I'll note that it's almost always straight folks who reduce these conversations to being about "sexual choice," as though sex is all that's important. Make it out to be about sex instead of love and family and life.
I'm sorry, but that is my faith based belief. All I can do for you is offer you my prayers that God helps you find the right path.
◾48.5 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offenders bias against a race.
◾19.2 percent were targeted because of a bias against a particular sexual orientation.
◾18.7 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief.
◾12.1 percent were victimized because of a bias against an ethnicity/national origin.
◾1.4 percent were targeted because of a bias against a disability.
The 19.2% breaks down as follows:
◾53.9 percent were victims of an offenders anti-male homosexual bias.
◾28.6 percent were victims of an anti-homosexual bias.
◾12.7 percent were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias.
◾3.0 percent were victims of an anti-bisexual bias.
◾1.9 percent were victims of an anti-heterosexual bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Okay folks, let us not go into religious discussion as it's against the rules. Kthx.
Yes, I'm that Askray@Batbayer in game. Yes, I still play. No, I don't care. Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker. Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
No offense meant to you whatsoever, but you seem awfully dismissive and are generalizing the views of everyone into feeling one way or the other. Sure, there are people on the polar extremes of an issue. There are also many, many others who lie somewhere in the middle.
There are many, many people out there who can disagree with homosexuality but can respect that others choose to live their life the way they want. They also don't dismiss the families of TRIBBLE people as inferior, offensive or whatever other negative term you want to ascribe.
I wouldn't be angry. I'd just note that you were from a different religion than mine, and take you off my party invite list because you'd be a real downer if you came.
Then I wouldn't give you a second thought, unless you went all ISIS about it.
This. If I had a dime for everytime I've been told I was going to the "special place" because I did something deemed by others as disapproving, I'd have a whole lot of dimes. I have been told that my relationship was disapproving of my faith becaue I dated someone outside of it. I lauhed said whatever and moved on.
The guy wasnt "relationship Pope", and even if he was, my connection to my faith isn't through another person, its with the allmight himself. I don't place my self worth on the approval of other people, for Gods sake I play a Star Trek video game, like that wouldnt take almost all of my cool dude points away right from the get go.
Marriage is a contract, I see no reason to make gender restrictions as those dont exist in contracts.
Religious marriages are entirely different things and thus any religion restrictions apply, freedom of choice goes both ways.
I think of the word "marriage" as not a matter for the government to define, but that of private citizens.
I am good with the idea of a civil contract to ensure that all couples receive civil/financial benefits as a couple. I would not think of that legal documentation for ANY couple as "marriage" but as a guarantee of legal status and financial rights. What you do beyond that (as in, marriage) should be a personal matter in which the government can have zero say, and private citizens may argue about to their heart's content as First Amendment-protected speech.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Okay folks, let us not go into religious discussion as it's against the rules. Kthx.
Just to ask clarification, what exactly qualifies as "discussing religion"? I have seen plenty of warnings and speaking of the rules and locking of threads when someone who is defending their faith from attack or for just mentioning thier faith, but precious little when people are insulting religion or blaming it for all the evils of the world. Can we just get it nipped in the bud on both sides of this coin and forbid it for both sides?
No, marriage is a contract ... its even called that "marriage contract", its a matter for governments to define because its a LEGAL contract, like all contracts.
If you want to shack up with someone without marrying then you cannot evoke the privileges of a legal document even if many countries do recognize some rights to people that living together without being related or being married.
Contracts are not a matter for private citizens to define.
I would make the legal documentation a cohabitation contract, and that would be sufficient to get the job done. That means the unmarried couple you describe would be able to file cohabitation paperwork and receive all civil and financial benefits. The whole denial of rights issue then ends, with the end of the disparity on who may file taxes jointly, be a beneficiary on someone's benefits, have power of attorney on a living will, etc. From there, make *marriage* a private, non-governmental matter.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Just to ask clarification, what exactly qualifies as "discussing religion"? I have seen plenty of warnings and speaking of the rules and locking of threads when someone who is defending their faith from attack or for just mentioning thier faith, but precious little when people are insulting religion or blaming it for all the evils of the world. Can we just get it nipped in the bud on both sides of this coin and forbid it for both sides?
I for one would like to know why. . . . . .
If religion is a NO NO do not go there in any thread then why isn't talking about Race, Sex or peoples sexual preferences (LGBT).
you can not ask us to avoid one subject while allowing others to be spoken about in any context.
just saying I'm confused as to what the big difference is.
If religion is a NO NO do not go there in any thread then why isn't talking about Race, Sex or peoples sexual preferences (LGBT).
you can not ask us to avoid one subject while allowing others to be spoken about in any context.
just saying I'm confused as to what the big difference is.
I actually agree with you, the TOU actually has all of those as no no's but there seems to be a suspension of habeas corpus on sexual preferences because of the latest content.
I actually agree with you, the TOU actually has all of those as no no's but there seems to be a suspension of habeas corpus on sexual preferences because of the latest content.
That is what is getting me annoyed the most tbh.
If I can't bash people's religion (( WHICH I WOULD NEVER DO )) then why do I have to see these threads openly discussing things that shouldn't matter in this day and age.
The treads are locked without as much as a don't do it until it starts with the religious talk when as soon as sexual preferences (LGBT) becomes a topic that's when it should be closed.
I'm really confused at what is and isn't allowed anymore.
I actually agree with you, the TOU actually has all of those as no no's but there seems to be a suspension of habeas corpus on sexual preferences because of the latest content.
If I was cynical...
- I'd say that they are allowing the exchange because they brought it on themselves by including the content.
- They had to know that the forums would erupt in debate and thus they either thought the subject worth the flames or they even wanted the debate
- And by locking out any religious answers they seriously weighted the exchange in favor of one side by making the other unable to defend their beliefs.
Or, a slightly different version- they are testing the waters to see how much they can get away with in the future.
Or, they in truth did not expect anyone to object because they personally don't know anyone who would object.
Any of the three or another explanation is possible.
If I can't bash people's religion (( WHICH I WOULD NEVER DO )) then why do I have to see these threads openly discussing things that shouldn't matter in this day and age.
The treads are locked without as much as a don't do it until it starts with the religious talk when as soon as sexual preferences (LGBT) becomes a topic that's when it should be closed.
I'm really confused at what is and isn't allowed anymore.
Hypocrisy is a common thing this day in age, especially in any form of media where liberal-based policies run.
- I'd say that they are allowing the exchange because they brought it on themselves by including the content.
- They had to know that the forums would erupt in debate and thus they either thought the subject worth the flames or they even wanted the debate
- And by locking out any religious answers they seriously weighted the exchange in favor of one side by making the other unable to defend their beliefs.
Or, a slightly different version- they are testing the waters to see how much they can get away with in the future.
Or, they in truth did not expect anyone to object because they personally don't know anyone who would object.
Any of the three or another explanation is possible.
I won't go as far as to say your points are the causation of this, but I've just noticed the pattern over the last few months of someone taking a shot at a person religion, nothing being said aboutthe TOU, but when the attack is countered, that is whe. The TOU is declared violated and actions taken. If it gets stopped at the beginning, maybe neither side could abuse TOU.
- I'd say that they are allowing the exchange because they brought it on themselves by including the content.
- They had to know that the forums would erupt in debate and thus they either thought the subject worth the flames or they even wanted the debate
- And by locking out any religious answers they seriously weighted the exchange in favor of one side by making the other unable to defend their beliefs.
Or, a slightly different version- they are testing the waters to see how much they can get away with in the future.
Or, they in truth did not expect anyone to object because they personally don't know anyone who would object.
Any of the three or another explanation is possible.
Speaking as a person of faith myself... discussing religion in a charged situation is pretty much useless. There's no debate to be had, because faith isn't built on evidence - it's built on revelation. There's a potential for theological debate within a religion, but when the forum isn't single-religion... yeah. Without a general consensus on what writings are scripture and what being scripture means for a piece of writing, it's pointless. For me, religion is a reason to support people's families however they are formed; banning religious discussion does not advantage either side.
As for why discussion of LGBT issues is being allowed? My guess is that it's because those issues are germane to the game at this point. They always have been - LGBT issues hung under the surface of the television franchise for its last decade and change of life - but now they're front and center in game.
Speaking as a person of faith myself... discussing religion in a charged situation is pretty much useless.
I would disagree, especially as religion is being misrepresented by others in this thread- with beliefs and attitudes assigned to it that is not true of all and I'd claim even most believers.
But yet, here we're made defenseless. You can speak in your cause, be we are unable to defend ourselves.
I would disagree, especially as religion is being misrepresented by others in this thread- with beliefs and attitudes assigned to it that is not true of all and I'd claim even most believers.
But yet, here we're made defenseless. You can speak in your cause, be we are unable to defend ourselves.
Sure you can. Just use arguments that are religion-neutral. You'll have to do that to defend your beliefs whenever they're challenged.
Which will be frequently. I'm a transgender, TRIBBLE Christian. You think I don't ever feel beset on all sides?
Speaking as a person of faith myself... discussing religion in a charged situation is pretty much useless. There's no debate to be had, because faith isn't built on evidence - it's built on revelation. There's a potential for theological debate within a religion, but when the forum isn't single-religion... yeah. Without a general consensus on what writings are scripture and what being scripture means for a piece of writing, it's pointless. For me, religion is a reason to support people's families however they are formed; banning religious discussion does not advantage either side.
As for why discussion of LGBT issues is being allowed? My guess is that it's because those issues are germane to the game at this point. They always have been - LGBT issues hung under the surface of the television franchise for its last decade and change of life - but now they're front and center in game.
I would just like to see it being banned from both sides (actually more than two). If its good for the goose, its good for the gander.
Sure you can. Just use arguments that are religion-neutral. You'll have to do that to defend your beliefs whenever they're challenged.
I have to defend my religious beliefs without mentioning my religion or answering false statements about my religion? This is what you'd ask of me?
Note: I did answer your statement about hate crimes (edit: i.e. the stat breakdown) against trans without religion because that wasn't a religious question.
However to the larger point, without Religion- there is IMO little debate on any subject as there is no objective morality. In a Godless world, the only statement worth making is that of Thucydides:
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
Being a wimp physically- that's not a statement I want to make
Sure you can. Just use arguments that are religion-neutral. You'll have to do that to defend your beliefs whenever they're challenged.
Which will be frequently. I'm a transgender, TRIBBLE Christian. You think I don't ever feel beset on all sides?
I will say that it is hard, impossible actually, to defend against an attack of ones faith without mentioning religion because its the actual target of the attack. Wheras if the attacks themselves are dealth with, there wouldnt even be a need for someone to defend against it. Doesn't that make sense?
Comments
I'm sorry, but that is my faith based belief. All I can do for you is offer you my prayers that God helps you find the right path.
Again, I'm sorry. But I now that is not true- at least for the US.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/victims/victims_final
◾48.5 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offenders bias against a race.
◾19.2 percent were targeted because of a bias against a particular sexual orientation.
◾18.7 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief.
◾12.1 percent were victimized because of a bias against an ethnicity/national origin.
◾1.4 percent were targeted because of a bias against a disability.
The 19.2% breaks down as follows:
◾53.9 percent were victims of an offenders anti-male homosexual bias.
◾28.6 percent were victims of an anti-homosexual bias.
◾12.7 percent were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias.
◾3.0 percent were victims of an anti-bisexual bias.
◾1.9 percent were victims of an anti-heterosexual bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Trans isn't significant enough to list it seems.
Lol so lol yes homosexuals just wake up and think "you know what I think I'll go TRIBBLE today" said no TRIBBLE person EVER
Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker.
Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
I was worried I would not get a Nabreeki post today.
At least you see it.
This. If I had a dime for everytime I've been told I was going to the "special place" because I did something deemed by others as disapproving, I'd have a whole lot of dimes. I have been told that my relationship was disapproving of my faith becaue I dated someone outside of it. I lauhed said whatever and moved on.
The guy wasnt "relationship Pope", and even if he was, my connection to my faith isn't through another person, its with the allmight himself. I don't place my self worth on the approval of other people, for Gods sake I play a Star Trek video game, like that wouldnt take almost all of my cool dude points away right from the get go.
I have an answer to this, but forum rules prevent my giving it as it's religious in nature. PM me if you wish.
And since without a religious foundation, I have nothing more to say- time for me to walk away from this thread.
I think of the word "marriage" as not a matter for the government to define, but that of private citizens.
I am good with the idea of a civil contract to ensure that all couples receive civil/financial benefits as a couple. I would not think of that legal documentation for ANY couple as "marriage" but as a guarantee of legal status and financial rights. What you do beyond that (as in, marriage) should be a personal matter in which the government can have zero say, and private citizens may argue about to their heart's content as First Amendment-protected speech.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I'll pass thanks. I do not need to hear what religion says about being born like any other human being.
but thank you for the chance if I wanted to.
Just to ask clarification, what exactly qualifies as "discussing religion"? I have seen plenty of warnings and speaking of the rules and locking of threads when someone who is defending their faith from attack or for just mentioning thier faith, but precious little when people are insulting religion or blaming it for all the evils of the world. Can we just get it nipped in the bud on both sides of this coin and forbid it for both sides?
I would make the legal documentation a cohabitation contract, and that would be sufficient to get the job done. That means the unmarried couple you describe would be able to file cohabitation paperwork and receive all civil and financial benefits. The whole denial of rights issue then ends, with the end of the disparity on who may file taxes jointly, be a beneficiary on someone's benefits, have power of attorney on a living will, etc. From there, make *marriage* a private, non-governmental matter.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I for one would like to know why. . . . . .
If religion is a NO NO do not go there in any thread then why isn't talking about Race, Sex or peoples sexual preferences (LGBT).
you can not ask us to avoid one subject while allowing others to be spoken about in any context.
just saying I'm confused as to what the big difference is.
I actually agree with you, the TOU actually has all of those as no no's but there seems to be a suspension of habeas corpus on sexual preferences because of the latest content.
That is what is getting me annoyed the most tbh.
If I can't bash people's religion (( WHICH I WOULD NEVER DO )) then why do I have to see these threads openly discussing things that shouldn't matter in this day and age.
The treads are locked without as much as a don't do it until it starts with the religious talk when as soon as sexual preferences (LGBT) becomes a topic that's when it should be closed.
I'm really confused at what is and isn't allowed anymore.
If I was cynical...
- I'd say that they are allowing the exchange because they brought it on themselves by including the content.
- They had to know that the forums would erupt in debate and thus they either thought the subject worth the flames or they even wanted the debate
- And by locking out any religious answers they seriously weighted the exchange in favor of one side by making the other unable to defend their beliefs.
Or, a slightly different version- they are testing the waters to see how much they can get away with in the future.
Or, they in truth did not expect anyone to object because they personally don't know anyone who would object.
Any of the three or another explanation is possible.
Hypocrisy is a common thing this day in age, especially in any form of media where liberal-based policies run.
I won't go as far as to say your points are the causation of this, but I've just noticed the pattern over the last few months of someone taking a shot at a person religion, nothing being said aboutthe TOU, but when the attack is countered, that is whe. The TOU is declared violated and actions taken. If it gets stopped at the beginning, maybe neither side could abuse TOU.
really? Have you had to much Faux News lately?
Speaking as a person of faith myself... discussing religion in a charged situation is pretty much useless. There's no debate to be had, because faith isn't built on evidence - it's built on revelation. There's a potential for theological debate within a religion, but when the forum isn't single-religion... yeah. Without a general consensus on what writings are scripture and what being scripture means for a piece of writing, it's pointless. For me, religion is a reason to support people's families however they are formed; banning religious discussion does not advantage either side.
As for why discussion of LGBT issues is being allowed? My guess is that it's because those issues are germane to the game at this point. They always have been - LGBT issues hung under the surface of the television franchise for its last decade and change of life - but now they're front and center in game.
I would disagree, especially as religion is being misrepresented by others in this thread- with beliefs and attitudes assigned to it that is not true of all and I'd claim even most believers.
But yet, here we're made defenseless. You can speak in your cause, be we are unable to defend ourselves.
Sure you can. Just use arguments that are religion-neutral. You'll have to do that to defend your beliefs whenever they're challenged.
Which will be frequently. I'm a transgender, TRIBBLE Christian. You think I don't ever feel beset on all sides?
That the only argument you got? Lol, how about trying to think for yourself instead of adapting to the same thing every other liberal spouts.
I would just like to see it being banned from both sides (actually more than two). If its good for the goose, its good for the gander.
I have to defend my religious beliefs without mentioning my religion or answering false statements about my religion? This is what you'd ask of me?
Note: I did answer your statement about hate crimes (edit: i.e. the stat breakdown) against trans without religion because that wasn't a religious question.
However to the larger point, without Religion- there is IMO little debate on any subject as there is no objective morality. In a Godless world, the only statement worth making is that of Thucydides:
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
Being a wimp physically- that's not a statement I want to make
I will say that it is hard, impossible actually, to defend against an attack of ones faith without mentioning religion because its the actual target of the attack. Wheras if the attacks themselves are dealth with, there wouldnt even be a need for someone to defend against it. Doesn't that make sense?