Conservative Christian Site Slams Same-Sex Couple Option in Game of Life

The Christian conservative website WorldNetDaily has got its undies in a twist over an option that permits same-sex couples in Hasbro’s The Game of Life.

The downloadable PC title is an update of the classic board game of the same name. WND writes:

The online version of a popular board game from many Americans’ childhood includes an option for players to choose homosexual marriage and child-rearing as a way of life… even children can download and play a free trial version of The Game of Life, the first game ever created by Mr. Milton Bradley in 1860.

The player’s first option in the online version is to choose a persona based on pictures that clearly depict men and women. Shortly thereafter, the game invites players to choose a spouse, regardless of the potential spouse’s sex…

But, as WND notes, the modern version of the board game, created in 1960, allowed for gay unions as well:

The board game did not prevent players in any way from placing two pink or two blue pegs in the front seat [of the playing piece representing the family car], thus depicting a homosexual couple.

GP: Got this tip from none other than Jack Thompson during the course of seeking comment on last night’s passage of the Utah video game bill.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. Monte says:

    Can you really be so quick to say that having Faith easier? i mean is it easier to believe in something that you can hold in your hands and see with your eyes, or believe in something that has no physical form what-so-ever…When a person is faced with suffering and pain, would you call it easy to maintain your faith in a higher power; in such times there are many who would say that no one is there… in a world where science is becoming more prevalent, and giving us answers to so many things, we are essentially living in a time when it might make more sense NOT to believe in some form of god… all in all, saying nothing is there when you have little reason to think something is there seems a lot easier than maintaining your faith… Can you say that they are ignoring facts, or are they accepting that those facts exist but have faith despite them… is it simple blind faith, or strength of will… some people do look very deeply into these things and still come out as believers


    Grant it though you may have a point on personal responsibility… religion gives people a reason to be responcible for themselves. It’s easier to stay personal responicble and accountable when you know you will be judged… Without relgion however, the only thing that encourages personal responcibility is the law and other people; and unlike the all seeing eyes of God, those factors you can get around… so it probably would take more strength to maintain personal responcibility when you think you can get away with your actions and avoid judgement… so there is that sense of avoiding temptation whnen you think you may be able to get away with it… though maybe not so much more, as the religous always could always drop their faith and believe they won’t be judged; so you could say that for the religious there is still that sense of avoiding temptation which takes strength

  2. Valdearg says:

    You are right. You or I can’t prove or disprove the existence of God. But excuse me for choosing the more believable route than immediately jumping to the Conclusion that some All powerful force is behind it. Honestly, thats taking the easy way out. It’s easier than finding out for yourself. It’s also easier than taking responsibility for yourself. I can assure you, I am not one to ignore facts. I am not one to deny just because I’ve denied all my life. If, sometime down the road, God is scientifically proven to exist, like you seem to think will eventually happen,  I won’t hesitate to to admit my flaw and fall lock-step in behind the rest of you. However, all of the evidence, research, and general logic point the other way, so excuse my Narccissim, but I think I’ll take my logical, deliberate, and well thought out approach over blind faith.

  3. Valdearg says:

    First of all, I don’t think I’ve ever once claimed that ALL christians are bad. If I have, then I apologize for that.  Though I doubt it, because I speak in mostly generalities. I do this because of the fact that it’s easier to type and read, rather than preface everything with the words "Some" or "Most", "X percent of" or even "All".

    So what if I offend some Christians because they don’t fit into the mold that I set forth? If they don’t fit the mold, then I am not speaking about or directly attacking them. Besides, it would be stupid for anyone to believe that 100% of All Christians are Conservative Bigots. That would be like claiming all Asians are Smart or all Mexicans are Illegal. It is ignorant.

    The only reason I don’t explicitly explain that I KNOW not ALL of X is Y is because my posts are long enough as it is, and, to be completely honest, to point something like that out, rather focus than my more interesting and logical arguments is pathetic.

    Oh, in addition, I will say this. Yes, I am arrogant. Everybody tells me this. However, I don’t give a damn what people think about me, because more often than not, I am proven right again and again in arguments I have with others. (Not related to religion, I know you can’t prove that crap.) I tend to let my track record speak for me. Because of This, I am a confident person. That is just who I am.

    I am also elitist. I do believe that some people are better than others. This, to me, is proven through a persons actions and behavior. I am a better person than a criminal. I am a better person than a high school drop out. I believe that through hard work, perseverance, and applying your intellect and logic, everyone can better themselves. IN fact, this is why I fight for equal rights. I believe everyone should have an equal chance to raise themselves above the others. If you don’t, however. If you drop out of school, waste your life, or otherwise cause your own problems, damn straight I think I am better than you, just like I think that people like Bill Gates and Martin Luther King Jr. are/were better people than you or I.

  4. BrandonL337 says:

    Not all Christians are standing in the way of human rights, many but not all so specify who you’re talking about and cut down on the jackassery you’re making us Athiests look bad by being a walking steriotype of the Arrogant Elitist Athiest and really we could do with a better public image.

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  5. Monte says:

    And how can you be so certain that he does exist? Who are you to say that every single one of the stories told through history about God did not actually happen?  Do you have an explanation for every mysterious events that may have occured? The only way you can claim God absolutely does not exist is when our science is capable to explaining every single thing in the universe and eliminate every possible mystery…. Explaining how God can exist could be like trying to explain Quantum Physics to a caveman… who are we to say that he can not possibly exists? whose to say that in a million years are science won’t come up with an explanation for the unexplainable? Thousands of years ago if someone made a baseless claim that the world was round or the earth revolved around the sun, they might have been called crazy, that his claims made no sense and had no logic or reason to them; fast forward some more and we realize that though he had trouble explaining his claims he was actually right… This is why Science calls many of there facts "theories"; scientist are always prepared to find new rules and revelations that might change the known facts of the world and could even bring a whole new light on their theories… 

  6. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    It happens. It’s hard to "read" emotion when posting on teh interwebz.

    However, I’m going to have to decline to defend my faith. This isn’t the place for it and I’m sure no one here, let alone you, truly wants to hear an anonymous person’s life story; and I don’t think I want to divulge it on a public forum. As I said: intensely personal, and I meant it.


  7. Valdearg says:

    Sorry. But I get all fired up when defending points that I am passionate about. It was meant to be more of a question than an attack against you, personally, but as I wrote, I got angrier at all the crap these other jackasses are saying, and it kind of just spilled over.

  8. Valdearg says:

    But HOW do you even know he exists? Aside from the fact that that was what was taught to you when you were growing up? If you grew up, without mention of God in your life, you would respond the same to both people, the same way that I respond to anyone who tries to claim crazy shit like that exists.

  9. Valdearg says:

    I’ll grow up and stop bashing christianity when I have no more reason to do so. Until they learn to mind thier own business, and realize that They are standing in the way of basic Human rights, they will be bashed on. If it offends, you, I’m sorry, but to god damn bad. I am sick of the crap that not only homosexuals are put through, but anyone who disagrees with the morals set forth by the Christian Doctorine. 

    Like I’ve said before: You are more than welcome to practice your religion and your morals in YOUR family and YOUR life. The moment anyone try to tell ME how to live MY life, they have crossed the line, and that is exactly Christians have been doing for the past 2000 years. So, until that stops, you are just going to have to man up and deal with it.


  10. Monte says:

     Well, the person flapping his arms has given us not reason that he is anything more than a simple normal human and thus is bound to all the same rules and restrictions that all other humans are bound to… God on the other hand is nigh all powerful being whose very existence could be far to complicated for human minds to comprehend, and is capable doing simple things like reshaping the universe

  11. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    I’ve heard theories that there are more gays being born because of overpopulation. I’ve heard them just in passing, though; haven’t done any real research into it.

    I can speak as a friend of several GBLT people and one myself: I don’t care what "research" says, I have no choice in the matter. I’ve tried and nearly died because of the effort. This is a purely hypothetical question, though. I’ve read the exchange below and would like to know your thoughts, even though you’ve never been in this situation.

    Since you’ve admitted here that you don’t know if you can teach a kid to be gay or not, don’t you think that if you were encountered with that situation, it might be good to do some research on it and form a solid opinion on it, either way, before you try to teach your kid not to be gay?

    (Note: not a loaded question, genuinely curious)

  12. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    Dude, I’m on your side. I just disagree with you about religion. Why the sudden turn of attitude towards me?

  13. jkdjr25 says:

    "You people" are all killers just waiting to go psycho and murder everyone around you. (sound familiar? Kinda like a certain Miami ex-lawyer?)

    "You people" is almost always used by bigots to describe the people they hate. It’s a copout to avoid even considering that you might be wrong and only goes to show you don’t actually think about the issue yourself.

  14. Frank says:

    It’s not homophobic as I do not fear gays.  They are people just like anyone else.  I just want my genetic line to continue.  If he is gay and offs himself like you say then I can’t say what I’d think because I don’t have any sort of emotional attachment to things that haven’t even been born yet.  I’d prefer my kids to love me as a father and I am free to disaprove of their lifestyle choices.  I will however, work towards having a non-gay child so as to further my genetics.

  15. Frank says:

    I live in the 1940s so I wasn’t thinking of overpopulation.  Yes gays do help with overpopulation.  They are valuable for that and if the population continues to grow then yes we may need more gays.


    As for whether or not you can teach a kid to not be gay I really don’t know if it’s possible.  I haven’t read anything on the subject.

  16. BrandonL337 says:

    I concur you sir can go fuck off

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  17. jkdjr25 says:

    Enough is freaking enough.

    You’re acting like a massive jackass and, personally, I think it’s way past time one of the admins stepped in. You’re a hatemonger yourself, you’re just bigotted against religion, but that’s ok I guess. Just stop and grow the frell up.

  18. Father Time says:

    So much irrational hate. WorldNetDaily is not by any definition mainstream they’re far right loons and I’ve never seen any level-headed conservative bring them up as a source.

    These are people who are convinced there is a big large homosexual or atheist agenda to persecute them, kill off God etc. etc. It’s like the ‘war on Christmas’ on crack. They’re basically the conservative equivalent of the conspiracy nuts who screech about big government conspiracy.

    Atheists and gays in this country are not organized enough and are not numerous enough to be a big threat to conservatives but they tend to ingore that fact.


     Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  19. jkdjr25 says:

    You can doubt it all you want but that doesn’t mean that what I said was untrue.

    I know very well what its like to be treated like crap because you’re different. I know what it’s like to be ridiculed every freaking day to the point where you want to kill yourself. The difference is that I chose not to hide.  I made the choice to be who I was and not care that people were jerks. It still hurt and it was still lonely, but I survived so don’t think you know my life or can say that I don’t know about that kind of pain. I’m well aware of it.

    For your own edification I don’t treat people like that and I detest the kind of people who do. I still believe that things are wrong but that doesn’t stop me from caring about people.

  20. jkdjr25 says:

    A person’s comfort at talking about their private lives, in any context, is hardly irrelevant. Believe it or not there are people who won’t even mention that they went bowling or to the movies because they just don’t like discussing those things with anyone but their closest friends.

    I’ve already said that in cases of adoption the only thing that should come into play is what’s in the best interest of the child and nothing else. If a gay couple is the most stable home and would be the best to help the child grow and develop then that’s where the child should be placed.

    I honestly don’t know what the best solution for the marriage issue should be. I know how I personally feel about it but I also think that couples should have the same rights across the board when it comes to things like hospital visits, insurance and the like.  We’re only going to come to a solution when all sides stop sniping at one another and start talking honestly.

  21. Valdearg says:

    Let me ask you this.


    Would you rather have a kid that was Gay, but because of your Homophobic teaching and trying to teach them against being gay, they never could atmit to you that they were? A kid that was frightened of you because he is Gay. So scared, in fact, that they kill themselves? (A very Common occurrance in homophobic, overly conservative families)


    Or have an openly gay kid, who grows into adulthood, because even though you may disapprove, at least you were open to the idea that it is OK to be gay and that being so was not the end of the world?

    In my opinion, I’d rather have a kid who didn’t grow up confused and scared. I’d rather have a kid who trusts me, and who would tell me if something was bothering him.

    But, thats just me, if you’d prefer to have your kid live in fear of you, that’s your perogative..

  22. Valdearg says:

    If you admit that your faith is illogical, why do you continue to believe in it?

    In the real world, if someone went up to you and said, "Dude, I totally flapped my arms and flew today!" you would go, "No, you didn’t.. That is impossible and defies all logic."

    Yet, at the same time, someone could say "There is an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful entity that runs the world as he sees fit, and that we are all just pawns in his making. Oh, did I mention that his Son was born of a virgin a long, long time ago, and when he died, this entity brought him back to life! Also, he formed the entire Earth in 6 days AND he made women from a rib." and you would say "Yeah, I believe that too!"

    How can one NOT respond the same way both statements? By any stretch of the imagination, the first is just as logical as the second.

    Please, tell me how you can possibly disagree.


    Also: Cut the I believe what I believe because that is what I believe crap. It is a cop out. You just don’t want to admit to yourself that you have no reason to believe what you do. You just don’t want to admit that there is a possibility that you have spent your life believing in something so rediculous that you should feel stupid for even entertaining the fact.

  23. Valdearg says:

    Bottom line is if you spend your life trying to fight against things you think are wrong because your church says you are wrong, rather than thinking critically about your church and thier teachings, you are an Idiot. Seeing as most people in the world believe in thier religion because that was what was taught to them, it boggles my mind to figure out why, then, they are so convicted in thier behavior.

    I believe, truthfully, and without a doubt in my mind, that religion is a crutch. It is a crutch to help people make sense of the world, without requiring them to truly think about it. The answers are there, no matter how stupid or nonsensical they really are, once thought and logic are applied. It also doesn’t require them to reach the ultimate conclusion that once we are done here, there is nowhere else. Why else do you think that, in general, the poorer and less sucessful people are, the more religious they seem to become? It is because they don’t want to admit that they failed in the one and only life they have. They want to believe that there is something else after death. They want to believe that they haven’t wasted thier lives, beliving in God, just to be disappointed in the end.

    One can only imagine the number of people who would just kill themselves on the spot, if it was ever proven that God doesn’t exist. It is a shame, really, that it can’t be done.

  24. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    Here’s my take on it, as a Christian (OMG a pro-GBLT person who is a Christian!):

    I’d think about it logically… if my faith had anything to do with logic.

    I claim Jesus as the Son of God and my Savior because that’s what I believe. It’s an intensely personal thing; you can’t logic someone out of faith. It’s inherintly illogical. Hell, I believe in transsubstantiation!

    If you think you can talk logic with me about religion when I believe in something like that, I don’t think I’m the only one who needs to be thinking critically here. 😉

    You can indeed use logic within your faith, which is why I am 100% perfectly fine with the GBLT community. (Also: God hates nothing He has created, so on and so forth). I’ll decline from going into why I am fine with them (and why I think that’s completely in line with the Bible) because this isn’t the place for a debate on the religion itself.

    But seriously, dude; please, lay off the more traditional Christians who are posting here. We’re not all duplicates of one another, and they are indeed entitled to their opinion on homosexuality, as wrong as we think they are.

  25. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    You can’t teach kids not to be gay. If they are gay, they are gay.

    Also: overpopulation. If there really were too few people, I might care about that argument. As it is, there are far too many.

    (My personal opinion on that second, of course.)

  26. Firebird says:

    Just wow…. that’s well tastefully *cough* put.

    Well, I just assumed those questions were rhetorical… since you already have such a aptly well-placed worldview.

    I had never said you can’t have religion and a good life…,

    so I will say nicely done on your part.

    It just doesn’t take much common sense to know there little logic in blind faith, (I am rather stumped, as well) and already stated my reasons for believing in mine, so… what?

    You assume, that by believing in any faith whatsoever, that we are weak? (Thus the whole crutch comment)

    It’s OK that you start to condecend on others to make yourself feel better. But what point do is it have if it does not gain you anything of social value? Obviously, at this point you don’t care what I say either.

    Not only are you falling off-topic from the post was about, but seems more of reason to troll around by having a raging fit on religion.

  27. Frank says:

    I did not bother to read all the christian bashing on this page as that would piss me off waaay too much.  Here is my view on gays and life.  The purpose of living things is to reproduce and spread their genetics.  Gays lack that ability.  By teaching kids not to be gay you help them to have a better chance at having kids.  Gays are the end of their family lines as they cannot have kids and spread their genetics.  For people like me who want their genetic line to continue we must ensure that kids do not turn gay.  Now I’m not saying Gays are evil, I know girls who are gay and they are some of the best people I know.  I am merely saying that genetically being gay is a dead end. 

  28. Valdearg says:

    I did read your last post. You said your faith is yours, it’s brought you closes to your family, blah, blah, blah..

    The thing is I can be close to my family, be nice to others, enjoy my time on earth, and have a happy and fufilling life without the Crutch of Religion. In fact, Since I don’t worry myself about how OTHER people are living thier lives, I would be willing to say that I live a happier life than most Christians.

    Seeing as you completely avoided answering any questions as to why you people choose to believe one way or another between religions, aside from blind faith, and "thats just how I was raised" it makes me wonder whether or not YOU read my post..

  29. Erik says:

    If we only focused on our immediate needs and how to procure them we never would have gotten anywhere as a species.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  30. Firebird says:

    I agree w/ your last statement, one could’ve said it was a "miracle", ha ha ha!

    I never denounced any other religion, yet, you assume by our zealots, that we think ourselves as the superior, in the sense of ideology.

    I never think of myself as better than others (quite frankly, the other way around), and I keep to my faith in the regard that it brings me closer to my family and others (In a sociological standpoint, it serves a purpose).

    I have no idea whether or not our theories invloving creationism or evolution are true (frankly, I don’t care.), and I am guy who already questioned his faith.

    While I agree that certain extremist go too far with irrelevant issues (look at current article), you have such a pessimistic wordview on religion, it makes think whether or not YOU READ MY LAST POST!!!

  31. Valdearg says:

    Look, what I’m trying to say is look you have to look at your religion critically before you accept it as the outright truth. Reading some of those stories in the bible, (OMG, an athiest who has read the bible?!?) makes me go, "How the HELL do these people believe these things?"

    If people would just THINK logically, I suspect that many of them would think the same thing. What makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Bhuddism, or Native American Spiritualism? Nothing. Not a single thing makes Christianity the Right religion.

    Religions were created to explain the unexplainable. Religions still exist for that reason. It is still mind blowing that people would defend thier religion, even when compared to the ancient roman and greek "Myths". How is it that we can confidently say that there is no Apollo, Jupiter, or Aphrodite, yet in the same breath, we can claim that God exists and that Jesus was divine? 

    How, in the face of so many overwhelming similarities to so many of the conflicting religious systems, from Christianity to Zoroastrianism and everything in between, can people still go "What I believe is right, because thats what my parents taught me, and what their parents taught them before that!"

    Why can’t people just admit that we don’t know exactly how everything started, and we don’t know how it will end, and rather than spend our lives devoted to something that makes as much sense as the Greeks making some of the most important decisions of thier time based on the ramblings of a woman in an opiate induced trance?

    That being said.. Humans are a facinatingly stupid creature. It’s a wonder how we survived in a world filled with creatures that don’t preoccupy themselves with the trivial questions of how and why we came to be, but instead focus on thier immediate needs and how to procure them.

  32. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    That’s actually what I want to happen. It annoys the hell out of me when someone says that marriage is a religious thing. It is not. My first marriage was done by a justice of the peace, and I paid the jurisdiction I was married in for it.

    My second, more recent marriage, was done in my church. I didn’t have to pay for anything, aside from an at-will donation, because my spouse and I are members of the church. However, I still had to pay the jurisdiction I was married in for the right to get married. That’s a government issue. I had to get my marriage certificate from the jurisdiction I was married in. That’s a government issue.

    My proposal is to change the piece of paper you get from the government is to change it from "marriage" to "civil union" and be done with it, and let them continue to believe that "marriage" is a religious institution. If this is really about people not wanting "the name of their institution" sullied by "dirty gays" this should satisfy them.

    Fact: in general, it doesn’t.


    On the topic of the actual game, I just lol’ed at the fact that merely acknowledging that there are some people who will not want to marry someone of the opposite sex is "pushing the homosexual agenda". If they object to homosexual marriage on the grounds that they’re "not prepared to explain something as adult as that to a child," they shouldn’t be learning about marriage yet at all. Why were you allowed to pick a girl to get married to? Because sometimes, people fall in love with others who are a girl like them, or a boy like them…

    Why does the mere acknowledgement of homosexuality make for an "inappropriate" or "adult" topic, but heterosexual marriage isn’t "adult"? I don’t get it.

  33. Kincyr says:

    Marriage between a male and female has a purpose outside of emotional fulfillment, and is generally beneficial to society by means of reproduction.

    not in this day and age; people today are having sex before marriage, and the earth is overrun by humans as it is. We wouldn’t have orphanages otherwise

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  34. digdug says:

    I dont like World Nut Daily, but I dont really have a problem with them writing a story about this, and advocating against it. Heck, they (WND and christian conservatives) can even boycott if they want – thats their right. Where I have a problem is when they try to use the government to force their beliefs on people. I dont see them advocating that here though, theyre not calling for censorship (although that is something that they often do). I do see this though as just adding to the hysteria about video games, and its this hysteria that can lead to censorship – so it deserves criticism for that.

    Actual gay marriage is a separate issue. The best solution Ive heard is just to have the government call all unions (gay or straight) civil unions. Then leave marriage (the word) up to the churches/religion; they can chose to marry gay people or not, or straight people or not…

  35. Firebird says:

    While I disagree with Conservatice Christian’s choice in the matter in relation to the article, there is a strange sense of said ‘bigotry and arrogance’, whenever I hear an Atheist’s opinion on matters involving religion and god.

    Granted, many do keep their opinions to a self-individualized perspective (of whom I have admiration and respect); Why is it other atheists’ goal seemed to be steeped in hypocritism?

    I mean sure…, there loud-mouthed Christians out there that are making a bad rep for their religion (same said for others), and also there is our violent history. But making out your statements in nothing but absolutes, (didn’t your Enlish/Speech instructor taught you not to do that?) makes you sound like and amoral jackass with his head up his ass. (Not that you are, mind you…)

    I learned Christianity as way adhere to certain moral codes (I give more than I receive), rather than abide by a strict set of rules applied by the Vatican of the course of several centuries.

    You have right to what you want, and I respect that. Just don’t turn yourself into a religious-discriminating jack-ass like Zerodash…. (I’M KIDDING, ZERO, JUST TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH!!)

  36. Valdearg says:

    Look, my point was, I don’t care WHO I offend. I spend enough time offending people when I talk about my (male) roommate and his boyfriend hanging out at home, playing GH with me. What I am saying is that he has a choice. He can either

    A: Continue reading and taking my comments about conservatives with a grain of salt, because they don’t necessarily apply to him.


    B: Go somewhere else, because I am not going to change how I choose to write my comments, and if his skin is so thin that he can’t handle that, even when I am railing on a different part of his political alignment than he may necessarily be, he needs to toughen up and take it, or get the hell out of dodge.

    Like they say: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the fire.

    Edit: Also, I am sorry if I insulted you in my response to your previous post, but it is harder to determine sarcasm from regular text, sometimes. It seemed to me like you were calling me a Racist, even when I want Equal rights for each and every person on this earth..

  37. Valdearg says:

    We have no right to FORCE you to perform a Gay Ceremony inside your Church. If you feel that you must remain bigoted and ignorant, despite the fact that we all just want to live like Normal Human Beings, the more power to you. Feel free to remain a bigot, its not my problem. However, where you step over the line is when you try to get the government to legally prevent people in other churches from performing the ceremony and giving rights to people who you obviously must believe are below you. We have a reason to get violent and angry. People like you are trying to keep basic human rights from us, because you disagree with how we live? Do you really think we should be punished because we happen to be wired differently? I mean COME ON.. How much more backwards and ignorant can you get.


    Bottom Line: Your religion is wrong, your way of thinking is wrong, and you are wrong. Start thinking for yourself, without worrying if the magic guy will kill you tomorrow because you had a naughty thought inside that tiny little head of yours. Maybe then you will understand that you are just taking your own predisposed bigotry and stupidity and covering it with the "Word of God"

    Oh, By the way, you know the Bible was written by Humans, right? There is no divine inspiration. It wasn’t delivered by God Himself. It is a human construction, just like all other religions. It exists as an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Much like when you ask a 5 year old why the wind blows. They don’t know, so they make something fanciful up. You people are following without questioning something on the caliber of a school age child’s imagination. Get over yourselves.

  38. Michael Chandra says:

    But if I were to use one that actually applies, you wouldn’t actually understand the insult is a play and not meant seriously. It’s the internet, if I don’t make completely over the top comments, people are going to take them serious and insult me back. Now they get the chance to use their heads and realize I’m trying to draw their attention in to read the serious point that follows.


    As for my argument not making sense, I find the line after that rather offensive. As far as I can tell it makes my point rather clear, and if you don’t understand you could decide to, I dunno, ask me to explain more detailed rather than putting the blame on me and leave it at that.

    You said you mean Social Conservatives when you mean Conservatives. However, someone who was upset because you and so many others use the term Conservatives even when you actually mean a more narrow version, you told that if it offends him, he should leave.

    In other words, you deliberately generalize. When someone calls you out on it and makes clear he’s offended by your generalization, you tell him he should leave. You are at fault for the generalization, yet he is the one who has to leave because of you. This is something you’re responsible for, not he, so man up and take your responsibility, rather than continuing to offend people you are not supposed to have a quarrel with.

  39. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    Nope. I would if any of that were actually gamers’ stances. Seriously, in order for that argument to work, you’d have to prove that gamers were trying to force parents and those who do not like them to play video games. For the most part, no… we actually don’t give a care unless you try to take them from us.

  40. Valdearg says:

    So, what, because You don’t happen to fall in love with someone who happens to have the same sex as you, anyone who does is "Warped?" Dude, its a relationship between two humans, gay or straight. As such, they should be entitled to the same rights. If you are planning to go down the whole "Gay’s are ruining the institution of marriage" route, then do me a favor and kindly Fuck Off.

  41. Valdearg says:

    What? That makes no sense. We as games dont try to force others to play violent games. We just want others to leave us alone so we can enjoy our lives the way we see fit. If anything Gamers are Akin to the GBLT Community in that argument..

    Gratz on replacing random words in my post to try and sound smart, though.. you ALMOST pulled it off.. Then I realized that you are full of Crap.

  42. Nekowolf says:

    Yes, it is a word. But it is what is behind the word. Word by themselves are meaningless. They are given definition through people.

    The emotions behind calling it something different from "marriage" are ones of hate and segregation of gays. Also: So yes, marriage and civil unions are VERY different.

    Anyway, yup, I guess you make a point.

    From now on, anyone who is a jock, they get full benefits as a human. But, not those born physically handicapped, since y’know, they’re not really equal to athletes in their ability, so obviously, they’re not human enough to deserve those rights.

    Oh, and if an athlete retires or gets stricken with a disability due to injury or whatever, take away their rights. Since, they clearly, like the handicapped, aren’t human enough anymore. After all, the handicapped, especially born, are biologically different and cannot be equal.

    Yeah, I know, insane right? How I want equality for all, it must be because, and oh yes this is true, I AM a Socialist.

  43. NovaBlack says:

    amen to that.

    Its ridiculous how anti-gays attempt to ‘justify’ their arguments with strange attempts at logic that utterly fail.

    talking to a person about their partner isnt ‘private’. Talking about sex etc, yeah i can totally see hwo youd not want to talk about that and thinki it should be kept private, but Why do some people have this wierd thing in their head that talking to straight people about partners requires talking about dinner / movies / planned vacations etc (everyday conversation), yet think that talking to a gay person somehow involves only talking about sex etc.

    I just cant fathom it. your talking to a person about their partner. not to a different species.

    The entire conversation is pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME.


    For example… here is a acted conversation. Ive not mentioned names or genders. Is ‘Person 2’ a member of a straight or homosexual couple?


    Person 1: "So, got any plans for the weekend? "

    Person 2: " Ahh, not much, we’re prolly just gonna chill out,  perhaps go watch that new movie at the cinema on saturday, do you want to come along? "

    Person 1: " Yeah sure that sounds great!"


    what.. you cant tell. Whoopee bl**dy surprise. Im not going to tell you. Maybe thats because ultimately your just talking TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. The conversation can be EXACTLY THE SAME. So if its ok to ask a straight guy its ok to ask a gay guy. ultimately … your asking just a guy. Sexual orientation plays absolutely no role in it. And to suggest so is just plain strange, and ultimately plain stupid.

    Its as relevant as answering the question ‘Do you want steak for dinner tonight’ with ‘Is it raining out?’. Yes its a factor that exists. It may or may not be raining. Big claps for you. However you seem to have somehow got the misguided assumption that anyone else but you cares, since its not relevant.






  44. NovaBlack says:

    lol no no no

    Jacks disbarrment is only temporary, he has us ‘right where he wants us’

    on this VERY SITE. jack replied to a post i made personally, and said that i had to ‘wait and see’ he had a ‘surprise’ ‘up his sleeve’ and that he ‘wouldnt be disbarred’…. (er.. scratch that – he ammended it) ‘wouldnt be permanantly disbarrred’


    Yeah actually thinking about it… that was a fair while back… God damn it jack you promised me a surprise and i want it now!

  45. Wolvenmoon says:

    Gender roles have changed and are changing, but across cultures differences can be observed in male and female psyches, and they all coincide. There are exceptions to every rule (ancient amazons for example), but they’re just that-exceptions.

  46. Wolvenmoon says:

    I’m tired of being ranted at by religious fanatics and I’m tired of being incoherantly screamed at by people like you about my beliefs. If someone dares show backbone about their morality, and says they don’t want to conduct gay marriages in the churches, mosques, or whatever organizations that they built, they get people like you beating down their door. If they do, they have picketers. It’s a lose/lose situation for them.

    Edit 2 : You very rarely see them get violent. You can find MANY examples though of a violent/offensive protest happening at a gay pride parade, and a non-violent/peaceful protest being arrested.

    Westboro was picketing a parade, and across from them were a group with "God loves all" and "Christ saves" that sat down, held hands, and sang amazing grace. They were arrested, across from the "God hates fags" sign brandishers because they were disturbing the peace. Why wasn’t this all over the national news? Because only the negative, nasty people are reported, and far be it for the group the media wants you to hate to have good people in it.

    Edit : And last time I checked, the same right you exercised by your little rant right here is the same right they can exercise about that game. It’s not crammed down anyone’s throat-it’s on their site and anyone that wants to read it can.

  47. Wolvenmoon says:

    Marriage between a male and female has a purpose outside of emotional fulfillment, and is generally beneficial to society by means of reproduction.

    Gay marriage further breaks off from our already warped view of relationships. If you look in gay propoganda, you will find that most of it is about not being able to help who they fall in love with. This isn’t as it relates to gender. This is the same stuff going around in straight relationships, and it’s modern, and its emergence coincides with our increasing divorce rate.

    I don’t feel like getting into it further than that. I’ll flat out say that homosexuality is not for kids, and the soap box I’ll stand on is one from the furry fandom.

  48. ZenAndNow says:

    … except insisting on the homosexual legally binding partnerships being called marriage is akin to straight couples demanding that homosexuals not be called gay or queer but faggots instead. It’s just a word, right? No harm in them calling you that, right?

    As soon as a civil union has equal rights under the law to that of a marriage (and I very much doubt they’re all that different legally tbqh), and gays have access to it, it becomes a non-issue in my mind. Anything after that is simply petty whinging that serves no purpose.

    The only place that humans can be equal under is the law. Having stupid ideas about everything being the same for everyone else is the domain of nutty Communists/Socialists because humans are not and cannot be biologically equal.

  49. HelpHelpImBeingRepressed says:

    "The only reason we are "intolerant" of gamers is because they are "intolerant" to everyone else that happens to have a different life view. Honestly, if gamers could just leave well enough alone and mind their own god damned business when it comes to OTHER PEOPLE’S Lifestyles, then we wouldn’t have anything to complain about.

    Any intolerance or hatred that any gamers’ happen to feel from these comments deserve it, frankly. If you don’t want to experience the hatred from the MILLIONS of people you offend daily with YOUR video games and YOUR intolerance, then get a grip and think for yourself. If you can’t do that, then SHUT THE HELL UP AND MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS when it comes to how other people choose to live THEIR lives.

    If you can’t keep you mouths shut on issues that DON’T AFFECT YOU than I see no reason to keep myself from bashing and insulting every backwards thinking, moronic, stupid, sheep of a human (IF you can call them that) gamer who can’t think for themselves."

    Anybody else see the problem here?

  50. Doom90885 says:

    I’m sick of these religious fanatics want the whole fucking country to bend over backwards and force their beliefs down everyone’s throat. I have news there are about 1 trillion gods in human history when we die SOMEONE IS GONNA BE WRONG!!!!! IDK why each group is confident that it won’t be them. Second I have no issues with these CHristians intolerant way of thinking. It disgusts me and as someone here said they are using religionas a crutch to justify and pass down their personal fears and hatred (For people who love God and Christ they have aloota hatred) HOWEVER they are entitled to that way of thinking just like I’m entitled to be against it. Its when these people piss in their pants and cry to the govt to force their values and preferences on everyone else those of faith and those not of faith; that’s when I get pissed at these people. These people need to grow up: they have to adjust to the world and not expect the whole world to adjust for them. Whether you support it or not Homosexuality is out there it isn’t gonna go away so either suck it up and enjoy your life or hide under your bed til the end off time.





    For those who oppose video games for being "murder simulators"…When are you going to FINALLY oppose guns for being murder weapons?!?!

  51. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Meh marrgie is marrgie no matter whos getting married.

    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.

  52. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Gender roles and how they are applied and function are so antiquated and silly its not even funny.

    And yes human relationships fall heavliy into that.


    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.

  53. Nekowolf says:

    Aye to that! There is no comprimise, we are talking about human life and human rights! There should be no need to comprimise. There shouldn’t be a comprimise. Deal with it. Hate it or love it, deal with it. Heterosexual, Bisexual, Homosexual, wtf ever, we all deserve, no, are born, with the rights of being human in this country.

  54. Nekowolf says:

    Oh really? So you know what it is like to be persecuted against by a majority. You know what it is like, to have these shows on television, that say we pagans, and the homosexuals, etc. are the root of evil, that we worship the devil, that we are some kind of abomination.

    Less than a person? No, we are treated, the evil spawned from Satan himself. Less than human would actually be an improvement in some.

    You actually claim, you KNOW what that feels like? I somehow strongly doubt it. Sure, bitched at, perhaps. Bullied even, maybe, I’ll accept that. But do you have any idea what it is like, to HIDE it from others? Something of such importance, that you have to hide who you are, out of fear of said persecution?

    When was the last time you were blamed for a natural disaster? Or the death of our soldiers. Or blamed for causing some kind of great rotting in our culture? When was the last time YOUR rights as a Christian were actually in question?

  55. Nekowolf says:

    Well firstly, there already is a thing called a civil union, and it is different from a marriage. Less benefits.

    Futhermore, I think, no, it would not be the best solution. Because seperating it is still a seperation of straight couples, and gay couples. I think, in order to be truly equal, even in words, there must not be seperation.

    Take blacks for example. Sure, they were "equal" but still segregated. I think, that defining straigh couples as "married" and gay couples as, I dunno, "unioned?" is kind of the same idea; it is a verbal form of a kind of segregation.

  56. BrandonL337 says:

    Amen to that my friend, amen to that.

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  57. BrandonL337 says:

    No we’re not they can say whatever hateful biggoted shit they want, but the right that allows them to be complete pricks also allows me to call them stupid motherfucking shit stains.

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  58. Valdearg says:

    Racist? Wat?


    1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

    2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
    Racist: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
    If you are going to use over dramatized insults, at least pick one that APPLIES to the situation.
    Last I checked, I am fighting for ALL HUMANS to be equal. Your argument is invalid.
    I am generalizing, yes, and yes, there are conservatives who aren’t homophobes. However, fighting against the rights of Gays is a CONSERVATIVE stance, therefore, people who do so are CONSERVATIVES. I see nothing wrong with what I said.
    For the rest of your argument, you make no sense. English as a second language, much?
  59. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    I read that article. That is fucked up on so many levels that to name exactly how many levels it is fucked up on would be equivalent to Dividing By ZERO.


  60. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Indeed, the stupidity burns my face, and the only thing that can put it out is my palm. Hence, why I FacePalm at every stupid thing that turns up.


  61. Conster says:

    Agreed. When the Netherlands held the referendum about the "European Constitution" (and they only called it that because they thought it would help make people want it, which backfired), I literally heard someone on the bus say they voted against because they wanted to annoy our prime minister. And right now, a xenophobic politician is having a surge in popularity because he’s being prosecuted for discrimination. "The people" are stupid most of the time.

  62. Michael Chandra says:

    "So, that leaves Conservatives and Christians as the culprits"
    Congratulations, sir. You are now officially a racist.

    "When I say "Conservative" I really mean "Social Conservative."
    Then use that term, and don’t tell someone to leave just because he’s sick of the generalizations that apparently you also tend to make by using the wrong terms, thus targetting even those that strongly disagree with the point of view you’re marking as your mortal foe. When you’re the one at fault with a generalization, those affected by it shouldn’t be marked as the party that has to take responsibility for your mistake by shutting up.

  63. Conster says:

    Wouldn’t the best solution then be to make seperate the term "marriage" from the legal benefits? That way, a "marriage" would only be a religious thing, and legally, you’d have a "civil union". Additional benefit would be that people with different marriage definitions (I think I read something once about people somewhere sometimes marrying goats for good luck or something… and there’s bigamy, too) wouldn’t have any problem getting married, since it wouldn’t be a civil union.

  64. Michael Chandra says:

    "Actually yes I do know what it’s like to be treated like less than a person. That’s why I work to treat other people as I want to be treated."

    With lies and deliberate misinterpretation of their words to make them look bad and yourself a saint? Good luck.

  65. Conster says:

    Let’s see… comparing a list of Dutch political parties should do the trick.

    Left (beginning with most-left, and continuing to almost-center): Socialist party – "Left" Greens (GroenLinks) – labour party (PVDA)

    Center, slightly edged towards the right: pragmatists (D66), mainstream Christians (CDA), Christians-which-are-slightly-more-left-but-against-abortion-and-homosexuals (CU), Christians-which-until-2006-didn’t-allow-women-as-members (SGP)

    Right (beginning with center-right, continuing to far right): Liberals (VVD) – President Obama – Xenophobes (TON, Wilders)

    You’ve got nothing to worry about.

  66. Valdearg says:

    There is nothing wrong with chatting with someone, saying you went to a movie, or hung out, or went bowling.

    "Hey, Bob, How’s the wife?" "Ahh, she’s good, went Bowling yesterday"

    "Chuck! What’s up? How are the kid’s doing?"

    These things all happen in normal conversation. I can’t imagine anyone, even the most socially shy or introverted person thinking these conversations should be kept private,  but the moment some guy says, "Yeah, I took my boyfriend and joined the local Couple’s Bowling league", all of a sudden it’s taboo to talk about?

    The least you could do is stop kidding yourself.


  67. PHX Corp says:

    -Distances Self from GP- after Prop 8 and now this, If we attack them then were no better than they are

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  68. KayleL says:

    We are religious intolerant because were have things like Prop 8 going around. We are fine when you disagree with gay marriage, however taking rights away isn’t right. Devaluing good people to the public isn’t right either. We are fine with people who have the views like Obama when they do not like or agree with gay marriage, however, he does not agree with actions like Prop 8.

  69. jkdjr25 says:

    Actually what I meant, and I thought I was pretty clear on this, was that there are people who just don’t want to hear the details of ANYONE’S private life. It may have nothing to do what-so-ever with being a homophobe, and you better get your facts straight about it before flinging around those kinds of accusations.

  70. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    I’ve always had the opinion that, since people insist that "marriage" is a Christian institution, allow people to have a Christian (or whatever religion) marriage, but if you want the legal benefits the government gives for that, you need to also apply for a civil union.

    In other words, marriage liscence becomes a voluntary, religious thing.

    Civil unions become the legally recognized form of "marriage" and grants the same rights to everyone.

    People still slam that, however, because it would grant the same rights to gays as it would heterosexuals. That is the problem. You can say that the pro-gay marriage side doesn’t want to compromise all you want; however, what is at contention is that gays and lesbians want the same rights heterosexuals have, and certain groups of heterosexuals want those rights to be exclusive to them.

    It’s kind of hard to compromise when one side is pretty much saying, "You don’t deserve what we have."

  71. Valdearg says:

    I do love how they teach you in school to accept people’s differences, and that everyone is the same, and nobody should be treated differently or cruelly, yet, when it comes time to vote, America Practices the exact opposite of what they are taught in schools.

  72. JoshuaOrrizonte says:


    I hate the "majority vote" argument. Hate it, hate it, hate it, because that doesn’t take into account "mob rule". Might doesn’t make right, and too many people are simply too egocentric to recognize that their personal opinion that is usually based primarily on religion is NOT sufficient reason to cause other people to suffer… or even that they are helping to cause suffering.

    There are many cases in which majority vote would have failed if it was allowed to be the "law of the land" instead of… ya know… the law of the land.

  73. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    No worries, I don’t think this is an argument. This is a debate.

    That said, I said nothing about his opinions on this issue, nor did I say he shouldn’t vote as he wishes. 

    His statement was that he wouldn’t treat someone he disagrees with in a cruel manner.

    My statement was that if he helps to restrict the rights of the group he disagrees with, purely based on his opinion, I felt he is acting cruelly.

    Two different statements. He could have the opinion that mine is full of bunk and go to a pro-prop. 8 rally for all I care. I was pointing out a flaw in his statement. Feel free to vote however you wish. I just think that it’s hypocritical to say one thing and do something that is, in practice, completely different.

    Edit: Holy big-ass white spaces, Batman! (fixed my spacing issues)

  74. Valdearg says:

    He is saying that you are more entitled to your Personal Opinion, however, if you have ever voted against another human being’s civil rights, based on the fact that you don’t think they should have civil rights, then you have performed an act of Cruelty to that person.

    One thing that I have learned is that you should never have to leave the option of a Civil Rights issue, especially an unpopular Civil Rights issue, up to a popular vote. People in general are too bigoted, short sighted, and stupid to vote to allow someone "Different" the same rights as themselves.

  75. axiomatic says:

    Opinions are fine. Crafting (cruel) legislation limiting another persons inalienable rights. Yeah your a douchebag if you do that.

  76. Galthromir says:

    I agree with this. And with regards to the earlier comment, I believe compromise could work these situations out as well. For its not as if a single compromise solves the issue, it mearly starts it rolling in a constructive direction. If African Americans had recieved more popular and political support initially, I think that a progressive series of compromises could’ve brought us to the current day sitaution while healing some of the animosity between the two groups. In the end, though some of the steps might seem demeaning to one or both groups involved, the final result will be something both agree with (though this may take a great deal of time).

    There is no black and white (pardon the pun) in the world, only shades of grey.

  77. Icehawk says:

    Dont mean to prolong the arguement but I am curious. 

    Are you suggesting that people should give up their personal opinions?  

    It was written in the Constitution that was we do have certain unalienable rights yet it sounds like you are saying that exercising those rights is wrong (no twisted pun intended). 

    I am more than happy to respect the beliefs of another if they would offer the respect in turn or at least have a debate (not a name calling arguement) so I can understand them better, but I will not give up my beliefs/opinion regardless of what you (uses in the general term nothing personal) say.

    Sorry but you cannot just turn off your opinions, you can moderate them, expand them, keep them to yourself or share them but they will always be with you in some form.  And being that you are not me than mine is not always going to jive with yours as they are colored by different experiences, history, gender, age etc.  Does not make anyone wrong, it just is. 

    Pretty sure this is the reason we have this thing called majority voting. 

  78. Valdearg says:

    As for 1 through 5, I don’t really care what YOU have done as a person. I am talking about the Socially conservative, Anti-Gay Marriage, Culture that you belong to.

    I will say this however.. Someone put it very well, in a comment below this:

    If you have ever voted against the civil rights of the GBLT community, then you have performed an Act of Cruelty towards the GBLT community. It doesn’t matter if you are outwardly cruel or hateful to a gay individual, just believing what you do, and voting along with those beliefs is a cruel act.

    In regards to THIS little gem:

    "So anytime a person is uncomfortable talking to a co-worker about their same-sex partner then they’re some kind of bigot? That’s not irrational at all. Maybe they just need to get used to hearing about it, or maybe they think that talk like that is best left for outside the workplace. There are multiple reasons why someone might be uncomfortable talking about such things. I would be only because I’m fairly private about things that would be in my personal life and generally think that those kinds of conversations should be private. But that’s just me."

    So, its ok for a male coworker to say "Yeah, me and the wife/girlfriend went out and saw a movie last night." but its not okay for the same coworker to say "Yeah, me and the Husband/Boyfriend went out and saw a movie last night."? Because the first is normal, and the second isn’t? Thats the problem, you have no problem talking about your lives and conversing about who you are because you seem to think you are "Normal."

    Its not like we are rubbing it in your face and saying things like "Yeah, I totally plowed my Boyfriend’s Ass last night. It was so frigging Hot, you should have been there!" That kind of speech should remain in private, lest we have a Sexual Harassment Lawsuit on our hands.. However, we shouldn’t have to hide who we are, because it makes YOU feel uncomfortable.


  79. hellfire7885 says:

    ….. huh?

    Since when was disagreeing with someone "missing the point"?

    He wasn’t "running over" christians, he was simply calling out a frienge group of christians over their, frankly, behind the times "beliefs"

    The reason I put beliefs in quotes is these people are not following it as they should. These people, instead of practicing their faith, are using it as an excuse, a crutch to justify their own personal hatreds.

  80. Obi says:

    I don’t really know a lot about it, so forgive me if anything I say here is wrong.

    I’ve been hearing a lot of argument recently about domestic partnerships.  There is some sort of proposal to give unmarried, but not necessarily homosexual or even romantically involved, pairs of people living together similar benefits to those receieved by married couples.

    On one side, everything I hear is people shouting that it’s just another name for gay marriage.

    On the other, I only hear arguments on how it could benefit people other than homosexuals.  The only specific example I can remember was about a young woman and her grandmother who live together, both work, and really need the government benefits to keep going.  I’m pretty sure it was entirely hypothetical though.

    It’s like one side is afraid of gays being treated like people, and the other is afraid of the first side realizing that they’re simply okay with homosexuality. 

    I guess my point is something along the lines that people won’t just sit down, talk, and come to an understanding, even if the only alternative is to scream in each other’s faces until someone gets hit.

  81. Valdearg says:

    There are a few things you don’t really understand, however.

    First of all: For people who’s morals and ethics are deeply rooted in thier religion, the word "Comprimise" doesn’t exist. Likewise for the people who (rightly) believe that we should be on EXACTLY equal footing as everybody else. You NEVER comprimise when faced with civil rights issues.

    If Lincoln Had Comprimised over the slave issue, would it be OK if only SOME people were slaves, or perhaps Every African American had to be Enslaved Part time?

    Or what about when women were fighting for thier rights? Would it be a comprimise if they were only beat by thier mysoginistic husbands when they "deserved" it? Or a comprimise result in Women only being allowed to work SOME Corporate Positions?

    I’d imagine that some people would think it OK, to comprimise on this issue, too. "Oh, thank God they are just pretending to get married, at least our Real Marriage is better!" Or "Well, hey, at least they are only allowed to adopt kids that are already Gay, so they are a lost cause anyways!"

    NO.. It doesn’t work like that. THERE IS NO COMPRIMISE when it comes to Civil Rights, Not 200 years ago, Not 50 years ago, and NOT NOW. I would say it is all or nothing, but Nothing really isn’t an option. We WILL get the civil rights we deserve, regardless of what the dissenters say.

  82. jkdjr25 says:

    1. I’ve never said that people don’t have the right to live as they choose.

    2. In the case of adoption I think the only thing that should be considered is the best interests of the child. If that means a gay couple then that’s what should be done and nothing more.

    3. I’ll admit to not being for gay marriage on religious grounds. Its what I believe. I think that couples should be able to visit one another in the hospital and share insurance regardless though. Legally speaking, couples (same sex or otherwise) should be able to share the benefits. If that means civil unions then so be it, the only thing I would object to is marriage. However if the people vote it in, then I would recognize it as legal and still treat other people as I want to be treated.

    4. I’ve never called gay people evil. I’ve said that homosexuality is a sin. I’ve sinned too and I wouldn’t think to claim otherwise. We’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so I’d be pretty hypocritical if I tried to claim I was some perfect picture of Christianity. I fall sometimes, I’m only human after all.

    5. Let me say again that I’m not, and have never said, that you have no right to live as you see fit. I’m certainly not standing in your way. Go out and live, and stop caring about what other people think.

    So anytime a person is uncomfortable talking to a co-worker about their same-sex partner then they’re some kind of bigot? That’s not irrational at all. Maybe they just need to get used to hearing about it, or maybe they think that talk like that is best left for outside the workplace. There are multiple reasons why someone might be uncomfortable talking about such things. I would be only because I’m fairly private about things that would be in my personal life and generally think that those kinds of conversations should be private. But that’s just me.

  83. Obi says:

    Really both sides are accusing the other of being wrong, and both sides horribly steroetype the other.  Not all Conservatives try to force their opinions on everyone they meet–just the extreme ones. 

    Similarly, we believe that they should stop bashing homosexuality, which is really just us trying to force them to shut up and accept something they think is evil.  The difference is that our "meddling" does not affect them personally.  We want everyone to decide for him/herself, which leaves room for Conservatives lifestyles.  They want everyone to stop cliff-diving into hell, which means they want only what they see as the "right" option to be available. 

    Still, more than half of what I said is also stereotyping in some way…

  84. Galthromir says:

    Its that "Us and Them" mentality that is driving a wedge into this country. Instead of attacking the other side, talk to them, try to compromise. It seems that compromise isn’t even in our vocabulary these days. Sure, you may object to the other parties views, but remeber they are human just like you, and had you grown up in a different location, you could be that person.

    By stating that "They are wrong, and are bad/misled/ignorant" you are acting in the same manner as they are, no matter how true your words may be. To heal this rift in cultures we need to learn to compromise. For instance, with regards to gay marriage, simply create a different name for it while giving those involved the same legal rights and whatnot as everyone else. Yes, both parties will not get exactly what they want (since its not either banned or completely the same as normal marriage), but its a step towards an integration of these two now seperate cultures. With time, the benefits and cons of each will become clear to both parties, and allow for better conflict resolution.

    Unfortunatly, this is probably a pipe dream. Humans do have that innate tendacy towards conflict. But I can dream can’t I?

  85. Valdearg says:

    That was actually very well articulated. If they are offended by that, then they sure have some thin Skin. LOL

    You are 100% correct though. If you have ever actively voted against any measures preventing civil rights to the GBLT community, then you have performed a cruel Act. You are preventing someone from having the same rights as you do because you don’t have the same belief system.

  86. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    I’m having trouble articulating what I want to say. If this comes across as offensive, I apologize; I do not mean to be.

    If you have voted against measures that would grant gays and lesbians the right to marry, adopt kids, prevent employers from discriminating against them just because they are gay, have spousal rights, etc… In my opinion, you are acting in a cruel manner. You are actively helping to inhibit a group of people from having the same rights you do. On what basis? Your personal opinion.


  87. Valdearg says:

    Then you are a rare breed. In my experience, more often than not, Most Christians don’t follow the whole "Do on to others" logic, unless, of course, the person in question thinks just like Them.

    But, like I said before, you are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. Until you become part of the solution, you will be treated as part of the problem.

  88. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    While I don’t think we should be intolerant of everyone who thinks that being gay or bi is wrong- they’re as entitled to their opinion as we are- I agree that the GBLT community should not shut up until they have every civil right that heterosexuals have. It’s not the people who just think it that invoke my ire; it’s the people who think they have the right to deny others rights because of their opinion of something that’s truly none of their business.

  89. jkdjr25 says:

    Just because a person believes that homosexuality or bisexuality is wrong, doesn’t mean that they’ll act hateful toward a person. I can say that I believe actions are wrong without treating a person poorly. It falls into the whole "do unto others" thing that I believe in.

    Now that doesn’t mean I’ll lend my support to something that I don’t believe in, but it also doesn’t mean that I’ll act in a cruel manner to people either.

  90. jkdjr25 says:

    Actually yes I do know what it’s like to be treated like less than a person. That’s why I work to treat other people as I want to be treated. The whole "do unto others" that Jesus taught. I can believe that certain behaviour is a sin and still treat that person as I want to be treated. I’ll still pray for others, because I do so out of love for them. I want to see them become their best, and I care about people and where their souls will end up.

    In talking about Hell though there’s been a massive misunderstanding, or at the very least a miscommunication. When Christians talk about Hell we’re not doing so out of hating anyone. From our perspective it’s like warning someone about and emminent threat to them. We’re doing so out of a sense of not wanting them to end up there. There are those, like the Westborough Cult, who revel in such things, but they are NOT indicative of the whole of Christianity.

    Most of my non-Christian friends know how I believe and they know that I pray for them. I’m totally open about those things. They also know that when I talk about things it’s not that I hate them, it’s that I care about them. Ideally that’s how we’re supposed to act.

    That doesn’t mean we’re going to agree with certain things, like gay marriage, but conversely that doesn’t mean we hate people either.

  91. axiomatic says:

    The old game of life my parents still have has only the white pegs. But my wife and I just bought the latest version of the game for our five year old son and there are in fact baby blue and pink pegs now.

    Just an FYI. 😉

Comments are closed.