One step closer: Marriage Equality


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 530 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


So what (groups of) people do you think should be deprived of the civil rights enjoyed by everyone else?

Its not a matter of the groups themselves. I'm not entirely convinced that getting a non necessity from another private individual is a civil right. I very much do not believe that just because its a business it automatically scoots into the public sphere.

Thejeffs comments about the inability to separate out a necessity from a non necessity is making me feel a little bit better about the laws.

Quote:
I would hate to think that you feel that, unless some law specifically names a person or group as protected from invidious discrimination, it should be acceptable to discriminate against them.
It shouldn't be acceptable but that doesn't necessarily follow that it should be illegal. LOTS of things i find unacceptable are legal. Handing someone power to bridge that divide sounds great.. as long as that someone is you or they believe the same thing that you do. I mean do you really want to see me seize ultimate power and put whales in congress? The cost of the tanks alone...

Again, this is nothing new. We've been doing this for at least 50 years. All the horrible consequences you're worried about should already be playing out in front of your eyes. There's lots of things done by government that I don't like and I'm sure you don't either. Few of them trace to anti-discrimination laws.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I mean do you really want to see me seize ultimate power and put whales in congress? The cost of the tanks alone...

If only Caligula really had made Incitatus a consul, this would have made for a great reference.

I'll settle for a George and Gracie aside.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:


It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

Your assumptions would be incorrect in some cases.

If you want me to boycott the store I'll shop elsewhere
If you want me to protest the store, I'll get a sign.
If the protest gets rough I'll play meatshield right in front of the doggies.
If you want to spraypaint something on the roof I'll give you a boost (I'm a little large and old to get up there myself these days)

But the power of government ultimately comes out of the barrel of a gun. I'm not entirely ok with it being used for feelings.

While I would really like LGBT to be added to the list of protected groups, I'm not invested in it solely because of my feelings, nor do I believe people should be strong armed over anything truly petty.

On another note though you are making want to go on adventures with you, as a rather small and frail person I could use a big guy's help with all sorts of fun shenanigans. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.

It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

I think you explained it quite well.

See ... this gives me pause.

I would never have considered that refusing someone service because of your religious convictions might actually frighten the subject of your refusal. Perhaps that's lack of empathy on my part.

I myself would never wish to frighten anyone who's just trying to go about their business.

I must reconsider my position, in light of all that's been said here. Thank you for explaining how such makes you feel, Yuugasa. I'd rather hear that than all the veiled and unveiled accusations.

I recently had a conversation with a friendly zombie about the arguments on this forum. I attested they had value and sometimes showed some really mature people willing to share and compare opinions. He disagreed.

Posts like this really bolster, maybe even restore, my confidence in the Paizo community. Every now and then, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.

It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

I think you explained it quite well.

See ... this gives me pause.

I would never have considered that refusing someone service because of your religious convictions might actually frighten the subject of your refusal. Perhaps that's lack of empathy on my part.

I myself would never wish to frighten anyone who's just trying to go about their business.

I must reconsider my position, in light of all that's been said here. Thank you for explaining how such makes you feel, Yuugasa. I'd rather hear that than all the veiled and unveiled accusations.

It's all good.

Another way of explaining it has occurred to me. Most of the talk about selling cakes has been along the lines of; "Who cares if they discriminate, it's just a stupid cake."

But turn that around for a minute and put yourself in the shoes of the one that is being denied a cake. "Why is this person so invested in me and my life that they are refusing me a stupid cake?"

as someone who has been followed in stores before and dealt with all sorts of low-level bigotry(I have never been denied service, mind, though I have been accused of robbing places and searched unnecessarily), I know how this feels to an extent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmmm one thing that has struck me as odd about this conversation the last few pages is that some posters have been referring to the law as if that should auto trump personal morality just by being the law.

Unjust laws certainly can exist and there are times when personal morality should trump them. Obviously I don't personally believe "No cake for gays" is a stance of courageous personal moral pedigree but the idea of morality over law itself isn't a meritless concept.

Noone has directly said this but I feel the tone has been hovering about here and there.

I don't really have a point in saying this, beyond "The law is the law so suck it." is kinda a myopic stance to take.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:


Unjust laws certainly can exist and there are times when personal morality should trump them. Obviously I don't personally believe "No cake for gays" is a stance of courageous personal moral pedigree but the idea of morality over law itself isn't a meritless concept.

It is not. But if that's the case, the appropriate behavior is to change the law, not to demand a personal exemption from it that does not apply to everyone else.

If you really feel that gay marriage has something wrong with it, Mike Huckabee (among others) have suggested that the law be changed, and there are well-known procedures for doing so. You have my permission to attempt that, if not my blessing -- I will be actively campaigning against you if you do. But that's how things happen under rule of law.

And I suspect you'll fail, largely because relatively few other people share your view of morality, in which case, you may start to understand why gays feel this is a Big Deal to not be oppressed. But you won't really understand, because you're merely feeling oppressed, but not actively being injured, by the new legal landscape.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:

Hmmmm one thing that has struck me as odd about this conversation the last few pages is that some posters have been referring to the law as if that should auto trump personal morality just by being the law.

Unjust laws certainly can exist and there are times when personal morality should trump them. Obviously I don't personally believe "No cake for gays" is a stance of courageous personal moral pedigree but the idea of morality over law itself isn't a meritless concept.

Noone has directly said this but I feel the tone has been hovering about here and there.

I don't really have a point in saying this, beyond "The law is the law so suck it." is kinda a myopic stance to take.

Of course, but we're discussing what the law should be.

It's certainly fine to argue that the law shouldn't protect LGBTQs, though I think it's not a moral position to take.
If the law did, it's a reasonable act to defy it. That's civil disobedience. It has a long and proud tradition. Break the law and accept the penalty in the name of principle.

I'm much less happy with the idea that we should have laws but individuals should be free to ignore them if they claim a religious conviction. That's fine for matters of actual religious practice, to an extent - Native American Church having an exemption from drug laws for peyote, for example or churches being allowed wine for Mass during prohibition. Less so for things that directly affect non-members of the religion at hand.


Psst. Orf. Yuugasa is, in his/her* own words, a trans person of color. I do not think that that is his/her actual view of morality.

*Sorry, I don't think Yuugasa has indicated his/her gender. This is not any sort of trans comment.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:


Unjust laws certainly can exist and there are times when personal morality should trump them. Obviously I don't personally believe "No cake for gays" is a stance of courageous personal moral pedigree but the idea of morality over law itself isn't a meritless concept.

It is not. But if that's the case, the appropriate behavior is to change the law, not to demand a personal exemption from it that does not apply to everyone else.

If you really feel that gay marriage has something wrong with it, Mike Huckabee (among others) have suggested that the law be changed, and there are well-known procedures for doing so. You have my permission to attempt that, if not my blessing -- I will be actively campaigning against you if you do. But that's how things happen under rule of law.

And I suspect you'll fail, largely because relatively few other people share your view of morality, in which case, you may start to understand why gays feel this is a Big Deal to not be oppressed. But you won't really understand, because you're merely feeling oppressed, but not actively being injured, by the new legal landscape.

Are you using "you" as the general you or "you" in referring to me specifically, if the later you may have missed which side of the gay fence I'm on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Psst. Orf. Yuugasa is, in his/her* own words, a trans person of color. I do not think that that is his/her actual view of morality.

*Sorry, I don't think Yuugasa has indicated his/her gender. This is not any sort of trans comment.

Yes, I am a her.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:


Unjust laws certainly can exist and there are times when personal morality should trump them. Obviously I don't personally believe "No cake for gays" is a stance of courageous personal moral pedigree but the idea of morality over law itself isn't a meritless concept.

It is not. But if that's the case, the appropriate behavior is to change the law, not to demand a personal exemption from it that does not apply to everyone else.

If you really feel that gay marriage has something wrong with it, Mike Huckabee (among others) have suggested that the law be changed, and there are well-known procedures for doing so. You have my permission to attempt that, if not my blessing -- I will be actively campaigning against you if you do. But that's how things happen under rule of law.

And I suspect you'll fail, largely because relatively few other people share your view of morality, in which case, you may start to understand why gays feel this is a Big Deal to not be oppressed. But you won't really understand, because you're merely feeling oppressed, but not actively being injured, by the new legal landscape.

Basically this. The law is the law regardless of your opinion.

Moral reasons are not valid reasons to BREAK it, but attempting to change it is another matter.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I do not think that that is his/her actual view of morality.

Of course not, which it why it was phrased as a hypothetical.


Rynjin wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:


Unjust laws certainly can exist and there are times when personal morality should trump them. Obviously I don't personally believe "No cake for gays" is a stance of courageous personal moral pedigree but the idea of morality over law itself isn't a meritless concept.

It is not. But if that's the case, the appropriate behavior is to change the law, not to demand a personal exemption from it that does not apply to everyone else.

If you really feel that gay marriage has something wrong with it, Mike Huckabee (among others) have suggested that the law be changed, and there are well-known procedures for doing so. You have my permission to attempt that, if not my blessing -- I will be actively campaigning against you if you do. But that's how things happen under rule of law.

And I suspect you'll fail, largely because relatively few other people share your view of morality, in which case, you may start to understand why gays feel this is a Big Deal to not be oppressed. But you won't really understand, because you're merely feeling oppressed, but not actively being injured, by the new legal landscape.

Basically this. The law is the law regardless of your opinion.

Moral reasons are not valid reasons to BREAK it, but attempting to change it is another matter.

Moral reasons may indeed be reasons to break it. Civil Disobedience is s valid tactic. Break it. Break it publicly and accept the consequences.

As part of the attempt to change it.

But they don't want that. They want a precedent of religious exemptions from laws.


Lord Snow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
2) People are forced to act against their conscience in the course of their jobs all the time, particularly when their conscience compels them to discriminate against others. We have public accommodation laws for precisely this reason.

While I am taking entirely too much enjoyment in watching fox news turn purple and can understand the need for government intrusion so that people can get food, shelter, and housing I don't see the compelling government interest to force twits to do business with people they don't want to for luxury items like flowers.

There's a difference between stating a law and enforcing it. I don't think most people are suggesting that resources should be allocated to chasing every florist with a bad attitude, but having an official law changes the norm.

Or, in other words - you would rather live in a country where it is illegal to deny service to a person because of race, sex, sexual orientation etc. Right?

I think you are right to a point. Did you know that there are stores dedicated to selling to Muslims and they have things specific for the religion? They show discrimination in some areas because some of the items are only sold to Muslims. Yes, it's allowable in the US.

IN the same light, the Mormons (I believe...I think this is so) have certain special clothes they wear. They have stores that will ONLY sell to Mormons.

I don't have a problem if they designate their store as in regards to religious reasons to have certain prohibitions set because of their religious dictates.

I think forcing them to sell things against their religious dictates in this manner is wrong.

HOWEVER...and this is been my point, if a person of a different orientation walks into a florist shop...there is NO radar or alarm that says this person is of a different sexual orientation. How in the world are they even to realize this? Because they hold hands...it could be brothers or father and son, or sisters or mother and daughter. They have no way of knowing. There's no innate sense a florist has to be able to tell the difference unless someone wants to pick a fight with the florist typically (part of the reason why discussing florists is rather ironic, it's not like they have a sheet of paper or something that you declare you are of a different orientation to them like housing may have).

In that instance, it doesn't matter what your orientation is, they have no way of knowing regardless of whether they are prejudice or not...unless you have made it point to make them know.

The only instances I know of where it would become a factor are in communities (such as your local community) where you are known, in which case your orientation may be realized.

Picking a fight just to pick a fight...to me...is counter intuitive. Let them be, because if you bully people enough, eventually they DO hit back. Right now the LGBT movement may be happy with what's happened, but we haven't seen the backlash of what COULD HAPPEN (ask Russia or some other nations about that and how that backlash feels). I say the better path is instead to disappate the fear people have to make a better community on a whole and build upon things rather than pick fights and tear things down simply because we want to.

In more irony...from what I know of Israel...aren't they one of the most discriminatory nations on earth? Their reasoning boils down to their very existence is based upon putting the Jewish people first, without that many argue they would cease to exist as a nation. IN Israel's case, is it justified or is it done without cause?

I know I would be highly discriminated (even more so than in the US) in Israel. I could be wrong, but isn't that where you are from? I don't hold it against Israel at all to tell the truth, and support their right to exist...but as you can see, I've also chosen never to live there. I think that's the type of better thing to do in a more micro manner...I have plenty of choices without having to offend others for their beliefs or force mine upon them.

The Exchange

Quote:

I think you are right to a point. Did you know that there are stores dedicated to selling to Muslims and they have things specific for the religion? They show discrimination in some areas because some of the items are only sold to Muslims. Yes, it's allowable in the US.

IN the same light, the Mormons (I believe...I think this is so) have certain special clothes they wear. They have stores that will ONLY sell to Mormons.

I don't have a problem if they designate their store as in regards to religious reasons to have certain prohibitions set because of their religious dictates.

I think forcing them to sell things against their religious dictates in this manner is wrong.

HOWEVER...and this is been my point, if a person of a different orientation walks into a florist shop...there is NO radar or alarm that says this person is of a different sexual orientation. How in the world are they even to realize this? Because they hold hands...it could be brothers or father and son, or sisters or mother and daughter. They have no way of knowing. There's no innate sense a florist has to be able to tell the difference unless someone wants to pick a fight with the florist typically (part of the reason why discussing florists is rather ironic, it's not like they have a sheet of paper or something that you declare you are of a different orientation to them like housing may have).

In that instance, it doesn't matter what your orientation is, they have no way of knowing regardless of whether they are prejudice or not...unless you have made it point to make them know.

The only instances I know of where it would become a factor are in communities (such as your local community) where you are known, in which case your orientation may be realized.

Picking a fight just to pick a fight...to me...is counter intuitive. Let them be, because if you bully people enough, eventually they DO hit back. Right now the LGBT movement may be happy with what's happened, but we haven't seen the backlash of what COULD HAPPEN (ask Russia or some other nations about that and how that backlash feels). I say the better path is instead to disappate the fear people have to make a better community on a whole and build upon things rather than pick fights and tear things down simply because we want to.

In more irony...from what I know of Israel...aren't they one of the most discriminatory nations on earth? Their reasoning boils down to their very existence is based upon putting the Jewish people first, without that many argue they would cease to exist as a nation. IN Israel's case, is it justified or is it done without cause?

I know I would be highly discriminated (even more so than in the US) in Israel. I could be wrong, but isn't that where you are from?

You talk about a couple of different and separate things here.

1) Shops for Mormons/Muslims only - I do think there's a difference between a minority only selling to itself and a majority signaling out minorities they won't sell to. I need to know more about the items being bought and sold and the justifications for only selling them to members of the religion before I made my mind about whether this is OK or not.

2) Being unable to spot gays anyway - some homosexual people are easy to spot, is the first thing I should say here. Not all, of course, but some like dressing or behaving in a way that radiates their sexuality. And these people shouldn't have a hard life because they want to behave and dress in the way they are comfortable with. Secondly, if the norm is that it's the responsibility of the homosexuals to hide their identities in order to not raise trouble, that's a good sign you are living in an oppressive society. Western societies seek to avoid this. Hence, a law that shifts the blame from the victims to the perpetrators.

3) Israel being a really lousy country - it is, though in more complicated ways than most people believe. It is very possible to be judgmental of one's own country. Even recommended, in cases like mine. Specifically, for example, the whole marriage thing is one of the most blatant example of wrongness in Israel. the one and only authority on marriage law is the Orthodox religion institute. That means it is not only homophobic, it is also racist (non Jews may not marry Jews) and sexist (the religious institute also handles divorces, which opens the door to a host of ugly discrimination against women that would have been more in place say 3000 years ago than today). But - let us leave this subject at this. The last thing the thread needs is a derail into Israel-territory.


Yuugasa wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.
+qqIt is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

with respect to race, I'm not sure how either. Maybe it's how the definitive definition of prejudice and bigotry is taught to others. With respect to the people I referred to above, they honestly had no idea how refusing others to date outside of their race could be bigoted in the slightest. To them, it began and ended with the n word and segregation. As long as noone said that word or was refused service anywhere, everything was okay. Literally everything. It was/can be very hard to deal with people who define racism so tightly/narrowly, maybe it's the same thing with sexuality and gender issues?
That's a really good point. While I am very close to white passing and these days completely female passing I've had enough experience with bigotry from both ends personally to feel and see the similarity and I think you may be right. Education and perspective is a big deal.

Ironically, I in theory the ethnic background could count as white (as per WHAT the us specifically counts as white, did you know Egyptians in many cases are white, even with a completely dark skin tone)?...but in looks I am absolutely can't even come close.


Congratulations to all the folk of the fabulous persuasion!

Jaelithe wrote:

I'm a staunch Catholic who can't stand the imposition of my personal and my church's morality on those who don't share it. On sites like this, I'm a screwball theist, and on Catholic websites, I'm one of Satan's middle managers for not upholding the party line. Funny how much is relative, ain't it?

I think the decision is the only one that can be made by those who are not allowing inappropriate influences to sway them. The separation of church and state is, in my opinion, critical to the proper governance of a nation interested in protecting the minority from the will of an oppressive majority.

I'm pretty big on my Catholicism as well and I too agree this is one of the things we cannot in good conscience attempt to enforce in society (I have somewhat of a theological difference on the interpretation of gay marriage, which I think shouldn't constitute a sin under Catholic understanding).

And many other Catholics think the same way. For instance, it was a very Catholic president over here in Chile the one who set up the legal framework for gay marriage to happen (it's still in the Civil Union part, but should be regular marriage within 5 years or so, depending on legislative clockwork).

My hope is that this change in the US helps with two things: The key one which is the dignifying of human beings that happen to be gay, and the secondary, but very important for me at least, which is to help Catholics in particular and Christians in general (as there are some denominations that have already fixed that) finally understand that the usual "gay is evil" rhetoric goes against the very fundamentals of our religion.

The Exchange

Klaus van der Kroft wrote:

Congratulations to all the folk of the fabulous persuasion!

Jaelithe wrote:

I'm a staunch Catholic who can't stand the imposition of my personal and my church's morality on those who don't share it. On sites like this, I'm a screwball theist, and on Catholic websites, I'm one of Satan's middle managers for not upholding the party line. Funny how much is relative, ain't it?

I think the decision is the only one that can be made by those who are not allowing inappropriate influences to sway them. The separation of church and state is, in my opinion, critical to the proper governance of a nation interested in protecting the minority from the will of an oppressive majority.

I'm pretty big on my Catholicism as well and I too agree this is one of the things we cannot in good conscience attempt to enforce in society (I have somewhat of a theological difference on the interpretation of gay marriage, which I think shouldn't constitute a sin under Catholic understanding).

And many other Catholics think the same way. For instance, it was a very Catholic president over here in Chile the one who set up the legal framework for gay marriage to happen (it's still in the Civil Union part, but should be regular marriage within 5 years or so, depending on legislative clockwork).

My hope is that this change in the US helps with two things: The key one which is the dignifying of human beings that happen to be gay, and the secondary, but very important for me at least, which is to help Catholics in particular and Christians in general (as there are some denominations that have already fixed that) finally understand that the usual "gay is evil" rhetoric goes against the very fundamentals of our religion.

You're ahead of your times :)


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:

Congratulations to all the folk of the fabulous persuasion!

Jaelithe wrote:

I'm a staunch Catholic who can't stand the imposition of my personal and my church's morality on those who don't share it. On sites like this, I'm a screwball theist, and on Catholic websites, I'm one of Satan's middle managers for not upholding the party line. Funny how much is relative, ain't it?

I think the decision is the only one that can be made by those who are not allowing inappropriate influences to sway them. The separation of church and state is, in my opinion, critical to the proper governance of a nation interested in protecting the minority from the will of an oppressive majority.

I'm pretty big on my Catholicism as well and I too agree this is one of the things we cannot in good conscience attempt to enforce in society (I have somewhat of a theological difference on the interpretation of gay marriage, which I think shouldn't constitute a sin under Catholic understanding).

And many other Catholics think the same way. For instance, it was a very Catholic president over here in Chile the one who set up the legal framework for gay marriage to happen (it's still in the Civil Union part, but should be regular marriage within 5 years or so, depending on legislative clockwork).

My hope is that this change in the US helps with two things: The key one which is the dignifying of human beings that happen to be gay, and the secondary, but very important for me at least, which is to help Catholics in particular and Christians in general (as there are some denominations that have already fixed that) finally understand that the usual "gay is evil" rhetoric goes against the very fundamentals of our religion.

I'd enjoy having you explicate your perspective. Perhaps you might PM me with it, or direct me to a website illustrating the rationale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GreyWolfLord, I'm not trying to pry but what are the beliefs/sexuality/whatever you have that you face such discrimination for and fear you would be discriminated for here?

I wasn't going to ask but you keep referring to it without spelling it out and now I'm curious!


Lord Snow wrote:
3) Israel being a really lousy country - it is, though in more complicated ways than most people believe. It is very possible to be judgmental of one's own country. Even recommended, in cases like mine. Specifically, for example, the whole marriage thing is one of the most blatant example of wrongness in Israel. the one and only authority on marriage law is the Orthodox religion institute. That means it is not only homophobic, it is also racist (non Jews may not marry Jews) and sexist (the religious institute also handles divorces, which opens the door to a host of ugly discrimination against women that would have been more in place say 3000 years ago than today). But - let us leave this subject at this. The last thing the thread needs is a derail into Israel-territory.

Actually for you, I think that should be the forefront of conversation. Why is it good to discuss inequality in other nations when it is much worse in your own. Shouldn't you then be discussing and pushing the problems of things much closer to home and which affect you directly than that of places on the other side of the world.

Not that I think it's bad, I enjoy your contributions, but I think the conditions in Israel would also be something at the forefront in your own discussions of equality and justice?

Right now the closest hospital to me is 15 minutes away. I believe I broke my arm two days ago. The closest hospital I trust is an hour and a half away currently, and the one which I trust with my medical records is probably 3 hours away. This is a current problem I'm facing...but it pales to what I think I might have to deal with in the Nation of Israel. What actions are you doing to ensure equality in your own nation?

Edit: On that note, perhaps I'll be taking a trip soon and get treatment, which probably means much to everyone's relief, I'll be absent from the forums for a little bit.

151 to 200 of 530 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / One step closer: Marriage Equality All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.