Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Mr. Fun:

Why not have a benevolent dictator make the right decisions for all of us?

I'm working on it . . . . .

But seriously, there is no need for a benevolent dictatorship.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not on a prima facie basis. One must examine the rationales behind the laws.

Yes -- and just like with laws against interracial marriages, there is NO sound rationality behind laws against gay marriages.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's why civil rights supercede the ideals of Democracy...

Ah, not so fast. Why is this an issue of civil rights? Sexual preferences change unlike the colour of your skin.

to protect the minority from bigotted pieces of ****.

Why does this protection extend to the affirmation of gay relationships? One can tolerate something without agreeing with it, just as one protects the speech of those to whom you disagree.

But that's what the right is, a bastion of hate... they hate women, they hate gays, they hate non-whites, they hate the poor... hate hate hate... thats what fuels the right wing.

There's a difference between the person, and his behaviour. You do believe in rehabilitation, eh?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why does this protection extend to the affirmation of gay relationships? One can tolerate something without agreeing with it, just as one protects the speech of those to whom you disagree.

Ah yes -- that fabulous word called "toleration."

There's a difference between acceptance and toleration. Many people try to argue for so-called "tolerance" when they are really opposed to enacting any laws that promote equality.

[Ben Kenobi]

there is no need for a benevolent dictatorship.

That's a pretty feeble defense of democracy, Mr. Fun.

Is there any need for a democracy?

and just like with laws against interracial marriages, there is NO sound rationality behind laws against gay marriages.

For the same reasons we have Veteran's benefits. The vets give their lives for their country, and the state ought to compensate them for their sacrifice. The same for families that have and raise children. The state could not exist without them, hence the state rewards their sacrifice with certain privileges.

There are benefits to the state derived from traditional marriage, ergo, there is a solid reason to maintain the laws as they stand.

The innovators must come up with a solid argument as to why the laws, which have worked well, ought to be changed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Many people try to argue for so-called "tolerance" when they are really opposed to enacting any laws that promote equality.

I do not agree with gay relationships, yet I agree that this is not an area where the state ought to intervene. Therefore, I tolerate that to which I do not agree.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's a pretty feeble defense of democracy, Mr. Fun.

Is there any need for a democracy?



For the same reasons we have Veteran's benefits. The vets give their lives for their country, and the state ought to compensate them for their sacrifice. The same for families that have and raise children. The state could not exist without them, hence the state rewards their sacrifice with certain privileges.

There are benefits to the state derived from traditional marriage, ergo, there is a solid reason to maintain the laws as they stand.

The innovators must come up with a solid argument as to why the laws, which have worked well, ought to be changed.

I am a devoted supporter of democracy, smartass.


As for your usual pro-creation justification for unfair discrimination -- it does not go well with straight marriages that are not reproductive.

And also, since granting legal recognition to gay marriages will not magically cause straight people from not marrying anymore and stop having children, it's another reason why you are full of bull****.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am a devoted supporter of democracy, smartass.

For very flimsy reasons...

You seem to like democracy, except when the people disagree with you.

True democracy allows everybody to have a say in the laws of their country rather than a tiny, vocal, minority.

pro-creation justification for unfair discrimination -- it does not go well with straight marriages that are not reproductive.

What percentage of all marriages are procreative, Mr. Fun?

since granting legal recognition to gay marriages will not magically cause straight people from not marrying anymore and stop having children, it's another reason why you are full of bull****.

Maybe not now, but when children are taught the opposite, this will have an effect.

Secondly, if the state benefits from marriage, then they ought to preserve the regulations that provide benefits to marriage. Seems very straightforward to me.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ah, not so fast. Why is this an issue of civil rights? Sexual preferences change unlike the colour of your skin.

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

There are benefits to the state derived from traditional marriage, ergo, there is a solid reason to maintain the laws as they stand.

Do you mean to imply that extending marriage benefits to homosexuals will somehow decrease the marriage benefits already extended to heterosexuals?

I do not agree with gay relationships, yet I agree that this is not an area where the state ought to intervene.

How is supporting a "protection of marriage" amendment akin to agreeing that the state ought not to intervene in this matter?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


For very flimsy reasons...

You seem to like democracy, except when the people disagree with you.

True democracy allows everybody to have a say in the laws of their country rather than a tiny, vocal, minority.



What percentage of all marriages are procreative, Mr. Fun?



Maybe not now, but when children are taught the opposite, this will have an effect.

Secondly, if the state benefits from marriage, then they ought to preserve the regulations that provide benefits to marriage. Seems very straightforward to me.

I believe in democracy -- I just do not believe in the tyranny of the majority.


And I seriously, sincerely doubt all straight children will ever become indoctrinated to not marry and have children.

Besides the fact that a large number of gays have the same desire to establish their own families as straight people do -- just with a partner of the same gender.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ah, not so fast. Why is this an issue of civil rights? Sexual preferences change unlike the colour of your skin.

In spite of the small minority of insecure gays who have claimed to have changed their sexual orientation, the more objective, consensus evidence seem to show that sexual orientation cannot be changed.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger

How is supporting a "protection of marriage" amendment akin to agreeing that the state ought not to intervene in this matter?

Excellent point loiny -- I would like to see how Ben Kenobi can claim to oppose government intervention, but then turn around to support government intervention when proposed policies are anti-gay.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Right. But they do not require society to affirm certain religious or political beliefs.

Do you mean to imply that extending marriage benefits to homosexuals will somehow decrease the marriage benefits already extended to heterosexuals?

That's what happened here in Canada. Exactly what happened. Benefits given to marriage have completely disappeared.

How is supporting a "protection of marriage" amendment akin to agreeing that the state ought not to intervene in this matter?

There is a difference between relationships and marriage. A big difference. Marriage requires the intervention of the state in order to be enforced. This is why we have laws against bigamy, and polygamy, incest and the rest. If one argues that the state should stop playing a role in defining marriage, then one loses the laws against bigamy and polygamy.

[Ben Kenobi]

And I seriously, sincerely doubt all straight children will ever become indoctrinated to not marry and have children.

How can children have a sexual preference, Mr. Fun? That begs one of the questions at hand. Preferences can and do change.

Secondly, there have been many attempts to inculate these values in Canadian children, even in Kindergarten. If they are not indoctrinated, it will not be for lack of trying.

[Ben Kenobi]

In spite of the small minority of insecure gays who have claimed to have changed their sexual orientation, the more objective, consensus evidence seem to show that sexual orientation cannot be changed.

Ah!

A no true Scotsman!

[MrFun]

Sexual orientation is not a preference.