Mystic Software Forums

Miscellaneous => General Off-Topic => Topic started by: Number Eight on March 12, 2005, 11:42:16 AM

Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 12, 2005, 11:42:16 AM
The Day Of Silence for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights is approaching (it's on april 13th). For more information go to <a href='http://www.dayofsilence.org' target='_blank'> www.dayofsilence.org</a>. I know many of you don't live in the U.S., but for those who do...

 Who's in?

BTW: Spyder I hope you're okay with me defeating the censorer... it's not like im using the word badly...
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Aminaga on March 12, 2005, 11:43:52 AM
What? They censored gay?

Anyways, I'll probobly join
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 12, 2005, 11:44:12 AM
Good.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Cesque on March 12, 2005, 11:45:28 AM
I'm out. It's not silence that solves anything, it's a crowd of pitchfork-and-molotov-coctail wielding folk that does.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 12, 2005, 11:46:41 AM
You'd be surprised, Cesque...
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 12, 2005, 06:00:28 PM
Ahmen Cesque! Don't forget chainsaws and pump action shotguns!


Yeah, I'm not gonna sign, don't feal like it right now.

Quote
BTW: Spyder I hope you're okay with me defeating the censorer... it's not like im using the word badly...


He shouldn't be. I said it awile ago too. But I used it as 'happy'. Because that's what it means. Homosexuals stole that word from us! They stole queer to.... <_<
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Mark of the Dragon on March 13, 2005, 11:36:41 AM
I'm totally in. I have friends that are (Editor: Censored), and I've seen the harassment that they've gone through.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 13, 2005, 01:06:01 PM
Quote from: "Dude Man"
. Because that's what it means. Homosexuals stole that word from us! They stole queer to.... <_<

They didn't choose to be called gay and queer. It was forced upon them.


 Great, motd! I don't have any gay friends (i don't think so, at least).... but i still care about their rights!
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Aminaga on March 13, 2005, 01:13:03 PM
Well, I don't have any gay friends too, but personally, I also do believe supporting there rights is the right thing to do!
Title: (no subject)
Post by: TK Game Boy on March 13, 2005, 01:14:54 PM
Pay me and I'll join.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 13, 2005, 01:15:25 PM
Why would I pay you...?

 If you don't care about their rights then don't do it.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: TK Game Boy on March 13, 2005, 01:20:50 PM
Pay me and I'll care.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 13, 2005, 01:36:13 PM
<_<  :angry:
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Cesque on March 17, 2005, 12:31:21 AM
Quote
Pay me and I'll care.


Ownage.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Spyder on March 17, 2005, 10:05:11 AM
I've removed the word filter for "gay". Not too many people seem to be abusing it here, and it's really annoying to read (Editor: censored) in every post in this thread Razz. Basically if anyone starts abusing the word, I'll just increase their warning meter each time until they deserve a short ban.

Quote from: ""Cesque""
I'm out. It's not silence that solves anything, it's a crowd of pitchfork-and-molotov-coctail wielding folk that does.
heh, unfortunately Cesque's right about this one
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 17, 2005, 12:56:27 PM
Good, the word filter is gone, now we can all be happy and gay (but, in the happy way. Unless you want to be in the other way, nothing wrong with that....)
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Zeros' on March 17, 2005, 04:25:01 PM
I won't join, but I still support it. I personally have nothing against anyone gay, lesbain, transexual, bisexual or transgendered. I have several bisexual and lesbain friends anyways.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 17, 2005, 04:28:44 PM
You do!? Awsome! Razz
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 17, 2005, 05:27:37 PM
Kool! Unfortunately, it seems TKGB is anti-gay... Sad
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Cesque on March 18, 2005, 11:05:57 AM
He's pro-pedophiliac, though.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 18, 2005, 05:31:57 PM
Eew...
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 18, 2005, 05:33:52 PM
Quote
He's pro-pedophiliac, though.


 <_< Now that's just nasty...


Pedophilies should die.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 18, 2005, 05:34:42 PM
I'm pretty sure that pedophiliacs are illegal...  i think...
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Colin on March 18, 2005, 06:22:01 PM
Silence never helped progress any cause. Though it does make an interesting 'protest', I suppose.

Canada is so far ahead of the US anyway. Third reading of the same-sex marriage bill is this week.

Quote from: "Number Eight"
I'm pretty sure that pedophiliacs are illegal...  i think...


It's illegal to molest children; not to be a paedophile.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 18, 2005, 07:26:12 PM
Eh... well that's what I meant.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Aminaga on March 18, 2005, 07:48:52 PM
Quote from: "Cesque"
He's pro-pedophiliac, though.


lol!

Spyder: Hmm, have you gotten rid of the word "(Editor: Censored)" yet?

EDIT: Hmmm, I guess not.  Sad
Title: (no subject)
Post by: AlienDude on March 18, 2005, 08:10:46 PM
I support it, but no silence day, discussion is the only way to truly make change.

I have a couple friend who are bi, no big.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 18, 2005, 09:51:21 PM
Not that I'm homophobic or anything. I just don't think there should be same sex marrage. Marrage is something between a man and a women. That's the meaning of the word. They have Civil Union and that is just as good. Haveing to people of the same sex getting married is like a man becomeing Queen Of England. But other then that gay couples should have the same rights. Just straights get marrage and gays get Civil Union.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Colin on March 18, 2005, 10:14:57 PM
Where exactly do 'they' have 'civil unions'? Not even all of Canada; where I live, Alberta, for example, does not. And the places that do (everywhere except Alberta), do not, in fact, grant equal rights.

The definition of a word is just what it is understood to mean. In mere weeks, Dude Man, the Canadian definition will be, 'the lawful union of two people, to the exclusion of all others'. And this is nothing new--very many mainstream dictionaries removed genders from their definitions years ago.

Civil Unions are not 'just as good' because they aren't the same. That's blatant discrimination. When Virginia proposed its interracial marriage laws during the eugenics years, it was defended on the grounds that did not disallow relationships with people of other colours--only that you could not wed them. Is it just as good? No, it's second rate. Saying, 'you get that, and we get this' is inherently discriminatory, no matter how you manipulate the language.

The amusing thing about people and their, 'I'm not homophobic...,' is that it's almost always followed by something homophobic. Saying you're not ahead of time is not a way to free yourself from what follows: it's homophobia no matter what you want to call it.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 18, 2005, 10:36:58 PM
Well....I supose that's a good point...


I'm not homophobic! :angry:

 <_<
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Spyder on March 19, 2005, 01:00:38 PM
Quote from: "KSNiloc"
It's illegal to molest children; not to be a paedophile.
Although he certainly has a point, I just wanted to point out that it is illegal to act on any paedophilic (sp?) thoughts, including having pictures, movies, etc. It's not just the molesting part.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 19, 2005, 01:59:57 PM
Hmm.

 I think KSNiloc is right...

 If only the US were that leniant.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 19, 2005, 04:48:35 PM
I don't think the government should have a say in same sex marriage to be honest. It should be the church's choice. Each individual church.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Colin on March 19, 2005, 05:37:10 PM
Except you're neglecting one minor detail: this isn't about religion; it's about civil marriage.

And the <a href='http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38/C-38_1/C-38_cover-E.html' target='_blank'>same-sex marriage bill</a>, to be soon voted on, 'protects' churches:

Quote from: ""Bill C-38""
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.


Really, there are no sound reasons to oppose same-sex marriage.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 19, 2005, 07:32:21 PM
Well, that doesn't mean they couldn't get married somewhere else. Does it?
 Just because they don't get married in a church...
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 19, 2005, 08:27:12 PM
"Dearly beloved, we are gathered here to day, to join these two people in HOLY matrimony."


[sarcasm]Geez, what a fool, for me to miss that. Anything that has something to do with holy matrimony and takes place in a church, in no way can be about religion.[/sarcasm]
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 19, 2005, 08:32:12 PM
Well then how can atheists get married?
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 19, 2005, 08:40:43 PM
I don?t know. But marriage is a religious thing, whether you?re religious or not.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Colin on March 19, 2005, 09:27:16 PM
Oh ho ho. I'm sorry to have to tell you this Dude Man: you're wrong. Marriage was not originally a religious institution. The church only got involved during the power-struggle between it and the state. Even if it were?not everyone gets married in churches. Clearly, you have no reason to object to civil marriages? I mean, after all, your church still has the ability to decide whom it weds. It has absolutely no effect on churches. This is where the Christians really lose?nobody is asking for marriage in a church. It's civil marriage, Dude Man.

Don't waste your time arguing for a 'cause' which you know nothing about.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 19, 2005, 10:00:22 PM
People can get married in theatres, or big open outside areas, and those are not religious.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Colin on March 19, 2005, 10:43:39 PM
People can get married anywhere. All you need is someone with the power vested in them from the state. This is called civil marriage, as I've said five times now.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Spyder on March 20, 2005, 04:11:31 AM
Dudeman, that is a quote from a religious wedding ceremony. There are perfectly legal marriages outside of religion that do not include that quote, or any religious references.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 20, 2005, 07:29:17 AM
Very well, you have proved your point. -_-
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Spyder on March 20, 2005, 12:01:15 PM
*sigh*

If only other people could also see the same point just as easily as you have  Sad
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Trent on March 20, 2005, 01:33:21 PM
Feh... I'd really like to join...

But the 13th's a school day, I believe... Wouldn't work well at all.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 20, 2005, 01:49:53 PM
Of course, that's the point, EoN. Thats how it gets noticed - because it's at school.

 You can get cards and stuff off of their website that say that you're not talking that day and if you talk to your teachers beforehand you shouldn't have any trouble (I know I didn't).
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Colin on March 20, 2005, 10:09:10 PM
Quote from: "Spyder"
If only other people could also see the same point just as easily as you have  Sad


People like Dark Paladin don't actually bother to consider logical points addressed to them. They know they're right, so why the hell should they entertain other views?
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Spyder on March 20, 2005, 10:49:10 PM
It must be more than that though, because there are plenty of times when I "know I'm right", but I'll still listen to other views and try them on for size, etc, and usually do a bit of my own research on each as well.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Colin on March 21, 2005, 12:13:55 AM
Yeah, I was mocking him; not being serious.

It's more of a blind faith thing than 'knowing they're right'.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 23, 2005, 02:42:11 PM
Yeah, so even if I agree with the thing. I don't think I'll sign up. Because I can't go 10 minutes without talking. Also I don't think it would help, as stated earlier, by Cesque.

*grabs a torch and pichfork*
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Zeros' on March 23, 2005, 06:03:56 PM
As stated by an earlier person, silence will do nothing to help gay and lesbain couples. It might help people having a better understanding, but the human logic works in odd ways.

I do believe, however, marriage should be between two people who love each other, weither guy/girl, girl/girl or guy/guy. It shouldn't matter if they are the same sex or even if they don't share religion. Marriage, is after all, not religious. Only most people preceive it as religious because of the context of words the priests use to define the joined of two people in love.

Unfortunately, our biggot government along with most of the population in the U.S see marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: US Patriot on March 24, 2005, 02:49:25 AM
Yeah, I'm not for this stuff, but I'm not debating it. If you want something done don't crete a holiday for being lazy. You got to do something. Cesque is totally right here.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: AlienDude on March 24, 2005, 08:47:08 AM
You guys do know that homosexuality is an important aspect of overpopulation and extinction, right?

Scientists have done numerous tests on this.  Look it up.

I still support it, soft of.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Spyder on March 25, 2005, 09:57:37 AM
What?

Do you mean that supposedly everyone will become homosexual and the human race will cause it's own extinction?

If so, you've got some wild ideas there...

If not, please explain what you mean.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 25, 2005, 10:16:00 AM
I dont think its possible for that to happen... and even if it is POSSIBLE, its still pretty far fetched.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Cesque on March 25, 2005, 10:33:32 AM
I guess he meant what is logical: Homosexuality is like "friction", slowing down humans to grow into too high numbers.

More people > more gays > less people.

It works same way as celibate, diseases, wars and starvation. Wink
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 25, 2005, 10:45:19 AM
But humans are already overpopulated.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Cesque on March 25, 2005, 10:48:34 AM
And we already have wars and AIDS.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 25, 2005, 11:04:06 AM
But those, even coupled with homosexuality cant wipe out the human race, or even bring us down to "underpopulation".
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Cesque on March 25, 2005, 11:31:38 AM
But they prevent us from overpopulation.

Earth is not overpopulated - even if it was, it would take a few months or years to revert back to "stable" state.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Dude Man on March 25, 2005, 12:13:17 PM
Guys face it. We will kill ourselfs in a huge war. KABOOM! ARRRGGG!

But it's obvious, if there are more gays then there will be less people. Unless somebody can proove me wrong on that, but last time I checked it's only humenly possible for a man and a women to reproduce.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Number Eight on March 25, 2005, 12:35:19 PM
Well, is it really that big of a deal for there to be less people? There are already tons of them...
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Colin on March 25, 2005, 01:53:21 PM
The theory which AlienDude is incorrectly citing is actually that a percentage of people are gay to decrease the chances that those people reproduce, and thus regulate the population.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Trent on March 25, 2005, 02:22:21 PM
I think I'll join in on this. I've got plenty of time to confirm my desicion anyways.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Spyder on March 27, 2005, 12:41:49 AM
Even if there were no homosexuals, their probably wouldn't be a drastic change in population... There are far too many other factors that keep the birth rate "under control".
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Colin on March 27, 2005, 12:54:49 AM
That's because there isn't a large percentage of gays (i.e., 10%). I don't actually know much about the theory, but this number could fluctuate to act as regulation (as I said above).
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Spyder on March 27, 2005, 11:08:48 AM
Yes, but I imagine it's pretty unlikely.
Title: (no subject)
Post by: Cesque on March 28, 2005, 04:14:59 AM
Quote
Even if there were no homosexuals, their probably wouldn't be a drastic change in population... There are far too many other factors that keep the birth rate "under control".


Think of homosexuality as a way of final "polishing" humanity, rounding it to a desired number.