 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
NYE - quote:
Where was that universal right of man enunciated? |
In my last post to you. 
quote:
Hmmm. Yes, it is a bugger we can't keep them darkies out, ain't it? |
Hmmm...from homosexuals to "darkies" and accusations of racism? I'm sure quite a few black people would reject your attempt to equate them with homosexuals. You asked what rights might be violated and I told you. We all have the freedom of association, including racists and people who don't like homosexuals. If you deny this right for others, don't complain if government starts telling you which people you can associate with. And please don't complain about your freedom being violated since you didn't care when it was someone else's freedom being attacked (with your support).
quote:
Sorry to be blunt, but the point of rights is that all enjoy them, not just the priviledged few. |
I have a right to trespass on your property? I have the right to determine whom you can or cannot associate with? That "right" imposes a burden on others against their will...therefore it isn't a right... If an apartment owner wants to cater to single people without kids, he has every right to refuse entry to married people with or without children... Why? Because it's his property, not yours.
quote:
If discrimination is wrong, then it is wrong. |
Not all wrongs require government intervention. Remember, government operates by seizing the labor of the citizenry under threat of violence, even death. So a wrong must be committed to correct what you call a wrong...Which wrong is greater? Armed robbery on a massive scale - "taxes" - or refusing to allow a homosexual to live on your property? And even if you can accept "taxation" as morally acceptable, consider the action of the wrong-doer and your actions. He refuses to allow a black person to live on his property. And for this offense, you hire people to threaten (or take, if "necessary") his life.
quote:
Society is moving to accept homosexuality as a fact, not a disease. |
Diseases and homosexuality aren't facts?
quote:
Yes, some people will have to be dragged along by the short hairs. So what? |
Obviously freedom is not high on your list of priorities. Just pray the monster you help create doesn't turn on you someday...
quote:
Just how different is this from other discriminated against minorities? |
There's a difference between behavior and skin color.
quote:
So we're talking general principles of marriage and libertarianism, and not just gay marriage and reality. So this can be ejected from the debate. |
Not if the benefits being won impose burdens on others against their will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
techumseh,
Your assumptions are amusing, if not the indication of an idiot.
btw, here's back at you, from your own source:
quote:
Exclusive Powers of the Provincial Legislatures
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws
in relation to matters coming within the Classes of Subject
next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, --
...
12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province. |
Now choke on it.
btw, in fact, the federal government does outlaw certain marriages from coast to coast. You can't marry your brother or sister. A marriage under false identity is void. Bigamy is outlawed, etc.
The provinces license marriages. They control everything that is not outlawed by the feds. The provinces say how old you must be. They say who can perform them. They say what happens when it falls apart (divorce). In fact, the provinces decide who can marry, under what conditions, and what happens afterward, so long as those marriages are legal in Canada.
In other words, the feds cannot tell any province to grant licenses to anyone, not white ones, not black ones, not gay ones. They can say who not to licence.
Have a good night, Junior.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
NYE - quote:
You are big one for rights so long as they do impose on another, is that right? |
Do not impose, but a right cannot be a right if it conflicts with another (valid) right. Rights exist by virtue of the umbrella formed by liberty/freedom...therefore they cannot violate other freedoms (rights).
quote:
So what if your rights of association impose ostracism on others due to a biological fact? Are they not unjustly burdened? |
We don't have a right to be free from ostracism, the same freedom of association enjoyed by the racist is also enjoyed by all the people who believe racism is wrong and will ostracise (boycott, etc) the racist. In most cases, problem solved without "taxing" others or threatening anyone's life.
quote:
The fact is that homosexuality is a fact, and there are many homosexuals. Would you impose your 'freedom' over theirs? |
You mean my freedom to discriminate against homosexuals as opposed to a homosexual's "freedom" to live or work on my property? Of course... but that would not only be a distortion of the word "freedom", but also the word "impose". The racist imposes nothing, those who want to outlaw racism are imposing their will on others.
Freedom includes choosing friends (who want to be friends of course). Do you think government should stop this discrimination? If I like Pink Floyd, should I have to buy the music of Metallica too so I'm not discriminating against them? I don't know how you define freedom, but I'm using the definition in the dictionary.
quote:
Would you willingly discriminate against them because thay are not as you are? |
Nope, but how I choose to live my life is not the issue. I believe my freedom of association should be respected, therefore, I must respect the same freedom of others to choose their associations.
quote:
Would you sanction the state denying their equality? |
We're talking about private discrimination.
quote:
If you say yes, then your freedoms are meaningless, because any mob can come and take them away. |
Any mob can do that now, but even if I did choose to discriminate against people you think I should associate with, how does that prove my freedoms are meaningless because of a mob's actions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:28
|
|
The more I think of this, the more I think it will all blow over in a couple years and nobody will even think twice about it any more. Men will still marry women and they'll still regard it with every bit as much importance as it has today, even though men will be able to marry other men, and women will be able to marry other women. As much as I'm emotionally repulsed by the thought of homosexual marriage, my own personal tastes aren't what the law should be based on.
The next question becomes, though, whether fringe groups can push the equailty argument to further redefine marriage; could bigamists/polygamists argue that their equality rights are denied by not being allowed to marry more than one person, for instance?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Zylka, MANITOBA is also very much in favour of this. Get your facts right. |
Gee whiz, LEONS
I guess the "bracket-Chance-QuestionMark-Bracket" after naming Manitoba wasn't enough to list it as a question. Go team anarchy!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RedFred
I would like to see some sort of estimate of the financial impact of this decision for taxpayers. At the risk of offending some of Poly's gay posters I am not certain that I believe that gays should gain the special rights and privileges that other marrieds have. Basically it is a cash transfer from all singles and cohabitants in non-recognized marriages to the straight and gay marrieds. |
On the financial impact to taxpayers, my guess would be: insignificant. Our federal & provincial governments flush so much good money down the drain right now (what're we up to on the federal gun registry boondoggle now, $1 billion? And the Conservative government here in NS has been on a pre-election spending spree, throwing money out left & right to try and stave off a probable election loss), that whatever benefits that will now be paid out to spouses of same-sex employees are going to be a drop in the ocean by comparison, especially given their minority status. And if the two people in the marriage are as committed to each other as two people in a traditional marriage, then there's really nothing wrong with this.
And "singles and cohabitants in non-recognized marriages" have nothing to stop them from getting married, unlike the gays & lesbians until now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Assuming he would rebuke homosexuals, why do you? And if he wouldn't, aren't you making a risky assumption?
|
Berz:
Jesus rebukes everyone who persists in sin, not just homosexuals. That's the same reason I'm not afraid to encourage people to leave the lifestyle.
quote:
The government that tells a man he can only marry a woman discriminates against men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women.
|
Following your reasoning, the law discriminates against people who want to marry their dog, who want to marry 2 women at the same time, who want to marry their sister or brother, mother or father.
The law does not treat homosexuals any different from heterosexuals, in marrying someone of the opposite sex. Hence, the law is not discriminatory against the person, but against the act. Valid laws certainly can discriminate against acts, they do so all the time.
quote:
I believe my freedom of association should be respected, therefore, I must respect the same freedom of others to choose their associations.
|
Fair enough, but does 'respecting their associations' entail the legal privilege of marriage? Why can't they just let marriage be since they can live common-law here in Canada?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Ok, I've fixed the data map to give a more accurate portrayal. Asher - wanna come over to my house tonight?
 Attachment: gaycanadare.jpg
This has been downloaded 59 time(s).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-06-2003 12:56
Did we assimilate Ontario or something ?
there are enough abusive straight people to fill a country with. If two gay people want to get married, or adopt children, for that matter, and want to raise children in a loving environment, how can anyone in their right mind be against that? Sorry if this sounds silly, but I don't understand bigotry/hate/nazism.
I agree with Optimus' last post. Gay marriages won't bankrupt the country; that's what the gun registry is for.
|
