Conquer Club

vodean wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

vodean wrote:marriage is kinda an outdated concept anyway... why dont we abolish it for all people and have people live together in informal civil unions... or hippie, cult-like societies where people collectively raise children and care for everyone's children equally.

North Carolina also banned civil unions for gay people.

only formal ones. gays can still live together and f*ck like bunnies

Of course, but why make that point? Did you think I, or any other poster was unaware that gay people can still live together?

I don't understand what you're trying to say, unless I do, and it's banal.

Symmetry wrote:

vodean wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

vodean wrote:marriage is kinda an outdated concept anyway... why dont we abolish it for all people and have people live together in informal civil unions... or hippie, cult-like societies where people collectively raise children and care for everyone's children equally.

North Carolina also banned civil unions for gay people.

only formal ones. gays can still live together and f*ck like bunnies

Of course, but why make that point? Did you think I, or any other poster was unaware that gay people can still live together?

I don't understand what you're trying to say, unless I do, and it's banal.

my point was just that. NC banned civil unions, but that doesnt really mean anything, as per my original argument, which i still think might be worth a try more than socialized medicine or Obama.

vodean wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

vodean wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

vodean wrote:marriage is kinda an outdated concept anyway... why dont we abolish it for all people and have people live together in informal civil unions... or hippie, cult-like societies where people collectively raise children and care for everyone's children equally.

North Carolina also banned civil unions for gay people.

only formal ones. gays can still live together and f*ck like bunnies

Of course, but why make that point? Did you think I, or any other poster was unaware that gay people can still live together?

I don't understand what you're trying to say, unless I do, and it's banal.

my point was just that. NC banned civil unions, but that doesnt really mean anything, as per my original argument, which i still think might be worth a try more than socialized medicine or Obama.

It kind of means a lot to a fair number of people, surely?

I'm wondering if the Dems will even have their convention now in North Carolina. You'd think they'd feel a lot safer having it San Francisco now.

Everywhere should be just like San Fransisco

ITT: vodean doesn't understand that marriage is simply a legal contract stipulating a number of legally binding conditions.

spurgistan wrote:ITT: vodean doesn't understand that marriage is simply a legal contract stipulating a number of legally binding conditions.

I disagree, Vodean doesn't understand the concept in several other threads- the ITT point is not necessary. He doesn't have a clue in any thread where he opines his jaundiced take on marriage.

Symmetry wrote:

spurgistan wrote:ITT: vodean doesn't understand that marriage is simply a legal contract stipulating a number of legally binding conditions.

I disagree, Vodean doesn't understand the concept in several other threads- the ITT point is not necessary. He doesn't have a clue in any thread where he opines his jaundiced take on marriage.

i understand perfectly well what marriage is... im not sure what relevance that has. seriously, i dont think theres a person over the age of 10 who doesnt understand what marriage is anywhere on earth.

spurgistan wrote:ITT: vodean doesn't understand that marriage is simply a legal contract stipulating a number of legally binding conditions.

Yall have not highjacked the definition of marriage just yet. We are winning this one, and it won't even be close. We are going to deliver a wake-up call to the likes of which you have never seen. You will have to focus your efforts to crumble our Republic and destroy any morals we have left in another issue.

See you there

vodean wrote:i understand perfectly well what marriage is... im not sure what relevance that has. seriously, i dont think theres a person over the age of 10 who doesnt understand what marriage is anywhere on earth.

Then please explain why not allowing gay couples to enter into Marriage or Civil Unions "doesnt really mean anything".

And please include a few sentences on the affects marriage and civil unions have on taxes and insurance coverages into your explanation.

Thank you.

Phatscotty wrote:

spurgistan wrote:ITT: vodean doesn't understand that marriage is simply a legal contract stipulating a number of legally binding conditions.

Yall have not highjacked the definition of marriage just yet. We are winning this one, and it won't even be close. We are going to deliver a wake-up call to the likes of which you have never seen. You will have to focus your efforts to crumble our Republic and destroy any morals we have left in another issue.

See you there

Yeah, of all the threats to this country a lack of morals is probably one you shouldn't lose sleep over. Hell, the fact that we're arguing over piffle like this while the banking industry is still allowed to practice the same shit that made our economy the rotten turd it is today is pretty high up there. Oh, shit, never mind that, I just realized! Somebody FINALLY called being gay "immoral". Care to elaborate Scotty?

Scotty, why is this an us vs them thing? Why do you want to impose your morality on the nation? Why do you hate freedom?

GreecePwns wrote:Scotty, why is this an us vs them thing? Why do you want to impose your morality on the nation? Why do you hate freedom?

Seen thru' a distorted lens,everything is us vs them.The Boers in South Africa had the 'laager',to retreat behind when the Zulus fought back.Somebody has to hold the line for decent American values against all those homo-loving,pinko,layabouts.

Bones2484 wrote:

vodean wrote:i understand perfectly well what marriage is... im not sure what relevance that has. seriously, i dont think theres a person over the age of 10 who doesnt understand what marriage is anywhere on earth.

Then please explain why not allowing gay couples to enter into Marriage or Civil Unions "doesnt really mean anything".

And please include a few sentences on the affects marriage and civil unions have on taxes and insurance coverages into your explanation.

Thank you.

if we abolish marriage altogether, it wouldnt matter. i was kidding.
because i am a minor and do not pay taxes, i do not have exact values, but married couples get tax cuts and better insurance packages. We are moving towards the point where civil unions are essentially the same as marriage in any case, in terms of rights and benefits.

are you a teacher? that sure sounded like a homework assignment...

personally, i think that gays should be allowed to marry. but at the same time, if that policy reflects the majority's opinion in NC, then i support that decision as well.

Phatscotty wrote:

spurgistan wrote:ITT: vodean doesn't understand that marriage is simply a legal contract stipulating a number of legally binding conditions.

Yall have not highjacked the definition of marriage just yet. We are winning this one, and it won't even be close. We are going to deliver a wake-up call to the likes of which you have never seen. You will have to focus your efforts to crumble our Republic and destroy any morals we have left in another issue.

See you there

Those who hold back human rights are successful for long periods of time. That however does not mean they won or were ever winning. It simply means they were oppressing people during that time, much like those who fought to keep slavery, keep women from voting, and kept other races from marrying. Congrats, you are proudly one of those, "winners". And unlike the sociopaths that simply held signs in years gone, your legacy of fighting against human rights will be etched in time, electronically stored, and more importantly, as reason sweeps the land, and you with it, your older years can be spent trying to erase from your failing memory the harm to the human race you caused.

Suggesting your morals can be imposed on the rest of the Republic, is the only threat to that Republic, since it was based on the complete opposite principle.

Why marry in the first place?
The bible is full of homophobic rants and details on how to punish homosexuals. Why care about not being able to marry when the holy book is so vile towards homosexuals?
I don't hear any jews complaining about not being able to join neo nazi groups. Christianity is anti gay, so why would you want to have anything to do with it?

Gillipig wrote:Why marry in the first place?
The bible is full of homophobic rants and details on how to punish homosexuals. Why care about not being able to marry when the holy book is so vile towards homosexuals?
I don't hear any jews complaining about not being able to join neo nazi groups. Christianity is anti gay, so why would you want to have anything to do with it?

#1. Christianity did not in any way invent marriage, nor is the Christian from anywhere near universally accepted, despite the claims of the US religious right.

#2. Many would argue that the New Testament does not say much at all about homosexuality. Christ actually never said anything about it. I am not taking one side or another here on that, just pointing out that it is an issue without the true clarity that a few wish to claim.

#3. For you to claim "Christianity is anti-gay" is to fall into the trap the right wishes to paint, of either you accept the narrow bigoted agenda of the extremists or you are "anti-Christian". In fact, the Episcopal church, United Methodists, (to name just 2 examples) etc all even have acknowledged homosexual Pastors/Ministers as well as official ceremonies to officiate homosexual unions. It is a matter of great controversy. To claim that only one group "rightly" represents the whole is just wrong.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:Why marry in the first place?
The bible is full of homophobic rants and details on how to punish homosexuals. Why care about not being able to marry when the holy book is so vile towards homosexuals?
I don't hear any jews complaining about not being able to join neo nazi groups. Christianity is anti gay, so why would you want to have anything to do with it?

#1. Christianity did not in any way invent marriage, nor is the Christian from anywhere near universally accepted, despite the claims of the US religious right.

#2. Many would argue that the New Testament does not say much at all about homosexuality. Christ actually never said anything about it. I am not taking one side or another here on that, just pointing out that it is an issue without the true clarity that a few wish to claim.

#3. For you to claim "Christianity is anti-gay" is to fall into the trap the right wishes to paint, of either you accept the narrow bigoted agenda of the extremists or you are "anti-Christian". In fact, the Episcopal church, United Methodists, (to name just 2 examples) etc all even have acknowledged homosexual Pastors/Ministers as well as official ceremonies to officiate homosexual unions. It is a matter of great controversy. To claim that only one group "rightly" represents the whole is just wrong.

I'm sure there are Christian sub groups that don't even believe in god lol. What the bible says matters! If it says slay the jews or slay the homosexuals or love thy neighbor, a lot of people listen to it. And a lot of people take it litterary. There's no way to get around that christianity's holy book speficically says that homosexuality is an abomination.

Gillipig wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:Why marry in the first place?
The bible is full of homophobic rants and details on how to punish homosexuals. Why care about not being able to marry when the holy book is so vile towards homosexuals?
I don't hear any jews complaining about not being able to join neo nazi groups. Christianity is anti gay, so why would you want to have anything to do with it?

#1. Christianity did not in any way invent marriage, nor is the Christian from anywhere near universally accepted, despite the claims of the US religious right.

#2. Many would argue that the New Testament does not say much at all about homosexuality. Christ actually never said anything about it. I am not taking one side or another here on that, just pointing out that it is an issue without the true clarity that a few wish to claim.

#3. For you to claim "Christianity is anti-gay" is to fall into the trap the right wishes to paint, of either you accept the narrow bigoted agenda of the extremists or you are "anti-Christian". In fact, the Episcopal church, United Methodists, (to name just 2 examples) etc all even have acknowledged homosexual Pastors/Ministers as well as official ceremonies to officiate homosexual unions. It is a matter of great controversy. To claim that only one group "rightly" represents the whole is just wrong.

I'm sure there are Christian sub groups that don't even believe in god lol. What the bible says matters! If it says slay the jews or slay the homosexuals or love thy neighbor, a lot of people listen to it. And a lot of people take it litterary. There's no way to get around that christianity's holy book speficically says that homosexuality is an abomination.

You're equating Christianity with marriage again, which one of player's points was that you shouldn't.

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:Why marry in the first place?
The bible is full of homophobic rants and details on how to punish homosexuals. Why care about not being able to marry when the holy book is so vile towards homosexuals?
I don't hear any jews complaining about not being able to join neo nazi groups. Christianity is anti gay, so why would you want to have anything to do with it?

#1. Christianity did not in any way invent marriage, nor is the Christian from anywhere near universally accepted, despite the claims of the US religious right.

#2. Many would argue that the New Testament does not say much at all about homosexuality. Christ actually never said anything about it. I am not taking one side or another here on that, just pointing out that it is an issue without the true clarity that a few wish to claim.

#3. For you to claim "Christianity is anti-gay" is to fall into the trap the right wishes to paint, of either you accept the narrow bigoted agenda of the extremists or you are "anti-Christian". In fact, the Episcopal church, United Methodists, (to name just 2 examples) etc all even have acknowledged homosexual Pastors/Ministers as well as official ceremonies to officiate homosexual unions. It is a matter of great controversy. To claim that only one group "rightly" represents the whole is just wrong.

I'm sure there are Christian sub groups that don't even believe in god lol. What the bible says matters! If it says slay the jews or slay the homosexuals or love thy neighbor, a lot of people listen to it. And a lot of people take it litterary. There's no way to get around that christianity's holy book speficically says that homosexuality is an abomination.

You're equating Christianity with marriage again, which one of player's points was that you shouldn't.

-rd

Which I should! Because the problem here is not that he can't be married in buddhist tradition. It's that he can't be married in a church, having a Christian priest with his hand on the bible sanctioning the wedding. At least that's what I made of his post. My question stands. Why would he want that given what christianity thinks of homosexuals?

Gillipig wrote:Which I should! Because the problem here is not that he can't be married in buddhist tradition. It's that he can't be married in a church, having a Christian priest with his hand on the bible sanctioning the wedding. At least that's what I made of his post. My question stands. Why would he want that given what christianity thinks of homosexuals?

Huh? When was any of that said?

GreecePwns wrote:Scotty, why is this an us vs them thing? Why do you want to impose your morality on the nation? Why do you hate freedom?

I told you already, I am for people choosing how they are going to live, and I support that at the state level, just like what we already have..... Are you twisting what I say on purpose?

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

spurgistan wrote:ITT: vodean doesn't understand that marriage is simply a legal contract stipulating a number of legally binding conditions.

Yall have not highjacked the definition of marriage just yet. We are winning this one, and it won't even be close. We are going to deliver a wake-up call to the likes of which you have never seen. You will have to focus your efforts to crumble our Republic and destroy any morals we have left in another issue.

See you there

Those who hold back human rights are successful for long periods of time. That however does not mean they won or were ever winning. It simply means they were oppressing people during that time, much like those who fought to keep slavery, keep women from voting, and kept other races from marrying. Congrats, you are proudly one of those, "winners". And unlike the sociopaths that simply held signs in years gone, your legacy of fighting against human rights will be etched in time, electronically stored, and more importantly, as reason sweeps the land, and you with it, your older years can be spent trying to erase from your failing memory the harm to the human race you caused.

Suggesting your morals can be imposed on the rest of the Republic, is the only threat to that Republic, since it was based on the complete opposite principle.

You gotta admit you are making up your own human rights here. You aren't doing anything but inventing rights that did not exist 10 years ago, impose them on everyone else and bash people into recognizing your new non-traditional definition.

Marriage is an ecclesiastical issue and a societal issue. If people want to change that, the best way to go about it is democratically. Your scathing response is just more evidence of the hostile take-over and hijacking of the definition.

The morals of my argument cannot possibly be "imposed", because they are traditional and have existed long before I.
Ya poser

Gillipig wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:Why marry in the first place?
The bible is full of homophobic rants and details on how to punish homosexuals. Why care about not being able to marry when the holy book is so vile towards homosexuals?
I don't hear any jews complaining about not being able to join neo nazi groups. Christianity is anti gay, so why would you want to have anything to do with it?

#1. Christianity did not in any way invent marriage, nor is the Christian from anywhere near universally accepted, despite the claims of the US religious right.

#2. Many would argue that the New Testament does not say much at all about homosexuality. Christ actually never said anything about it. I am not taking one side or another here on that, just pointing out that it is an issue without the true clarity that a few wish to claim.

#3. For you to claim "Christianity is anti-gay" is to fall into the trap the right wishes to paint, of either you accept the narrow bigoted agenda of the extremists or you are "anti-Christian". In fact, the Episcopal church, United Methodists, (to name just 2 examples) etc all even have acknowledged homosexual Pastors/Ministers as well as official ceremonies to officiate homosexual unions. It is a matter of great controversy. To claim that only one group "rightly" represents the whole is just wrong.

I'm sure there are Christian sub groups that don't even believe in god lol. What the bible says matters! If it says slay the jews or slay the homosexuals or love thy neighbor, a lot of people listen to it. And a lot of people take it litterary. There's no way to get around that christianity's holy book speficically says that homosexuality is an abomination.

You're equating Christianity with marriage again, which one of player's points was that you shouldn't.

-rd

Which I should! Because the problem here is not that he can't be married in buddhist tradition. It's that he can't be married in a church, having a Christian priest with his hand on the bible sanctioning the wedding. At least that's what I made of his post. My question stands. Why would he want that given what christianity thinks of homosexuals?

#1 -- what rd said.

#2 -- please point to the section of the New Testament that prohibits homosexuality.

#3 -- the Entire United Methodist Church, Episcopalien Church in America and Evangelical Lutheran Church are hardly "small subgroups". They represent a huge portion of modern Christianity. Pretending that these widely accepted views are somehow "minor variations" is, as I stated, a tactic of the far right.