Everything is a 'right' nowadays. If same sex couples can get married, then I want a membership to Only Womens Fitness, ......because I feel like its discrmiinatory to not include my people in their organization. I just want to get in shape like everybody else. I mean, what's the big deal to the women who attend Only Womens Fitness if I go there? How does it really affect them personally?
Admittedly not the best comparison, ....but the point was to highlight the typical arguments for gay marriage.
-"it's a right"
-"what's it to you man?"
So while people jumped all over knalus for opposing gay marriage for "no good reason", I have yet to see a good reason to allow gay marriage besides the ones I showed above. It's mostly just an emotional argument.
What are the boundaries that define a right?
"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology."
Everything is a 'right' nowadays. If same sex couples can get married, then I want a membership to Only Womens Fitness, ......because I feel like its discrmiinatory to not include my people in their organization. I just want to get in shape like everybody else. I mean, what's the big deal to the women who attend Only Womens Fitness if I go there? How does it really affect them personally?
No one gives a damn what you think of as a right. The SCOTUS declared it a right. Thus it should be given to everyone. This is the decision in Loving vs. Virginia. Now go find an Alex Jones article to dispute it.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamingLonghorn For This Useful Post:
Admittedly not the best comparison, ....but the point was to highlight the typical arguments for gay marriage.
-"it's a right"
-"what's it to you man?"
So while people jumped all over knalus for opposing gay marriage for "no good reason", I have yet to see a good reason to allow gay marriage besides the ones I showed above. It's mostly just an emotional argument.
What are the boundaries that define a right?
"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology."
So are rights infinitely malleable?
People don't have a right to marriage. People have a right to equality. The boundaries that define that right are constantly drawn and re-drawn by our legislatures, our courts, and, more generally, public discourse.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
No one gives a damn what you think of as a right. The SCOTUS declared it a right. Thus it should be given to everyone. This is the decision in Loving vs. Virginia. Now go find an Alex Jones article to dispute it.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
You must have missed an earlier thread where Mikey argued (for no convincing or tenable reason mind you) that courts (or governments) don't grant rights.
This brings us to the "who grants rights?" argument, the embodiment of civilized and organized societies (governments, at least from a de facto enforcement standpoint) or (the ostensibly Christian) God?
One thing that gets lost in all of this is the actual number of homosexuals is realistically 1% (or less) of the population in Canada and the United States. Oh, sure, there is that mythical figure of 10% but it is pure BS and we all know it;
I don't think this is true, but so what if it is? What difference does it make if it is 0.1%, 1% or 10%? People are people.
Since redheads have no souls, does God recognize their marriages?
A flaw in your argument: Who could ever love a ginger!
Oh wait
Also MMF, please put Mikey on ignore, there is no sense in bringing yourself down to his level of lunacy in order to attempt to debate someone who equates marriage as administered by a governmental body with a gym membership from a private organization or that because they only amount to roughly 300,000-500,000 people in Canada it isn't a big issue.
Frankly I think that number should be brought up everytime someone says that it is only 1% of the population... put that into real numbers. That is over 10,000 Calgarians. The numbers have much more impact when they aren't in vague terms such as percentages with no real attachments.
Last edited by Mean Mr. Mustard; 05-12-2012 at 01:51 PM.
So while people jumped all over knalus for opposing gay marriage for "no good reason", I have yet to see a good reason to allow gay marriage besides the ones I showed above. It's mostly just an emotional argument.
Ridiculous that one who harps on "big government" in every other thread should feel the government needs to regulate what consenting adult can marry what consenting adult.
The government, if you truly believe in small government and not just government that pleases you, should not be deciding on what adult marries what adult based on sexual orientation. Period. If you even you can't understand that argument, no reason will convince you because you're too blinded by your own obsessive ideology.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Admittedly not the best comparison, ....but the point was to highlight the typical arguments for gay marriage.
-"it's a right"
-"what's it to you man?"
So while people jumped all over knalus for opposing gay marriage for "no good reason", I have yet to see a good reason to allow gay marriage besides the ones I showed above. It's mostly just an emotional argument.
What are the boundaries that define a right?
"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology."
So are rights infinitely malleable?
Not the best comparison? Actually it's a horrible comparison. Comparing how a private institute determines membership is not comparable to how the gov't determines rights. A more apt comparison to your gym membership argument would be if the gov't would be forcing churches that don't want to perform gay marriages to perform them. However, no one on the pro gay marriage side is advocating that.
Admittedly not the best comparison, ....but the point was to highlight the typical arguments for gay marriage.
-"it's a right"
-"what's it to you man?"
So while people jumped all over knalus for opposing gay marriage for "no good reason", I have yet to see a good reason to allow gay marriage besides the ones I showed above. It's mostly just an emotional argument.
The reason is extremely simple. Not allowing gay people to marry is saying "I'm sorry, you two can't do this because I disagree with the combination of genitals here."
__________________
"Correction, it's not your leg son. It's Liverpool's leg" - Shankly
Admittedly not the best comparison, ....but the point was to highlight the typical arguments for gay marriage.
-"it's a right"
-"what's it to you man?"
So while people jumped all over knalus for opposing gay marriage for "no good reason", I have yet to see a good reason to allow gay marriage besides the ones I showed above. It's mostly just an emotional argument.
If you are going to deny a section of your community something, no matter what and for why, you need to show a reason for the denial, not the otherway round.
We don't allow children to drink as it is harmfull to them, we don't allow adults to use herion as it is harmfull to them, these are exceptions to freedom we allow the goverment to enforce on our behalf.
What harm does gay marriage do, either to individuls or society in general? If you can't think of any then you have t conclude gays should be allowed to marry regardless of your own opinion.
I think a big part of the frustration also comes from other things that surround marriage. If things were truly equal in other aspects of life, the actual marriage part of it would be less of a concern.
Why do social conservatives in the US
- fight bills/ordinances to prevent discrimination/bullying based on sexual orientation?
- have rules not allowing same-sex partners to visit each other in the hospital?
- have made it hard for a gay person's estate/will to be left to a partner, along with other taxation issues?
- make it so a gay couple from another country can't go through customs together?
If anyone can give me a good, solid reason for each of the points above, please do.
This is why marriage is such a huge issue, because it helps with a whole hell of a lot of little things which cause issues for gay people in that country just to live like anyone else.
Do they not deserve that right (and were talking an actual right), or do they give it up just because of their lifestyle?
__________________ You’re just old hate balls.
--Funniest mod complaint in CP history.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MRCboicgy For This Useful Post:
I have yet to see a good reason to allow gay marriage besides the ones I showed above. It's mostly just an emotional argument.
It's not an emotional argument, it's a legal one.
In the United States, Rights are enumerated by the Constitution. In the particular case of homosexual marriage, the Constitution clearly refutes both arguments against allowing it:
1. “Same-sex marriages violate the sanctity of marriage.” What this means, essentially, is that marriage is a holy, ‘sanctimonious’ union and homosexuality would violate that sanctity. There is only one argument that need be referenced to nullify this point: The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
For this reason, arguing for the legality of something based on its sanctity is a fallacy because under the Constitution of the United States, laws cannot be made in favor of things religious.
2. “The states and voters should decide whether gay marriage should be allowed.” This argument is made void by one simple point also: The Fourteenth Amendment.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Put simply, it’s not legal for states to take Constitutional rights away.
Since the First Amendment makes it clear that laws cannot be based on religion or the idea of "sanctity" and the Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that States cannot abridge privileges of US Citizens it's clear that homosexual marriage must be, and certainly will be, declared a Constitutional right in the not-too-distant future.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
I can just imagine Mike standing in the hospital telling the gay partner of a man dying on his deathbed and telling him "sorry but emotion aside, you cant walk into that bedroom and tell him you love him and hear his last words, cause im uncomfortable with the definition of a word."
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
What I wouldn't give to have been in Barney Frank's position in that video. I would just love to verbally tear into an ignoramus like Perkins. It would be incredibly entertaining.
