|
"Husbands" and "wives" now illegal in Ontario (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| zokissima |
| quote: | | complacency and remaining quiet is a danger for any minority...because those who would seek to deny your rights certainly are not remanining quiet or complacent themselves |
True, but there has to be a moral limit to how far this can be taken. Minorities deserver equal rights, but ONLY equal rights, and nothing more. There are too many that use this minority as an excuse, that use it as a weapon to overstep their bounds and rights and receive unfair advantage. Believe it or not, it's company policy of many corporations now that a certain percentage of their employees have to belong to ethic/racial/sexual minorities, to a degree that reflects the functioning populace. I'm not trying to sound belittling to anyone, as I do believe in fair opportunity and rights, but when those opportunities and rights are derived from facts of existence that are beyond the control of the involved individual, then you've done nothing to actually DESERVE the place you hold. I think that this is going off topic here, but it's hard not to. Too many messages are mixed, and confuse individual and citizentry rights with moral ethics. |
|
|
| loca |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
True, but there has to be a moral limit to how far this can be taken. Minorities deserver equal rights, but ONLY equal rights, and nothing more. There are too many that use this minority as an excuse, that use it as a weapon to overstep their bounds and rights and receive unfair advantage. Believe it or not, it's company policy of many corporations now that a certain percentage of their employees have to belong to ethic/racial/sexual minorities, to a degree that reflects the functioning populace. I'm not trying to sound belittling to anyone, as I do believe in fair opportunity and rights, but when those opportunities and rights are derived from facts of existence that are beyond the control of the involved individual, then you've done nothing to actually DESERVE the place you hold. I think that this is going off topic here, but it's hard not to. Too many messages are mixed, and confuse individual and citizentry rights with moral ethics. |
Great points :) |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
True, but there has to be a moral limit to how far this can be taken. Minorities deserver equal rights, but ONLY equal rights, and nothing more... |
I agree with you...and I think it's safe to say that gays are not asking for anything beyond what heterosexual couples currently posses by way of being able to marry.
I'd qualify that though by saying that "equality" on it's own can be a farce...because people are NOT all equal.
eg. someone in a wheelchair can't navigate a stairwell. If they, by law or necessity, have to gain entry into a building (let's say they have to go to court) yet their is no alternate access than a stairwell, while they are not being actively prevented from entering, they are still facing undue, passive discrimination.
I'm not commenting on solutions to all such unequal situations...just pointing out that "equality" on it's own is not always a productive goal...because all people are not equal and in many cases DO deserve additional attention that is not required to be given to the majority. The challenge is how to fairly address those inequalities and special circumstances without unduly penalizing others (affirmative action policies are a hot topic in this regard). |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
(affirmative action policies are a hot topic in this regard). |
Indeed... and I am most definately not one who supports affirmative action
IMO, treat all as equal currently and in the future (ie. in hiring policies, etc.), but do NOT give preferential treatment for sake of correcting the effects of past discrimination. Discriminating in the opposite direction today to make up for discrimination of the past is not right AFAIAC.
Yes it sucks that some/many were discriminated against in the past and by no means will we continue to discruiminte against those ppl now, but to do the reverse (which is to say to discriminate against those that "reaped" the benefits of this past discrimation) is just as bad! All we can do IMO is start acting appropiately today. Overtime, hopefully we will all be on equal footing. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
There have been a number of interesting discussions in my public law course regarding the issue of discrimination and affirmative action plans.
While I'll be the first to support that the most qualified candidate should be the one to secure a posted position, there are a number of other cirucmstances to consider:
First, the age old question of what if you have two equally qualified candidates. Should the minority candidate always be the preferred choice in this circumstance (at least up until the point where the organization's employee composition roughly approximates that of society as a whole)?
What about those organizations (particularly public ones) that even if there is not explicit evidence of discriminatory policies (Aboriginals need to apply for example), reality would indicate such practices are in place? (A good example of this is a legal case which involved a number of women's groups and CN Rail back in the late 80's. Women would often apply for field jobs, but would be "strongly encouraged" to pursue secretarial positions even if they were capable of the physical requirements involved in the position.)
Finally, are there deeper issues at play here in society aside from obvious discrimination. For example, engineering schools often have men far outnumbering women. Is this a case where women are simply not interested in purusing these careers (if so, why?), or are there more systemic issues at work? The example provided in class is that often, high school math is taught in a way that is more conducive / receptive to the way males learn as opposed to females. If a more balanced teaching approach was adopted, would women be more confident in their skills and more willing to pursue education and careers in fields such as engineering? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Whoa....5 pages already...
My 2 cents
While I don't mind that homosexuals want the same rights to be married, blah, blah, blah ad naseum there is a catch and I was hoping it wasn't coming down to this.
I didn't get married to become some neutered, faceless, neomort. A genderless amorphus blob on some obtuse government form that says that I'm a "spouse".
I got married because I wanted to be the man in the relationship.
If homosexuals want the same rights that fine, but don't go changing MY status just so they can "fit in".
Why should I have to change my status just so some minority wants it??? AND WITHOUT ASKING ME!!! The tail should NEVER wag the dog I'm sorry.
Get your own status! :whip: :mad:
If I've learned anything from this charade, the gays haven't made any hetersexual friends by shoving things down our throats or 'blending the lines' of society.
The irony of the whole thing is, if anything, they've just drawn more borders between what they're trying to accomplish and the cloudy utopian dream they're trying to mold.
So just to be clear, I'm not discussed with the gays, I'm discussed with this whole process and how it's affecting ME. :mad: |
|
|
| tatgirl |
Jesus Christ, Jeff- you sound as if the Gov't is trying to emasculate you!
Guess what? You are still the man in the relationship. If they can't tell that from your name which will be printed on the page anyways, I dont know what will. When you got married, you became someone's 'spouse' anyways. It's just another term. I'm sorry it doesn't gender specify which one of you is the male or female in the relationship, but is your life THAT affected by the forms you'll have to fill out down the line? |
|
|
| töbias |
Look on the positive side, at least your government allows gay marriage, who cares that they change the name of husband and wife to a neutral term.
Our Prime Minister is scared that gay marriage is a threat to the human species.... |
|
|
| Kytracid |
^^^
According to one Mr Shadowolf it is. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| töbias |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kytracid
^^^
According to one Mr Shadowolf it is. :rolleyes: |
Thats just silly because its not as if millions of straight people are going to rush out and become gay because the government decides to give legal rights to serious gay relationships. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by töbias
Look on the positive side, at least your government allows gay marriage, who cares that they change the name of husband and wife to a neutral term.
Our Prime Minister is scared that gay marriage is a threat to the human species.... |
^^^^^^ :wtf: :wtf: Whut the ing !
Thats the crap I cant believe.
A fellow aussie friend here in Toronto feels the same way that I do... that its all the same , preferring the same sex changes absolutlely nothing and ur damn right NOTHING is wrong w/ it!!!
She had commented similarily that in australia this would not be happening where we FINALLY recognize that gays and lesbians have just as much right ot marry you and I! |
|
|
|
|
