Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: i.e, BDSM isn't what I'd describe as paraphilic.

Word. You probably have a different dictionary than everybody else though...

OK, again, we're entering unhelpful semantics here. The intent of my use of "paraphilic" and it's traditional extent are incronguent, I grant. Nonetheless, I believe I've satisfactorily explained the essential dichotomy I recognise between sexual fetish within a traditional man-woman relationship of which BDSM is only a small part confined to the bedroom, and the relationship-defining category (i.e heterosexual, homosexual, paedophilic, incestuous, etc...).

If your use of the word isn't the commonly accepted definition of that word, then you simply shouldn't use it.

And I'm letting slide the fact you're saying a BDSM relationship is the traditional man-woman relationship. Shit, I suppose a man who does the house-work and raises the kids and a woman earning the living is then also a traditional man-woman relationship.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:As an aside: You say marriage doesn't denote any founding of a family unit. If you can prove this using the laws etc.. of the country your proposing to introduce this "marriage" for gays into, I'd support the gay "marriage", cimply because semantically, the meaning of marriage has morphed into a basic Civil Union. So by all means: a "marriage" which only gives them rights to easier inheritance etc, pourquoi pas? But I believe only a fundamentally insecure and unhealthy society grants such meaningless marriages(i.e marriage as a civil institution in that country is so worthless and debased, giving it's recognition to gays is not an issue).

Oh you mean like western society?

I don't get it: You keep arguing against giving gay couples the right to marriage in the basic civil union sense that I would get when I married a girl, but then say you're not against it?

No, I have no prblems with civil unions, it's only the implications of society giving gays "marriage" I object to.

Yes I see that. But the problem is that "Marriage" in our society is exactly like a civil union. A marriage as given by the state (and society thus) is a civil union. Religious marriage is ofcourse something totally different, but that's not done by the state but by the churches and has no legal meaning.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Would you regard that as non-discriminatory legislation Nappy? After all, it applies to everyone equally doesn't it?

The intent of the legislation may not be discriminatory. It's extent may be, but then, inevitably, all laws have some discriminatory extents.

(Snorri)Then obviously the Netherlands has shit social institutions which are soiled by their emptiness to such an extent I really wouldn't care if you applied them to gays.

That or you're misleading me.

Well then congratulations, you embrace gay marriage.

Sure, you oppose it on some subjective semantic personal level, because you don't think it 'feels' like a marriage to you. But you don't deny that legally it's the right thing to grant them as marriages, because in the UK there's no authority whatsoever to support your personal view as being the correct one...

Let's ring them bells Nappy, finally we can be together forever.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Well then congratulations, you embrace gay marriage.

Sure, you oppose it on some subjective semantic personal level, because you don't think it 'feels' like a marriage to you. But you don't deny that legally it's the right thing to grant them as marriages, because in the UK there's no authority whatsoever to support your personal view as being the correct one...

Let's ring them bells Nappy, finally we can be together forever.

1/ Not until you show me with some impressive and suave lawyer-man references that British marriages are no different to Civil Unions/do not imply any familial recognition.
2/ If you do that, I wouldn't consider it marriage, and if possible, would vote into power individuals who would change the institution of marriage to suit my (correct) view of it and not grant such a marriage to gays.
3/ I'm pretty confident I oppose gay marriage under the law of my own country (for the above stated reasons).

Napoleon Ier wrote:1/ Not until you show me with some impressive and suave lawyer-man references that British marriages are no different to Civil Unions/do not imply any familial recognition.

Well why don't you? Given that you're arguing so hard to prove that there's some real dichotomy.

I just regard the division as being one of 'slippery semantics'... and I see no evidence to the contrary so far.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:1/ Not until you show me with some impressive and suave lawyer-man references that British marriages are no different to Civil Unions/do not imply any familial recognition.

Well why don't you? Given that you're arguing so hard to prove that there's some real dichotomy.

I just regard the division as being one of 'slippery semantics'... and I see no evidence to the contrary so far.

I'm not, I'm arguing there should be a dichotomy in a good society. Obviously I understand you may not be arsed to prove it to me, though I'm sure you could provide a compelling case for and against.

Also, I know you don't particularily like me, but seriously, I'm never going into law or doing a law degree (I've seen what it's done to some people close to me, and it's put me off for life), but I still really want to understand the British system of Common Law, ecause I feel completel retarded in the legal domain (with some justification, as you are finding out). I understand you cannot be arsed to explain, but are there decent books I should read or something? If you do set me some homework, I can help you win debates about gold with xtra and everything, yeh?

I love the irony of a 15 year old kid arguing a point when he has little experience of life, no experience of marriage and the probability is that his only sexual experience has been homosexual

Napoleon Ier wrote:(Snorri)Then obviously the Netherlands has shit social institutions which are soiled by their emptiness to such an extent I really wouldn't care if you applied them to gays.

That or you're misleading me.

Well obviously you sort of missed point. I meant that marriage in my country (and I believe lots of others too) is a union by civil law. You could justify calling it a civil union and reserving the name marriage for religious things, but frankly that's just bullshit semantics.

The state doesn't really care whether the two people getting married actually love eachother, though since most of the thing is really only important for people who love eachother it doesn't matter probably, simply because it's not an organism which could actually do that. Marriage means something to the people getting married, but in the end everything the paper solves is a lot less legal mumbo-jumbo for the state and makes everything a lot easier. It's not about creating "family-units" or promoting family values or whatever, it's simply what people want for themselves.

Basically, civil marriage is there because people want it as it makes their lives easier. If it didn't exist we'd have to invent it.



You can't claim civil marriage is different in other countries for the state. (I.e. possibly people in those countries might feel it's different, but we're not dealing with them.)

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:(Snorri)Then obviously the Netherlands has shit social institutions which are soiled by their emptiness to such an extent I really wouldn't care if you applied them to gays.

That or you're misleading me.

Well obviously you sort of missed point. I meant that marriage in my country (and I believe lots of others too) is a union by civil law. You could justify calling it a civil union and reserving the name marriage for religious things, but frankly that's just bullshit semantics.

The state doesn't really care whether the two people getting married actually love eachother, though since most of the thing is really only important for people who love eachother it doesn't matter probably, simply because it's not an organism which could actually do that. Marriage means something to the people getting married, but in the end everything the paper solves is a lot less legal mumbo-jumbo for the state and makes everything a lot easier. It's not about creating "family-units" or promoting family values or whatever, it's simply what people want for themselves.

Basically, civil marriage is there because people want it as it makes their lives easier. If it didn't exist we'd have to invent it.



You can't claim civil marriage is different in other countries for the state. (I.e. possibly people in those countries might feel it's different, but we're not dealing with them.)

Well, I can, and it is. For example, it some countries, like mine, family union is strongly implied (i.e, they can adopt).

Napoleon Ier wrote:I know you don't particularily like me

That's not really true...

Napoleon Ier wrote:are there decent books I should read or something?

Can't go wrong with a quick blitz through an A-level law textbook... though I'm sure I could find you the name of a decent 'intro to law' text if you really fancy it.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Well, I can, and it is. For example, it some countries, like mine, family union is strongly implied (i.e, they can adopt).

Well obviously they can adopt here too. You're implying that that screams YOU ARE OK TO MAKE FAMILY YES when it merely implies that the child would have a decent support.

It's not "Go make a family", it's "well if you want a family, you could provided you pass the adoption-program".


I'm curious, are you implying that a orphan-home is a better environment for kids than a loving family? And are you saying that if a woman realises she's gay after having a baby and raising it with her new spouse is evil and harmfull to the child? (More harmfull then her raising it on her own?)

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I know you don't particularily like me

That's not really true...

Napoleon Ier wrote:are there decent books I should read or something?

Can't go wrong with a quick blitz through an A-level law textbook... though I'm sure I could find you the name of a decent 'intro to law' text if you really fancy it.

Yeah, that'd be cool. Just you know, something light and basic so I can discourse slighly more passably on the subject. Or whatever you think I should/could read really.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Well, I can, and it is. For example, it some countries, like mine, family union is strongly implied (i.e, they can adopt).

Well obviously they can adopt here too. You're implying that that screams YOU ARE OK TO MAKE FAMILY YES when it merely implies that the child would have a decent support.

It's not "Go make a family", it's "well if you want a family, you could provided you pass the adoption-program".


I'm curious, are you implying that a orphan-home is a better environment for kids than a loving family? And are you saying that if a woman realises she's gay after having a baby and raising it with her new spouse is evil and harmfull to the child? (More harmfull then her raising it on her own?)

Maybe. I was just providing an example. Though seeing as there's no shortage of prospective parents, I don't really see the pertinence of your (aleit hearstring plucking) storiesof gays discwiminated against.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Maybe. I was just providing an example. Though seeing as there's no shortage of prospective parents, I don't really see the pertinence of your (aleit hearstring plucking) storiesof gays discwiminated against.

Maybe in your country , but here there are thousands and thousands of children in foster care.. and they tend to get bounced around from place to place to place to place, often without contact with siblings.

The requirements to become a foster parent are pretty strict. Requirements to adopt, even stricter. Homosexuality IS reason for denial in some states (Florida, for example), but where it is allowed, the children are well cared for, generally loved and in as good a shape or better than those in other types of homes.

I just wonder why we ban poligamy and yet same-sex marriage is going to be legalized... ? I mean, from a healthy parenting perspective, and yes this is not PC, having 4-5 "moms" and one dad is about the same IMHO as having 2 "dads" or 2 "moms".

Now in practice I realize that in its practice, poligamy is a magnet for men who want to trap and dominate women, and particularly they depend on getting to the women when their youth and lack of life-experience makes them susceptible to such mistreatments, but the same thing could be said about some manifestations of homosexuality where, particularly in college campus settings, it becomes a way to forge a social identity for ones self (not judging here whether that's as bad or good as a freely made decision... even geeks who join the computer club are basically trying to get by in the same way, which is certainly not bad! ...only that you can have a situation where a child raised in a homosexual culture (I don't mean just a family of 2 moms or 2 dads, but in a community of homosexuals where everyone is like that) would have some peer pressure to follow the pattern in order to feel like they belong.

At some point, probably once we get beyond the lame question of whether or not homosexuals can get a piece of paper to hang on the wall saying they are married, I hope that we'll actually see some real legit outcome data as to whether or not in fact there is any correlation between sexuality of parent and sexuality of child, controlling for genetics, etc.

Snorri1234 wrote:I meant that marriage in my country (and I believe lots of others too) is a union by civil law. You could justify calling it a civil union and reserving the name marriage for religious things, but frankly that's just bullshit semantics.

I thought that it was defined as a straight-up marriage over there in the Netherlands. It's still only defined as a civil union?

Looking at the poll, I'm honestly SHOCKED by the majority view here. I couldn't take the time to read the entire 77 pages, but could someone summarize for me? Is this bigoted view due to religious fear of not having members procreate, thus increasing the number of believers, or is it just closeted gays being afraid of themselves and not being able to accept homosexuality on the grounds of "It might tempt me"?

Timminz, just as I pointed out a few pages ago. The poll results here are pretty much on standard with the way this has gone to vote. In AR in 2004 when this came up for vote, 75% were against gay marriage, when it came to vote in Oregon, 57% were against it. As I said, this isn't just the very conservative religous right, that seems to hold the view, it is a majority of Americans. Regardless of what the press, or people would have people beleive, the fact is, that a majority of Americans have voted over and over, to define "Marriage" as between one Man, and one Woman.

I really am not going to get into this fight about it, in fact in the JF forum there is a discussion going on about this right now, and I states that I don't think this falls into something that our government should be making the descision on, but, at the same time, I really dislike the people on the gay marriage side, trying to pass their idea off as being something that "everyone" wants, and that only the close minded Christians are against gay marriage. The numbers are not lying, the percentage of voters who have choosen to ask their states to define marriage as a man/women thing, is far higher than the number of people who are active Christians.

dewey316 wrote:Timminz, just as I pointed out a few pages ago. The poll results here are pretty much on standard with the way this has gone to vote. In AR in 2004 when this came up for vote, 75% were against gay marriage, when it came to vote in Oregon, 57% were against it. As I said, this isn't just the very conservative religous right, that seems to hold the view, it is a majority of Americans. Regardless of what the press, or people would have people beleive, the fact is, that a majority of Americans have voted over and over, to define "Marriage" as between one Man, and one Woman.

I really am not going to get into this fight about it, in fact in the JF forum there is a discussion going on about this right now, and I states that I don't think this falls into something that our government should be making the descision on, but, at the same time, I really dislike the people on the gay marriage side, trying to pass their idea off as being something that "everyone" wants, and that only the close minded Christians are against gay marriage. The numbers are not lying, the percentage of voters who have choosen to ask their states to define marriage as a man/women thing, is far higher than the number of people who are active Christians.

ok. I like that Americans are so keen on their country. We don't need any more bigotry up north.

Where are you from Timminz?

The issue when it has gone to vote, in normally liberal states, or conservative states, has had a similar outcome, when you are talking 14-15 point or even higher defeats on this stuff, that is a pretty overwhelming majority (at least when it comes to compared to many many other votes that these states have). Even in The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, in 2000, with a 61% vote, they voted the same way. As I said, vote after vote after vote, it comes out the same way.

I think this comes down less to a like/dislike of the homosexual lifestyle, and more down to a majority of voting Americans, are voting to try to preserve the nuclear family. It is generaly accepted that children raised in the typical nuclear family, are less likely to be involved in crime/etc, and I think that in reallity, a lot of people are trying to preserve that as a way of looking out for their neigborhood, and city, etc. I think that if you honestly think that this is purely a religion vs homosexual debate, you would be keeping a much to narrow focus when you are looking at what would really get 61% of Californians, or 57% or Oregonians, or 75% of Arkansonians (is that the word?), to want to put verbage in their states constitution that defines the scope of marriage to being between one man, and one woman.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:I meant that marriage in my country (and I believe lots of others too) is a union by civil law. You could justify calling it a civil union and reserving the name marriage for religious things, but frankly that's just bullshit semantics.

I thought that it was defined as a straight-up marriage over there in the Netherlands. It's still only defined as a civil union?

It is a marriage, but that's because we don't have something that is a civil union. I was talking about the fact that it's civil and doesn't mean it promotes family units or whatever.

Also, who else has this problem?

Federal Government needs to stay out of it. Gay marriage should be left up to the state as well as abortion rights. If California or Massachusetts wants to have Gay marriage, that's the choice of the people in those states. So let it be.

I refrained from jumping in this discussion for quite sometime, but I don't want to see a Constitutional Amendment making marriage between only a man and a woman. It should be left up to the state to determine such unions.

Religion should be kept separate from the state as well. We should abide by the Constitution in regards to law (not that anybody really cares anymore).

I am not at liberty to say if gay marriage is right or wrong. It is a moral issue that rests on opposing perspectives. In a country in which over half of people get divorced anyway, I don't think there is all that much respect in marriage nowadays, so what's the big deal. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sexual persuasion, then don't do it. Just like with abortion, don't get one!

I might not agree with a lot of things that people do, but if they have a right to do it, then so be it. In God We Trust, right? As long as their liberty does not infringe on mine or their neighbors rights, then let them do as they please. Just leave this issue up to the states to decide. The Federal government just needs to keep out of it!