Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
Homosexuality and Moderating
  • Discrimination: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

    I'll tolerate homosexuals and treat them like everyone else, I don't like discrimination. But if you wave your pro-homosexual flag in my face, I'll wave my anti-homosexual flag in yours. Having an opinion is NOT discrimination.

    If you allow the posting of one opinion, you have to allow the posting of the opposite opinion. Opinions aren't right or wrong, so you can't punish one and not the other without being guilty of discrimination. Our American freedoms guarantee the legal right to our opinions.

    Forums are a little bit different, you can make certain rules, but if you don't allow anti-homosexual opinions, then you should just not allow any discussion of homosexuality at all.

    If you claim to be against discrimination, then you shouldn't punish people for their opinions with Moderator actions.

    And yes, it IS possible to have an anti-homosexual opinion without slandering or insulting homosexual people.
  • Cukeman wrote:

    Every day the sun shines, gays are frying in hell

    I assume you're referring to this.

    Anyways. I think, no matter what term you had put there, it would've been considered offensive. If you had made the same statement about republicans, you'd still get in trouble for it.

    You're entitled to your opinion and free to express it, but do so considerately. Rather then aiming to offend others.
  • Dog Dog 123 wrote:

    I assume you're referring to this.

    Anyways. I think, no matter what term you had put there, it would've been considered offensive. If you had made the same statement about republicans, you'd still get in trouble for it.

    You're entitled to your opinion and free to express it, but do so considerately. Rather then aiming to offend others.


    That statement was an extreme post in response to the extreme post about
    "God has gay sex every time you see a rainbow"

    Don't forget the facts
  • Actually the signature in question said "Everytime you see a rainbow God is having gay sex."
    The signature in question was quite obviouly created in jest. It was not insulting Christianity, or the Christian God, it was simply a joke. The colours of the rainbow are often used to represent homosexuality, hence the joke.

    However, your comment was at least suggestively hateful. It suggested not only that homosexuality is wrong, but also that people who are homosexual deserve to be punished, or hated. That is not acceptable.

    If you cannot see the difference between the two statements there is obviously something wrong here. One was a simple joke which insighted no hatred or abuse, where as your comment was both abusive, and was actually pretty sickening.
  • Can I just say Cukeman, when I saw the actual quote in contrast with your opening post here, I couldnt help but laugh (not at you, or the meaning of the comment, but at the obvious, blatant contrast). Then again, depending upon your meaning behind that comment, maybe I shouldnt derive any sort of humour from it. Nonetheless, it would be ignorant of you not to understand why that comment had to be removed.

    This is merely drawing more attention to it too - not a good thing for you.
  • uǝzoɹɟ wrote:

    Actually the signature in question said "Everytime you see a rainbow God is having gay sex."
    The signature in question was quite obviouly created in jest. It was not insulting Christianity, or the Christian God, it was simply a joke. The colours of the rainbow are often used to represent homosexuality, hence the joke.

    However, your comment was at least suggestively hateful. It suggested not only that homosexuality is wrong, but also that people who are homosexual deserve to be punished, or hated. That is not acceptable.

    If you cannot see the difference between the two statements there is obviously something wrong here. One was a simple joke which insighted no hatred or abuse, where as your comment was both abusive, and was actually pretty sickening.

    Took the words right out of my mouth.
    You can't seriously compare those two statements and say they're equally offensive. Suggesting that homosexuals burn in hell is in no way comparable to a joke about god and rainbows.
    [SIZE="1"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Just dance. It's gonna be okay.[/FONT]
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    [FONT="Georgia"]...And I'm yours. That's why I won't leave you forever.[/FONT][/SIZE]

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Ŧҽҽᶄɑƴ ().

  • Cukeman wrote:

    Our American freedoms guarantee the legal right to our opinions.

    I'm Swedish. Where's your American freedoms now, kid?

    Cukeman wrote:

    That statement was an extreme post in response to the extreme post about
    "God has gay sex every time you see a rainbow"

    Don't forget the facts

    God is not a group of people. Homosexuals are.
    おはようございます!

    The post was edited 1 time, last by fratey ().

  • Cukeman wrote:

    And yes, it IS possible to have an anti-homosexual opinion without slandering or insulting homosexual people.


    Considering there is not one logical argument against homosexuality that cannot be applied to so many other things that society as we know it would fall apart if executed in a non-arbitrary manner, no it isn't.

    "Even should the heavens fall, let Justice prevail."
  • According to the rules here, I don't really think either statement was abiding. Saying God is having gay sex is extremely offensive to Christians. I don't think whether or not it specificially said, "The Christian God is having gay sex," should even be an issue here, since it's obvious that's who it meant. Don't pretend it wasn't. Whether or not it was a joke is inconsequential as well. Cupid Stunt was banned recently for making a joke about blacks, which I print screened if anyone here is specifically interested in evidence.

    On the other hand, saying gays will burn in hell is offensive to gays because it just cast out their way of life as being a demonic abomination of some sort, when it in fact is just homosexuality.

    Really, I don't think it's a big deal either way, but if you want to go by the rules, everybody in this scenario loses as far as I can see.
  • Cukeman wrote:


    I'll tolerate homosexuals and treat them like everyone else,


    Cukeman wrote:

    Every day the sun shines, gays are frying in hell


    Would you write: Every day the sun shines, heterosexuals are frying in hell? Treat everyone the same?

    And on what foundation is the first quote a opinion? What is the logic behind it?

    I would also like to add that the quote is highly offensive against people who are bisexual too.
  • Shmehzzie can wrote:

    According to the rules here, I don't really think either statement was abiding. Saying God is having gay sex is extremely offensive to Christians. I don't think whether or not it specificially said, "The Christian God is having gay sex," should even be an issue here, since it's obvious that's who it meant. Don't pretend it wasn't. Whether or not it was a joke is inconsequential as well. Cupid Stunt was banned recently for making a joke about blacks, which I print screened if anyone here is specifically interested in evidence.


    It's only offensive if you actually take homosexuality as a something worth getting offended over. Regardless of whether or not it's offensive to Christians, any person who WOULD be offended by such a statement is the sort of person who is likely to offend with their views to begin with. Forgive my rather harsh yet accurate comparison, but saying that anything pertaining to homosexuality offends anti-homosexuals is like saying anything pertaining to interracial relationships offends racists.

    "Even should the heavens fall, let Justice prevail."

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Lord Zero ().


  • For the sake of it, that's the image in question.
    it's quite obviously a joke if you ask me. :/

    Shemehzzie wrote:

    According to the rules here, I don't really think either statement was abiding. Saying God is having gay sex is extremely offensive to Christians. I don't think whether or not it specificially said, "The Christian God is having gay sex," should even be an issue here, since it's obvious that's who it meant. Don't pretend it wasn't. Whether or not it was a joke is inconsequential as well. Cupid Stunt was banned recently for making a joke about blacks, which I print screened if anyone here is specifically interested in evidence.

    The OP suggested that he was offended because the statement linked God with homosexuality though. He was offended because he's bigoted, and can't accept that homosexuality is a natural occurance and something that he is going to encounter during his life.
    I see your point however, it could be taken as offensive. However, he could've explained properly why he found it offensive, and asked politely for it to be removed instead of shooting his mouth off in a way that could have offended people more than the original image.
  • I'm curious, Cukeman. You say "Tolerant people tolerate all opinions, but not all actions.", yet what action did Astarael pull on you? She didn't "wave" her "pro-homosexual flag" in your face, she just had a joke in her sig. She may not even be pro-homosexual for all we know(although I'm sure she is. Point is, you didn't know for sure). Maybe she just liked the rainbow and the colors of that sig. You're the one who jumped to conclusions, and subsequently "waved your flag" on her wall when she did nothing of the sort to you.
    [SIZE="1"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Just dance. It's gonna be okay.[/FONT]
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    [FONT="Georgia"]...And I'm yours. That's why I won't leave you forever.[/FONT][/SIZE]

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Ŧҽҽᶄɑƴ ().

  • Shmehzzie can wrote:

    According to the rules here, I don't really think either statement was abiding. Saying God is having gay sex is extremely offensive to Christians.

    No, it's extremely offensive to some Christians who still live in the stone age and still think "gay sex" is bad.

    Shmehzzie can wrote:

    I don't think whether or not it specificially said, "The Christian God is having gay sex," should even be an issue here, since it's obvious that's who it meant.

    Prove that the Islamic God isn't the one referred to.

    Shmehzzie can wrote:


    On the other hand, saying gays will burn in hell is offensive to gays because it just cast out their way of life as being a demonic abomination of some sort, when it in fact is just homosexuality.

    Saying gays will burn in hell targets homosexuals directly. Saying a God has sex as a joke doesn't target anyone, therefore isn't offensive. Comparing apples to pears don't work out. The day Christians prove that God exists and that they all are God, is the day I'll take it seriously and not say such a thing.
    おはようございます!