Hello everybody

[Flubber]

Barring physical impediment, this argument doesn't work, as you noted in your post.

Where did I note this

Lack of consummation is NOT grounds for divorce if the parties married with no expectation of consumation. While is is considered a fundamental aspect of many marriages (and therefore its lack is grounds for divorce (or to render the marriage a nullity)) it is not a fundamental part of all marriages.

Note the common law exception around consummation had nothing to do with gay people as I understand it and was more around allowing the impotent, disabled or sexually disinterested to marry without having their partner able to render the marriage a nullity at any later time.

Consumation is not an issue for anyone that doesn't expect consummation.

However as you define consummation, a gay couple does have a physical impediment preventing consumation ( ie the lack of one of a penis or vagina certainly makes consumation impossible for that given couple (AGAIN as YOU define it))-- so such a marriage is valid even lacking consummation according to the old common law rules, is it not?


Oh and Ben while a physical impediment certainly can be a valid reason for no consummation, I also cited sexual disinterest as an example--- Really as long as consummation was not expected it could not be cited as a grounds to nullify a marriage

[Flubber]

Oh and Ben-- your comparison of today unfavorably with slavery times is absurd

Or did you not hear of things like the master having a black man neutered for say having sex with another slave that the master had chosen to breed with a lighter skinned slave. . . .. Or whipped on a whim or raped repeatedly because the master decided so.

Last 100 years

large progress on equal rights on things like race, gender, sexual orientation . . . even religion
less hunger, better education

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber, as you stated:

was more around allowing the impotent, disabled or sexually disinterested to marry without having their partner able to render the marriage a nullity at any later time.
Consumation is not an issue for anyone that doesn't expect consummation.

The first two, yes, if disclosed prior to the marriage. The third, no. The spouse could file for nullity and get it. None of which apply to gay people. So I'm not sure why the exceptions you cited work for gay people.

However as you define consummation, a gay couple does have a physical impediment preventing consumation

What physical impediment do they have? Are you implying that homosexual men and women are impotent/infertile?

the lack of one of a penis or vagina certainly makes consumation impossible for that given couple

Indeed, but it's not a physical deficiency/defect. If you were to take them and put them with women, they could consummate the relationship. That's my point. They can't appeal to an exception that doesn't apply.

I also cited sexual disinterest as an example

I'd like to see the case history on that one. Seems to me that sexual disinterest would be grounds for nullity.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh and Ben-- your comparison of today unfavorably with slavery times is absurd

Hrm?

2012 - 100 = 1912. Slavery had already been banned in the US for close to 50 years by then.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are ignoring the fact that the rich pay the most tax and they don't have to work at all. Those that do work for pure satisfaction, not necessity. You're being silly.

Kidicious.

No, quite the contrary. Those with high incomes get taxed the most. There's a difference between high income and high wealth. The ones who don't have to work at all, the truly wealthy folks usually have low incomes. Those who do work, and work long hours are the ones who tend to have the highest income.

It's not right to deprive people of the fruits of their labor just because they make more than me.

[Tuberski]

Dear God.

ACK!

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, just your opinion that you use to deny other people the rights that you enjoy. And hide behind a religious definition. Faith can not be successfully argued against, just mocked.

One, faith actually is protected by the constitution. There is a right to freedom of conscience in America.

Two, marriage isn't an individual right. You don't have the right to get married to whomever you want to marry. There are restrictions on those who can marry. If it were a natural right, these restrictions wouldn't apply. Also, notwithstanding the fact that nobody has the right to demand that someone else marry them.

Three, gay people are treated exactly the same way by the marriage law. They have the exact same rights that I do. What they are asking for is special rights, not 'equal rights'. They want their preferred relationship to be recognized as marriage. There are good reasons why this shouldn't be the case, because the two are not functionally the same. The state has expectations on marriage that gay marriage does not fulfill.

And was it the implementation of Gay marriages the change?

Yes, it was. The curriculum was changed by the province to force everyone who taught in a public school to teach contrary to their faith.

Wasn't it your CHOICE not to teach because of those changes. Were you forced to not teach.

Yes, I was forced not to teach. There have been other christians, Chris Kempling, who have been blacklisted from the BC College of Teachers. So yeah, the change in the law is having a negative effect on me, in barring me from teaching in the province.

So you're willing to admit that yes, the change in the laws did hurt me?

Giving them equal protection under the law is how I would 'Look after other people'. I don't see how your desire to deny them that is looking after them.

Forcing people to act contrary to their faith isn't 'equal protection' under the law. If equal protection truly applied, then no Christian would ever have to teach anything on homosexuality contrary to their faith. Instead, we see the state forcing people to abide by a law that is contrary to freedom of religion.

Now, you're welcome to assert that this is fearmongering, except that this is exactly what is happening in MA and BC, both places which have lifted their restriction on gay marriage. It isn't, 'leave well enough alone', it's 'attack all those who think otherwise'.

Please don't look after me.

I have tried to be kind to you in the past, don't worry, I won't make that mistake anymore.

[Ming]

Yes, I was forced not to teach. There have been other christians, Chris Kempling, who have been blacklisted from the BC College of Teachers. So yeah, the change in the law is having a negative effect on me, in barring me from teaching in the province.

So you're willing to admit that yes, the change in the laws did hurt me?

So you are claiming that the state won't let you teach? Have you been blacklisted, or is it just this Chris person... So you are actually barred from teaching, or is it simply your choice not to teach? You haven't really answered the question.
And please provide some proof... maybe your name on an actual blacklist... or maybe some paper work that actually bars you from teaching...
It sounds more like you are refusing to teach, not that you can't.

And frankly, I wouldn't want a bigot and moron like you teaching my children... cramming your silly bigoted beliefs down young people's throats...
People like you are why bigotry is passed on generation by generation.... It will never go away as "good religious people" like you continue to spread their message of hate for others.

[Ben Kenobi]

You just keep making yourself look stupid

If you say it often enough will it come true? Maybe you should click your heels together.

Slavery... you are forced to do what a master tells you do, and you don't get paid.

Taxation... you do what you want to do, and pay the government it's share

You are forced to do what the state tells you to do, or you don't get paid, and you get arrested and thrown in jail. Should I be thankful that the state gives some of it back? Or is it just slavery under a different name?

Let me ask you something, Ming. If someone came up to you and said that you had to give 50 percent of your check to him, before you even saw the money - what would you call that person? Especially if he had a bunch of thugs who would beat you up if you said no?

You are not OWNED by the state. You pay with money or time, and then you are free.

Uh, yeah, you are owned by the state. The state forces you to pay your money and time for the benefit of the state. The only difference is that it lets you keep some of your money. That doesn't change the fact that the state does own you and the state sets the terms.

I can't go to the state and say, hey, I really need that money right now. Let me have all of it. No, the state tells you, pay up or else.

It's YOUR choice to break the law... The FREEDOM to make a bad choice... Slavery isn't about choice... it's about lack of FREEDOM

Yeah, and taxation robs you of your freedom, the exact same way. The time that you could have spent improving your own situation, is time that you have to spend working for the state. I don't have the choice - the state decides the terms, and unlike with slavery, you can't escape and gain your freedom. There is no way out.

tell me what crime slaves committed?

What crime has someone who's kept all the money that he earned through his blood + sweat committed?

Again, for your simple mind... you go to jail for breaking the law... not the case with slaves... they had no choice.

So because a person chooses to keep all of his money, that gives the state the right to throw him in jail, and take his children away from him, and confiscate his property which he has earned?

It didn't used to work this way. It used to be that the state had no claim on the property of it's citizens, and had to sustain itself on the import duties of goods brought into the country.

A small step... unlike slavery which is indeed total control of your life.

And you've already lost a substantial number of your rights which you once possessed. This is my concern. The state is acting like, yes, it owns you - and owns your labor. And you have no right to say no.

America used to know what real freedom was like. Please provide some actual facts instead of tossing around 6 months.

The top federal bracket is 35 percent. That represents the same as working for the government from January to April.

Now, lets say you happen to work in Oregon, you'll pay 11 percent if you make more than 11k. So that's already 46 percent. The same as working for the government from January to the middle of June. If we take a middle estimate of say 35k, (which really isn't that much money), in Oregon, you're going to pay around 25 percent of that income to the government, if you live in Oregon.

That's the same as if you were to work from January to April every year for the government and not get paid at all.

we get something in return, police protection, schools, parks, library's

As opposed to what we could do for ourselves, if we were permitted to work for ourselves for the entire year?

So what's your point here?

That taxation is really no different from slavery. The state takes the fruits of your labor and spends it how it sees fit. You wouldn't work for another person for 4 months with no pay, and if you could be arrested by that person for choosing not to work, you don't consider that slavery? I sure would.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you are claiming that the state won't let you teach?

Not in where I have my degree, due to the curriculum changes. I could get certification and teach math or sciences, but I ought to be able to teach in the area where I am most qualified.

It sounds more like you are refusing to teach, not that you can't.

I'm perfectly willing to teach, just that the province won't hire me, at least not as a history teacher. Which is fine by me...

And frankly, I wouldn't want a bigot and moron like you teaching my children

Well, my students here seem to be doing just fine on their assessments.

cramming your silly bigoted beliefs down young people's throats

Have you ever sat in any of my classes? My teaching philosophy is the same as Von Ranke's, that all historical evidence has to be backed up through empiricism, and actual records. I'm perfectly happy to stick to a history curriculum, but I'm not going to teach something that I believe is wrong.

I can, and do teach secular history, and you wouldn't even know I was a Catholic unless you asked. I enjoy teaching all kinds of history.

It will never go away as "good religious people" like you continue to spread their message of hate for others.

Well, I invite you to sit in my class one of these days. Perhaps that would dispel your concerns.

[Jon Miller]

Honestly I can understand that part of the reason the state supports marriage is to provide for the raising of children/etc (the other reason is to support stable relationships).

However, the solution is to allow gays to adopt, and then implement support for gay marriage (via state recognition).

JM

[dannubis]

I'm perfectly happy to stick to a history curriculum, but I'm not going to teach something that I believe is wrong.

Yep. No pushing your opinions onto young peoples here.

[Kidicious]

Kidicious.

No, quite the contrary. Those with high incomes get taxed the most. There's a difference between high income and high wealth. The ones who don't have to work at all, the truly wealthy folks usually have low incomes. Those who do work, and work long hours are the ones who tend to have the highest income.

It's not right to deprive people of the fruits of their labor just because they make more than me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yep. No pushing your opinions onto young peoples here.

I'm really not sure why sexual preferences are at all relevant to what I teach. Really, I don't see it.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, the solution is to allow gays to adopt, and then implement support for gay marriage (via state recognition).

So because they can't have children, the solution is to ignore everything and have people bend over backwards to accommodate them? If adoption were all about making adults feel fulfilled, then why don't we let single people adopt as well?

Isn't that discrimination by marital status?

[rah]

Hmm, I thought single people could adopt. Just another example of Ben making crap up to support his ridiculous arguments.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_lif...ple-adopt.html

Smart, educated, working, independent, wants to have a family. No it's not an introduction from an online dating website, it describes the profile of single women and men hoping to adopt these days. Single would-be parents have been coming forward in force over the past decades, seeking to fulfill a part of their lives by bringing a child into the picture. It is estimated that 5% of all adoptions are done by single people.

But, are there restrictions? Can single people adopt? And, what should a single person keep in mind during the adoption process?

Restrictions

Where there used to be a stigma and even legal restrictions on single parent adoptions, there are now resources, support groups, and options for singles wanting to start a family. In fact, no state prohibits an unmarried person from adopting, and many states actually spell out applicability of adoption laws to single persons.

[Dauphin]

He gives oerdin a run for his money on who can get more facts wrong.

[rah]

Especially after his comments like

Have you ever sat in any of my classes? My teaching philosophy is the same as Von Ranke's, that all historical evidence has to be backed up through empiricism, and actual records.

Thank god I wasn't drinking anything when I read this or I'm sure it would have shot out my nose when I started laughing.

[Wezil]

How can you tell Ben's back?

You can catch up on five pages worth of posts in about 20 seconds.

*sigh*

[Ming]

If you say it often enough will it come true? Maybe you should click your heels together.

Very appropriate coming from you since you seem to be living in some weirdo fantasy land...

You are forced to do what the state tells you to do, or you don't get paid, and you get arrested and thrown in jail. Should I be thankful that the state gives some of it back? Or is it just slavery under a different name?

You are FREE to do whatever you wish with your life, and you have to pay your share to the government... that's NOTHING like being dragged over to this country and being forced to work at some job you have no choice in...

You keep talking about going to Jail and losing all your freedoms, getting raped, losing your children...
Do you want to take a guess at what percentage of the US actually gets convicted of tax fraud/tax evasion...
In the last year I could find the data, the percentage was... 0.0006874681% for all Americans. Nice straw man argument... it doesn't fly.

Let me ask you something, Ming. If someone came up to you and said that you had to give 50 percent of your check to him, before you even saw the money - what would you call that person? Especially if he had a bunch of thugs who would beat you up if you said no?

And this example has what to do with this argument? That's not how it works, so stop being an idiot.

Uh, yeah, you are owned by the state. The state forces you to pay your money and time for the benefit of the state. The only difference is that it lets you keep some of your money. That doesn't change the fact that the state does own you and the state sets the terms.

Again... simple BS. The state doesn't own you. You are free to do whatever you wish. I can get a job I like, get married, have children, play golf, and do things with my life. Slaves can't do any of that.

I can't go to the state and say, hey, I really need that money right now. Let me have all of it. No, the state tells you, pay up or else.

Actually, you can... You can go to the state and work out a plan with them. In many cases, you can even get a lot of taxes waived.

Yeah, and taxation robs you of your freedom, the exact same way. The time that you could have spent improving your own situation, is time that you have to spend working for the state. I don't have the choice - the state decides the terms, and unlike with slavery, you can't escape and gain your freedom. There is no way out.

You are really simple minded if you think the freedom we currently enjoy is the same as slavery... and what is this escape crap... any moron can leave the country. It's easier for me to leave the country than it was for slaves to escape... so WTF are you talking about.

What crime has someone who's kept all the money that he earned through his blood + sweat committed?

The crime of not paying his share... If you want to live in the country, that's the rule. If you don't like it, you have the FREEDOM to go somewhere else.
Please, feel free to move some place where the law says you can keep every penny you earn. We call that FREEDOM.

So because a person chooses to keep all of his money, that gives the state the right to throw him in jail, and take his children away from him, and confiscate his property which he has earned?

SEE ABOVE... You want to live somewhere, you live by the rules. If you don't like the rules, live somewhere else. You CHOOSE!

It didn't used to work this way. It used to be that the state had no claim on the property of it's citizens, and had to sustain itself on the import duties of goods brought into the country.

Your point... in the way past, you had to hunt to eat... THINGS CHANGE. And thank god they do.

And you've already lost a substantial number of your rights which you once possessed. This is my concern. The state is acting like, yes, it owns you - and owns your labor. And you have no right to say no.

But you have the freedom to work the job you want... do what you want with your life... nothing at all like slavery. The state does not own you... Slave masters did OWN slaves.

The top federal bracket is 35 percent. That represents the same as working for the government from January to April.

Now, lets say you happen to work in Oregon, you'll pay 11 percent if you make more than 11k. So that's already 46 percent. The same as working for the government from January to the middle of June. If we take a middle estimate of say 35k, (which really isn't that much money), in Oregon, you're going to pay around 25 percent of that income to the government, if you live in Oregon.

Again Ben... WHAT PERCENT OF THE US pays 50% of their income in taxes. You can post a example here or there, and I can post tons of examples of people who pay very little taxes... So stop trying to sensationalize things by throwing out the 6 month figure as if it's the standard... It isn't.

That's the same as if you were to work from January to April every year for the government and not get paid at all.

Learn some basic math... that's not 6 months.

That taxation is really no different from slavery. The state takes the fruits of your labor and spends it how it sees fit. You wouldn't work for another person for 4 months with no pay, and if you could be arrested by that person for choosing not to work, you don't consider that slavery? I sure would.

Gee... it takes a part of your labor... let's you live your life, get married, choose your own religion, have children, have fun, do whatever you want.
That doesn't even begin to compare to slavery.
If you consider that the same as being dragged from your home, forced to work in a cotton field from sun up to sun down, forced to live in substandard conditions, subject to rape and beatings, having your children or wife sold to somebody else and taken away, not being able to practice your religion...
Then you really a complete idiot.

[Nikolai]

Hmm, I thought single people could adopt. Just another example of Ben making crap up to support his ridiculous arguments.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_lif...ple-adopt.html

Over here single people would have a harder time getting permission to adopt, IIUC. But I've never heard of any restriction beyond that.

[Jon Miller]

Evidence is strong (I think, I am not interested in defending this in a BK thread) that those with two parents are raised better (in general) than those with one.

So it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against single parents (not to ban, but to make it harder).

I have heard of no evidence that being raised by two parents who have the same sex is better/worse than being raised by two parents with different sexes.

JM

[Nikolai]

For the first, yes I too believe it's better to be two persons and not single. And I also think there is evidence of that. As for the second, I guess it's too early to say, but I have my suspicions.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

When and if the study is ever performed it will be obviously trumpetted by winning side. Given that is not the case it is likely that either the studies are not completed or the results were too vague to make conclusions.

However, clearly a two parent arrangement regardless of the sexual persuasion is better than a single parent arrangment. The difference in child outcomes as a function of same sex verses differing sex parents is likely so insignificant as to be considered noise, were I to guess.

[dannubis]

Evidence is strong (I think, I am not interested in defending this in a BK thread) that those with two parents are raised better (in general) than those with one.

So it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against single parents (not to ban, but to make it harder).

I have heard of no evidence that being raised by two parents who have the same sex is better/worse than being raised by two parents with different sexes.

JM

The fact that on average children in single parent families went through the painful proces of divorce of their parents could have something to do with it.

[Jon Miller]

2=2x1

JM

[rah]

THIS IS INSANE/ actually just typical BEN debate tactics

Ben says

then why don't we let single people adopt as well?

Isn't that discrimination by marital status?

I point out that he's wrong and we do let singles adopt.

He says

Over here single people would have a harder time getting permission to adopt, IIUC. But I've never heard of any restriction beyond that.

Which is it BEN, Single can't adopt or can they? Just admit you were wrong with your first statement.

But NOOOOOO, he responds by changing the argument to something that has nothing to do with his original argument.

For the first, yes I too believe it's better to be two persons and not single.

WELL DUHHHHHHH.

Just admit you were wrong when you implied that singles couldn't adopt.

[dannubis]

2=2x1

JM

(i)^2 = -1

[regexcellent]

The fact that on average children in single parent families went through the painful proces of divorce of their parents could have something to do with it.

The problem of the high rate of divorce is a separate problem from that of single mothers, which also needs a solution.

[rah]

For me another single parent adoption issue is also about what is better for the child. A single parent adoption or continued living in an institution. I haven't seen any studies in this area. Not all adoptions are newborns.