As long as the choice being made isn't inherently wrong, I think maybe it's just as bad to discriminate against someone because of a choice they are making than something they are born with. Because it'd be entirely horrible if people were made to switch sexual orientations so they weren't discriminated against... doesn't that make it just as bad as discriminating based on race? I think maybe a better analogy would be discriminating based on where someone lives. Yes, it's a choice, but it shouldn't affect anything just because of that. People shouldn't have to change it, and so shouldn't be discriminated against for it.

And I mean, especially if you're talking about a "choice" like sexual orientation, where it really isn't completely and entirely their choice. I guess it'd also be kind of like people said with the food analogy, discriminating against someone because they like a certain kind of food, or... something. I'm not sure if I'm really getting my point across here, but that's why I'm disagreeing with you. Not because you're Christian. That has nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
religion is 100% a choice, however (rightfully) no one is allowed to discriminate against that
 
アルセウス七;307046 said:
Are you blaming me for all the crap some most Christians have pulled out in the past present
Click to expand...

you're part of the problem, bub. bigotry and discrimination aren't exactly the crusades or the dark ages, but it's still awful.
 
アルセウス七;306275 said:
But you can change your sexuality. I did. Heterosexuality to asexuality. Now, I don't get "turned on" by anything anymore. (Let me tell you, it sure is nice this way.)
Click to expand...

Does that mean you're not going to breed now? :>
 
Dewgong said:
was that a graph of tcod or was that a graph of like... the population? i don't really know. i think it was more than tcod though.
Click to expand...
world graph iirc

and i guess those gay men in lebanon are feeling pretty stupid they didn't magically choose to be straight! stupid faggots, preferring hanging to the christian solution.
feh.
FEH
 
アルセウス七;307046 said:
I know it is a lot harder for some people to switch than others. It is harder for someone to stop smoking who has a bunch of friends that smoke, too, but it can still be done.

I agree that it would be pointless to switch sexuality if you didn't have any religious belief that convicted you otherwise. That's why you can't expect anyone to change without the Bible. I've said that.
Click to expand...
Then what would you consider the solution to this "problem"? The number of religious people is going to be gradually decreasing for many years, I reckon, and the number of religious people against homosexuality will decrease even faster. You're going to have to learn to suck it up and deal with it - everybody who doesn't like it is - because there's not much you can do about it now and there definitely won't be in the future.

And I don't think it's fair to compare homosexuals to people with smoking addictions. Yeah, you can change your sexuality, but if, for example, a married homosexual found religion and realised they had to give up their partner for it or something, that would just be sad. Would that be what God wants them to do?

FluffyGryphon said:
Does that mean you're not going to breed now? :>
Click to expand...
Hahaha xD
 
Homosexuality can be harmful too; I mean, homosexuality evokes the wrath of God and gets you thrown into Hell for all eternity and whatnot.
We know this because

Well, we just know it
 
there is some amount of choice involved in sexual orientation
Click to expand...

I don't see how there's any choice involved in it. Don't you think all the homosexuals that commited suicide have tried quite hard to change their orientation and couldn't?

I don't think anyone is 100% straight/gay, and as people grow older (especially as teenagers) they begin to experiment and find what they think they really are. Regarding ex-gays, I think they were never completely gay or just suppressed their feelings enough to where they were "numbed" to weak sexual thoughts about the same sex and were somewhat bisexual and thought that their attraction to the opposite sex was actually them becoming straight. If they saw, say, hardcore gay porn, they would most likely be attracted to it.

I don't think アルセウス七 is completely asexual, he could probably find a girl/guy attractive if he looked hard enough. Since (I'm assuming) he's a teenager, his sexuality is changing, but naturally, not by 'forcing' it to, I think he's partially trying to suppress heterosexual feelings and partially growing up (so his sexuality is changing naturally). He might not be heterosexual enough (or doesn't have a strong enough libido) to find most girls/guys attractive and thinks that his studying of christianity/the bible and suppression of his libido is actually changing his sexual orientation.
I don't mean to sound insulting to アルセウス七 or anything; this is just what I think about it, and I think it makes sense.
 
dear japanobabble please stop being christian while you're being stupid it makes me look even worse thanks

*~christian and queer~* whoop whoop


IN OTHER NEWS has there been any update on the whole DOMA issue? You know, the thing the thread is about
 
I did not in any way choose to be homosexual. It just happened, and it's not something I can change. It is what it is - I'm just not attracted to women. Why does this make me a terrible person?
 
アルセウス七;307046 said:
I've said already that one you are born with and one you are not. Race does not (generally speaking) have any affect on your actions.
Click to expand...

Retarded point. People of a different race don't do much differently than you. People of a different sexuality... don't do much differently than you. The one action they do differently doesn't affect you, or anyone else, in any way whatsoever, except maybe making you go "ick". But then again, that's hardly a reason to try to reduce them to subhuman in the eyes of the government, like you have.

アルセウス七;307046 said:
And as I've said, you can change your sexuality.
Click to expand...

Wow, someone go tell all those gays being killed by the government in Islamic countries! And those people who were kicked out of their homes by their parents, beaten, mugged, etc.! Apparently it's that easy to stop it!

Oh, wait.

アルセウス七;307046 said:
I know it is a lot harder for some people to switch than others. It is harder for someone to stop smoking who has a bunch of friends that smoke, too, but it can still be done.
Click to expand...

Difference: Gays don't hurt anyone, or themselves. I mean they can, but not by simply being gay.

アルセウス七;307046 said:
I agree that it would be pointless to switch sexuality if you didn't have any religious belief that convicted you otherwise. That's why you can't expect anyone to change without the Bible. I've said that.
Click to expand...

Great. So why bother? The gays who aren't religious don't give two shits. The gays who are, don't give two shits either. Trying to get them to change is retarded.

And I still can't see how you could possibly say it's more fair to force gays to change who they are than it is to just stop discriminating against them.

アルセウス七;307046 said:
Are you blaming me for all the crap some Christians have pulled out in the past?
Click to expand...

No, we're blaming Christians for the crap Christians have pulled out in the past. Also what they're doing right now. Like trying to take away the rights of a minority and make them subhuman... oh! wait! you're doing that!

アルセウス七;307046 said:
Nice graph of TCoD. I'd like to see one of all the people who've posted in this thread.
Click to expand...

iirc that's a graph of religion in the U.S. Or the world. Or something.

It's also remarkably true. I have seen so many Christians scream persecution when their rights to persecute others are taken away.
 
lol.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/obama-invites-gay-rights-advocates-to-white-house/
Obama Invites Gay Rights Advocates to White House
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

As advocates for gays and lesbians intensify their criticism of the White House, President Obama has invited some of their leaders to an East Room reception next Monday to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the 1969 Greenwich Village demonstrations that gave birth to the modern gay rights movement.

The White House has not publicized the reception, and officials did not respond to e-mail requests for comment. But gay leaders from here and around the country said they had received either telephone calls from the White House or written invitations to the event, and were told Mr. Obama is expected to speak.

Some said it would take more than a reception to change their view that Mr. Obama has not been aggressive enough in pursuing gay rights. As a candidate, Mr. Obama campaigned to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law barring gay marriage, and ‘’don’t ask don’t tell,’’ the military policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly. But advocates have accused him of dragging his feet.

“What’s going to change the way the community is feeling is seeing the introduction of a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, a Boston-based advocacy group, referring to two policies Mr. Obama pledged to overturn. She said gay rights advocates want to see “a president who is fulfilling the promises he made on the campaign trail.’’

Mr. Obama would not be the first Democratic president to mark the Stonewall uprising; Ten years ago, Bill Clinton declared June as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. But the Obama reception comes amid growing complaints from gay leaders like Ms. Chrisler, who supported Mr. Obama’s election but are becoming increasingly upset with him as president.

Just last week when Mr. Obama announced a package of domestic partnership benefits for federal workers, several prominent gay and lesbian political leaders attacked the president for failing to extend full health benefits, saying that the initiative was a mere token effort that included benefits that had already existed.

Ms. Chrisler, who was in the Oval Office for the signing of the memorandum, said she was not satisfied by what she called the ‘’limited benefits’’ Mr. Obama offered. She said she hoped Monday’s reception would be “an opportunity for us as a community to highlight again to this president and this administration that real lives are impacted by his decisions.’’

Whether Mr. Obama will address the complaints at Monday’s reception is unclear. One person who received the invitation said the White House was billing the event as a celebration, akin to the festive affairs the administration holds on St. Patrick’s Day or Cinco de Mayo. Another said the invitation included an offer to bring a guest. “They want people to understand that their partners are welcome,’’ said this person, speaking anonymously because the White House has not announced the event.

The White House event will be just one of many commemorations of the Stonewall uprising, named for the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar on Christopher Street that was the site of a police raid that turned violent in the early hours of the morning of June 28, 1969. The raid led to a series of protests that spawned the creation of gay advocacy groups and, more broadly, empowered gay people to begin fighting for recognition and civil rights.

Update: The White House confirmed the event.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said, “Next Monday’s event is a chance for the White House to recognize the accomplishments of LGBT Americans. Invited guests include families, volunteers and activists, and community leaders. This event was long planned as a way to applaud these individuals during Pride month.”
Click to expand...
i hate how obama keeps trying to please both the left and the right. stop being centrist obama. stop trying to please the republicans.

Also check out this smug shit the mormons put out when Prop 8 was upheld:
Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.

Accordingly, the Church stands firmly for what it believes is right for the health and well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, it once again affirms that all of us are children of God, and all deserve to be treated with respect. The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other.
Click to expand...
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vladimir Putin's LJ said:
I love how Republicans still call him a Socialist. Honey, the day America gets a Socialist President is the day the Vatican elects a gay Pope.
Click to expand...

Okay, so the right is like: "DAMN SOCIALIST WE WANT OUR CAPITALISM!"
My family is hardxcore republican. Can someone here explain to me what socialism is and how Obama is not socialist? I'm at a loss.
 
I know this was in June, but it's an interesting question, and I think some light should be cast.

Let's explain this in terms of the current healthcare debate.

A socialist approach would be to nationalise medicine entirely (eg. NHS). This would mean that hospitals are funded by the government, doctors are government employees, and medicine and medical procedures are (in some cases) paid for by the government. This is known as publicly-funded health care, and is paid for mostly by taxes.

Now let's look at what Obama wants to do and what is currently in place in the US. Health insurance in the US is obtained through one of many insurance companies; often this happens through an employer, who has a deal with the insurance companies to cover the employer's employees, but individual insurance plans can also be purchased. Insurance companies are free to set their own prices and to deny patients based on their own reasons (eg pre-existing conditions). Hospitals are also privately run.

What Obama wants to do (or at least, what the liberals in Congress want to do) is introduce a government-run plan that would compete with insurance companies by offering health-care plans to those that do not qualify through their employers or for other reasons, and those who cannot afford it. This would also require everyone to have some sort of a health-care plan (universal health-care). In theory, this would cause real competition and insurance companies would have to adjust their own prices and policies.

So we see the difference. The socialist approach is to nationalise medicine and do away with private insurance companies entirely; Obama's approach is merely to create government run and regulated competition in order to regulate the prices and policies of the private insurance companies - a practice which is, fundamentally, capitalist in nature.
 
To be clear, in Britain there are still private hospitals and insurers, and no laws against them. When the NHS was being created, the government never tried to control the whole medical industry. They were not being strictly socialist. They were just trying to give healthcare to the poor.
 
Last edited:
opaltiger said:
Insurance companies are free to set their own prices and to deny patients based on their own reasons (eg pre-existing conditions).
Click to expand...

not totally on topic, but my mom was having troubles with our insurance company because apparently they thought chron's disease is a pre-existing condition. it's was lame. :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom