Canpol: Stick a fork in them, and congrats on the nuptials

[Ninot]

I'm with Flubber.

and Tshirt Hell

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And what does the fact that society has a stake and recieves a secular benefit from marriage have to do with religion? This is a red herring.

Maybe you think people are naive enough to believe the objection from religious parties to gay marriage isn't based on religion, but when I see them citing Leviticus to justify their position, it's patently obvious.

If opposition to gay marriage from religious groups wasn't religiously motivated, then the groups wouldn't be involved in opposing it. Duh.

In Canada? I'm talking about Canada here. It is evidence that religious folks are not forcing people to live their lives, but rather permit gay people to live their lives as they see fit.

Again, cite for me an example wherein a billboard from Focus on the Family has been forcibly removed. You made the claim this would happen, I want to see your proof. If you're going to make claims of persecution, at least back them up.

Nothing is preventing gay people from forming a relationship or considering themselves to be married. All that is prevented is the recognition, by the government.

And nothing would prevent an interracial couple from considering themselves married or forming a relationship, even though were interracial marriage banned. Your point founders.

In Canada, yes I am sure. And as for a fact, there were tons of complaints over the Focus on the family ad campaign for marriage from the gay activists.

There were plenty of complaints, just over a radio program.

http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions...01/010831c.htm

Note how the panel concludes that the broadcast was okay and the complaints were without merit. So I'm still waiting for these examples of state-sponsored persecution. Where's the beef?

Yeah, I find your persecution complex tiresome as well...

I suppose that's why the area in Denman and Davie in downtown Vancouver remains a dive. I don't see any evidence that this is in fact true.

And what's wrong with those? All the signs point to those being areas that are being revitalized precisely because of the gay population:

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5149

http://www.barclayhouse.com/about-vancouver.htm

In NYC, The village is one of the wealthiest areas, full of artistic trendiness and wealthy folks. Castro street in SF is the same, as are the "gay" areas in numerous large cities. They tend to be urban chic.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012290

"Carnegie Mellon University professor Richard Florida has found a high degree of correlation between the concentration of gay couples in a city and a region's success in attracting high-tech businesses and workers. It turns out that the presence of those couples reflects the region's openness - and those firms and workers value a city that offers cultural and lifestyle diversity."

There's a big reason Fortune-500 firms have been overwhelmingly supportive of gay rights initiatives = they wan't to attract and keep gay employees, because they view gays as an important part of a diverse, happy and productive workforce.

You once again cite one example as "proof" but ignore overall trends.

Men or women, Boris? Yes, I agree that they can have more disposable income, since kids are an investment in themselves. As for gay people being the driving force behind urban renewal, I don't see any evidence of that in Vancouver. Rather, it seems just the opposite.

I'd love more evidence for this supposed Vancouver decay beyond your claims, since all the references I can find to the West End are that it is a vibrant, fun area full of lots of things to see and do. I suspect any gay-dominant area will meet with disapproval from you, though.

That gays help drive urban renewal is hard to dispute. Since they tend not to have kids, urban neighborhoods are more appealing to them, since they are then close to nightlife and being in the heart of an entertaining area. In Portland, gay couples are buying up houses in the northeast--long a rather downtrodden area--and remodeling the houses, cleaning up the neighborhoods, etc. Same thing has been happening in similar areas all over--Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Seattle, Memphis, Atlanta, etc.

Another point, that has been raised, is that families are often the most stable part of a neighbourhood, since families with children do not want to move, but to stay in one place while the children grow up. What also happens, is that when the children grow up, some also which to stay in the area, and raise their own families. Gay folks don't have the same stake in any one particular area.

Gay couples who invest a lot in their homes certainly have just as much "stake" in an area as any couple. People like to build stable lives in their chosen areas, irrespective of their sexuality.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What's the difference? Drug use is a choice that a minority of the population chooses, so why should they be discriminated against?

Damn -- you are incredibly dense sometimes.


Drug use disrupts a person's mental capabilities, and with a powerful addiction, can seriously undermine an employee's competence at work, and his/her sense of a good work ethic.

Sexual orientation has no such detrimental effects.

[MrFun]

bump


I refuse to let BK so easily forget the pwnage he has suffered in this thread.

[Mr. Harley]

Pursuing sex

...disrupts a person's mental capabilities, and with a powerful addiction, can seriously undermine an employee's competence at work, and his sense of a good work ethic.

Since Gay men are more likely to get laid, from what I understand - it follows that they are less likely to suffer from these issues. Therefore, we need to ban all those single hetero men without girlfriends.

[Ben Kenobi]

Drug use disrupts a person's mental capabilities, and with a powerful addiction, can seriously undermine an employee's competence at work, and his/her sense of a good work ethic.

Sexual orientation has no such detrimental effects.

Okay, so now you are saying that if a choice can have detrimental effects, then people should be able to discriminate against it. In other words, you really believe that people can be disciminated against for the choices that they make.

[Ben Kenobi]

Since Gay men are more likely to get laid, from what I understand - it follows that they are less likely to suffer from these issues. Therefore, we need to ban all those single hetero men without girlfriends.

To continue this and the argument Mr. Fun presented, there are numerous sources that document the increased risks associated with homosexuality. Particularly with respect to drug abuse. Of course, not all gay people will fall into this category, but there is a correlation between the two.

So if Mr. Fun agrees that we can discriminate against people for the choices they make, they should also discriminate against gay people.

Secondly, you hit upon one of my arguments, Shawn. Yes it is true that married folks do better, married men earn more, and so do married women. Divorce produces just the opposite effect, that those who are divorced are going to have many more struggles than those who remain married.

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe you think people are naive enough to believe the objection from religious parties to gay marriage isn't based on religion, but when I see them citing Leviticus to justify their position, it's patently obvious.

Them? Who's them. I don't see anyone here citing Leviticus to prove their point. Strawman.

If opposition to gay marriage from religious groups wasn't religiously motivated, then the groups wouldn't be involved in opposing it. Duh.

Not true. If religion were the sole motivation, than only religous folks would be opposed. As we see, those with discordant religious beliefs agree on this point, so that leads me to believe that there are other underlying points that cause them to agree with each other outside of religion.

Secondly, religious folks can be motivated beyond religion, and can present non-religious arguments in debating an issue of importance to them in order to appeal to others beyond their own beliefs.

Again, cite for me an example wherein a billboard from Focus on the Family has been forcibly removed. You made the claim this would happen, I want to see your proof. If you're going to make claims of persecution, at least back them up.

Where did I say forceably removed? I said vandalised and vociferously complained about. If a radio program from Focus on the Family, receives such a complaint, then it seems reasonable to argue that an intrusive billboard would receive the same treatment.

And nothing would prevent an interracial couple from considering themselves married or forming a relationship, even though were interracial marriage banned. Your point founders.

Also true. So why does one permit interracial marriage, Boris? The difference between the two is that race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is not. Gender is a critical component.

Note how the panel concludes that the broadcast was okay and the complaints were without merit. So I'm still waiting for these examples of state-sponsored persecution. Where's the beef?

State sponsored? No. Vandalism and complaints are not state sponsored. It is evidence of how Focus on the Family gets persecuted against here in Canada. If you read the decision, you see why they permitted the broacast, because they felt that the discussion was a rather clinical treatment of the issue. Supposing they had to use inflammatory rhetoric, one would assume that they would be off the air.

And what's wrong with those? All the signs point to those being areas that are being revitalized precisely because of the gay population:

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5149

http://www.barclayhouse.com/about-vancouver.htm

In NYC, The village is one of the wealthiest areas, full of artistic trendiness and wealthy folks. Castro street in SF is the same, as are the "gay" areas in numerous large cities. They tend to be urban chic.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....s=M1ARTM0012290

"Carnegie Mellon University professor Richard Florida has found a high degree of correlation between the concentration of gay couples in a city and a region's success in attracting high-tech businesses and workers. It turns out that the presence of those couples reflects the region's openness - and those firms and workers value a city that offers cultural and lifestyle diversity."

There's a big reason Fortune-500 firms have been overwhelmingly supportive of gay rights initiatives = they wan't to attract and keep gay employees, because they view gays as an important part of a diverse, happy and productive workforce.

You once again cite one example as "proof" but ignore overall trends.

Allright, I'll go through your sources and find some of my own.

I'd love more evidence for this supposed Vancouver decay beyond your claims, since all the references I can find to the West End are that it is a vibrant, fun area full of lots of things to see and do. I suspect any gay-dominant area will meet with disapproval from you, though.

No, just that this 'vibrant fun' town, is not what I have seen when I lived there.

That gays help drive urban renewal is hard to dispute. Since they tend not to have kids, urban neighborhoods are more appealing to them, since they are then close to nightlife and being in the heart of an entertaining area.

Granted, but families provide the stability to the neighbourhood, that folks who are looking for nightlife and a fun time are not going to be all that interested in providing.

Gay couples who invest a lot in their homes certainly have just as much "stake" in an area as any couple. People like to build stable lives in their chosen areas, irrespective of their sexuality.

Fair enough, but you don't get my point. My point isn't that these folks want to settle down, my question is what happens after they get older? Will they have any incentive or investment into the area? Are they going to look for nightlife, or schools? Their investment into the area is going to be different from a family, and they are going to look for different things.

[Ben Kenobi]

Denman Street is lively (and no longer just with dealers and the homeless, and their dogs).

From Boris's source. Yes, the article is a rosy affirmation of the positives of gay culture, but even they cannot ignore the problems of the area, that afflict much of Vancouver, whether the areas are 'gay-friendly' or not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now, the second article, gosh doesn't that just want to make you go live in Vancouver.

"it stays active from early in the morning until late at night and is a safe place for visitors to be."

This seems awfully encouraging. It seems to me that some folks have questioned the overall 'safety' of the area, which is why they want to talk about how safe Vancouver can be.

If there were no questions or complaints about the safety of Vancouver, a tourist guide like this, would not feel the need to mention them.

Again, on my travels through the United States, I have only seen one bus station as squalid as the one in Vancouver, and that was Los Angeles.

The third link doesn't work.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2002-2/issue3/lastword.html

In contrast to this, Vancouver is very much a dead city. Sure, there are bars like the Ivanhoe and the Cobalt, but it is more or less a dead city. Just walk through a typical East Vancouver neighborhood (Commercial excepted) and you will notice this void of life; nobody on the streets, not a window without a blind. But this exists in many other neighborhoods as well. Nightlife in Vancouver is also questionable, and difficult for many to drive to or from sober. It seems that we have gone out of our way to minimise the ease of association, especially of the youth, and this is an important problem. How can we respect one another, or be decent to one another, and be civil when we rarely interact? Have we forgotten that interaction and association are important factors in the social lives of humans? It seems we have, but why is this so?

I have bolded the points I find particularly poignant, and which I fully agree are endemic in Vancouver.

[Ben Kenobi]

So marriage should be links between people with "differences" and marriages between people that are the "same" somehow should not be allowed??

I don't think proponents say gay marriage says anything like what you propose. In fact my marriage is a different thing from many of my other heterosexual friend's marriages. there is no straightjacketed formula and people develop their own relationships in different ways.

The point is that what are the benefits of marriage? Why is the state involved in regulating marriage whatsoever? This only makes sense if marriage provides certain benefits to society, that the state wishes to encourage. Otherwise, it makes no sense for the state to regulate marriage in any way. '

I'll accept that men and women are different since it is so obvious. So what? Would you preclude a marriage between an effeminate man and a butch woman that were so similar in outlook to be almost indistinguishable? After all you think marriage should be between different folks??Who made YOU the marriage police?


Conversely would your applaud the marriage of the (pardon me, blatant sterotypes ahead) big bearish masculine man's man to the slight, feminine cross dressing fairy boy willing to take the traditional female role in all respects. He might not have a vagina but until you look really closely, you wouldn't know but he WAS a woman.

------------------------------------

I just don't see how two men getting married effects my marriage in any way at all.. If you want to think homosexual marriages are "different" well fine . .. you are free to think that and its not like the married gay people want to hide the fact that they are gay and married. Just try to treat them with the same respect you would give anyone else .. .OK??

[KrazyHorse]

Total Posts: 147
User Posts
Ben Kenobi 39
Wezil 17
MrFun 13
notyoueither 12
KrazyHorse 11
Boris Godunov 7
St Leo 5
Ninot 5
Asher 5
Tingkai 5
DRoseDARs 5
Kontiki 4
Oncle Boris 3
shawnmmcc 2
Flubber 2
Max Webster 1
Jon Miller 1
Kuciwalker 1
Theben 1
Richelieu 1
Rufus T. Firefly 1
Gatekeeper 1
Tau Ceti 1
Mrs. Tuberski 1
Bill3000 1
Hueij 1
Japher 1

[joncha]

How does that have anything to do with Vancouver's West End, BK? The more gay-friendly the neighbourhood is in Vancouver, the more vibrant, safe and community-oriented it is. Your arguments, as usual, are just imagined BS.

[Straybow]

Uh, Ben, I assume you wanted to quote Flubber and then say something meaningful about it??