Conquer Club

That's not a lynch mob mentality, it's a proportional response to state-sponsored ideological violence. It's a civilized and equitable solution, completely unlike Red-Neck Lynchings or Tar&Feathering.

Dancing Mustard wrote:That's not a lynch mob mentality, it's a proportional response to state-sponsored ideological violence. It's a civilized and equitable solution, completely unlike Red-Neck Lynchings or Tar&Feathering.

But I thought that liberal LOVED the idea of "state sponsored Ideology." In as much as I hear the atheist liberal complain that Christians are "Forcing their religion on me" the radical socialist is clearly proposing to force its morals on the entire populace of the US. Only, the morality, in the form of well fare for poor people will really amount to scraps from the tables of the wall street elite. They are the ones that got the hundreds of billions. HA ha ha... Silly liberals... is this the change you wanted? A pair of shiny nickles in your pockets? Gays won't even be able to afford that traditional wedding!

captain.crazy wrote:But I thought that liberal LOVED the idea of "state sponsored Ideology."

Actually, that's communists...

captain.crazy wrote:as I hear the atheist liberal complain that Christians are "Forcing their religion on me" the radical socialist is clearly proposing to force its morals on the entire populace of the US.

Isn't the whole point of allowing gay marriage to actually stop the Church from forcing religion onto people. I fail to see how allowing two people to be married is somehow forcing morals on an entirely separate group of individuals.

It's a big like saying 'If society lets you go shake hands with Snorri, then it's forcing its whole ideology onto BK Barunt'. It just doesn't make any sense.

captain.crazy wrote:Silly liberals... is this the change you wanted? A pair of shiny nickles in your pockets?

That would be a marked improvement from my current position. That is indeed the change that I want.

*Holds out cap*

jay_a2j wrote:
If there is a law stating that same sex couple can marry, you know as well as I, the above scenario will be commonplace. The government is forcing it's will on the Church. (or any faith that is opposed to gay marriage)

Shuuuuuuuut up! Stop polluting this thread with your ignorance!

jay_a2j wrote:If there is a law stating that same sex couple can marry, you know as well as I, the above scenario will be commonplace. The government is forcing it's will on the Church. (or any faith that is opposed to gay marriage)

Jay's chain of reasoning:

1. If law X happens then I think that unprecedented scenario Y will also happen (though no evidence is presented to support that supposition).
2. Therefore, because I have imagined this occurrence happening in the future, the government is guilty of perpetrating the wrongdoing that such an occurrence would indicate now.

Yet another piece of delightfully disjointed reasoning from Jay. Let us all applaud.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:But I thought that liberal LOVED the idea of "state sponsored Ideology."

Actually, that's communists...

captain.crazy wrote:as I hear the atheist liberal complain that Christians are "Forcing their religion on me" the radical socialist is clearly proposing to force its morals on the entire populace of the US.

Isn't the whole point of allowing gay marriage to actually stop the Church from forcing religion onto people. I fail to see how allowing two people to be married is somehow forcing morals on an entirely separate group of individuals.

It's a big like saying 'If society lets you go shake hands with Snorri, then it's forcing its whole ideology onto BK Barunt'. It just doesn't make any sense.

captain.crazy wrote:Silly liberals... is this the change you wanted? A pair of shiny nickles in your pockets?

That would be a marked improvement from my current position. That is indeed the change that I want.

*Holds out cap*

I think that you are not reading what I am saying. Let the states decide on the issue of gay marriage. I really couldn't care less. But Liberals, who support higher taxes in favor of appeasing the masses that can't (won't!) fend for themselves at the expense of those that wish to work for them selves is a bit like forced charity. I see that you are from the UK, which explains why you haven't two nickles to rub together. Your socialist society has all but killed your employment market there.

I agree with you that there are some branches of religion (Muslims believe that the whole world should be Muslim and some of those believe that if you are not, then you should be put to death! Christians, not quite as radical as to kill you if you aren't Christian) But I find it ironic that the government, which in America is extremely anti religion these days, wishes to force morality on people. In summary, Churches make you feel guilty if you do not give them your money. The government throws you in prison and takes the money, unless you are Tim Geithner... then they make you the boss of the IRS. Its blatantly wrong!

Time to pour some more offal under the bridge so that lil troll-troll won't go hungry.

captain.crazy wrote:I think that you are not reading what I am saying.

Well I think that you are not reading what I am saying.

No backsies.

captain.crazy wrote:Let the states decide on the issue of gay marriage. I really couldn't care less. But Liberals, who support higher taxes in favor of appeasing the masses that can't (won't!) fend for themselves at the expense of those that wish to work for them selves is a bit like forced charity.

That pair of sentences doesn't actually make sense.

"Let states decide on gay marriage. But liberals, who I hear like higher taxes, is a bit like forced charity" = Not a coherent point on the topic at hand.

captain.crazy wrote:I see that you are from the UK, which explains why you haven't two nickles to rub together. Your socialist society has all but killed your employment market there.

Actually it was your out-of-control capitalist society which killed the employment market here (and everywhere else in the world for that matter).

captain.crazy wrote:I find it ironic that the government, which in America is extremely anti religion these days, wishes to force morality on people.

Yeah... well you say that, but the point is that the state is not forcing morality on people. Only telling a group of individuals (the Church) that they can no longer force their morality on people (homos).

Feel free to point out how Ghayseks forces morality onto anybody, or how the state is assisting in this, and we can have a discussion. But just endlessly repeating 'teh state is forcing teh morals' over and over and over and over doesn't actually make it so. It's just a baseless opinion.

captain.crazy wrote:In summary, Churches make you feel guilty if you do not give them your money. The government throws you in prison and takes the money

In summary, Churches impose their morals on everybody that they can, then get upset when the state tells them that the status quo will be changing and that they will no longer be free to dictate morality to everybody. They then accuse the government of trying to force morals on them, even though this is evidently not what is happening, and even though they have happily been doing the same thing for the last two thousand years.

Ahh. f*ck it. Talking about this is futile. Lets fight while we still have guns.

You have relented. I have won.

This debate is now over.

Dancing Mustard wrote:You have relented. I have won.

This debate is now over.

congrats. like I said, I don't care about gay marriage or abortion... I just don't think these things have any business being decided or enforced at the federal level.

jay_a2j wrote:Is it now? Lets say you and your gay lover want to be married. So you go to a Baptist minister to be married. The minister says, "I can not marry you, it is against the teachings of my faith." The minister is then jailed for refusing to marry you (because it's now law) and/or you and your lover sue him. Must he violate his faith in order to not violate the law?

Sorry, Jay but you are WAY off base there. That Baptist minister can refuse to marry anyone. He can refuse because they don't belong to his church or because he just does not believe the two people should be married. In a few cases, he may face censor from his church, but not the state.

It so happens that within the US, the state has agreed to recognize the religious ceremony of marriage as a civil marriage. However, the only right is to a civil marriage, not a religious one.

jay_a2j wrote:If there is a law stating that same sex couple can marry, you know as well as I, the above scenario will be commonplace. The government is forcing it's will on the Church. (or any faith that is opposed to gay marriage)

NEWFLASH Jay, there already are laws allowing Hindues, Moslems, Buddhists and the simply a-religious to marry. Baptist ministers can and DO refuse to marry those individuals!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Is it now? Lets say you and your gay lover want to be married. So you go to a Baptist minister to be married. The minister says, "I can not marry you, it is against the teachings of my faith." The minister is then jailed for refusing to marry you (because it's now law) and/or you and your lover sue him. Must he violate his faith in order to not violate the law?

Sorry, Jay but you are WAY off base there. That Baptist minister can refuse to marry anyone. He can refuse because they don't belong to his church or because he just does not believe the two people should be married. In a few cases, he may face censor from his church, but not the state.

It so happens that within the US, the state has agreed to recognize the religious ceremony of marriage as a civil marriage. However, the only right is to a civil marriage, not a religious one.

That's right... but then the Gay couple could just go to the pagan church of the rainbow and have a lovely earth worship ceremony there!

captain.crazy wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:You have relented. I have won.

This debate is now over.

congrats. like I said, I don't care about gay marriage or abortion... I just don't think these things have any business being decided or enforced at the federal level.

New question: what the hell is the point of limiting the decision to one set of untrustable politicians over another?

captain.crazy wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:You have relented. I have won.

This debate is now over.

congrats. like I said, I don't care about gay marriage or abortion... I just don't think these things have any business being decided or enforced at the federal level.

Silence.

This debate (which I have won) is now over. You no longer have a right to reply.

Sit quietly until somebody shows up with my trophy.

captain.crazy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Is it now? Lets say you and your gay lover want to be married. So you go to a Baptist minister to be married. The minister says, "I can not marry you, it is against the teachings of my faith." The minister is then jailed for refusing to marry you (because it's now law) and/or you and your lover sue him. Must he violate his faith in order to not violate the law?

Sorry, Jay but you are WAY off base there. That Baptist minister can refuse to marry anyone. He can refuse because they don't belong to his church or because he just does not believe the two people should be married. In a few cases, he may face censor from his church, but not the state.

It so happens that within the US, the state has agreed to recognize the religious ceremony of marriage as a civil marriage. However, the only right is to a civil marriage, not a religious one.

That's right... but then the Gay couple could just go to the pagan church of the rainbow and have a lovely earth worship ceremony there!

That's relgious freedom. I have no right to interfere with another's moral unless it is something that will harm me or the society. Homosexuals marrying simply does not do that. If I can live peaceably next to a Buddhist or Hindu family, then why not a homosexual couple?

Neoteny wrote:Bestiality is often harmful to animals. As for polygamy, I don't know. Maybe the government doesn't think women are smart enough to discard a religious tradition that can be used to take advantage of them. I don't have anything against polygamy, really, and I think there are circumstances where it might work, and mostly, it won't, but that doesn't make it necessary to make it illegal.

The biggest problem with polygamy is children. Who really is able to support and raise 20 kids? The compound that was recently on the news? Survives by ousting its teenage boys.

The second problem is that too often, it is about young girls, not adult women making free choices.

.

Snorri1234 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
If there is a law stating that same sex couple can marry, you know as well as I, the above scenario will be commonplace. The government is forcing it's will on the Church. (or any faith that is opposed to gay marriage)

I'm sick to the back teeth about this argument that "if you let gay people marry then everyone will want to be gay"

Before I get into my essay, let me just acknowledge all those folksy-folks out there who are so very concerned for my soul. I really do appreciate your desire to save me from eternal damnation, but I don't believe in that and so I'll take my chances. But please stop using religious arguments against same-sex sexual acts.

Once again, class, homosexuality and sexual acts are different things. Someone is gay even when they're not having gay sex. Just like the teenager in Ugly Betty everybody knows he's gay, he's written to be gay, yet he's not shagging blokes all the time - or, in fact, ever.

Anyway, Marriage Equality is not about recruiting for the Pink Mafia.

I don't know what you heard about how great it is to be gay, but let me just tell you that it's all true. We gays have it great -
we don't have to be in the military (all that dust, bad haircuts, drab clothing and no showers!)
we can share entire wardrobes with our spouses (in theory)
we get to fill out separate tax returns (and miss out on those nasty deductions)
we don't get to see our dying spouses in the hospital because we're not family - death is such a downer anyway!
we have no next-of-kin rights
we have no rights to inheritance
we get bullyed in school for being or seeming gay
we don't have a convention about proposing, so there's no presumption of who pops the question to whom - comedy ensues!
and well, around 1000 other things male-female couples don't have to cope with.

We do have some rather exciting things which only gay people experience!

We get asked inane and offensive things like:
"who's the man in the relationship"
"how do you know you're a lesbian? I think you should <<perform X sexual act>> on me to prove it."
"why don't you let me try to turn you back" :sick:
and "You don't have to have sex with me, but can I come home with you two and watch?"

You're probably thinking "That's shit! Why would anyone want to be gay?" :o

But you know what, even with all that, I'm still gay about being gay. And while it's true that I can think of nothing better than waking up as my badass gay self in the morning next to my hot girlfriend, I'd probably feel the same way if I fancied blokes and woke up next to my manstallion (but only if I wasn't the one sleeping in the "wet patch").

Religion is supposed to be judgemental, that's the whole point - do this or else! But we live in a country in which no religion or religious affiliation is given a privileged place in society and that includes atheists. That means people will all kinds of religious affiliations, faiths and non-faiths are entitled to their views. You can think gay marriage is wrong, believe it even, but you can't use the threat of what you believe is right or wrong in the eyes of God, Buddah, The Prophet or anyone else to legislate how I can and cannot live my life as long as I'm not harming anyone. In the same way, I think it would be wrong for me to force Priests, deacons, rabbis, imams or anyone with a religious belief to the contrary to have to marry gay people in the USA if the govm't allows and their religions continue to forbid it. The American government can't force any religion to adopt a practice any more than it can force an individual to adopt any particular religion. It can, however, determine that some religious practices have no place in the USA - like stoning or marital rape, for instance. It has happened that in some places which allow gay marriage or civil partnerships, Registrars (equivalents of justices of the peace) have asked other colleagues to preside over gay ceremonies if their beliefs forbid it, and this is permitted (at least in the UK it is). I imagine a similar rule would be instituted in the United States should gay marriage or civil partnerships go ahead.

While I want to get married to my girlfriend, I definitely don't want someone to marry us who is being forced to do so. I think a lot of other people would probably feel this way too.

Marriage Equality is not a massive recruitment drive by us gays and lesbians we just want to get married just like everybody else can. Who cares about the genitals - this constant biblical malarkey is really all about the sexual acts. Please stop reducing a part of my identity to sexual acts. I am not a machine. If I were, I wouldn't be able to get married either and we all know what happened on Caprica!

Seriously though, gay couples already live together as spouses and they have done for many many many years. It's a fact and nothing is going to change that. If the government gives gay couples the right to marry then we'll just happily go about our business as usual without most people even knowing we're gay (as we currently do!).

Extending equal civil rights to people who currently don't have them will not destroy the fabric of America. Denying them will.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Bestiality is often harmful to animals. As for polygamy, I don't know. Maybe the government doesn't think women are smart enough to discard a religious tradition that can be used to take advantage of them. I don't have anything against polygamy, really, and I think there are circumstances where it might work, and mostly, it won't, but that doesn't make it necessary to make it illegal.

The biggest problem with polygamy is children. Who really is able to support and raise 20 kids? The compound that was recently on the news? Survives by ousting its teenage boys.

The second problem is that too often, it is about young girls, not adult women making free choices.

.

Good points, but I'm assuming fiscal and social responsibility in a test case.

Neoteny wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Bestiality is often harmful to animals. As for polygamy, I don't know. Maybe the government doesn't think women are smart enough to discard a religious tradition that can be used to take advantage of them. I don't have anything against polygamy, really, and I think there are circumstances where it might work, and mostly, it won't, but that doesn't make it necessary to make it illegal.

The biggest problem with polygamy is children. Who really is able to support and raise 20 kids? The compound that was recently on the news? Survives by ousting its teenage boys.

The second problem is that too often, it is about young girls, not adult women making free choices.

.

Good points, but I'm assuming fiscal and social responsibility in a test case.

Sorry, but parental fitness in ANY measure is not a prerequisite to having kids.. only to adopting them.

That's also true, but we aren't making procreation illegal.

First off, there are two different issues going on in this thread: (1) Is homosexual marriage okay, good, bad, etc? and (2) Is the right to marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation, a protected right under the Constitution? I think homosexual marriage if great... go for it. I'm not going to stop you. But, I think if the answer to #2 is yes, then other types of relationships and marriages should be a protected right under the Constitution; if the Supreme Court is "opening the door" with a right to a homosexual relationship, there is no reasonable basis for the Supreme Court to close the door on other types of relationships, except that, apparently, the 14th Amendment says the number two somewhere... though I can't seem to find it. Maybe Sultan has a different copy than I do.

I think that if there is a right to marriage between 2 (yes sultan, I said 2, I do understand what you're saying, despite your assertions I am not, in fact, a moron) individuals, a right granted by the 14th Amendment, there should also be a right to marriage between more than 2 individuals granted pursuant to the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment. I can't remember the name of the case (from the late 19th century or early 20th century) where the Surpeme Court held that polygamy was not a religious practice covered by the 1st Amendment. I read the case, it basically argues that, in the late 19th century, polygamy was seen as an unhealthy act.

Now, let's say you are homosexual in the 19th century and you would like to marry your partner. You bring a case before the Supreme Court, in 1890. Do you think the Supreme Court is going to hold that there is a right, under the 14th Amendment, to homosexual marriage (or homosexual relationships)? The Court would likely have held that the right is not protected because either (1) there is no such language in the Constitution and (2) the homosexual act is unhealthy. I cannot stress this enough, I DO NOT THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS BAD. However, the Surpeme Court and many Americans did in the late 19th century. Similarly, a lot of people in the late 19th century had a big problem with polygamy. Today, there is a large enough group of Americans who are comfortable with homosexuality and homosexual marriage. However, I would venture to say there is not a large enough group of Americans who are comfortable with polygamy. Therefore, the Supreme Court would likely hold (I am crudely phrasing this): "Homosexual marriage protected, polygamy not protected." There is no basis in the Constitution to make that specific quoted potential ruling. There is a basis in popular opinion - so I ask you how is that fair or reasonable?

nique... I won't quote your whole post, but those were some of the big points in the other gay marriage thread that I cited earlier (page 1, I think)... over and over.

The basic gist is that there is one group who feels homosexuality is a choice, another that says evidence suggests its biological.

Either way, you are correct, the act and being are differant.

HOwever, that sort of misses the bigger point. We are long past the time of letting a few people decide the religious values of anyone else. I am not going to say that I really "like" homsexuality. I can say that I have lived and worked beside enough homosexual individuals, including many in my childhood whom I did not know to be homosexual until just a few years ago. (THAT's how "catching" and "obvious it is!".. that community is no more homosexual now than it was then).

Is a homosexual condemned by God? I know it is not for me to judge ANY sin in another. If I can sit beside an embezzler, if we can welcome adulterers, cheaters, etc. why on earth NOT a christian who happens to also be homosexual. It is up to God to decide. We ALL have sin and ALL sin is enough to drive us from God. No sin is truly greater than any other, except that some sins do cause more harm to others. Homosexuality is not one.

Bestowing a civil marriage will have nothing to do with religious recognition. Churches will NOT be "forced" as Jay claims to marry homosexuals any more than a Roman Catholic Priest is currently required to marry a Buddhist or even someone who has not taken recent sacraments. The DO refuse and will continue to do so! Will some churches acknowledge such marriages? Yes. That will be their choice... be it a Christian church or otherwise.

What this is about is rights of children to stay with the 2 parents that love and care for them. It is the right to make a medical decision for YOUR child without having to worry "do I have the right documents with me". It is about being able to decide these things for the person you love instead of leaving them up to parents and siblings that often are even estranged. (not always more and more families do accept homosexual children/silblings). It is about economic stability of buying a house together and not having to go through legal wranglings of making it a trust or some such so that the person you share the house and life with won't ahve to pay escrow and taxes on the property.

It is about all the EXACT SAME reasons why marriage between heterosexual couple is recognized by the state. Because (to make it short) having stable families benefits the society... and what goes on in the bedroom is completely irrelevant to that, just as which God they worship (or don't), the color of their skin or even their political persuasion are all irrelevant.

Neoteny wrote:That's also true, but we aren't making procreation illegal.

Then why did you say fiscal and social responsibility would ben necessary?


No such test is currently required of heterosexuals. In fact, if you are poor, you are better off NOT being married if strict finances are the concer. A woman with children can get free housing, medical care, job trainings, etc. Marry and its "tough luck .. sucker".

nique your post was probably the most level headed and thoughtful post I have seen on this subject. It is nice to see that someone can accept the fact that others have different views...and that does not make them bad people. I live in Canada where gay marriage is legal. I personally think gay marriage is wrong however. But it does not affect me personally nor does the government force my church to marry gay couples...so it doesn't bother me. My aunt is married to a woman and she is happy. Her and I have differing views and we can accept that.
That being said I do believe that gay couples should be afforded all the same rights as a heterosexual common law couple ie: benefits, next of kin, pension.
Also...not believing in gay marriage does not make one homophobic.

thegreekdog wrote:
Now, let's say you are homosexual in the 19th century and you would like to marry your partner. You bring a case before the Supreme Court, in 1890. Do you think the Supreme Court is going to hold that there is a right, under the 14th Amendment, to homosexual marriage (or homosexual relationships)? The Court would likely have held that the right is not protected because either (1) there is no such language in the Constitution and (2) the homosexual act is unhealthy. I cannot stress this enough, I DO NOT THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS BAD. However, the Surpeme Court and many Americans did in the late 19th century. Similarly, a lot of people in the late 19th century had a big problem with polygamy. Today, there is a large enough group of Americans who are comfortable with homosexuality and homosexual marriage. However, I would venture to say there is not a large enough group of Americans who are comfortable with polygamy. Therefore, the Supreme Court would likely hold (I am crudely phrasing this): "Homosexual marriage protected, polygamy not protected." There is no basis in the Constitution to make that specific quoted potential ruling. There is a basis in popular opinion - so I ask you how is that fair or reasonable?

First, back in 1890, blacks and whites were not allowed to marry in most places, either. We have come a long way since then.

Your point about the constitution being framed by society is only partially correct. People certain are blinded by thier own views. However, what people knew then and what we know now is just plain different.

It was not just that people did not like homosexuality back then. They truly felt that homosexuality was harmful to society. Similarly, it was felt that blacks marrying whites was inherently harmful .. "dimishing the white race" and all that garbage.

Today, we KNOW differently. Some people try to ignore this, and it makes me particularly angry when they use the cloak of Christianity because above all, what Christ taught us is to LOVE one another, not judge one another. He did not say "love them unless...." He said love thy neighbor as thyself. The argument that homosexuals are "not saved" (set aside whether I agree or disagree... that is and entirely separate question), well, neither are Buddhists or Hindues. It makes as much sense to refuse homosexuals on religious grounds as it does to refuse Hindues. OK in a particular church, but not the state.

Polygamy, on the other hand, is still differant. Now, personally, if it involves consenting ADULTS, and I would even say that the age of consent might be older for non-traditional marriages, but if everyone agrees and they have the ability to provide well for every child, etc. then maybe. Its not that differant from the guy who sleeps with 15 women, except that he perhaps has more legal responsibility. The problem is that when Polygamy is really practiced, that only happened at first. Then it becomes "we don't have enough adult women, let's take girls" , etc.