Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Aeson]

This:

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

Refutes this:

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

Children need positive role models. Male and Female. They don't have to be their biological parents. Or are you saying adoptive and single parents can't provide a good upbringing for their children?

And gay marriage is going to stop the divorce trend?

No. It just shows that homosexual marriage can't hurt the 'sanctity' of marriage any more than heterosexual marriage.

Children are adversely affected.

And so are the homosexuals themselves.

All-knowing BK to the rescue. Obviously homosexuals don't know when they are happy or not. BK knows what makes them happy, and it's not their loving partners as they would suggest! It's the God who condemns them for their love...

As for children. Children need to be raised in loving environments with good male and female role models. Those role models don't need to be married and their biological parents.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.

1. You don't have to be married to be a mother or a father.


2. A gay couple can raise a child just as well... Well, if they're allowed to adopt in the first place, anyways.

[Jon Shafer]

Bigot-fest 2004!

At least time will weed out people like BK. Racists still exist today but the KKK is no longer a potent force. So will be the fate of the social bigots of today eventually.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.



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.

I'm risking getting burned-out by continuing this discussion with you.


First of all -- gays are entitled to enter into mutually consenting relationships of the same gender even if it is behavior, because it encompasses the right of conscience. Or in other words, the right to be true to yourself or to part of what you are.

This is one of the reasons why I have recently tried to avoid using the "it's not a choice" argument (not arguing whether it's a choice or not -- sexual orientation is not a choice -- behavior is). When gays choose to act in accordance to what they really are, they have a greater chance to live a more fulfilling, psychologically healthy life since they are not denying this part of themselves. It's callous and grossly unfair and demeaning to demand that gays live less healthy lives than straight people by submitting to bigoted heterosexism and homophobia.

Since there are no negative consequences of most gay relationships, there is no rationality behind advocacy for denying them legal recognition of their gay marriages.



And your fallacious analogy with alcoholism is inane and contradictory to psychological and medical studies/evidence that maintain that homosexuality is not an illness.

[Sava]

it's really sad, reading BK's posts... and the extent to which he justifies his bigotry.

[Ben Kenobi]

it's really sad, reading BK's posts... and the extent to which he justifies his bigotry.

As in the original Bigot?


"Bigot de Préameneu was in favour of the changes brought about in the early days of the Revolution. He went along with the new institutions set up by the Constituante and was elected judge at the court of the fourth arrondissement of the Seine (5 December, 1790), at the same time as Roederer. A few months later he accepted the post of Commissaire du Roi in the Gard region where disturbances had broken out.

On 5 September, 1791, he was elected representative for the Seine to the Législative, where he had no hesitation in aligning himself with the moderates, and was very active on the Comité de Législation, voting against the abolition of the royal assent (7 January, 1792), against the prosecution of non-juror priests (29 February, 1792), against the proposed measures regarding émigrés (22 March, 1792). He presided over the Législative from 15 to 28 April, 1792. On 21 June, he had a measure passed to prohibit the presentation of petitions by armed men. Finally, on 10 August, he championed the cause of the royal family.
It is clear that such a background would make him suspect to the more radical members of the Convention.

He withdrew to Brittany in an attempt to withdraw from the public eye. Arrested on 4 June 1794, he was brought back to Paris and imprisoned at Sainte-Pélagie. It was no doubt the fall of Robespierre that saved him from the guillotine. He was released on 26 August and was able to return to Rennes.

[MrFun]

You are not a moderate, BK. Moderates do not seek to impose injustified morals onto other people.

[Odin]

Most stuff I've read says that momosexuality is most likely genetic with some influence from the hormonal conditions in the womb. The reason that the gene isn't weeded out is because it's on the X chromosome (this is only for males so far, we don't know what causes female homosexuality).

[Ben Kenobi]

First of all -- gays are entitled to enter into mutually consenting relationships of the same gender even if it is behavior, because it encompasses the right of conscience. Or in other words, the right to be true to yourself or to part of what you are.

And why does this have anything to pertain to marriage? I agree with you. Gay people should be allowed to form relationships with each other for the reasons that you cite.

However, this is irrelevant to the case of marriage, for the same reason why we do not affirm one religion over another.

This is one of the reasons why I have recently tried to avoid using the "it's not a choice" argument (not arguing whether it's a choice or not -- sexual orientation is not a choice -- behavior is). When gays choose to act in accordance to what they really are, they have a greater chance to live a more fulfilling, psychologically healthy life since they are not denying this part of themselves. It's callous and grossly unfair and demeaning to demand that gays live less healthy lives than straight people by submitting to bigoted heterosexism and homophobia.

So who are they? What about these folks who do not want to live the gay lifestyle, and want out? Are they homosexuals, or are they not homosexuals?

I agree with you that when homosexuals act in accordance to what they really are, that they are happy. I disagree that this would mean homosexual behaviour. One can be continent and fulfilled. There is no evidence that continence is intrinsically harmful to anyone.

Since there are no negative consequences of most gay relationships, there is no rationality behind advocacy for denying them legal recognition of their gay marriages.

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.

Rather than the minority, these promiscuous relationships form the vast majority of homosexual relationships. So to say that the majority of relationships are healthy to the homosexuals themselves is false.

And your fallacious analogy with alcoholism is inane and contradictory to psychological and medical studies/evidence that maintain that homosexuality is not an illness.

This is very much in question among psychologists. A man who has homosexual inclinations that he does not want cannot be treated by a psychologist. However, if a man were to acknowledge anything else that troubled him, he could seek the advice and counsul of a psychologist.

Why is this, that homosexuality ought to be accorded such a privileged position such that those who do not want the desires ought to be prevented from seeking treatment? This makes no sense whatsoever. All they will be told is to get in touch with their feelings, and consigned to unhappiness.

[MrFun]

I'm not arguing with you anymore tonight -- I got other things to do.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are not a moderate, BK. Moderates do not seek to impose injustified morals onto other people.

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.

If the people want gay marriage, then they will have gay marriage. If they do not want gay marriage, then they ought not to have gay marriage stuffed down their throat.

Unlike the gay folks, I am willing to abide by a ruling contrary to my desires. I would not seek to overturn the ruling by parliament by an unelected and unaccountable judiciary.

[Seeker]

"distort civilization's oldest, most venerable social institution"

Prostitution?? Shamanism?

If it's marriage than I demand these flaming radicals give me back my multiple wives and concubines like marriage has been for most of history!

[Ben Kenobi]

Most stuff I've read says that momosexuality is most likely genetic with some influence from the hormonal conditions in the womb. The reason that the gene isn't weeded out is because it's on the X chromosome (this is only for males so far, we don't know what causes female homosexuality).

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

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If they do not want gay marriage, then they ought not to have gay marriage stuffed down their throat.

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

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 or not doing?

[Ben Kenobi]

1. You don't have to be married to be a mother or a father.

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

2. A gay couple can raise a child just as well... Well, if they're allowed to adopt in the first place, anyways.

And this is the question at hand.

I've got the sources for loin's earlier question, but I want to first present the argument.

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.