Conquer Club

Night Strike wrote:
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.

Here I thought you were about individual freedom. Why is it OK for you to push your definition on them, but not for them to simply live by their own definition? No one is forcing you to marry a homosexual. YOU are very much declaring that they cannot get the automatic right to have a say in their loved one's medical decisions in an emergency, that they cannot adopt kids with the one they live and know that that adoption will be honored in other states where they travel, they also have to pay an attorney to draw up inheritance documents that you get simply by marriage. Not to mention, they cannot share in things like a 401K, the family leave act, etc, etc, etc.

... and STILL nothing about how acknowledging these unions is somehow harmful.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:
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.

Here I thought you were about individual freedom. Why is it OK for you to push your definition on them, but not for them to simply live by their own definition? No one is forcing you to marry a homosexual. YOU are very much declaring that they cannot get the automatic right to have a say in their loved one's medical decisions in an emergency, that they cannot adopt kids with the one they live and know that that adoption will be honored in other states where they travel, they also have to pay an attorney to draw up inheritance documents that you get simply by marriage. Not to mention, they cannot share in things like a 401K, the family leave act, etc, etc, etc.

... and STILL nothing about how acknowledging these unions is somehow harmful.

Player, you force your definitions of morals on everybody every single day through your beliefs in redistributive government control, so there's no reason to even start down that path. And I never said that homosexual relations should be outlawed. I simply said that we as a society should not be forced to include those relations in the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage has to be changed for over 95% of the population in order to accommodate the 1-2% of homosexuals? Why don't we also change it to allow for polygamy? The most stable relationship for the continuation of every society throughout history is one of one man with one woman for life. We've already done irreparable harm to that through no-fault divorces, so let's not make it worse through changing definitions to allow any life choice that anybody could come up with.

Night Strike wrote: The most stable relationship for the continuation of every society throughout history is one of one man with one woman for life. We've already done irreparable harm to that through no-fault divorces, so let's not make it worse through changing definitions to allow any life choice that anybody could come up with.

It would be nice if you actually UNDERSTOOD the history you tout. Much of that "stability" you claim existed had to do with women being nothing more than property.

And, if you truly were to look around the world, you would find plenty of societies that operate quite well under different principles.


.. now you talk of harm by divorce. Exactly how does that possibly relate to homosexuals wanting to legalize their unions. If anything, its an argument in my favor, not yours.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote: The most stable relationship for the continuation of every society throughout history is one of one man with one woman for life. We've already done irreparable harm to that through no-fault divorces, so let's not make it worse through changing definitions to allow any life choice that anybody could come up with.

It would be nice if you actually UNDERSTOOD the history you tout. Much of that "stability" you claim existed had to do with women being nothing more than property.

Maybe it is time to get back to that "stability"...

patrickaa317 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote: The most stable relationship for the continuation of every society throughout history is one of one man with one woman for life. We've already done irreparable harm to that through no-fault divorces, so let's not make it worse through changing definitions to allow any life choice that anybody could come up with.

It would be nice if you actually UNDERSTOOD the history you tout. Much of that "stability" you claim existed had to do with women being nothing more than property.

Maybe it is time to get back to that "stability"...

That's a joke by the way. Don't get all bent out of shape on it.

It would have been funnier, if it wasn't so believable an opinion to see you espousing.

Timminz wrote:It would have been funnier, if it wasn't so believable an opinion to see you espousing.

Exactly.. except it was Nightstrike espousing the opinion, not patric

Night Strike, do you see women as property?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Timminz wrote:It would have been funnier, if it wasn't so believable an opinion to see you espousing.

Exactly.

Please show me how I espoused that opinion.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Timminz wrote:It would have been funnier, if it wasn't so believable an opinion to see you espousing.

Exactly.. except it was Nightstrike espousing the opinion, not patric

Thank you Player for the edit and also the apology via PM.

Night Strike wrote:Player, you force your definitions of morals on everybody every single day through your beliefs in redistributive government control, so there's no reason to even start down that path.

LOL... if I want something I am "imposing my will".. but when you want it somehow its not??? Even if what you wish has actually nothing to do with you at all (or are you saying you are homosexual now???)

Night Strike wrote:And I never said that homosexual relations should be outlawed.

and I never said you did say that, so why bother bringing up the irrelevant point (a strawman, maybe?).

Night Strike wrote: I simply said that we as a society should not be forced to include those relations in the definition of marriage.

No, actually you are saying that the government cannot recognize these marriages or offer them the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy without special proclomations or laws that deal only with homosexuals.

NO ONE is saying you, as individual have to like or agree with homosexual marriage.. any more than anyone will force you to like a marriage between a satanist and a Christian or any other people who wish to marry. This is about government acknowledgements.

Night Strike wrote:The definition of marriage has to be changed for over 95% of the population in order to accommodate the 1-2% of homosexuals?

Well it already was changed to mean just mean and women in this country for years. (see, contrary to what you wish to assert, other forms of marriage do predate the current model you tout and I live).

Later was changed to add in mixed race as allowed, even though there are still only a handful of people who marry those of other acknowledged races today. Those changes came about because those people felt it was oppressive to deny them the recognition. Homosexual couples feel they are being denied things heterosexuals enjoy without effort.. and they are correct, so why not add them?

Night Strike wrote: Why don't we also change it to allow for polygamy?

Well, #1 what does that have to do with homosexuals.

However, I will answer:
Because polygamists produce far more children than they can honestly take care of. Because in order to feed the polygamist lifestyle, young men have to be booted out and younger women recruited..often down to quite young women, those we consider below the age of consent. Unlike the claims you make about homosexuality, those things are born out by history repeatedly.

However, that said, if those problems are dealt with in some sane way, then maybe we should consider legalizing it. It is not, however, the current debate.

Night Strike wrote:The most stable relationship for the continuation of every society throughout history is one of one man with one woman for life.

That is not true. Marriage can involve many kinds of relationships and associations. The space here is too limited to get into all of that, but the biggest thing promoting stability is that those in the relationship are happy therein.

That brings us back to the biggest problem with your assertion. Its not really true. Sure, divorces were infrequent in the past, but that tends to happen when the only real "options" women face are to be a prostitute, pretend to be a boy, hope to be taken in by a relative (often not really an option due to the disgrace issue) or starve. The exceptions were extremely few. That kind of "stability" was not, in fact, healthy for any. The cycle of abuse was often perpetuated, is still often perpetuated... and with implications you won't even bother to consider like a high proportion of women on welfare, etc. (also because welfare is geared towards women and children --but the above is part of why. Welfare was passed without any real debate at the time because people took it for granted that a widow had either to remarry, be a prostitute/work in some "uhealthy" occupation or be dependent). (waitresses, and such were not truly "respectable" for women back then.. tolerated when the woman had a child to support, etc... and in truth, women who waited often had to deal with a good deal of abuse as "part of their job").

Night Strike wrote:We've already done irreparable harm to that through no-fault divorces, so let's not make it worse through changing definitions to allow any life choice that anybody could come up with.

LOL
But, if the major harm is divorce, then why not allow homosexuals to marry and show the solidity of their unions?


And, AGAIN... no mention of real and true harm.

Just "it changes the definition" (and that is actually false if you look at the world, not just US/western european tradition)

patrickaa317 wrote:

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)

By being in favor of the State's law and even the national stance, which are both against the legal recognition of a homosexual couple's "marriage,"* in turn you are supporting a discriminatory law.

*(Marriage doesn't necessarily have to be defined along Christian lines. Many seem to conflate the state's legal aspect of marriage with the Christian definition of marriage, then they get all fussy about the issue.)

So, either you support the distribution of equal benefits to all "married" couples, or..

you support discriminating against a particular group on the basis of their sexual preferences.


Currently, you, Phatscotty, and NS are in favor of a discriminatory law/stance.

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

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

"bonobos" being monkeys.. nice try, just wrong.

Groups that have recognized homosexual marriages include some native American tribes, some African tribes,

From Wikki:

Anthropologists have struggled to come up with a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures.[29][30] Many proposed definitions have been criticized for failing to recognize the existence of same-sex marriage in some cultures, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.[30][31][32]

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

You don't even make sense here, but that's no news.

Phatscotty wrote:
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.

So what?

Again.. what harm does this rule do?

BigBallinStalin wrote:*(Marriage doesn't necessarily have to be defined along Christian lines. Many seem to conflate the state's legal aspect of marriage with the Christian definition of marriage, then they get all fussy about the issue.)

This isn't just fussiness; it's actually the crux of the issue. If Christians don't get to claim that state-defined marriage is the same thing as their ritual, then there is absolutely nothing to base such a discriminatory opinion on. All of the other arguments about marriage intending to further the purpose of procreation are weak at best. The only way to justify this discriminatory stance is to claim that it is a religious ritual, and as such we are justified in excluding whoever we want to. If you cannot do that, what reason is there at all that the Fourteenth Amendment wouldn't entitle gay couples to the same legal protections as straight couples?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

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)

By being in favor of the State's law and even the national stance, which are both against the legal recognition of a homosexual couple's "marriage,"* in turn you are supporting a discriminatory law.

*(Marriage doesn't necessarily have to be defined along Christian lines. Many seem to conflate the state's legal aspect of marriage with the Christian definition of marriage, then they get all fussy about the issue.)

So, either you support the distribution of equal benefits to all "married" couples, or..

you support discriminating against a particular group on the basis of their sexual preferences.


Currently, you, Phatscotty, and NS are in favor of a discriminatory law/stance.

I agree that marriage doesn't have to be defined along the "traditional" Christian lines (some Christian churches are advocating for gay marriage as much as the GLBT community so I don't want you thinking that all Christians are for the one man/one woman definition). And I am for all the equal benefits to all "married" couples, thus I am not discriminating at all. I am just not for allowing anyone and everyone to define marriage though.

patrickaa317 wrote:I am just not for allowing anyone and everyone to define marriage though.

I agree. Allowing everyone to have their say on public policy is almost like... democracy. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I am just not for allowing anyone and everyone to define marriage though.

I agree. Allowing everyone to have their say on public policy is almost like... democracy. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

If it's done through the constitutional way of defining what is marriage and what isn't, that is totally fine and I will agree with the result (I may not like it but I will go along with the outcome). Just because a certain group demands something, doesn't mean it should always be given to them.

If we were to take a national vote on marriage and it was decided to be only between one man & one woman would the gay marriage activists drop the issue or would they take it to the courts saying that we shouldn't be allowed to vote on how things affect others?

BigBallinStalin wrote:*(Marriage doesn't necessarily have to be defined along Christian lines. Many seem to conflate the state's legal aspect of marriage with the Christian definition of marriage, then they get all fussy about the issue.)

Correct. Personally, I don't care if they call it marriage...and frankly, I think anyone who holds that IT MUST BE CALLED MARRIAGE is just trying to be an ass when it's not necessary. What I do care about is that the same benefits/rights afforded to legal heterosexual unions should be afforded to legal homosexual unions.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Currently, you, Phatscotty, and NS are in favor of a discriminatory law/stance.

Correct.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I am just not for allowing anyone and everyone to define marriage though.

I agree. Allowing everyone to have their say on public policy is almost like... democracy. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

If it's done through the constitutional way of defining what is marriage and what isn't, that is totally fine and I will agree with the result (I may not like it but I will go along with the outcome). Just because a certain group demands something, doesn't mean it should always be given to them.

If we were to take a national vote on marriage and it was decided to be only between one man & one woman would the gay marriage activists drop the issue or would they take it to the courts saying that we shouldn't be allowed to vote on how things affect others?

Do you believe in the concept of "Tyranny of the Majority"?

patrickaa317 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I am just not for allowing anyone and everyone to define marriage though.

I agree. Allowing everyone to have their say on public policy is almost like... democracy. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

If it's done through the constitutional way of defining what is marriage and what isn't, that is totally fine and I will agree with the result (I may not like it but I will go along with the outcome). Just because a certain group demands something, doesn't mean it should always be given to them.

Haha, wow. "Just because African Americans demand civil rights, doesn't mean that it should always be given to them." "Just because homosexuals demand equal access to benefits given to heterosexual couples, doesn't mean it should always be given to them." "Just because child molesters demand the removal of laws forbidden acts of sex with minors, doesn't mean it should always be given to them."

Your statement ignores context. The justifications for providing EQUAL liberty by providing EQUAL access of the benefits to all married couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, are strong justifications. To go counter to providing equal access to those benefits means that you are discriminating along the lines of a couple's sexual preferences.

patrickaa317 wrote:If we were to take a national vote on marriage and it was decided to be only between one man & one woman would the gay marriage activists drop the issue or would they take it to the courts saying that we shouldn't be allowed to vote on how things affect others?

For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want and be entitled to equal benefits from legally recognized marriages. (I would support a more decentralized method that brings such votes and applies the laws only with districts within cities).

The arguments are clear. So, either you support equal access to the benefits for all legally married couples, or you discriminate against a couple's sexual preferences by denying the legal status of marriage to homosexual couples.

That choice is up to you. So far you have chosen discrimination because you support the oppression of the majority (as indicative in your above reply) and you support the state's right in deciding this matter (http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=147980&hilit=bigballinstalin&start=105#p3244445).

The popular opinion and the state's law are discriminatory, and since you agree with those methods, you are expressing your personal opinion to discriminate.

Just admit it.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:*(Marriage doesn't necessarily have to be defined along Christian lines. Many seem to conflate the state's legal aspect of marriage with the Christian definition of marriage, then they get all fussy about the issue.)

This isn't just fussiness; it's actually the crux of the issue. If Christians don't get to claim that state-defined marriage is the same thing as their ritual, then there is absolutely nothing to base such a discriminatory opinion on. All of the other arguments about marriage intending to further the purpose of procreation are weak at best. The only way to justify this discriminatory stance is to claim that it is a religious ritual, and as such we are justified in excluding whoever we want to. If you cannot do that, what reason is there at all that the Fourteenth Amendment wouldn't entitle gay couples to the same legal protections as straight couples?

Let me guess for many of their perspective:

Oh, what reason? For disliking those who are different from me based on their sexual preferences--regardless of what I type and say about liking gays and having homosexual friends. In actuality, I hide the truth of my discriminatory stance by favoring methods which indirectly support my discriminatory stance.

I'm not discriminating! It's the state and/or the majority which discriminates! I just happen to agree with those methods, which somehow conveniently align with my personal prejudices!!

BigBallinStalin wrote:For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want. The arguments are clear.

So you would be cool with polygamy and incestual marriage (hetero or homo) as long as both parties agree?

patrickaa317 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want. The arguments are clear.

So you would be cool with polygamy and incestual marriage (hetero or homo) as long as both parties agree?

You still haven't quite explained how you think homosexual marriage opens the door to homosexual incestuous marriage, while heterosexual marriage has managed to avoid that door being opened.

What do you see as the primary difference between them that would open the door to incest in the case of homosexual marriage, but not in the case of heterosexual marriage?

You've kind of made this your talking point- what's the reasoning behind it? It kind of looks very strongly like you have an irrational fear of homosexuals getting this right, given that your concern doesn't really extend to heterosexual marriage opening a door to heterosexual incest.

So, why the double standard?

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want. The arguments are clear.

So you would be cool with polygamy and incestual marriage (hetero or homo) as long as both parties agree?

You still haven't quite explained how you think homosexual marriage opens the door to homosexual incestuous marriage, while heterosexual marriage has managed to avoid that door being opened.

What do you see as the primary difference between them that would open the door to incest in the case of homosexual marriage, but not in the case of heterosexual marriage?

You've kind of made this your talking point- what's the reasoning behind it? It kind of looks very strongly like you have an irrational fear of homosexuals getting this right, given that your concern doesn't really extend to heterosexual marriage opening a door to heterosexual incest.

Heterosexual incest can be deemed a social concern due to the reproductive issues it carries with it which is why it is illegal in the vast majority of states and nation while the reproductive concern is not an issue for incestual homosexual relationships yet no gay marriage supporters will come out and say whether they feel male cousins should be allowed to marry or not.

So what is your stance on two male cousins, brothers, nephew/uncle, wanting to get married?

patrickaa317 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want. The arguments are clear.

So you would be cool with polygamy and incestual marriage (hetero or homo) as long as both parties agree?

Before I answer, you need to realize that you're not being honest with yourself (whether that's intentional or unintentional is unknown). You have failed to publicly recognize that your stance on legal homosexual marriages is discriminatory.


So, admit that your stance is discriminatory, and in exchange, I'll entertain your question.


EDIT: thx, Sym