4 ms·

I say his beliefs are hateful because I believe it is hateful to say that different regulations should be applied to people based on how they were born, or how

by dmazin 13y ago

I say his beliefs are hateful because I believe it is hateful to say that different regulations should be applied to people based on how they were born, or how they choose to behave when that behavior is a personal decision not affecting others. There are exceptions here and there, such as helmet and seatbelt laws, but I'm really talking about lifestyle choices.

fleitz 13y ago
Aren't helmet and seatbelt laws the perfect example of behavior that is a personal decision not affecting others? Seriously, what isn't a lifestyle choice? I don't get it... If I prefer unpasturized milk, isn't that a lifestyle choice? If I want to smoke pot, isn't that a lifestyle choice? If I don't want to wear a seatbelt, isn't that a lifestyle choice? Couldn't the statists just fuck off and let people make simple decisions like who they want to bump genetalia with, or what kind of milk to drink, or even gasp whether to wear a helmet or not? The highly ironic thing is that in my jurisdiction we force people into marriage whether they like it or not automatically. That said we're forcing gay people to get married too so at least it's across the board imposition of non-consensual relationships.
- DalekBaldwin 13y ago
  Are you in British Columbia? http://dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news/bcs-new-law-erases-line-marriage-and-common-law http://dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news/bcs-new-law-erases-line-... > The qualifications for a common-law relationship, Dahl says, are much lower than they once were. To have a “marriage-like” relationship in BC, you do not have to share a bank account, call yourselves married, be sexually monogamous, file taxes together, or even cohabit all the time. To “hold yourself up to the community as a couple” and share a home is probably enough. By that standard, it seems like it would be pretty easy for an ex-roommate to sue you for half of your wealth.

by dmazin 13y ago

fleitz 13y ago

Aren't helmet and seatbelt laws the perfect example of behavior that is a personal decision not affecting others? Seriously, what isn't a lifestyle choice? I don't get it... If I prefer unpasturized milk, isn't that a lifestyle choice? If I want to smoke pot, isn't that a lifestyle choice? If I don't want to wear a seatbelt, isn't that a lifestyle choice? Couldn't the statists just fuck off and let people make simple decisions like who they want to bump genetalia with, or what kind of milk to drink, or even gasp whether to wear a helmet or not? The highly ironic thing is that in my jurisdiction we force people into marriage whether they like it or not automatically. That said we're forcing gay people to get married too so at least it's across the board imposition of non-consensual relationships.

DalekBaldwin 13y ago
Are you in British Columbia? http://dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news/bcs-new-law-erases-line-marriage-and-common-law http://dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news/bcs-new-law-erases-line-... > The qualifications for a common-law relationship, Dahl says, are much lower than they once were. To have a “marriage-like” relationship in BC, you do not have to share a bank account, call yourselves married, be sexually monogamous, file taxes together, or even cohabit all the time. To “hold yourself up to the community as a couple” and share a home is probably enough. By that standard, it seems like it would be pretty easy for an ex-roommate to sue you for half of your wealth.