Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Do you think that there are any valid reasons as to why incestuous marriages are not allowed, or that the same arguments could be applied to unrelated gay men and lesbians?

Yes to the first point, and no to the second one. I just find it's alot easier to make that argument if you drop any pretext of a fundamental right to marriage and evaluate each permutation - straight, gay, polygamy, incest, etc. - on it's own merits. And yes, I do think that the Supreme Court used a poor choice of words. Not the first time, and certainly not the last time that's going to happen.

Since we seem to be on the same wavelength, I'll leave it at that.

[Ben Kenobi]

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,

That's a valid point. Wasn't thinking that far back.

to Puritan colonies in the New World, to Penn's Quaker colony where sodomy was punishable by the stocks or pillory,

That's not even applicable to this argument. Punishment is one thing, death is another. I'm making the very specific analogy between the death and hanging of blacks in America under Jim Crow, and the treatment of gay men in America. The two are not comparable.

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.

Another excellent point.

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.

At least now you have a chance to educate me, eh?

At the time homosexuality in England was illegal, punishable by execution.

Cite would be nice.. One thing for sodomy to be illegal, another to have it punishable by death. When did the law change in England? Who changed the law?

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

Good to see.

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?

First off, the demographic arguments in Canada seem to argue against you. People in Canada are in favour of a model of eugenics, if we can see what happens with abortion, and how people in Canada use abortion.

One of the things that has been suggested is what would happen to gay men should there be a gene discovered, and detectable via prenatal diagnosis.

The state has tried through a variety of means to regulate how many children a person has, and rather than infanticide, wholly supports, and encourages abortion services.

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.

No, but we do so before birth, if these same disabilities can be found. So we are not far from this now.

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 don't need a state in order to exercise my fundamental freedoms. True, the state exists to protect those fundamental freedoms, to life, liberty and security of the person, but the formation of the state is not for these reasons. States are formed in order to regulate society, such that people may live together.

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

A gay man gave me one of the best gifts that I have ever received, and taught me things that I shall not forget. So why would I want to expel them all, when I myself have benefited?

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.

Kropotkin may suggest an ideal state, but in reality, this state reverts to chaos.

Again, where does the state stand in 'moral judgment'?

Plenty of places. The state says that it is wrong to kill other people, except in self-defense. Is that not a moral judgment? While it is true, that law and morality do not precisely overlap, since the law is a human creation, and anything we make is flawed, it is not true that there is no relationship between the law and morality. My example above suffices to show some relationship between the two.

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?

On the whole, there are no 'good' states if what is moral, is what is also good. Not even the United States. So while Iraq is not a moral state, in the sense that it is not good, there are certain things that are moral.

For example, Mr. Hussein had a secular government, that did not profess Islam, nor did they impose Sharia on the people. Are these not points in his favour?

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

I don't think that it is at odds to say that the state claims a moral responsibility.

In the same way that say, Christians who doorstep you to harangue you about their faith impose their desires?

Heck, they don't pick your pocket when preaching.

Or the ones who insert a reference to their chosen deity in a pledge of allegiance impose their desires?

Which religion?

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

Unlike the gay pride folks, obviously.

My argument is not against the gay folks for 'imposing their desires', but rather at the burden of taxation and expectations of recognition demanded by the folks who are gay. Such recognition cannot be acquired without consent.

Mr. Layton, the NDP leader understands this. So why is this so difficult for you? He understands that to ask for the consent and approval legitimises the request, like nothing else can.

Instead, by ducking and dodging the question, all you do is puzzle some of your moderate supporters.

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?

Hey, by all means clamour for the separation of church and state. By no means should the Anglican church receive donations from the state in order to maintain their lands.

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

There is a difference between the establishment of a religion and the tax exemption. Tax exemption applies to religion across the board. Citing the relevant section from the anabaptists:

"to seek special treatment for the church or for Christianity."

In no way prohibits the exemption of taxes provided to all religions, not just Christianity. If the exemption were to be provided just to Christianity, then it would violate the establishment clause, and the beliefs of Mennonites.

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.

No taxation without representation. If marriage, as a public institution, provides benefits, and is regulated by the state, then the members of the public have a say in marriage. Anti-miscegenation drives do not presume an extension of benefits, as does the recognition of homosexual marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

So this boogie-man of polygamous marriage might be just a figment of some people's imagination?

Actually, we are having this fight right now here in BC.

I shall post the thread, of the commune in Bountiful, of a Fundamentalist sect of the LDS homed in BC.

They are claiming that they have every right to polygamy, and so far, no one seems to be standing up to them.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not my opinion, but Christ's. If Christ is callous, he also provides the means to live the life. I do not believe a chaste life is any less full, or meaningful, and I bet your reverend would resent the implication.

This is where our Christian beliefs diverge.


I believe in God who would never approve of me lying to myself and to the people whom I share my life with (family, friends, intimate partner).

In fact, after reflecting some more on when I came out to myself, I realize that it may have been somewhat of a spiritual experience for me.

I realized that my faith in God is based moreso on God wanting me to live to my fullest potential, and since I cannot live to my fullest potential by denying who I am, God would not approve of me marrying a woman just so I can live a life of duplicity and lies.

[MrFun]

** plants victory flag over BK's head

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
** plants victory flag over BK's head

Why must you always do such retarded things? Jesus christ, that's annoying...

[MrFun]

I don't know -- for same reason that the only time you acknowledge me is to contradict me, or to insult me?

[KrazyHorse]

Easy now.

[MrFun]

I provided a link to this recently in another thread, but here it is again.


** QUOTE
"Is It Possible To Change One’s Sexual Orientation (“Reparative Therapy”)?
There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of “reparative therapy” as a
treatment to change one’s sexual orientation, nor is it included in the APA’s Task Force
Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders. More importantly, altering sexual orientation is
not an appropriate goal of psychiatric treatment. Some may seek conversion to
heterosexuality because of the difficulties that they encounter as a member of a stigmatized
group. Clinical experience indicates that those who have integrated their sexual orientation
into a positive sense of self-function at a healthier psychological level than those who have
Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues FactSHEET/page 2
not. “Gay affirmative psychotherapy” may be helpful in the coming out process, fostering a
positive psychological development and overcoming the effects of stigmatization. A position
statement adopted by the Board in December 1998 said:
The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as
“reparative” or “conversion” therapy, which is based upon the assumption that
homosexuality per se is a mental disorder, or based upon a prior assumption that the
patient should change his/ her homosexual orientation.” (See full position statements, below)"
** END QUOTE

APA agrees with me about quackery

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, they cannot, at least not in general.

So which is it. Can they. Or can't they?

Fair enough. Are you willing to go the distance and say that there is no such thing as legal marriage recognised by the state? Are you also willing for the state to shunt that responsibility to the churches?

There isn't any responsibility to the churches in the US. There definitely shouldn't be. This is something I would fight for.

There are legal marriages recognized by the state though. Claiming otherwise is really stupid as legal just means "by law".

I would say that either or will work. Either treat all couples fairly regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, height, weight, eye color, ect... or just get out of it completely.

Either solution works for me.

These would be the consequences of this position, so if you are willing to accept these consequences in order to ensure equity, then I have no disagreement with you.

It is not necessary to deem all marriages illegal to assume there should be no state interference in marriage. This is the difference between "opinion" and "law".

Actually, the state has good reasons to discriminate.

Which you fail to mention specifically. I'm assuming you mean the mystical "heterosexual couples = good parents, homosexual couples = abomination to God" argument you keep spewing.

If you cant see that couples can be good or bad parents regardless of sexual orientation, you are simply blind.

The fact that certain provisions are available to help parents with the burden of raising children in no way means that these benefits ought to be stripped away.

It should be handled "by child" rather than "by marriage" (it is in many cases). There is no reason to just blinding throw out benefits to couples who may or may not be doing what you wish to reward.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is where our Christian beliefs diverge.

I believe in God who would never approve of me lying to myself and to the people whom I share my life with (family, friends, intimate partner).

Agreed. You should be clear to him about your feelings, but that does not mean you act on them.

I realized that my faith in God is based moreso on God wanting me to live to my fullest potential, and since I cannot live to my fullest potential by denying who I am,

Who are you Mr. Fun? Are you your own?

God would not approve of me marrying a woman just so I can live a life of duplicity and lies.

Not hard. Don't get married.

[Ben Kenobi]

I already dealt with that precise quote Mr. Fun.

Read up in the thread.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Agreed. You should be clear to him about your feelings, but that does not mean you act on them.



Who are you Mr. Fun? Are you your own?



Not hard. Don't get married.

God wants me to live to my fullest potential -- thus, I can only truly live to my fullest potential by acting upon them.


I'm not sure what you mean by your question, "Are you your own?"


But, by denying myself from ever marrying someone I truly love who is of the same gender, I'm not living to my fullest potential, which God wants everyone to do.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I already dealt with that precise quote Mr. Fun.

Read up in the thread.

Can you re-quote it?

[Ben Kenobi]

Aeson:

So which is it. Can they. Or can't they?

Can they? Same way everyone else can. They can, if they so desire, marry someone of the opposite sex.

There isn't any responsibility to the churches in the US. There definitely shouldn't be. This is something I would fight for.

I agree with you here, but it is a little different here in Canada. So far every single legal precedent has failed to uphold freedom of religion. Even if the courts add an exemption for religious speech, or say that they will protect churches that do not want to marry homosexuals, the courts are not likely to uphold such an exemption.

There are legal marriages recognized by the state though. Claiming otherwise is really stupid as legal just means "by law".

Not challenging that.

I would say that either or will work. Either treat all couples fairly regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, height, weight, eye color, ect... or just get out of it completely.

Again, it changes the nature of the union. None of the others do. So far as I can see the only compromise that works is to do away with marriage altogether, and to kick things over to the churches.

It is not necessary to deem all marriages illegal to assume there should be no state interference in marriage. This is the difference between "opinion" and "law".

If the state has an obligation to recognise, then they can also regulate. Interference is a broad term, to which I do not believe the state can avoid 'interfering' unless they do away with marriage altogether.

Which you fail to mention specifically. I'm assuming you mean the mystical "heterosexual couples = good parents, homosexual couples = abomination to God" argument you keep spewing.

I have never used the term 'abomination to God.'

So please attack my argument rather than a straw man.

If you cant see that couples can be good or bad parents regardless of sexual orientation, you are simply blind.

This is true, but on the whole, you get a much better outcome with two parents of the opposite gender.

No one has even tried to deal with my argument with respect to gender roles, which explains why we see this result. It makes sense to me, so why experiment with children?

It should be handled "by child" rather than "by marriage" (it is in many cases). There is no reason to just blinding throw out benefits to couples who may or may not be doing what you wish to reward.

There are solid reasons for doing this by marriage. Raising children is one thing, but that does not give you the whole package. Having children, in marriage is the best outcome, and can be gotten by providing benefits for young families.