Subject:
|
Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:32:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
133 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2982596.stm
>
> Yes this is a thing about Canada... so don't worry 'bout it...
> Devalued the institution of marriage? What, by letting caring loving couples
> partake in the institution of marriage? Or would Mr Rogusky prefer a ban on
> marriages he doesn't approve of? Stay out of their marriages, Derek, and
> they'll stay outta yours.
The institution of marriage is devalued, and here is how. If you allow same-sex
marriages (remember, this isn't a ban on homosexual marriages), then you open
pandora's box WRT to marriage. What about three people who want to get married?
How about 4? If you object to those scenarios, on what basis would you argue?
What about if I want to marry my dog? Are you then going to discriminate
against me? Pretty soon the institution becomes meaningless.
This is a societal issue, and I think each society should decide, based on its
values, what they want to recognize. A salient quotation:
He accuses the Ontario court of "vastly overstepping its boundaries" in a
decision which "shut out" democratically elected representatives.
This is an example of one of my pet peeves-- legislation from the bench. The
liberals know that the GP would never go for this in any sort of vote, so they
simply create law through judicial fiat.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
| (...) Someone has to lead... and if it's not the gov't *and* the courts, than who? Further, *any* law that excludes a person due to his or her sex is sexual discrimination--we're not talking changing the number of people in a marriage--marriage is (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
| (...) Secularly speaking, I don't know that there's a problem with devaluing marriage. If there is one, I'd like to hear it articulated without appealing to provincial wisdom or religious values. As a matter of secular law, marriage is a contract, (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
| (...) ...Mightily resisting the urge to call John names!... My most civil response to all of the above is: So what?! Let's leave the dog scenario to the side as it is "species out of bounds." The point of marriage generally is to legally bind people (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Git outta my bedroom!!
|
| (URL) this is a thing about Canada... so don't worry 'bout it... " It dismisses what it sees as the government's "ridiculous argument" that it needs to go slow in framing any legal changes because there is no "consensus" in Canada. "All Canadians (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
