Canada shelves Gay marriage legislation.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Children are neither biologically mature nor emotionally mature enough to be having sex, much less sex with adults.

That's just your opinion. I fail to see how you can objectively prove that children aren't "emotionally mature" enough to be having sex with adults.

Fully knowing you're trolling there, but I'll bite.

There's nothing biased about biologic immaturity. Little Suzie's under-developed v*gina can't handle a full-grown adult p*nis. Is little Billy even capable of an erection yet? Nay, biology determines when the body is mature enough, not any one person's "moral standards."

What of the emotional effects that result from the act of sex? Do children know how to deal with them yet if they're still trying to avoid getting cooties by simply touching each other? Hell, kids throw fits and tantrums when they're told they can't watch TV. How are they going to deal with being treated like dirty little whores in bed? While not directly biology, emotional developement can ONLY develope over time. That does make it harder to determine a safe Age of Consent. Perhaps we rely on biologic developement again. Perhaps since some places have programs that teach children about the changes to their bodies during puberty as they're going through them, they should also start being taught about the emotional and social ramifications of sex, not just telling them they might make babies or get nasty diseases.

Ok, when do you teach that expanded curiculum? In junior high or high school, since they'll be finishing up puberty AND have incredible amounts of hormones coursing through their veins. Teach them then BEFORE they finish public schooling, or else they'll have to learn entirely on their own. (<- Assuming their parents are lazy, relying instead on the public school system to raise their kids for them.) Sure, they'll still make mistakes, but at least they wouldn't be "thrown to the lions" without any protection, protection being prior knowledge of what they might encounter.

Biology helps us determine one half of how to protect children from sexual manipulation for certain. Biology only indirectly helps solve the other half. Even after these to parts have been addressed, they aren't a sure thing. But at least a sensible effort will have been made. Enforcement of those "amoral standards" by adults and restraint from ignoring or violating those standards by adults might never be fully achieved. But again, we will have honestly and right-headedly tried.

Tell that to the judge.

Or I could have just posted that.

[Ben Kenobi]

They believe that God created sex for the purpose of procreation. Anything other than this is perversion.

I wanted to back off, and see how the thread went.

I just have to clarify. Sex is not just about procreation. Love should also be incorporated. The combination of the two is what sex should involve. Lacking one element over the other is not quite right.

Thanks for trying to defend me, Agathon.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

1) It cheapens the institution of marriage.

HUH? Are people really saying that the love two people have for each other and the bond they share by getting married is at all effected because of what other people do?

Sure. Suppose you grew up, as I did in a family where the mom and dad were married, and stayed together all the while you lived with them. Now, change the situation, with one family, where you have a divorce. Marriage for you is going to have a very different meaning to the family broken up by divorce, as it would to the family that stayed together.

Suppose the man with the family who broke up met a very nice woman. Do you think that he will be as quick to marry, considering the troubles in his own family? He will be more likely to avoid marriage, associating the term with strife, rather than happiness.

So yes, the decisions of other people will effect the way marriage is valued in society. We see the same in all the arguments how Britney Spears cheapens marriage by asking for an annullment immediately after getting married. Anything outside of the ideal tarnishes the ideal.

2) Marriage is meant for having children/family and that wouldn't be the case for gays.

HUH? Couples who can't have children are allowed to get married... and EVERY RELIGION I KNOW OF allows that and doesn't see it as a sin. Marriage is about love and commitment... You don't have to prove you can have children to get married.

Point in keeping. Marriage is about both love and commitment, and starting a family. If you can't have kids, because one of you is infertile, that is not the fault of either partner. However, this is not the case with homosexuals.

3) Effecting the birth rate seems to have come up...

HUH... what does this have to do with anything.

One of the benefits society derives from marriage. A civil defense of marriage , relies on these benefits.

4) Since gays aren't necessarily getting married to have/adopt children, they don't need the special legal rights that are granted to those that do.

Bull... Marriage has evolved beyond just having a family.

I agree. Marriage is not just about having a family. However, marriage still includes the assumption of a family, alongside a desire to love and take care of each other.

A daughter, who lives at home, taking care of her father and mother, for her life, is she considered married to the two? No.

[Ben Kenobi]

This issue is a lot bigger than just rights for gay people. This issue is also about whether churches are free to decide their own course based on the consciences of thier own congregants.

So, then should the Mormon church be able to perform polygamy? If not, why not?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ming:

1) It cheapens the institution of marriage.

Sure. Suppose you grew up, as I did in a family where the mom and dad were married, and stayed together all the while you lived with them. Now, change the situation, with one family, where you have a divorce. Marriage for you is going to have a very different meaning to the family broken up by divorce, as it would to the family that stayed together.

Suppose the man with the family who broke up met a very nice woman. Do you think that he will be as quick to marry, considering the troubles in his own family? He will be more likely to avoid marriage, associating the term with strife, rather than happiness.

So yes, the decisions of other people will effect the way marriage is valued in society. We see the same in all the arguments how Britney Spears cheapens marriage by asking for an annullment immediately after getting married. Anything outside of the ideal tarnishes the ideal.

Congratulations, you just made a case against heterosexual marriages since so many of them end in divorce.

Do you even realize that in an argument about allowing gay marriage, you've said it "cheapens" marriage, and then to back this up to spent a few paragraphs discussing heterosexual divorces?

2) Marriage is meant for having children/family and that wouldn't be the case for gays.

Excellent point -- perhaps when applying for a marriage license we can have a form asking how many children they plan to have. We could also, perhaps, set a time limit for them to conceive these children. Failure to comply will result in a relationship terminiation.

Further, adoption will not be permitted. We cannot be having people not procreating and still raising someone else's kids.

This reminds me of Hitler's Germany?

[notyoueither]

It's really pretty simple, actually. We all agree as part of this society (maybe not all societies) that we will and will not do certain things.

We will not kill each other.

We will not steal from each other.

We will not treat each other differently to some detriment based on the colour of each others skin, or gender, place of origin, age, disability, or religion.

We will tolerate the expressions that others may make so long as they do incite actions to the detriment of the safety of others.

We will not interfere with each other in the pursuit of a relationship with the divine, as each of us may define that divinity, or not.

We will obey certain restraints on our behaviour towards others as are judged to be to the general benefit of all, or to protect those who are in no position to protect themselves, such as children.

Which of the above do gay marriages conflict with?

Which of the above do the opponents of gay marriages conflict with?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So, then should the Mormon church be able to perform polygamy? If not, why not?

Why do you keep trottiing this old nag out?

We disallow polygamy because it is or was exploitative of women. No religious or cultural group within Canada is allowed the practice. We outlaw it for good reason, because people get hurt by it.

We are discussing what posible good reasons you might have to interfere with the lives and religion of others. How will you be hurt, other than in a diminished ability to decide what is right for other people in a purely personal relationship between adults?

[notyoueither]

It's illegal to marry your mother.

It's illegal to marry more than one person.

It's illegal to kill people.

It's illegal for two people of different races to be married. Oops, strike that one.

Still, it should damn well be illegal for two consenting adults who are of the same sex to get married!

Do those who trot this horse hooey out listen to themselves?

[Ben Kenobi]

We disallow polygamy because it is or was exploitative of women. No religious or cultural group within Canada is allowed the practice. We outlaw it for good reason, because people get hurt by it.

So,

This issue is also about whether churches are free to decide their own course based on the consciences of thier own congregants

Is irrelevant. Clearly churches are not allowed to decide their own course based on the consciences of their own congregants.

[Asher]

That's right. So suck it up and move on.

[notyoueither]

Horse hockey! You are conflating issues, once again.

Let's turn the tables, Ben. How and why do you and yours own a monopoly on the definition of marriage?

[Ben Kenobi]

Excellent point -- perhaps when applying for a marriage license we can have a form asking how many children they plan to have. We could also, perhaps, set a time limit for them to conceive these children. Failure to comply will result in a relationship terminiation.

Notice I continue to say that procreation is not the sole requirement for marriage.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Notice I continue to say that procreation is not the sole requirement for marriage.

So then you admit it is a non-issue, and you are wasting everyone's time.

You've been backed into a corner and bent over, what happens is up to you. It seems like you want to keep going.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is irrelevant. Clearly churches are not allowed to decide their own course based on the consciences of their own congregants.

I'm not going to leave this alone, because you are full of ****.

First off, polygamous sects have grown men preying on young women who know no better. They are isolated, and they know no other lives. The patriarchs have a nice thing going. They breed their own slaves, in essence.

You're damn right that we outlaw that ****. If you want to argue exploitation, go there. But for the love of your own credibility, stop equating 14 year old, brain washed, adolescent girls to adult, world wise people who want devine sanction for a life long, monogamous relationship they will have with another informed, consenting adult.

[Ben Kenobi]

How and why do you and yours own a monopoly on the definition of marriage?

Where do I say that?

I want this put to a referendum. Society should have the right to determine civil marriage, rather than any one particular denomination.

So then you admit it is a non-issue, and you are wasting everyone's time.

It's not the sole reason, but an important part of marriage.