Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


In terms of their health they would be better off chaste. There are many dissatisfied gay men, who want out, and who cannot find help. Even Mr. Fun acknowledges this.

The pursuit of happiness is a basic right IMO and the vast majority of gays would be much more happier to be in a stable, committed relationship with someone of the same gender. Just as the majority of straight people are happier when sharing their life with someone of the opposite gender beyond platonic relationship. We do not want to live chaste lives -- how dare you presume to have the authority to dictate how everyone else can live happy when you know you do not want them to live happy lives.

And by the way -- where or when have I talked about dissatisfied gay men in the manner you are referring to?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

In the state of marriage, the state derives benefits not found in other relationships essential for the propagation of the state.

EXPLAIN to us how legally recognizing marriages between two people of the same gender will prevent propagation of the human population.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Very true! Which is why I am arguing that gay people have no right to impose their desires which impose a burden upon the rest of us, without our consent.

To impose something on someone else means in this instance, that I would try to force someone to change their sexual orientation from being straight to being gay.

My relationship with someone else of the same gender is not imposing anything on anyone else.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Would you care to point out which of his statements was bigotted?

I don't have time to count ALL of his bigotted statements -- if you improve your reading comprehension though, you would be able to recognize them on your own.

[Whaleboy]

I've said what I came to say and I've spoken for the off-line majority.

So this majority is a white, male worker, belligerant, Northern, urban, silent, and now off-line? Poster boys for a combination of valium and eugenics hardly constitutes a majority now does it?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I, for one, would not advocate making a behaviour illegal on the basis that it makes me uncomfortable, and some ad hoc argument to justify that.

Well, that brings us back to ****ing on the bus.

One is not a bigot for disagreeing. One is a bigot for saying that one way of life, one person(s) etc is necessarily deficient or inferior to another. Read narrow minded.

What a pile of crap. Are you saying you would never call anyone's behaviour as inferior to your own, no matter have bad it was? And if you did you would be a bigot?

Giancarlo is being a hypocrite because he complains that PA is wrong to say that certain things are wrong to do in public whilst holding the belief that other certain things are wrong to do in public.

I suggest Mr Whaley that you buy a dictionary.

[Sava]

stop trying to justify your bigotry

[Whaleboy]

Well, that brings us back to ****ing on the bus.

There are caps there of course, otherwise you'll conclude with the Mill Limit. Since we don't allow anyone to ride naked or ****ing on a bus, it is a flawed example. In other words, completely different to allowing a public display of that relationship.

What a pile of crap. Are you saying you would never call anyone's behaviour as inferior to your own, no matter have bad it was? And if you did you would be a bigot?

I would never say that someone's morality or anything that is part of their identity is inferior to mine, whereas my morality may differ, that is insufficient for me to say that it is objectively superior. Having said that, I am pretty much as far from bigotry as you're going to get, so I'm told. In terms of behavior, that is a corruption of my argument (strawman). Ones behavior, since it can directly concern others in all but a passive sense (like wearing what you want, saying what you want, kissing who you want etc) could be judged to be "better" or "worse" in a sociological or ethical context, but not in a moral context.

Not worded brilliantly, but I hope you see my distinction. You'll also note that I did not defend Giancarlo, I merely defined bigot as per my opinion, and I am very well aware of the definitions of the words I use .

[Aeson]

Giancarlo is being a hypocrite because he complains that PA is wrong to say that certain things are wrong to do in public whilst holding the belief that other certain things are wrong to do in public.

So you feel it is wrong to breath (or even appear) in public too? Do you feel the same towards murder? Or are you a hypocrite? Or does your argument have no standing? (hint: Yes)

The point isn't what is allowed in public. But what is allowed to one group in public compared to another. The hypocritical stance is to allow it for one group, and disallow the same thing for another.

[Ramo]

Rogan, what would do think of a person who's made uncomfortable by inter-racial or inter-religious public interaction? Would opposing that attitude constitute hypocrisy on your part? Or would you not oppose it?

[Lincoln]

This entire issue boils down to drawing lines. There is a line now defining mariage between a man and a woman. There are other lines regardng age, number of spouses allowed, mental capacity etc. that most people agree should be drawn at some point. For example should a man be allowed to marry his daughter? Should brothers who "really love each" other have their marriage sanctioned by the state, or can marriage be allowed for multiple spouses of various sexes? As the line moves the institution of marriage becomes meaningless. Roommates or those living communally could apply for the special benefits of marriage etc..

In Utah some years ago the US government enforced the prohibition against multiple wives. That was a reasonable line as far as most were concerned. Now there is a movement to redraw the line to include same sex couples in state sanctioned marriage. This is no fundamental right anymore than there is one to marry one's daughter. This is an attempt to draw another line which should or should not be drawn. That is the argument not some high sounding fundamental right. That argument is simply an attempt to dramatize the issue. If there is a fundamental right to marry then there is no reason to stop with gay marriages. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Society has an obligation to draw reasonable lines. What exactly is the limit a "fundamental right to marry"? True love? Then take that ball and run with it and see where you get.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

In the state of marriage, the state derives benefits not found in other relationships essential for the propagation of the state.

That is the purpose of the state, to regulate individual freedom, to ensure collective harmony. Complete individual freedom produces anarchy.

Thus the state has a role in the regulation of marriage. If you demand the intervention of the state, then you admit their regulations on personal freedom.

The state has a responsibility to all citizens, ergo, one of their responsibilities is to stand in moral judgement. .

Which is why I am arguing that gay people have no right to impose their desires

Some lynchmob! What gay person ever did die at the hands of the state? What black person did the same?

Let's deal with the latter hysterical unhistorical claim, shall we? If by 'gay person' you mean someone who was executed for engaging in same sex activity then there's quite a few, from the time of the third Caliph Omar, in Justinian's Byzantine Empire, where sodomy was punishable by death, to Puritan colonies in the New World, to Penn's Quaker colony where sodomy was punishable by the stocks or pillory, or if with an African/slave, capital punishment, to Henry VIII's England (after the enactment of his anti-sodomy statute), the colonies in Australia and of course to our favourite, Nazi Germany, where under Paragraph 175 of the Reich's Penal Code, gay men could be imprisoned, and under the somewhat less tolerant regime of the National Socialists, sent to concentration camps along with those other well known criminals, Jehovah's Witnesses, nuns and priests. I suggest you try and get tyo see a film called the 'Men of the Pink Triangle' or read the book of the same name by Heinz Heger before wading into aspects of history you clearly know little about.


"16th century

1533

England's King Henry VIII proclaims sodomy, then-defined as any non-procreative sexual activity, a crime. This includes masturbation, anal and oral sex.

The common-law legal system forms a major part of the law of many countries, especially those with a history as English colonies. It is notable for the inclusion of extensive non-statutory law reflecting a consensus of centuries of judgements by working jurists.

A sodomy law is a law which makes certain sexual acts into sex crimes, most commonly anal intercourse. Sometimes the definition of sodomy has been broader and included oral sex and bestiality as well.

Following Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/bl...ne/bk4ch15.htm ,

the crime of sodomy has often been defined in the past only as the 'abominable and detestable crime against nature', or some variation of the phrase. This language led to widely varying rulings about what specific acts were encompassed by its prohibition.

18th century

1726 - Mother Clap Margaret Clap (better known as Mother Clap, died 1726) was a woman who ran a brothel for homosexual men in London in the early part of the 18th century.

At the time homosexuality in England was illegal, punishable by execution. Homosexual activity did take place, particularly in the larger cities, however only behind closed doors. In the seedier parts of the cities there existed brothels where men (from all social classes) who were looking for sex with other men could go. These were called molly houses, and the most famous of these was Mother Clap's molly house in the Holborn area of London.

The raid resulted in Clap's death and the execution at Tyburn of all the men arrested. Tyburn was the principal location in London for public executions by hanging.


In 1792 France decriminalises sexual acts between men


19th century

1813 - Bavaria decriminalizes sexual acts between men

1861 - in England, the penalty for conviction for sodomy is reduced from hanging to imprisonment

1869 - the term "homosexuality "
is coined

1871 - homosexuality is criminalized throughout Germany by Paragraph 175 An aspect of the Reichstag Criminal Code, made in 1871, that made homosexuality a crime. In 1929, a Reichstag Committee voted to repeal Paragraph 175. However, the Nazi rise to power prevented its implementation. In 1945, when concentration camps were liberated, gays were not freed but made to serve out their sentence under Paragraph 175. In 1950, East Germany partially abolished Nazi amendments to the Reich Criminal Code."

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Gay%20rights%20timeline

"Thriving gay and lesbian communities had developed in Germany from 1900 to the early 1930s. This changed when the Nazis came into power in 1933.

The Nazis declared aim was the eradication of homosexuality. During 12 years in power they implemented a broad range of persecutory measures. An estimated 50,000 gay men were sentenced and imprisoned, some of whom faced the death penalty. Up to 15,000 gay men were deported to concentration camps. Many of these Pink Triangle detainees were subjected to starvation and hard labour, castration, medical experiments and collective murder actions.

Lesbianism was not illegal in Germany, so lesbians did not suffer the same level of persecution as gay men. However, there is historical evidence of police records being collected on lesbians and of lesbians being sent to concentration camps on the grounds of their sexual orientation. They were known as Green Triangle detainees. New research shows that in Austria lesbians were criminalised and liable for prosecution and persecution.

After the war, neither the Allies nor the German or Austrian States recognised gay men or lesbians as victims alongside other groups, so they were not considered eligible for compensation. Only in 2001 was the German and Swiss Bank compensation programme extended to include gay victims.

Nazi laws against homosexuality remained in place in Germany until 1967. Unsurprisingly, very few victims of wartime persecution came forward to fight for recognition. Those that did were often further victimised. Comparatively few known victims are still alive today. "

Source: Stonewall U.K. Information Bank

The modern democratic state does not appear to be interested in eugenics- are you suggesting that Canada, the United States, Great Britain, France and so forth, should regulate how many children people produce, reward large families (as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did) compel people to take fertility drugs and practice infanticide of unviables as part of its interest in propagating itself?

Perhaps you have the Spartan model of Lycurgus's in mind, but as far as I know the modern democratic state does not routinely kill spina bifida children, those with cystic fibrosis or even crack babies.

I find it hard to believe you seriously think it is the purpose of the state to 'regulate' individual freedom- is this explicitly stated anywhere in Canada's constitution?
Oh dear, Ben Kenobi is unhappy-

"I know, let's establish the City of God in British Columbia, expel all the queers and atheists, that'll cheer him up!"

And please, anarchy is not chaos, as any anarchist could tell you. It is simply an absence of compelling laws-an anarchist's freedom is the freedom of respecting the rights of others, with the expectation that they will do the same.

Again, where does the state stand in 'moral judgment'? This is absolutely bizarre. What do morals and the state, or even the law and morals have to do with each other? Could you seriously assert with a straight face that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a 'moral' state, or that laws relating to miscegenation in the United States were moral?

If so, you have a wonderfully fluid concept of morality, somewhat at odds with your religion.

And yet again (oh, tedium, ennui, boredom) you talk about gay people imposing their desires.

In the same way that say, Christians who doorstep you to harangue you about their faith impose their desires? Or the ones who insert a reference to their chosen deity in a pledge of allegiance impose their desires?

Or the ones who pray and sing in public places impose their desires?

How about the ones who get their faith/religion/belief tax exempt status- are they imposing their beliefs and desires on me, when say, my taxes in Great Britain subsidized the second largest landowner in the country, the Anglican Church?

I wonder what the Anabaptists have to say about that, eh?

"It is encouraging to see many churches in the UK discovering or recovering interest in social affairs. But it is a mark of Constantinianism to seek special treatment for the church or for Christianity. People making such an appeal may point to the "Christian heritage" of the nation, or to the universal applicability of God's norms for humanity, or to polls which ascribe belief in "God" to over seventy per cent of the population. Seeking privilege or patronage for Christians and their faith does not accord with the role of the church envisaged by Jesus."

http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/book/print/182

If two gay men wish to get married it does not affect your right to be married, it does not affect your right to a civil marriage, a religious marriage, it does not lessen or cheapen your civil rights, because at no time are any rights being taken away from you.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lincoln
This entire issue boils down to drawing lines. There is a line now defining mariage between a man and a woman. There are other lines regardng age, number of spouses allowed, mental capacity etc. that most people agree should be drawn at some point. For example should a man be allowed to marry his daughter? Should brothers who "really love each" other have their marriage sanctioned by the state, or can marriage be allowed for multiple spouses of various sexes? As the line moves the institution of marriage becomes meaningless. Roommates or those living communally could apply for the special benefits of marriage etc..

In Utah some years ago the US government enforced the prohibition against multiple wives. That was a reasonable line as far as most were concerned. Now there is a movement to redraw the line to include same sex couples in state sanctioned marriage. This is no fundamental right anymore than there is one to marry one's daughter. This is an attempt to draw another line which should or should not be drawn. That is the argument not some high sounding fundamental right. That argument is simply an attempt to dramatize the issue. If there is a fundamental right to marry then there is no reason to stop with gay marriages. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Society has an obligation to draw reasonable lines. What exactly is the limit a "fundamental right to marry"? True love? Then take that ball and run with it and see where you get.

Is anyone else tired of slippery slope fallacies and red herrings?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lincoln
This entire issue boils down to drawing lines. There is a line now defining mariage between a man and a woman. There are other lines regardng age, number of spouses allowed, mental capacity etc. that most people agree should be drawn at some point. For example should a man be allowed to marry his daughter? Should brothers who "really love each" other have their marriage sanctioned by the state, or can marriage be allowed for multiple spouses of various sexes? As the line moves the institution of marriage becomes meaningless. Roommates or those living communally could apply for the special benefits of marriage etc..

In Utah some years ago the US government enforced the prohibition against multiple wives. That was a reasonable line as far as most were concerned. Now there is a movement to redraw the line to include same sex couples in state sanctioned marriage. This is no fundamental right anymore than there is one to marry one's daughter. This is an attempt to draw another line which should or should not be drawn. That is the argument not some high sounding fundamental right. That argument is simply an attempt to dramatize the issue. If there is a fundamental right to marry then there is no reason to stop with gay marriages. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Society has an obligation to draw reasonable lines. What exactly is the limit a "fundamental right to marry"? True love? Then take that ball and run with it and see where you get.

Although I think I'm on the opposite side of the issue from you, I completely agree with your post. I don't think one should argue that gays have any particular "right" to get married, I just think that the line should be moved to include gay marriages from where it is now. From my dispassionate perspective, the pros of allowing gay marriage far outweigh any potential cons.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by molly bloom



And please, anarchy is not chaos, as any anarchist could tell you. It is simply an absence of compelling laws-an anarchist's freedom is the freedom of respecting the rights of others, with the expectation that they will do the same.

Well the first part of the idea sounds OK. I do have some trouble with the 'expectation...' part though.