Conquer Club

In Regards to Chick-fil-A

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:20 pm

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Please, stop being controlled!


...

Once more.
Group A wants to give liberty to people to do what they want as long as it's not affecting anyone else.
Group B wants to refuse that liberty because it isn't "traditional" and because they are offended by Group A's choices.

Who exactly is scared here?


Marriage is an ecclesiastical issue and an institution. I concede it's a very touchy subject, and many do think it a liberty and a right, and I have compassion for those who are personally affected. However, marriage is a privilege. A civil union is a government institution, and a civil union is a right, I agree 100%. We have that in almost every state.

The only reason you guys are able to argue it is a right and because it is liberty is the simple fact the government licenses it. Now you are using this to take marriage out of the hands of the church into firmly in the control of the federal government (if you support constitutional amendment).

I hold to what I have always said, that is if you can find a church that will marry you, then by all means go get married there, and you can be married and love who you want in the most special way. If a state chooses to allow gay marriage in a democratic way, then by all means go get married and gays will have my support.

I don't see how the government has anything to do with that reasoning the homosexuals use to imply discrimination.....unless this is really all about government benefits. And, government benefits are also a privilege, and not a right (unless it's a program you paid into to, then you have a right and a claim on those benefits).

I was somewhat surprised to see the other day a major gay spokesman "spewing" my exact same point of view, or what many call my "rhetoric" and "bigotry"....If what I say is bigoted and rhetoric and prejudiced, than so is this gay rights activist. Which in this case probably means that it's many of my adversaries who got it wrong and are flying off the hinges and actually becoming bigots themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm44Dgqj3rI&t=1m56s
listen to a major gay activist push my "agenda". I have been right about this all along, and I get the feeling that the majority of the more reasonable and cool headed gay activists and opinion have been drowned out by those who have been using Nazi tactics and fascist methodology. I'm serious about that, but I know many are too emotionally charged to consider such things...of course, that's how Nazi's are created, no?

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:29 pm

The more you talk about this issue being government benefits, the more homophobic you sound.

Sure, you and I both favor getting rid of benefits for marriage. But until that happens, the ban on gay marriage is a discriminatory government policy. Straight couples get these benefits, gay couples do not.

But this isn't about giving gay couples benefits. Ask any person who is for gay marriage. Over 99 percent will tell you this is an equality issue, not a benefits issue. And you know that.

Also, the more you bring up Nazis and fascists, the more I imagine you with a tin foil hat. I'm sorry your education has failed you.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:41 pm

GreecePwns wrote:
Sure, you and I both favor getting rid of benefits for marriage. But until that happens, the ban on gay marriage is a discriminatory government policy. Straight couples get these benefits, gay couples do not.

But this isn't about giving gay couples benefits. Ask any person who is for gay marriage. Over 99 percent will tell you this is an equality issue, not a benefits issue. And you know that.


of course it isn't about benefits. Everyone knows that! But hey I see you are reaching out reasonably so let's try to solve the issue.

So, to you, it's not about benefits, and it is about equality. Can you please elaborate on the issue of inequality regarding the issue?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:45 pm

Group A gets benefits for associating themselves with other members of Group A.
Group B does not get benefits, because they are not allowed by government to associate themsevles with other members of Group B in the same way Group A can based on biological differences.

If there were no benefits involved, the position is not a discriminatory policy. But again, this isn't about tax benefits, so let's assume that the benefits are not there.

Biological discrimination is not acceptable. At all. In any form.

So either the government recognizes the lifestyle of both biological groups, or it recognizes neither.

Outside of the public sphere, these recognitions matter. Hospital visits are not benefits, but gay couples cannot visit their loved ones in a private hospital in the same way straight couples can, for example. If government recognizes one, it is reinforcing this biological discrimination. if it recognizes EITHER both or none, it destroys this discrimination. The hospital, in this case, must let the married homosexual visit their loved one either through presentation of marriage license or through not having special hours for married couples at all, since there would be no way of proving it.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:00 pm

Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:02 pm

GreecePwns wrote:Group A gets benefits for associating themselves with other members of Group A.
Group B does not get benefits, because they are not allowed by government to associate themsevles with other members of Group B in the same way Group A can based on biological differences.

If there were no benefits involved, the position is not a discriminatory policy. But again, this isn't about tax benefits, so let's assume that the benefits are not there.

Biological discrimination is not acceptable. At all. In any form.

So either the government recognizes the lifestyle of both biological groups, or it recognizes neither.


I don't think you are right about this. In what way does the government prevent group B from "associating" with other members of group B?? This isn't Saudi Arabia or Iran etc etc.

Is the boy-scouts and girl scouts "biologically discriminatory"??
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:04 pm

GreecePwns wrote:Group A gets benefits for associating themselves with other members of Group A.
Group B does not get benefits, because they are not allowed by government to associate themsevles with other members of Group B in the same way Group A can based on biological differences.

Yup, we're the Nazis.

Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:09 pm

Phatscotty wrote:and many do think it a liberty and a right,

Phatscotty wrote:and because it is liberty is the simple fact the government licenses it.



Phatscotty wrote:to take marriage out of the hands of the church



Phatscotty wrote:if you can find a church that will marry you, then by all means go get married there,

Phatscotty wrote: If a state chooses to allow gay marriage



Phatscotty wrote: And, government benefits are also a privilege, and not a right


This has nothing to do with religious bigotry at all. Nor does it in any way violate the conscience when it comes to separating Church and State. Nope. The two are completely separate in PS reasoning here. Completely.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:16 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Group A gets benefits for associating themselves with other members of Group A.
Group B does not get benefits, because they are not allowed by government to associate themsevles with other members of Group B in the same way Group A can based on biological differences.

Yup, we're the Nazis.

Image




Btw, the Nazis did not only do "1 thing". You really should look at the tactics the Nazi's employed, that led up to "that 1 thing". Might scare ya

Discriminating against a Christian business is exactly the same as discriminating against a Muslim business or an Atheist business.

Discrimination is discrimination. Prejudice is prejudice. Bigotry is bigotry.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Woodruff on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:17 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Is the boy-scouts and girl scouts "biologically discriminatory"??


Of course they are. They are simply discriminatory in a manner which most people (not all) don't find offensive. How is that not obvious?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Last I checked, the boy scouts and girl scouts are not dictators of official government policy. The government is.

I specifically wrote "in the same way a group A." Marriage within group a is recognized by government, but marriage within group b is not sure to purely biological differences. The benefits given out is a separate but equally bad form of government sanctioned biological discrimination.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:25 pm

GreecePwns wrote:Last I checked, the boy scouts and girl scouts are not dictators of official government policy. The government is.

I specifically wrote "in the same way a group A." Marriage within group a is recognized by government, but marriage within group b is not sure to purely biological differences. The benefits given out is a separate but equally bad form of government sanctioned biological discrimination.


How does a civil union not solve this?

And you are right, the boy scouts do not dictate official government policy. and neither does Chik-Fil-A
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby jonesthecurl on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:33 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Group A gets benefits for associating themselves with other members of Group A.
Group B does not get benefits, because they are not allowed by government to associate themsevles with other members of Group B in the same way Group A can based on biological differences.

If there were no benefits involved, the position is not a discriminatory policy. But again, this isn't about tax benefits, so let's assume that the benefits are not there.

Biological discrimination is not acceptable. At all. In any form.

So either the government recognizes the lifestyle of both biological groups, or it recognizes neither.


I don't think you are right about this. In what way does the government prevent group B from "associating" with other members of group B?? This isn't Saudi Arabia or Iran etc etc.

Is the boy-scouts and girl scouts "biologically discriminatory"??


In the UK and many other countries girls can join the boy scouts.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4601
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:37 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Last I checked, the boy scouts and girl scouts are not dictators of official government policy. The government is.

I specifically wrote "in the same way a group A." Marriage within group a is recognized by government, but marriage within group b is not sure to purely biological differences. The benefits given out is a separate but equally bad form of government sanctioned biological discrimination.


How does a civil union not solve this?

And you are right, the boy scouts do not dictate official government policy. and neither does Chik-Fil-A

Are we to assume civil unions give the same rights, benefits etc that marriage gives?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:56 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Btw, the Nazis did not only do "1 thing". You really should look at the tactics the Nazi's employed, that led up to "that 1 thing". Might scare ya

Discriminating against a Christian business is exactly the same as discriminating against a Muslim business or an Atheist business.

Discrimination is discrimination. Prejudice is prejudice. Bigotry is bigotry.


Feel free to explain these Nazi tactics that I employ so that I might better understand why you think we are all Nazis.

We're not discriminating against a Christian business. Christianity has naught to do with it for us. We're pushing back against a business that gives it's profits to hate groups. It's a business that doesn't consider Homosexuals to be human beings deserving of compassion or respect. They're/you're hiding behind "religious freedom" and crying victim, but we didn't start by attacking anything. We're purely reactionary-defensive. We're not the bullies here.

Phatscotty wrote:How does a civil union not solve this?

Image

Yup, Phatscotty's right, they're separate but equal somehow.


Phatscotty wrote:And you are right, the boy scouts do not dictate official government policy. and neither does Chik-Fil-A


Actually we pretty much hate what the Boy Scouts have become since the Mormons took them over. They also discriminate against Homosexuals and Atheists. The Girl Scouts do not practice discrimination, so they're innocent in all this.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:21 pm

jonesthecurl wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Group A gets benefits for associating themselves with other members of Group A.
Group B does not get benefits, because they are not allowed by government to associate themsevles with other members of Group B in the same way Group A can based on biological differences.

If there were no benefits involved, the position is not a discriminatory policy. But again, this isn't about tax benefits, so let's assume that the benefits are not there.

Biological discrimination is not acceptable. At all. In any form.

So either the government recognizes the lifestyle of both biological groups, or it recognizes neither.


I don't think you are right about this. In what way does the government prevent group B from "associating" with other members of group B?? This isn't Saudi Arabia or Iran etc etc.

Is the boy-scouts and girl scouts "biologically discriminatory"??


In the UK and many other countries girls can join the boy scouts.


that doesn't surprise me. You can also get thrown into jail for saying something offensive,right?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:22 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Btw, the Nazis did not only do "1 thing". You really should look at the tactics the Nazi's employed, that led up to "that 1 thing". Might scare ya

Discriminating against a Christian business is exactly the same as discriminating against a Muslim business or an Atheist business.

Discrimination is discrimination. Prejudice is prejudice. Bigotry is bigotry.


Feel free to explain these Nazi tactics that I employ so that I might better understand why you think we are all Nazis.

We're not discriminating against a Christian business. Christianity has naught to do with it for us. We're pushing back against a business that gives it's profits to hate groups. It's a business that doesn't consider Homosexuals to be human beings deserving of compassion or respect. They're/you're hiding behind "religious freedom" and crying victim, but we didn't start by attacking anything. We're purely reactionary-defensive. We're not the bullies here.

Phatscotty wrote:How does a civil union not solve this?

Image

Yup, Phatscotty's right, they're separate but equal somehow.


Phatscotty wrote:And you are right, the boy scouts do not dictate official government policy. and neither does Chik-Fil-A


Actually we pretty much hate what the Boy Scouts have become since the Mormons took them over. They also discriminate against Homosexuals and Atheists. The Girl Scouts do not practice discrimination, so they're innocent in all this.


the race card? how unpredictable! It's good to see you back Pimpdavid
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Maugena on Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:42 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:How does a civil union not solve this?
Image

Yup, Phatscotty's right, they're separate but equal somehow.


the race card? how unpredictable! It's good to see you back Pimpdavid

The resemblance is striking. Is, "REALLY?!" all you have to say, Phatscotty?
Renewed yet infused with apathy.
Let's just have a good time, all right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
User avatar
New Recruit Maugena
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:07 pm

JB has a point. Had you answered yes to my earlier question (about civil unions) , I would have said this:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that separate but equal, in both private and public settings, is indeed not equal. Considering this is an equality issue, the government should give all marriages equal status in recognition. Your counter is that the concept marriage is something that churches should decide upon. Then I'm sure you won't have a problem with the government recognizing both straight and gay couples as part of civil unions or both as marriages, or not recognize them at all. Because in all three of these cases equality reigns."
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:08 pm

GreecePwns wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Last I checked, the boy scouts and girl scouts are not dictators of official government policy. The government is.

I specifically wrote "in the same way a group A." Marriage within group a is recognized by government, but marriage within group b is not sure to purely biological differences. The benefits given out is a separate but equally bad form of government sanctioned biological discrimination.


How does a civil union not solve this?

And you are right, the boy scouts do not dictate official government policy. and neither does Chik-Fil-A

Are we to assume civil unions give the same rights, benefits etc that marriage gives?


what rights and benefits do you refer to? can you be specific please? (I thought it wasn't about benefits)
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:57 pm

Phatscotty wrote:the race card? how unpredictable! It's good to see you back Pimpdavid


That's not what "The Race Card" refers to.


Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase that refers to exploitation of either racist or anti-racist attitudes by accusing others of racism.


I was simply illustrating your comparison for you. :)
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:57 pm

Phatscotty wrote:what rights and benefits do you refer to? can you be specific please? (I thought it wasn't about benefits)


Please, don't twist my words. The primary motivation for gay marriage is not receiving benefits. It is about equality in the eyes of the government and society.

Visitation rights in hospitals, representation in court, countless private matters (financial transactions, for example).

If your answer is yes, that civil unions as you propose would give the couple in Group B the same rights in Group A, then I will refer to my previous post (slightly edited):

GreecePwns wrote:The Supreme Court has ruled that separate but equal, in both private and public settings, is indeed not equal. Considering this is an equality issue, the government should give all marriages equal status in recognition and recognize all marriages as marriages. Your counter is that the concept of marriage is something that churches should decide upon, with no government involvement, and that part has merit. Then I'm sure you won't have a problem with the government recognizing both straight and gay couples as civil unions or both as marriages, or not recognize them at all. Because in all three of these cases equality reigns.


If your answer is no, then why not?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:10 pm

GreecePwns wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:what rights and benefits do you refer to? can you be specific please? (I thought it wasn't about benefits)


Please, don't twist my words. The primary motivation for gay marriage is not receiving benefits. It is about equality in the eyes of the government and society.

Visitation rights in hospitals, representation in court, countless private matters (financial transactions, for example).


These things can be handled separately and individually, and I will add that they should be.

We do not need to redefine marriage.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 pm

How do you handle them then?

Which of those do couples in civil union get and which are reserved for marriage? How do you distinguish between the two?

Of course, you can say government should get rid of specific marriage benefits, but we agree on that. Let's assume they exist, because...well, they exist. Why wouldn't civil unions get those same things as married couples?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: In Regards to Chick-fil-A

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:17 pm

GreecePwns wrote:How do you handle them then?

Which of those do couples in civil union get and which are reserved for marriage? How do you distinguish between the two?

Of course, you can say government should get rid of specific marriage benefits, but we agree on that. Let's assume they exist, because...well, they exist. Why wouldn't civil unions get those same things as married couples?


They should, sticking with the short list of things you named recently. Civil union or marriage, the partner should be allowed to visit their loved on in the hospital, gay or straight. This can be handled on a state level, and I would bet it already is the case for most states that hospitals respect civil unions in this regard.

We don't need to amend the Constitution over this.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users