19-06-2004 06:22									#31
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Ah! A no true Scotsman!

Yes -- there is a small minority of gays who claim to have changed their sexual orientation, when, given the more legitimate evidence about the nature of sexual orientation, they have not changed their sexual orientation -- only their behavior and not even that after a certain period of time when they revert.

	19-06-2004 06:23									#32
	Increase Your PM Length

BK,

Still can't tell the difference between marriage and having children?

There are no benefits that the state derives from heterosexual marriage that it doesn't from homosexual marriage. I suppose J-Lo's latest marriage will keep the US from crumbling into moral decay....

Raising children (not just having them, but providing for and raising them to be productive citizens) benefits the state. Homosexual partners can have (artificial insemination/surrigate/adoption) children too.

The only things which are adversely affected by homosexual marriage are the feelings of bigots who want to deny them happiness.

	19-06-2004 06:23									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Say it ain't so...

	19-06-2004 06:24									#34
	Got spare money?

Anyway, stop using the word "preference" since sexual orientation is not a preference.


I have to do some studying now.

	19-06-2004 06:25									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Right. But they do not require society to affirm certain religious or political beliefs.

Not true. Society "affirms" political and religious beliefs by, for example, extending tax breaks to political and religious organizations, similarly to how society "affirms" relationships by, for example, extending tax breaks to participants in said relationships.

quote: That's what happened here in Canada. Exactly what happened. Benefits given to marriage have completely disappeared.

How do you mean? Have they eliminated the tax breaks and contractual benefits associated with marriage?

	19-06-2004 06:27									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Yes -- there is a small minority of gays who claim to have changed their sexual orientation, when, given the more legitimate evidence about the nature of sexual orientation, they have not changed their sexual orientation -- only their behavior and not even that after a certain period of time when they revert.

Very telling, Mr. Fun.

What is sexual orientation, if it is not behaviour? If it is genetic, then clearly people who do change their behaviour, do not have to act on their desires.

And is this not what I have been saying all along?

An alcoholic may slip, but that does not mean he cannot be sober.

quote: Anyway, stop using the word "preference" since sexual orientation is not a preference.

Without a definition, that's a rather bold statement. I could just as soon ask you to stop using the word orientation, since there is no evidence that confirms your terminology.

	19-06-2004 06:28									#37
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: An alcoholic may slip, but that does not mean he cannot be sober.

Sweet merciful lucipher that's quite an analogy you're trying to pull off there

	19-06-2004 06:30									#38
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: There are no benefits that the state derives from heterosexual marriage that it doesn't from homosexual marriage.

Why do we have organisations like big brothers, and big sisters?

Children do best when raised by a mom and a dad. Ergo, there are benefits to marriage, that cannot be provided by gay folks.

quote: I suppose J-Lo's latest marriage will keep the US from crumbling into moral decay....

And gay marriage is going to stop the divorce trend?

quote: The only things which are adversely affected by homosexual marriage are the feelings of bigots who want to deny them happiness.

Children are adversely affected.

And so are the homosexuals themselves.

	19-06-2004 06:33									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Children do best when raised by a mom and a dad.

Children do better when raised by two parents than when raised by one parent, but I wasn't aware that homosexual couple adoption was common enough for any statistician or sociologist or whoever to be able to concretely say that heterosexual couples do a better job of raising kids than homosexual couples. Do you have a link to a study on this?

quote: Children are adversely affected. And so are the homosexuals themselves.

How?

	19-06-2004 06:34									#40
	Put an end to popups!

Go **** yourself Ben, when my Reich comes into power people like you will be executed on the spot....

	19-06-2004 06:36									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Not true. Society "affirms" political and religious beliefs by, for example, extending tax breaks to political and religious organizations, similarly to how society "affirms" relationships by, for example, extending tax breaks to participants in said relationships.

No establishment of religion. Many religions and political affiliations receive benefits, not just Christians and Republicans.

quote: How do you mean? Have they eliminated the tax breaks and contractual benefits associated with marriage?

Yup. There are no benefits in Canada with respect to marriage, that cannot be obtained through common law.

	19-06-2004 06:37									#42
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I wasn't aware that homosexual couple adoption was common enough for any statistician or sociologist or whoever to be able to concretely say that heterosexual couples do a better job of raising kids than homosexual couples. Do you have a link to a study on this?

A good question.

However, I'm going to get some dinner. I'm starving!

	19-06-2004 06:37									#43
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Children are adversely affected.

You surely have seen the reports of children that are very happy living with two gay parents. Funny how you're not arguing against single parents, to whom your logic would seem to apply.

quote: And so are the homosexuals themselves.

In marriage? How? That's generalising to the point of laudibility in my view. If you mean in divorce, then how does that differ to heterosexual marriage?

	19-06-2004 06:39									#44
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Funny how you're not arguing against single parents, to whom your logic would seem to apply.

Most single parents prefer to be paired up, rather than facing things alone, so it's not much of an issue.

	19-06-2004 06:40									#45
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi No establishment of religion. Many religions and political affiliations receive benefits, not just Christians and Republicans.

So the state should be inclusionary WRT political and religious affiliation, yet it should be exclusionary WRT sexual orientation or sexual preference (whichever term floats your boat)? I'm afraid that you lost me somewhere along the way.

quote: Yup. There are no benefits in Canada with respect to marriage, that cannot be obtain through common law.

Do you mean that marriage no longer extends any benefits at all, or do you mean that marriage extends the exact same benefits that it always has but that other laws now extend those same benefits?

	19-06-2004 06:44									#46
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

This:

quote: Why do we have organisations like big brothers, and big sisters?

Refutes this:

quote: Children do best when raised by a mom and a dad. Ergo, there are benefits to marriage, that cannot be provided by gay folks.

Children need positive role models. Male and Female. They don't have to be their biological parents. Or are you saying adoptive and single parents can't provide a good upbringing for their children?

quote: And gay marriage is going to stop the divorce trend?

No. It just shows that homosexual marriage can't hurt the 'sanctity' of marriage any more than heterosexual marriage.

quote: Children are adversely affected. And so are the homosexuals themselves.

All-knowing BK to the rescue. Obviously homosexuals don't know when they are happy or not. BK knows what makes them happy, and it's not their loving partners as they would suggest! It's the God who condemns them for their love...

As for children. Children need to be raised in loving environments with good male and female role models. Those role models don't need to be married and their biological parents.

	19-06-2004 06:53									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Why do we have organisations like big brothers, and big sisters? Children do best when raised by a mom and a dad. Ergo, there are benefits to marriage, that cannot be provided by gay folks.

1. You don't have to be married to be a mother or a father.


2. A gay couple can raise a child just as well... Well, if they're allowed to adopt in the first place, anyways.

	19-06-2004 07:21									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Bigot-fest 2004!

At least time will weed out people like BK. Racists still exist today but the KKK is no longer a potent force. So will be the fate of the social bigots of today eventually.

	19-06-2004 07:47									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Very telling, Mr. Fun. What is sexual orientation, if it is not behaviour? If it is genetic, then clearly people who do change their behaviour, do not have to act on their desires. And is this not what I have been saying all along? An alcoholic may slip, but that does not mean he cannot be sober. Without a definition, that's a rather bold statement. I could just as soon ask you to stop using the word orientation, since there is no evidence that confirms your terminology.

I'm risking getting burned-out by continuing this discussion with you.


First of all -- gays are entitled to enter into mutually consenting relationships of the same gender even if it is behavior, because it encompasses the right of conscience. Or in other words, the right to be true to yourself or to part of what you are.

This is one of the reasons why I have recently tried to avoid using the "it's not a choice" argument (not arguing whether it's a choice or not -- sexual orientation is not a choice -- behavior is). When gays choose to act in accordance to what they really are, they have a greater chance to live a more fulfilling, psychologically healthy life since they are not denying this part of themselves. It's callous and grossly unfair and demeaning to demand that gays live less healthy lives than straight people by submitting to bigoted heterosexism and homophobia.

Since there are no negative consequences of most gay relationships, there is no rationality behind advocacy for denying them legal recognition of their gay marriages.



And your fallacious analogy with alcoholism is inane and contradictory to psychological and medical studies/evidence that maintain that homosexuality is not an illness.

	19-06-2004 08:08									#50
	Increase Your PM Length

it's really sad, reading BK's posts... and the extent to which he justifies his bigotry.

	19-06-2004 08:14									#51
	Tired of ads?

quote: it's really sad, reading BK's posts... and the extent to which he justifies his bigotry.

As in the original Bigot?


"Bigot de Préameneu was in favour of the changes brought about in the early days of the Revolution. He went along with the new institutions set up by the Constituante and was elected judge at the court of the fourth arrondissement of the Seine (5 December, 1790), at the same time as Roederer. A few months later he accepted the post of Commissaire du Roi in the Gard region where disturbances had broken out.

On 5 September, 1791, he was elected representative for the Seine to the Législative, where he had no hesitation in aligning himself with the moderates, and was very active on the Comité de Législation, voting against the abolition of the royal assent (7 January, 1792), against the prosecution of non-juror priests (29 February, 1792), against the proposed measures regarding émigrés (22 March, 1792). He presided over the Législative from 15 to 28 April, 1792. On 21 June, he had a measure passed to prohibit the presentation of petitions by armed men. Finally, on 10 August, he championed the cause of the royal family.
It is clear that such a background would make him suspect to the more radical members of the Convention.

He withdrew to Brittany in an attempt to withdraw from the public eye. Arrested on 4 June 1794, he was brought back to Paris and imprisoned at Sainte-Pélagie. It was no doubt the fall of Robespierre that saved him from the guillotine. He was released on 26 August and was able to return to Rennes.

	19-06-2004 08:17									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You are not a moderate, BK. Moderates do not seek to impose injustified morals onto other people.

	19-06-2004 08:19									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Most stuff I've read says that momosexuality is most likely genetic with some influence from the hormonal conditions in the womb. The reason that the gene isn't weeded out is because it's on the X chromosome (this is only for males so far, we don't know what causes female homosexuality).

	19-06-2004 08:24									#54
	Got spare money?

quote: First of all -- gays are entitled to enter into mutually consenting relationships of the same gender even if it is behavior, because it encompasses the right of conscience. Or in other words, the right to be true to yourself or to part of what you are.

And why does this have anything to pertain to marriage? I agree with you. Gay people should be allowed to form relationships with each other for the reasons that you cite.

However, this is irrelevant to the case of marriage, for the same reason why we do not affirm one religion over another.

quote: This is one of the reasons why I have recently tried to avoid using the "it's not a choice" argument (not arguing whether it's a choice or not -- sexual orientation is not a choice -- behavior is). When gays choose to act in accordance to what they really are, they have a greater chance to live a more fulfilling, psychologically healthy life since they are not denying this part of themselves. It's callous and grossly unfair and demeaning to demand that gays live less healthy lives than straight people by submitting to bigoted heterosexism and homophobia.

So who are they? What about these folks who do not want to live the gay lifestyle, and want out? Are they homosexuals, or are they not homosexuals?

I agree with you that when homosexuals act in accordance to what they really are, that they are happy. I disagree that this would mean homosexual behaviour. One can be continent and fulfilled. There is no evidence that continence is intrinsically harmful to anyone.

quote: Since there are no negative consequences of most gay relationships, there is no rationality behind advocacy for denying them legal recognition of their gay marriages.

Ah, there's the rub. There are plenty of negative consequences for homosexuals in a relationship, particularly with respect to promiscuity. To deny this, is to deny the very prevalent reality of sexual transmitted diseases among the active gay men.

Rather than the minority, these promiscuous relationships form the vast majority of homosexual relationships. So to say that the majority of relationships are healthy to the homosexuals themselves is false.

quote: And your fallacious analogy with alcoholism is inane and contradictory to psychological and medical studies/evidence that maintain that homosexuality is not an illness.

This is very much in question among psychologists. A man who has homosexual inclinations that he does not want cannot be treated by a psychologist. However, if a man were to acknowledge anything else that troubled him, he could seek the advice and counsul of a psychologist.

Why is this, that homosexuality ought to be accorded such a privileged position such that those who do not want the desires ought to be prevented from seeking treatment? This makes no sense whatsoever. All they will be told is to get in touch with their feelings, and consigned to unhappiness.

	19-06-2004 08:27									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm not arguing with you anymore tonight -- I got other things to do.

	19-06-2004 08:29									#56
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: You are not a moderate, BK. Moderates do not seek to impose injustified morals onto other people.

I am not the one seeking to impose my values on others. I want this issue to come to a vote, such that the will of the people should be respected.

If the people want gay marriage, then they will have gay marriage. If they do not want gay marriage, then they ought not to have gay marriage stuffed down their throat.

Unlike the gay folks, I am willing to abide by a ruling contrary to my desires. I would not seek to overturn the ruling by parliament by an unelected and unaccountable judiciary.

	19-06-2004 08:31									#57
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

"distort civilization's oldest, most venerable social institution"

Prostitution?? Shamanism?

If it's marriage than I demand these flaming radicals give me back my multiple wives and concubines like marriage has been for most of history!

	19-06-2004 08:32									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Most stuff I've read says that momosexuality is most likely genetic with some influence from the hormonal conditions in the womb. The reason that the gene isn't weeded out is because it's on the X chromosome (this is only for males so far, we don't know what causes female homosexuality).

Even if true, genes do not determine behaviour. The person would still have the choice whether or not to act on his desires.

	19-06-2004 08:32									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi If they do not want gay marriage, then they ought not to have gay marriage stuffed down their throat.

They force people to get married to each other up in Canada?

I mean, you're making it out as though gay marriage is somehow a form of coercion. Who's being coerced, and what are they being coerced into doing or not doing?

	19-06-2004 08:37									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 1. You don't have to be married to be a mother or a father.

Yeah, but it's better for the kids to be in marriage than in wedlock, just due to the increase in stability.

quote: 2. A gay couple can raise a child just as well... Well, if they're allowed to adopt in the first place, anyways.

And this is the question at hand.

I've got the sources for loin's earlier question, but I want to first present the argument.

If there are distinctive gender roles, between men and women, then it makes sense that a child learns to interact with both through his father and his mother. Lacking either the father or the mother hinders the development of the child, such that they will not learn how to properly interact with members of the other gender.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that the best environment to raise a child would provide both a mother and a father.