Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Whaleboy]

BK is not adept at arguing over this issue.

Then we have a differing opinion. Personally I think I haven't been able to topple him because he finds my position weaker than his, which is my bad. He would of course be in error if he thinks his position is unassailable which I guess is what you're saying, but I disagree.

BK tries to use other reasoning to support it, but his viewpoint on this issue is dictated by that phrase. It shows in what sources and arguments he chooses to acknowlege, and those he chooses to ignore.

I can't comment since I haven't seen those threads. I always treat "the bible says so" arguments with a pinch of salt anyway, but he provides a strong non-biblical argument, just in my opinion, the argument against his is stronger, I can appreciate he may not see it that way.

If you are just saying "everything is relative" (even logic)... I agree. And there's no point to even mentioning it outside a discussion about whether everything is relative or not.

Nah, people get sick of me when I do that . I'm saying that in my opinion, if BK is presented with a better argument, he'll adopt it because I haven't seen any evidence that he thinks his position is unassailable.

My statement was that if you hold his same view (calling his arguments logical) then I think you are mistaken as well.

I do not hold his views, pretty much diametrically opposed actually, but that is not to say that his views are inherantly illogical, since logic can be used to justify and refute any position we care to mention.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Monk


Well, how about this, if you give me a source those organizations have expressed that nobody really ever changes sexual preferences, then I'll most likely concede that you must be right. It's not every day on Apolyton somebody proves himself this flexible, as I'm sure you know

As you will find out here, the American Pyshiatric Association supports what I have said.

American Psychiatric Association

And if you do not want to go through the PDF text I provided the link to, here is their full, complete quote on this particular topic:

Is It Possible To Change One’s Sexual Orientation (“Reparative Therapy”)?
There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of “reparative therapy” as a
treatment to change one’s sexual orientation, nor is it included in the APA’s Task Force
Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders. More importantly, altering sexual orientation is
not an appropriate goal of psychiatric treatment. Some may seek conversion to
heterosexuality because of the difficulties that they encounter as a member of a stigmatized
group. Clinical experience indicates that those who have integrated their sexual orientation
into a positive sense of self-function at a healthier psychological level than those who have
not. “Gay affirmative psychotherapy” may be helpful in the coming out process, fostering a
positive psychological development and overcoming the effects of stigmatization. A position
statement adopted by the Board in December 1998 said:
The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as
“reparative” or “conversion” therapy, which is based upon the assumption that
homosexuality per se is a mental disorder, or based upon a prior assumption that the
patient should change his/ her homosexual orientation.”

*** END OF QUOTE ***


ask and ye shall receive

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The man wishes not to want to sh@g men anymore. That better? By the term 'gay' lifestyle, it's a less blunt way to illustrate what you and Boris and Mr. Fun share.

Why is it always sex with you?

Why do you reduce human relationships to sex?

Because you have no other valid arguments than the ones you continually repeat, ad nauseam, the ones based on your belief in a supernatural being and the dogmas associated with that belief.

You reduce my love and affection to sexual acts- is that all heterosexuals are, just sexual acts?

I see no reason why my taxes should subsidize networks of bigots who actively seek to curtail my civil rights in a secular society- tax exempt status (for already wealthy organisations) is an historical error which should be corrected. In fact, isn't there a saying amongst you religionistas- 'god will provide'?

Seems you don't trust much to this god of yours if his organisations need subsidizing by those of us who don't profess adherence to your dogmas.

As for your story of the firing of a British Columbian teacher- is there a difference between fired and suspended?

"A Catholic high school staffer was fired for writing a letter to a local paper criticizing public schools and asserting a quality education stems from values and family support, especially when modeled after Jesus Christ.

Kathy Peters, who lost her job Wednesday as director of recruitment for DeSales High School in Geneva, N.Y., told the Finger Lakes Times she felt she was "stabbed in the back by the administration."

"I just knew [I was in trouble], but I didn't think they were going to fire me," she said. "I thought I was going to get a reprimand."

In her May 6 letter to the Times, Peters also said public schools spend too much money on new buildings at the expense of education.

The letter touched off a firestorm of response to the paper from DeSales graduates and Geneva City School District employees.

Dr. Karen Juliano, DeSales' principal, said the policy of the Rochester Roman Catholic Diocese is not to comment on personnel matters.

But Juliano wrote a letter published by the Times explaining Peters' missive "did not represent DeSales High School, was not authorized by DeSales High School, and does not represent the opinions of the board of trustees, administration, faculty, staff and students of DeSales High School. We certainly do not wish to use the 'Letters to the Editor' section of the local newspaper as a recruiting tool."

Now that Catholic school fired a teacher- the British Columbian teacher appears to have been suspended for a month. For saying things like this, amongst others:

"Gay people are seriously at risk, not because of heterosexual attitudes, but because of their sexual behaviour, and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are trying to protect their own community members by making attempt to promote monogamous, long lasting relationships and to combat sexual addictions."

By monogamous long lasting relationships could he mean something like, oh, for instance, gay marriages?

No, couldn't be, because religionistas are scared of gay marriage, aren't they?

What I find hard to believe is that that teacher was a counsellor- what gay or lesbian pupil could possibly have any confidence in him? What gay parent would want him teaching his values to their child?

I don't believe he should have been punished for his views, but that's neither here nor there- as a teacher he has a duty of care to all his pupils- not just the heterosexual Christian ones. 'In loco parentis' doesn't mean behaving like a crazy fundamentalist parent, after all.

Let's just imagine a hypothetical situation- let's see that like some other teachers in the past, this teacher espoused views promoting Holocaust denial, or that interracial marriage was immoral.

And let's say he wrote a letter to his local paper describing people in mixed race marriages as fundamentally immoral, or black people as degenerate or unable to control their sexuality, or Jews as Christ killers.

How many 'Poly posters would think those reasonable standpoints, or trust their offspring to the care of such a person?

Oh, Wezil- when Obi Gyn stops referring to my relationship of over 20 years as a 'gay lifestyle' or assuming that he can adequately refer to all gay 'Poly posters as having the same 'lifestyle' then people might not feel so free to insult him.

All he does, when he says that, is shout out his bigotry for all to hear.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Why is it always sex with you?

Why do you reduce human relationships to sex?

Either because he is hopelessly, constantly perverted in his thoughts, or because he cannot comprehend the complexity of a human being in total.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Why is it always sex with you?

Why do you reduce human relationships to sex?

Because you have no other valid arguments than the ones you continually repeat, ad nauseam, the ones based on your belief in a supernatural being and the dogmas associated with that belief.

You reduce my love and affection to sexual acts- is that all heterosexuals are, just sexual acts?

I would gather that most heterosexuals would be offended if their relationship was seen as nothing but the sex act itself.

[Ben Kenobi]

What a truly ignorant, and tragically narrow-minded statement.

If you reduce a person's life style, their values, and their personality to which gender of a person they have sex with, you degrade all of humanity's complexity.

That's an odd complaint, since this is precisely why arguing that gay marriage is a human rights issue is wrong.

You are far more than who you sleep with, and I have said that many times in the past.

However, in order for one to draw a parallel, between the very different lifestyles of you, Boris and Molly, this is what I meant, and only what I meant.

It also counts as a better definition of sexual 'orientation' than anything you have ever provided.

[Ben Kenobi]

If your reason for denying gay people the right to marry is because marriage is a religious institution, it does not belong in the hands of the government, period.

Well, that argument works both ways.

If the state ought to relinquish all control over marriage, and turn them over to the religious authorities, this I would have no problem with.

Of course, this means, no benefits with respect to marriage, and no church could ever be forced to perform marriages, since there would be no other authority above them, on this issue.

It is also one of the options presented before the Supreme court.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would gather that most heterosexuals would be offended if their relationship was seen as nothing but the sex act itself.

Not for the purpose of marriage because the sex act is an essential part of marriage. Unconsummated marriages can be dissolved for no other reason than the fact that they are unconsummated.

Marriage has the expectation of sexual love, for heterosexuals, and they are not ashamed that this is a requirement of marriage, but it is understood that this is one of the primary purposes for marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Here is a question for you then... what if the will of the people was to outlaw religion... close all the churches... make worshiping god illegal... How would you FEEL, and would you fight to overturn a law that in your opinion was wrong and discrimating?

There are several routes I could take here.

Nowhere do I advocate that gay folks should not campaign in their own defense with respect to gay marriage, if a vote were to come up on this issue. The very fact that they have chosen to scuttle any such vote indicates two things.

Either, this is a human rights issue, in which case the courts ought to have precedence,

Or, they are circumventing the democratic process in order to impose their beliefs on Canada.

In the same way, I would be consistent to argue that I would merely be allowed to campaign vigorously against attacks with respect to the charter provisions of religion, even to allow a vote on whether or not religion ought to be permitted here in Canada.

However, I have additional arguments that apply to case. First of all, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly protects religious expression. Thus, I could easily argue that any vote to abrogate religion violates the Charter here in Canada.

In order to be consistent, I would also have to deal with the argument as to whether or not the Charter section 15 of the equality rights applies to:

1. Marriage provisions,
2. Homosexuals wanting to be married.

I have to leave, but I will be back, either tomorrow, or Monday to continue the thread.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First of all, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly protects religious expression. Thus, I could easily argue that any vote to abrogate religion violates the Charter here in Canada.

Don't you have laws against discrimination too

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Then we have a differing opinion. Personally I think I haven't been able to topple him because he finds my position weaker than his, which is my bad. He would of course be in error if he thinks his position is unassailable which I guess is what you're saying, but I disagree.

I don't feel that this forum is generally a place where you can expect to change anyone's mind. Regardless of the strength of your argument. It happens, but rarely and almost never on subjects which illicit strong opinions. Judging the strength of a position or argument by how many people are convinced by it, is futile in this environment.

(same response to the other relevent statements in your post)

I can't comment since I haven't seen those threads. I always treat "the bible says so" arguments with a pinch of salt anyway, but he provides a strong non-biblical argument, just in my opinion, the argument against his is stronger, I can appreciate he may not see it that way.

He doesn't use the Bible says so argument AFAIK, though he does reference the Bible as a source in many cases. The way he treats it as a source gives insight into what he is basing his opinions off of.

My reference to this is that God is a fundamental idea that doesn't allow for doubt. If He exists, His word is unassailable. Reasoning based on His word is going to be unassailable in the eyes of the believer.

I do not hold his views, pretty much diametrically opposed actually, but that is not to say that his views are inherantly illogical, since logic can be used to justify and refute any position we care to mention.

Certainly true that logic (good or bad) can be used to support any position. The definition of the term allows for it to reference "A mode of reasoning", and also to be used specifically to reference "Valid reasoning". I was using the second, and should have been more specific.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It also counts as a better definition of sexual 'orientation' than anything you have ever provided.

Sexual orientation is not the same thing as who you have sex with. It can be. It is possible to be heterosexual or homosexual and celibate though. It is possible to have same-sex sex and still be heterosexual as well. It is possible to have sex with someone of the opposite gender and be homosexual still. If you are having trouble understanding the concept, consider the extreme example of rape. Is the gender of the person who rapes you indicative of your sexuality?

For a definition of sexual orientation, try the dictionary.

"sexual orientation
n.
The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes."

See. "Interest". Not "sexual acts". Clear enough?

If the state ought to relinquish all control over marriage, and turn them over to the religious authorities, this I would have no problem with.

I think this would be the best result.

Not for the purpose of marriage because the sex act is an essential part of marriage. Unconsummated marriages can be dissolved for no other reason than the fact that they are unconsummated.

"Can" and "will" are different words. To be an essential act, you would have to use "will" instead of "can". It is... essential given the definition of the term. There are marriages that are unconsummated and not dissolved for that reason. Obviously then it is not an essential part of marriage.

Are you suggesting we should have a constitutional ammendment banning celibate marriages because of physical and/or idealogical circumstance? Are you suggesting a constitutional ammendment requiring couples who no longer have sex to be divorced?

Sex and marriage are not the same thing. Just as marriage and reproducing are not the same thing. Even sex and reproducing are not the same thing. When you try to entangle these issues you show your religious bias that you would force onto the rest of us.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


However, in order for one to draw a parallel, between the very different lifestyles of you, Boris and Molly, this is what I meant, and only what I meant.

It also counts as a better definition of sexual 'orientation' than anything you have ever provided.

And by drawing this so-called "parallel" you are trying to reduce the way we live our lives to whom we have sex with. You can continue to deny this until you're blue in the face -- won't change that fact.

When defining sexual orientation, it's based on which gender you are attracted to. For instance, in exlusively male prison complexes, there are straight men who engage in sex with other men even though these straight men are attracted to women. Their sex acts did not turn them into gay guys.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

However, in order for one to draw a parallel, between the very different lifestyles of you, Boris and Molly, this is what I meant, and only what I meant.

It also counts as a better definition of sexual 'orientation' than anything you have ever provided.

If our lifestyles are very different then it doesn't seem to me that there is a 'gay lifestyle' and unless you can provide a relevant pertinent description of this all encompassing 'gay lifestyle' that suits all gay people, stop using a demaning and offensive phrase when attempting to describe someone's sexuality.

It is perfectly possible, as many celibate clerics would agree, to be heterosexual or gay or lesbian and not have sex.

It is perfectly possible for two heterosexuals to enter into a marriage with the full knowledge that they may never have sex.

It is also perfectly possible (as happens in many Arab countries, in Asia and in some countries with a Hispanic culture) for otherwise heterosexual men to have sex with other men and not see themselves or define themselves as gay.

Your definition of sexual orientation is sadly limited by your unwillingness or inability to extend the same dignity in describing gay and lesbian loving human relationships that you give heterosexual relations. It suits your purpose and that of the 'Immoral Minority' to focus on sex, sex sex all the time.

I must say, it only reflects badly on you, and not on us.

Now as to your spurious claim of churches or denominations being forced to bless civil marriages, please provide some evidence, preferably better than your (evidenceless) claim about the fired British Columbian teacher. Or sorry, was that suspended?

How exactly would a government which guarantees religious freedom go about enforcing recognition of civil marriages by religious organisations?

[MrFun]

** eagerly waits for Monk to return to read what he asked for