Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.

Like Seeker said, being fired for refusing to do your job isn't coercion. A notary public who refuses to issue legal marriage licenses ought to be fired, right along with the mailman who refuses to deliver mail. If I (a government employee) decided to stop doing the job for which I was hired, then I'd expect to be fired (once my supervisor figured out that I wasn't doing anything, anyway).

Another example is the BC teacher fired for expressing an opinion in the newspaper with respect to using homosexual materials in the classroom.

That one's a legitimate concern. I'd consider that to be a problem with the school system, though, and not with the gay marriage law.

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?

Because coercion is still coercion regardless of how many people approve of it.

[Aeson]

Where are the state's rights activists on this issue?

[Seeker]

"Like Seeker said"

You are confusing me for my robot dog-drone, Boshko.

[Ben Kenobi]

then I'd expect to be fired (once my supervisor figured out that I wasn't doing anything, anyway).

Seems like we need a better definition of what constitutes 'coercion' before we get any further. I think it is possible to have morally legitimate forms of coercion.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

They provide services that the state would otherwise have to cover.

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?

If they reduce welfare payments, and keep people off the streets, and run shelters, you will end up on the plus side.

Your taxes are not going to support the churches, rather they are not paying taxes to support you.

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

With respect to benefits, yes they are, which is one of the issues I raised.

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.

I'm not that creative. These are concerns others have mentioned.

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?

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.

[MrFun]

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.

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

this doesn't give us the right to discriminate against those who hold political and religious beliefs that we don't like.this doesn't give us the right to discriminate against those who hold political and religious beliefs that we don't like.

Actually it does for political beliefs . There is no protection for political beliefs, ie, you can be fired for being a Republican without any reprisal. Religion does have some protection, but not total. You can discriminate somewhat against people with relgious beliefs, such as if you are running a church.

[MrFun]

I want to reiterate a lot of what I have said in past threads and posts to cover my bases here and to articulate myself more completely in one post.



First, I do not dispute the evidence that shows that sexual orientation is not a choice. However, having said that, I make the effort to avoid using the "it's not a choice" argument when discussing issues concerning gays and equal rights.
I have come to believe that a stronger argument can be made through the right of conscience, self-identity, and freedom to enter into contractual relationships with another person. This sets up a more effective refutation when homophobes and the willfully ignorant use the fallacy that "it's the behavior that we oppose -- not the person."


Second, I believe that homosexuality and any behavior that one engages in with another person of the same gender does not contradict God's wishes. In spite of what humans have written what they thought were God's wishes, I cannot take human text as literally being God's words.
And for those who pick and choose only specific passages in the Bible to advance their bigoted, anti-gay agenda, they almost always fail to follow other passages in the Bible that deal with adultery, slavery, wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, and so forth.

Also while I'm on the religious tangent, I want to affirm here my belief that I would be disappointing God by not being true to myself. God would not want me to lie to myself and others about part of who I am -- in fact, for some gays, coming out to themselves and others can be a spiritual/religious experience in a positve, affirming way.


Third, there is no such thing as "gay lifestyle" just as there is no such thing as "straight lifestyle." A lifestyle encompasses a person's whole life and how they live. To reduce a person's lifestyle that includes many things about him/herself to which gender of a person they have sex with is to depreciate the complexity of human beings. Just as there are many different lifestyles among straight people, there are many different lifestyles among gays.


Fourth, using the word "preference" in referring to a person's sexual orientation is fallacious in that preference indicates a choice. Since sexual orientation is not a choice, it makes no sense to refer to it with the word "preference."


Fifth, some people have made the ridiculous claim that because straight marriages more often than not reproduce and create new children, that this is the justification for granting privileges to marriages and for excluding gays from these same privileges.
However, because granting gays the same privileges will not undermine straight people from continuing to engage in reproductive marriages, there is no rational basis for denying gays equal recognition. Reproduction need not be the only justification for having these privileges.

Sixth, using alcoholism or any other addiction/illness as an analogy with homosexuality is contradiction to the psychological and medical findings that have found no reason to classify homosexuality as an illness. Therefore, those analogies are not only blatantly disrespectful of gays, but are also fallacious as such analogies are not based on correlation.


And finally, there have been a small number of gays who have claimed to have changed their sexual orientation. In reality, they have never changed their sexual orientation because it's not possible to do so. They can only change their outward behavior -- they will always be gay. The reason a small number of gays submit themselves to such bigotry-motivated quackery is likely to be for reasons of fear of living in a heterosexist, homophobic society and because of personal problems with themselves, their family, and friends related to their being gay. Quacks choose these insecure people as their prey to prop them up as examples that one can change their sexual orientation.

[Atahualpa]

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.

this is probably the biggest load of crap I have EVER heard. A family where the father beats the mother then probably shows the proper "interaction" with the other gender I guess!
But of course that does not happen anyway!

Oh boy, you should seriously change your attitude.

[the_ceebs]

Ah, there's the rub. There are plenty of negative consequences for homosexuals in a relationship, particularly with respect to promiscuity. To deny this, is to deny the very prevalent reality of sexual transmitted diseases among the active gay men.

Perhaps the best way to reduce this would be to allow gay marriages and so encourage monogamy amongst gays?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yeah, but it's better for the kids to be in marriage than in wedlock, just due to the increase in stability.

What increase in stability?

If they are going to seperate, mariage isn't going to stop that.

Or is watching your parents go through a messy divorce essential to a good childhood?

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.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that the best environment to raise a child would provide both a mother and a father.

Correction: The best environment to raise a child would be in a community, or large social group.

And incidentally, gays typically have a much more diverse group friends. So maybe gay parents are better because the child will learn how to interact with so many different kinds of people.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should the minority dictate terms to the majority?

Let the people vote on the laws on the country.

You still fail to conceive what is going on. What goes on between two consenting adults is no business but their own. The majority does not have the right to enforce their will on people when their life does not affect their own. Are you going to insist that all people 'just be a white colour' because they are in the majority? The same here. You have to distinguish between what is a free democracy and what is a lynchmob - a tyranny of the masses.

[Monk]

Originally posted by MrFun
And finally, there have been a small number of gays who have claimed to have changed their sexual orientation. In reality, they have never changed their sexual orientation because it's not possible to do so.

If somebody truly feels they've changed during the years, then who are we to say that couldn't possibly be true? As far as I can tell, your view is that the people who claim to have switched sides during the years are unfit to tell for sure just what they really are, or they're outright lying. I think if anybody said something like that to you, the eternal preacher of tolerance and diversity, you'd be pissed (and with a good reason to be so).

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I am not the one seeking to impose my values on others. I want this issue to come to a vote, such that the will of the people should be respected.

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?

[Ming]

And answer this question as well... what if the vote came out that gay marriages should be allowed... and that churches had to perform the sevices if requested... and that you could not exclude gay people from your church. What would you say about the will of the people then