Stephen Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
- Status
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
Given your complete unwillingness to budge on your opinions I don't think we will ever reach agreement. Unless it's agreement to disagree.
In which case we will be arguing untill we all die of old age. Which is a waste of everybody's time.
Given your complete unwillingness to budge on your opinions I don't think we will ever reach agreement. Unless it's agreement to disagree.
In which case we will be arguing untill we all die of old age. Which is a waste of everybody's time.
RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
it would be a waste of time bringing information into this thread. The originator of it has no interest in discourse and has little understanding of the elements of logic inherent in 'argument'
it would be a waste of time bringing information into this thread. The originator of it has no interest in discourse and has little understanding of the elements of logic inherent in 'argument'
RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
They may not me gentic dead enders per-se. What about a couple who have three children (therefore passing on their genetics) and two of the three children end up having kids (therefore doing you-know-what) and the other child is gay. Sorry, but the family line continues. On an individual basis (I.e. the gay child) there may not be a genetic passing, but the family continues nontheless. But as far as the DEad end thing goes...what about those that go both ways...
They may not me gentic dead enders per-se. What about a couple who have three children (therefore passing on their genetics) and two of the three children end up having kids (therefore doing you-know-what) and the other child is gay. Sorry, but the family line continues. On an individual basis (I.e. the gay child) there may not be a genetic passing, but the family continues nontheless. But as far as the DEad end thing goes...what about those that go both ways...
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
So far, nobody on this thread has agreed to your "point #1", so I'm not too clear on who you think you're addressing here.
I rather doubt you are, either.
Hogwild said:
So far, nobody on this thread has agreed to your "point #1", so I'm not too clear on who you think you're addressing here.
I rather doubt you are, either.
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
Oh c'mon Hog, quite wasting everybody's time. So far you've offered a hypothesis, that homosexuality is a genetic dead end, and a conclusion, the condemnation of same sex marriage, without explaining how you get from the former to the latter. Make your argument so it can be judged on its merits, or just go away.
Oh c'mon Hog, quite wasting everybody's time. So far you've offered a hypothesis, that homosexuality is a genetic dead end, and a conclusion, the condemnation of same sex marriage, without explaining how you get from the former to the latter. Make your argument so it can be judged on its merits, or just go away.
RE: Harper vows free vote
Let's try something different:
Point 1: People who do not have children for ANY reason are "genetic dead-enders" and therefore should be denied the same rights as those who do in fact reproduce.
Point 2: Since rights therefore are predicated on reproduction, anyone who has had children should be entitled to full rights regardless of sexual orientation, whereas those who have not had children shall be second-class citizens until such time as they shall in fact produce biological offspring. If they never do, then they shall remain second-class citizens for life.
Discuss.
Let's try something different:
Point 1: People who do not have children for ANY reason are "genetic dead-enders" and therefore should be denied the same rights as those who do in fact reproduce.
Point 2: Since rights therefore are predicated on reproduction, anyone who has had children should be entitled to full rights regardless of sexual orientation, whereas those who have not had children shall be second-class citizens until such time as they shall in fact produce biological offspring. If they never do, then they shall remain second-class citizens for life.
Discuss.
RE: Harper vows free vote
What about two lesbians, both with children from previous relationships, who choose marry? What if one of those children is a male and one is a female and they choose to produce offspring with each other.
I don't think you've thought this through at all, pigboy. I still don't see any facts, or even real arguments, to back up your opinion either.
What about two lesbians, both with children from previous relationships, who choose marry? What if one of those children is a male and one is a female and they choose to produce offspring with each other.
I don't think you've thought this through at all, pigboy. I still don't see any facts, or even real arguments, to back up your opinion either.
RE: Harper vows free vote
For that matter, I have a gay male friend who was previously married to a woman and had a child with her. Looks like he's done his procreative duty and is therefore not a "genetic dead-end", despite that fact that he is currently in a homosexual relationship and has been for many years.
It happens quite a lot, you know.
For that matter, I have a gay male friend who was previously married to a woman and had a child with her. Looks like he's done his procreative duty and is therefore not a "genetic dead-end", despite that fact that he is currently in a homosexual relationship and has been for many years.
It happens quite a lot, you know.
Re: RE: Harper vows free vote
Answer - very clear and logical, and of course the kind of thinking that would be imposed in countries such as China or Nazi Germany, but certainly not liberal democracies with any leaning toward individual rights and freedoms. Not so long ago in America the state could neuter persons in mental asylums. It would seem that pig boy would want a return to those 'good ol times'.
Summer said:
Answer - very clear and logical, and of course the kind of thinking that would be imposed in countries such as China or Nazi Germany, but certainly not liberal democracies with any leaning toward individual rights and freedoms. Not so long ago in America the state could neuter persons in mental asylums. It would seem that pig boy would want a return to those 'good ol times'.
RE: Harper vows free vote
My point exactly, Pete.
For the record: I'm a straight childless female and plan to remain that way. ;-)
I'm also an only child. I'm eee-villll, I tell you! Eee-villl!!! :twisted:
My point exactly, Pete.
For the record: I'm a straight childless female and plan to remain that way. ;-)
I'm also an only child. I'm eee-villll, I tell you! Eee-villl!!! :twisted:
Re: RE: Harper vows free vote
This was happening in Alberta until 1972. In fact, in 1998, Ralph Klein planned to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause in order to deny victims of their eugenics program the right to make a claim against the government.
PoisonPete2 said:
This was happening in Alberta until 1972. In fact, in 1998, Ralph Klein planned to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause in order to deny victims of their eugenics program the right to make a claim against the government.
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
Canada also shares that history. My friends Aunt in Alberta was deemed (mentally unfit) in the 50's and was sterilized. In the end she turned out to be more or less normal, but what really Fu*ked her up was what was done to her and the issues that followed her in her life was related to that and not the assumed mental problem.
Being Gay could only be a genetic dead ender if the family has a history of having only one child at a time... The odds of a family having only one child for generations is very unrealistic and very improbable. As soon as there are siblings that are gay and those that aren't, the straight ones will continue the family genetic line, so the point is moot.
Canada also shares that history. My friends Aunt in Alberta was deemed (mentally unfit) in the 50's and was sterilized. In the end she turned out to be more or less normal, but what really Fu*ked her up was what was done to her and the issues that followed her in her life was related to that and not the assumed mental problem.Being Gay could only be a genetic dead ender if the family has a history of having only one child at a time... The odds of a family having only one child for generations is very unrealistic and very improbable. As soon as there are siblings that are gay and those that aren't, the straight ones will continue the family genetic line, so the point is moot.
Re: RE: Harper vows free vote
Answer - LOL - Don't be surprised if a biological 'urge' kicks in late. I'm a straight male with 3 children (one at home) but I spent 11 years as a 'dharma bum' drifting around the world and various university campuses during the early period of the sexual revolution. So there may be a knock on my door at any time. One thing those years taught me was tolerance for others, a lesson lost on Harper.
Summer said:
Answer - LOL - Don't be surprised if a biological 'urge' kicks in late. I'm a straight male with 3 children (one at home) but I spent 11 years as a 'dharma bum' drifting around the world and various university campuses during the early period of the sexual revolution. So there may be a knock on my door at any time. One thing those years taught me was tolerance for others, a lesson lost on Harper.
RE: Harper vows free vote
Not bloody likely, Pete. I'm already in my 40's, and my fiance absolutely does not want children. We can't afford them right now anyway, and not only are we emigrating in the next few years, but I'm also going to go back to university in the quest for a Ph.D. No room in there for kids. If we'd gotten all this out of the way 15 years ago, it'd be a different story for both of us, quite likely.
If I were going to get a "biological urge", I'd already have it. I actually did have one about three years ago, but thankfully it passed. :wink:
Not bloody likely, Pete. I'm already in my 40's, and my fiance absolutely does not want children. We can't afford them right now anyway, and not only are we emigrating in the next few years, but I'm also going to go back to university in the quest for a Ph.D. No room in there for kids. If we'd gotten all this out of the way 15 years ago, it'd be a different story for both of us, quite likely.
If I were going to get a "biological urge", I'd already have it. I actually did have one about three years ago, but thankfully it passed. :wink:
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
This has always been my reply to the anti-SSM types: if I'm going to be supporting any rights for co-habiting couples of any configuration just so they can have sex, then forget it.
They can screw on their own time (like I did, even after my offspring appeared). The only legit reason to give any advantage to co-habiting couples is to maximise the care they can provide to their offspring so that the latter have less chance of being a burden on society later on.
But then I go on and say, if you need society's seal of approval for your "marriage" then it ain't a marriage.
Anyway, hogwild doesn't want a debate. He just wants us all to agree with him. Otherwise, he'd pony up some arguments or just admit he's wrong.
This has always been my reply to the anti-SSM types: if I'm going to be supporting any rights for co-habiting couples of any configuration just so they can have sex, then forget it.
They can screw on their own time (like I did, even after my offspring appeared). The only legit reason to give any advantage to co-habiting couples is to maximise the care they can provide to their offspring so that the latter have less chance of being a burden on society later on.
But then I go on and say, if you need society's seal of approval for your "marriage" then it ain't a marriage.
Anyway, hogwild doesn't want a debate. He just wants us all to agree with him. Otherwise, he'd pony up some arguments or just admit he's wrong.
RE: Harper vows free vote
I'll disagree with you on a couple of points, Pasta. For one thing, I don't see how marriage benefits facilitate sex, since plenty of unmarrieds (including myself) manage to have sex regardless.
The benefits of marriage aren't just about helping to care for offspring. Marriage also confers kinship upon two people who would otherwise be regarded in the eyes of the law as just friends when it comes to things like inheritance should one of them die, or making medical decisions should one be incapacitated, or even being permitted to visit in the hospital under certain circumstances (at least in the U.S., visitation in the ICU for example is often restricted to kin only) or to be present (even at the patient's request) during medical consultation, etc. It also can affect immigration situations, depending upon the country to which one is immigrating.
It's not just about kids. If marriage were about kids, my eventual marriage would be pointless, and I assure you that it is NOT pointless.
I'll disagree with you on a couple of points, Pasta. For one thing, I don't see how marriage benefits facilitate sex, since plenty of unmarrieds (including myself) manage to have sex regardless.
The benefits of marriage aren't just about helping to care for offspring. Marriage also confers kinship upon two people who would otherwise be regarded in the eyes of the law as just friends when it comes to things like inheritance should one of them die, or making medical decisions should one be incapacitated, or even being permitted to visit in the hospital under certain circumstances (at least in the U.S., visitation in the ICU for example is often restricted to kin only) or to be present (even at the patient's request) during medical consultation, etc. It also can affect immigration situations, depending upon the country to which one is immigrating.
It's not just about kids. If marriage were about kids, my eventual marriage would be pointless, and I assure you that it is NOT pointless.
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
Summer, you miss my slight tongue-in-cheek (too slight for a smiley IMO).
There were a couple of assumptions in my post based on personal experience. The first is that there are actually any benefits that come one's way via other peoples' taxes when you get married. I don't think it's so here in Canada, but the anti-SSM crowd seem to think that their taxes will be supporting these "evil" SS marriages. The reproduction-based argument is so obviously bogus because of the fact that hetero mariages are often childless, yet it's still used, and the Puritans who oppose SSM are still fixated by "living in sin" and "shacking up", that they're at a loss to explain why SSM wouldn't decrease the number of people living in sin without invoking the reproductive argument.
In this context then, the only logical union meritting special status is a chjild-rearing one, otherwise, why shouldn't brothers, sisters, or platonic friends be allowed to reap the massive societal benefits of :angel1: Marriage :angel9: ?
Quite frankly, there's no reason why you should give a rat's ass about what I or anyone else thinks about your realtionship, which I guess is my real (not tongue-in-cheek) point.
If you have found a person you love and want to celebrate that union publicly then go for it, but I don't get the mystique of the institution.
What my mate and I have is between us. I see it as a solemn commitment in which I have invested a very large part of my personal integrity. This was true before we got "married", which we did, twice in two different religious traditions.
Anyway, I'm with Pierre Trudeau on the place that the State has in the bedrooms of the nation, and I think the only beneficiaries of "marriage" as a legal institution are divorce lawyers.
I didn't mean to offend.
Summer, you miss my slight tongue-in-cheek (too slight for a smiley IMO).
There were a couple of assumptions in my post based on personal experience. The first is that there are actually any benefits that come one's way via other peoples' taxes when you get married. I don't think it's so here in Canada, but the anti-SSM crowd seem to think that their taxes will be supporting these "evil" SS marriages. The reproduction-based argument is so obviously bogus because of the fact that hetero mariages are often childless, yet it's still used, and the Puritans who oppose SSM are still fixated by "living in sin" and "shacking up", that they're at a loss to explain why SSM wouldn't decrease the number of people living in sin without invoking the reproductive argument.
In this context then, the only logical union meritting special status is a chjild-rearing one, otherwise, why shouldn't brothers, sisters, or platonic friends be allowed to reap the massive societal benefits of :angel1: Marriage :angel9: ?
Quite frankly, there's no reason why you should give a rat's ass about what I or anyone else thinks about your realtionship, which I guess is my real (not tongue-in-cheek) point.
If you have found a person you love and want to celebrate that union publicly then go for it, but I don't get the mystique of the institution.
What my mate and I have is between us. I see it as a solemn commitment in which I have invested a very large part of my personal integrity. This was true before we got "married", which we did, twice in two different religious traditions.
Anyway, I'm with Pierre Trudeau on the place that the State has in the bedrooms of the nation, and I think the only beneficiaries of "marriage" as a legal institution are divorce lawyers.
I didn't mean to offend.
RE: Harper vows free vote
Ah, I've got it, I think. It's hard to get the nuances sometimes on a forum, in the absence of tones of voice and facial expressions.
Ah, I've got it, I think. It's hard to get the nuances sometimes on a forum, in the absence of tones of voice and facial expressions.
- Status