On 3 Jun 2005 23:17:06 GMT, in alt.politics.homoloveuality You mean arguments like: Gay "marriage," first of all, is not about equal rights. Farrow notes that contra the fatuous reasoning of the courts, there is no discrimination involved. How can there be discrimination involved in a formal legal sense, when every homoloveually inclined person, as every heteroloveual person, has the same right to marry whom they choose so long as that person be of the opposite love? Co-editor Douglas Farrow, McGill professor of Christian thought, captures the issue: "If marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the freedom to marry the person of one�s choice cannot mean the freedom of a man to marry a man." ... Morton argues convincingly that advocates of same-love �rights� ultimately distrust democracy, preferring instead to wage an apparently endless, taxpayer-funded battle through the courts: "Isn�t the whole unspoken premise of this affair that the Canadian people can no longer be trusted to decide such issues?" Many readers will disagree with this book�s conclusions but few will come away without a much clearer grasp of the issues at stake and the far-reaching implications of a decision that appears inevitable. --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
|
