Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I do not support gay marriage. I am not afraid of lesbians or gay men thus I am not homophobic because I do not support the act of marriage between two men or two women.

Your religion is openly anti-homosexual, and that is presumably the reason why you do not support marriage between two men or two women. It's total crap to say something equivalent to "I'm cool with gay people, but because my religion thinks they're going to hell, I can't support them being able to make the same commitment to a partnership that I can." Christians have learned to discard the parts of their traditions that do not mesh with evolving standards of morality (e.g. slavery of non-believers) -- why can't this be the same way?

You brought up the word homophobia, not me. I don't think anyone is actually afraid of gay people specifically because of their sexual preference. Most gay people I can think of are pretty harmless, actually. Colloquially, we think of this issue as one where people do not agree in equality for homosexuality because of some personal stance against that sexual preference. It doesn't matter if you chose it or if you take the stance because of your religion. It's still discriminatory.

Again, my religious beliefs have nothing to do with my views on gay people or their ability to marry. I have not defended my points of view with any religious points nor do I plan to. Though if you continue to talk about how much the majority of Christians do not like gay people, please also include the fact that many Jewish and Muslim followers have similar beliefs in regards to homosexuality and the "written" word.

Homophobia is different than discrimination. And not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination as marriage is not a right and is not protected by the constitution.

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I do not support gay marriage. I am not afraid of lesbians or gay men thus I am not homophobic because I do not support the act of marriage between two men or two women.

Totally sympathise. A lot of people call me anti-semitic for my beliefs that Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to own businesses. I'm not afraid of the Jews, and that doesn't make me anti-semitic simply because I refuse to treat them equally because they're Jewish.

Look, I simply don't like Jewish people. I don't go around smashing their windows- I just think they should be treated as second class citizens by the state. That means that I'm not anti-semitic.

What's so hard to understand?

You can think (or apparently not think) all you want but it doesn't mean jack shit, sorry. If a gay person or a Jewish person was not legally allowed to run a business, there would be discrimination on either front. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Night Strike wrote:Every person IS being treated equally: society permits one man to marry one woman at one time.

Another argument that fails here. In the days when interracial marriages were not protected, everyone was being treated "equally": one man could marry one woman, as long as that man and woman had the same color skin. We recognize that race should not be a determining factor in who you can marry. Why must sex be such a determining factor?

patrickaa317 wrote:Again, my religious beliefs have nothing to do with my views on gay people or their ability to marry. I have not defended my points of view with any religious points nor do I plan to. Though if you continue to talk about how much the majority of Christians do not like gay people, please also include the fact that many Jewish and Muslim followers have similar beliefs in regards to homosexuality and the "written" word.

The only "reason" Christians (or Jews or Muslims, obviously, there was no need to point it out) have for arguing against homosexual marriage is that marriage is an institution of a religion that believes homosexuality is a sin. It does not matter what your personal views are regarding your homosexual friends or acquaintances. All that matters is that you are supporting the discrimination of a group of people based on sexual preference. It is entirely irrelevant whether marriage is a constitutionally afforded right or not, all that matters is that the state grants legal benefits to some and not to others.

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I do not support gay marriage. I am not afraid of lesbians or gay men thus I am not homophobic because I do not support the act of marriage between two men or two women.

Totally sympathise. A lot of people call me anti-semitic for my beliefs that Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to own businesses. I'm not afraid of the Jews, and that doesn't make me anti-semitic simply because I refuse to treat them equally because they're Jewish.

Look, I simply don't like Jewish people. I don't go around smashing their windows- I just think they should be treated as second class citizens by the state. That means that I'm not anti-semitic.

What's so hard to understand?

Second class citizens? You are kidding.....right?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Every person IS being treated equally: society permits one man to marry one woman at one time.

Another argument that fails here. In the days when interracial marriages were not protected, everyone was being treated "equally": one man could marry one woman, as long as that man and woman had the same color skin. We recognize that race should not be a determining factor in who you can marry. Why must sex be such a determining factor?

Because marriage is 100% based on sex (in every sense of the word).

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I do not support gay marriage. I am not afraid of lesbians or gay men thus I am not homophobic because I do not support the act of marriage between two men or two women.

Totally sympathise. A lot of people call me anti-semitic for my beliefs that Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to own businesses. I'm not afraid of the Jews, and that doesn't make me anti-semitic simply because I refuse to treat them equally because they're Jewish.

Look, I simply don't like Jewish people. I don't go around smashing their windows- I just think they should be treated as second class citizens by the state. That means that I'm not anti-semitic.

What's so hard to understand?

You can think (or apparently not think) all you want but it doesn't mean jack shit, sorry. If a gay person or a Jewish person was not legally allowed to run a business, there would be discrimination on either front. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Or perhaps, discrimination against apples to discrimination against oranges.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Every person IS being treated equally: society permits one man to marry one woman at one time.

Another argument that fails here. In the days when interracial marriages were not protected, everyone was being treated "equally": one man could marry one woman, as long as that man and woman had the same color skin. We recognize that race should not be a determining factor in who you can marry. Why must sex be such a determining factor?

patrickaa317 wrote:Again, my religious beliefs have nothing to do with my views on gay people or their ability to marry. I have not defended my points of view with any religious points nor do I plan to. Though if you continue to talk about how much the majority of Christians do not like gay people, please also include the fact that many Jewish and Muslim followers have similar beliefs in regards to homosexuality and the "written" word.

The only "reason" Christians (or Jews or Muslims, obviously, there was no need to point it out) have for arguing against homosexual marriage is that marriage is an institution of a religion that believes homosexuality is a sin. It does not matter what your personal views are regarding your homosexual friends or acquaintances. All that matters is that you are supporting the discrimination of a group of people based on sexual preference. It is entirely irrelevant whether marriage is a constitutionally afforded right or not, all that matters is that the state grants legal benefits to some and not to others.

You have to admit though, there is no "historical" argument for gay marriage.

I think the closest anyone ever got was homosexuality amongst Bonobos.

Political correctness goes too far here to be sure. These are rights based on other rights based on other rights.

We all know the next step of the homosexual agenda is to take the NY marriage license and try to cram it down Kansas's throat.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I do not support gay marriage. I am not afraid of lesbians or gay men thus I am not homophobic because I do not support the act of marriage between two men or two women.

Totally sympathise. A lot of people call me anti-semitic for my beliefs that Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to own businesses. I'm not afraid of the Jews, and that doesn't make me anti-semitic simply because I refuse to treat them equally because they're Jewish.

Look, I simply don't like Jewish people. I don't go around smashing their windows- I just think they should be treated as second class citizens by the state. That means that I'm not anti-semitic.

What's so hard to understand?

Second class citizens? You are kidding.....right?

Are you asking if they'd have more rights regarding marrying their partner, and regarding adoption if they were straight?

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I do not support gay marriage. I am not afraid of lesbians or gay men thus I am not homophobic because I do not support the act of marriage between two men or two women.

Totally sympathise. A lot of people call me anti-semitic for my beliefs that Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to own businesses. I'm not afraid of the Jews, and that doesn't make me anti-semitic simply because I refuse to treat them equally because they're Jewish.

Look, I simply don't like Jewish people. I don't go around smashing their windows- I just think they should be treated as second class citizens by the state. That means that I'm not anti-semitic.

What's so hard to understand?

Second class citizens? You are kidding.....right?

Are you asking if they'd have more rights regarding marrying their partner, and regarding adoption if they were straight?

I'm asking if you really believe there should be second class citizens. I think you were being sarcastic though. I am just not sure so I asked.

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Again, my religious beliefs have nothing to do with my views on gay people or their ability to marry. I have not defended my points of view with any religious points nor do I plan to. Though if you continue to talk about how much the majority of Christians do not like gay people, please also include the fact that many Jewish and Muslim followers have similar beliefs in regards to homosexuality and the "written" word.

The only "reason" Christians (or Jews or Muslims, obviously, there was no need to point it out) have for arguing against homosexual marriage is that marriage is an institution of a religion that believes homosexuality is a sin. It does not matter what your personal views are regarding your homosexual friends or acquaintances. All that matters is that you are supporting the discrimination of a group of people based on sexual preference. It is entirely irrelevant whether marriage is a constitutionally afforded right or not, all that matters is that the state grants legal benefits to some and not to others.

I think there is a need to point out the three major religions here. Maybe you shouldn't discriminate on the other two by not listing them (kidding on that comment).

I am not supporting discrimination on a group of people as they are not being discriminated against to begin with. Based on your argument of the state granting legal benefits to some and not others, I would assume that you would also support polygamy movements and even gay incestual movements (I can understand why straight incestual movements could not be supported due to the risks of birth defects through reproduction but of course that is not an issue for gay incestual relationships). Would you agree with that?

(I'm not going to go into pedophilia or bestiality as some opponents of gay marriage do as the legality behind ability to consent as well as inter-species relationships are completely different than two adults of the same sex)

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I do not support gay marriage. I am not afraid of lesbians or gay men thus I am not homophobic because I do not support the act of marriage between two men or two women.

Totally sympathise. A lot of people call me anti-semitic for my beliefs that Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to own businesses. I'm not afraid of the Jews, and that doesn't make me anti-semitic simply because I refuse to treat them equally because they're Jewish.

Look, I simply don't like Jewish people. I don't go around smashing their windows- I just think they should be treated as second class citizens by the state. That means that I'm not anti-semitic.

What's so hard to understand?

Second class citizens? You are kidding.....right?

Are you asking if they'd have more rights regarding marrying their partner, and regarding adoption if they were straight?

I'm asking if you really believe there should be second class citizens. I think you were being sarcastic though. I am just not sure so I asked.

Ah apologies- it kind of looked like you were saying that gay people should not have the same rights as straight people vis-a-vis marriage to their partner.

It sort of looked like you were one of those rightwing nuts seeking to redefine marriage, like those states that recently passed amendments redefining marriage to specifically exclude homosexuals.

I looked back at your posts though, and it seems that you're strongly against such changes to the definition of marriage.

Mixed feelings here.

I am persuaded with the man n woman argument the most, while I also respect a states right to choose.

The saddest thing to me is that marriage is now political.

Phatscotty wrote:Yeah, and fucked up dudes demand equality and for an end to discrimination against them being unable to work as a waitress at Hooter's.

They are being denied their rights in the same kind of way. Dudes don't wait tables at hooters, and marriage is about a penis and a vagina.

Why are you against the Constitution, Phatscotty?

Dukasaur wrote:

Iliad wrote:Yes, but those legal prerogatives and benefits are the financial benefits of marriage which are currently withheld from homosexual couples. The 14th amendment doesn't mean that we have to call biracial marriages marriages either.

But you have admitted that the 14th amendment does legally mean that homosexuals should have the exact same benefits that come with marriage for heterosexual couples?

But the preferential tax treatment and other financial benefits of marriage are there to compensate people for the financial trauma of raising children. There's no point extending them to homosexuals because they are not beset by this trauma.

A homosexual couple can raise children.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:At any rate, even if you don't see it as a fundamental right, the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment means the debate is moot. All persons are intended to be treated equally under the law, that's the spirit and text of that amendment. The status quo is an inequality in the eyes of the law.

Every person IS being treated equally

This is so demonstrably false that I cannot imagine how you brought yourself to say that.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Every person IS being treated equally: society permits one man to marry one woman at one time.

Another argument that fails here. In the days when interracial marriages were not protected, everyone was being treated "equally": one man could marry one woman, as long as that man and woman had the same color skin. We recognize that race should not be a determining factor in who you can marry. Why must sex be such a determining factor?

Because marriage is 100% based on sex (in every sense of the word).

If you honestly believe that, I feel very sorry for any future wife or wives you may have, as well as any children from them.

patrickaa317 wrote:Homophobia is different than discrimination. And not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination as marriage is not a right and is not protected by the constitution.

It really is, concerning the equal protection clause.

Night Strike wrote: It's not homophobic to believe that homosexuality is a type of sexual immorality.

So you won't be offended if I say that religion is a type of mental illness?

I obviously don't, but that's the equivalent opinion and you seem completely open and shameless about yours.

And that right there is the problem. Homosexuality should be as valid and equal in the eyes of the government as heterosexuality and each couple should be granted the exact same benefits. The clear distaste for homosexuals displayed by Nighstrike, Phatscotty in his comparison to dudes serving at Hooters clearly shows that this is ultimately centred about that distaste and how they don't perceive homosexuality as equal. Just because they shroud their hate in religion doesn't change anything

Also, the fact that it has been like that throughout history is not an argument in itself. You cannot dismiss marriage as only between a man and a woman because it's only been that way, and ignore any other limits marriage has had historically: ie race, for life and no chance of divorce, etc.

Gay marriage should be just as legally accepted as straight marriage, and do otherwise is infringing upon their rights. Not that any of you give a shit.

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Homophobia is different than discrimination. And not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination as marriage is not a right and is not protected by the constitution.

It really is, concerning the equal protection clause.

What is the 19th amendment? How was this needed if the 14th amendment is to be considered so broad as to cover same-sex marriage but wasn't enough broad enough to allow women to vote?

i'm kind of surprised that phatscotty doesn't just want to leave the gay marriage issue completely up to the states.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Homophobia is different than discrimination. And not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination as marriage is not a right and is not protected by the constitution.

It really is, concerning the equal protection clause.

What is the 19th amendment? How was this needed if the 14th amendment is to be considered so broad as to cover same-sex marriage but wasn't enough broad enough to allow women to vote?

Because disenfranchisement relates directly to the constitutional right of representation whereas homosexual marriage does not relate so directly to any constitutional right (as you've pointed out).

john9blue wrote:i'm kind of surprised that phatscotty doesn't just want to leave the gay marriage issue completely up to the states.

The New Tea Republican Party doesn't want to leave it up to the states, and Scotty is a firm adherent to that movement.

This is not a state issue if the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any law allowing marriage for heterosexual couple but not for homosexual couples. The amendment still trickles down to the states and means they can't implement the unconstitutional law.

If the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit that discrimination, then of course the states can choose to implement it, since marriage is indeed not a fundamental right.

STILL waiting for an explanation of the harm these horrible homosexuals are doing to the rest of us....

PLAYER57832 wrote:STILL waiting for an explanation of the harm these horrible homosexuals are doing to the rest of us....

Why do you feel homosexuals are horrible and harmful? Quit being such a homophobe.

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Homophobia is different than discrimination. And not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination as marriage is not a right and is not protected by the constitution.

It really is, concerning the equal protection clause.

What is the 19th amendment? How was this needed if the 14th amendment is to be considered so broad as to cover same-sex marriage but wasn't enough broad enough to allow women to vote?

Because disenfranchisement relates directly to the constitutional right of representation whereas homosexual marriage does not relate so directly to any constitutional right (as you've pointed out).

Hence why proponents need to stop calling it a right and trying to force the rest of us to adhere to their different definition of marriage.

Metsfanmax wrote:This is not a state issue if the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any law allowing marriage for heterosexual couple but not for homosexual couples. The amendment still trickles down to the states and means they can't implement the unconstitutional law.

Good thing the 14th amendment makes no such prohibition.