How would you vote on the Canadian Alliance motion?

[Ben Kenobi]

So by banning marriage for gays, are you not making this worse?

Asher:

Actually, I used to agree with you. However your argument assumes that all a homosexual can expect to have is a homosexual relationship.

Now, we both know that's not true.

If you don't believe me, than ask me for sources.


Mr. Fun:

I hate it when people use slippery slope arguments, don't you??

It is a slippery slope. I just don't see the justification for 'to the exclusion of all others.' Without a good counter-argument for why the slope ought to stop, than I feel a slippery slope becomes quite valid.

[MrFun]

And what about my other arguments -- don't get lazy, now.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Asher:

Actually, I used to agree with you. However your argument assumes that all a homosexual can expect to have is a homosexual relationship.

Now, we both know that's not true.

If you don't believe me, than ask me for sources.

All a "homosexual can expect" is all a person should expect: the right to marry the person they love, and the right not to get stoned because of who they love.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's your problem, and not mine. Fortunately society is moving away from your God-fearing dogma into something far more rational, civil, and tolerant.

You also cite an article explaining "why homosexuals don't lead long lives", from a laughable source, but even that mentions that one factor could be loneliness and lack of monogamous relationships. But at the same time, you oppose the social structures that allow homosexuals to be less lonely (be more open about who they are) and have monogamous relationships like heterosexuals do (in marriage).

[David Floyd]

It is a slippery slope. I just don't see the justification for 'to the exclusion of all others.' Without a good counter-argument for why the slope ought to stop, than I feel a slippery slope becomes quite valid.

Even so, why should the state tell you that you can't enter into a contract with two or more people?

Obviously, you can't enter into a contract with your pig, unless the pig can demonstrate that it is competent to enter into the contract, so don't try to pull out the beastiality marriage nonsense argument. Your so-called slippery slope ends here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Funny how your argument fails to rebut the studies.


Mr. Fun:

Um -- I got news for you. Gays do not decide to have sex with someone of the opposite gender, based on whether or not they will have legally recognized unions with someone of the same gender.

So we have a fixed sexual orientation?

As for going to Canada to get married, why don't you ask Boris if that appeals to him?

I got news for ya -- gays value family just as heterosexuals value family -- just not in the homophobic, narrow sense.
To deny this, is to deny that gays have the same universal humanistic traits that heterosexuals have.

just not in the narrow homophobic sense? Seems like you've got your mind all made up! How can they value the same things when they are all homophobic?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Asher:

Funny how your argument fails to rebut the studies.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can realize why people in 1970, over 70, are less likely to admit they're gay.

[Ben Kenobi]

David:

Not ignoring you, just trying to keep up with the others.

Even so, why should the state tell you that you can't enter into a contract with two or more people?

Fair enough, but again, you now have to deal not only with homosexuality, but also with polygamy.

Secondly, marriage = contract is also disputable, if you consider Shi's arguments. The state recognises marriage, it does not redefine. Marriage exists outside the jurisdiction of both the courts and the state in terms of the definition.

[notyoueither]

But, which jurisdiction outside of the state should the state recognise?

If no churches were willing to perform the ceremony, there would be no controversy, would there?

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can realize why people in 1970, over 70, are less likely to admit they're gay.

Will their names be plastered for everyone to see? There is no reason, so long as their identities are protected.

All a "homosexual can expect" is all a person should expect: the right to marry the person they love, and the right not to get stoned because of who they love.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's your problem, and not mine. Fortunately society is moving away from your God-fearing dogma into something far more rational, civil, and tolerant.

Tolerant.


Since when do I advocate stoning gay people? There are many people who have found their happiness by leaving the gay lifestyle. But then, these would be 'silly' stories, would they not?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Asher:
Will their names be plastered for everyone to see? There is no reason, so long as their identities are protected.

They grew up in a time where homosexuals were jailed. You do it out of habit.

If I had been asked if I was gay in high school I'd have said no, even if it was anonymous.

Haven't you taken a basic statistics course? It's absurd to conclude that gays die faster today because in 1970 people over 70 were unlikely to say they were gay. Do you not see the mountains of problems with that?

They need to teach you social science boys some more science and math, obviously.

Tolerant.


Since when do I advocate stoning gay people?

You don't, but a while ago "your type" did (see, stereotyping can be done by everybody).
And in 50 years, people would laugh at even the notion of not allowing gay people the same rights as others. It'll be right up there with stoning gay people, or slavery. A downright basic infringement of equality based on "tradition" of the religious majority.

I will even go so far as say in 300 years, people will look back at religion as we see it today with the same eyes we look at cults like the Heaven's Gate today.

There are many people who have found their happiness by leaving the gay lifestyle. But then, these would be 'silly' stories, would they not?

Nope, if they truly are happy by "leaving the gay lifestyle" -- more power to them. Fail to see why that's relevant at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

But, which jurisdiction outside of the state should the state recognise?

If no churches were willing to perform the ceremony, there would be no controversy, would there?

Good argument.

My only rebuttal would be to put the vote to the people to determine what ought to be done, since the ruling will affect people either way.

Secondly, is that the reason cited by these MPs for the bill, that they ought to respect the decision of the United church over all the others?

[Ben Kenobi]

They need to teach you social science boys some more science and math, obviously.

/me recalls being a Physics major. I'm fine so long as we don't get into second-year calculus. That's why I left my program.

Haven't you taken a basic statistics course?

No, have you?

I grant that the rate of response will be less than the reality just from confidentiality, but your hypothesis of 'automatic' reflex seems specious.

Secondly, you need to quantify the lack of response to account for the remarkable absence of older men.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


* Ben Kenobi recalls being a Physics major. I'm fine so long as we don't get into second-year calculus. That's why I left my program.

Apologies, thought you were poli-sci for some reason.

No, have you?

Yes, and then some...

I grant that the rate of response will be less than the reality just from confidentiality, but your hypothesis of 'automatic' reflex seems specious.

Secondly, you need to quantify the lack of response to account for the remarkable absence of older men.

I need to do no such thing, because one basic elementary law of statistics: correlation does not equal causation.

My prof made us chant that repeatedly since the less guided confuse correlation with causation to prove a (undefended) point all too often.

There's fundamental problems with that "report"

Social conditioning (admitting you're gay) and surrendering to always pretending to be straight -- after all, when you're 70 there's no real point to come out

The age of the study -- health in the 1970s is considerably different than it is now

No other studies seem to support it, whatsoever

The source of the interpretation of the study we're given is from a laughably religious-nutcase website rallying against the evil "homosexual agenda".

Correlation does not equal causation

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

No prob. Arguments over qualifications generally devolve into pissing contests. I'm actually a history major with a minor in English, believe it or not. I just like to dabble in Poli Sci and Philosophy.

The source of the interpretation of the study we're given is from a laughably religious-nutcase website rallying against the evil "homosexual agenda".

So Kinsey is a 'religious nutcase'?

No other studies seem to support it, whatsoever

The site cited many studies.

The age of the study -- health in the 1970s is considerably different than it is now

True, it would have been before AIDS.

Social conditioning (admitting you're gay) and surrendering to always pretending to be straight -- after all, when you're 70 there's no real point to come out

No consequence for the participants to engage in the study with regards to confidentiality. Granted some will still refuse to answer truthfully, but they will be a small minority of study participants.

Regarding correlation = causation, it is by far your best point. What are the reasons why gay people would not live as long? I've listed a few, depression, mental health, rectal infections, promiscuity, drug abuse.

[Asher]

Depression and mental health are direct products of people in society that rally against their rights. They feel like second-class citizens, and they are under this light.

Promiscuity and drug abuse are simply ridiculous to mention, not only is that an unfair stereotype of the gay community it's also by far a minority. Probably very likely comparable to the promiscuity and drug abuse by many straight men in college.

Either way, there won't be any kind of evidence either way until a longnitudnal study is done, rather than latitudnal study. The entire basis of the studies mentioned are unstable and open to interpretation as far as I'm concerned, and outdated.

[Ben Kenobi]

Probably very likely comparable to the promiscuity and drug abuse by many straight men in college.

100's of partners? Unlikely.

Either way, there won't be any kind of evidence either way until a longnitudnal study is done, rather than latitudnal study

"involving the repeated observation or examination of a set of subjects over time with respect to one or more study variables."

I don't know if any have been done. I could look into that though.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
100's of partners? Unlikely.

Unlikely for both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, what do you know. I found one.

Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Beautrais AL. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56(10):876-80.

"Fergusson et al reported a 21-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1,265 individuals in Christchurch, New Zealand. Among 1,007 individuals, 2.8% were homosexual or bisexual as assessed by orientation and relationships after age 16. Compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals were more likely to experience: "

· depression (OR = 4.0; 95% CI = 1.8 - 9.3)

· generalized anxiety disorder (OR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.2 - 6.5)

· conduct disorder (OR = 3.8; 95% CI = 1.7 - 8.7)

· nicotine dependence (OR = 5.0; 95% CI = 2.3 - 10.9)

· other substance abuse and/or dependence (OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 0.9 - 4.2)

· multiple disorders (OR = 5.9; 95% CI = 2.4 - 14.8)

· suicidal ideation (OR = 5.4; 95% CI = 2.4 - 12.2)

· suicide attempts (OR = 6.2; 95% CI = 2.7 - 14.3)

The most elevated risk was for suicidal behavior and multiple disorders. Homosexuals and bisexuals had similar social, family, and childhood backgrounds as the controls, but tended to have experienced a higher rate of parental change during childhood and were slightly more likely to have criminally offending parents. Controlling for increased parental change and parental criminal offending left either similar associations or slightly higher ones than the unadjusted estimates.

[Asher]

I absolutely agree that sexual orientation has an effect on mental problems. In fact, I'm a stunning example.

I suffer from the top 2 on that list, in fact, and am being treated for it.

The problem isn't homosexuality itself, but society's interaction with homosexuality. Being forced to live in a closet while everyone assumes you're straight, etc. can f*ck you up pretty well.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem isn't homosexuality itself, but society's interaction with homosexuality. Being forced to live in a closet while everyone assumes you're straight, etc. can f*ck you up pretty well.

The study goes on to say:

"In this sample, the authors showed that adolescent anxiety disorders, irrespective of sexual orientation, correlated with later risks of anxiety disorder, depression, illicit drug dependence, and failure to attend university, after controlling for the confounding effects of socio-familial and individual factors. So-called homophobia is obviously not behind this find. "

[Drake Tungsten]

Looks like there's still hope for Canada...

[Asher]

That's interesting, because then what does it attribute for the increased risk?

Perhaps this study has accidentally shown that homosexuals have different chemical imbalances in their brains which make them far more prone to those disorders as well.

[Jon Miller]

I think the state does have an interest in supporting stable relationships since this helps the state to be more stable (better kids, and the people in the relationships are better off also)

so I think the state should support marriage

however, the state is also made up of homosexuals, and should assist them in serious stable longterm monogamous relationships

whether we call them marriages is no big deal to me

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Looks like there's still hope for Canada...

How so? The CA motion was defeated in a free vote.

And Ben: the fact that 70 year-olds in 1970 were less likely to say that they were gay in no way leads to the conclusion that gays have shorter lifespans. To determine that, you'd have to do a study which took a group of gays and track their mortality rates over time wrt a control group. Ask yourself: If I ask 100 people in their twenties if they are regular internet users and then ask 100 people in their 70s the same question, will I get the same answer? Why not?

Here's a clue: it has nothing to do with mortality rates for internet users...

[KrazyHorse]

This was the same motion passed overwhelmingly in 1999, by the way.

[Wittlich]

Well said Asher!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

just not in the narrow homophobic sense? Seems like you've got your mind all made up! How can they value the same things when they are all homophobic?

Are you Boddington's DL?


Homophobes who claim they value family, have this narrow, constrictive view of what a family entails, so as to exclude homosexuals.

They do not want to acknowledge the fact that many homosexuals do value family.

[Q Classic]

when someone can prove to me that straight people do less damage to the institution of marriage by divorcing half the time, cohabiting, and getting married willy-nilly, maybe then i'll be willing to listen to their arguments saying that gay marriage cheapens the institution.
if they're trying so hard to get something that so many straight people are treating like trash (divorces starting from us$250, according to an ad on the cta), why not let them have it?

i mean, for goodness sake, if straight people are going to go all pious by talking about the "sanctity of marriage", then why the fcuk don't they act like it's sacred?

marriage is a sacred and holy bond. it was once, and always has been between a man and a woman. but times change, and unless straight people can once again show that marriage is what they say it is, then they really have no business being so hypocritical.

[FrustratedPoet]

[Q Classic]

?