10-10-2003 22:04									#91
	Got spare money?

quote: First off, there is a distinct difference between platonic love between biological family members, and that of intimate/romantic love between spouses.

How dare you judge the love that I have for my grandmother!

How do you know that I don't love her in the romantic sense? Do you have an amazing measuring rod of love?

	10-10-2003 22:11									#92
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Qcubed: Does the fault lie in the institution, or in the people? The difference between the two cases is that when married people fall short, the institution still remains. But what happens when the institution disappears entirely? You cannot change the meaning of marriage, and expect everything else to remain the same.

you first point is taken. it's not really the institution, but the people.
the problem though, is that for it to remain an institution, the people themselves have to continue it, they themselves have to propagate it, to safeguard it, to believe in it.
straight people have thus far shown that they don't seem to believe in it much anymore, that they don't much try to propagate it, or safeguard it, or even continue it.
one could argue that all of this "marriage shouldn't be for gays" is a move to safeguard it; i can buy that. but when weighed against the fact that 50% of straight couples head for a divorce within the first seven years of marriage? seems like an empty effort to me.

i honestly don't know whether gays will improve the ratio of divorce/not divorce, or if they'll lower the rate. i don't know if i feel that they themselves will safeguard it, or propagate it, continue it. what i do know is that some of them believe so strongly in it that they want it desperately.

why not give them the chance? it can't hurt the institution more than it already has, being now nothing more than a certificate and a circus to the general american public.

	10-10-2003 22:13									#93
	Remove this text

quote: Let them do it and drive themselves to extinction, where's the harm?

Japher:

I don't think you quite understand my point.

Everyone must do the action to universalise the action. A good paraphrase of Kant:

"To act as if your action,
Were a universal maxim."

	10-10-2003 22:15									#94
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi How dare you judge the love that I have for my grandmother! How do you know that I don't love her in the romantic sense? Do you have an amazing measuring rod of love?

Now you are just blabbering nonsense.

	10-10-2003 22:16									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Everyone must do the action to universalise the action.

So your against individuality and for oppression? I get it... No, not really, cause that's not nice.

quote: How do you know that I don't love her in the romantic sense? Do you have an amazing measuring rod of love?

Your one sick puppy Ben, and your setting your self up with asking about anyones "amazing... rod of love"

	10-10-2003 22:16									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

'cause ben, that's kinda...

	10-10-2003 22:19									#97
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: i don't know if i feel that they themselves will safeguard it, or propagate it, continue it.

If we don't know, why are we encouraging this? Why not do what Bush does, and to reaffirm what marriage is supposed to be?

I understand your cynicalism, but I fear you paint too grim a picture. There are many good people out there in good marriages who are fighting for what they believe here in Canada.

We only lost the vote by 3 in the House of Commons, many Liberal MPs voted against the party line because they feared their constituents would kick them out otherwise. Surely the situation elsewhere would be better than Canada.

	10-10-2003 22:22									#98
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 'cause ben, that's kinda...

Yes, I know and you know, but can Mr. Fun bring himself to say why I should not?

	10-10-2003 22:23									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Mr. Fun: Each point in turn: 1)Why? What benefits do these partnerships provide that aid society so that they should give the benefits and privileges? 2) Why wouldn't they allow that in the US? Could not a friend visit a sick friend? You should not need to marry to visit someone who is sick. 3) Are the benefits the same? Different cases ought to be treated differently. 4) Aaah. So we see the REAL reason for this. Law cannot confer social legitimacy. You are going the wrong way if you expect people to treat the two exactly the same. 5) Are the risks the same? Last I checked insurance companies are businesses like any other. 6) So why don't they denounce these unconventional values today if they are so evil and horrible?

1) One benefit is that the creation of families -- generally -- tend to create more community stability.

2) I have read about horror stories where a grieving gay lover was not allowed to see his/her dying spouse in hospitals.

3) Well duh -- to adopt a child, one needs to meet legitimate qualifications. But sexual orientation is simply not one of those legitimate qualifications.

4) So because we should not expect laws to magically change society overnight with these issues, does this mean that civil rights laws in regards to blacks should not have been legislated because they would not change social values overnight??

5) I'm not sure what you're saying here, exactly.

6) As long as mainstream society treats non-heterosexuals as pariahs, they will act in extremely unconventional ways -- getting it on in bath houses, and so forth. Yes, non-heterosexuals need to take responsibility for their own decisions and not blame entirely their own mistakes on society.

BUT how can they go about improving their life if they are discouraged by mainstream society's exclusion of non-heterosexuals??
Although, there are many other non-heterosexuals who do live basically conventional lifestyles in spite of this exclusion, but still . . . . .

	10-10-2003 22:30									#100
	Got spare money?

quote: But leave the damned government out of it.

MtG:

I agree. Why should the government do anything to change the definition of marriage? The government has no legitimacy in either jurisdiction to define the term.

	10-10-2003 22:32									#101
	Suffering from ads?

hm. perhaps to clarify, let me say that i'm not really of the mindset of encouraging it. i'm more of the mindset of why waste energy fighting against whether one group of people can get married or not, when we could so better devote that energy to fighting to keep the groups that are married together, together and happy.

i do realize that there are many good couples out there. my godparents have just reaffirmed their vows after fifty years of marriage; my brother's have been married almost 60. i know a whole slew of other people who have stayed together longer than the seven-year itch.

two of them are gay.

which makes me wonder why we shouldn't let them have a go at it, especially when so many clearly want it. including both of the couples mentioned above.

	10-10-2003 22:34									#102
	Put an end to popups!

quote: BUT how can they go about improving their life if they are discouraged by mainstream society's exclusion of non-heterosexuals??

I have to go...

Won't be back until Tuesday.

Mr. Fun, I'm going to get a bit personal here. Why do you care what society thinks of you? One certainly can improve one's life without needing a certificate of approval from society. If we all were to wait for such certificate nothing would ever get done.

	10-10-2003 23:08									#103
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I agree, Ben it's not that simple.

However, the fact that society does treat non-heterosexuals as pariahs, certainly does not help any.

	11-10-2003 01:45									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi If we don't know, why are we encouraging this? Why not do what Bush does, and to reaffirm what marriage is supposed to be?

Encouraging what? If government wishes to prohibit something to a certain class of people, there should be a compelling reason for that prohibition. I see no compelling reason to give a fair damn one way or the other about civil unions for THEM. And if some particular church or another should decide that it's within it's doctrine to let THEM marry, that's not really a concern of mine either, unless it's a church I happen to be a member of.

If they're all going to burn in hell or whatever, that's between them and God. Not between them and me, and not the proper concern of government.

quote: There are many good people out there in good marriages who are fighting for what they believe here in Canada.

What exactly is to be fought for? How about a heterosexual "open marriage" of swingers, wife beaters, etc.? That's ok, but a couple of queers in a monogamous civil union isn't?

	11-10-2003 02:11									#105
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi MtG: I agree. Why should the government do anything to change the definition of marriage? The government has no legitimacy in either jurisdiction to define the term.

Certainly - the Catholic Church does not consider (for it's members) a civil marriage to be sacramental, as it lacks the proper canonical form. It is considered a valid marriage, as the Church considers "a Las Vegas drive through wedding by two atheists" to be a valid marriage, as a Monsignor friend of mine put it. However, if a Catholic (at least in the US dioceses) marries outside the church sacrament of Holy Matrimony, the form and method for considering an annulment is entirely different, as the issues under canonical law are different.

At least in the US, church law has no bearing on secular law at any level of government. Since things like children's support, health and safety, property rights, inheritance and survivorship rights, power of attorney, etc. are issues of importance to local government, civil "marriage" laws relating to the various rights and duties of the parties have evolved in all jurisdictions. Changing the rules of those civil "marriages" has no bearing on sacramental marriage, just as the Catholic Church, for one, is free for it's own purposes to disregard civil dissolution.

They are two separate subjects, two separate issues, two separate sources of laws, so anything Canada or states in the United States do regarding civil "marriage" has no effect whatsoever on marriage under church law in any church. That being the case, opposition to civil union being available to specific classes of couples who are both of age and mental ability to consent is simply irrational.

	11-10-2003 02:16									#106
	Put an end to popups!

Nobody is going to make any comment at all about "being in love" with one's grandmother?
If that's not a clincher in this debate I don't know what is.

	11-10-2003 02:20									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

How could a thread commenting another "troll and spam thread" grow this large? Why aren't people posting in Sloww's original thread. Isn't this the 3rd thread on this non-topic?

	11-10-2003 02:34									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Chemical, this thread is on the topic of Bush's homophobic proclamation of Marriage Protection Week.

Not about SlowwHand's "prophecy" -- although if this would have been what SlowwHand was alluding to, THEN this thread would be a copycat thread.

But that is not the case.

Oh, and MTG -- excellent points.

	11-10-2003 04:19									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by MrFun quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Gatekeeper: I'm pointing out an assumption of your argument. Just because I love my grandmother does not mean that I ought to marry her. The issue here is not love, but what is the purpose of marriage? what a joke First off, there is a distinct difference between platonic love between biological family members, and that of intimate/romantic love between spouses. Two gays or lesbians want to marry one another because they are intimately in love with one another -- that is definitely different from the platnoic love between you and your granny. What other kind of illogical fallicies can you come up with?

Ben, you've left me utterly confused. What was the assumption in my post you tried to point out? I thought it was obvious I was referring to love between two people — regardless of gender — who are not blood relatives. Where does your grandmother come into the equation?

Gatekeeper

	11-10-2003 04:32									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi molly: a. Well, 'sectarian prejudice' must = christianity, eh? b. And I have yet to see any beneficial effects of such a union. One case is insufficient evidence. c.So you admit that Melbourne wallows in depravity and social disorder? d. Why outside of the bible? What scares you about those arguments? e. Secondly, according to the principles of Kantianism, a moral action is one that can be universalisiable. A faithful union of two gay people cannot produce children, hence the institution destroys itself over time. Eventually there would be no people to get married. f. So people who are not married are somehow less equal than those who are? You realise that your assumptions cause you to contradict the principle of equality? g. But we are not talking about polygamy. We are talking about homosexuality. Do these societies sanction homosexual unions?

Point a.

Not just Christianity, but any sect that discriminates. If the cap fits... After all, prejudice against homosexuality is simply one more in a long line of prejudices that we can notch up for Christianity- along with institutionalized anti-semitism, being used to bolster racism in the Deep South and South Africa, anti-feminism, etc, etc. Whatever you might say is 'Christ's real message', I prefer to look at what the bible has been used for.

Point b.

What is then the purpose of marriage? Simply to perpetuate itself? The love my partner and I have for each other has grown over the years- we are closer now than we were when we first met, nearly twenty years ago. However, I am not automatically considered his next of kin, I cannot automatically inherit his estate, his pension rights, and yet these rights are conferred upon heterosexuals if they get married. Why does my sexuality preclude this happening? Is my love of a lesser quality?

Point c.

Having a sense of humour blockage, par chance?

Point d.

Nothing scares me about the bible- what scares me are the people who insist on using it to run and ruin my life, and the lives of other people like me. As I said, produce a cogent argument, not based on scripture, as to why civil unions between gay men and lesbians should not be allowed. You have signally failed to do so.

Point e.

Your logic escapes me here. You leap from Kant's philosophy to civil unions. Sterile men and sterile women marry fertile partners all the time. Many men and women choose not to have children at all. Marriage is hardly invalidated by this. And how is marriage in and of itself 'moral'? Was Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn 'moral', or was it more about desperately trying to secure the Tudor dynasty and succession? As for there being no people to get married, please.... I though I'd seen the last of these quasi-malthusian arguments. It assumes for instance, that gay men and lesbians might not choose to have children together- something which can and does occur today. These children are not inevitably gay or lesbian.

f.

No. It is the assumptions in your bible that are the source of the inequality. My arguments are for the equal right of everyone (regardless of sexuality) to marry the willing partner of their choice- if society chooses to endow 'married' couples with certain rights, then I would expect 'married' couples of the same sex to have the same rights as couples of the opposite sex. My argument does not confer inequality or fewer rights on single people- any more than already exist in today's society. The argument that marriage between heterosexuals serves to further the human race does however automatically confer a lesser status on those who opt not to procreate and reproduce. How galling for
Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant to realize how empty and wasted their lives were by not fathering offspring...

Point g.

But we are talking about forms of union other than those found 'acceptable' to Christian sectaries (other than unreformed Mormons).

In any case, the meaning of marriage has undergone many changes through the course of human history and society- in America, couples of mixed race can now get married- which of course was not always the case. And marriage was hardly always about love, commitment and sacred bonds- it was (and still is in many parts of the world) about money, property and politics.
Besides which- civil marriages exist, and for the purposes of a secular society, I see no reason why religious prejudice should infringe upon the extension of civil rights- you may assume I am immoral, deviant, and damned, and that is your prerogative- but it should have no bearing on my being allowed access to the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

	11-10-2003 09:32									#111
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper Ben, you've left me utterly confused. Gatekeeper

Ben is very good at doing that -- that's his only skill he has in debating.

	11-10-2003 11:11									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: when you try to exclude non-heterosexuals to imply that they are incapable of having family values

Like DD said, they are incapable. Unless you radically change the meaning of 'family values'.

	11-10-2003 15:25									#113
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I thought I said that?

	11-10-2003 23:29									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: when you try to exclude non-heterosexuals to imply that they are incapable of having family values Like DD said, they are incapable. Unless you radically change the meaning of 'family values'.

WRONG -- non-heterosexuals are capable of embracing family values, but they're not given much of a chance if political leaders want to exclude them from mainstream society.

There are many non-heterosexuals who live conventional life-styles in spite of this exclusion, though.


We're not talking about radical change of family values -- we're talking about stopping the use of the subjective, narrow-minded concept of "traditional values" to exclude others from mainstream society.
Non-heterosexuals need to be given the opportunity to hold the same values that many heterosexuals embrace.

	11-10-2003 23:34									#115
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: WRONG -- non-heterosexuals are capable of embracing family values

Nope, sorry. 'Family Values' implies heterosexual atomic families.

quote: We're not talking about radical change of family values -- we're talking about stopping the use of the subjective, narrow-minded concept of "traditional values"

You are talking about a radical change of family values. Family values = traditional values.

	11-10-2003 23:58									#116
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Like DD said, they are incapable. Unless you radically change the meaning of 'family values'.

Say it with me now. Drake isn't DD's DL. Ming and rah are.

	12-10-2003 00:02									#117
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Pphht.. that's what you want us to think .

	12-10-2003 00:40									#118
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 'Family Values' implies heterosexual atomic families.

"Atomic" families? Looks like I'm not the only one who's English skills are degrading. What's your excuse?

	12-10-2003 00:44									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Atomic, nuclear, what's the difference .

	12-10-2003 03:55									#120
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: WRONG -- non-heterosexuals are capable of embracing family values Nope, sorry. 'Family Values' implies heterosexual atomic families. quote: We're not talking about radical change of family values -- we're talking about stopping the use of the subjective, narrow-minded concept of "traditional values" You are talking about a radical change of family values. Family values = traditional values.

What is so radical about unconditional love?
What is so radical about uncondtional acceptance?
What is so radical about family and community stability?

These are the values that many non-heterosexuals embrace with their families.