you get the same argument
It's a similar argument, yes. There's a notable difference [in the US] wrt gay marriage. I recall you're Canuckian and I'm not familiar with their Constitution, but I'd guess it's quite similar.
In the US, there should really be no discussion about gay marriage at this point. The Constitution requires Equal Protection of the Law - when the law allows 'X' for one person, it must allow 'X' for all persons ... or else have a damned good reason why not. When you allow marriage for straights but not for gays because it makes a whole buncha people get a case of the heebie-jeebies ... that's not a damned good reason.
Equal Protection doesn't recognize heebie-jeebies as a disqualifier.
I can understand that it had just never occurred to anyone that a gay couple should go down to the courthouse and get a marriage license, and that the notion of applying Equal Protection to it might have seemed quite foreign for a long while. But anyone who was brought up to understand what constitutional liberty is all about should have no problem with it ... even if the idea of two guys "doing that" with the full sanction of the state still gives them the heebie-jeebies. ...cuz, let's face it: quite a lot of what has legal for centuries bothers a whole bunch of people already; what's one more? Heebie-jeebies ... willies ... Arkansas Pants Rabbits ... It's no different than some peoples' reactin to others being a different religion, a different race, a different sports team fan. You can get the willies, but you can't do an awful lot about the cause of getting the willies. Not when there's constitutional liberty at stake.
Besides, I don't see why my brother is so special as to miss out on the fun and frivolity of divorce court and having some judge suffering from cranio-rectal impaction decide all kinds of nosy and nonayerbidness type stuff.
But the deal with the buying privilege ... that's Carnival's business to decide to do or not [my choice is "not"], but it's got nothing to do with a pre-defined promise of liberty, or of business conduct. I'm not "so upset" over it, but I do think it's extremely shortsighted to go for the instant cash influx at the risk of incrementally annoying the customer base. History has shown that enterprises which go for insta-solutions to fiscal worries tend to ignore the structural issues that are causing those fiscal worries. Which is why the airline industry [where a number of cruise line execs hail from in the first place] can rake in billions of dollars in baggage fees, e.g., and still lose money.
They're going about it all wrong.
SIG: If you're going to create the drama, at least supply the popcorn.