Land of the Free

[Ben Kenobi]

You're continuing to make the distortion by ignoring the real point of the analogy,

Which was what?

Gay people are a protected class under the criminal code of Canada, Mr. Fun.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

That's a very good question. Why should society provide any form of spousal benefits? Should single people be excluded from this public discussion, or should they be able to have a say?

[MrFun]

The point of my analogy is that the majority does not always favor equal rights protection, and instead, favor undemocratic, and bigoted forms of discrimination.

So would majority rule be legitimate in cases where the majority wish to preserve any form of legal discrimination against a minority group?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Gibsie:

Not a problem.

Sorry for the delay.

One benefit, spouses get, is to share their household income with each other, which allows them to reduce their income tax.

Arguing against gay marriage is one thing, arguing that gay life partners should not have the same access to joining their incomes as straight life partners do is a new low for you. Thanks for the response, you friendly bigot, you.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


And who is this Mr Moustachio?

Jack Layton. Good guy

[Ben Kenobi]

The point of my analogy is that the majority does not always favor equal rights protection, and instead, favor undemocratic, and bigoted forms of discrimination.

How is such a decision, undemocratic, if the majority of the people are opposed? The definition, of a democratic decision, is one that is approved by the majority.

Secondly, what makes discrimination bigoted? Is it bigoted to say that those in wheelchairs ought to recieve wheelchair ramps, because as an able bodied person, you are discriminated against?

[KrazyHorse]

Ben, you have some real problems. I foresee a heart attack in your future. You're a ****ing postbot when the word "gay" is mentioned.

[Ben Kenobi]

arguing that gay life partners should not have the same access to joining their incomes as straight life partners do is a new low for you. Thanks for the response, you friendly bigot, you.

Where have I said that spouses ought to include those whom are not married?

I agree, the two forms of 'life partners' ought not to be treated differently from each other. Neither should receive spousal compensation.

[KrazyHorse]

i.e. get a ****ing life, dude.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


How is such a decision, undemocratic, if the majority of the people are opposed? The definition, of a democratic decision, is one that is approved by the majority.

Secondly, what makes discrimination bigoted? Is it bigoted to say that those in wheelchairs ought to recieve wheelchair ramps, because as an able bodied person, you are discriminated against?

IMO, part of the ideal of democracy is the concept of equal rights, or even more fundamentally, individual freedom.

Secondly, your wheelchair example is just too fallacious. No able-bodied person is discriminated against in that instance, obviously, because that person still has access to the building.

[Ben Kenobi]

i.e. get a ****ing life, dude.

Sure, I'd rather be working.

[Gibsie]

"I agree, the two forms of 'life partners' ought not to be treated differently from each other. Neither should receive spousal compensation"

Then that's not a reason to be against gay marriage, that' a reason to be against modifying the benefits of marriage. It's like being wanting pot to stay illegal because you don't think that cigarettes or cannabis should be smoked in restaurants. An utter non sequitur- and not one that makes you look like a decent human being.

[Ben Kenobi]

part of the ideal of democracy is the concept of equal rights, or even more fundamentally, individual freedom.

So how are individual freedoms violated by not receiving spousal benefits? I agree, society shouldn't bar gay people from associating with other gay people, under individual freedoms. I do object to the notion that individual freedoms necessarily rely upon marriage. One can be free without getting married.

Secondly, your wheelchair example is just too fallacious. No able-bodied person is discriminated against in that instance, obviously, because that person still has access to the building.

So, if the outcome of the benefits is to allow those who are handicapped to acheive similar outcomes, it doesn't count as discrimination?

What about a student who is mentally handicapped, getting more time on a test. Is that discrimination, or not? What if no matter how much time is given, he still fails? Should he be given a pass, so to acheive an equal outcome as his brighter peers?

[Mercator]

Ben, the only argument I think I've ever heard you give that only the union of a man and woman benefit society have to do with them being able to have children.

But having children is in no way a condition to getting married, nor vice versa. The fact is that many married couples don't have kids and many unmarried couples do.

If it's really about raising kids, wouldn't it be much more productive and efficient to simply have child benefits and no benefits to marriage per se?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

TO: ALL HOMOPHOBES
FROM: THE POPE

EVERYONE GET UP AND RUN DAMMIT - THE GAY AGENDA IS UPON US.


signed - J Paul II

p.s. take your choir boys with you - we might be in hiding for a while until the Agenda blows over.