Conquer Club

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, but how is marriage a right?

It isn't marriage itself, it is all of the government-enforced rights that are specifically tied into marriage.

government enforced rights? so...this is all about benefits?

The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

yes because marriage is the only way that happens, thats also the only purpose of mariage. Also homosexuals are incapable of reproduction amirght? or amiright?

they are unable to create a child together.

no, but neither can barren people, and yet nobody has a problem with them being able to marry. Not to put words in your mouth maybe you don't think barren people should be able to marry.

A homosexual couple could donate sperm, have a child through surrogate, adopt or if they're lesbians they could have a child through sperm donation.

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

That's a sad definition of marriage. I don't know how much attention you give to my posts- usually you seem to do your best to dodge them, but just give 10 seconds to thinking about your last post. Stop and look at it. For ten seconds. That's all.

Did you see anything? Did anything come to mind?

You might have noticed that it's the so called "defenders" of "traditional" marriage that want to make it "separate but equal", or who claim that it's not about love.

How about we allow gay people the right to marry and don't have some sort of separate but equal system when it comes to the rights granted by that marriage?

That's not unreasonable, is it?

Phatscotty probably has homosexual friends, so it's ok.

I love how you guys instantly start talking about my life and my friends and my lifestyle when I'm just talking about an issue

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, but how is marriage a right?

government enforced rights? so...this is all about benefits?

The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

yes because marriage is the only way that happens, thats also the only purpose of mariage. Also homosexuals are incapable of reproduction amirght? or amiright?

they are unable to create a child together.

no, but neither can barren people, and yet nobody has a problem with them being able to marry. Not to put words in your mouth maybe you don't think barren people should be able to marry.

A homosexual couple could donate sperm, have a child through surrogate, adopt or if they're lesbians they could have a child through sperm donation.

they can not create one together. that's all I said.

I'm all for states rights. Each state can choose for themselves. No problem.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

That's a sad definition of marriage.

That is not a definition of marriage at all. It's a specific reason for one of the many benefits that come with marriage.

If that were the case, then children borne out of wedlock would create those same benefits. Why don't they?

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

That's a sad definition of marriage. I don't know how much attention you give to my posts- usually you seem to do your best to dodge them, but just give 10 seconds to thinking about your last post. Stop and look at it. For ten seconds. That's all.

Did you see anything? Did anything come to mind?

You might have noticed that it's the so called "defenders" of "traditional" marriage that want to make it "separate but equal", or who claim that it's not about love.

How about we allow gay people the right to marry and don't have some sort of separate but equal system when it comes to the rights granted by that marriage?

That's not unreasonable, is it?

Phatscotty probably has homosexual friends, so it's ok.

I love how you guys instantly start talking about my life and my friends and my lifestyle when I'm just talking about an issue

No, you're LYING about an issue. When you start discussing it, then we'll be able to take you seriously.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:It isn't marriage itself, it is all of the government-enforced rights that are specifically tied into marriage.

government enforced rights? so...this is all about benefits?

The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

yes because marriage is the only way that happens, thats also the only purpose of mariage. Also homosexuals are incapable of reproduction amirght? or amiright?

they are unable to create a child together.

no, but neither can barren people, and yet nobody has a problem with them being able to marry. Not to put words in your mouth maybe you don't think barren people should be able to marry.

A homosexual couple could donate sperm, have a child through surrogate, adopt or if they're lesbians they could have a child through sperm donation.

Phatscotty, in the drug tests and welfare you claimed that the government has right to check how its funds are used and revoke them if it's the funds aren't for the intended purpose.

Since you claim that the only purpose of marriage is creating children, under your logic government has the right to check whether a married couple is barren or attempting children, and if it fails either test government should revoke all the tax rebates and annul the marriage.

The thing is Scotty, you talk liberty and freedom and in general terms, but your philosophy is based on basely and solely on YOU. You don't give a shit about the plight of the gays, and display some pretty fucking backwards thinking: as soon as you found out that a colleague is gay you assumed he was into you, and you really don't give a shit about freedom, equality unless it directly concerns you.

tl; dr You are a selfish, short-sighted hypocrite

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

That's a sad definition of marriage. I don't know how much attention you give to my posts- usually you seem to do your best to dodge them, but just give 10 seconds to thinking about your last post. Stop and look at it. For ten seconds. That's all.

Did you see anything? Did anything come to mind?

You might have noticed that it's the so called "defenders" of "traditional" marriage that want to make it "separate but equal", or who claim that it's not about love.

How about we allow gay people the right to marry and don't have some sort of separate but equal system when it comes to the rights granted by that marriage?

That's not unreasonable, is it?

Phatscotty probably has homosexual friends, so it's ok.

I love how you guys instantly start talking about my life and my friends and my lifestyle when I'm just talking about an issue

No, you're LYING about an issue. When you start discussing it, then we'll be able to take you seriously.

what?

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
they are unable to create a child together.

no, but neither can barren people, and yet nobody has a problem with them being able to marry. Not to put words in your mouth maybe you don't think barren people should be able to marry.

A homosexual couple could donate sperm, have a child through surrogate, adopt or if they're lesbians they could have a child through sperm donation.

they can not create one together. that's all I said.

Is that what you think marriage should be? How are you on infertile heterosexuals getting married?

I know this question came up before, but you kind of dodged it. A worse man than I might accuse you of cowardice and hypocrisy. That you'll simply restate something you posted before rather than dealing with a question, or maybe, if we're lucky- some emoticons.

While more cynical posters than I may well be posting bets between "deafening silence" and "dodging the question" as responses from you, I will keep the faith.

I opt for "feigned confusion".

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
no, but neither can barren people, and yet nobody has a problem with them being able to marry. Not to put words in your mouth maybe you don't think barren people should be able to marry.

A homosexual couple could donate sperm, have a child through surrogate, adopt or if they're lesbians they could have a child through sperm donation.

they can not create one together. that's all I said.

Is that what you think marriage should be?

What?

Symmetry wrote:I opt for "feigned confusion".

quote="Phatscotty"]what?

Phatscotty wrote:That's impressive

Phatscotty: cause this needed bumping

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:government enforced rights? so...this is all about benefits?

The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

yes because marriage is the only way that happens, thats also the only purpose of mariage. Also homosexuals are incapable of reproduction amirght? or amiright?

they are unable to create a child together.

no, but neither can barren people, and yet nobody has a problem with them being able to marry. Not to put words in your mouth maybe you don't think barren people should be able to marry.

A homosexual couple could donate sperm, have a child through surrogate, adopt or if they're lesbians they could have a child through sperm donation.

Phatscotty, in the drug tests and welfare you claimed that the government has right to check how its funds are used and revoke them if it's the funds aren't for the intended purpose.

Since you claim that the only purpose of marriage is creating children, under your logic government has the right to check whether a married couple is barren or attempting children, and if it fails either test government should revoke all the tax rebates and annul the marriage.

The thing is Scotty, you talk liberty and freedom and in general terms, but your philosophy is based on basely and solely on YOU. You don't give a shit about the plight of the gays, and display some pretty fucking backwards thinking: as soon as you found out that a colleague is gay you assumed he was into you, and you really don't give a shit about freedom, equality unless it directly concerns you.

tl; dr You are a selfish, short-sighted hypocrite

I have said TWO TIMES, it is one specific example of one of many benefits.

Are you guys completely unable to talk about this?

You guys are just cramming words in my mouth with fervor.

Here, how about a fresh start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

This is still all states rights for me. Woo hoo marry on gays in NY! So long as the people have a say, and if the state wants to do it, boom, Weinning. I will refer to Ms. California Carrie Prejean

The government shouldn't have passed this bill.

Instead, they should have completely eliminated the legal implications of marriage.

natty_dread wrote:Religious leaders throw hissy fits

Fuck those intolerant bastards.

I'm glad to see NY wake up. In the kinder, gentler version of the Planet, people of all persuasions will share the same rights. Maybe once this is universally sorted out --that people who's lifestyles don't fit the religious "norm" can expect the same human dignities in life as other citizens, including equal rights under the law-- energy can be channeled away from this issue to figure out a way that no person or child any where in the World ever goes to sleep hungry.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:That's a sad definition of marriage. I don't know how much attention you give to my posts- usually you seem to do your best to dodge them, but just give 10 seconds to thinking about your last post. Stop and look at it. For ten seconds. That's all.

Did you see anything? Did anything come to mind?

You might have noticed that it's the so called "defenders" of "traditional" marriage that want to make it "separate but equal", or who claim that it's not about love.

How about we allow gay people the right to marry and don't have some sort of separate but equal system when it comes to the rights granted by that marriage?

That's not unreasonable, is it?

Phatscotty probably has homosexual friends, so it's ok.

I love how you guys instantly start talking about my life and my friends and my lifestyle when I'm just talking about an issue

No, you're LYING about an issue. When you start discussing it, then we'll be able to take you seriously.

what?

I believe I stated it pretty clearly. Try reading it again, if that will help.

Phatscotty wrote:I have said TWO TIMES, it is one specific example of one of many benefits.

Are you guys completely unable to talk about this?

You guys are just cramming words in my mouth with fervor.

Here, how about a fresh start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

This is still all states rights for me. Woo hoo marry on gays in NY! So long as the people have a say, and if the state wants to do it, boom, Weinning. I will refer to Ms. California Carrie Prejean

You can assume faux indignation and storm off, but that's not fooling anyone that your argumetns against gay marriage were torn to pieces and you once again couldn't accept that you were wrong

Phatscotty wrote:I have said TWO TIMES, it is one specific example of one of many benefits.

Are you guys completely unable to talk about this?

You guys are just cramming words in my mouth with fervor.

We're doing no such thing. What we are doing is showing you your own hypocricy, which you are avoiding looking at as if it were the Medusa. Keep dodging though, keep dodging! It's all you've got left.

Phatscotty wrote:I have said TWO TIMES, it is one specific example of one of many benefits.

Are you guys completely unable to talk about this?

You guys are just cramming words in my mouth with fervor.

Here, how about a fresh start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

This is still all states rights for me. Woo hoo marry on gays in NY! So long as the people have a say, and if the state wants to do it, boom, Weinning. I will refer to Ms. California Carrie Prejean

State rights also enforced slavery at one time.

The issue is not so much about State rights because, in light of such issues, liberty and freedom are more important than the government's law or the norms and values of a culture's prejudiced majority.

So, the question stands: are you more for State rights or more for liberty and freedom?

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I have said TWO TIMES, it is one specific example of one of many benefits.

Are you guys completely unable to talk about this?

You guys are just cramming words in my mouth with fervor.

We're doing no such thing. What we are doing is showing you your own hypocricy, which you are avoiding looking at as if it were the Medusa. Keep dodging though, keep dodging! It's all you've got left.

You aren't thinking straight. We are nowhere near on the same page, and since it my response and you are replying to it, I will just have to leave it at MISS

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I have said TWO TIMES, it is one specific example of one of many benefits.

Are you guys completely unable to talk about this?

You guys are just cramming words in my mouth with fervor.

Here, how about a fresh start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

This is still all states rights for me. Woo hoo marry on gays in NY! So long as the people have a say, and if the state wants to do it, boom, Weinning. I will refer to Ms. California Carrie Prejean

State rights also enforced slavery at one time.

The issue is not so much about State rights because, in light of such issues, liberty and freedom are more important than the government's law or the norms and values of a culture's prejudiced majority.

So, the question stands: are you more for State rights or more for liberty and freedom?

States rights support does not mean that supporters think the states will always get it right every time. However, the People get it right, most of the time.

Slavery was the way of the world. Are you asking how dare a state support slavery when it was born into slavery and that was all it knew?

States rights are a bulwark of liberty and freedom in the American system.

Phatscotty wrote:
States rights are a bulwark of liberty and freedom in the American system.

LOL

Not even my "nice" Mississippi neighbors (the ones that told me how nice it was that a white person bought my house) went THAT far!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
States rights are a bulwark of liberty and freedom in the American system.

States rights support does not mean that supporters think the states will always get it right every time. However, the People get it right, most of the time.

LOL

Not even my "nice" Mississippi neighbors (the ones that told me how nice it was that a white person bought my house) went THAT far!

wtf does race have to do with states rights?

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
States rights are a bulwark of liberty and freedom in the American system.

States rights support does not mean that supporters think the states will always get it right every time. However, the People get it right, most of the time.

LOL

Not even my "nice" Mississippi neighbors (the ones that told me how nice it was that a white person bought my house) went THAT far!

wtf does race have to do with states rights?

History. It is still the major cry of racists down south.

Not saying everyone wanting states' rights is a racist, but racists do see state's rights as "their" issue.

BBS is spot on. State rights should NEVER interfere with fundamental rights of citizens. I'm not commenting on whether marriage is such a right, just saying that it would be ludicrous now to say that states should be allowed to individually choose to ban inter-racial marriages, say. Unless you think they should be able to, Phatscotty?

Metsfanmax wrote:BBS is spot on. State rights should NEVER interfere with fundamental rights of citizens. I'm not commenting on whether marriage is such a right, just saying that it would be ludicrous now to say that states should be allowed to individually choose to ban inter-racial marriages, say. Unless you think they should be able to, Phatscotty?

no. IDK about all that. the race issue on a state law level is in our countries past and even back then was only practiced by a handful of states, and never practiced by a majority of states.

"All men are created equal" was an idea who's time had come.

The idea and practice that people can make their own laws (locally and state level, city and county)and live under them, and that there is a process such as referendums and amendments. That works good in the freedom and liberty area.

What do you think?