How would you vote on the Canadian Alliance motion?

[Ben Kenobi]

So by banning marriage for gays, are you not making this worse?

Asher:

Actually, I used to agree with you. However your argument assumes that all a homosexual can expect to have is a homosexual relationship.

Now, we both know that's not true.

If you don't believe me, than ask me for sources.


Mr. Fun:

I hate it when people use slippery slope arguments, don't you??

It is a slippery slope. I just don't see the justification for 'to the exclusion of all others.' Without a good counter-argument for why the slope ought to stop, than I feel a slippery slope becomes quite valid.

[MrFun]

And what about my other arguments -- don't get lazy, now.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Asher:

Actually, I used to agree with you. However your argument assumes that all a homosexual can expect to have is a homosexual relationship.

Now, we both know that's not true.

If you don't believe me, than ask me for sources.

All a "homosexual can expect" is all a person should expect: the right to marry the person they love, and the right not to get stoned because of who they love.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's your problem, and not mine. Fortunately society is moving away from your God-fearing dogma into something far more rational, civil, and tolerant.

You also cite an article explaining "why homosexuals don't lead long lives", from a laughable source, but even that mentions that one factor could be loneliness and lack of monogamous relationships. But at the same time, you oppose the social structures that allow homosexuals to be less lonely (be more open about who they are) and have monogamous relationships like heterosexuals do (in marriage).

[David Floyd]

It is a slippery slope. I just don't see the justification for 'to the exclusion of all others.' Without a good counter-argument for why the slope ought to stop, than I feel a slippery slope becomes quite valid.

Even so, why should the state tell you that you can't enter into a contract with two or more people?

Obviously, you can't enter into a contract with your pig, unless the pig can demonstrate that it is competent to enter into the contract, so don't try to pull out the beastiality marriage nonsense argument. Your so-called slippery slope ends here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Funny how your argument fails to rebut the studies.


Mr. Fun:

Um -- I got news for you. Gays do not decide to have sex with someone of the opposite gender, based on whether or not they will have legally recognized unions with someone of the same gender.

So we have a fixed sexual orientation?

As for going to Canada to get married, why don't you ask Boris if that appeals to him?

I got news for ya -- gays value family just as heterosexuals value family -- just not in the homophobic, narrow sense.
To deny this, is to deny that gays have the same universal humanistic traits that heterosexuals have.

just not in the narrow homophobic sense? Seems like you've got your mind all made up! How can they value the same things when they are all homophobic?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Asher:

Funny how your argument fails to rebut the studies.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can realize why people in 1970, over 70, are less likely to admit they're gay.

[Ben Kenobi]

David:

Not ignoring you, just trying to keep up with the others.

Even so, why should the state tell you that you can't enter into a contract with two or more people?

Fair enough, but again, you now have to deal not only with homosexuality, but also with polygamy.

Secondly, marriage = contract is also disputable, if you consider Shi's arguments. The state recognises marriage, it does not redefine. Marriage exists outside the jurisdiction of both the courts and the state in terms of the definition.

[notyoueither]

But, which jurisdiction outside of the state should the state recognise?

If no churches were willing to perform the ceremony, there would be no controversy, would there?

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can realize why people in 1970, over 70, are less likely to admit they're gay.

Will their names be plastered for everyone to see? There is no reason, so long as their identities are protected.

All a "homosexual can expect" is all a person should expect: the right to marry the person they love, and the right not to get stoned because of who they love.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's your problem, and not mine. Fortunately society is moving away from your God-fearing dogma into something far more rational, civil, and tolerant.

Tolerant.


Since when do I advocate stoning gay people? There are many people who have found their happiness by leaving the gay lifestyle. But then, these would be 'silly' stories, would they not?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Asher:
Will their names be plastered for everyone to see? There is no reason, so long as their identities are protected.

They grew up in a time where homosexuals were jailed. You do it out of habit.

If I had been asked if I was gay in high school I'd have said no, even if it was anonymous.

Haven't you taken a basic statistics course? It's absurd to conclude that gays die faster today because in 1970 people over 70 were unlikely to say they were gay. Do you not see the mountains of problems with that?

They need to teach you social science boys some more science and math, obviously.

Tolerant.


Since when do I advocate stoning gay people?

You don't, but a while ago "your type" did (see, stereotyping can be done by everybody).
And in 50 years, people would laugh at even the notion of not allowing gay people the same rights as others. It'll be right up there with stoning gay people, or slavery. A downright basic infringement of equality based on "tradition" of the religious majority.

I will even go so far as say in 300 years, people will look back at religion as we see it today with the same eyes we look at cults like the Heaven's Gate today.

There are many people who have found their happiness by leaving the gay lifestyle. But then, these would be 'silly' stories, would they not?

Nope, if they truly are happy by "leaving the gay lifestyle" -- more power to them. Fail to see why that's relevant at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

But, which jurisdiction outside of the state should the state recognise?

If no churches were willing to perform the ceremony, there would be no controversy, would there?

Good argument.

My only rebuttal would be to put the vote to the people to determine what ought to be done, since the ruling will affect people either way.

Secondly, is that the reason cited by these MPs for the bill, that they ought to respect the decision of the United church over all the others?

[Ben Kenobi]

They need to teach you social science boys some more science and math, obviously.

/me recalls being a Physics major. I'm fine so long as we don't get into second-year calculus. That's why I left my program.

Haven't you taken a basic statistics course?

No, have you?

I grant that the rate of response will be less than the reality just from confidentiality, but your hypothesis of 'automatic' reflex seems specious.

Secondly, you need to quantify the lack of response to account for the remarkable absence of older men.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


* Ben Kenobi recalls being a Physics major. I'm fine so long as we don't get into second-year calculus. That's why I left my program.

Apologies, thought you were poli-sci for some reason.

No, have you?

Yes, and then some...

I grant that the rate of response will be less than the reality just from confidentiality, but your hypothesis of 'automatic' reflex seems specious.

Secondly, you need to quantify the lack of response to account for the remarkable absence of older men.

I need to do no such thing, because one basic elementary law of statistics: correlation does not equal causation.

My prof made us chant that repeatedly since the less guided confuse correlation with causation to prove a (undefended) point all too often.

There's fundamental problems with that "report"