Land of the Free

[Nubclear]

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.

I would say something in response to this, however Ming would ban me so unfrtunately I must hold my tongue

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.

There was a time when the majority of Americans supported Jim Crow laws.

Secondly, to grant equal marriage protection and privileges of couples of same gender, does not take away benefits for heterosexual couples who are married.

[chequita guevara]

Yeah, if we went by what most people wanted, it would have been illegal for me to marry my wife. Sometimes the majority is wrong. That's why we have an independent judiciary.

[Ben Kenobi]

There was a time when the majority of Americans supported Jim Crow laws.

Do gays have to ride the back of the bus?

Are there washrooms for gay, and not-gay?

Are there schools for the gay, and not gay?

Where is this Jim Crow? We have no Jim Crow here in Canada. To compare the two, is to grossly misrepresent the situation in the US, where black men could be hung for violating Jim Crow laws. Where is the equivalent here?

Secondly, to grant equal marriage protection and privileges of couples of same gender, does not take away benefits for heterosexual couples who are married.

True, but this is no longer about equal rights, but rather, whether one group of people ought to recieve special benefits not accorded to others.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, if we went by what most people wanted, it would have been illegal for me to marry my wife. Sometimes the majority is wrong. That's why we have an independent judiciary.

What independent judiciary? A majority of the court has been packed with nominees of Mssr. Chretien. Up here, the PM can directly appoint justices.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Do gays have to ride the back of the bus?

Are there washrooms for gay, and not-gay?

Are there schools for the gay, and not gay?

Where is this Jim Crow? We have no Jim Crow here in Canada. To compare the two, is to grossly misrepresent the situation in the US, where black men could be hung for violating Jim Crow laws. Where is the equivalent here?

See, yet again you seem to be unable to interpret the point correctly. He's not saying the two are exactly the same, but rather pointing out instances where it is now commonly accepted that the majority of people are incorrect.

Personally, I label the majority incorrect when they become hateful and bigoted towards a specific group.

But thats just me

[Gibsie]

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.

Good lord, why didn't you say so?! I never realised that part of the bill meant you had to pay towards the wedding ceremonies. Or do you mean that you're paying through lack of tax paid on lawyers' fees that will be lost from gay spouses having to go through the courts to get rights such as next of kin? Seriously, how much does it cost to allow two two men to marry?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ah of course, you want to roll out the most vocal hicks to vote against 'those horrible puffs'.

Like this fellow, whom I quoted above?

[Ben Kenobi]

Good lord, why didn't you say so?! I never realised that part of the bill meant you had to pay towards the wedding ceremonies.

Spousal benefits provided come out of taxpayers' pockets.

Gay marriage isn't a private issue, in fact, it is essentially a public issue, since how can you have a marriage recognised without a public witness?

If you want to make all marriages private, then all spousal benefits need to be tossed.

[Gibsie]

Can you just give me one example of a spousal benefit that the taxpayers provide for, just so I can get my head around it, please?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Spousal benefits provided come out of taxpayers' pockets.

Gay marriage isn't a private issue, in fact, it is essentially a public issue, since how can you have a marriage recognised without a public witness?

If you want to make all marriages private, then all spousal benefits need to be tossed.

Why should single people subsidise the married then? This argument could go on ad infinitum...

[Provost Harrison]

Plus the witnesses are hardly just dragged in off the street now, they are people who the couple know.

Why do persist on being such a bigot Ben, it doesn't make any sense? Who are you to stand in judgement?

[Gibsie]

Well if being a witness is an issue , I'm pretty certain that he won't be invited to any gay marriages, much less forced to witness them. It's not like jury service

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Like this fellow, whom I quoted above?

And who is this Mr Moustachio?

[Asher]

Socialist dreamer.