Canada shelves Gay marriage legislation.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're worried that if gay couples get the same tax benefits as straight couples, many Christian men would turn gay?

I'm saying that more will forgo marriage, that's all.

[Ramo]

Why?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm saying that more will forgo marriage, that's all.

This still makes no sense. Why would more forgo straight marriage if gay marriage is made legal, unless they were going for a gay marriage instead since they qualify for the same tax benefits.

Am I the only one noticing a distinct lack of logic and huge holes in Ben's ideas, but he seems to be oblivious to them all as he thumps his bible into the crotch of men having pre-marital sex?

[Sliparac]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Can you say that gay marriage will increase the birth rates?

The number of births in Belgium has increased a few % since gay marriages were allowed last year...

[Ben Kenobi]

Ramo:

That doesn't make any sense. Why should the Vicky Windsor have legal authority over marriage in Canada, but not your parliament?

I'm unsure of the allusion. The argument goes back to the old constitution of Canada that describes the role of parliament as a caretaker of marriage. That description seems to rule out the capacity of parliament to redefine marriage.

But that isn't limiting one's freedom to be a Christian.

Marriage, for Christians is an important part of exercising their religion. To limit their ability to marry limits their ability to be a Christian. If marriage has nothing to do with religious practice, why does the Catholic church have such strict rules about believers marrying unbelievers?

Besides, you haven't made the case why the equality of gay people shouldn't be protected.

Equality is not the issue. I have made that point several times that a gay man does not have less rights before the law, he simply chooses not to exercise his rights.

Nor have you made the case that homosexuality isn't biological.

I'll make the case again. One can inherit a predisposition to homosexuality, but the predisposition does not determine behavior. To argue that one has no control over sexual urges would excuse every rapist.

Gay couples are perfectly capable of adopting. Straight couples are perfectly capable of not having kids. Why not seperate this benefit from whether or not one is straight, and tie it to whether or not one has kids?

Over the entire sample. These are exceptions and should not prove the case for the norm. Society can reasonably expect children to come from a marriage, but cannot reasonably expect children to come from gay marriage.

And you also have to note I make the qualifier, 'within the union.' The obvious exception is adoption, but the problem is that it is not like gay people cannot have children, they are fertile, but have chosen not to exercise these capacities. .

[Ben Kenobi]

how about allowing for more stringent qualifiers? A couple net worth must be > $1,000,000, or maybe only allowing heads of state to marry? 1st born?

Theban:

These distinctions are arbitrary. For example, why not allow the second born to be married? The same cannot be said for marriage as one man and one woman.

[Theben]

Marriage, for Christians is an important part of exercising their religion. To limit their ability to marry limits their ability to be a Christian. If marriage has nothing to do with religious practice, why does the Catholic church have such strict rules about believers marrying unbelievers?

Do you think only christians should be allowed to marry?

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you think only christians should be allowed to marry?

No. Re-read that argument again Theban. Look at the qualifier, 'for Christians'.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
These distinctions are arbitrary. For example, why not allow the second born to be married? The same cannot be said for marriage as one man and one woman.

They certainly are, and just as arbitrary as not allowing gays to marry. You were the one who said, "you give marriage benefits to every relationship, it waters down the meaning behind the benefits". Sounds to me like you're arguing for inclusiveness, so I was offering suggestions to make marriage even more elitist.

For one I don't see how allowing gay couples to marry 'devalues' marriage. You've made a blanket statement with nothing to back it up. One could say allowing gays to marry would make the institution of marriage even more valuable, with the same amount of emotion/logic/moral sensibilities backing it up.

[Ben Kenobi]

The number of births in Belgium has increased a few % since gay marriages were allowed last year...

Evidence?

And is this due to gay marriage, or increasing Muslim immigration?

I'm more interested in the numbers of marriages. Are they increasing or decreasing among heterosexuals?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
DRoseDars:

If you lower the marriage rate in heterosexual couples, that will drop the birthrate.

So millions of seemingly straight married men are actually gay? And opening marriage to gay couples will free those millions of seemingly straight men from the shackles of straight life? And they'll leave those faulty marriages in droves, abandoning their baby-factories in favor of a man in leather chaps?

And what of openly gay men? Right now, millions of gay men are marrying woman and making babies. Lots of them. Right?

Let's see if I understand your logic: Gay marriage legalized -> gay men (both the unattached, but are eager to marry "if they can find that special woman," and those married to women, 'cause there's millions of them...) opt to marry other gay men -> birthrates plummet -> Humanity causes its own exstinction because it only has homogay leather chap-wearing anal sex, though the ladies will have to use strap-ons in order to fornicate with each other now that all the men are buggering each other and not them. Right?

Gay couples negatively affecting birthrates? Oh please.



I'll respond more to child-bearing options for gays in a moment. I'm missing Futurama.

[Asher]

What's amusing is that everyone else can see his train of logic and the obvious corollaries of it, but Ben is oblivious even to his own opinions and what they mean.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would more forgo straight marriage if gay marriage is made legal, unless they were going for a gay marriage instead since they qualify for the same tax benefits.

Common-law vs. Marriage? I would think more people would go common law.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. Re-read that argument again Theban. Look at the qualifier, 'for Christians'.

Then by your own statements non-christians do not value marriage, and gays cannot be christian in good standing (since they cannot fulfill their obligations to the church).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Common-law vs. Marriage? I would think more people would go common law.

This is not the issue and you know it.

The issue is legalizing gay marriage. You're saying legalizing gay marriage will both drop the birth date as well as making less heterosexual couples marry.

I am utterly confused why you argue about legalizing "gay marriage" when it's convenient, and then switching to "common law" marriages when it's convenient.

Pick and issue and debate it, quit flopping around as it's convenient.