Roger Scruton - Harming Oneself and Harming Other (4 of 5)

[scottvska]

1:55

This guy is Canadian?

[CNTloyalist]

i wish scruton got more attention, especialy in the u.s.

[chrish12345]

He is not asked to provide evidence of harm, he's asked about equality and discrimination. He does justify discrimination simply by calling attention to the definition of 'marriage'. In other words if two men or two women were united in the same way, it would be called something else. If this 'something else' was something that a man and a women couple wanted to be a part of, this new institution would discriminate against them in just the same way that traditional marriage would.

[tyrannicoystercult]

he is asked to provide evidence of harm in allowing genderless marriage and the real tax benefits it entails, to justify the discrimination against it on the terms of his own stated principle, but he is not prepared to do this.

[JekyllBoote]

I didn't understand the question put to him in that sense. It seemed to me that the questioner, having referred to what he regarded as Scruton's "thinly veiled" attack on gay marriage, was asking Scruton to justify that attack.

Scruton pointed out - correctly I think - that the traditional concept of marriage - monogamous, heterosexual - was available to homosexuals, but was not generally sought by them, and that gay "marriage" was something altogether different.

[chrish12345]

sorry, at the end of the comment I should have said 'in the same way that traditional marriage DOES discriminate against  gay/lesbian couples'.

[steveygee1]

excellent

[ehunter2]

Poor Roger he is being forced to argue

rationally with a fag. Fags are nothing more

than emotional hysteria and derangement which

they then rationalize. In simple terms

you cannot talk to gays, in any constructive way the only conversation they can have is with a psychiatrist.