Posted on 02/14/2005 11:37:55 AM PST by West Coast Conservative
>>>Conservative MP Jason Kenney says gays have every right to marry whoever they want - as long as it isn't someone of the same sex.<<
LOL, I agree! Good job Kenney!
We have a couple good MPs up here, at least.
hmmmm GREAT point- homosexuals are not discriminated against- they have the same right to marry as anyone else.
The left hates logic.
I saw a movie about Cole Porter, a homosexual who married a woman. Nobody stopped him. Neither did it prevent him from becoming quite successful.
Well said, Mr. Kenney.
What the heck is the Punjabi Press Club? Is this part of Canada's multicultural landscape?
This guy actually gets it!
However, he is in Canada. Who will be getting the rope for the political lynching?
A Punjabi Press is a wrestling move perfected by the late great MoHatma the MoFo. This is club celebrating that move.
>>>Conservative MP Jason Kenney says gays have every right to marry whoever they want - as long as it isn't someone of the same sex.<<
And the same applies to all people, not just homosexuals. That equal rights thing can be a burden for people who consider themselves special.
He's simply stating a fact. What's the big deal?
Sometimes the way you ask a question, as we all know, can influence the answer.
Talking about "allowing gays to marry" does sound somehow different from discussing men marrying men and women marrying women.
That's always been my argument. By the same token, heterosexuals do not have the right to marry anyone of the same sex either, so that "right" is not denied only to homosexuals.
Great argument. I love it. I plan to use it.
Canada needs more like him.
This comes up because people in favor of same-sex marriage speak of marriage as the act of setting up a legal and religous bond with someone you love. They then point out that it's discriminatory to allow heterosexuals to do this but ban homosexuals from doing so.
In debate, I challenge those taking this position to show me any marriage law that has the word "love" in it. Romantic love, while in my view a necessary moral requirement for marriage, is not so viewed by much of the planet and in any case has no bearing on the legal definition of civil marriage. Nor can any heterosexuals who love each other get married; I cannot marry my mother, my sister, or my daughter, yet I love them all (well, I don't have a sister, but if I did I'd love her). So there's two ways that their "definition" is false.
Laughing aside, he is making a valid legal point. The gay marriage lobby has painted the issue as one of discrimination, and it's not. The 'sexual preference' angle has been used to muddy the waters. Gays have the exact same rights as straight people.
Either can marry (just one person at a time) but neither can marry a person of the opposite sex. Why would 'same sex' hetros want to get married, if they don't intend to have sex with each other? Lots of potential reasons -- inheritance --- financial manipulation --- protection from prosecution --- rights to naturalization/immigration.
I'd expect if same-sex marriage ever became widely legal, we would see many times more "straight" people than gays getting hitched. It will make marriage a pure joke. Polygamists can make the same distorted discrimination argument as gays, and they in fact have significant historical, social and religious president on their side Gay marriage has absolutely zero president in any social, religious or cultural tradition. This thing has been invented out of whole cloth in the last decade or so.
Ol "slack Jaw" Svend Robinson...did he really sprain his jaw in a skiing accident...I think not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.