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

[Fake Boris]

I mean say I choose to become black. Does that mean hate speech against me is justified, that landlords have a right to refuse me, etc?

The point here is that whether or not you believe homosexuality is a choice (even though it clearly isn't), it doesn't matter to the topic being discussed.

[Ben Kenobi]

How are they discriminating against you? Racism doesn't make much sense if race is a fluid concept. If you read any of Kinsey, you'd see this argument applies to sexuality. People can be discriminated against for the choices that they make in their lives, in both the positive and negative sense. After all, discrimination can be positive if it includes you, and excludes others who are not like you.

Yes, it has a great deal to do with the question of whether one can choose one's own sexuality, as to whether the analogy to race can be sustained.

[MrFun]

This is the reason why you will not see me use the "it's not a choice" argument when advocating equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Equal rights for gays should not be too reliant on the "it's not a choice" retort because we are entitled to equal rights even if sexual orientation could be proven to be a voluntary choice.

I believe in that sexual orientation is not a choice, but I refuse to use it as a crutch when arguing for equal rights.

But BK, let me ask you this question. If a minority group's identity is based on a choice, then you're saying that discrimination against that minority group can be ethically acceptable? This means that all religious groups can be discriminated against without it being unethical or immoral.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How are they forcing people to live by their standard? Are they stopping gay people from forming relationships?

They're trying to stop gay people from forming the relationships they want--marriages to their partner of choice. Foisting their religious objections on the rest of society pretty much qualifies as violating others' freedom from religion.

I see plenty of billboards and advertisements, for a 'man line' and the rest, encouraging gay folks to get together. If religious folks are dictating to the lifestyle of the gay folks, then none of that would be there.

Oh please. I've seen plenty of vandalism of gay-related advertisments. And religious groups complaining about them loudly.

And utterly irrelevant to the point at hand, by the way.

Yet this is what I see. Should the same billboard be an advertisement for Focus on the Family, it would be vandalised, but not before every single gay person complained about the sign, and tried to get it taken down.

Oh yeah? Please cite an example where a billboardfor Focus on the Family has been forced out. I smell total fabrication on your part.

I'm sure there would be complaints, but if you're suggesting that there would be more complaints than those of religious zealots towards a gay billboard? Right, sure.

I'd love to be a gay person in Canada. I'd have better treatment than I would otherwise. The city would throw a parade once a year saying that I am cool ****, and folks would have to tiptoe around me, lest they be accused of being homophobes.

There's that martyr complex. Man, you just couldn't live if you didn't think the world was against you, could you?

Ben, you're not persecuted for your beliefs. That you think you are is, frankly, an insult to people who have to deal with real persecution.

That asks the question, why should society care about marriage? I think society derives certain benefits from marriage between a man and a woman, which is why society wants to encourage this, over other arrangements.

That's your opinion. But plenty of people think society benefits from other arrangements as well. For instance, studies have shown a strong correlation between economically prosperous areas and strong gay populations/culture. That's because gays tend to have much more disposable income than their straight counterparts, and often are driving forces behind urban renewal. On top of that, recognizing gay relationships leads to more stability in those relationships. Since the antigay types like to claim that one fo the bad things about gays is a lack of stable relationships, this helps address that complaint.

Oh wait--antigay folks couldn't possibly just be making that claim to tar gays with a broad brush and really have utterly no interest in seeing stable gay relationships, could they? Naaaaaaaaaah...

[Ben Kenobi]

Equal rights for gays should not be too reliant on the "it's not a choice" retort because we are entitled to equal rights even if sexual orientation could be proven to be a voluntary choice.

All right. So what about someone who chooses to use drugs? Should that be grounds to fire them if they choose to do drugs, and the drugs hamper their job perfomance? I do believe that people can be discriminated against for the choices that they do make.

But BK, let me ask you this question. If a minority group's identity is based on a choice, then you're saying that discrimination against that minority group can be ethically acceptable? This means that all religious groups can be discriminated against without it being unethical or immoral.

Provisions for religious freedoms are not based on equality, but upon conscience. To bar and prevent the religious groups from practicing their faith is contrary to their conscience.

[Ben Kenobi]

They're trying to stop gay people from forming the relationships they want--marriages to their partner of choice. Foisting their religious objections on the rest of society pretty much qualifies as violating others' freedom from religion.

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.

Oh please. I've seen plenty of vandalism of gay-related advertisments. And religious groups complaining about them loudly.

And utterly irrelevant to the point at hand, by the way.

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.

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.

Oh yeah? Please cite an example where a billboardfor Focus on the Family has been forced out. I smell total fabrication on your part.

I'm sure there would be complaints, but if you're suggesting that there would be more complaints than those of religious zealots towards a gay billboard? Right, sure.

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/decisions/2001/010831c.htm

There's that martyr complex. Man, you just couldn't live if you didn't think the world was against you, could you?

Ben, you're not persecuted for your beliefs. That you think you are is, frankly, an insult to people who have to deal with real persecution.

That's your opinion. But plenty of people think society benefits from other arrangements as well. For instance, studies have shown a strong correlation between economically prosperous areas and strong gay populations/culture.

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.

That's because gays tend to have much more disposable income than their straight counterparts, and often are driving forces behind urban renewal. On top of that, recognizing gay relationships leads to more stability in those relationships. Since the antigay types like to claim that one fo the bad things about gays is a lack of stable relationships, this helps address that complaint.

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.

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.

[Tau Ceti]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'd love to be a gay person in Canada.

Why don't you choose to become one, then?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


All right. So what about someone who chooses to use drugs? Should that be grounds to fire them if they choose to do drugs, and the drugs hamper their job perfomance? I do believe that people can be discriminated against for the choices that they do make.



Provisions for religious freedoms are not based on equality, but upon conscience. To bar and prevent the religious groups from practicing their faith is contrary to their conscience.

Drug use obviously affects one's performance on a job you dumbass. How does one's sexual orientation affect a person's competency on the job though?

Fine, I can accept your conscience argument when speaking about religious freedom. But that still does not make discrimination against a minority group such as gays morally acceptable -- and this is given the outlandish hypothetical given that we have proven that sexual orientation IS a choice.

No minority group that has an identity based on choice ought to be discriminated against. And I'm talking about sexual orientation in this case -- not drug users.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why don't you choose to become one, then?

hmm, there are so many ways to answer that question...

Let's just say that women are amazing and leave it at that.

[MrFun]

BK -- you did not choose to be attracted to women.

[Ben Kenobi]

Drug use obviously affects one's performance on a job you dumbass. How does one's sexual orientation affect a person's competency on the job though?

The question was whether we can discriminate against the choices that people make. Drug use is a choice, and if we are unable to discriminate against the choices people make, then firing some one for drug use would also be wrong.

But that still does not make discrimination against a minority group such as gays morally acceptable -- and this is given the outlandish hypothetical given that we have proven that sexual orientation IS a choice.

Ah, an outlandish hypothetical. Like elephant's flying I suppose. I find it amusing that so much of the argument of gay people hinges upon the concept that people are born gay, and that to challenge the assumption provokes such a reply.

No minority group that has an identity based on choice ought to be discriminated against. And I'm talking about sexual orientation in this case -- not drug users.

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

[Ben Kenobi]

BK -- you did not choose to be attracted to women.

Do you deny that women are amazing? Ah, that is so sad. They really are you know.

[Ninot]

theres nothing sexier than a woman in a skirt on a hot summers day in Montreal.

God Bless Canada.

or just Bless Canada, whatever you prefer.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Let's just say that women are amazing and leave it at that.

Here I agree. I am attracted to women. . . love my wife with all my heart. persoanlly I don't see what a guy could ever see in another guy . . . heck I often wonder why the women are attracted to us . . .

But I don't need to understand it or feel it myself. I just simply accept that some people are attracted to people of the same gender in the same way that I am attracted to women and have similar emotions and desires to create long term bonds . . . thats it.

[Flubber]

Switched from another thread

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Alright, I'll spell it out a bit more, but this will be my last post in this thread.

Gay marriage says that it is the same thing for a man to be married to a man, as it is for a man to be married to a woman. One of the assumptions behind this is that men and women are fundamentally the same. If you don't believe this to be true, and see men and women as being different from each other, then gay marriage is going to act contrary to this position.

I think it does effect marriages between a man and a women, to see both the man and the woman as precisely the same, especially, if they are really different, and need to be understood as such.

Does this make any sense at all to you?

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.

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??