Dexiro said:
That just leads me to think that a lot of people are gravely misinformed xD People believing that 2 consenting adult males is comparable with not-so-consenting minors is a bit of a stretch.
Though now you mention it i have seen similar comparisons in news articles. People saying that gays are worse than murderers... i'll be damned if i ever understand how they came to that conclusion.
Personally i wouldn't even let that come between me and my friend, even if i did find it really uncomfortable.
If he acted on that preference and possibly even broke the law in doing so that's a different matter, same with if a friend told me he'd murdered someone. It depends on the specifics but law breaking to that extent isn't something i'd want to get involved in.
That is a PERFECT response. See, thats how I feel about things realistically... as long as YOU aren't hurting anyone, who CARES what you do or like? Want to smoke crack? Fine, as long as you aren't stealing, murdering, or making your children do it with you, who cares? If it makes you happy fine, but the problem is if it becomes a burden on the state or others financially. Same with Homosexuality... thats up to each individual unless someone tries to use it as an excuse in a rape case.. "I cant help it, I'm gay!" then we'd have a problem.
One thing I DO think will be an issue of contention in the future is that with Gay MARRIAGE, comes Gay DIVORCE.. which means GAY ALIMONY and GAY CHILD SUPPORT. How will this be handled? Will it be treated as fairly as Hetero divorces?
Sigh, with every rise there must be a fall, for every silver lining there must be a dark little cloud.
I wish all (or at least most) people were like you. It would be a world that I would probably find myself smiling more in. Unfortunately, i seldom smile anymore for anything.
Life is unpleasurable.
Konrad Curze said:
I am pretty sure that people in the middle east would view it that they are years ahead on the homosexuality issue than us and their claim would be just as valid.
As for gays or ethnic groups in parliment. That is their issue. Should they have their own seperate party? Only if they can provide a real reason for one. However if the number of said minority is say 5% of the total population then why would they suddenly have a higher percentage in parliment? As far as I am aware there is no politician gene running in certain bloodlines.
I know that New Zealand has a female leader and quite a number of homosexuals and maori in parliment but they got there by the quality of their work. No one here even notices or cares about anything other than the job they do.
As for marriage. It is not their right. Marriage is not considered a basic human right. It is a title that you must earn.
I do not have the right to claim I am married without a second person. They do not have the right to claim marriage without a man and a woman.
They have the same equal "rights" as everyone else in terms of marriage. The right to marry anyone they choose (which even then is not true since green card marriages can be over ruled) of the opposite gender. Just the same as everyone else.
My friend, there is a wee bit of a problem with what you said..
First of all, most middle Eastern nations it seems have a policy of dealing with homosexuals by STONING them out of society.. and I'm not talking about buying them hookahs and copies of Half-baked on DVD.
Hell, if you think California passing a law saying they can't marry is oppressive and backward-thinking, I have no idea what you would call Iran's policies...
Konrad Curze said:
Bond can be written and portrayed in any way the original owners of the intellectual property want. Director can not do jack shit without the owners approval.
That is why Sherlock Holmes is a set character. They have to request permission to use said character from his owners and are given set guidelines they must follow.
As for how it would detract from the series. Because there would be no reason to it. It would be using the Bond name just to prove how politically correct you are turning him into a black man for no reason.
As for the Doctor. He has always been white. Gallifreyans are white. Once again, no reason to turn him black. Might as well claim why does he not regenerate into some alien life form. Gallifreyans look like white humans. And his accent would not change just for no reason either.
And trust me, after how badly Stephen Moffat fucked up the latest season the last thing I want is to make that hacks job even easier.
You have a point with Bond and Holmes.. the source material of both characters clearly describes them as being white males with little leeway for creative license, although I think you could probably get away with filming a movie of either character with a black male lead.
However, the Doctor Who assertion is incorrect. Gallifreyans were not an "all white" society... just like the Vulcans in star Trek were not "All white". Just because the entirety of Gallifreyan society was not depicted to show millions of multi-racial time lords doesn't mean that they didn't have them. After all, if the Doctor's human features can change from every range of hair color and style and physical physiology (I've often wondered if the Doctor's "male anatomy" changes in size as well during these transformations), then something as ridiculous as skin color certainly isn't an issue. Skin color is no different than Hair color or eye color in my view. There aren't different 'Types' of humans from the way I see it... I think of us like cats or dogs.. black humans arent a different 'species', we just have different coats. It makes us look pretty and like individuals. All these differing parts create our uniqueness.
A Black Doctor is not at all an impossibility, its just that the creators have decided so far to NOT have one, for a myriad of reasons. 30 years ago it was probably because the viewing audience would not have been as accepting. Now, I think people would accept it. After all, America didn't have a black president in all of our history, but we shouldnt be voting on him for his skin color.. we should be voting for his policies, and I think many people are now understanding that. But just because all the Presidents have been "white" doesnt mean blacks weren't able to be leaders of a nation.. no, it was just due to the small minds of people who were uncomfortable with the idea of a colored man being in charge over them.
We call it "racism".
Sovvolf said:
So to be free... you (as in the state laws) have to deny the freedoms of others. That seems awful unfair... Sort of the opposite of free. Your freedoms are decided by popular vote rather than being granted to you. Goes against the whole land of the free or land of opportunity promises. But as you said it's not a perfect system.
Though the problem is that neither side want to compromise. To one it's against there religious believe to which they will got to extreme lengths to defend. To the other it's against there own personal freedoms... Which is the side I take on this matter... Though not to an extreme extent.
Well that actually was WHY State's "Rights" were created... In a way, I think the Founding Fathers were pretty smart in their own way. You see, I think they realized that there is no such THING as a "perfect, harmonious" society. Even people who think their country is better than someone else's only does those from a position of arrogance. Americans are just as guilty of this, but so is everyone else. There is no perfect system... its a pipe dream, because people are too diverse in their beliefs, their morals, their values. No one will ever completely agree.. hell we can't even agree on what constitutes a great video game, let alone greater issues.
So the wisest option would be to allow people to congregate into their own little groups wouldnt it? Shouldn't people be allowed to live with groups of people that think like they do? Under rules designed by those people that subscribe to their chosen beliefs? Sure it leaves open a dangerous opportunity for such things like instutionalized racism, but is there a better option? Why should gays be forced to hide in a society and not enjoy the same freedoms as others? But then, why should people who do not agree with gay lifestyles and homosexuality be forced to "grin and bear it?" instead of live free of that which they find distasteful? Wealthy individuals are not forced to live in low income neighborhoods and you can't force wealthy neighborhoods like Beverly Hills to give a few mansions to poor people to even things out. If people are going to be truly free, then they have to have the freedom to also be bigoted, stupid, petty individuals.
Can't have one without the other. Thats just the way life is.
Gotta take the crunchy with the smooth sometimes I guess.