Land of the Free

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yeah, let's have a referendum. What is Paul Martin afraid of? Let the people have a say.

Some people are afraid of tyranny of the majority.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yeah, let's have a referendum. What is Paul Martin afraid of? Let the people have a say.

Ah of course, you want to roll out the most vocal hicks to vote against 'those horrible puffs'. Let's face it, you are advocating a tyranny of the majority rather than the right of a minority which, I will stress again, is none of your business whatsoever.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Gibsie
It's not like people like Ben Kenobi would cease their complaints over gay marriage if a referendum (In favour of gay marriage) went through, so what's the point? But he needn't worry, because the beauty of legalising gay marriage means that while he is free to marry another man, he is not obliged to. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one! Everyone wins!

No, because clearly it shows that gay marriage has a very bad effect on moral. I mean just look. OMG! they are marrying!! I mean... OMG!!! Marriage can only be between a man and a woman... **** man listen to George W. He is dah man that tells you! Man+Woman = Marriage, Man+Man = sin = teh evil terrorist.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


No, because clearly it shows that gay marriage has a very bad effect on moral. I mean just look. OMG! they are marrying!! I mean... OMG!!! Marriage can only be between a man and a woman... **** man listen to George W. He is dah man that tells you! Man+Woman = Marriage, Man+Man = sin = teh evil terrorist.

IF GAYS MARRY THEY WILL DIVORCE DIVORCE IS A SIN BAN GAY MARRIAGE NOW!11!!!11

[Provost Harrison]

I think me and MrFun had exactly the same thought almost simultaneously. Which is scary

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


No, because clearly it shows that gay marriage has a very bad effect on moral. I mean just look. OMG! they are marrying!! I mean... OMG!!! Marriage can only be between a man and a woman... **** man listen to George W. He is dah man that tells you! Man+Woman = Marriage, Man+Man = sin = teh evil terrorist.

Well, you know what they say . . . . .

you can get a medal with honors for killing a man in combat.

But if you're a man who loves another man, you will be dishonorably discharged.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think me and MrFun had exactly the same thought almost simultaneously. Which is scary

Yes we did. Otherwise, I would have sued you for deliberate plagarism.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think me and MrFun had exactly the same thought almost simultaneously. Which is scary

MrFun and I.

[MrFun]

RUN!!!!!!!!!!!

IT'S A GRAMMAR NAZI!!!!!!!!!

[joncha]

OMG YOUR GOOD AT GRAMMAR TASS!

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


MrFun and I.

STFU, to put it mildly

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by joncha
OMG YOUR GOOD AT GRAMMAR TASS!

Gentle sir,
If you desire success in these endeavors, you might benefit by toning down your rhetoric.
With precious little patience for pithy presumption,
Tassadar

[Ben Kenobi]

Why? What's popular isn't always the right thing to do.

First of all, do you admit that the majority of the people oppose gay marriage?

Secondly, you are very right. Why should it be right for society to restrict marriage to one man and one woman? Why doesn't society recognise all partnerships, of any sort on par with marriage? Because the recognition of marriage has benefits for the society that can only be found within the union of a man and a woman.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Because the recognition of marriage has benefits for the society that can only be found within the union of a man and a woman.

Not it doesn't.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not like people like Ben Kenobi would cease their complaints over gay marriage if a referendum (In favour of gay marriage) went through, so what's the point?

If it went against me? Then I would have to eat crow, and say that this is what ought to be law, because most Canadians want this. Instead, you are making the case, that the judiciary has rejected, that this is an issue to be decided by the justices.

The supreme court has rejected any constitutional link between the establishment of gay marriage, and between section 15 equality rights. What this means, is that such marriage rights are irrelevant to the constitution. If there were such a right, why wouldn't the court have established the constitutionality of gay marriage according to section 15?

Rather, they have taken a different route, that marriage is to be determined by the legislature, and the representatives duly elected by the people. As such, it is no longer a question, of a tyranny of the majority, because the courts feel the majority ought to have a say on this issue.

But he needn't worry, because the beauty of legalising gay marriage means that while he is free to marry another man, he is not obliged to. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one! Everyone wins!

Sure, but why should I pay for the benefits? As such, I do get a say into marriage, as does everyone else here in Canada.