10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Arrian]

The findings are "proof positive that these relationships ... will never be as stable as a normal heterosexual relationship regardless of what institutions or laws are changed," said Pete LaBarbara, senior policy analyst at Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute, who predicts that homosexual promiscuity will remain "rampant."

Gosh, that sounds like a lovely organization.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

What religion one belongs to is part of a person's identity yet, that is not a physical trait. We are not certain yet, as to how exactly sexual orientation develops but evidence gathered so far, has indicated that it is certainly not a choice. But depending on what will be finally established, maybe sexual orientation will come to be seen as having some biological/genetic trait.

I'm reminded of the quote, "when you have eliminated all other possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth."

And about raising kids in your quote above -- if a gay couple chooses to become parents, they certainly deserve equal legal protection and benefits that go with raising children

Ok, so why should they get preferential treatment in order to obtain the means in which to raise these children?

[Ben Kenobi]

I mean, if you did a study of hetero college kids in the U.S., I think you might draw a similar conclusion (they're a bunch of sex fiends!).

Arrian, your slip is showing. These are married gay men. Shouldn't the comparison sample be young married men and women?

[Arrian]

It is? Should've worn a longer skirt today...

Um, where in your posted cite does it say the study used married gays? The part you quoted doesn't say that.. I just re-read it.

Link to the study?

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey, if people do that and are happy, good for them. But again, what has this to do with disallowing gay marriage? Do you think that not allowing gays to marry will result in more of them saying "well, geeze, society really thinks we're wierdos... maybe we should go straight?" Seriously, do you think that??

It has everything to do with this. There is a reason why this particular opinion is so ostracised is because it represents a direct challenge.

If gay men and women can find happiness when married to women and men, respectively, then why are we saying that the only option for them is gay marriage. If we say all gay folks ought to get married to each other, then we are directly cutting off this option for folks who are not happy with their life.

Now, the motivations are entirely different. I suspect they come from within, in that they represent a significant dissatisfaction with their own happiness.

[Arrian]

If gay men and women can find happiness when married to women and men, respectively, then why are we saying that the only option for them is gay marriage. If we say all gay folks ought to get married to each other, then we are directly cutting off this option for folks who are not happy with their life.

No, silly boy. We are not saying that gays MUST marry gays. We're saying they should be ALLOWED TO IF THEY WANT TO!! ARG!!!!!

-Arrian

p.s. You talk about "lots" of gays who have married people of the opposite sex and have been happy. Ok, but there are also "lots" of gays who were closeted, married heteros and then, later, found themselves in a very unhappy situation. Married, with kids even... but unhappy b/c they had repressed their homosexuality. One of my former H.S. teachers found himself in just such a situation a few years back. He hung himself. Yeah, that worked out GREAT.

[Ben Kenobi]

Arrian:

As Canada and several U.S. states move toward the legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage," a new study has found that homosexual partnerships last, on average, only one-and-a-half years

Very first sentence of what I quoted.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, silly boy. We are not saying that gays MUST marry gays. We're saying they should be ALLOWED TO IF THEY WANT TO!! ARG!!!!!

If we say all gay folks ought to get married to each other, then we are directly cutting off this option for folks who are not happy with their life.

You are right arrian, but that's not the way in which the argument has been presented by most folks. I don't know if you know, but if you are a psychologist you can lose your license for treating men and women if they do not want their homosexual desires. Even if they come to you for such treatment. That is saying that if you are gay, you must always stay gay.

[Arrian]

It says homosexual partnerships. The bit about marriage (or, as they so endearingly put it "marriage") refers to the political situation in the US & Canada.

Unless they're just using partnerships to sub for marriage b/c they cannot bring themselves to describe gay marriage as marriage.

Still, link to the actual study?

-Arrian

[MrFun]

I think I'm done with this thread.

[Arrian]

You are right arrian, but that's not the way in which the argument has been presented by most folks.

Most folks argue that gays should only be allowed to marry gays? Where the hell are you getting that?? The pro-gay marriage people just think that gays who want to marry other gays should be allowed to. If they decide to go to some faith-based quackologist ( ) to have their homosexual desires exorcised, they can go right ahead. Neither I, nor the vast gay conspiracy will attempt to stop them.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I won't disagree with you.

Smart, as you would be wrong.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


However, one must note that we have not had a free vote according to conscience on this question. One also should remember that the government did not appeal any of the cases prevented before it, instead allowing the SCOC to trump parliamentary supremacy.

Hmm since 99% of our exising laws were not passed by such a vote I don't see how it impacts on this question

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If you truly believe we are a democracy and ruled by parliament and not justices, then I am going to be interested to see what happens when the people reject gay marriage and parliament passes a bill undoing what the Liberal party has imposed. If we are ruled by parliament, then parliament's decision ought to be upheld, even when it rules against the SCOC.

Wishful thinking on your part BenK. Harper won't even have his own cabinet onside on the issue (ie Jim Prentice) nor some of his Ontario and Atlantic Canadian MPs. If parliament wants to override the SCC, they always have that ability through use of the notwithstanding clause

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




There is no right to get married, you can want to get married all you like, but until you find someone who is willing to commit to you then you cannot get married.

I thought you were not going to disagree with me.

BenK, put simply you are wrong. The marriage statutes set out the requirements for marriage and if you meet them, you can get married. You would have a legally enforceable "right" to get married.

You have a right to vote , do you not. Well if you get stinking drunk and can't hold the pencil, prhaps you will be unable to vote but that doesn't change your "right" to vote. people have many rights which they personally may be unable to exercise due to their own inabilities, actions etc.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



Now, if you believe we have a right to get married, why not a right to get married to as many people as we wish?

Listen close . . . Because its a right granted by STATUTE . Up until recently the statute only granted this right to a man and woman but the courts ruled that that this infringed on the rights of homosexuals to equal treatment. So now, any person that meets the other requirements of the statutes ( including the need for another willing person) has a right to get married.

Why do I call it a right? Because it is something they could go to court to enforce-- ie you could get a order requiring the governmental authorities to provide a marriage licence and certiificate and to provide all the othe necessary formalities to become legally married.


Now -- the poligamists could run to court and claim discrimination based on religion or whatnot and that could be an interesting legal case but we are not anywhere near that yet

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi





Ok, so why should they get preferential treatment in order to obtain the means in which to raise these children?

What preferential treatment? I imagine that the exact same treatment as any adoptive parent or couple that uses scientific methods would be fine.

Oh and adoptive parents do NOT get the same treatment as birth parents. The adoptive ones get shorter parental leaves (probably to reflect the lack of a pregnancy)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Arrian:
As Canada and several U.S. states move toward the legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage," a new study has found that homosexual partnerships last, on average, only one-and-a-half years



Very first sentence of what I quoted.

'



What is a homosexual partnership?? Are they counting dating or what?

For example, I have been married for 4 years and with Mrs Flubber for another 4. But I have a couple of one year relationships, a 5 year one and probably 20 that lasted less than 3 months. So I have had an average relationship length of less than a year

The devil is in the details with these stats

[Arrian]

Which is why I want a link to the actual study. It's possible, I suppose, that the Dutch study was using married gays as their data set and the fundies from the "Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute" just couldn't stomach using the word marriage when referring to gays, other than the first time when they put it in quotes.

-Arrian