Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[Ben Kenobi]

Some Catholic churches are accepting of gays, so who knows? Regardless, it's not a wedding, it's a reception.

Same difference. Are you really willing to say that you can split hairs? As far as I can see, the Catholic church should be protected from anyone using their facilities in a manner contrary to their own teachings. It's simple private property.

Those aren't the same thing, you nimrod. And in no way was it requiring the Church to officiate a gay marriage. So your claims that churches are being forced to marry gay couples is still patently false.

Gay activists are trying to cram gay marriage down their throats, and you don't have a problem with that? I have a problem with it. The church should be free to bar people from abusing their facilities.

Nobody said they didn't realize the hall was owned by Catholics, fool. Did you read the ****ing ruling? It explicitly states that churches can refuse on religious grounds, that was NOT the issue.

Then why did they get fined for defending their own rights? As far as I am concerned the court should have fined the gay rights activists for harassment and filing a frivolous suit, so that the Church got their court costs back, plus punitive damages.

[Ben Kenobi]

Stop pretending like gays everywhere are burning mormon temples. I assure you, far more heterosexuals have murdered homosexuals than homosexuals have burned churches.

Name one.

Hurting innocent ladies is not justified in any circumstances, and I'm disappointed that you are copping this excuse to justify assault.

You keep deferring to other arguments that are conceptually beyond you that other people have made because you can't ****ing think for yourself.

You've imposed certain conditions on the debate, which is why I'm just quoting other arguments. Oh, and btw, that's how philosophy works. It doesn't matter who made the arguments, if you can't argue against them you lose, period. You have something against research? If you are limiting folks to their own arguments, then you'll have to open up the terms of the debate. Decide which you prefer.

As I have repeatedly said, I'm merely honouring your assumption of the thought process of a "purely logical" gay man. Logically, it is in my interest to continue existing. Logically, what happens after I'm gone has no impact on me.

Then what's your beef with Kant? I am arguing that it is logical in the sense for society as a whole.

You are a ****ing liar. We have not had any negative effects of gay marriage in Canada except for a bunch of happier, more free gay people. That scares you, so you make this **** up.

A repressive jackbooted nation where pastors get fined and teachers fired for speaking out against the agenda? That's a negative effect.

While it is true gay men may die earlier than straight statistically,

Thank you. I'll save that for sig material.

You Christians also tend to murder gay people a lot.

When was this?

You honestly think I'm going to die at 40? What the ****?

There's a good chance of it.

I'm a virile young man in a monogamous, committed relationship that goes to the gym and eats healthy.

Yeah, plenty of those out there who died young. All I'm saying Asher is you are putting yourself at risk. If you choose to ignore it, feel free. Not my problem.

You're a midget with clear mental problems and a hearing defect on top of your state of perpetual bachelorhood. I've got good money on me living far longer than you.

Hearing impairments have an effect on longevity?



You are just a hater Asher. At least now it's out in the open.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. "I have no right to demand anyone marry me (as a spouse)".
We are not demand that anyone be forced to become our spouses. On the other hand, you've made the glib comment that gays and lesbians can get married already--to those that they don't wish to get married.

It's the same argument.

In other words, you're not demanding the right for just anyone to marry you, but you want to force us to marry just anyone.

Force? No, if you want to get married, you have to abide by the rules. If you don't want to get married, then feel free.

We are not demanding that any religious organization sanction or sanctify our relationships.

Then why do you care if the Catholic church refuses to perform gay marriages? If you sincerely believe that religious freedoms are to be respected, it shouldn't matter one bit what the Catholic church chooses to do.

Instead, we see whining about how the Catholics are bigots for abiding by their own religion. Are you willing to agree that Catholics should be free to follow their own religion?

Instead, we'd like to have our marriages judged, treated, protected, and accorded the same rights and privileges that other marriages are granted by the government, and given the same validity in the eyes of the government.

Then you are demanding that the people give you a right. You have to be willing to abide by the decisions of society. You cannot say that you will die without marriage, I'd be hard pressed to say that there are any negative effects to gay people without gay marriage.

That said, you still aren't retracting your heinous remarks about Theo van Gogh?

Offensive because they were true? Islamists kill van Gogh in Amsterdam, and the West is supposed to stand back and piss on everything that made it great?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Name one.

You're asking me to name one homosexual murdered by a heterosexual?

Are you serious?

Oh, you are...aren't you.

So adorable.

Hurting innocent ladies is not justified in any circumstances, and I'm disappointed that you are copping this excuse to justify assault.

No one is condoning or justifying anything, Ben. You are again being patently dishonest and are showing you are a man of no integrity.

Didn't read the rest. On vacation. Less time to devote to being amazed by your posts. I'm also feeling less than generous right now, and anything more I say to you will involve barbed dildos, Jesus, and a **** ring.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Gay activists are trying to cram gay marriage down their throats, and you don't have a problem with that? I have a problem with it. The church should be free to bar people from abusing their facilities.

Gee, look who came back to post more.

As I've said BEFORE already - granting gays and lesbians the civil right to marry will NOT compel churches to marry gay and lesbian couples. So what really will happen then?

Gay and lesbian couples will be free to go to another church that is willing to marry them, or they can go to a government/secular office for marriage.

And your nihilistic viewpoint about the shorter life span of gays and lesbians is sick in of itself.


But, I also have to give a serious thumbs down to Asher for using such irrelevant, deragatory attacks like attacking someone for having a disability.

Stick to refuting twisted, distorted "argumentative points" - stop attacking someone for having a disability. I'm surprised the mods didn't catch what Asher posted.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then why do you care if the Catholic church refuses to perform gay marriages? If you sincerely believe that religious freedoms are to be respected, it shouldn't matter one bit what the Catholic church chooses to do.

Instead, we see whining about how the Catholics are bigots for abiding by their own religion. Are you willing to agree that Catholics should be free to follow their own religion?

This is the only one I'm answering, because the rest of this **** is just you going back to the same talking points, and there's no real way to convince you of the rest of it.

As far as the Catholic church bit, don't conflate my views on the matter with anyone else.

This is just one of the many reasons why I left the Church--I don't care who it marries, but I know that I don't wish have any marriage of mine "sanctified" by it.

I want marriage as a legal right, not a religious rite.

I'd be hard pressed to say that there are any negative effects to gay people without gay marriage.

So I lied.

I'd be hard pressed to say there were any truly negative effects to other races before they were allowed to miscegenate.

I'd be hard pressed to say that there were any truly negative effects to women during the 50's, before the gender revolution.

I'd be hard pressed to say that there are any negative effects to straight people without marriage.

Offensive because they were true? Islamists kill van Gogh in Amsterdam, and the West is supposed to stand back and piss on everything that made it great?

Actually, what we're standing for--the continual progress of further liberty to more and more people, is what makes the West so great.

You're the ones trying to roll it back, to bring us to a Republic of Gilead.

That is, unless you're trying to say that the gay rights movement, seeking equality, is somehow equal in its perniciousness to Islamists seeking to destroy equality?

[MrFun]

Negative effects on gay couples who are denied the civil right to marry?

There are more than 1,000 negative effects of such denial of this right.

[Jon Miller]

I sometimes wish everyone had BK on ignore.

I do see that a number of people here agree with me that Marriage has an important part to play in society still.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

You're asking me to name one homosexual murdered by a heterosexual?

You explicitly said a Christian. NGR has called you out, and now I am doing the same.

No one is condoning or justifying anything, Ben. You are again being patently dishonest and are showing you are a man of no integrity.

Then it is irrelevant all the purported abuse that has been heaped up in the past.

I'm asking you to repudiate it, or stop complaining about the ill treatment that you insist gay people received in the past.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I do see that a number of people here agree with me that Marriage has an important part to play in society still.

It still has an important part to play, but it's too far gone to ever play that role again. Might as well admit failure by letting gays get married.

Without any of the government perks that currently go to married couples, of course. Nobody should get government incentives if marriage is just going to be a fancy way of demonstrating your love for someone else.

[Ben Kenobi]

As I've said BEFORE already - granting gays and lesbians the civil right to marry will NOT compel churches to marry gay and lesbian couples. So what really will happen then?

Then why was Boissoin fined for preaching the gospel? Granting the right will compel Christian churches to marry gay and lesbians, because if they don't do so, they will be guilty of hate crimes, no different then if a church were to refuse to marry interacial couples.

It's already happening here in Canada.

Gay and lesbian couples will be free to go to another church that is willing to marry them, or they can go to a government/secular office for marriage.

Then why are they trying to force the Catholic church to do otherwise? It will be the same as always, some will capitulate and the gay rights activists will attack anyone who disagrees.

And your nihilistic viewpoint about the shorter life span of gays and lesbians is sick in of itself.

So you are saying I should preach about how gay people should refrain from sodomy?

Like I said, it's entirely your decision. My job is to warn of the consequences associated, and if you choose to go on and commit sodomy, then that's your business.

I'm surprised the mods didn't catch what Asher posted.

I'm not. I'm a big boy. You don't catch me whining to the mods.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
But, I also have to give a serious thumbs down to Asher for using such irrelevant, deragatory attacks like attacking someone for having a disability.

Stick to refuting twisted, distorted "argumentative points" - stop attacking someone for having a disability. I'm surprised the mods didn't catch what Asher posted.

I'm not attacking him for having a disability, I'm using his arguments (past and present) about homosexuality being a defect of some sort and a trait that does not "benefit society" for a reason to deny rights. Some of us are born the way we are. I'm trying to equate it in a way he can understand -- eg, he shouldn't have less rights because he's borderline mentally retarded with a hearing disability.

[Ben Kenobi]

As far as the Catholic church bit, don't conflate my views on the matter with anyone else.

QCubed, that is your right, and whatever issues you have had with the church in the past are your issues.

If you are willing to say that the church should be free to do as they wish, then I have no beef with you.

Actually, what we're standing for--the continual progress of further liberty to more and more people, is what makes the West so great.

No argument from me. However, in case you've not noticed there are plenty of folks who disagree that liberty is such a good thing. I don't want to see sharia imposed on the free world, and that is a big concern of mine. If muslims wish to live by our rules wrt to liberty and freedom of religion, that is fine, but Sharia has to go.

You're the ones trying to roll it back, to bring us to a Republic of Gilead.

I hardly see the US of the 50's as the republic of Gilead, but then that's your perception. Democratic rights and the liberties of the west are under seige right now, and weakening marriage isn't going to help things at all.

I'm worried there won't be enough of us here in the West to stand by these great ideas that have served us well. Gay marriage doesn't help the case any.

That is, unless you're trying to say that the gay rights movement, seeking equality, is somehow equal in its perniciousness to Islamists seeking to destroy equality?

That is precisely what I'm saying. I'm saying that by weakening western society, that is making us easier targets for Islamists who wish to destroy all of it. Our birthrate is already in secular decline, and this won't help matters any.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some of us are born the way we are. I'm trying to equate it in a way he can understand -- eg, he shouldn't have less rights because he's borderline mentally retarded with a hearing disability.

You were saying I'd die earlier because of a hearing impairment.

If you've got clinical evidence, then fine, but otherwise you are just digging the hole deeper.

[Zevico]

What made the West great in comparison to everyone else was liberal democracy, or, put more accurately, the gradual liberalisation of politics over time in varying European societies. The people who believed in the things that writers such as Mill or Locke wrote are the people that have made the West great. Freedom of speech, proper democratic representation and equal civil rights for all is what has made the West great.

By contrast, it is ludicrous to suggest that governmental refusal to permit homosexuals those legal rights that come with what is commonly known as a 'marriage' agreement between two persons in any way contributed to the prosperity and greatness of Western Civilisation. Conversely it is ridiculous to suggest that the granting of certain legal rights to heterosexuals who have engaged in a marriage materially contributed to the greatness of Western civilisation.

For the record, I do not believe in infringing upon yours, or anyone elses' right to let out or refuse to let out a wedding hall for whatever purpose they may wish. This idea is simply wrong. It is an illiberal idea, and I see no relevant purpose or benefit to it. I am sure that most people who support the granting of legal marriage rights to homosexuals are of the same opinion. Regardless it really does nothing to support your argument against the granting of legal marriage rights to homosexuals as whole to say that there exist supporters of gay rights who happen to think that your church should be forced to let out its premises to homosexual couples. To the extent that you believe that a church or other organisation should be allowed to hire or refuse to hire out its premises to anyone it so chooses, and similarly marry off whoever it so chooses, I agree with you.
To the extent that this Canadian law suggests otherwise, I think it should be repealed. I am sure that if you and others of a like mind were to mount a campaign to change the law to that effect, you would find many supporters.

I should think that it is very clear that no one supports acts of vandalism or arson as against Catholic church property.