On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 06:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To modify an old saying:
"Why buy the cow if you can get the government to give you the milk for free?"
I'm afraid I don't see your point. The complaint is that the UK government will, rather than permit actual legal same-sex marriage, permit gay couples certain privileges similar to marriage but without the formal name, which some gay spokesperson says discriminates against unmarried straight couples by not permitting them a similar legal arrangement in some way short of actual marriage. And my point is, unmarried straight couples have no such need because they can actually get married. If they choose not to, that's up to them, but at least they have the choice, which gays do not. Therefore, there is no possible "discrimination." If you want to argue that gays should be given full legal marriage rights, I agree. What the UK government is proposing is, actually, still, discrimination against _gays_ not against straights, even if it would be slightly less discriminatory than it used to be. So what is your point?
But of course the BBC managed to find a straight couple to illustrate the issue: they have a child and live together and think the new law is a good thing; but they would like to be able to take advantage of it themselves since they don't want to get married.
Why should straight people be forced to marry against their wishes to obtain legal rights and tax advantages that gay couples can obtain without having to get married?
-- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
- Bertrand Russell
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
