Is making gay marriage illegal censoring relationships?

[Ben Kenobi]

Your argument doesn't work for those who phyiscally can't. A test will prove that.

/me looks through files

Lesseee..

"through no fault of their own."

Ahh. Now we are in the right place.

Marriage should not be barred from people, through no fault of their own, they cannot have children. Homosexual people do not fall in this category because they voluntarily choose not to have children.

[Ben Kenobi]

The server is ****ed up.

Only you are double posting.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Ming


nahhh... he will just continue to ignore the subject of heterosexual couples who can't have kids or won't and know it before they get married. To him, they should be allowed to get married, but that gays can't since they can't have children.

to be fair I thot his stance was that there is no practical way to keep them out.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Marriage should not be barred from people, through no fault of their own, they cannot have children. Homosexual people do not fall in this category because they voluntarily choose not to have children.

+

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First, I do think love and desire to have children need to both be there in marriage.

There are plenty of homosexual people who do want to have children, either through adoption or a surrogate mother/sperm donor.

In both cases there is the desire to have children as well as love.

[yavoon]

in the spirit of the thread starter in asknig dubiously odd questions.

when were rights defined by personal preference or orientation?

as far as I can see gay ppl are allowed to marry just as much as straight ppl. and the actualy argument is should ANYONE be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by yavoon
to be fair I thot his stance was that there is no practical way to keep them out.

Not those who don't want to, but quite easily those who can't. Simply require proof of fertility of both partners.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Mercator


Not those who don't want to, but quite easily those who can't. Simply require proof of fertility of both partners.

not so simple. pretty easily smacked down by invasion of privacy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mercator:

Some of the most basic ideas of a religion will inevitably remain the same, but for the most part it should (and has) adapt to the ever-changing society it is a part of.

True, but at what cost? What if society around them no longer believes in God? Does the religion have to reject God in order to conform with society?

Some things are changeable, and should change, but other things should not. Christianity is very stubborn in asking for a seperation between the world and between Christians. "What good is salt if it loses its saltiness?"

From their original inspiring creative melting pot of ideas

What creative melting pot? Child sacrifice to Moloch?

To condense it down to one sentence: I don't understand how rigidly sticking to a definition of marriage or rejecting homosexuality, whatever, is in line with ancient traditions of religion such as freedom of though, creativity and self-determination.

Okay. Remember, you've just given me permission to argue outside of a secular realm.

Christianity, up until now, has always taught that marriage is a sacrament, between one man and one woman, even those who are not sacramentalists, accept that God has given men marriage, and not the other way around. Thus, it is not in the realm of men to change marriage.

God wants men to be fruitful and to multiply. Part of that command allows for marriage between men and women, to fulfill that command. Christ himself refers to the ideal of marriage in Adam and Eve, in the two becoming one flesh. He argues against divorce, by affirming the ideal, rather than the fallen cases we see around us today.

God takes a very high view of human sexuality, in making the point that one should seek marriage, or else total abstinence, a point completely contrary to the world around us today. The reason being that when you unite yourself with anyone, you retain a bond, that should not be broken.

In our modern, Western, society homosexuality has taken its place and it is finally being accepted. How then can you defend attacking it?

For the very reason that it is misusing a gift from God, our sexuality.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Marriage should not be barred from people, through no fault of their own, they cannot have children. Homosexual people do not fall in this category because they voluntarily choose not to have children.

Many homosexual couples want children and do have them. I don't think its their "fault" that sexual acts involving the couple can't result in children. Those that want children act exactly the same as infertile heterosexual couples and either use technology/artificial means, adopt or accept their childless state.


Next strawman please

[Ben Kenobi]

There are plenty of homosexual people who do want to have children, either through adoption or a surrogate mother/sperm donor.

Not the point. They are perfectly able to have children the usual way, but choose not to. Why should we accomodate their personal preferences, at the expense of those who have no other option?

[Flubber]

Religion versus the law. . ..


I have no problem with a religion defining marriage as they see fit and if certain faiths believe that homosexuality is a "sin", its within their right as a faith to believe that and NOT consecrate those unions in their faith.

But the law, the law should treat people equally and the reality is that now it does not in that the bundle of rights and obligations that is marriage is denied to homosexual couples for reasons that defy logic.

For example:

Why should not a life partner

a) get to make critical medical decisions
b) be entitled to pensions and benefits
c) become entitled to the estate of their partner if there is no will
d) get generally treated by the legal system as the family member that they are

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not the point. They are perfectly able to have children the usual way, but choose not to. Why should we accomodate their personal preferences, at the expense of those who have no other option?

How is it at the expense of anyone???

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think its their "fault" that sexual acts involving the couple can't result in children.

Sure it is. Infertile couples do not choose their state. Homosexuals do.

[Ben Kenobi]

How is it at the expense of anyone???

Scarce resources.

Flubber:

Tar me with that brush again. It's better than addressing the points. "Reasons that defy logic?"

a) get to make critical medical decisions
b) be entitled to pensions and benefits
c) become entitled to the estate of their partner if there is no will
d) get generally treated by the legal system as the family member that they are

I give you d. They are a family member. Being a family member does not entitle one to the rest.

c) Too bad. No will, boo hoo.

b) Expensive. You want to reduce pension amounts for everyone? How could you refuse any relationship from counting as a pension?

a) Over who?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Scarce resources.

HUH?? you will have to explain that one.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not the point. They are perfectly able to have children the usual way, but choose not to. Why should we accomodate their personal preferences, at the expense of those who have no other option?

It seems like you don't want to accomodate them, not "we".

People who want to have children have other options... just like gay people. Again, what is your logic for denying one and not the other. You rest your argument on "they choose not to"... and that's it. Just because somebody doesn't want to make the choice you want to cram down their throat doesn't make you right.

Your whole argument rests on your religious beliefs, and NOTHING ELSE.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



I give you d. They are a family member. Being a family member does not entitle one to the rest.

hmm interesting-- you will acknowledge a homosexual lifer partner as part of the family but not in any position that gives them rights or obligations

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
c) Too bad. No will, boo hoo.

I partially feel the same way since any individual can draft a will to give their estate to whomever they want. Also this may be less of a problem given recent Canadian court decisions. I have not seen one on the issue but its only logical that the various cases that gave rights to " common-law" spouses would also apply to homosexual couples. I just still do not think it is right that there are a number of legislative presumptions available to heterosexual couples but unavailiable to homosexual couples.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
b) Expensive. You want to reduce pension amounts for everyone? How could you refuse any relationship from counting as a pension?

If homosexual couples could marry, you have your litmus test right there-- they are married or they are not-- Very simple

Also inherent in your " expensive" comment is the idea that there must be substantial numbers of couples being denied their pensions under current systems.

Lastly I would reduce everyones benefits if that was the only other choice besides denying rights to a class of persons simply because of their sexual orientation.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
a) Over who?

Other family members-- This has been an issue for "common law" heterosexual couples as well.-- a blood relative that a person may not have seen for 20 years shows up and becomes the decision maker when a person is unable to make their own decisions. A person that has built a life with them for that same 20 years has NO official status ( in the absence of an explicit advance health care directive on the issues). Married folks don't face that issue--

[Kontiki]

You know, I was looking forward to getting married and maybe having children. But the thought of homosexuals being allowed to get married makes me realize how much I hate my girlfriend and am loathe to have kids. I also now hate my sister and brother-in-law who are married but don't want to have kids. What useless wastes of oxygen they are, contributing nothing to society and leaching off the rest of us with their sham of a marriage.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure it is. Infertile couples do not choose their state. Homosexuals do.

Okay, I think I have you over a barrel here now Benny. My sister has been with her boyfriend for several years now. He has had a vasectomy as he does not want to have kids. He CHOSE to become infertile. I presume therefore that if ym sister and her partner decided they want to get married you would vehemently oppose this?

So, to be consistent, we must add the following disclaimer to vasectomies: "If you choose to undergo this process you hereby give up any right to marry in the future". Hell, let's add it to hysterectomies too, I mean, it's not like women with ovarian cancer don't have any choice when it comes to their situation!

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but at what cost? What if society around them no longer believes in God? Does the religion have to reject God in order to conform with society?

Society isn't "around them". Religion is part of what makes a society. So if the society stops believing in God, the religion would cease to exist. Quite possibly though, the religion could adapt to become more of a philosophy. Something that teaches morals without requiring a supernatural being to justify them.

Some things are changeable, and should change, but other things should not. Christianity is very stubborn in asking for a seperation between the world and between Christians. "What good is salt if it loses its saltiness?"

Are they thereby forgetting they are part of that world? What good is salt if you don't have anything to put it on.

What creative melting pot? Child sacrifice to Moloch?

How about the Bible in relation to this. At the time that was written it must have been pretty damn progressive. Unfortunately, it seems to have stagnated since then:

But we must remember that all ideas have an expiry date. Once ideas become stale they lose their emancipatory capacity and become oppressive. Ideas that once liberated and transformed a society, if allowed to become dogma, will cause stagnation and decline of that society.

Christianity, up until now, has always taught that marriage is a sacrament, between one man and one woman, [...]

Is there anything in this that doesn't boil down to the Bible?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sure it is. Infertile couples do not choose their state. Homosexuals do.

From what you've said before, you think homosexuality in general is not a choice, but that the acting upon it is. But this comment would suggest that you do in fact think homosexuality is a choice.

Which is it? If you can't choose which sex to be physically attracted to, then your above statement is non-sensical. If you think you can, then you've opened up a whole other can of worms.

[Dis]

yes

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Most definately it is a form of censorship.

censorship

n 1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy [syn: censoring, security review] 2: deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: censoring]

Homosexual marriages are apparantly undesirable if they are not allowed in any particular jurisdiction, and their public aknowledgement of a legal relationship is therefore banned. So I would say its a form of censorship where applicable.

[Ben Kenobi]

you will have to explain that one.

Why do we have things like surrogacy and infertility treatments? We allow them for people who cannot have kids on their own. In allowing homosexuals access to either draws these resources away from those who cannot have kids through no fault of their own.

Ming:

Just because somebody doesn't want to make the choice you want to cram down their throat doesn't make you right.

Again, if it is a choice, I do not see why we need to accomodate the choice. I'm not cramming anything down their throats. Rather the reverse. They expect society to bend over backwards to accomodate them, when they have made a poor decision themselves.

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber:

Not these specific rights or obligations.

If homosexual couples could marry, you have your litmus test right there-- they are married or they are not-- Very simple

Nope. Still leaves us with the same problem. Why should pensions be restricted only to those who are married? Shouldn't we be allowed to give our pension to whomever we want?

Also inherent in your " expensive" comment is the idea that there must be substantial numbers of couples being denied their pensions under current systems.

Presumes they should have those pensions, which is the case in point. Begging the question.

Lastly I would reduce everyones benefits if that was the only other choice besides denying rights to a class of persons simply because of their sexual orientation.

Class of persons? So tell me, how can a choice be a class?

Other family members-- This has been an issue for "common law" heterosexual couples as well.-- a blood relative that a person may not have seen for 20 years shows up and becomes the decision maker when a person is unable to make their own decisions. A person that has built a life with them for that same 20 years has NO official status ( in the absence of an explicit advance health care directive on the issues). Married folks don't face that issue--

Interesting cross sections this argument brings me to. This is a deep question all in itself. What about a case like Terry Schiavo, where the husband's rights conflict with the well being of Ms. Schiavo?

I think this issue is too complicated to put in with the others. There can be very good reasons to overlook the desires of a proxy.

I would want this treated on a case by case basis, even in the example of married couples, because there can be a real conflict between the well being of the patient and the desires of the family. No family should be able to request the death of their family member.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, if it is a choice, I do not see why we need to accomodate the choice. I'm not cramming anything down their throats. Rather the reverse. They expect society to bend over backwards to accomodate them, when they have made a poor decision themselves.

poor decision? In who's opinion? Only yours. To them, it isn't a poor decision. Just proof that this only has to do with your opinion of their life style.

So yes... you are cramming it down their throat by you defining it as a poor decision. Your way or no way... that seems to sum up your attitude.

They have just as much right to alternative forms of having children as anybody else. You are the one trying to make judgement calls on who is more appropriate for having such resources... you are the one discriminating against a group of people. This is not about the choice they make... but all about your disagreement with their choice. It's that simple.

[Ben Kenobi]

Society isn't "around them". Religion is part of what makes a society. So if the society stops believing in God, the religion would cease to exist.

Subsumes religion to society. If religion were an inextricable part of a society, and the society stopped believing in God, it is no more clear that the religion would perish without the society, than the society without the religion. Both would perish.

Secondly, if a society is inextricably bound in religion, one or the other has to disengage in order for divisions to form. In doing so, both change each other. The religion adapts to no longer being a part of the society, and the society adapts to being without religion.

This would be the most likely result of any such change in the society, likely the religion will pull away rather than die, harming both them and the society.

Quite possibly though, the religion could adapt to become more of a philosophy. Something that teaches morals without requiring a supernatural being to justify them.

Perhaps, but unlikely. For example, Christianity as a moral system does not work with the absence of a Creator.

Are they thereby forgetting they are part of that world? What good is salt if you don't have anything to put it on.

Indeed, it is a balance. Christians are to be in the world, not of it.

How about the Bible in relation to this. At the time that was written it must have been pretty damn progressive. Unfortunately, it seems to have stagnated since then:

Hardly. I would argue just the opposite. It is 'progressive' society that degrades itself.

But we must remember that all ideas have an expiry date.

Do they? What about liberalism? Suppose political liberalism has become an outmoded concept inapplicable to the complexity of modern man, and what we need is something more.

Is there anything in this that doesn't boil down to the Bible?

You tell me. What else would you find authoritative? The pronouncements from the Pope?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

They have just as much right to alternative forms of having children as anybody else.

As to people who actually ARE infertile? That's not a hard judgment call.

poor decision? In who's opinion?

If your primary goal is to have children, then yes it is a poor decision.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If your primary goal is to have children, then yes it is a poor decision.

Hmmm... maybe the primary goal was love, as is ALL marriages. Contrary to what you seem to think, people don't get married just to have children. They get married because they love somebody and want to make a commitment with them.

But according to you, they should be denied alternative methods. And why is that... it seems soley on life style.
Because you think they made a poor decision... they need the same help as infertile couples... but again, you would deny them that because of their "poor decision"

It's all about your biases, and has nothing to do with logic.

[MrFun]

I do have a question for Bennie -- since we're suppose to impose morality on everyone else that involves lifestyles that harm no one, how about we ban marriages by straight people who have had pre-marital sex?

This is immoral, accroding to the teachings of Christinianity.