I really, really hate smokers

[Asher]

To elaborate, I find it incredibly ****ing offensive that Ben consistently and apologetically refers to "gays" as some kind of sub-hetero, predictable and uniformly identical group. I find it incredibly ****ing offensive he repeatedly tries to tell us what "gays" want and what "gays" are interested in top of it.

The implicit and occasionally explicit degradation of the status and humanity of gay people is really sickening and it needs to stop.

Either Ben needs to learn to shut the **** up and NEVER open his mouth with his thinly veiled hatred, or he should be banned when he does.

[Elok]

Really? Asher, BG, Q, other gay polytubbies: would your boyfriends/hubbies/SOs object if you nailed some random dude you met at a bar? Assuming you have boyfriends/etc, that is. Regardless, is there some general understanding that "monogamy" means "boning everything that moves while keeping one dude on standby as a sort of reference point?" I know nothing about the gay subculture, and am very glad BK is around to share his vast experience on the subject.

[Asher]

Welcome to my world, circa 2000.

The problem is twofold.

1. Gay people aren't very interested in marriage. We had an initial burst, but the only gay marriages done in Canada these days are done on folks from abroad.

LOL

Gay people aren't very interested in marriage? Based on what? I guarantee I know far more gay people than you do and can say this is unequivocally false. If gays were not interested, then we wouldn't find it a big deal if we weren't allowed to. This is CLEARLY false.

2. Gay people's concept of monogamy is one at a time. The statistics have shown that 'committed' partners (ie, been together more then 3 months), have on average about 10 partners in a year.

This is incredibly offensive.

**** you and if Ming had balls, he'd ban you.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, I have time to kill until dinner, so I might as well point this out: you are aware that serial monogamy is quite common in heteros as well, aren't you?

Among straight married people? No, not really. Among single folks, sure, but not among the married folks.

I doubt that most straight folks have anywhere near 10 partners in a year.

And I doubt whether anyone, gay or straight, bothers to get repeatedly married and divorced when changing partners ten times a year, so your point is doubly moot.

The point is that they have a different concept of monogamy. This is while they say they are in a 'committed relationship', not between them.

Been together more than three months * 10 partners a year AVG = 30 months per year. Or are you suggesting that gays have nine partners in as many months, then have a committed relationship for the remaining three? How on earth do those statements fit together?

No, I'm saying that while they have a relationship with one person, that they label as a 'committed relationship', that they have sex with, on average, about 10 other people over the course of the year.

[Elok]

Of course, many times.

Yeah, I figured, but I hadn't seen it in this thread yet so I thought I'd chuck it out there. Hey, WTF is ? I thought we got the original thumb-smileys back. Damn, that's ugly...ditto for . They don't look like hands so much as disfigured or melted gummi bears.

EDIT: Oh, I see, they just haven't changed the images in the quick-smileys menu. N/M. BK, I have time to kill until dinner, so I might as well point this out: you are aware that serial monogamy is quite common in heteros as well, aren't you? And I doubt whether anyone, gay or straight, bothers to get repeatedly married and divorced when changing partners ten times a year, so your point is doubly moot.

Second Edit: Wait, what the hell?

'committed' partners (ie, been together more then 3 months), have on average about 10 partners in a year"

Been together more than three months * 10 partners a year AVG = 30 months per year. Or are you suggesting that gays have nine partners in as many months, then have a committed relationship for the remaining three? How on earth do those statements fit together?

[Ben Kenobi]

It just occurred to me: gay marriage does further the public good, since it encourages monogamy, VD's worst enemy after abstinence, and thereby reduces the public burden of healthcare. Has anyone brought up that particular point for BK to dodge yet?

Welcome to my world, circa 2000.

The problem is twofold.

1. Gay people aren't very interested in marriage. We had an initial burst, but the only gay marriages done in Canada these days are done on folks from abroad.

2. Gay people's concept of monogamy is one at a time. The statistics have shown that 'committed' partners (ie, been together more then 3 months), have on average about 10 partners in a year.

[Ben Kenobi]

That some regulations are ignored or aren't effective and are silly isn't the issue. You're moving goalposts.

That is all I said. There is too much regulation, and some of them need to go, especially the ones that harm businesses. Among those is a smoking ban. I think businesses should be permitted to cater to smokers if that is what they want to do.

I already said, a ban on public areas makes sense, but I don't agree with the regulation of private businesses in this regard.

You stated a position that was completely anti-regulation--basically the ultimate free-market, Libertarian philosophy towards labor.

Yes, I believe labour has choices these days, and that if an employer does not treat his employees well, that they will go elsewhere. I'm not against benefits, just that I believe that the benefits a business provides will attract and retain talent, and generally go well beyond that which is legislated. Businesses prefer flexibility, and right now flexibility allows them to be profitable and survive in the face of a harsh economic environment. Regulations which curtail their flexibility just make things worse. How is labour better off losing jobs entirely?

You did this to rationalize your anti-smoking ban position. But when confronted with the absurdity of that position, you shift to saying regulation is OK, just not particular ones.

I've always said that not all regulations are bad. I suspect where we disagree is where the line should be drawn. I don't see the rationale for a minimum wage when the scarcity of labour ensures most make well beyond that figure.

Well DUH. I don't think there's anyone alive who would say all regulations are good and sound ones. But you can't dismiss the potential harm of employee exposure to second-hand smoke at work as a matter of "employee choice" while fully accepting that in other health matters, employees should not be required to work in unneccessarily risky environments.

There are many jobs I avoid and cannot do, as well as entire industries due to my disability. If someone cannot stand the smell of smoke then they should simply avoid occupations that would draw them into contact with smokers.

I really don't have any sympathy for folks who go into occupations such as a bartender and insist on imposing their own issues on the business. That would be no different then for me to impose such restrictions on a call centre just because I cannot hear. I can whine and complain that it's not fair, but at least a non-smoker has a choice. I don't have that option.

If you accept that exposing employees to undue risk is wrong, then it's wrong, simple as that. This is a fundamental tenet of employment law.

I think employees should be permitted to take on risks, and in many jobs they take risks which would be considered 'undue'. Look at police officers. The risks that they take as a part of their job are far greater then a bartender in a smoking bar. Would you say that it's exposing officers to undue risks provided they are made aware of the risks beforehand?

Look, just because you wouldn't take the job does not make it right to prevent others from taking the job too.

It's. Not. About. The. Patrons. I don't see how after three simple explanations of this you could keep repeating such nonsense, except for the obvious answer of blinking stupidity.

Again, I believe employees should have the freedom to accept these risks as a cost of doing business, provided they are informed ahead of time.

[Boris Godunov]

It just occurred to me: gay marriage does further the public good, since it encourages monogamy, VD's worst enemy after abstinence, and thereby reduces the public burden of healthcare. Has anyone brought up that particular point for BK to dodge yet?

Of course, many times.

[rah]

I'm still trying to figure out how 2 guys 1500 miles away getting married cheapens my marriage. I would love to have it explained to me in a way that makes any kind of sense at all.

[Kontiki]

IIRC, Ben maintains, among other things, that:

1) There are taxable benefits associated with marriage, so allowing gays to get married adds to the overall expense.

2) Allowing gays to get married cheapens straight marriage, and therefore fewer straight people will get married.

3) If gay people cannot get married, some may opt for straight marriage instead.

[Jon Miller]

It is one of the major reasons I am in favor of gay marriage. I am pretty sure I have mentioned it before.

JM

[Elok]

It just occurred to me: gay marriage does further the public good, since it encourages monogamy, VD's worst enemy after abstinence, and thereby reduces the public burden of healthcare. Has anyone brought up that particular point for BK to dodge yet?

[Boris Godunov]

Has he gotten that far?

-Arrian

He might be too preposterous to have been even a Dickens character, true.

[Boris Godunov]

Regulations are routinely ignored as a part of doing business effectively. Regulations are drawn up by bureaucrats who have no idea of what it's like in the field.

That some regulations are ignored or aren't effective and are silly isn't the issue. You're moving goalposts.

You stated a position that was completely anti-regulation--basically the ultimate free-market, Libertarian philosophy towards labor. You did this to rationalize your anti-smoking ban position. But when confronted with the absurdity of that position, you shift to saying regulation is OK, just not particular ones.

Well DUH. I don't think there's anyone alive who would say all regulations are good and sound ones. But you can't dismiss the potential harm of employee exposure to second-hand smoke at work as a matter of "employee choice" while fully accepting that in other health matters, employees should not be required to work in unneccessarily risky environments. If you accept that exposing employees to undue risk is wrong, then it's wrong, simple as that. This is a fundamental tenet of employment law.

If the business clearly labels that there is smoking permitted, then it is sufficient. If a patron choses to still attend then that's their responsibility.

It's. Not. About. The. Patrons. I don't see how after three simple explanations of this you could keep repeating such nonsense, except for the obvious answer of blinking stupidity.

[Arrian]

Stop living in the 19th century.

Has he gotten that far?

-Arrian