The Discrimination Thread

[Psycho1]

Discrimination is a very bad thing. In many ways discrimination is all around us. Not only just in race and religion (the 2 most popular forms of discrimination) but in everything. Like for instance I had this fourth grade teacher who my cousin cussed out the year before I got her. Well you can just imagine the bullshit she put me through. It can be for any reason for instance you could have pissed someone off about 6 months ago somewhere else and you suddenly run into them again in a different place and now they are trying to start shit with you even keep you from going to that place. Lets put a stop to this bullshit. If you have ever been discriminated agianst tell me about it.

Psycho

 

[iluv2tkl]

I feel your pain

Most people have been discriminated against in some way. However, alot of them forget how it felt, then they go and do it to someone else.

I believe I also know what is on your mind psycho. I do see your point, and I have seen some things that sure look a little suspicious to me.

 

[Psycho1]

Thanx for your support dog.

Psycho

 

[iluv2tkl]

I just try to do what is right

It really bothers me when someone deams what I do as bad when I strive so hard to please.

I feel like there is alot of miscommunication, poor decency skills. and false accusing going around.

It happens though, I think we just need to move on and let it go until it comes up again. Then something can be said.

This is a nice place and I want to try and keep the peace for other members sake.

I feel ya!

 

[Psycho1]

Amen dog. Amen. Oh LOL about the pic thing.

Psycho

 

[TheEliteOne]

i hate discrimination,racism,etc. if i see it in front of me... i gotta step in!!

btw iluv,i just paid attention to your avatar,andi just got it! LOL

 

[Psycho1]

I don't get it. Sorry Luv. O heart 2 I. confussing if you ask me.

Psycho

 

[Psycho1]

LOL. Sorry I forgot to put that and without it my post sounds too harsh.

Psycho

 

[TheEliteOne]

WRONG!!!


its an EYE HEART 2 FEATHER

see it?

 

[Psycho1]

I see it all but the I. How do you get I from O.LOL.

Psycho

 

[TheEliteOne]

its an eye! you know? the eye? the organ which lets you see? LOL

 

[Psycho1]

Oh I get it.

Psycho

 

[CellarDweller]

Ok, I was looking at old threads, and found this.

As a gay man, I've been discriminated against in a few ways.

I can't get married to the person I love.

I can't open certain bank accounts with them

Can't jointly adopt children with them.

Can't file joint taxes together.

a lot of other stuff too.

 

[Camel26]

I have all of the above going against me too, cell (actually, we are denied 1,138 individual rights by not being allowed to marry in the US)...it hurts more than anything to know that I am a second class citizen in the land of the free, home of the brave because I happen to have an intimate, loving, supportive, cherished relationship with a member of the same gender as myself...and I've taken crap for it from random people on the street, classmates, "friends" from high school who just learned I'm gay, on the job...I've been called terrible names, threatened...told I'm going to burn eternally in the fires of hell when I die...for what? for being faithful to another person? for loving another person with every fiber of my being? Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me...

I've also been discriminated against for being Jewish...teachers, classmates, random people, on the job...been called some terrible things, told I'd burn for not believing in Jesus, who was a Jew and who would be really pissed if He knew how people were being treated over such things...

And lets not forget gender discrimination...oh, I adore being a girl...but apparently, some folks think they can walk all over you, tell you you're not good enough to do things because you don't have an extra appendage...disrespect you, and your body...try to rape you...

Yeah, I'm not a fan of discrimination either...and I'll be damned if on this site of all places there's going to be any of it here...this is a respectful, peaceful community...we all share something that is unique and wonderful...can't we all get along based on that incredible fact alone???

 

[german]

I understand how the 'gay community' feels and shit with not being able to recieve several rights, but what about the rights of a child.
I fully agree with states in several countries not allowing gay couples to adopt children, can you imagine the pain and stress that child will go through.
It that a pain you really want to be responsible for?

 

[nessonite1]

Don't even start that. Just because it's something you don't agree with doesn't mean it's stressful or damaging.

 

[MayDay1]

The constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is straight up WRONG!!!! This is one of the most blatent examples of someone abusing their power simply because they can't handle the idea that two people of the same sex love each other. Throw the bible in all you want but it doesn't change the fact that this is discrimination pure and simple.

Riddle me this conservo types. If God hates homosexuals then why did he create them?

 

[His Divine Shadow]

I believe the standard conservative explanation is that "God created them heterosexual and they later choose to become homosexual." Which, of course, is laughable.

 

[jj82277]

there have been studies to show that about 75% of all men will engage in some form of homosexuality to the point of orgasm before they die. For some reason people think that society as a whole is against homosexuality and that is not the case. I mean this forum lives and breathes through lesbian content, that's a joke ofcourse. the idea that the 1000 plus privilages associated with marriage are individual rights is a misinterpretation of why they exist in the first place. Society is built on the fabric of stable home environments. it is the governments resposability to provide as many as possible not just through law, but incentives. I feel that there are incentives in place to promote hetero sexual long term unions and cohabitation, why because we flat out need more people, especially Americans. That is its purpose, not just to serve a romantic end. there are millions of ways to demonstrate affection for another person subtract one and there is still a darn lot. If what you feel for the other person is what you would consider love, it would not be ound by legal definitions.

and trust me, if anyone has been in a school recently if a child was the child of a homo sexual parent right or wrong there would be an avalanche of misintended trauma to that child. I have a lot of homosexual relatives, so i am not removed from this discussion but i would be in whole hearted support of an amendment to define marriage as between one man and one women. the alternative is to unleash the civil attorneys on the 14 th ammendment and then allow polygomy and possibly beastiality. and a number of other banned forms of marriage that do not exist under the legal system for the proliferation of society.

 

[Kalamos]

More children for the war, eh? 😉

Never mind me. I am European, what do I know?

 

[Kalamos]

I read again, and decided to post more.

i would be in whole hearted support of an amendment to define marriage as between one man and one women. the alternative is to unleash the civil attorneys on the 14 th ammendment and then allow polygomy and possibly beastiality. and a number of other banned forms of marriage that do not exist under the legal system for the proliferation of society.

Let me say I have no particular stance about gay marriages.
I've heard part of the problem is about words: the term "marriage" would be a misnomer in the case of same-gender couples.

I suppose, if it is only a matter of semantics, then, by all means, find a suitable word, and go over with that.



About the "bestiality" and "banned forms of marriage proliferation", I suppose it is a matter of "safe and sane" activities between/among "consenting" partners.

Unless we first find a way to ask a sheep about her feelings, we must assume bestiality is out of question. 😉

But we can and should ask consenting adults what they feel like - before stating their feelings are banned and illegal.



Of course, laws, culture and tradition define what a given society considers "safe" and "sane" - to prevent the exploitation of the "consensual" requisite.

Since being gay isn't inherently illegal - last time I checked... - I suppose there is no good reason to veto same-gender couples from "legally joining".

If it is a matter of privileges, let us define what same-gender couples can borrow from different-gender couples - before outlawing same-gender couples altogether.



Also, I can understand the trauma reasoning, and the "proper" gender-roles issue ; on the other hand, if "proper" gender-roles alone were an insurance enough against deviant behaviour, then we'd have no crimes whatsoever - or criminals would only come from families with ascertained sexual deviancies.

Now I think of it... I'm sure I read on this very forum that a lot of people complain 'cause they feel different and misunderstood because of their *fetish* - that is, a sexual aberration...

Does it mean people who come or post here shouldn't be allowed to marry, or to grow children? 😉



Reg's.

 

[MistressValerie1]

As a libertarian, my take is that marriage, which is essentially a religious act, should not be regulated by the government at all. I would prefer to see all marriages treated as "civil unions," with the exact same legal status for each, regardless of the genders, races, etc. I also believe that each religious body should define marriage as it wishes, and should be free to marry same-sex couples or not.

Here is an excerpt from an outstanding discussion about it from Michael Badnarik, recent Libertarian candidate for president:

When marriage is taken out of the legal realm, it is seen for what it has always been: a matter of heart and soul. Just as the Catholic Church has historically disdained divorce among its congregation, so too will some religious groups refuse to bless gay unions. Both those who support and those who condemn gay marriage will be free to practice their beliefs and persuade others to their way of thinking. Each individual will be free to choose. Isn't that what America's all about?

http://badnarik.org/plans_gayrights.php

Here is what economist Harry Browne, also a former Libertarian presidential candidate, has to say about marriage:

The only argument offered for outlawing same-sex marriage that makes any sense is that this will give Social Security death benefits to people who aren't now eligible to receive them — increasing the cost of government and the federal deficit.

But that's a problem with Social Security, not marriage.

If you buy a life insurance policy from Equitable, Prudential, State Farm, or any other private insurer, you can designate anyone in the world to be the beneficiary. You can name your spouse, your children, your mistress, your live-in boyfriend, your favorite cat, Saddam Hussein, or the Chicago Cubs baseball team — anyone.

And if you don't like any of the conditions of the policy, you don't have to buy it.

Only the government confiscates your money and coerces you into taking its life insurance. And only the government forces its choice of beneficiary on you.

This means that people who are single by choice or who aren't legally "married" are forced to pay for life insurance that's useless to them. Is this what's meant by "defending marriage" — forcing unmarried people to subsidize married couples?

The solution, of course, is to let everyone out of Social Security — not impose the government's definition of marriage on people who don't agree with it.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/DefendingMarriage.htm

Best regards to all,

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

As a libertarian, my take is that marriage, which is essentially a religious act, should not be regulated by the government at all. I would prefer to see all marriages treated as "civil unions," with the exact same legal status for each, regardless of the genders, races, etc. I also believe that each religious body should define marriage as it wishes, and should be free to marry same-sex couples or not.

Thank you for saying this Val. I was going to, but this thread was already underway by the time I got to it.

Marriage IS a religious act and condoned by most religions for the purpose of unifying a man and a woman in a vow of life-long companionship. Its my personal belief that in addition to it being a religious act, the ritual itself should only rightfully be performed by holymen, people of the church, etc., not state-appointed officials, judges, or anyone with a generic licence who merely utter the words "God" and "holy" as a farse.

But then that would require that most major religions which are prominent in america today change their basic way of thinking on homosexual relationships under God, gods, etc. But that in and of itself would unillaterally affect the structure of a church, belief system, religion, and cause alot of people alot of distress in the process. Mostly confusion and contempt. It would be seen as giving in to the government's wishes as opposed to solving the problem internally.

I think that if any such religious order or body wanted to marry gay couples thats THEIR business to do it or not to. It should not be regulated by the government. But the whole affair should not be an affront, under-the-counter, "quickie", Elvis married you sort of arrangement. Marriage is special and very important. It stands to be further bastardized whether gay marriage is allowed in full or it is renounced. In fact, in retrospect, being gay has very little to do with it in this regard.

The state of marriage in this country and countries all around the world has been broken down and compromised. We need to fix that first and then work from there.

This is all a double-edged sword, and theres no easy answer, especially when you are trying to consider everyone's point of view and their individual rights as human beings. Its like a game of tug-of-war, and its a stalement. Churchs shouldn't have to change their traditions, beliefs and their doctrines, and gay couples should not have to be turned away or denied.

 

[CellarDweller]

Marriage IS a religious act and condoned by most religions for the purpose of unifying a man and a woman in a vow of life-long companionship. Its my personal belief that in addition to it being a religious act, the ritual itself should only rightfully be performed by holymen, people of the church, etc., not state-appointed officials, judges, or anyone with a generic licence who merely utter the words "God" and "holy" as a farse.

Marriage is a religious act, but it is also a civil one.

I understand that you feel it should only be performed by "holy men" but the fact is, that is not what happens. Anyone can become "ordained" online now and perform legal marriages.

People can also just go to a "justice of the peace" or to "town hall" and be married without any religious aspect to it.

Gay people are not asking that churches or religions be forced to perform ceremonies that go against their teachings.

We are asking for a legal ceremony that gives us the protections that all of you get just for being straight.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Thats exactly what I said. The ACT of marrying someone to someone has been blurred and distorted, and whose duty this is has become faded and worn.

As for the later half of your post my friend, I whole-heartedly agree.

Its sad that there have to be loop-holes and "underground railroads" so to speak. We need to do away with those. But that would require the church's participcation, however little.

I'm sure there are plenty of religious gay couples that want to be married under God, but so many issues make that impossible and it becomes so much more than just about them, but the state of the church itself.

That leaves you to the state's decision, even if you wanted a blessed one. Its not fair to you and you should have every right that we straight people do.

I don't agree with marriage not being holy or non-blessed, but if its the only way a humanitarian justice will be done, I don't even think the churches would stand in the way of that. But they can't be expected to take part in it, which is what my post, and partially Val's post was/is about.