Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Even if true, genes do not determine behaviour. The person would still have the choice whether or not to act on his desires.

Yes they do. If your one of those behaviorist loonies who beileive that there are no diference between male and female brains and other blank slate bullcrap I have a nice spot under a brige to sell ya.

[Ben Kenobi]

They force people to get married to each other up in Canada?

No.

I mean, you're making it out as though gay marriage is somehow a form of coercion. Who's being coerced, and what are they being coerced into doing?

The people of Canada who disagree with gay marriage.

They are being coerced into the recognition of gay marriage, on par with that of all other civil marriages. Essentially, they are being cut out of the loop with respect to how Canadian society ought to operate.

The second fear is that those who disagree with gay marriages, such as the various churches, would be forced to bless such marriages, or face the revocation of their tax-exempt status. Also, other provisions would be done to force the churches to allow practicing gay people to work in the church, regardless of the beliefs of the church. They would be required to provide equal benefits for 'married' gay couples over their own desires, not to have these people work in their churches, since their practices are contrary to what their church believes.

[Ben Kenobi]

If your one of those behaviorist loonies who beileive that there are no diference between male and female brains and other blank slate bullcrap I have a nice spot under a brige to sell ya.

Actually, I believe the opposite, that there are real differences between the brains of men and women, and that we do not start out with a tabula rasa.

I don't know why you think I would support either, given the content of my posts.

As for your first point, genes do not determine behaviour. They can only influence behaviour.

For example, going back to the alcoholic. If genes determined his behaviour, he would not be able to be sober for any appreciable length of time. Yet alcoholics, can and do remain sober.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They are being coerced into the recognition of gay marriage, on par with that of all other civil marriages.

How so? It's not as though anybody's being forced to change their opinions WRT homosexuals -- Canada's laws don't appear to have altered your opinions any, and I doubt the laws have had a different effect on anybody else's. How, exactly, have you (or anybody else) been coerced into anything?

Essentially, they are being cut out of the loop with respect to how Canadian society ought to operate.

They may not be able to coerce homosexuals in the same way that they used to be able to, but generally, it's not considered coercion to be prevented from coercing somebody else. I mean, it's not as though people have an inalienable right to effect coercion -- such a right would fail pretty much every moral test ever concieved of.

The second fear is that those who disagree with gay marriages, such as the various churches, would be forced to bless such marriages, or face the revocation of their tax-exempt status.

That may be an issue in Canada, but it's not one in the US.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The people of Canada who disagree with gay marriage.

They are being coerced into the recognition of gay marriage, on par with that of all other civil marriages. Essentially, they are being cut out of the loop with respect to how Canadian society ought to operate.

The second fear is that those who disagree with gay marriages, such as the various churches, would be forced to bless such marriages, or face the revocation of their tax-exempt status.

So what about those without religious beliefs who watch as religious foundations get away without the payment of various taxes?

What kind of snowjob have they been coerced into buying? Why should their taxes support the safety of religious foundations to which they do not adhere?

As for this supposed fear of churches being forced to bless gay marriages- are they forced to bless civil marriages? You know, between heterosexuals?

Really, you become more slick at raising imaginary or ludicrous reasons for opposing gay marriage, but it doesn't mean they aren't any more absurd.

And please, stop using the phrase 'gay lifestyle'. All it does is proclaim your bigotry and ignorance from the rooftops.

THERE IS NO 'GAY LIFESTYLE'.

I live my life, MrFun lives his, Boris lives his, et cetera.

We're all gay, but we all have different lifestyles. MrFun happens to be religious- I'm not. Asher is right wing- I'm not. Get the picture?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by molly bloom
We're all gay, but we all have different lifestyles.

But you all wear leather assless pants. Admit it, it's true.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.ancpr.org/affects_of_fatherlessness_on_chi.htm

A rather odd source, but it's one of the best that I sifted through.

Most of the information is in one place.

[Seeker]

"If there are distinctive gender roles, between men and women, then it makes sense that a child learns to interact with both through his father and his mother. Lacking either the father or the mother hinders the development of the child, such that they will not learn how to properly interact with members of the other gender."

I, and many of my single-parent family friends, turned out to be more conventionally 'successful' than other people from two parent homes. In fact I would argue that we had to be more responsible than 2 parent children at an earlier age.

Note that this example is from a 'white' cultural context.

So I would disagree that lacking a father or mother 'hindered my development'.

[Ben Kenobi]

That may be an issue in Canada, but it's not one in the US.

To be fair, you asked me for the situation in Canada. Many of the other fears are applicable to the US situation, especially the ones regarding the practicing homosexuals working in the church.

How, exactly, have you (or anybody else) been coerced into anything?

What about the folks who issue marriage licenses? Anyone who chooses not to issue a marriage license, now has grounds of dismissal. This has happened right here in BC, where folks who have done their job, now find themselves fired.

Coercive? I think so. Anything that is related to the public system here in Canada is facing coercion of various sorts.

Another example is the BC teacher fired for expressing an opinion in the newspaper with respect to using homosexual materials in the classroom. He did not speak out in the class, but expressed his opinion in the proper forum, a newspaper. He now has been stripped of his teaching certificate, after more of a decade of teaching and counselling.

Coercive? I think so.

I can cite many other cases, of where this just increases the pressure on Canadians to conform to this social experiment, rather than expressing discomfort or concerns.

[Ben Kenobi]

I, and many of my single-parent family friends, turned out to be more conventionally 'successful' than other people from two parent homes. In fact I would argue that we had to be more responsible than 2 parent children at an earlier age.

Statistically, this is what we call a 'small sample'. One cannot prove the rule.

[Bosh]

What about the folks who issue marriage licenses? Anyone who chooses not to issue a marriage license, now has grounds of dismissal. This has happened right here in BC, where folks who have done their job, now find themselves fired.

Um, no he didn't do his job. That's why he was fired. And that's a damn good reason to fire people.

[Ben Kenobi]

They may not be able to coerce homosexuals in the same way that they used to be able to, but generally, it's not considered coercion to be prevented from coercing somebody else. I mean, it's not as though people have an inalienable right to effect coercion -- such a right would fail pretty much every moral test ever concieved of.

Yes, you bring up an excellent point.

How is it that the policy I have supported, of having a free and binding vote in parliament, on gay marriage, is obliquely coercive to the homosexuals?

[Ben Kenobi]

Um, no he didn't do his job. That's why he was fired. And that's a damn good reason to fire people.

Still coercion.

[Seeker]

But, if it's possible for me and many others, why deny people the chance to live in the family unit of their choice?

I think the 'possible negatives to the public good' argument would've kept our divource laws retarded.

Besides, what the heck is this big benefit to society that marriage offers? Bigger cars?

I think the idea of 'more '''stability'''' is such an ersatz and fleeting notion to deny someone something they care deeply about.

Are societies with 'traditional marriage' more stable? Well if we look at countries with the most traditional forms of marriage (no divource) vs Canada (gays can marry) it doesn't seem like traditional marriage gives us some kind of EU2 stability boost.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by loinburger

But you all wear leather assless pants. Admit it, it's true.

I wish some people wouldn't. They look as though their arses need ironing.

Yet again Ben Kenobi launches himself on his crusade to save Christian white heterosexual right wing civilization from the tyranny of single parents, godless atheism and gay marriage, with ready reference to a host of fringe groups all agitating in their own demagogic way, and feeding off each other's inaccurate information in a great daisy chain of bile and invective.

Are there or have there ever been any societies or cultures where there are more than two parents or where fathers are absent by design?

Obi Gyn's deep thoughts:

"Another example is the BC teacher fired for expressing an opinion in the newspaper with respect to using homosexual materials (?) in the classroom. He did not speak out in the class, but expressed his opinion in the proper forum, a newspaper. He now has been stripped of his teaching certificate, after more of a decade of teaching and counselling. "

You said it yourself:

"Statistically, this is what we call a 'small sample'. One cannot prove the rule."

Are there no gay or lesbian children in Canada? There emust be, because my friend Gerry is a teacher in Vancouver, and he was gay and went to school there. Surely the moral crusade to cleanse Canada of homosexuality can't have succeeded to that extent.

What are homosexual materials? Do you mean those leather assless trousers of which loinburger spoke?

If fatherless families are such a terror and corrosive to society, then clearly you'll support two gay men adopting children- for then the child will have two fathers.

Do Conservative social or economic policies ever have a role to play in 'coercing' the absence of a father from his family by virtue of economic necessity? Such as for instance, the widespread large scale unemployment that occurred in the United States and Great Britain under Thatcher and Reagan when more and more men were forced to leave home and take up unskilled low paid work away from their families.