Conquer Club

okay, so a list of a couple countries (not the ones JB or I live in.....) which didn't even start before the year 2000?

Not a very strong case that same sex marriage IS a right. The correct way to say it, certainly for JB, is "same sex marriage is a right in a few countries, but not mine, and has been for like 4,000 days."

Also, since 2000 is the first time anyone did this, is it fair to say gay marriage was "invented/created" 12 years ago?

Phatscotty wrote:okay, so a list of a couple countries (not the ones JB or I live in.....) which didn't even start before the year 2000?

It's what you asked for as proof. No doubt you'll demand something else now.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:okay, so a list of a couple countries (not the ones JB or I live in.....) which didn't even start before the year 2000? Not a very strong case that same sex marriage IS a right.

The correct way to say it, certainly for JB, is "same sex marriage is a right in a few countries, but not mine, and has been for like 4,000 days."

Also, since 2000 is the first time anyone did this, is it fair to say gay marriage was "invented/created" 12 years ago?

It's what you asked for as proof. No doubt you'll demand something else now.

Symmetry, cmon now. You really think I am not aware that marriage was redefined in Denmark...or Massachussetts, or Mexico and France? What the hell are you smokin man?

You know 100% I did not ask for proof, or need proof. I asked for context, precedent, and perspective.

And you called me desperate.... Look at you! Falling all over yourself to answer a question that was not even asked to you, to provide "proof" of something I have acknowledged myself right here in this very thread repeatedly.

Desperate....

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:okay, so a list of a couple countries (not the ones JB or I live in.....) which didn't even start before the year 2000?

It's what you asked for as proof. No doubt you'll demand something else now.

Symmetry, cmon now. You really think I am not aware that marriage was redefined in Denmark...or Massachussetts, or Mexico and France? What the hell are you smokin man?

You know 100% I did not ask for proof, or need proof. I asked for context, and perspective.

And you called me desperate.... Look at you! Falling all over yourself to answer a question that was not even asked to you, to provide "proof" of something I have acknowledged myself right here in this very thread.

Desperate....

Aye, I think I called your situation correctly.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:okay, so a list of a couple countries (not the ones JB or I live in.....) which didn't even start before the year 2000?

It's what you asked for as proof. No doubt you'll demand something else now.

Symmetry, cmon now. You really think I am not aware that marriage was redefined in Denmark...or Massachussetts, or Mexico and France? What the hell are you smokin man?

You know 100% I did not ask for proof, or need proof. I asked for context, and perspective.

And you called me desperate.... Look at you! Falling all over yourself to answer a question that was not even asked to you, to provide "proof" of something I have acknowledged myself right here in this very thread.

Desperate....

Aye, I think I called your situation correctly.

That's fine. but I did want to ask one thing about your post with all the countries. Do all the countries give the title "rights" for same sex marriage? Or do some of them simply recognize same sex marriage, or some of them don't regulate marriage at all, or some of them have different versions of marriage (like we have civil unions and domestic partnerships for non-traditional situations).

Thinking about this situation in terms of "rights" really isn't going to help.

"Rights" is a fancy word people use when they state that X cannot be done to them (negative rights) or Y must be done for others (positive rights).

You can't simply point at a place and say, "gee, right X is being enforced there" or "rights A-C are UNIVERSAL and ALL OVER THE PLACE," because none of that is useful.

1. Define terms.
Marriage is a contract; it's an agreement between two parties. Some marriages have religious ceremonies (Catholic), and other marriages do not (atheist/whatever).

2. Insert argument.
e.g.
a. Marriage can only be granted to heterosexual couples because.... [insert benefits and costs of various aspects].
b. Marriage can be granted to both hetero and homosexual couples because.... [insert benefits and costs of various aspects].

And there you go; just don't delve into the "because it's a right" argument. That would be stupid. Same goes for "cuz tradition" [without consequential explanation about a change to tradition----NONE of which has been given], and "cuz bestiality, incest, pedophilia" because that's just stupid. The only people that assert such a stance are pundits, and no one should be as stupid as a pundit ITT.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Desperate....

Aye, I think I called your situation correctly.

That's fine. but I did want to ask one thing about your post with all the countries. Do all the countries give the title "rights" for same sex marriage? Or do some of them simply recognize same sex marriage, or some of them don't regulate marriage at all, or some of them have different versions of marriage (like we have civil unions and domestic partnerships for non-traditional situations).

Feel free to investigate as far as your curiosity impels you.

it's the right of the people to say what marriage is or isn't.

I don't have to "argue" for traditional marriage, or give a reason why it's important (although I have given many). Traditional marriage is what we already have, and it's all we've ever had. I'm not trying to change anything.

If given the chance, I won't vote in any way to give the government more power, and I will not vote for any particular amendment that increases government spending, and I try to hold that for all issues regardless.

North American Indians practiced same-sex marriage before you white people showed up and murdered everybody.

Also, that same argument was used for interracial marriage. "Where in the world and when in history have the races ever mixed?"
Actually, it's still being used by skinheads today.
I can guarantee you that your argument was also used to oppress Women and Negros in American history.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

Correct.

Any thoughts?

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

Correct.

Any thoughts?

TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

Correct.

Any thoughts?

TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.


--Andy

My freshman year of college we had co-ed restrooms and nothing bad happened. I know it's only anecdotal evidence... but still.

Phatscotty wrote:it's the right of the people to say what marriage is or isn't.

I don't have to "argue" for traditional marriage, or give a reason why it's important (although I have given many). Traditional marriage is what we already have, and it's all we've ever had. I'm not trying to change anything.

If given the chance, I won't vote in any way to give the government more power, and I will not vote for any particular amendment that increases government spending, and I try to hold that for all issues regardless.

In that case, your argument has no standing. Thanks for trolling.

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

Correct.

Any thoughts?

TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.


--Andy

My freshman year of college we had co-ed restrooms and nothing bad happened. I know it's only anecdotal evidence... but still.

TGD, this is obviously a lie. We all know you never left your dorm room because you were too busy studying the lawz, man.


--Andy

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

Correct.

Any thoughts?

TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.


--Andy

My freshman year of college we had co-ed restrooms and nothing bad happened. I know it's only anecdotal evidence... but still.

Well, that's what they want you to think. Any rapist reserves the right to enter any bathroom he or she pleases, and if the traditional bathroom is thrown out, then uh uh uh uh you're wrong.


I dedicate the above argument to Phatscotty.

Phatscotty wrote:So because a handful of countries interpret rights extremely Liberally over the last 10 years.....that means it's a right all around the world and for everyone in the world?

Isn't Denmark the same country you tried to use a court case from just a couple of days ago?

Phatscotty wrote:Also, since 2000 is the first time anyone did this, is it fair to say gay marriage was "invented/created" 12 years ago?

No, it is not. I thought you knew history? Do you only know American history?

Phatscotty wrote:it's the right of the people to say what marriage is or isn't.

To use your own argument...where is that detailed in the Constitution?

Phatscotty wrote:I don't have to "argue" for traditional marriage, or give a reason why it's important (although I have given many). Traditional marriage is what we already have, and it's all we've ever had. I'm not trying to change anything.

This is a lie.

Phatscotty wrote:If given the chance, I won't vote in any way to give the government more power, and I will not vote for any particular amendment that increases government spending, and I try to hold that for all issues regardless.

Unless it's to drug test welfare recipients, of course.

I'm starting to think I may have been a little unfair and PS was actually trying to argue his position, it's just the few sentences and logical fallcies and irrelevant tangents he keeps going back to ARE the extent of his argument. He just doesn't seem to have anything else to back it up with, so it's less a case of unwillingness to provide rational explanations and logical defences, and more a case of inability to do so.

crispybits wrote:I'm starting to think I may have been a little unfair and PS was actually trying to argue his position, it's just the few sentences and logical fallcies and irrelevant tangents he keeps going back to ARE the extent of his argument. He just doesn't seem to have anything else to back it up with, so it's less a case of unwillingness to provide rational explanations and logical defences, and more a case of inability to do so.

There are rational reasons* to defend the historic view of marriage, they just don't coincide with Phatscotty's view of smaller government so it's harder for him to argue.

* I note the term "rational reasons" are religious in nature and thus may not be rational to most people.

If the defence for the historic view of marriage is purely religious (and I think some would disagree with you), then the fact that there are recognised religions that are happy to conduct gay marriage ceremonies would mean that in the USA at least, the government should be powerless to prevent that. Separation of church and state and all that.

crispybits wrote:If the defence for the historic view of marriage is purely religious (and I think some would disagree with you), then the fact that there are recognised religions that are happy to conduct gay marriage ceremonies would mean that in the USA at least, the government should be powerless to prevent that. Separation of church and state and all that.

I don't disagree with that and it's an interesting take.

If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).

Given that (again talking in the USA here) a church can refuse to marry someone for a whole variety of reasons (spouse of different religion/denomination, previous divorces, etc) I think that churches in the US are safe from being forced (again, separation of church and state, works both ways)

thegreekdog wrote:If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).

I've been curious of comments like this, since I've heard it multiple times for years out here in California. Is forcing religions to perform same sex marriages actually on the table, or is it one of the talking points of those against in order to drum up support for an issue that isn't there in the first place?

I ask because it doesn't make sense to me why changing the definition of marriage would actually cause this to happen. I am not a religious person and, to my knowledge, a mosque, synagogue, etc would not be required to have performed my wedding ceremony if I had asked. I can't imagine what would happen if I walked up to a Scientology or Mormon institution and told them they were required to marry me simply because I am heterosexual.

edit: Looks like I was fastposted by Crispy as I was writing my response.