Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Ming]

No, they don't. I'm sorry Mr. Fun. Homosexuals whether they are in a long term relationship or not, are far more likely to suffer from partner abuse, and from substance abuse. Both of these have long term health consequences.

So does driving a motorcycle... eating fast food... smoking.. drinking... all choices the government allows us to make... FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

So even if your facts are right, they are insignificant to the argument. Not allowing gay marriages simply because of POSSIBLE long term heath issues isn't a logical argument, because the government already supports and promotes other unhealthy choices...

So find a new argument BK... because this one doesn't work.

[Asher]

Ban has already been completely dismantled on this argument in the past. He knows his statements about homosexual partner abuse have been rebutted many times on this very site, yet he continues to say it.

No one pay him any heed. Tell him to **** off and move on.

There are only a few studies on it, and every single one plainly states in no uncertain terms that the rate of abuse in heterosexual and homosexual relationships are virtually identical. This is because it is NOT A HOMOSEXUAL OR HETEROSEXUAL ISSUE. Ben KNOWS THIS, he has been told this MANY times on this site, and he continues to knowingly tell LIES about it.

He is despicable, dog**** scum that would *** in the eye of Christianity if he could get it up. Move on, people.

[Kuciwalker]

Just put him on ignore.

[MrFun]

A bigot would consign gay men and women to unnecessary suffering, as you do here.

The suffering that gay men and lesbians experience comes from living in a heterosexist and homophobic society. There is nothing inherent in stable, happy gay relationships between two people of same gender and sexual orientation.

I think I'm done with you. I need to heed Che and Kuci's advice and put you on Ignore.

[Ben Kenobi]

The suffering that gay men and lesbians experience comes from living in a heterosexist and homophobic society.

Bull****. Partner abuse is justified? I'm rather shocked and disappointed that you don't take gay and lesbians to task for abusing their own partners.

There is nothing inherent in stable, happy gay relationships between two people of same gender and sexual orientation.

Of course, being that the sample of stable and happy gay relationships don't include abuse. That doesn't excuse the fact that they do suffer from much greater rates of abuse. Why are you blaming others Mr. Fun?

[MrFun]

Well look at that! BK's drivel-like postings are hidden now.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ban has already been completely dismantled on this argument in the past. He knows his statements about homosexual partner abuse have been rebutted many times on this very site, yet he continues to say it.

Except for the studies that showed a larger proportion of the substance abuse related to homosexuality is due to partner abuse, as those who have been abused showed a much higher use of drugs, etc.

There are only a few studies on it, and every single one plainly states in no uncertain terms that the rate of abuse in heterosexual and homosexual relationships are virtually identical.

They may say this, but the data does not show this to be a fact. First of all, gay men are something like 5x to 6x as likely to suffer abuse in homosexual relationships. Overall, the ratio is about 40 percent higher. 33 percent of homosexuals, both gays and lesbians have suffered partner abuse whereas that figure is only around 20 percent for straight women, and about 5 percent for straight men.

[Ming]

Again... even 'IF" you can prove your stats with a real study... it doesn't provide a reason to not allow gay marriages. Freedom of choice... This is a non argument and has no bearing on the rights of individuals to get married.

[Asher]

Ben, you are a liar. Truly. No one believes you because you are lying. Why do you continue to spam?

[Ben Kenobi]

You keep equating allowing gay marriages to endorsing it.

Yes, they are endorsing gay marriage. Isn't that the point? So that they can say that their marriages are approved by the government and that denying this is rejecting basic dignity? It is about approval, and it is about affirmation.

Becuase using your logic then, anything that they allow is an endorsement.

*Sigh*

There is a difference between permitting something and endorsing something. They are not 'allowing' gay marriage to happen, the government must 'approve' of gay marriage. This is because they issue marriage licenses.

If they were to simply 'allow' gay marriage to happen, then they wouldn't be issuing marriage licenses in the recognition of gay marriage. The fact that they are recognising these as 'marriages' is an endorsement of gay marriage.

If the government "allows" people to ride motercycles, they are endorsing them.

No, they aren't endorsing motorcycles, when they force everyone to undergo testing in order to obtain a class 6 license, and arrest people for riding a motorcycle without proper licensing.

If the governement allows people to eat food that is not healthy, then they are endorsing that as well.

No, they aren't endorsing it when they publish 'food guides' and have increased taxation on these places, and for food that's deemed to be unhealthy.

What is so dificult for you to understand... this has been pointed out to you many times.

The terms are not identical. Just because something is permitted, doesn't mean that it is endorsed. The reason why the government is endorsing gay marriage is because they are issuing marriage licenses in the recognition of these relationships. You cannot have gay marriage without government intervention. That is the point. No government, no gay 'marriages'.

They issue licenses for people to drive motorcycles...

They force people to first pass a test in order that they might obtain their class 6 license. That's the difference. They put regulatory hurdles, they do not simply, 'permit people to ride motorcycles', when they will fine and arrest those without a proper license.

Compare this to gay marriage. The government doesn't require a marriage license, and offers generous benefits associated with marriage. There are no tests required or regulatory hurdles. Owning a driving license must be earned, a marriage license is deemed to be a 'right' applied to any and all couples. This is the problem.

What are they intervening about????

By issuing marriage licenses. Up here they have passed speech codes barring certain ideas that they don't like, and they have requirements in the curricula that it be 'gay friendly' or whatever that means. An employee can be terminated if they express their opposition to homosexuality, even though this is their conscience and religious rights. Pressure has been put on all institutions, such as the boy scouts and the Catholic church, which have morality clauses wrt to employment. As Asher alluded, they have human rights tribunals whereby anyone who speaks out against this stuff can be hauled before court and fined.

I'd like the government to get out of the business of promoting homosexuality tyvm.

Yes it is about freedom of choice... the freedom to marry the person you love... a relationship of two consenting adults. Again, your argument about endorsing doesn't apply, since they already endorse other unhealthy things.

You can't marry someone just because you love them Ming. That's actually irrelevant to what the government looks at. They place regulatory hurdles, either in the form of taxation or testing in front of these other choices. Are you arguing that gay people should be required to pass a test before the government will issue a marriage licenses?

Ahhh... now we get to the crux of the matter... you want marriages performed ONLY by the church, and subject to their whims... HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You said you wanted marriages done away with altogether. I don't believe in civil 'marriage' at all. I don't have a problem with civil unions issued by the justice of the peace, but I believe there is a difference between the two of them.

Now you are saying that only religious people should be allowed to get married

It depends on what you mean by marriage. I think only those who are religious are truly married, in the sense that they understand the sacrament. Civil marriage is an imitation, but they aren't the same thing.

Freedom of religion not only means the right to practice your faith, but it also means that a state religion isn't crammed down your throat.

Where did I say that people should be subject to the church? I don't believe that's the case. I don't believe the state should be issuing marriage licenses at all. I don't believe that the church marriages are entitled to any form of recognition by the state.

Maybe churchs should be the ones to get out of the marriage business... so they don't force their version of right and wrong down peoples throats.

No one is forced to get married. If people don't want to get marriage in one church, they can find another that will accept them. This is what liberty is all about. No one forces you to get married in one particular church, and no church is forced to perform a marriage contrary to their own beliefs.

It should be left totally up to the government so wacko beliefs don't come into play and so that there is no discrimination and freedom for all.

Well, at least you are a statist in this belief. I think the state shouldn't issue any 'marriage' licenses because they mean jack all to the sacrament. I can understand why the state does, it's a great tool for social control. That being said, if you tie your horse to the government, then you have to abide by the fact that marriage must represent the will of the people, not that of a small minority. If you would confiscate my pay as well as others in the support of marriage benefits, then we get a say as to what counts.

There's simply no way around it. Wacko or not, if you are taxing us, then we have representation.

[Ben Kenobi]

No one believes you because you are lying.

"Those who have ears, let them hear."

[Lul Thyme]

Just put him on ignore.

From a veteran lurker:
I have long ago stopped being surprised by Ben's logic but I am still amazed by the tirelessness of many posters in feeding him.

[Ming]

Yes, they are endorsing gay marriage. Isn't that the point? So that they can say that their marriages are approved by the government and that denying this is rejecting basic dignity? It is about approval, and it is about affirmation.

And what's wrong with them endorsing gay marriage?

There is a difference between permitting something and endorsing something. They are not 'allowing' gay marriage to happen, the government must 'approve' of gay marriage. This is because they issue marriage licenses.
If they were to simply 'allow' gay marriage to happen, then they wouldn't be issuing marriage licenses in the recognition of gay marriage. The fact that they are recognising these as 'marriages' is an endorsement of gay marriage.

Again... what's wrong with gay marriages... and don't say health reasons. They issue licenses to motorcycles... which means they are endorsing and promoting a much unhealthier form of transportations than cars.

No, they aren't endorsing motorcycles, when they force everyone to undergo testing in order to obtain a class 6 license, and arrest people for riding a motorcycle without proper licensing.

You can't have it both ways Ben... in one case you say the license means promotion, and on the other you say it doesn't... as always, no logic to your lame arguments.

No, they aren't endorsing it when they publish 'food guides' and have increased taxation on these places, and for food that's deemed to be unhealthy.

Has nothing to do with the argument... The government publishes lots of guides... but it doesn't stop people from FREE CHOICE.

The terms are not identical. Just because something is permitted, doesn't mean that it is endorsed. The reason why the government is endorsing gay marriage is because they are issuing marriage licenses in the recognition of these relationships. You cannot have gay marriage without government intervention. That is the point. No government, no gay 'marriages'.

No government... no licenses to drive motorcycles... your argument makes no sense.

They force people to first pass a test in order that they might obtain their class 6 license. That's the difference. They put regulatory hurdles, they do not simply, 'permit people to ride motorcycles', when they will fine and arrest those without a proper license.

And what does this have to do with something... anybody can get married... it doesn't provide harm to others. Riding a motorcycle without the skill could harm OTHERS that are not involved is a reason why there are regulatory issues... The fact that they issue licenses means they promote it

Compare this to gay marriage. The government doesn't require a marriage license, and offers generous benefits associated with marriage. There are no tests required or regulatory hurdles. Owning a driving license must be earned, a marriage license is deemed to be a 'right' applied to any and all couples. This is the problem.

Gee... in the US the government requires a marriage license... as a matter of fact, religious services aren't official unless there is a government issued marriage license.

I'd like the government to get out of the business of promoting homosexuality tyvm.

And I would like religion to get out of the business of being bigots against gays.

You can't marry someone just because you love them Ming. That's actually irrelevant to what the government looks at. They place regulatory hurdles, either in the form of taxation or testing in front of these other choices. Are you arguing that gay people should be required to pass a test before the government will issue a marriage licenses?

Only if straight people have to pass the same tests... equality, and freedom of choice.

You said you wanted marriages done away with altogether. I don't believe in civil 'marriage' at all. I don't have a problem with civil unions issued by the justice of the peace, but I believe there is a difference between the two of them.

And many people that religion is bunk... why should your opinion have more value than theirs?

It depends on what you mean by marriage. I think only those who are religious are truly married, in the sense that they understand the sacrament. Civil marriage is an imitation, but they aren't the same thing.

To you maybe... but to others. We have the right to believe what we want...
Why don't you give others the same right you are demanding. The right to have their own beliefs.

Where did I say that people should be subject to the church? I don't believe that's the case. I don't believe the state should be issuing marriage licenses at all. I don't believe that the church marriages are entitled to any form of recognition by the state.

What you are saying is that only people who go to church should be allowed to be married... what BS.

No one is forced to get married. If people don't want to get marriage in one church, they can find another that will accept them. This is what liberty is all about. No one forces you to get married in one particular church, and no church is forced to perform a marriage contrary to their own beliefs.

But many people don't believe like you do... and don't believe in religion... so they go to the government to get married... Why do you want to FORCE people to go to a church to get married.

Well, at least you are a statist in this belief. I think the state shouldn't issue any 'marriage' licenses because they mean jack all to the sacrament. I can understand why the state does, it's a great tool for social control. That being said, if you tie your horse to the government, then you have to abide by the fact that marriage must represent the will of the people, not that of a small minority. If you would confiscate my pay as well as others in the support of marriage benefits, then we get a say as to what counts.

And "sacrament" means jack to a lot of people. It is no longer a small minority.

There's simply no way around it. Wacko or not, if you are taxing us, then we have representation.

And so do gays... they are being taxed as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

And what's wrong with them endorsing gay marriage?

Finally! A good point. The reason being that it's extremely unhealthy.

You can't have it both ways Ben... in one case you say the license means promotion, and on the other you say it doesn't... as always, no logic to your lame arguments.

The reason it doesn't is because the license must be earned. Everyone must pass the class 6 test, if you don't pass, that's too bad.

Has nothing to do with the argument... The government publishes lots of guides... but it doesn't stop people from FREE CHOICE.

Yes, but the analogous example would be the government posting the health consequences of homosexuality as a warning to participants, and it wouldn't be issuing licenses for gay marriage based on these reasons. Is this really what you want Ming?

And what does this have to do with something... anybody can get married... it doesn't provide harm to others.

No, but it is extremely harmful to the participants in gay marriage.

Riding a motorcycle without the skill could harm OTHERS that are not involved is a reason why there are regulatory issues... The fact that they issue licenses means they promote it

Then why would they deny licenses and fine those without? Licenses are not promotion of motorcycle riding just the opposite. They are the method by which the government attempts to prevent people from riding unless they can demonstrate they are in fact qualified.

And I would like religion to get out of the business of being bigots against gays.

Does religion take money out of your pocket? That's the difference. I shouldn't have to pay to promote homosexuality, just as you shouldn't have to pay to promote religion.

Only if straight people have to pass the same tests... equality, and freedom of choice.

Wow, ok. So you don't believe marriage is a right, and if people failed the test that the government would be right to bar them from marriage?

And many people that religion is bunk... why should your opinion have more value than theirs?

It shouldn't. If people want gay marriage, fine, put it up for a referendum like they did in California. If people do not want gay marriage, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it. If it's good enough in California, then it's good enough for the people up here in BC, and in the rest of Canada and the US.

To you maybe... but to others. We have the right to believe what we want...
Why don't you give others the same right you are demanding. The right to have their own beliefs.

They do have the right to their own beliefs.

What you are saying is that only people who go to church should be allowed to be married... what BS.

I am saying that I believe marriage to be a sacrament, and that the justice of the peace doesn't cut it. As I said, people should be able to get 'married' civilly, and recognised by the state, but to me that isn't the same thing as someone who marries in the church.

Unlike what many people here say, I can believe in something without wanting the government to enforce my beliefs.

But many people don't believe like you do... and don't believe in religion... so they go to the government to get married... Why do you want to FORCE people to go to a church to get married.

I don't. I wish people would choose to get married in church by their own free will.

And "sacrament" means jack to a lot of people. It is no longer a small minority.

That is fine. We don't ask for you folks to pay for our marriages. Don't ask us to pay for yours.

And so do gays... they are being taxed as well.

That is true, but the decision is up to the majority of the people. Anything else is tyranny to subjugate the will of the people for the rights of a few.

[Tuberski]

Ben, if you have to get a permit for a gay pride parade or, a KKK rally, isn't that the government "endorsing" these things, from your point of view?

ACK!