North Carolina (in before MrFun!)

[Asher]

They're not banning homosexuality, Asher. No one is legislating to say you can't have a gay partner.

Just that if your gay partner is hospitalized, you aren't allowed to visit them when it's "family only". Or when he dies without a will, all of his assets go to his kin and not to his partner.

I DO very much care about courts deciding to invent rights as a way to implement policy that is not politically popular but they think is correct. That isn't the court system's job.

You don't understand the rulings. They aren't inventing rights, they're interpreting rights and laws in ways that you disagree with. Tough **** - that's the job of courts.

[Ben Kenobi]

Americans typically conflate hate speech with free speech because nuance is lost on them. There are plenty of restrictions on free speech in the US (slander, public panic, etc).

I'm not quite sure how calling homosexuality sinful constitutes 'slander'.

[Asher]

Well, then. Put it up for a vote, if you feel so confident. Province by province.

Yes, this is a terrific idea by someone who preaches fiscal conservatism. Let's call for a special referendum that only religious nuts want that everyone knows won't change anything and is ultimately ****ing pointless because every court in the land has also ruled that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

[Asher]

I'm not quite sure how calling homosexuality sinful constitutes 'slander'.

What the ****? Where did this come from?

Jesus ****ing Christ, Ben. Shove a dildo in your mouth, put a gerbil in your ass, pull up the fiddling priest video and back away from the keyboard.

[Ben Kenobi]

I cannot emphasize that enough.

The government should be out of the marriage game entirely.

So, IOW - you're against gay marriage. Does it feel good to be a bigot Asher?

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, this is a terrific idea by someone who preaches fiscal conservationism. Let's call for a special referendum that only religious nuts want that everyone knows won't change anything and is ultimately ****ing pointless because every court in the land has also ruled that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

Indeed. Why not put everything up for referendum. After all, if it isn't voted for province by province, how can you know the people really support it? It's not a democracy unless it's a direct democracy!

What an idiot.

[Asher]

So, IOW - you're against gay marriage. Does it feel good to be a bigot Asher?

I'm for marriage equality.

If the state is granting it, it's not fair to discriminate.

But they shouldn't be granting them.

[Hauldren Collider]

Wow, that's amazing. Ben hasn't lost his game at all in the last six months.

He's still a lying, bigoted, dishonest and above all else--mentally retarded--cuntwagon.

[Asher]

Indeed. Why not put everything up for referendum. After all, if it isn't voted for province by province, how can you know the people really support it? It's not a democracy unless it's a direct democracy!

What an idiot.

Ben and his ilk have been run out of Canadian politics for that kind of nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Day

The Alliance's direct democracy proposals, which would have required a referendum on any proposal supported by a petition signed by 3% of Canadian voters, was also frequently targeted as a suggestion of a hidden agenda. Some asserted that "special interest" groups would use the low requirements to put contentious subjects to a national referendum.Day never did endorse the 3% threshold. He maintained that he felt it was too low and that the criteria for referenda needed to be improved. The proposal was satirized by Rick Mercer of This Hour Has 22 Minutes, where he proposed a national petition for a referendum to demand that Day change his first name to Doris.

It doesn't mention it in the wiki, but they actually did get the requisite 3% of Canada to rename Stockwell to Doris.

[Guynemer]

He's still a lying, bigoted, dishonest and above all else--mentally retarded--cuntwagon.

Come now. A ****wagon sounds rather fun to me.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm for marriage equality.

If the state is granting it, it's not fair to discriminate.

But they shouldn't be granting them.

If you think the state shouldn't grant it, then you have to agree that government-recognized marriages are NOT in fact a civil right.

[Asher]

If you think the state shouldn't grant it, then you have to agree that government-recognized marriages are NOT in fact a civil right.

I believe the civil right is against discrimination. At least, this is the case in Canada. I don't care how the US does it.

There is no right to marriage - there is a right to be free from discrimination on sexual orientation, amongst other things.

[Hauldren Collider]

Come now. A ****wagon sounds rather fun to me.

The sad truth is, Ben is probably the best counterargument that exists to everything I've said in this thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you think the state shouldn't grant it, then you have to agree that government-recognized marriages are NOT in fact a civil right.

And if it's not a fundamental right, then it's perfectly ok for the state to discriminate.

[Ben Kenobi]

Indeed. Why not put everything up for referendum. After all, if it isn't voted for province by province, how can you know the people really support it? It's not a democracy unless it's a direct democracy!

Imagine - states having rights? Who knew?