What if the situation were reversed, and it was being asked that only the "it is wrong" view be allowed? That would be totally and immediately unacceptable, right?

As for statements against gender or race, that is comparing apples to oranges. Those are things that you are, not things that you do. Your gender is obvious before birth. Race is determined by the parents and known from the beginning. Our sexual identities are formed later on in life. It is a widely-accepted notion that being gay or straight is determined before birth, but there is nothing that proves or disproves it. For that reason it does not fit in as neatly.

As for religion, civil debate/discussion over that is absolutely acceptable.

Unless Patrick steps in and says differently, the rules are not going to be changed to allow one-sided discussions. 

I have brought this thread up in conversation with Patrick AND provided the link to it no less than four times since it was created. He has chosen not to respond.

Your summary is incredibly misleading, btw. 

The rest of staff has put these things to a vote already; this is not something that is just up to me. We debated over whether or not sensitive topics should be banned altogether, or to allow civil, two-sided discussion. We decided on the latter.

I think that there is just a gross misunderstanding here of the real issue. This is not about gay or not gay. That just happens to be the topic that spurred the thread. It was requested that a long-standing rule, which has and continues to work very well for the site, be changed. I have tried my best to point out the flaws in that request and why we cannot do that. 

While a discussion about whether or not it is ok to BE a woman or black seems silly when phrased as such, I see no problem with a civil discussion about black's or women's rights. As long as nothing derogatory is being said, there can be such a discussion. In a similar manner, if nothing derogatory is being said in a discussion about gay rights, then I see no problem. I think that discussions about black's and women's rights are just touchy with such a large number of people that they would get shut down very quickly because people would voice their discomfort quickly. This is why discussions about gay rights tend to last longer, because people are more open to discussing both sides of the coin. However, and I want to stress this again, if it became uncomfortable then ANY of these topics (or any other topic really) would be shut down.

14brokenmirrors: "As long as nothing derogatory is being said, there can be such a discussion."
You seem to think that "being derogatory" means "outright slandering". So I can pull up the SB right now, state that I think that being black is wrong, and I'd have every right to do that as long as I kept it civil?

If YES, that is a huge problem. That is the rule that should be added: discrimination against groups or individuals based on gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, social class etc.

YES there are gray areas of discrimination as you stated, where insulting the discriminators comes into question. However, is it not better to at least have a rule covering at least a portion of discrimination, rather than none at all? Banning discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. will do no harm to anyone on the site, and will actually help those who belong to oppressed minorities feel SAFER and more COMFORTABLE on Res. Trust me, it sucks a lot when people are discussing why they think my very existence is wrong simply because I like women and not men. Makes me question whether or not I really want to be in a place where I can be openly discriminated against with no repercussions. You have not taken this into consideration, obviously.

This is about making users safe from at least SOME discrimination, Broken. It would  be ridiculous not to make a rule about it. Every other site I know has it and it does nothing but help.

If NO, then there is a bias here. That is all.

I absolutely agree that no one should be made to feel like their existence is wrong - anyone who makes that sort of statement is very wrong to do so. The thing I am unwilling to do here is to write into the rules that no one can ever say anything anti-gay. That is way too broad. Staff has to consider the bigger picture here. The scope of what can be considered "anti-gay" is too subjective and too wide to make such a rule. This is why we instead use common sense to deal with these situations.

"It would be completely unacceptable."

Are you.. are you kidding me?

They're the same situation.

Saying that you think something is wrong is the same thing as saying you disagree with it. If you thought it was perfectly fine and acceptable you wouldn't "disagree" with it.

If it isn't, you'd better define what "disagreeing" with homosexuality is right here and now.


Also, you said that as long as someone wasn't being derogatory, and was instead being civil, it'd be fine. So why is disagreeing with homosexuality any different from disagreeing with people being of colour? Why is it any less acceptable?



EDIT: Let me shorten that post. So if I changed my wording to "I disagree with people being black", THAT would be okay? Interesting.

This is what the rules used to state. It was removed because of too much confusion and misunderstanding about what inflammatory or inappropriate meant, and because staff was being brow-beaten over not stepping in EVERY time someone had issue with a statement. Another reason it was removed is because staff decided collectively after much discussion that rules which only exist to avoid debate and messy moderation are more harmful than they are helpful: The discussion of sexual orientation, politics and religion is allowed but any inflammatory, inappropriate or degrading comments about any of these are not accepted.

I was a support trainee when this was decided and removed, so I don't want to hear any more bullcrap about how I am the only one deciding these things. 

I'm not twisting your words into something they aren't.

You said that if I went into the SB and said "I think being black is wrong", it would be completely unacceptable.

But when someone says they disagree with homosexuality, you said that was fine because people can have opposing opinions towards it.

They are the same thing. Why is one more acceptable than the other?
So, my question was, "If I went into the SB and said I disagreed with people being black, would that also be okay?" As in, is it the wording that matters?
That was my question. I did not twist your words. They are here in this thread. I am just trying to clear up something that I see as a huge bias.

Also, as I understand it, that word isn't permitted in forums.

I'm really sorry for posting, and I hope you don't mind my two cents; however, I wish to make a statement.

From my understanding, you seem quite upset about your addition to the rules being defended against, when I would like to suggest that you should read, re-read, and comprehend what 14brokenmirrors is saying. It is not her fault that your suggestion is being dis-supported against, and I do not think it is very fair for you to be bashing her for decisions that the staff as a whole decided upon. She is doing her best to explain to you reasons behind why your addition to the rules will most likely not be implemented. If you choose to disagree with the staff, by all means, it's okay to disagree with them, BUT you might want to think... there was a reason they were hired for the site. Patrick had to have put his faith in the staff to keep Rescreatu as a nice, happy, user-friendly site. So I feel as though your accusations and disagreements are unfair when all the staff is trying to do is make Res a clean and good place...

Now, my response to your statement that disagreeing with people being black and disagreeing with homosexuality are the same situation, they are not the same thing. You are treating sexual orientation equivalent to race, when they are not. Discrimination against race and discrimination against homosexuality are two COMPLETELY different things. Homosexuality is not a race. It is a completely different topic than race. So in my opinion, it is irrational to say "I think homosexuality is wrong" and "I think being black is wrong" are equivalent statements. And this is probably why it is okay to debate over a topic like homosexuality but not race.

I'll edit this and add more of my thoughts later.

By the way, I like that you are defensive over your opinion, it's good that you're standing up for what you believe in, but after reading these comments on this thread, I'm shocked at how heated an argument over a suggestion is getting. I assure you, that NO one who has posted on this thread has meant to offend anyone in any way. By making this thread, you're basically agreeing to letting other people give their opinions over your suggestion. So, again, why some of your statements are made invalid and that many other people, including myself, may find unfair the particular way you are defending your suggestion. My suggestion to you, now, is to cool off a tad and think of other ways in which you may reform your suggestion so that it may gather support.