Same-sex Marriage Debate is Officially Over in Canada

[Elok]

Actually, I'm with Drogue. Give 'em all civil unions. You want "marriage," go to a church, or invent your own Church of the Agnostic Dude. Stop this ridiculous argument where it stands and get rid of a bizarre relic of state religion while you're at it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Elok
Actually, I'm with Drogue. Give 'em all civil unions. You want "marriage," go to a church, or invent your own Church of the Agnostic Dude. Stop this ridiculous argument where it stands and get rid of a bizarre relic of state religion while you're at it.

This is a completely different issue. Start another thread if you want to remove marriage as a legal institution altogether (I agree, FWIW).

This thread is about equality when marriage remains a legal institution.

But as you know, even this will get the same result. Many churches are fine with marrying gay people, so the end result is nothing changes and the religious right would still want to ban gay people from marrying if at all possible.

[Elok]

Even when it'd be hella easier to achieve equality this way? I don't see how the fundies could argue for the "sanctity of civil unions." If you're fighting for the legal rights of "marriage," by which you mean hospital visitation, etc., stop letting them equivocate out of it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Elok
Even when it'd be hella easier to achieve equality this way?

Explain to me how this has relevance to Canada and what's already done and I'd say it belongs in the thread.

As it doesn't, start a new thread. Make sure you include a comment about Ben having a conniption in the thread title.

[Elok]

Already have, long ago. With a poll, even. Almost everybody agreed with the suggestion, as I recall. I don't know much about our dear retarded little brother to the north, but I'd think such a position would work better there than just sitting on it like they apparently have.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by MrFun
What makes having a semblance of "debate" with BK, is that he doesn't so much as blatantly throw out obvious bigoted insults towards gays and lesbians but he constantly puts forth fallacious "arguments" and half-truths that distort the issue.

Fallacious arguments and half-truths are commonplace in many arguments, and aren't in the realms of a moderator.

Originally posted by Asher
His very opinion is one that pours scorn. He believes gay people are second class citizens. It doesn't matter if he's polite while saying it.

Can you imagine what would happen if we had a polite person making a case again black people marrying?

Such people are rude and scornful on their face.

Actually, that is what matters on a discussion forum. We don't censure people's opinions, believing extreme things is not against the forum rules. Insults and flaming are, however.

In this thread, BK hasn't even really debated gay marriage, he's debated the bill. He hasn't made a single comment, that I can see, disparaging gay people. Yet you have back to him about opposers of the bill. I appreciate nothing particularly nasty has been said, but you have been pretty rude and insulting, and that's why I warned you not to take it any further. As soon as the comments start going from general comments about people who support the bill to specific ones, I'll start to have a problem.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Asher
Stop being a liberal arts academic and join the real world.

I agree marriage has no business being a legal construct, but it is, and the Religious bigots have no problem with this. As such, they have openly invited marriage to be opened up under the constitution. I'd be just as happy if it was removed from the legal system altogether, and replaced with a universal "civil union" nonsense, but that's not what happened.

So please, let's debate this on substance, not semantics. If we wanted to argue semantics we'd all join some liberal arts whinefest program.

Originally posted by Asher
Civil ceremonies still do not afford equivalent rights under the law, and even then, the problem is why should the government discriminate based on religious pretexts?

That, to me, is the crux of the problem. I think civil ceremonies should be the legal part, and that if the couple want to do that in a church and call it a marriage, they should be able to.

I do agree with your semantics comment, however that's why I'd direct my effort into making whatever ceremony we call it that gay couples can have towards being the legal equivilent, in all its forms, to a marriage. It's precisely because I don't care about semantics that I don't really care what they call it. So I guess in that sense I do agree in relationship-equality. I'm not sure that the only people who oppose it are religious or in the closet though.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drogue
In this thread, BK hasn't even really debated gay marriage, he's debated the bill. He hasn't made a single comment, that I can see, disparaging gay people.

Oh, wake up man...

Look past his polite words to the message he is conveying. The notion of gay people being second class citizens is just slightly disparaging...

His problem isn't with the bill, he's just pretending it is. Any time you introduce a bill that would allow gay people the same benefits as straight people, he'll throw a fit. He reasons the bill is "flawed" simply because it doesn't follow his Christian ideals. He's full of hot air because there is no reasonable argument to be made against equality.

[loinburger]

FWIW, it's difficult to debate with BK for any length of time without getting a bit snippy with him, given his usual tactics of "blithely throw around strawmen etc." and "stop posting in the thread when things turn against you, then post in a nearly identical thread a week later as though the previous thread had never existed." Neither of these is against the forum rules. At the same time, neither of these wins him a lot of respect. I consider him to be equivalent to a Giancarlo, except with a better vocabulary and enough self-restraint to stick to strawmen (which are not within the purview of the moderators) and avoid ad hominems (which often are within the purview of the moderators). In other words, if I were posting a thread about one of Giancarlo's pet issues back in his heyday, then if saying "Giancarlo keep out!" in the thread title would have kept him out then I'd have put that in the thread title. Likewise, if I'm posting a thread about one of BK's pet issues, then there's no point in BK posting in the thread because he'll either miss the point entirely or else derail the discussion for awhile and then stop posting in the thread when he sees that things are going poorly for him, so putting "BK keep out!" in the thread title would be entirely appropriate. The primary difference being that, while I have little in the way of respect for BK, at least he recognizes a losing battle when he sees one (as evidenced by the many threads he has abandoned), and so the "BK keep out!" banner might actually have some effect (as opposed to, e.g., a "Giancarlo keep out!" banner).

F'rinstance, with this thread, we already get it that BK opposes gay marriage, and nobody really cares about his justifications at this point because it's obvious that the justification follows the conclusion (not the other way around). In other words, he can say "marriage is not an individual right and is not covered by the constitution," or he can say "marriage is magical pixie dust and gays cannot tolerate pixies," and it really makes no difference to BK or anybody reading BK's posts, so what's the point in BK even posting in the thread? So, while "BK cries himself to sleep" certainly isn't a "BK stay out!" message, the resulting barrage of "BK stay out!" posts certainly seem to have had the desired effect.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Asher
Oh, wake up man...

Look past his polite words to the message he is conveying. The notion of gay people being second class citizens is just slightly disparaging...

If I were to ban everyone who is disparaging in that way towards a class of people others belong to, say when someone says "all Bushies are stupid" or "Liberals are wieners", I'd be banning half the forum, which I'm not going to do. All I'm saying is be polite to each other, or at the very least don't insult each other. Being disparaging in opinions is one thing, insulting other posters is another. There's a relatively fine line, which is why I'm pointing out that people need to remain this side of it.

There's no need to dispute or discuss what you or he were doing or not doing, I'm not taking issue with it. However when I see something that is showing a tendency to turn towards flame or insults, I remind people not to. I'll only take issue if it starts to get worse, and if you want, then you can start disputing it.

[joncha]

Banning half the forum

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drogue

I'd like to see what you think is an "obvioous bigoted insult"? If he has made any, then I can warn him too. Fallacious arguments and half-truths are commonplace in many arguments, and aren't in the realms of a moderator. Insults are, however I haven't seen him make one.

Reread what I said, that you quoted. I already pointed out that he is not throwing out obvious, bigoted insults.

But you need to read the explanations of the frustration with BK as Asher, Loinburger, and myself have tried to explain.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by MrFun
Reread what I said, that you quoted. I already pointed out that he is not throwing out obvious, bigoted insults.

But you need to read the explanations of the frustration with BK as Asher, Loinburger, and myself have tried to explain.

Sorry, misread I do understand the frustration, but I'm not going to take action against people for strawmen, half-truths or other wayward arguments. Nor does it give you justification for insults or flames.

[Drake Tungsten]

Good lord, you homos sure are whiny. Even Asher, who's usually cool...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drogue
If I were to ban everyone who is disparaging in that way towards a class of people others belong to, say when someone says "all Bushies are stupid" or "Liberals are wieners", I'd be banning half the forum, which I'm not going to do. All I'm saying is be polite to each other, or at the very least don't insult each other. Being disparaging in opinions is one thing, insulting other posters is another. There's a relatively fine line, which is why I'm pointing out that people need to remain this side of it.

There's no need to dispute or discuss what you or he were doing or not doing, I'm not taking issue with it. However when I see something that is showing a tendency to turn towards flame or insults, I remind people not to. I'll only take issue if it starts to get worse, and if you want, then you can start disputing it.

There's no one here talking of banning except you. I don't want Ben banned, or anything like it.

I've no idea what you think you're doing here, but you're derailing a discussion already derailed by Ben while whipping out your newly found banning rod and stroking it. Get over it.