10-12-2004 05:38									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: You're continuing to make the distortion by ignoring the real point of the analogy,

Which was what?

Gay people are a protected class under the criminal code of Canada, Mr. Fun.

	10-12-2004 05:40									#92
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Why should single people subsidise the married then? This argument could go on ad infinitum...

That's a very good question. Why should society provide any form of spousal benefits? Should single people be excluded from this public discussion, or should they be able to have a say?

	10-12-2004 05:41									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The point of my analogy is that the majority does not always favor equal rights protection, and instead, favor undemocratic, and bigoted forms of discrimination.

So would majority rule be legitimate in cases where the majority wish to preserve any form of legal discrimination against a minority group?

	10-12-2004 05:42									#94
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Gibsie: Not a problem. Sorry for the delay. One benefit, spouses get, is to share their household income with each other, which allows them to reduce their income tax.

Arguing against gay marriage is one thing, arguing that gay life partners should not have the same access to joining their incomes as straight life partners do is a new low for you. Thanks for the response, you friendly bigot, you.

	10-12-2004 05:46									#95
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison And who is this Mr Moustachio?

Jack Layton. Good guy

	10-12-2004 05:46									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: The point of my analogy is that the majority does not always favor equal rights protection, and instead, favor undemocratic, and bigoted forms of discrimination.

How is such a decision, undemocratic, if the majority of the people are opposed? The definition, of a democratic decision, is one that is approved by the majority.

Secondly, what makes discrimination bigoted? Is it bigoted to say that those in wheelchairs ought to recieve wheelchair ramps, because as an able bodied person, you are discriminated against?

	10-12-2004 05:48									#97
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ben, you have some real problems. I foresee a heart attack in your future. You're a ****ing postbot when the word "gay" is mentioned.

	10-12-2004 05:48									#98
	Support Apolyton

quote: arguing that gay life partners should not have the same access to joining their incomes as straight life partners do is a new low for you. Thanks for the response, you friendly bigot, you.

Where have I said that spouses ought to include those whom are not married?

I agree, the two forms of 'life partners' ought not to be treated differently from each other. Neither should receive spousal compensation.

	10-12-2004 05:48									#99
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

i.e. get a ****ing life, dude.

	10-12-2004 05:49									#100
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi How is such a decision, undemocratic, if the majority of the people are opposed? The definition, of a democratic decision, is one that is approved by the majority. Secondly, what makes discrimination bigoted? Is it bigoted to say that those in wheelchairs ought to recieve wheelchair ramps, because as an able bodied person, you are discriminated against?

IMO, part of the ideal of democracy is the concept of equal rights, or even more fundamentally, individual freedom.

Secondly, your wheelchair example is just too fallacious. No able-bodied person is discriminated against in that instance, obviously, because that person still has access to the building.

	10-12-2004 05:52									#101
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: i.e. get a ****ing life, dude.

Sure, I'd rather be working.

	10-12-2004 05:56									#102
	Suffering from ads?

"I agree, the two forms of 'life partners' ought not to be treated differently from each other. Neither should receive spousal compensation"

Then that's not a reason to be against gay marriage, that' a reason to be against modifying the benefits of marriage. It's like being wanting pot to stay illegal because you don't think that cigarettes or cannabis should be smoked in restaurants. An utter non sequitur- and not one that makes you look like a decent human being.

	10-12-2004 05:56									#103
	Suffering from ads?

quote: part of the ideal of democracy is the concept of equal rights, or even more fundamentally, individual freedom.

So how are individual freedoms violated by not receiving spousal benefits? I agree, society shouldn't bar gay people from associating with other gay people, under individual freedoms. I do object to the notion that individual freedoms necessarily rely upon marriage. One can be free without getting married.

quote: Secondly, your wheelchair example is just too fallacious. No able-bodied person is discriminated against in that instance, obviously, because that person still has access to the building.

So, if the outcome of the benefits is to allow those who are handicapped to acheive similar outcomes, it doesn't count as discrimination?

What about a student who is mentally handicapped, getting more time on a test. Is that discrimination, or not? What if no matter how much time is given, he still fails? Should he be given a pass, so to acheive an equal outcome as his brighter peers?

	10-12-2004 05:58									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ben, the only argument I think I've ever heard you give that only the union of a man and woman benefit society have to do with them being able to have children.

But having children is in no way a condition to getting married, nor vice versa. The fact is that many married couples don't have kids and many unmarried couples do.

If it's really about raising kids, wouldn't it be much more productive and efficient to simply have child benefits and no benefits to marriage per se?

	10-12-2004 06:01									#105
	Increase Your PM Length

TO: ALL HOMOPHOBES
FROM: THE POPE

EVERYONE GET UP AND RUN DAMMIT - THE GAY AGENDA IS UPON US.


signed - J Paul II

p.s. take your choir boys with you - we might be in hiding for a while until the Agenda blows over.

	10-12-2004 06:04									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Then that's not a reason to be against gay marriage, that' a reason to be against modifying the benefits of marriage. It's like being wanting pot to stay illegal because you don't think that cigarettes or cannabis should be smoked in restaurants. An utter non sequitur- and not one that makes you look like a decent human being.

Good point, you are saying, what if there were no spousal benefits involved? That becomes a much more interesting question.

Suppose society did recognise marriage, you have to ask, what does this constitute? Are there any privileges still associated with the union? This is why it's such a bundled issue. To take all the privileges society confers upon married people away, brings about the new question, of why should society recognise marriage at all? What 'recognition' could society provide to the married couple, to warrant the requirements of registration and regulation?

I can't see that unless certain benefits are provided by society, that marriages would need to be regulated by society.

	10-12-2004 06:05									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Total Posts: 103
User Posts
Ben Kenobi 22
MrFun 16
Provost Harrison 8
Gibsie 8
Comrade Tassadar 7
KrazyHorse 5
Kontiki 4
chegitz guevara 4
Sprayber 4
Asher 3
alva 2
joncha 2
Atahualpa 2
Agathon 2
Tuberski 2
Azazel 1
Garth Vader 1
Lawrence of Arabia 1
Zkribbler 1
Al'Kimiya 1
Guynemer 1
Combat Ingrid 1
BeBro 1
Flubber 1
Q Cubed 1
Saint Marcus 1
dejon 1

	10-12-2004 06:07									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I've noticed that on threads involving sex in any form BK is most often the most prolific poster. This despite the fact that his prostate is begging to be adopted into a good home.

Hmmm.

	10-12-2004 06:09									#109
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So how are individual freedoms violated by not receiving spousal benefits? I agree, society shouldn't bar gay people from associating with other gay people, under individual freedoms. I do object to the notion that individual freedoms necessarily rely upon marriage. One can be free without getting married. So, if the outcome of the benefits is to allow those who are handicapped to acheive similar outcomes, it doesn't count as discrimination? What about a student who is mentally handicapped, getting more time on a test. Is that discrimination, or not? What if no matter how much time is given, he still fails? Should he be given a pass, so to acheive an equal outcome as his brighter peers?

Individual freedoms are meant to be protected by laws. How are relationships that gays have, protected by laws right now?

And your mentally handicapped student example. No, it's not discrimination, since someone who is not mentally handicapped can still complete the test within the standard time limit, while the handicapped one would not be able to because of a factor that is beyond that person's control.

	10-12-2004 06:13									#110
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Ben, the only argument I think I've ever heard you give that only the union of a man and woman benefit society have to do with them being able to have children.

That's one of many, yes.

quote: But having children is in no way a condition to getting married, nor vice versa. The fact is that many married couples don't have kids and many unmarried couples do.

It would be an unenforceable regulation. How could one insist that all couples bear children? Not all will be fertile, and not all will know at the outset whether they are fertile or not. Therefore, one allows those who do not want children to marry, because there is no suitable alternative.

However, what this neglects, is that if a couple is young, and fertile, for them to get married, and not have children, is also problematic. This is one of the bigger reasons for divorce, is if one of the couples in such a union wishes to have a child, they will likely leave this partner. This is why they tend to discourage these marriages from taking place.

So it seems to me that while having children cannot be a requirement, it out to be the desired outcome of any marriage between fertile couples.

In response to older couples getting married, this really doesn't apply to the point at hand, after all, gay people are fertile.

quote: If it's really about raising kids, wouldn't it be much more productive and efficient to simply have child benefits and no benefits to marriage per se?

First you need to get the children to have them taken care of.

There's a couple other benefits as well, the big one being stability. Both the man and the women, can be shown to be much more productive in a stable marriage rather than outside of one.

	10-12-2004 06:14									#111
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse I've noticed that on threads involving sex in any form BK is most often the most prolific poster. This despite the fact that his prostate is begging to be adopted into a good home. Hmmm.

Remember:

Religion = frustration.

	10-12-2004 06:16									#112
	Tired of ads?

quote: I've noticed that on threads involving sex in any form BK is most often the most prolific poster. This despite the fact that his prostate is begging to be adopted into a good home.

Actually, work is a better indicator of my posting frequency. If I'm working, I'll hardly post at all.

	10-12-2004 06:22									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Individual freedoms are meant to be protected by laws. How are relationships that gays have, protected by laws right now?

Relationships do not fall under the heading of 'individual' freedoms Mr. Fun.

The only one that does, is your freedom to associate. You are free to associate as much as you want, with any man you want, barring public decency, anywhere, and however you want in Canada.

To say that a relationship ought to be protected, is a different sort of idea altogether. It was a real question, and still is, whether marriage falls under the Canadian constitution at all.

quote: And your mentally handicapped student example. No, it's not discrimination, since someone who is not mentally handicapped can still complete the test within the standard time limit, while the handicapped one would not be able to because of a factor that is beyond that person's control.

Are you sure? Seems to me, that's the essence of what you call 'bigoted' discrimination. The student, cannot complete the test because of a factor beyond his control. There's a different point I'm fishing for here, which is why I used the term, 'outcome'.

	10-12-2004 06:42									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Relationships do not fall under the heading of 'individual' freedoms Mr. Fun.

since all freedoms are individual, then relationships fall under that heading. if i want to go say whatever i want in a relatiionship, thats a freedom. if i want to marry in a relationship, thats also a freedom.

	10-12-2004 06:44									#115
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I am saying that society benefits in a unique way from traditional marriage.

Proove it, oh right, you can't. You never have been able to before. You can't now. Why? Because your position is based soley on bigotry.

	10-12-2004 06:46									#116
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi How is such a decision, undemocratic, if the majority of the people are opposed? The definition, of a democratic decision, is one that is approved by the majority.

If, for some reason, the majority decided to ban Christianity, would you be okay with that?

	10-12-2004 06:48									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

this guy sounds like a used car salesmen who speaks in generalities but has nothing to back it up.

"yep, this car has some unique abilities, and brings to the table many things that you wont get with a new car. frankly, im surprised this one 'ere is still in the lot, with the great deal that ive put together"

	10-12-2004 07:21									#118
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

1. We'd win the referendum, so it would be a massive waste of money.

2. Ben Kenobi's logic is that piles of babies are good, traditional marriage leads to piles of babies, so everyone must practice traditional marriage in order to maximize the piles of babies. Is that bigoted? Dunno. It's certainly inconsiderate and totalitarian.

	10-12-2004 07:26									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: who speaks in generalities but has nothing to back it up.

You remind me of an interesting quote.

From a book that I have on hand at the moment.

Diefenbaker, in referring to the then Socred leader in 1940:

One day, out of devilment, I said to John, "The trouble with you is that you always deal in generalities. You never give the House enough detail about Social Credit."

"Well, he said, I'll fix that." He did. Week after week, everyone was out of the Commons as soon as John started in.

	10-12-2004 07:29									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Proove it, oh right, you can't. You never have been able to before. You can't now. Why? Because your position is based soley on bigotry.

Dig into one of the other posts, and I'll consider addressing this point. I listed 3 benefits to marriage that ought to be considered.