Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yguy · 06-18-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cheetah
Ok, let's try this again. If only things that contribute to the greater good of society should be given "special consideration' then why should we give ice cream eating special consideration?

I'm not aware that we do, except in a restrictive sense through health regulations and the like.

Quote:

yguy, what is the difference between special consideration and making something legal? it seems to me you keep saying heterosexuals need special considerationa nd homosexuals shouldn't have it, which in practice appears to translate to heterosexual marriage should be legal, but homosexual marriage shouldn't (that IS what you have been fighting against this whole time), so I can't see the hairs you are splitting here.

"Homosexual marriage" being illegal would be two guys getting a common-law "marriage" - as some heteros do - and being arrested for it. Since there really is no such thing as homosexual marriage in the first place, it's like saying I want to make IPU's illegal. From a societal perspective, the term only has the validity that the law imparts to it - which at the moment is none.

yelyos · 06-19-2003, 09:26 PM

Please note that what was legalized in Ontario was not homosexual sex, or homosexuals living together.

The only thing legalized by this decision is a legal same-sex marriage with all its benefits. These benefits include:

a) Pension considerations (survivor benefits, etc.)
b) Court testimony benefits (i.e. Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other in court)
c) Right of dower (joint property ownership)
etc...

The legality of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with intercourse. It merely confers spousal benefits to people regardless of gender.

Calzaer · 06-19-2003, 11:38 PM

Does a dropped argument count as a ceeded argument around here? Yguy couldn't ignore more points if he had alzheimer's.

Nowhere357 · 06-20-2003, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Calzaer
Does a dropped argument count as a ceeded argument around here?

In yguys case, I say yes. At least at times, he doesn't debate in an honest fashion. Care to challenge me to prove that, yguy?

yguy · 06-20-2003, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
In yguys case, I say yes. At least at times, he doesn't debate in an honest fashion. Care to challenge me to prove that, yguy?

Knock yerself out, dude.

It's a waste of time, of course, as I could easily make as good a case for that charge as applied to you or some of my detractors. It would be a contest of WHO is right rather than WHAT is right, and I'm not dumb enough to get suckered into anything like that.

Machiavelli · 06-20-2003, 07:12 AM

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce should go ahead and adopt the slogan "If you're a gay and like to smoke some really good pot, Canada is the place for you."

Seems like a good revenue engine to me...

MzNeko · 06-20-2003, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Let's do a little though experiment: let's make heterosexual sex illegal, and wait 150 years. What is America's population, excluding products of in vitro fertilization and immigration? Essentially zero. Now, let's ban homosexual sex, but leave heteros alone. What is America's population? The same as or greater than it was.

That's why heterosexual activity deserves special consideration. It is essential for the survival of the country. Homosexual activity is not.

Well, I think it's bloody unlikely that heterosexual sex would ever be outlawed. Gays are about 10% or so of the population. That leaves about 90% that aren't tremendously likely to outlaw a favorite pastime.

But just for the sake of argument... Okay, heterosexual sex is outlawed. What happens?

Straight people keep on fucking, that's what happens! So maybe they have to do it on the quiet, but since when has a law regarding a human drive so deeply ingrained as sex ever really stopped anyone? We've had all kinds of laws over the centuries to regulate sex in one way or another - whether it's anti-gay laws, adultery laws, pre-marital sex laws, prostitution laws, laws against inter-racial sex, laws against inter-class sex, laws against particular types of sex, you name it, somewhere, legal or not, people are doing it. Oh, maybe making it illegal dissuades the faint of heart, maybe a few people get careless and get caught and punished, but on the whole - people keep right on copulating.

And so long as it's consenting adults, why the hell shouldn't they?

So have no fear yguy, if heterosexual sex were outlawed tomorrow, we'd still be here farther down the line, boinking like bunnies.

Legislating who people can have sex with does not change who individuals are attracted to. That's why anti-gay laws haven't worked - making it law that only straight sex is legal doesn't make gays one whit more attracted to the opposite sex; and making it law that only gay sex was legal would not make straights one any more attracted to the same sex.

I'm pretty sure that I didn't marry my husband just because it wasn't legal to marry another woman...

And I think it's safe to say that if gay marriage were made legal in this country tomorrow, I wouldn't be running out to marry one just because I could.

Somehow I don't think that making gay marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships legal is going to generate some big magical "turn-everybody-gay" ray.

Nowhere357 · 06-20-2003, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Knock yerself out, dude. It's a waste of time, of course, as I could easily make as good a case for that charge as applied to you or some of my detractors. It would be a contest of WHO is right rather than WHAT is right, and I'm not dumb enough to get suckered into anything like that.

It is a waste of time, other than showing others your debating tactics.

You're not interesting in challenging me to support my statement ("At least at times, he doesn't debate in an honest fashion.") I understand why, of course.

However, you claim you can make a case that I don't debate in an honest fashion? I challenge you to back that statement up. You are either lying or ridiculously mistaken. Bring it on.

Edited to add: not in this thread though. Start a new thread - the morality of debating tactics, maybe. Show why you think I'm dishonest. I'll do the same for you.

yguy · 06-20-2003, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Start a new thread - the morality of debating tactics, maybe. Show why you think I'm dishonest. I'll do the same for you.

Screw that. Start your own damn thread, and you and your pals can commiserate over how mean, rotten and stupid you think I am.

Or just get lost. It's all the same to me.

Nowhere357 · 06-20-2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Screw that. Start your own damn thread, and you and your pals can commiserate over how mean, rotten and stupid you think I am.

Or just get lost. It's all the same to me.

I have said none of those things. And I'm sticking around - deal with it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2003, 09:26 PM	#252
yelyos Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: northern suburbs of Toronto, Canada Posts: 401	Please note that what was legalized in Ontario was not homosexual sex, or homosexuals living together. The only thing legalized by this decision is a legal same-sex marriage with all its benefits. These benefits include: a) Pension considerations (survivor benefits, etc.) b) Court testimony benefits (i.e. Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other in court) c) Right of dower (joint property ownership) etc... The legality of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with intercourse. It merely confers spousal benefits to people regardless of gender.

06-19-2003, 11:38 PM	#253
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	Does a dropped argument count as a ceeded argument around here? Yguy couldn't ignore more points if he had alzheimer's.

06-20-2003, 07:12 AM	#256
Machiavelli Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: South Georgia Posts: 1,676	The Canadian Chamber of Commerce should go ahead and adopt the slogan "If you're a gay and like to smoke some really good pot, Canada is the place for you." Seems like a good revenue engine to me...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.