Gay Rights

None of that is relevant today.

 

Except all of it is relevant today. It's no longer relevant when we no longer have religious institutions, which I'm for. History shows as long as we have religion their natural state is conflict against another religion and there is little evidence to show that has changed.

 

Jews and Christians aren't burning each other in the streets. Our society has progressed that far lmao.

 

1. I certain that the mentioned stand of "all religion leads to contention" is too loosely connected to be part of this current debate. Please kindly place it on its own thread.

2. If the store owner know that the person is a white supremacist, it is probably because they have seen or heard of what the customer did. The owner would then be able to ban the customer if they had any type of evidence, whether it be witness or footage. Basically, if there was enough evidence that a court would accept it as true. (Not meaning that a court needs to for the evidence to be enough).

3. If you are banning white supremacists under my side, you are ignoring which race both sides are focusing, only acknowledging that the side the customer discriminates against is because of race differences and what actions each side did (including words).

4. Just the fact that discrimination in businesses choosing their customers occurred when the government offered no help in discrimination cases shows that without protection, more people would be banned from businesses based on discrimination without protections from the government than currently.

5. Individual liberty is then curtailed unjustly without government protection, as individuals could take rights away from others for unjust reasons (race, ethnicity, gender, and other uncontrollable or thought based reasons). The government acts as a check to keep individuals from losing rights from the actions of individuals.

6. Most large companies, if not all, would not be able to discriminate against groups as a whole. This does not mean that smaller and medium sized businesses would not discriminate ever and that branches of a large company (which cannot be perfectly watched over) will not discriminate either. These instances show that the threat of discrimination is very real, even if it doesn't close off all options of goods and services for any future discriminated groups, it does take away rights of equal opportunities to goods and services and limits the variety of options to receive goods and services.

7. It should be noted that the ideas of individual liberty protections being most important to protect is currently unsupported by evidence, as I have shown that justice allows all people rights which allows for better protections of well being and quality of life, while not allowing the government to protect individuals from discrimination gives more rights to some groups while taking rights which protect quality of life away from discriminated individuals.

 

So if the white supremacist had a t-shirt with "we must secure the existence of our white children" you could ban them. Isn't this analogous to religious attire?

Someone using their own store to discriminate is not an encroachment on your rights. You have no right to anyone else's services.

Aggression is inherently illegitimate. Every government law is backed up by force, so unless every government law is a response to aggression then every government law is illegitimate. An example of this would be making murder illegal, murder is aggression, the government is responding to aggression, however if the government were to make wearing burqas illegal, that law would be aggression and therefore illegitimate. The Non Aggression Principle should be weighed ultimately when determining what the government should and shouldn't do.

 

1a. The presented example would work as such: if the business owner found something wrong with the shirt, ignoring the fact that the owner of the shirt is a supremacist. The action is the words on the shirt. Assuming that the words nod towards white supremacy is an easy quick assumption, but it may not be the case, so the content of the shirt could not be flagged as racist. If the shirt instead then said "white supremacy" on it, then there's enough evidence that the content of the shirt is most likely advocating white supremacy, making it the business owner's decision on whether to ban the individual. If so, all future customers must be treated in the same way, namely, any shirts advocating supremacy of any kind over another group (as race must be ignored) must be banned in the same way.

1b. Religious attire must be judged in a similar fashion. First off, no assumptions may be made about the attire. Second, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. must be ignored. Third, all judgements n the clothing on one should be used equally on all future customers to find if their clothing is appropriate. Finally, the clothing must be judged as a clothing item and not as a religious attire. In this way, religious clothing can only be banned if it goes against something else the business owner is concerned about in direct relation to clothes or specific messages on clothes.

2. My work before got erased () so this will be more brief. After working it out for a while, I have decided that @MeepLord27 is right about the ability of customers buying from a shop is a privilege instead of a right, as Rights usually are removed upon taking away other's rights, but privileges can be taken away for smaller or more personal reasons. Because of this reclassification, my case needs from redifining of words and ideas. Justice should be "giving equal access of all rights and privileges to all people, with rights and privileges being only lost upon fair judgement with fair losses." Thus, the government should protect people's rights, along with protect them from unfairly losing privileges. This, all people should have the same opportunities to the privilege to use a business. Another correction is that all instances of speaking about people having a right to use a service should be replaced with should morally be given the same abilities to use the business as all others and only be judged off of their actions, ignoring assumptions, ideas, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

3. Discriminating in judging who should be allowed to utilize a private business is an aggressive action. Thus, the government should be allowed to have aggression back. This fits the Non Aggression Principal.

4. Some ignored arguments:

A. Discrimination from businesses would occur more without government protection.

B. Focusing on protecting individual rights instead of justice unfairly removes rights and privileges from people for terribly uncontrollable and unfair reasons.

C. Justice has been shown as the only currently supported moral goal in this debate to work towards and judge each side's arguments against.

D. Under government protection, race, ethnicity, ideas, etc. must be ignored while actions can only be judged.

 

Discrimination is non invasive, it doesn't deny anyone their rights.

You have failed to quantify this and provide impacts. Undoubtedly discrimination would go up but 4 pizza parlors is very different to 4 multinational retail giants.

Justice should undoubtedly be a value our society seeks to uphold, but as you have admitted discrimination doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. The governments sole job is securing rights. Socially we should seek to end discrimination, the government has no business upholding "privileges".

The government should not be able to discriminate against anyone. The government has no job judging identities, that is 100% society's job.

 

Christanity and the bible is why people are against gay marriage...

Donald Trump is against it...

Is Donald Trump Christian?

 

No, he's smart. 100 years ago if some kid said "mom, I like Barry, like, in a gay way" he would have been kicked out of the town. But the same isn't true now because everyone who's different is super special and deserves respect. If our parents hadn't been overprotective, this wouldn't have happened.

Example: I wanted long hair when I was 8. Idk why, but I did. If so many people hadn't laughed at me for metioning the mere thought, I might have gotten long hair (gross). I had good friends. They saw me trying to be different and bashed it into my head that different is bad.

As a further, more related note, nothing in biology actually explains gay. Physically, there is no such thing. Idk how people think they like other guys/girls, but it's unnatural. Literally. If people weren't allowed to be gay, I don't think they would be. I don't think a minecraft server really is the place to bring in religion, but if you follow literally any religion, it says gay is wrong. I personally think the people are fine, just misled, but the concept is unnatural and harmful.

 

Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers

Then why has homosexuality existed in some form or another since at least ancient Greece?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Sep 14, 2017 ---

Please provide real evidence.

Evidence to back this statement up please.

 

Why would you defend this?

 

Because I tend to use logic, reason and science to view the world than stupidity.

Can you use any facts to back up your claims or are you like all the others of your ilk, spouting off at the mouth while knowing nothing?

 

Scientists find DNA difference between...
I'll admit I've never seen that one. I'd like a reputable source, but I'll take it. You win this one.

Please provide real evidence.
Christians: Gay is bad You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
All Aetheists I know: Gay is bad (except the queer guy I know, he obviously doesn't care) Maybe I know conservative aetheists /shrug
^ that's all significant American religions btw
Islam: Gay is bad. If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done (38:4447).
Hindus: Depends on where you live. (I have no proof from their text to back this up)

Evidence to back this statement up please.[/QUOTE]
Well, first off, psycologically, the bullying, hate, and bigotry of the world are going to harm you. Every study I've seen on the subject says gay/bisexual men account for more STD's than everyone else by percentage. Are these accurate? Maybe. I won't get into rectal anatomy on a minecraft server forum, but yeah, you get me.

I'm simply pointing out that there's things off with it. If I offended you, well, I have my freedom of speech, you have yours. We're allowed that. I think it's funny that you're so salty over this. I know as much as you, hell, as anyone. This isn't black and white. Read above and don't expect me to respond again. This was a waste of time.

 

*puts on fedora*
your set of fairy tales doesn't matter.

Statistics: Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Sep 14, 2017 ---

100 years ago if some kid said "mom, I like my black neighbor, like, in a friendly way" he would have been kicked out of the town.

 

Google will help your search.

Can you tell me what language the bible was written in? The reason this is relevant because the bible was translated multiple times before even the King James Version, which is Old English - A language we no longer speak.

But even beyond that the same book tells us vanity is an equal sin. Wearing garments of two differing cloths is an equal sin. To eat shellfish is an equal sin. At best this is cherry picking a book on which values you want to uphold.

As an agnostic, I literally don't care who bangs who. I'm not gay and it seems the solution for that is to just not bang guys. Why do you care what other people do in their bedrooms, isn't conservatism about not interfering in people's homes?

If I recall the story of lot makes no specific mention of homosexual acts but rather of a place of sin itself. Also if I recall God has his henchmen wipe the city off the map, which runs counter to that whole not killing thing.

It actually depends on the faction of Hinduism, which it does differ.

I'm not going to delve into this too much simply because there are many contributing factors and context to begin listing for it not to be listened too. But homosexuality itself isn't really much of an inherent cause, especially since just recently has society begin setting up programs and not shunning those who are enough where they can now get into the medical center to be treated. In the 80s AIDs was all but ignored due to the fact it primarily affected gay people. (Which it didn't because of the disease, but they were the group left untreated, thus spread it)

I'm not offended nor am I salty. You're free to have your opinion but I'm also free to point out your opinion isn't based on any factual information at all and thus by definition stupid.

Unlike homosexuality, stupidity should not be tolerated in any form and needs to be shunned at every opportunity. You have yet to bring up any factual claim on why homosexuality is inherently bad or unnatural. Nature has genetic variation on all levels and although homosexuality doesn't line up to our prime directive of procreation - It's because of nature itself that it is that way.

 

It sounds more like your friends are/were a** holes.

 

Wow, what a flare of debate! Let's get into, shall we?

1. The evidence posted on there being a epigenetic correlation found cannot be used as evidence of epigenetics being the cause of homosexuality. The article proves that there is a high chance that gay men have that specific set of epigenetic markers, but the cause for the markers is unknown. For all we know, the markers are not the cause, but an effect of homosexual behavior. Until more evidence shows otherwise, this evidence has no real useful information in this debate thread and @FamousZAmos 's argument about there being no DNA evidence still stands.

2. The concept of being gay has popped up across cultures, if it didn't, it wouldn't be mentioned in places such as the Bible. It doesn't mean it makes sense, but it is a trend which some cultures end up at, usually at a point that no one cares about it. This does seem to show homosexuality as being less unnatural, but the cause of homosexuality is still uncertain, meaning that the prevalence of homosexuality may be because something strange in some cultures causes it. Most religions do move against homosexuality, and I can see why, as even from a non-religious viewpoint homosexuality doesn't make sense, as it doesn't lead to an increase in the population of a species.

3. I know the majority of internet and forum users aren't avid debaters, so let's try to still work with what people provide and suggest a search for evidence instead of just ignoring arguments based on a lack of evidence.

4. Just becuase some things which were seen as bad were actually good, doesn't mean all things seen as bad are. Of course, this can go the opposite way. Saying that racism was seen as perfectly fine by a larger percentage of the US in the past but not now doesn't prove that it's the same with homosexuality, it just proves that we must look at the situation with the understanding that sometimes society is wrong.

5. Just as with the Hindus, there are many different religions connected to the Bible, as there are many Christian religions. I can't speak for all Christian religion, but as far as mine goes, the Old Testament's set of very specific rules (the Law of Moses) were overwritten at the Savior's coming, partially beacuase people depended too heavily on the word of the law instead of the spirit of the law. What was left was the Savior's ministry and the Ten Commandments (which can simplified into "Love the Lord thy God as thyself" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

6. At this point, the debate has changed a lot from the original topic. Currently, the argument is "Is homosexuality a good or bad act?" This is a moral debate, not one on whether the government should work against homosexuality in general.

7. I believe @Deinen is probably correct when it comes to AIDS numbers, as there's no good reason for a difference between the number of infected people who are gay when compared to straight people other than issues not directly because of homosexuality.

8. As before, we don't have any evidence to show what homosexuality is caused by, whether nature or a strange quirk in society (much as how drugs probably didn't start to exist in plants to effect humans, yet they do in strong ways at times).

9. I'd like to make another request for this thread: that we be kind to the other contributors on it. Creating posts which insult people, even if indirectly by instilling their opinions, is a way to bully others. If we want to keep people from feeling scared to enter into a debate thread, let's not name call or insult others based on opinions. There's a way to explain any issues with someone's post without being rude to the creator of that post.

 

I personally think they should get the same rights as anyone else. There's two argument's I'd like to support my theory with.
1: Marriage is currently the strongest bond any two people can have, both legally, and morally (well, that's how it's intended to be) if you mess that up, everything starts becoming debatable.
2: From a 100% Natural standpoint, Rusty Cage says (and pretty much all non-religous people say this) that the point of life is to "Survive and replicate" Gay people, realistically, cannot replicate. Now, the U.S. doesn't kill them off, so they DO survive, but 1/2 isn't so good.

I saw another thread earlier that really bothered me. Someone or another said "If we let discrimination into business it's not ok."
If I remember the way the United States works, that's perfectly acceptable. The guys who build the ark model in Kentucky got a load of crap for not hiring aetheists or muslims. If I own a restaurant, will I hire a gay dude to wait tables, something that's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable? Of course not! I DO think the owner of the business should have a legitimate reason, but I think discrimination in buisiness is acceptable. On the other hand, I don't believe it's right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Why lose money over something like that, something that's going to get you a lot of hate?

 

I think, personal beliefs aside, that denying people gay rights (at least in the US) would be against what the US is all about. To put it simply, You Do You. For example, Jewish people dont eat certain things, but they don't force everyone to comply, even in their own country as far as I know (dont quote me). The problem arises when people force other people to agree with their views. There will always be people who disagree with gay marriage, and always people for it. If gay marriage is accepted, then gay people are receiving their freedom. They must be fair by giving people who disagree their freedom to disagree.

 

Gay people getting married doesn't affect or harm you.

Overpopulation is a massive issue. We could do with quite a few more gays. In addition there are plenty of incels who will never reproduce either.

Morals have nothing to do with comfort or how much hate you might get for something.