 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
They force people to get married to each other up in Canada?
|
No.
quote:
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?
|
The people of Canada who disagree with gay marriage.
They are being coerced into the recognition of gay marriage, on par with that of all other civil marriages. Essentially, they are being cut out of the loop with respect to how Canadian society ought to operate.
The second fear is that those who disagree with gay marriages, such as the various churches, would be forced to bless such marriages, or face the revocation of their tax-exempt status. Also, other provisions would be done to force the churches to allow practicing gay people to work in the church, regardless of the beliefs of the church. They would be required to provide equal benefits for 'married' gay couples over their own desires, not to have these people work in their churches, since their practices are contrary to what their church believes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They are being coerced into the recognition of gay marriage, on par with that of all other civil marriages. |
How so? It's not as though anybody's being forced to change their opinions WRT homosexuals -- Canada's laws don't appear to have altered your opinions any, and I doubt the laws have had a different effect on anybody else's. How, exactly, have you (or anybody else) been coerced into anything?
quote:
Essentially, they are being cut out of the loop with respect to how Canadian society ought to operate. |
They may not be able to coerce homosexuals in the same way that they used to be able to, but generally, it's not considered coercion to be prevented from coercing somebody else. I mean, it's not as though people have an inalienable right to effect coercion -- such a right would fail pretty much every moral test ever concieved of.
quote:
The second fear is that those who disagree with gay marriages, such as the various churches, would be forced to bless such marriages, or face the revocation of their tax-exempt status. |
That may be an issue in Canada, but it's not one in the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The people of Canada who disagree with gay marriage.
They are being coerced into the recognition of gay marriage, on par with that of all other civil marriages. Essentially, they are being cut out of the loop with respect to how Canadian society ought to operate.
The second fear is that those who disagree with gay marriages, such as the various churches, would be forced to bless such marriages, or face the revocation of their tax-exempt status. |
So what about those without religious beliefs who watch as religious foundations get away without the payment of various taxes?
What kind of snowjob have they been coerced into buying? Why should their taxes support the safety of religious foundations to which they do not adhere?
As for this supposed fear of churches being forced to bless gay marriages- are they forced to bless civil marriages? You know, between heterosexuals?
Really, you become more slick at raising imaginary or ludicrous reasons for opposing gay marriage, but it doesn't mean they aren't any more absurd.
And please, stop using the phrase 'gay lifestyle'. All it does is proclaim your bigotry and ignorance from the rooftops.
THERE IS NO 'GAY LIFESTYLE'.
I live my life, MrFun lives his, Boris lives his, et cetera.
We're all gay, but we all have different lifestyles. MrFun happens to be religious- I'm not. Asher is right wing- I'm not. Get the picture?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
That may be an issue in Canada, but it's not one in the US.
|
To be fair, you asked me for the situation in Canada. Many of the other fears are applicable to the US situation, especially the ones regarding the practicing homosexuals working in the church.
quote:
How, exactly, have you (or anybody else) been coerced into anything?
|
What about the folks who issue marriage licenses? Anyone who chooses not to issue a marriage license, now has grounds of dismissal. This has happened right here in BC, where folks who have done their job, now find themselves fired.
Coercive? I think so. Anything that is related to the public system here in Canada is facing coercion of various sorts.
Another example is the BC teacher fired for expressing an opinion in the newspaper with respect to using homosexual materials in the classroom. He did not speak out in the class, but expressed his opinion in the proper forum, a newspaper. He now has been stripped of his teaching certificate, after more of a decade of teaching and counselling.
Coercive? I think so.
I can cite many other cases, of where this just increases the pressure on Canadians to conform to this social experiment, rather than expressing discomfort or concerns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
But you all wear leather assless pants. Admit it, it's true. |
I wish some people wouldn't. They look as though their arses need ironing.
Yet again Ben Kenobi launches himself on his crusade to save Christian white heterosexual right wing civilization from the tyranny of single parents, godless atheism and gay marriage, with ready reference to a host of fringe groups all agitating in their own demagogic way, and feeding off each other's inaccurate information in a great daisy chain of bile and invective.
Are there or have there ever been any societies or cultures where there are more than two parents or where fathers are absent by design?
Obi Gyn's deep thoughts:
"Another example is the BC teacher fired for expressing an opinion in the newspaper with respect to using homosexual materials (?) in the classroom. He did not speak out in the class, but expressed his opinion in the proper forum, a newspaper. He now has been stripped of his teaching certificate, after more of a decade of teaching and counselling. "
You said it yourself:
"Statistically, this is what we call a 'small sample'. One cannot prove the rule."
Are there no gay or lesbian children in Canada? There emust be, because my friend Gerry is a teacher in Vancouver, and he was gay and went to school there. Surely the moral crusade to cleanse Canada of homosexuality can't have succeeded to that extent.
What are homosexual materials? Do you mean those leather assless trousers of which loinburger spoke?
If fatherless families are such a terror and corrosive to society, then clearly you'll support two gay men adopting children- for then the child will have two fathers.
Do Conservative social or economic policies ever have a role to play in 'coercing' the absence of a father from his family by virtue of economic necessity? Such as for instance, the widespread large scale unemployment that occurred in the United States and Great Britain under Thatcher and Reagan when more and more men were forced to leave home and take up unskilled low paid work away from their families.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What about the folks who issue marriage licenses? Anyone who chooses not to issue a marriage license, now has grounds of dismissal. This has happened right here in BC, where folks who have done their job, now find themselves fired. |
Like Seeker said, being fired for refusing to do your job isn't coercion. A notary public who refuses to issue legal marriage licenses ought to be fired, right along with the mailman who refuses to deliver mail. If I (a government employee) decided to stop doing the job for which I was hired, then I'd expect to be fired (once my supervisor figured out that I wasn't doing anything, anyway).
quote:
Another example is the BC teacher fired for expressing an opinion in the newspaper with respect to using homosexual materials in the classroom. |
That one's a legitimate concern. I'd consider that to be a problem with the school system, though, and not with the gay marriage law.
quote:
How is it that the policy I have supported, of having a free and binding vote in parliament, on gay marriage, is obliquely coercive to the homosexuals? |
Because coercion is still coercion regardless of how many people approve of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
So what about those without religious beliefs who watch as religious foundations get away without the payment of various taxes?
|
They provide services that the state would otherwise have to cover.
quote:
What kind of snowjob have they been coerced into buying? Why should their taxes support the safety of religious foundations to which they do not adhere?
|
If they reduce welfare payments, and keep people off the streets, and run shelters, you will end up on the plus side.
Your taxes are not going to support the churches, rather they are not paying taxes to support you.
quote:
As for this supposed fear of churches being forced to bless gay marriages- are they forced to bless civil marriages? You know, between heterosexuals?
|
With respect to benefits, yes they are, which is one of the issues I raised.
quote:
Really, you become more slick at raising imaginary or ludicrous reasons for opposing gay marriage, but it doesn't mean they aren't any more absurd.
|
I'm not that creative. These are concerns others have mentioned.
quote:
I live my life, MrFun lives his, Boris lives his, et cetera.
We're all gay, but we all have different lifestyles. MrFun happens to be religious- I'm not. Asher is right wing- I'm not. Get the picture?
|
The man wishes not to want to sh@g men anymore. That better? By the term 'gay' lifestyle, it's a less blunt way to illustrate what you and Boris and Mr. Fun share.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:36
|
|
I want to reiterate a lot of what I have said in past threads and posts to cover my bases here and to articulate myself more completely in one post.
First, I do not dispute the evidence that shows that sexual orientation is not a choice. However, having said that, I make the effort to avoid using the "it's not a choice" argument when discussing issues concerning gays and equal rights.
I have come to believe that a stronger argument can be made through the right of conscience, self-identity, and freedom to enter into contractual relationships with another person. This sets up a more effective refutation when homophobes and the willfully ignorant use the fallacy that "it's the behavior that we oppose -- not the person."
Second, I believe that homosexuality and any behavior that one engages in with another person of the same gender does not contradict God's wishes. In spite of what humans have written what they thought were God's wishes, I cannot take human text as literally being God's words.
And for those who pick and choose only specific passages in the Bible to advance their bigoted, anti-gay agenda, they almost always fail to follow other passages in the Bible that deal with adultery, slavery, wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, and so forth.
Also while I'm on the religious tangent, I want to affirm here my belief that I would be disappointing God by not being true to myself. God would not want me to lie to myself and others about part of who I am -- in fact, for some gays, coming out to themselves and others can be a spiritual/religious experience in a positve, affirming way.
Third, there is no such thing as "gay lifestyle" just as there is no such thing as "straight lifestyle." A lifestyle encompasses a person's whole life and how they live. To reduce a person's lifestyle that includes many things about him/herself to which gender of a person they have sex with is to depreciate the complexity of human beings. Just as there are many different lifestyles among straight people, there are many different lifestyles among gays.
Fourth, using the word "preference" in referring to a person's sexual orientation is fallacious in that preference indicates a choice. Since sexual orientation is not a choice, it makes no sense to refer to it with the word "preference."
Fifth, some people have made the ridiculous claim that because straight marriages more often than not reproduce and create new children, that this is the justification for granting privileges to marriages and for excluding gays from these same privileges.
However, because granting gays the same privileges will not undermine straight people from continuing to engage in reproductive marriages, there is no rational basis for denying gays equal recognition. Reproduction need not be the only justification for having these privileges.
Sixth, using alcoholism or any other addiction/illness as an analogy with homosexuality is contradiction to the psychological and medical findings that have found no reason to classify homosexuality as an illness. Therefore, those analogies are not only blatantly disrespectful of gays, but are also fallacious as such analogies are not based on correlation.
And finally, there have been a small number of gays who have claimed to have changed their sexual orientation. In reality, they have never changed their sexual orientation because it's not possible to do so. They can only change their outward behavior -- they will always be gay. The reason a small number of gays submit themselves to such bigotry-motivated quackery is likely to be for reasons of fear of living in a heterosexist, homophobic society and because of personal problems with themselves, their family, and friends related to their being gay. Quacks choose these insecure people as their prey to prop them up as examples that one can change their sexual orientation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
the_ceebs
|
|
quote:
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. |
Perhaps the best way to reduce this would be to allow gay marriages and so encourage monogamy amongst gays?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
And finally, there have been a small number of gays who have claimed to have changed their sexual orientation. In reality, they have never changed their sexual orientation because it's not possible to do so. |
If somebody truly feels they've changed during the years, then who are we to say that couldn't possibly be true? As far as I can tell, your view is that the people who claim to have switched sides during the years are unfit to tell for sure just what they really are, or they're outright lying. I think if anybody said something like that to you, the eternal preacher of tolerance and diversity, you'd be pissed (and with a good reason to be so).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-06-2004 08:43
If your one of those behaviorist loonies who beileive that there are no diference between male and female brains and other blank slate bullcrap I have a nice spot under a brige to sell ya.
. There is no protection for political beliefs, ie, you can be fired for being a Republican without any reprisal. Religion does have some protection, but not total. You can discriminate somewhat against people with relgious beliefs, such as if you are running a church.
|