Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

People voting with their feet


Sotha
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting how one TV show can cause big effects in a small country.

 

Last week there was a normal, not-so-special, TV talk program, where the topic was "the rights of homosexuals in Finland."

 

The guests were, of course, chosen so that there were of the opposite sides of the spectrum to keep the discussion lively, interesting and fun.

 

The liberal side was led by a young politician, who is trying to equalize the legislation for homosexuals and heteros. The main idea seems to be that since only heteros can get married and homos cannot, this results in inequality. It is for example an easy method to identify a homosexual in a job interview.

 

On the conservative side there were few politicians (most notably the leader of the finnish christian party) and a bunch of church members, bishops and bible interpreters.

 

The discussion was quite hilarious to watch. The conservatives basically talked themselves into quite amount of trouble, while the liberal people had a clear and rational approach at all times. Finnish people are rather liberal (at least the majority) and they get easily upset by comments like "homosexuality is a flaw in a person's sexual behavior." Or "Marriage is like gravity, not human imposed institution."

 

Now that simple TV show is changing finnish church history. After the program (which was last week), there has been a horde of people leaving the church. Almost 28 000 people has resigned so far, and the value is still increasing daily. That's a lot in a small country (Finland's population is only 5-6 millions, I don't know how may church members we have).

 

This mass resignation is causing panic in the higher echelons of the church and they're probably gonna need to revise their attitudes and quick. It's quite fun to see how they do that without getting the conservative types resigning. The downside, which is also causing concern, is that when normal people are leaving the church, it gets only concentrated with the fundamentalists. Previously this has on the level that big debates have been going on whether or not homos can be blessed.

 

But it is nice to see that people take action when they're simply fed up.

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then we return to the United States where African American voters in California voted against Obama because of a Homo-Marriage scare campaign (phone calls) by our friends the GOP. This must've been pretty hot-button in that demographic because they had to overlook the GOP's "black voter irregularities" in Ohio and Sarah Palin's racist goading at her election rallies.

Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

 

http://www.indiedb.com/mods/the-dark-mod

 

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole 'gay' thing is getting pretty crazy imo. It's one of those topics where you gotta watch every word you say and hope someone isn't listening too carefully.

Personally I don't get it, I just don't find guys attractive.

 

But apart from that why would I care what two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their homes/lives. The biggots need to just get over trying to tell everyone how to run their lives.

 

The marriage thing is tricky just because people see it as a religious thing. But the fact is it has become nothing more than a civil union to most people, and is not even regarded that highly, more like a reason to tie someone down and control them in most cases. Look at the divorce rate, that basically proves that it's not a cherished institution by most anyway.

So if it's not religious, only civil, why the hell do people care so much? (either way, about getting married and/or if gay people get married).

 

I think people are finally reaching a state of enlightenment and realizing alot of the BS humans have been clinging to for so long is just that, BS.

 

Still, if I was in public office or something, I'd never even say the word. That's just asking for trouble.

Dark is the sway that mows like a harvest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole 'gay' thing is getting pretty crazy imo. It's one of those topics where you gotta watch every word you say and hope someone isn't listening too carefully.

LOL... the gays have nothing on Jehadie muslim extremists. The Jehadies and the gays need to get over themselfs, as the world at large dosent give a flying fuck.

 

-_-

Edited by Bikerdude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, I always love when the conservatives get what they deserve... :)

 

I don't know why so many people seem to hate gays. I guess people are just afraid of them, because they might possibly discover, they are gay themselves. I am neither afraid, nor am I gay and I think that everyone should have the right to have an acknowledged livepartner and the same advantages and disadvantages as a regular couple too.

 

I believe this is the next step for the equal rights movement, instead of the over exaggerated feminism which were are currently facing. Here in Germany, they actually think about forcing a minimum women-ratio on leading positions of big companies. That is just hilarious and has nothing to do with "equal rights". Dealing with racism and general discrimination is way more important than giving advantages to certain populations groups (which is basically the opposite of equality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

everyone should have the right to have an acknowledged livepartner and the same advantages and disadvantages as a regular couple too.

 

my view precisely. with one exception. I think that religions of any type deserve to able to exclude certain behaviors that offend them within the context of their own religion. In the case of christianity, i think it perfectly ok if the bible says 'marriage is between a man and a woman' and say 'ok, that doesn't work for us, so our pastors and priests will not be allowed to sanctify the union'.

 

On the other hand, what people choose to do with their lives is their own damn business, and outside the concept of a christian/muslim/whatever marriage ceremony, isn't for anyone to judge or interfere in. To quote a recent infamous thread, you can do whatever you want, but 'not in MY house'.

 

If homosexuals want to get married, fine. And if religious conservatives want to say 'not in MY house' thats fine as well. Let them be married, but not under their God. Call it a 'civil union', and let it be legal, and give them all the same tax advantages and what-have-you. They already exist for fucks sake! People deserve equal rights, but thats not the same thing as me having to invite you into my super secret exclusive club for cool people only. God will judge, its not for anyone else to do in the meantime. Live and let live, but don't fuck around in my house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my view precisely. with one exception. I think that religions of any type deserve to able to exclude certain behaviors that offend them within the context of their own religion. In the case of christianity, i think it perfectly ok if the bible says 'marriage is between a man and a woman' and say 'ok, that doesn't work for us, so our pastors and priests will not be allowed to sanctify the union'.

 

On the other hand, what people choose to do with their lives is their own damn business, and outside the concept of a christian/muslim/whatever marriage ceremony, isn't for anyone to judge or interfere in. To quote a recent infamous thread, you can do whatever you want, but 'not in MY house'.

 

If homosexuals want to get married, fine. And if religious conservatives want to say 'not in MY house' thats fine as well. Let them be married, but not under their God. Call it a 'civil union', and let it be legal, and give them all the same tax advantages and what-have-you. They already exist for fucks sake! People deserve equal rights, but thats not the same thing as me having to invite you into my super secret exclusive club for cool people only. God will judge, its not for anyone else to do in the meantime. Live and let live, but don't fuck around in my house.

 

Too often with these debates people end up acting ridiculous to the other parties, both pro or anti gay marriage. [These are what get air time on TV.] Anti Gay marriage are labeled intolerant and pro gay marriage being labeled immoral. If people want others to be tolerant of any culture, for example a pro homosexual culture than they should be tolerant of cultures which do not view homosexuality as a normal or moral behavior since tolerance of different cultures appears to be the root issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah there jdude. I get what you're saying, and to an extent I appreciate it, but please be careful about where this line of thought is leading.

 

Are you saying that intolerance of homosexuality has to be tolerated simply because it's "cultural"? If so, what about a culture that doesn't tolerate black people? Or a culture that doesn't tolerate Jews? Should we tolerate those cultures?

 

Sexuality is an immutable aspect of a person, much like race, or sex. Thus, if you argue for toleration of sexuality-based discrimination, then the same arguments can be used to tolerate racially-based discrimination, or sex-based discrimination.

 

The media often does polarise these kinds of arguments, that's definitely true. Sometimes, however, one side really is just wrong. :)

 

BTW, I don't mean to pick on you. There are other people in this thread who I disagree with more! (I won't name them, as I'm really not interested in starting a flame war.)

 

This has been an over-serious post, so here's a semi-relevant xkcd to lighten the mood:

 

semicontrolled_demolition.png

Caption: "I believe the truth always lies halfway between the most extreme claims."

 

 

Sotha, that's an awesome story! :laugh:

My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sotha, that's an awesome story! :laugh:

 

Thanks, I'm pleased people enjoyed it!

 

Sexuality is an immutable aspect of a person, much like race, or sex. Thus, if you argue for toleration of sexuality-based discrimination, then the same arguments can be used to tolerate racially-based discrimination, or sex-based discrimination.

 

Yep, and this is a fact. There is no way of changing your true sexual preference.

I'd like present an analogue to the current situation: the church, at least in Finland, in the old times forced left handed people to be righthanded. The situation is coarsely similar with this sexuality discussion.

 

Homosexuality is considered a flaw and heterosexuality as the norm, similarily like lefthandedness was considered a flaw, and righthandedness the norm.

 

Similarily to the previous handedness example, homosexuals are forced to hide their trait because of the pressure exerted by the society. They will get trouble if they're discovered.

 

No wonder why homosexual youths have a 4 times higher probability of committing suicide than the 'normal people.' Think about having the standard teenage problems PLUS you declared as a deviant, sinner and unethical.

 

Basically religious conservatism and the institutions laid by these factions is prohibiting homosexual people to be and live their lives as themselves: an ugly and incomprehensible situation in the modern world!

 

Luckily, humans are relatively short lived and the society can slowly progress when the conservatives kick the bucket. If you perform a statistical analysis I'm pretty sure, you can see that the young are more tolerant in this homosexuality issue than older people. Heck, you could even see this in the TV programme I told you about. The liberal side consisted of about 30-year olds, while the conservative side had roughly 50-year olds.

 

Not having a flame war is always a wise decision... wink.gif Although I do think that all participants in this thread are capable of having a mature discussion.

 

Indeed! Keep the discussion flowing! If it gets too hardcore for some, they can always stop monitoring the thread.

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other people in this thread who I disagree with more! (I won't name them, as I'm really not interested in starting a flame war.)

 

If you are referring to me because of my apparent strong anti-Republican stance, know that the Democrats are not really my favorite folks either. No flames from me if you feel the GOP is our best of the two evils, they both suck...

 

No need to answer, just wanted that to go on record for some reason. :unsure:

 

Personally I don't get it, I just don't find guys attractive.

 

LOL at that clever non sequitur... I think the non-native english speaker ratio on these boards means that folks miss a lot of your encoded humor :laugh:

Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

 

http://www.indiedb.com/mods/the-dark-mod

 

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL at that clever non sequitur... I think the non-native english speaker ratio on these boards means that folks miss a lot of your encoded humor :laugh:

Huh? Explain please!! I honestly thought it was just a regular comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He starts with a foreshadowing sentence that indicates that the topic of "gay rights" is confusingly overblown then he proceeds to change the meaning of that sentence by claiming that he doesn't understand gay attraction. The root of why you are personally sexually attracted to a same gender has nothing to do with the topic but is instead a coy joke about homophobia kinda like Seinfeld's "Not that there is anything wrong with that" episode, where George was dating a girl that looked like a female Jerry Seinfeld.

Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

 

http://www.indiedb.com/mods/the-dark-mod

 

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say homosexuality is wrong is just as fine as saying it is right

 

Only if you're a hard core moral relativist...or maybe a solipsist.

 

Substitute "homosexuality" for "slavery" and see if you still agree with that sentence.

 

people have the right to pick who they associate with, their values, perceptions, beliefs, morals and how they live their lives

 

Not to an unlimited extent they don't. Part of living in a social environment means that we each sacrifice some of our rights in order to create a stable society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah there jdude. I get what you're saying, and to an extent I appreciate it, but please be careful about where this line of thought is leading.

 

Are you saying that intolerance of homosexuality has to be tolerated simply because it's "cultural"? If so, what about a culture that doesn't tolerate black people? Or a culture that doesn't tolerate Jews? Should we tolerate those cultures?

 

Sexuality is an immutable aspect of a person, much like race, or sex. Thus, if you argue for toleration of sexuality-based discrimination, then the same arguments can be used to tolerate racially-based discrimination, or sex-based discrimination.

 

The media often does polarise these kinds of arguments, that's definitely true. Sometimes, however, one side really is just wrong. :)

 

BTW, I don't mean to pick on you. There are other people in this thread who I disagree with more! (I won't name them, as I'm really not interested in starting a flame war.)

 

This has been an over-serious post, so here's a semi-relevant xkcd to lighten the mood:

 

semicontrolled_demolition.png

Caption: "I believe the truth always lies halfway between the most extreme claims."

 

 

Sotha, that's an awesome story! :laugh:

I didn't take any position on the topic, I'm just saying that there's always this assumption from either party that their absolutely right and they lack the empathy to even give the other party's opinion a serious look or they deny that culture's right to exist. I personally think you saying one side is 'just wrong' because they don't accept the views of you is intolerant in of itself which makes ur position a paradox because your arguing for tolerance. (Same would be true for the reverse)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't take any position on the topic

 

Crispy never said you did, just that your reasoning that both sides of this particular debate should be given equal validity was flawed. This discussion isn't about anyone's personal views, those are personal and everyone is free to them, this is about laws enforced to create peaceful and equal (as far as is possible) societies. This is very much something that can be right vs wrong, as in the example of racist legislation. I'm not arguing that gays should have the right to be married in a church (this is a religious decision surely), but they should be allowed a civil union whereby the benefits that the state gives is equal to a hetero married couple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you have no problem with bigotry and hatred as long as it doesn't affect anyone's "standard of living"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're excellent at exaggeration.

Disagreeing with someone's philosophy or life style doesn't entail hatred or bigotry.

 

You said that people have the right to "not like other people"--presumably based on their sexual orientation.

 

That's what bigots do. (bigotry = "persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion.")

 

Or did you mean something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said that people have the right to "not like other people"--presumably based on their sexual orientation.

 

That's what bigots do. (bigotry = "persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion.")

 

If he didn't say it then I will. People have the right to not like other people based on their sexual orientation, but your definition of bigotry does not apply, because those people can "not like other people based on sexual orientation" and still be non-hostile to them and their human rights at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, this is pretty easily illustrated:

 

Group A:

 

Catholics should not be allowed to marry. Our government should not recognize their unholy union. They should not even exist let alone be allowed to marry.

 

Group B:

 

Please let us marry legally.

 

####

 

In the case of homosexuality this is actually worse as it is an inherent trait rather than a religious choice. But it should be pretty clear who is the offender in the above example.

 

The real problem though, is that of "Separation of Church and State". Our Governments should not recognize marriage period. Our Governments should treat all people as individuals. Dependent financial considerations for children should be per parent rather than per couple. Having our Governments provide all these double, triple, quintuple standards for folks in different situations is baloney. Sure, couples can pool resources more than individuals but that's no reason to squeeze blood from a stone and tax them more, married people do get divorces "occassionally" and the individual members of the marriage will need their part of the pie when this happens. Different insurance rates for married folk, that is complete bullshit and should not be allowed to happen.

 

Neither:

 

Government

Employer

Insurer

Debtor

Creditor

nor

Random Institution

 

should ever be allowed to know if you are married or not PERIOD.

Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

 

http://www.indiedb.com/mods/the-dark-mod

 

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said that people have the right to "not like other people"--presumably based on their sexual orientation.

 

That's what bigots do. (bigotry = "persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion.")

 

Or did you mean something else?

I don't know what your reading. I can disagree with the way someone lives their life and still like them.

 

Disagreement =/= hate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...