Subject:
|
Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:41:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
274 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> 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
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 b/w *2* people--refusing to allow three isn't sexual
discrimination, or not allowing the coupling of a person with a non-person (say
a dog) is not sexual discrimination
We're talking about joining a loving couple in marriage--to prevent the marriage
based on sex alone is against the law--the rest is just a "straw man" arguement
which has no bearing on the discrimination issue.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
| (...) Aren't the courts supposed to be a part of the gov't? There is a process. (...) Ah, so you are a unisex restroom proponent then. (...) Bigot! I and my 4 female lovers and 1 male lover are being discriminated against! Who says it's only between (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
