Conquer Club

MeDeFe wrote:

Nataki Yiro wrote:I don't think he is a bad Christian for liking homosexuality Bradley... >_>

I don't know... I'm tied up with that and how much he argues...

erm, "she"

She? Ahh...mais tout devient clair!

Neoteny wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Polygamy should also be legal. To deny one the right to marry multiple partners in many instances infringes on religious freedom. And who is hurt by it, so long as all involved are consensual?

...

Oddly enough, I think it's mostly religious people who have major issues with polygamy.

The tax payer who has to pay for the muzzes who breed like fookin' rabbits and leech off our welfare states. Aside from the moral implications of social recognition of multiple (or for that matter, male) partners: it just ain't right. It weakens society by recognises unnatural and unstable partnerships of sexual deviants.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Polygamy should also be legal. To deny one the right to marry multiple partners in many instances infringes on religious freedom. And who is hurt by it, so long as all involved are consensual?

...

Oddly enough, I think it's mostly religious people who have major issues with polygamy.

The tax payer who has to pay for the muzzes who breed like fookin' rabbits and leech off our welfare states. Aside from the moral implications of social recognition of multiple (or for that matter, male) partners: it just ain't right. It weakens society by recognises unnatural and unstable partnerships of sexual deviants.

Unnatural? According to who?

Me, fascists, rednecks, Ted Haggard...y'know, the usual suspects.

Sure, I'd marry a gay man. If we were in love, of course.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Me, fascists, rednecks, Ted Haggard...y'know, the usual suspects.

You've got a thing for sources, Nappy.

btownmeggy wrote:Sure, I'd marry a gay man. If we were in love, of course.

And I sincerely believe any male has the right to marry you if you consent, gay or not. That's the subtle distinction the latte liberals fail to grasp: no-one is discriminating against any group, because no-one can marry someone of the same sex, and everyone can marry someone (not related to them and limited to one) of the opposite sex.

Neoteny wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Me, fascists, rednecks, Ted Haggard...y'know, the usual suspects.

You've got a thing for sources, Nappy.

Well, that way he has more authority than every single person he agrees with. He is the closest thing we have to an expert in the field.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:Sure, I'd marry a gay man. If we were in love, of course.

And I sincerely believe any male has the right to marry you if you consent, gay or not. That's the subtle distinction the latte liberals fail to grasp: no-one is discriminating against any group, because no-one can marry someone of the same sex, and everyone can marry someone (not related to them and limited to one) of the opposite sex.

No Nappy, it means everyone is being discriminated against, but a large part of the population simply does not notice because they don't ever get into a situation where they want to marry someone of the same sex. I already pointed this out on one or two occasions but noone has deigned an answer so far.

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:Sure, I'd marry a gay man. If we were in love, of course.

And I sincerely believe any male has the right to marry you if you consent, gay or not. That's the subtle distinction the latte liberals fail to grasp: no-one is discriminating against any group, because no-one can marry someone of the same sex, and everyone can marry someone (not related to them and limited to one) of the opposite sex.

No Nappy, it means everyone is being discriminated against, but a large part of the population simply does not notice because they don't ever get into a situation where they want to marry someone of the same sex. I already pointed this out on one or two occasions but noone has deigned an answer so far.

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

(http://www.dictionary.com)

"Everyone" can't be discriminated against. Obv.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:And I sincerely believe any male has the right to marry you if you consent, gay or not. That's the subtle distinction the latte liberals fail to grasp: no-one is discriminating against any group, because no-one can marry someone of the same sex, and everyone can marry someone (not related to them and limited to one) of the opposite sex.

No Nappy, it means everyone is being discriminated against, but a large part of the population simply does not notice because they don't ever get into a situation where they want to marry someone of the same sex. I already pointed this out on one or two occasions but noone has deigned an answer so far.

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

(http://www.dictionary.com)

"Everyone" can't be discriminated against. Obv.

Then let me rephrase it and say that everyone's rights are being curtailed.

You hit the nail on the head McDeFe. When one person is not allowed to do as he or she wishes simply becuase others don't like the behavior ... as opposed to some real and present danger (as in drugs, etc.) then we are ALL being harmed, in one way or another.

And the suggestion that allowing homosexuals to legally marry would somehow "undermind" heterosexual relationships, families or marriage ... is without any ground but fear, fear based on lack on knowledge about real homosexual couples and families. If you wish to live your life based on fear ... you have harmed yourself far more than anyone else ever could.

Marriage isn't a right. If the law prohibited gay sex, then rights would be curtailed. But marriage is a social advantage that society accords to what it considers the basic family unit. Gay "marriage" would be an excuse for two paraphilic deviants to engage in their sodomisings whilst getting tax breaks for it.

I don't need to tell you how it'll harm us, as I've tried to explain to your queer-loving leftist-media-softened mind, it's you who must provide me with the evidence that recognising gay-marriage is advantageous to society.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Marriage isn't a right. If the law prohibited gay sex, then rights would be curtailed. But marriage is a social advantage that society accords to what it considers the basic family unit. Gay "marriage" would be an excuse for two paraphilic deviants to engage in their sodomisings whilst getting tax breaks for it.

i agree here that marriage isn't a right just like it isn't a right to drive a car. but isn't normal marriage an excuse for getting tax breaks as well? civil unions and the like are nothing more than a poor method of getting votes come election time.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Marriage isn't a right. If the law prohibited gay sex, then rights would be curtailed. But marriage is a social advantage that society accords to what it considers the basic family unit. Gay "marriage" would be an excuse for two paraphilic deviants to engage in their sodomisings whilst getting tax breaks for it.

You gotta be trolling.

savant wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Marriage isn't a right. If the law prohibited gay sex, then rights would be curtailed. But marriage is a social advantage that society accords to what it considers the basic family unit. Gay "marriage" would be an excuse for two paraphilic deviants to engage in their sodomisings whilst getting tax breaks for it.

i agree here that marriage isn't a right just like it isn't a right to drive a car. but isn't normal marriage an excuse for getting tax breaks as well? civil unions and the like are nothing more than a poor method of getting votes come election time.

To an extent. However "marriage" is a term with some pretty clear familial connotations, and hence I am loathe to advocate granting it's recognition onto paraphilic couples. You for example, oppose (I should hope) marriage between relatives: on the same grounds, I oppose marriage between same-sex individuals.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

savant wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Marriage isn't a right. If the law prohibited gay sex, then rights would be curtailed. But marriage is a social advantage that society accords to what it considers the basic family unit. Gay "marriage" would be an excuse for two paraphilic deviants to engage in their sodomisings whilst getting tax breaks for it.

i agree here that marriage isn't a right just like it isn't a right to drive a car. but isn't normal marriage an excuse for getting tax breaks as well? civil unions and the like are nothing more than a poor method of getting votes come election time.

To an extent. However "marriage" is a term with some pretty clear familial connotations, and hence I am loathe to advocate granting it's recognition onto paraphilic couples. You for example, oppose (I should hope) marriage between relatives: on the same grounds, I oppose marriage between same-sex individuals.

so are you somewhere implying that there can be no family entity without a marriage, which by your definition can only be of man and woman?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

savant wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Marriage isn't a right. If the law prohibited gay sex, then rights would be curtailed. But marriage is a social advantage that society accords to what it considers the basic family unit. Gay "marriage" would be an excuse for two paraphilic deviants to engage in their sodomisings whilst getting tax breaks for it.

i agree here that marriage isn't a right just like it isn't a right to drive a car. but isn't normal marriage an excuse for getting tax breaks as well? civil unions and the like are nothing more than a poor method of getting votes come election time.

To an extent. However "marriage" is a term with some pretty clear familial connotations, and hence I am loathe to advocate granting it's recognition onto paraphilic couples. You for example, oppose (I should hope) marriage between relatives: on the same grounds, I oppose marriage between same-sex individuals.

OK, I can completely understand the fact that you don't want to recognize gay marriage. In your eyes, and the eyes of many like you, marriage is specifically between a man and a woman. We could argue all day and into the next century about why one should or shouldn't. This is, btw, why I advocate that the government not recognize any marriage at all. In the eyes of our allegedly non church oriented government these should all be civil unions. Which, as it stand they are. The government has already rightly chosen to recognize gay unions in that respect.

My question is why should the government bother to support one and not the other? You can argue on and on about how gay marriages somehow damage society but you are quite plainly wrong. Wrong like up isn't down. Wrong like black isn't white. You are free to be repulsed. Of course, the irony is that banning gay marriages does nothing to save the likes of you from the "repulsion" associated with gay relationships. Gay men are free to be gay. Gay men are fee to french kiss in public right in front of your kids. Gay men are free to dress up like birds and dance in the streets in festivals. So, what exactly are you looking for?

I challenged you by saying the motivation of this is to say that we hetros are "better than them" and you called bullocks. So, what is the motivation? Do you honestly feel that it cheapens the meaning for those of us who have married someone from the opposite sex? I don't know about you, but there's one person and one person only who I give two shits about with respect to my marriage and that's the person I married. The rest of you can go piss off as far as I'm concerned. I also challenge anyone who feels their marriage suffers at all because of anything outside of their family take a long freaking look at that family.

America hangs it's collective hat on owning up to one's own self. The irony is that is one of the major claims of the party of the man in your avatar. So, why is it that that same party has devolved into a bunch of spineless pussies asking for the government to protect them from others?

btownmeggy wrote:Sure, I'd marry a gay man. If we were in love, of course.

Some of you will balk, "But that's unnatural!"

But how can you deny love when it knocks on your door?

Sure, our marriage wouldn't be typical, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Two consenting adults wanting to join their lives together... what business is it of yours what we do or do not do in the bedroom??

btownmeggy wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:Sure, I'd marry a gay man. If we were in love, of course.

Some of you will balk, "But that's unnatural!"

But how can you deny love when it knocks on your door?

Sure, our marriage wouldn't be typical, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Two consenting adults wanting to join their lives together... what business is it of yours what we do or do not do in the bedroom??

See, the real question is, will we allow a gay man to marry a gay woman? We can't let these homosexuals marry, as it will surely be a travesty.

btownmeggy wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:Sure, I'd marry a gay man. If we were in love, of course.

Some of you will balk, "But that's unnatural!"

But how can you deny love when it knocks on your door?

Sure, our marriage wouldn't be typical, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Two consenting adults wanting to join their lives together... what business is it of yours what we do or do not do in the bedroom??

No business of mine. Do what you want with him, I don't really care. Well, unless you infringe his rights. Even then. But I digress, the point is, I don't care, but if you want to marry another woman, then don't ask me as part of the collective members of the community to give your relationship official recognition. Capisce, meggsmeister?

detlef wrote:OK, I can completely understand the fact that you don't want to recognize gay marriage. In your eyes, and the eyes of many like you, marriage is specifically between a man and a woman. We could argue all day and into the next century about why one should or shouldn't. This is, btw, why I advocate that the government not recognize any marriage at all. In the eyes of our allegedly non church oriented government these should all be civil unions. Which, as it stand they are. The government has already rightly chosen to recognize gay unions in that respect.

My question is why should the government bother to support one and not the other? You can argue on and on about how gay marriages somehow damage society but you are quite plainly wrong. Wrong like up isn't down. Wrong like black isn't white. You are free to be repulsed. Of course, the irony is that banning gay marriages does nothing to save the likes of you from the "repulsion" associated with gay relationships. Gay men are free to be gay. Gay men are fee to french kiss in public right in front of your kids. Gay men are free to dress up like birds and dance in the streets in festivals. So, what exactly are you looking for?

I challenged you by saying the motivation of this is to say that we hetros are "better than them" and you called bullocks. So, what is the motivation? Do you honestly feel that it cheapens the meaning for those of us who have married someone from the opposite sex? I don't know about you, but there's one person and one person only who I give two shits about with respect to my marriage and that's the person I married. The rest of you can go piss off as far as I'm concerned. I also challenge anyone who feels their marriage suffers at all because of anything outside of their family take a long freaking look at that family.

America hangs it's collective hat on owning up to one's own self. The irony is that is one of the major claims of the party of the man in your avatar. So, why is it that that same party has devolved into a bunch of spineless pussies asking for the government to protect them from others?

OK, so you'd allow a sister to marry her brother?

He already did >_> <_<

Napoleon Ier wrote:

detlef wrote:OK, I can completely understand the fact that you don't want to recognize gay marriage. In your eyes, and the eyes of many like you, marriage is specifically between a man and a woman. We could argue all day and into the next century about why one should or shouldn't. This is, btw, why I advocate that the government not recognize any marriage at all. In the eyes of our allegedly non church oriented government these should all be civil unions. Which, as it stand they are. The government has already rightly chosen to recognize gay unions in that respect.

My question is why should the government bother to support one and not the other? You can argue on and on about how gay marriages somehow damage society but you are quite plainly wrong. Wrong like up isn't down. Wrong like black isn't white. You are free to be repulsed. Of course, the irony is that banning gay marriages does nothing to save the likes of you from the "repulsion" associated with gay relationships. Gay men are free to be gay. Gay men are fee to french kiss in public right in front of your kids. Gay men are free to dress up like birds and dance in the streets in festivals. So, what exactly are you looking for?

I challenged you by saying the motivation of this is to say that we hetros are "better than them" and you called bullocks. So, what is the motivation? Do you honestly feel that it cheapens the meaning for those of us who have married someone from the opposite sex? I don't know about you, but there's one person and one person only who I give two shits about with respect to my marriage and that's the person I married. The rest of you can go piss off as far as I'm concerned. I also challenge anyone who feels their marriage suffers at all because of anything outside of their family take a long freaking look at that family.

America hangs it's collective hat on owning up to one's own self. The irony is that is one of the major claims of the party of the man in your avatar. So, why is it that that same party has devolved into a bunch of spineless pussies asking for the government to protect them from others?

OK, so you'd allow a sister to marry her brother?

I think I saw this on an episode of House... I know we've been over this before, and we've already concluded that there is a rather large difference and the on situation is not applicable to the other.