Land of the Free

[Ben Kenobi]

Then that's not a reason to be against gay marriage, that' a reason to be against modifying the benefits of marriage. It's like being wanting pot to stay illegal because you don't think that cigarettes or cannabis should be smoked in restaurants. An utter non sequitur- and not one that makes you look like a decent human being.

Good point, you are saying, what if there were no spousal benefits involved? That becomes a much more interesting question.

Suppose society did recognise marriage, you have to ask, what does this constitute? Are there any privileges still associated with the union? This is why it's such a bundled issue. To take all the privileges society confers upon married people away, brings about the new question, of why should society recognise marriage at all? What 'recognition' could society provide to the married couple, to warrant the requirements of registration and regulation?

I can't see that unless certain benefits are provided by society, that marriages would need to be regulated by society.

[KrazyHorse]

Total Posts: 103
User Posts
Ben Kenobi 22
MrFun 16
Provost Harrison 8
Gibsie 8
Comrade Tassadar 7
KrazyHorse 5
Kontiki 4
chegitz guevara 4
Sprayber 4
Asher 3
alva 2
joncha 2
Atahualpa 2
Agathon 2
Tuberski 2
Azazel 1
Garth Vader 1
Lawrence of Arabia 1
Zkribbler 1
Al'Kimiya 1
Guynemer 1
Combat Ingrid 1
BeBro 1
Flubber 1
Q Cubed 1
Saint Marcus 1
dejon 1

[KrazyHorse]

I've noticed that on threads involving sex in any form BK is most often the most prolific poster. This despite the fact that his prostate is begging to be adopted into a good home.

Hmmm.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So how are individual freedoms violated by not receiving spousal benefits? I agree, society shouldn't bar gay people from associating with other gay people, under individual freedoms. I do object to the notion that individual freedoms necessarily rely upon marriage. One can be free without getting married.



So, if the outcome of the benefits is to allow those who are handicapped to acheive similar outcomes, it doesn't count as discrimination?

What about a student who is mentally handicapped, getting more time on a test. Is that discrimination, or not? What if no matter how much time is given, he still fails? Should he be given a pass, so to acheive an equal outcome as his brighter peers?

Individual freedoms are meant to be protected by laws. How are relationships that gays have, protected by laws right now?

And your mentally handicapped student example. No, it's not discrimination, since someone who is not mentally handicapped can still complete the test within the standard time limit, while the handicapped one would not be able to because of a factor that is beyond that person's control.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, the only argument I think I've ever heard you give that only the union of a man and woman benefit society have to do with them being able to have children.

That's one of many, yes.

But having children is in no way a condition to getting married, nor vice versa. The fact is that many married couples don't have kids and many unmarried couples do.

It would be an unenforceable regulation. How could one insist that all couples bear children? Not all will be fertile, and not all will know at the outset whether they are fertile or not. Therefore, one allows those who do not want children to marry, because there is no suitable alternative.

However, what this neglects, is that if a couple is young, and fertile, for them to get married, and not have children, is also problematic. This is one of the bigger reasons for divorce, is if one of the couples in such a union wishes to have a child, they will likely leave this partner. This is why they tend to discourage these marriages from taking place.

So it seems to me that while having children cannot be a requirement, it out to be the desired outcome of any marriage between fertile couples.

In response to older couples getting married, this really doesn't apply to the point at hand, after all, gay people are fertile.

If it's really about raising kids, wouldn't it be much more productive and efficient to simply have child benefits and no benefits to marriage per se?

First you need to get the children to have them taken care of.

There's a couple other benefits as well, the big one being stability. Both the man and the women, can be shown to be much more productive in a stable marriage rather than outside of one.

[alva]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I've noticed that on threads involving sex in any form BK is most often the most prolific poster. This despite the fact that his prostate is begging to be adopted into a good home.

Hmmm.

Remember:

Religion = frustration.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've noticed that on threads involving sex in any form BK is most often the most prolific poster. This despite the fact that his prostate is begging to be adopted into a good home.

Actually, work is a better indicator of my posting frequency. If I'm working, I'll hardly post at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

Individual freedoms are meant to be protected by laws. How are relationships that gays have, protected by laws right now?

Relationships do not fall under the heading of 'individual' freedoms Mr. Fun.

The only one that does, is your freedom to associate. You are free to associate as much as you want, with any man you want, barring public decency, anywhere, and however you want in Canada.

To say that a relationship ought to be protected, is a different sort of idea altogether. It was a real question, and still is, whether marriage falls under the Canadian constitution at all.

And your mentally handicapped student example. No, it's not discrimination, since someone who is not mentally handicapped can still complete the test within the standard time limit, while the handicapped one would not be able to because of a factor that is beyond that person's control.

Are you sure? Seems to me, that's the essence of what you call 'bigoted' discrimination. The student, cannot complete the test because of a factor beyond his control. There's a different point I'm fishing for here, which is why I used the term, 'outcome'.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Relationships do not fall under the heading of 'individual' freedoms Mr. Fun.

since all freedoms are individual, then relationships fall under that heading. if i want to go say whatever i want in a relatiionship, thats a freedom. if i want to marry in a relationship, thats also a freedom.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I am saying that society benefits in a unique way from traditional marriage.

Proove it, oh right, you can't. You never have been able to before. You can't now. Why? Because your position is based soley on bigotry.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How is such a decision, undemocratic, if the majority of the people are opposed? The definition, of a democratic decision, is one that is approved by the majority.

If, for some reason, the majority decided to ban Christianity, would you be okay with that?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

this guy sounds like a used car salesmen who speaks in generalities but has nothing to back it up.

"yep, this car has some unique abilities, and brings to the table many things that you wont get with a new car. frankly, im surprised this one 'ere is still in the lot, with the great deal that ive put together"

[St Leo]

1. We'd win the referendum, so it would be a massive waste of money.

2. Ben Kenobi's logic is that piles of babies are good, traditional marriage leads to piles of babies, so everyone must practice traditional marriage in order to maximize the piles of babies. Is that bigoted? Dunno. It's certainly inconsiderate and totalitarian.

[Ben Kenobi]

who speaks in generalities but has nothing to back it up.

You remind me of an interesting quote.

From a book that I have on hand at the moment.

Diefenbaker, in referring to the then Socred leader in 1940:

One day, out of devilment, I said to John, "The trouble with you is that you always deal in generalities. You never give the House enough detail about Social Credit."

"Well, he said, I'll fix that." He did. Week after week, everyone was out of the Commons as soon as John started in.

[Ben Kenobi]

Proove it, oh right, you can't. You never have been able to before. You can't now. Why? Because your position is based soley on bigotry.

Dig into one of the other posts, and I'll consider addressing this point. I listed 3 benefits to marriage that ought to be considered.