I always like these threads its interesting to see how many other prominent tip.iters are gay, since stereotypically you wouldn't expect RS to appeal to the gay community.

Why is that?

 

 

Because RS is nerdy as freaking hell. Dragons? Swords? MAgics? Potions? Wizards? Monsters with nerdy names like "Bork" (dork) "Mahjarrat" (or w/e). Also, EXPERIENCE. (The word itself) Herblore? Runecrafting? Nerd territory.

So nerds can't be gay?

 

I know some pretty cool people who played rs, I think it's a little unfair to generalize.

 

I was actually going to include that in my post. There are a lot more gay geeks and nerds than most people think, and a lot more gay jocks as well.

But the general stereotype is this a label [bleep] wearing prada glasses and unnecessarily expensive clothes while being a douchebag and whining and texting and screaming all the time. You wouldn't imagine them saying "ooooooooooooooooooooh my gawd! a draconic visage! now i can get the experience to raise my level to 98 herblaw to make extreme mana potions!"

 

I don't like civil partnerships. No matter if they have exactly the same benefits. I want a marriage and thats that.

 

I agree. Not letting gays actually marry isn't unlike classifying them as second class citizens when it comes to marriage. That's gay oppression, the way I see it.

 

 

no no disagree with me PLEASE. I wanna debate. But yes I agree XD

And no Shadow, the idea is the God is the religion, so I think you meant to say I can believe in God, and not follow the Church

 

 

that's why i said a religion. it has more than one definition depending on the use if you're going to be semantic about it

Yes, but just because a definition exists doesn't mean it will always make sense in any given situation.

Shadows made more sense as a general statement.

Yours makes sense as a Christian specific statement.

 

Not religious myself, a church school for first school kinda drove me away from it.

Yes, but just because a definition exists doesn't mean it will always make sense in any given situation.

 

except what i said did make sense. anyway just PM me if you need any more english help. i don't want to clutter this thread any more

As I said in another thread, I think moves like this will increase the size of the Anglican rite of the Catholic Church. I think a few conservative Anglicans place gay marriage being permitted in Church as a higher issue then the supremacy of the Pope. I have no problem with gay marriage if the religion/religious superiors consent to it, but for instance you cannot force a bishop to allow it. Oppression and forcibly imposed "rights" are two halves of the same whole. Since religious scripture is public domain everyone should be able to utilize it at any given moment so gays could use it, but I believe they have no right to use a church if the church does not permit it.

 

As for the person who said the Church is brain dead for the last 1900yrs, please stop your ignorant speech of things you don't know. My Church [the Maronites] is in much debt because for the last 600yrs the Turks forced the Christian peasants in the Middle East to pay a tax and if they didn't comply they would kill them, so all our patriarchs would use all the money in their coffers to pay for as many of the peasants tax as they could, and instead of living in their palace they would normally live in a cave or in a forest and close their palace because they couldn't afford it. For the last 1600yrs we've been getting slaughtered because we refuse to give up our works and belief, even one of our patriarchs was killed by the Mamluks in defense of a pagan. We really try to stick to true mysticism and what Jesus said even though many in the Western world has bastardized Christianity [demonstrated even in something as simplistic as the turban transforming into a miter and the word Amiin being Latinized to Amen, as well as the very poorly done translations of scripture]. Some of the goals of our life are to grow in union with God by serving others regardless of creed, pursue as much knowledge as we can and pursue success [that seems pretty not brain dead to me]. Just because you see extreme instances of opulence and greed in, say maybe the Roman Catholic Church, don't generalize all Christians.

To the guy I feel the need to point out "The Church" generally means the roman catholic church, as even they refer to the church says x or the church says y.

 

Where as other churches don;t call themselves the church, they deem themselves a religion who happens to use a church etc.

As I said in another thread, I think moves like this will increase the size of the Anglican rite of the Catholic Church. I think a few conservative Anglicans place gay marriage being permitted in Church as a higher issue then the supremacy of the Pope. I have no problem with gay marriage if the religion/religious superiors consent to it, but for instance you cannot force a bishop to allow it. Oppression and forcibly imposed "rights" are two halves of the same whole. Since religious scripture is public domain everyone should be able to utilize it at any given moment so gays could use it, but I believe they have no right to use a church if the church does not permit it.

 

As for the person who said the Church is brain dead for the last 1900yrs, please stop your ignorant speech of things you don't know. My Church [the Maronites] is in much debt because for the last 600yrs the Turks forced the Christian peasants in the Middle East to pay a tax and if they didn't comply they would kill them, so all our patriarchs would use all the money in their coffers to pay for as many of the peasants tax as they could, and instead of living in their palace they would normally live in a cave or in a forest and close their palace because they couldn't afford it. For the last 1600yrs we've been getting slaughtered because we refuse to give up our works and belief, even one of our patriarchs was killed by the Mamluks in defense of a pagan. We really try to stick to true mysticism and what Jesus said even though many in the Western world has bastardized Christianity [demonstrated even in something as simplistic as the turban transforming into a miter and the word Amiin being Latinized to Amen, as well as the very poorly done translations of scripture]. Some of the goals of our life are to grow in union with God by serving others regardless of creed, pursue as much knowledge as we can and pursue success [that seems pretty not brain dead to me]. Just because you see extreme instances of opulence and greed in, say maybe the Roman Catholic Church, don't generalize all Christians.

 

don't ever call me ignorant again. Yes I'm OBVIOUSLY aware of the few churches that have stayed true. When I say the Christian church I mean the obviously americanized Christian church/Catholics etc. I understand AND appreciate the Coptic (sp) Christians, the underground churches in China etc, and the one you speak about. And it's pretty much generally accepted that when someone says the Christian church, they are referring to the main ones generally accepted by the public. FOR EXAMPLE: Catholics. Baptists. Presbyterians. Methodists. Quakers. Amish. Lutherans etc. If you really want to take my post down to the semantics then yes TECHNICALLY I said the Church, which should include all of it. But I think we all know what we were talking about. Also, you don't know what I know. None of you do. I don't share with this forum 90% of the crap I know. Don't assume I'm an idiot since I troll the vast majority of the time, I'm more intelligent than most here think I am. I have studied many different religions, and sects of Christianity. BUT I WAS REFERRING TO MAINLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE OTHER BIG CHURCHES. And no offence, but you can't consider the Maronites to be a big church to the human race. Now I'm not flaming when I say that, and I don't mean it can't have a big influence. But if you went and asked 1,000 people in Europe/America to name some primary Christian Churches, the Maronites wouldn't be listed. The ones listed were the ones I was referring to, and I think you knew that.

 

 

I hate the word ignorant goddamnit. Everyone misuses it on this forum so [bleep]ing much.

 

 

Also: Shadowfax: Gl man. Thats all I gotta say.

 

Side note: Fakeit2makeit, I read the post I just posted and I know I sound like I'm raging/flaming you, but I'm not. I just get extremely frustrated when people misconstrue my meanings. (A particular weakness of mine >.>) And I do respect your opinion on many things, but I think we all knew I was talking about the westernized version of Christianity.

To the guy I feel the need to point out "The Church" generally means the roman catholic church, as even they refer to the church says x or the church says y.

 

Where as other churches don;t call themselves the church, they deem themselves a religion who happens to use a church etc.

Actually you are wrong. The Church is the Catholic Church not the Roman Catholic Church. There are numerous church rites within the Catholic Church. I was saying even within the collective of the Church you shouldn't stereotype all of it just because of one church rite. Maronites are part of the Church but not Roman Catholic.

 

Edit: To Saruman, Maronites are small but they are part of the Catholic Church as I said above. I apologize if I came on too strongly.

To the guy I feel the need to point out "The Church" generally means the roman catholic church, as even they refer to the church says x or the church says y.

 

Where as other churches don;t call themselves the church, they deem themselves a religion who happens to use a church etc.

Actually you are wrong. The Church is the Catholic Church not the Roman Catholic Church. There are numerous church rites within the Catholic Church. I was saying even within the collective of the Church you shouldn't stereotype all of it just because of one church rite. Maronites are part of the Church but not Roman Catholic.

 

Edit: To Saruman, Maronites are small but they are part of the Catholic Church as I said above. I apologize if I came on too strongly.

Catholic is catholic. It doesnt have subsects. Even if a diff church is catholic inspired it doesnt mean its part of the catholic collective; by that logic all churches are catholic as they all branched off from it at some point or another

Catholic is catholic. It doesnt have subsects. Even if a diff church is catholic inspired it doesnt mean its part of the catholic collective; by that logic all churches are catholic as they all branched off from it at some point or another

I think I get what he means by it. It would be like saying that Protestant is Protestant and doesn't have subsects. Protestant is the broader term, but it includes many different churches, each with variations in its belief system. His church is Catholic, but it isn't the same as the Roman Catholic church, for example.

Why do gays want to get married so damn bad? As far as straight marriages go, it ends up [cabbage]ty like 50% of the time...

 

Would it be so bad to just call it a civil partnership so that the religious folk can be happy as well?

 

 

Yea. you're right. and what the [bleep]? Black people wanna be called american? Their skin is black. they are obviously african. why not call them african and not american as long as they have the same rights. (I'm referring to nationality, not ethnicity)

 

 

Also, the majority of people I know have amazing marriages. As much as I hate my parents, I must applaud them, they've gotten into fights nonstop, but they've never considered divorce. Not once. Because they made sure they were in love before they married. Something "50%" of people don't do. If you catch my drift.

Edited July 4, 201016 yr by Saruman44

Catholic is catholic. It doesnt have subsects. Even if a diff church is catholic inspired it doesnt mean its part of the catholic collective; by that logic all churches are catholic as they all branched off from it at some point or another

I think I get what he means by it. It would be like saying that Protestant is Protestant and doesn't have subsects. Protestant is the broader term, but it includes many different churches, each with variations in its belief system. His church is Catholic, but it isn't the same as the Roman Catholic church, for example.

 

True but Protestant isn't the same, well as far as I've been taught/learnt.

Protestant is a church group based off movement agaisnt the indulgences of the catholics.

Catholics aren't a church group they are a specific church, or The Church given it was the original founding church.

Why do gays want to get married so damn bad? As far as straight marriages go, it ends up [cabbage]ty like 50% of the time...

 

Would it be so bad to just call it a civil partnership so that the religious folk can be happy as well?

 

 

Yea. you're right. and what the [bleep]? Black people wanna be called american? Their skin is black. they are obviously african. why not call them african and not american as long as they have the same rights. (I'm referring to nationality, not ethnicity)

That is completely and utterly irrelevant. What is with the obsession with the word "marriage"? Is "civil partnership" so utterly unacceptable that you need to continue to fight so that you can change a few letters?

 

I_Goddess_I had a quote in her signature for a while - "You give me some scenarios that you can live with, and I choose the one that I can live with." Or something to that effect. Some scenarios the religious nuts can live with include, gays not getting married at all and gays being allowed to have "civil partnerships" which are identical to marriage. If you aren't willing to make a compromise then that's your problem.

 

Its actually not irrelevant. The reason I chose race, is because both race and sexual orientation are unchangeable, and innate. And the point is we don't NEED to compromise. We shouldn't have to. Compromise isn't always the answer.

To many people, religion is unchangeable and innate. So trying to force those people to alter what they believe their religion has told them is identical to forcing a gay person to be straight. Therefore compromise is the only solution.

 

But its not forcing anything.

 

It's changing the allow to allow gay people to have the religious ceremony IF that particular religion consents to it.

Catholic is catholic. It doesnt have subsects. Even if a diff church is catholic inspired it doesnt mean its part of the catholic collective; by that logic all churches are catholic as they all branched off from it at some point or another

I think I get what he means by it. It would be like saying that Protestant is Protestant and doesn't have subsects. Protestant is the broader term, but it includes many different churches, each with variations in its belief system. His church is Catholic, but it isn't the same as the Roman Catholic church, for example.

 

True but Protestant isn't the same, well as far as I've been taught/learnt.

Protestant is a church group based off movement agaisnt the indulgences of the catholics.

Catholics aren't a church group they are a specific church, or The Church given it was the original founding church.

True, that's how it began. Today things are a bit different though. Catholics actually got rid of a lot of the indulgences that caused the split.

Probably wrong, I've only experienced the Catholic side of things.

Why do gays want to get married so damn bad? As far as straight marriages go, it ends up [cabbage]ty like 50% of the time...

 

Would it be so bad to just call it a civil partnership so that the religious folk can be happy as well?

 

 

Yea. you're right. and what the [bleep]? Black people wanna be called american? Their skin is black. they are obviously african. why not call them african and not american as long as they have the same rights. (I'm referring to nationality, not ethnicity)

That is completely and utterly irrelevant. What is with the obsession with the word "marriage"? Is "civil partnership" so utterly unacceptable that you need to continue to fight so that you can change a few letters?

 

I_Goddess_I had a quote in her signature for a while - "You give me some scenarios that you can live with, and I choose the one that I can live with. That's how compromise is supposed to work." Or something to that effect. Some scenarios the religious nuts can live with include, gays not getting married at all and gays being allowed to have "civil partnerships" which are identical to marriage. If you aren't willing to make a compromise then that's your problem.

 

Let me use an analogy I've used before.

 

 

The second you legally name a black man's job "Daily Work" - With the same wage, same hours every day, all rights are the same, but the name, you're classifying black people as second class citizens. It's as if they're not worthy of a job, only a "Daily Work".

 

The same stands here. Equality can only be achieved when everyone is equal, on every level.

 

 

Other than that- Why should gays be opressed in the name of keeping "Religous nuts" happy? They do not own marriage, they shouldn't be dictating who can or can't marry.

If a church disagrees to marry a gay couple, fine, no one can stop them, but that doesn't mean the church can decide whether they can marry at all.

As I see it, marriage has always been first and foremost a religious ceremony of union. So it makes sense to me that it is controlled by a religion.

 

First of all, today it's a legal contract and a legal status. Seperation of church and state should've been enforced ages ago.

 

Secondly, there are churches that agree and accept gay marriage (few, but there are). If any specific church disagrees marrying a gay couple, fine, but they, again, shouldn't be the ones to decide they cannot marry at all.

 

Lastly, Christianity did not invent marriage. They shouldn't have a veto. Certain historical religions actually allowed gay marriage.

As I see it, marriage has always been first and foremost a religious ceremony of union. So it makes sense to me that it is controlled by a religion.

 

 

Thats a touchy subject, as it's based solely on opinon. There's no definite timeframe as to when the first people tied the knot, stomped the glass, etc. So it's pretty much based on your worldview, if you're anti religion you're going to say it's purely legal. But if you're pro religion, you're gonna say its not only legal, but a spiritual binding and covenant with God. (As does my religion believe)

 

 

But the religion supports gay marriage. (Mine) HOw do I know? Well. I'm gay. I'm Christian, and I believe God wants us gays to be just as happy married or not as our straight/bi brothers and sisters.

 

 

but I'm rushing this post if you can't tell. i gtg work. But the whole premise is based on opinion, in my opinion. :XD:

re: Romy

Unless I'm wrong homosexuality was legal and accepted in ancient Greece because women more or less had no legal or social rights.

Otherwise agreed.

it's just really annoying when people that don't understand at all determine things like these. in california last year when they voted on gay marriage it was striked down by 3% and statistics show those 3% were single heteros. the same thing kept women from having the right to vote until the 50's and now...

gays should just make their own religion that allows them to wed. it cant be that hard if a carpenter did it

 

Other than that- Why should gays be opressed in the name of keeping "Religous nuts" happy? They do not own marriage, they shouldn't be dictating who can or can't marry.

If a church disagrees to marry a gay couple, fine, no one can stop them, but that doesn't mean the church can decide whether they can marry at all.

 

Just another example of the blantant attacks on organized religion permeating the minds of those pro-gay rights.

 

Just because you don't agree with someone's views doesn't mean you should call them a "nut".

 

Have I ever called a gay person a "nut"? Despite me being a pretty vocal anti-gay marriage poster I've never stooped that low.

 

Other than that- Why should gays be opressed in the name of keeping "Religous nuts" happy? They do not own marriage, they shouldn't be dictating who can or can't marry.

If a church disagrees to marry a gay couple, fine, no one can stop them, but that doesn't mean the church can decide whether they can marry at all.

 

Just another example of the blantant attacks on organized religion permeating the minds of those pro-gay rights.

 

Just because you don't agree with someone's views doesn't mean you should call them a "nut".

 

Have I ever called a gay person a "nut"? Despite me being a pretty vocal anti-gay marriage poster I've never stooped that low.

 

I was merely quoting roccodog25.

 

 

EDIT:

Some scenarios the religious nuts can live with include, gays not getting married at all and gays being allowed to have "civil partnerships" which are identical to marriage. If you aren't willing to make a compromise then that's your problem.

Fair enough, I missed that.