Reply to: Is Discrimination a right?

[speling bee]

Bigots tend to be stupid.

I am inclined to agree.

[speling bee]

I do not think I am comparing apples and oranges, Canada has seen moves to legalise multiple partner relationships.

If homosexulaity is now legally defined as normal why cannot bigamists see the same protection?

You are comparing apples amd oranges.
Multiple partner relationships are legal in the UK.
Homosexuality is not legally defined as normal.

Apart from that, carry on as before.

[minestrone]

You are comparing apples with oranges. Taking multiple partners (not spouses) is no more illegal than homosexuality.

The interesting question is why bigamy is illegal when civil partnerships and presumably soon gay marriage are legal. The answer to that I think is that the civil rights of gays were harmed by not recognising their relationships in the same way that marriage recognises straight relationships. There does not appear to be a loud clamour for legalised bigamy as a relief against discrimination, but if that clamour arises, then perhaps there will be a public debate and we can all come to an opinion on the merits of the arguments.

I do not think I am comparing apples and oranges, Canada has seen moves to legalise multiple partner relationships.

If homosexulaity is now legally defined as normal why cannot bigamists see the same protection?

[SueEllen]

If I remember the report correctly, they didn't always ask straight couples if they were married before letting them stay, nor did they ask this couple their marital status before refusing them. The lady also said in court that she would not allow a gay couple to share a bed under her roof.

Bigots tend to be stupid.

Even Nick Griffin's views were made to sound more intelligent in the meedja than the actual live interview I heard him give on the radio stating them.

[speling bee]

I don't think so. They also wouldn't book double rooms to unmarried mixed-sex couples. If they take the traditional view "marriage is between one man and one woman" they can (and I suspect were) simply refusing to let non-married couples share a room/bed.

If I remember the report correctly, they didn't always ask straight couples if they were married before letting them stay, nor did they ask this couple their marital status before refusing them. The lady also said in court that she would not allow a gay couple to share a bed under her roof.

[speling bee]

Again I ask the question, why is homsexuality allowed by right of law but the taking of multiple spouses not?

Simple question. Everyone seems to be quite good at avoiding that question.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Taking multiple partners (not spouses) is no more illegal than homosexuality.

The interesting question is why bigamy is illegal when civil partnerships and presumably soon gay marriage are legal. The answer to that I think is that the civil rights of gays were harmed by not recognising their relationships in the same way that marriage recognises straight relationships. There does not appear to be a loud clamour for legalised bigamy as a relief against discrimination, but if that clamour arises, then perhaps there will be a public debate and we can all come to an opinion on the merits of the arguments.

[escapeUK]

Bulltulip, answer the question.

People hold a sexual preference to have more than one sexual partner, where are you going to draw the line?

No they dont, what are you on about?

[d000hg]

Homosexuality is necessary for gays

Of course it isn't. Lots of straight and gay people never have sex either by choice or in spite of trying.

[d000hg]

And the discrimination against them was regarding sexuality, not marital status.

I don't think so. They also wouldn't book double rooms to unmarried mixed-sex couples. If they take the traditional view "marriage is between one man and one woman" they can (and I suspect were) simply refusing to let non-married couples share a room/bed.

[minestrone]

Homosexuality is necessary for gays, marrying someone is not (for any one.)

Bulltulip, answer the question.

People hold a sexual preference to have more than one sexual partner, where are you going to draw the line?

[escapeUK]

Again I ask the question, why is homsexuality allowed by right of law but the taking of multiple spouses not?

Simple question. Everyone seems to be quite good at avoiding that question.

Homosexuality is necessary for gays, marrying someone is not (for any one.)

Though in the case of the hairdresser aiming an advert at young girls when some males are better hairdressers and lots of women prefer a good male hairdresser is just poor stupid....

Strangely enough she employed a very camp gay man.

[minestrone]

Again I ask the question, why is homsexuality allowed by right of law but the taking of multiple spouses not?

Simple question. Everyone seems to be quite good at avoiding that question.

[SueEllen]

Yes - the B&B was set up. Some gay activists are just about defending gays against discrimination. Some are driven by an intolerance that's every bit as vitriolic and hate driven as Fred Phelps.

If you are clever in your bigotry and prejudice then you can get away with it without the law troubling you.

In this case the B&B owners were too stupid to ask the customers where they "married" when they took the booking.

Likewise if you want a certain gender to apply for your job advert then you use the correct descriptive words on the advert to deter people who you don't want to apply.

Though in the case of the hairdresser aiming an advert at young girls when some males are better hairdressers and lots of women prefer a good male hairdresser is just poor stupid....

[hyperD]

So when do I get to marry a second wife? Or a third?

When you have more money than their lawyers.

[speling bee]

So when do I get to marry a second wife? Or a third?

Is keeping a group of women a basic human right? Where do we draw the line that has been removed?

When you've successfully run a political campaign against the oppression and bigotry you seem to feel you face.