Previous  1 ... 14  15  16  17  18  19  20 ... 28  Next

C'mon Arctic, nobody listens to you.

   

This from the voice of experience

   

Or in favour of it possibly involving a large number of genes, most of which might lean a person one way or the other, but few (if any) of which would decisively force the issue on their own. And it would be reckless to ignore environmental issues, be they chemical, social, or whatever. Some genes lie there quietly, until something activates them, so you can't really isolate genetics from environment.

I don't think there's a single gay gene any more than there's a smart gene, or an ugly gene. But I also think that it doesn't matter. Whether it's one gene, 50 genes, unusual hormonal stuff going on in the prenatal period, or whatever, all that matters for those who want to make a political football of the issue is whether or not it's always a matter of choice. If some percentage of people, however small, are gay by nature, then it makes for an easy argument that they deserve identical rights to straight people. If it is always a choice, and never anything more, then those who equate being gay with being sinful or diseased can more easily argue that it should be discouraged, and that gays deserve no right to marry or whatever. Otherwise, few people would care about causes. It's all about the politics.

I think it's kind of dumb that discussions like that happen at all. It seems to be the general consensus in contemporary North America that society shouldn't get its panties in a bunch over what adults consent to in their bedrooms, so 90% of the matter is already disposed of. The only big item left is marriage.

It used to be that people who wanted to get married would stand in front of their village and both announce the fact, and it was a done deal. Later the church got involved, and there's certainly no harm in it if people want a blessing on the thing. But then the government got involved. While I can think of some possible good that could come out of that, none of it applies in a literate society where the genders are intended to have parity. Go back to the old way, and all that happens is that every marriage is a common law marriage -- there's nothing wrong with that. Or we could even stop taking legal cognisance of marriage altogether. If I put a girlfriend on the deed to my house, the car registration, the bank account, my insurance, put her in my will, and gave her a power of attorney, then it's hard to see what difference marrying her in an official, government-sanctioned format would make. That's more rights than a lot of married people who signed prenuptual agreements have.

So I don't care what the answer is, vis-a-vis genetics, etc. Many laws of the malum prohibitum sort have lately lost whatever popular support they may have had, and government restrictions on marriage seems to be going that way. The people who get married are the ones who're going to have to live with the consequences, so let them marry however many of whatever genders of people they want. The boom it would cause in the field of divorce law would probably be good for the economy.

   

Jamie, you've said that in response to Lily numerous times now through this thread. From an objective & unaware standpoint, this would appear to have something to do that is somewhat "personal" if you will, between the two of you.

I ask you to please keep your personal opinions of Lily out of this thread. They are of no valuable contribution to this thread or the topic at hand, and while we get that you don't believe a word she has to say, repeatedly posting the above quotation only serves to confuse the rest of us.

   

How about a personal opinion about you?

   

There's people working on trying to isolate a smart gene, and if you think there isn't an ugly gene, you should meet the people who live next door to me.



Oh, good. A non-controversial topic.

Yes, the state got involved. Probably a mistake. I think the way out is to back track to a point where religions can hold marriages, and the state simply registers the creation of the marital estate.

It's hard to say exactly what interest the state has in marriages anymore. Aside from keeping track of assets, all there is is ensuring that children are provided for. I suppose fifty years ago or more, when women did not have careers, it was necessary to see to her support as well, but that's all but over as an issue.

But as to gay marriage, the real politics of that is that gay advocates of same sex marriage want to be able to say they're "just as good" as straights and can get married just as much as straight people can. After all, we've both just said that marriage is almost meaningless today, so they can't be doing it for that. You're right that if you did all those things for your girlfriend (bank account, life insurance, retirement), a court would probably find you effectively married anyway, (and even award alimony), you could also do the same for your boyfriend.

They want the symbolism as well, that's all its about.

   

In Canada, I think that's largely true. Marriage may be the most convenient way to accomplish union, but others work for the most part. In the US there are probably more significant practical issues, like the impossibility of putting your unoffocial spouse(s) on health insurance plans, or giving them rights to survivorship in Social Security, etc.

But, without worrying about those sorts of details, my position is that the government shouldn't meddle in anything where there's no clear benefit to be derived from it -- that the government should default to leaving things alone.

From that perspective, polygamy and gay marriage should be permitted, simply because nobody's ever shown any reason why they shouldn't. Whether or not gays and straights (or monogamists and polygamists) are naturally equal doesn't even come into play.

   

I agree Jamie with your above post, I have no issue with same sex marrage. Let us spread the misery, nes pas.

This however was the topic of this thread: As a result of a Human Rights Commission case brought by two homosexual men, a “married” gay couple called Murray and Peter Corren, the two men have been granted an extraordinary say in all school curricula from kindergarten to grade 12 in British Columbia schools. Their role is to ensure that all courses are inclusive and gay-friendly.

Two men are now allowed (in fact will prolly make a fortune in consult fees) to dictate the curricula based on their Sexual Preferances. This is wrong, leave sex in health class and out of Math. Christ this is beyond pandering to the Namby Pamby PC correct nut bars in Vancouber. What's next a classroom exhibit on "The Deed", who cares what these PC drama queens want-except to make a job out of teaching people how to treat people who have sex with other people.

Canada needs to grow a spine, Gays have equal rights under the law now. STFU and do some good for other causes and stop whining for more.

Regarding Jamie being insulting, why target him Pershiana? Others are doing the same thing including Lilly. What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

   

Perhaps, but you could just as easily achieve that goal by making minor changes to a pile of government regulations, you don't need to change marriage to do it.

As I'm sure you're aware.



I'd agree. But I don't want to skip over the fact that people DO want to see government reflect the values of the community. And I think they're entitled to that. The alternative is to make government a value-neutral tool, which might be efficient, but will inspire no loyalty, affection, or allegiance. Government should be more than a well-designed urinal.

I would be happiest to see it always decided by ballot. Province-wide or state-wide. No doubt in some places it would win, some places it would lose.

   

Yes, we all expressed opinions on that topic some pages ago, and wandered off topic after that.

Our bad.

   

I'm going to sue Vancouver schools so they will make the curriculum Jaime_Souviens-friendly.

   

Well, we may differ on that point, then. While I don't think that true and complete value-neutrality is either desirable or possible, I would find a relatively value-neutral government to be very inspiring.

And on that note, I think we're done.

   

Lily is a liar.

Lily does not have the character to admit she is wrong.

   

Jamie you can quote personal opinions of me all you want, it wouldn't amount to much since you don't really know me.... but if it amuses you I suppose go right ahead.

My point was rather this... if you can debate the topic at hand, and refute another's statements and points, rather than refuting the individual, it lends more credence to your own argument. That's all.

   

Jamie wrote: Lily is a liar.

Lily does not have the character to admit she is wrong.

Wow quite the Rebuttall Jamie, how childish of you. Jamie your post are a pleasure to read, you are articulate and intelligent but the above is not exceptable. Lilly has every right to oppose your opinion in a rebuttall post with out you trailing behind her like a 14 year old child screaming "You's a liar".

Persiana, you are bang on sister.

   

Previous  1 ... 14  15  16  17  18  19  20 ... 28  Next