Subject:
|
Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:13:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
183 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> 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?
Aren't the courts supposed to be a part of the gov't? There is a process.
> Further, *any* law that excludes a person due to his or her sex is sexual
> discrimination
Ah, so you are a unisex restroom proponent then.
> --we're not talking changing the number of people in a
> marriage--marriage is b/w *2* people
Bigot! I and my 4 female lovers and 1 male lover are being discriminated
against! Who says it's only between *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
Of course it is. The institution of marriage itself is discriminatory.
> 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.
The issue is discrimination period. You are conveniently deciding in which way
you want to allow the discrimination. Society makes discriminations all the
time, based on their value system. Discrimination is not necessarily a bad
thing, it defines a given culture's set of norms.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
