Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ah!

A no true Scotsman!

Yes -- there is a small minority of gays who claim to have changed their sexual orientation, when, given the more legitimate evidence about the nature of sexual orientation, they have not changed their sexual orientation -- only their behavior and not even that after a certain period of time when they revert.

[Aeson]

BK,

Still can't tell the difference between marriage and having children?

There are no benefits that the state derives from heterosexual marriage that it doesn't from homosexual marriage. I suppose J-Lo's latest marriage will keep the US from crumbling into moral decay....

Raising children (not just having them, but providing for and raising them to be productive citizens) benefits the state. Homosexual partners can have (artificial insemination/surrigate/adoption) children too.

The only things which are adversely affected by homosexual marriage are the feelings of bigots who want to deny them happiness.

[Ben Kenobi]

Say it ain't so...

[MrFun]

Anyway, stop using the word "preference" since sexual orientation is not a preference.


I have to do some studying now.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Right. But they do not require society to affirm certain religious or political beliefs.

Not true. Society "affirms" political and religious beliefs by, for example, extending tax breaks to political and religious organizations, similarly to how society "affirms" relationships by, for example, extending tax breaks to participants in said relationships.

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

How do you mean? Have they eliminated the tax breaks and contractual benefits associated with marriage?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes -- there is a small minority of gays who claim to have changed their sexual orientation, when, given the more legitimate evidence about the nature of sexual orientation, they have not changed their sexual orientation -- only their behavior and not even that after a certain period of time when they revert.

Very telling, Mr. Fun.

What is sexual orientation, if it is not behaviour? If it is genetic, then clearly people who do change their behaviour, do not have to act on their desires.

And is this not what I have been saying all along?

An alcoholic may slip, but that does not mean he cannot be sober.

Anyway, stop using the word "preference" since sexual orientation is not a preference.

Without a definition, that's a rather bold statement. I could just as soon ask you to stop using the word orientation, since there is no evidence that confirms your terminology.

[Whaleboy]

An alcoholic may slip, but that does not mean he cannot be sober.

Sweet merciful lucipher that's quite an analogy you're trying to pull off there

[Ben Kenobi]

There are no benefits that the state derives from heterosexual marriage that it doesn't from homosexual marriage.

Why do we have organisations like big brothers, and big sisters?

Children do best when raised by a mom and a dad. Ergo, there are benefits to marriage, that cannot be provided by gay folks.

I suppose J-Lo's latest marriage will keep the US from crumbling into moral decay....

And gay marriage is going to stop the divorce trend?

The only things which are adversely affected by homosexual marriage are the feelings of bigots who want to deny them happiness.

Children are adversely affected.

And so are the homosexuals themselves.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Children do best when raised by a mom and a dad.

Children do better when raised by two parents than when raised by one parent, but I wasn't aware that homosexual couple adoption was common enough for any statistician or sociologist or whoever to be able to concretely say that heterosexual couples do a better job of raising kids than homosexual couples. Do you have a link to a study on this?

Children are adversely affected.

And so are the homosexuals themselves.

How?

[Thorn]

Go **** yourself Ben, when my Reich comes into power people like you will be executed on the spot....

[Ben Kenobi]

Not true. Society "affirms" political and religious beliefs by, for example, extending tax breaks to political and religious organizations, similarly to how society "affirms" relationships by, for example, extending tax breaks to participants in said relationships.

No establishment of religion. Many religions and political affiliations receive benefits, not just Christians and Republicans.

How do you mean? Have they eliminated the tax breaks and contractual benefits associated with marriage?

Yup. There are no benefits in Canada with respect to marriage, that cannot be obtained through common law.

[Ben Kenobi]

I wasn't aware that homosexual couple adoption was common enough for any statistician or sociologist or whoever to be able to concretely say that heterosexual couples do a better job of raising kids than homosexual couples. Do you have a link to a study on this?

A good question.

However, I'm going to get some dinner. I'm starving!

[Whaleboy]

Children are adversely affected.

You surely have seen the reports of children that are very happy living with two gay parents. Funny how you're not arguing against single parents, to whom your logic would seem to apply.

And so are the homosexuals themselves.

In marriage? How? That's generalising to the point of laudibility in my view. If you mean in divorce, then how does that differ to heterosexual marriage?

[Ben Kenobi]

Funny how you're not arguing against single parents, to whom your logic would seem to apply.

Most single parents prefer to be paired up, rather than facing things alone, so it's not much of an issue.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No establishment of religion. Many religions and political affiliations receive benefits, not just Christians and Republicans.

So the state should be inclusionary WRT political and religious affiliation, yet it should be exclusionary WRT sexual orientation or sexual preference (whichever term floats your boat)? I'm afraid that you lost me somewhere along the way.

Yup. There are no benefits in Canada with respect to marriage, that cannot be obtain through common law.

Do you mean that marriage no longer extends any benefits at all, or do you mean that marriage extends the exact same benefits that it always has but that other laws now extend those same benefits?