29-01-2004 11:24									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Intolerance? Just another word for people who disagree with your viewpoint.

No, but an apt description of what a lot of Christians display.

Mmmm, what's that monotonous sound?

It's the Kenobi one note samba......

	29-01-2004 11:26									#32
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: However, a gay person wouldn't love the person of the opposite sex in the same way a straight person could,

Now we get to the point of love. Is marriage just about loving someone? I could love my grandmother, but it doesn't mean we should be married.

quote: saying vegetarian or jewish/muslim prisoners being fed pork chops aren't being discriminated against because they have as much right to eat the pork chops as anyone else.

There's a difference here. No one is forcing Asher to marry a woman if he chooses not to. Asher is not a prisoner, where he has no choice but to marry a woman.

	29-01-2004 11:27									#33
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

OHHH WHEN WILL IT ****ING END?

	29-01-2004 11:29									#34
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Gay people are not eligable for those benefits,

No one's stopping you from marrying a woman, but you.

quote: is that's only really applicable to people who are able to marry women. I simply could not -- it would be terrible for everyone involved.

So don't get married to a woman then. That's entirely your decision.

	29-01-2004 11:32									#35
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Not my point. Providing marriage benefits to all relationships waters down the value of marriage.

This is your point, though. Marriage is not a zero sum game, Ben. If you want to keep asserting it is, prove it. Otherwise, can it and admit defeat.

quote: And gay marriage will lessen that divorce rate?

No, the point is that those portraying marriage as some precious institution and letting 10% of the population marry the same gender is a bit ridiculous when heterosexuals have a 50% divorce rate.

Get your priorities straight.

quote: Intolerance? Just another word for people who disagree with your viewpoint.

It's another word for people who actively legislate restricting rights to those who are different.

	29-01-2004 11:33									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi No one's stopping you from marrying a woman, but you.

This is so incredibly stupid. The problem isn't homosexuals being denied the ability to marry women, and I'm going to just let you sit on that for a bit until you want to actually think about it rather than jerk off over jesus on this forum without thinking.

	29-01-2004 11:38									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Ramo:

quote: If that were the case, on what authority can parliament prohibit gay marriage?

Based on the law at the time, that stated marriage was to be defined as one man and one woman. Parliament would not have the authority to redefine marriage, or to restrict this definition.

quote: However, religion isn't a physical trait like race and gender. So parliament must then have authority to pass a law prohibiting Christian marriage.

Charter provisions under section three, protecting religious freedoms, entirely seperate from Section 15, which is the equality rights, would prevent them from doing so. Sexual orientation does not even appear on the original section 15, until the Supreme court 'read in' the right.

quote: 1. This argument doesn't override your constitution.

Granted, but it gets a little deeper into why they should protect marriage as one man and one woman.

quote: 2. Why is the difference between gay and straight marriages any less "reasonable" than the difference between a same-race and interracial marriage?

There are other factors, but the big one is procreation within the union. Society gets a huge benefit from marriage in this respect, that would not be found in gay marriage.

	29-01-2004 11:40									#38
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Look at it this way. If you give marriage benefits to every relationship, it waters down the meaning behind the benefits. Why should we value marriage, if every relationship counts as one?

Because not every relationship counts as marriage. A couple actually has to go thru the necessary qualifications (legal, cultural, etc.) before there are married.

If your main concern is the value of marriage (based on the supposition that more= less value), how about allowing for more stringent qualifiers? A couple net worth must be > $1,000,000, or maybe only allowing heads of state to marry? 1st born?

	29-01-2004 11:41									#39
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I think it is time that we take the next step and ban same-sex friendships.

	29-01-2004 11:42									#40
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi There are other factors, but the big one is procreation within the union. Society gets a huge benefit from marriage in this respect, that would not be found in gay marriage.

As opposed to how it is now, with fertile gay men and women marrying and procreating wildly with members of the opposite sex. Once we allow gay marriages, birthrates will drop sharply.

Right?

	29-01-2004 11:45									#41
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: If your main concern is the value of marriage (based on the supposition that more= less value), how about allowing for more stringent qualifiers? A couple net worth must be > $1,000,000, or maybe only allowing heads of state to marry? 1st born?

Look at it this way. One way to encourage people to marry is to provide tax benefits for doing so. Now, if you expand these benefits to common law relationships, you lose the original benefits of encouraging marriage. That make sense?

	29-01-2004 11:48									#42
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Look at it this way. One way to encourage people to marry is to provide tax benefits for doing so. Now, if you expand these benefits to common law relationships, you lose the original benefits of encouraging marriage. That make sense?

Ah, so it is as I expected.

You're worried that if gay couples get the same tax benefits as straight couples, many Christian men would turn gay?

	29-01-2004 11:49									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Based on the law at the time, that stated marriage was to be defined as one man and one woman. Parliament would not have the authority to redefine marriage, or to restrict this definition.

That doesn't make any sense. Why should the Vicky Windsor have legal authority over marriage in Canada, but not your parliament?

quote: Charter provisions under section three, protecting religious freedoms, entirely seperate from Section 15, which is the equality rights, would prevent them from doing so. Sexual orientation does not even appear on the original section 15, until the Supreme court 'read in' the right.

But that isn't limiting one's freedom to be a Christian. It's just limiting one's freedom to marry Christian people, or as a Christian. There can be freedom of religion without equal rights.

Besides, you haven't made the case why the equality of gay people shouldn't be protected. Nor have you made the case that homosexuality isn't biological.

quote: There are other factors, but the big one is procreation within the union. Society gets a huge benefit from marriage in this respect, that would not be found in gay marriage.

Gay couples are perfectly capable of adopting. Straight couples are perfectly capable of not having kids. Why not seperate this benefit from whether or not one is straight, and tie it to whether or not one has kids?

	29-01-2004 11:50									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

DRoseDars:

If you lower the marriage rate in heterosexual couples, that will drop the birthrate.

quote: As opposed to how it is now, with fertile gay men and women marrying and procreating wildly with members of the opposite sex.

Can you say that gay marriage will increase the birth rates?

	29-01-2004 11:53									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Look at it this way. One way to encourage people to marry is to provide tax benefits for doing so. Now, if you expand these benefits to common law relationships, you lose the original benefits of encouraging marriage. That make sense?

Not in the least, unless the point was to dodge my question. Then it makes sense.

	29-01-2004 11:54									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: You're worried that if gay couples get the same tax benefits as straight couples, many Christian men would turn gay?

I'm saying that more will forgo marriage, that's all.

	29-01-2004 11:55									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why?

	29-01-2004 11:56									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I'm saying that more will forgo marriage, that's all.

This still makes no sense. Why would more forgo straight marriage if gay marriage is made legal, unless they were going for a gay marriage instead since they qualify for the same tax benefits.

Am I the only one noticing a distinct lack of logic and huge holes in Ben's ideas, but he seems to be oblivious to them all as he thumps his bible into the crotch of men having pre-marital sex?

	29-01-2004 12:35									#49
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Can you say that gay marriage will increase the birth rates?

The number of births in Belgium has increased a few % since gay marriages were allowed last year...

	29-01-2004 12:36									#50
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ramo:

quote: That doesn't make any sense. Why should the Vicky Windsor have legal authority over marriage in Canada, but not your parliament?

I'm unsure of the allusion. The argument goes back to the old constitution of Canada that describes the role of parliament as a caretaker of marriage. That description seems to rule out the capacity of parliament to redefine marriage.

quote: But that isn't limiting one's freedom to be a Christian.

Marriage, for Christians is an important part of exercising their religion. To limit their ability to marry limits their ability to be a Christian. If marriage has nothing to do with religious practice, why does the Catholic church have such strict rules about believers marrying unbelievers?

quote: Besides, you haven't made the case why the equality of gay people shouldn't be protected.

Equality is not the issue. I have made that point several times that a gay man does not have less rights before the law, he simply chooses not to exercise his rights.

quote: Nor have you made the case that homosexuality isn't biological.

I'll make the case again. One can inherit a predisposition to homosexuality, but the predisposition does not determine behavior. To argue that one has no control over sexual urges would excuse every rapist.

quote: Gay couples are perfectly capable of adopting. Straight couples are perfectly capable of not having kids. Why not seperate this benefit from whether or not one is straight, and tie it to whether or not one has kids?

Over the entire sample. These are exceptions and should not prove the case for the norm. Society can reasonably expect children to come from a marriage, but cannot reasonably expect children to come from gay marriage.

And you also have to note I make the qualifier, 'within the union.' The obvious exception is adoption, but the problem is that it is not like gay people cannot have children, they are fertile, but have chosen not to exercise these capacities. .

	29-01-2004 12:40									#51
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: how about allowing for more stringent qualifiers? A couple net worth must be > $1,000,000, or maybe only allowing heads of state to marry? 1st born?

Theban:

These distinctions are arbitrary. For example, why not allow the second born to be married? The same cannot be said for marriage as one man and one woman.

	29-01-2004 12:41									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Marriage, for Christians is an important part of exercising their religion. To limit their ability to marry limits their ability to be a Christian. If marriage has nothing to do with religious practice, why does the Catholic church have such strict rules about believers marrying unbelievers?

Do you think only christians should be allowed to marry?

	29-01-2004 12:44									#53
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Do you think only christians should be allowed to marry?

No. Re-read that argument again Theban. Look at the qualifier, 'for Christians'.

	29-01-2004 12:47									#54
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi These distinctions are arbitrary. For example, why not allow the second born to be married? The same cannot be said for marriage as one man and one woman.

They certainly are, and just as arbitrary as not allowing gays to marry. You were the one who said, "you give marriage benefits to every relationship, it waters down the meaning behind the benefits". Sounds to me like you're arguing for inclusiveness, so I was offering suggestions to make marriage even more elitist.

For one I don't see how allowing gay couples to marry 'devalues' marriage. You've made a blanket statement with nothing to back it up. One could say allowing gays to marry would make the institution of marriage even more valuable, with the same amount of emotion/logic/moral sensibilities backing it up.

	29-01-2004 12:47									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The number of births in Belgium has increased a few % since gay marriages were allowed last year...

Evidence?

And is this due to gay marriage, or increasing Muslim immigration?

I'm more interested in the numbers of marriages. Are they increasing or decreasing among heterosexuals?

	29-01-2004 12:49									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi DRoseDars: If you lower the marriage rate in heterosexual couples, that will drop the birthrate.

So millions of seemingly straight married men are actually gay? And opening marriage to gay couples will free those millions of seemingly straight men from the shackles of straight life? And they'll leave those faulty marriages in droves, abandoning their baby-factories in favor of a man in leather chaps?

And what of openly gay men? Right now, millions of gay men are marrying woman and making babies. Lots of them. Right?

Let's see if I understand your logic: Gay marriage legalized -> gay men (both the unattached, but are eager to marry "if they can find that special woman," and those married to women, 'cause there's millions of them...) opt to marry other gay men -> birthrates plummet -> Humanity causes its own exstinction because it only has homogay leather chap-wearing anal sex, though the ladies will have to use strap-ons in order to fornicate with each other now that all the men are buggering each other and not them. Right?

Gay couples negatively affecting birthrates? Oh please.



I'll respond more to child-bearing options for gays in a moment. I'm missing Futurama.

	29-01-2004 12:51									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

What's amusing is that everyone else can see his train of logic and the obvious corollaries of it, but Ben is oblivious even to his own opinions and what they mean.

	29-01-2004 12:51									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Why would more forgo straight marriage if gay marriage is made legal, unless they were going for a gay marriage instead since they qualify for the same tax benefits.

Common-law vs. Marriage? I would think more people would go common law.

	29-01-2004 12:51									#59
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi No. Re-read that argument again Theban. Look at the qualifier, 'for Christians'.

Then by your own statements non-christians do not value marriage, and gays cannot be christian in good standing (since they cannot fulfill their obligations to the church).

	29-01-2004 12:53									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Common-law vs. Marriage? I would think more people would go common law.

This is not the issue and you know it.

The issue is legalizing gay marriage. You're saying legalizing gay marriage will both drop the birth date as well as making less heterosexual couples marry.

I am utterly confused why you argue about legalizing "gay marriage" when it's convenient, and then switching to "common law" marriages when it's convenient.

Pick and issue and debate it, quit flopping around as it's convenient.