They're Not Rights, They're Privileges And Benefits this really bugs me.

[takotsu 0]

First off, i'd like to start by saying that i have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality, and i believe they should be allowed to get married.The whole topic of "Gay Rights" bothers me. Not in the way one might think. I do believe that gays should be allowed the right to marry one another, but i do have a problem with certain things being called rights.One's rights are abilities or privileges that cannot be taken by an individual or group of people, including the government.Things that are rights:Free SpeechOwning firearmsvotingowning propertymarriageThings that are NOT rights:adopting a childtax benefitssocial security benefitsworkers' compensationceremonial marriagesthere's nothing wrong with gay marriage, but don't call something a right if it isn't.

[rvalkass 5]

One's rights are abilities or privileges that cannot be taken by an individual or group of people, including the government.

Your rights depend very much on where you are, and in fact on personal opinion. The UN constitution, however, sets out basic rights for everyone. Anything on top of that is a right specific to one country. For example, taking your example of owning firearms (below) - I don't consider this a right, as I don't live in a country where it is legal. I believe in a right to defend yourself using reasonable force (which at the moment the law doesn't) but I don't believe in the right to a gun unless the government has lost control of its population and cannot stem the tide of illegal guns.

 

Things that are rights:

Free Speech

Owning firearms

voting

owning property

marriage

Only four of those are rights. Owning firearms is not a universal right. It is legal to own firearms, but it shouldn't be called a right in the same way as the others.

 

Things that are NOT rights:

adopting a child

tax benefits

social security benefits

workers' compensation

ceremonial marriages

Article 16(3) of the UDHR states that the family is a fundamental part of society and something everyone has a right to. You can extend this to saying that the right to adoption is included, especially if it is the only way to form a family. Article 7 states that all are equal before the law. If a law applies to couples then it applies regardless of the people in that couple. That covers tax benefits, social security and workers' compensation. Think of the principles of these forms of social security - the same hardships and needs are faced by all couples, not just those of a man and woman, so why shouldn't same-sex couples be entitled to the same benefits? And why not to a ceremonial marriage, if marriage is a right?

[truefusion 3]

And why not to a ceremonial marriage, if marriage is a right?

Because the right to marry never came from any government—it's a religious right. Homosexuals have the right to gay marriage, so long as it's between a man and a woman. They ask for the right for gay marriage, but they had that right the whole time, they just don't accept the definition and try to change it to be of (or include) the same sex. They try to get government support for their definition, but separation of church and state prevents the government from doing anything about it. So in order for them to move a step forward, they have to drop this separation. However, due to the implications that would come from such a thing, it is therefore an undesirable thing. It's really a battle fought in vain.

[Echo_of_thunder 1]

First off, i'd like to start by saying that i have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality, and i believe they should be allowed to get married.
The whole topic of "Gay Rights" bothers me. Not in the way one might think. I do believe that gays should be allowed the right to marry one another, but i do have a problem with certain things being called rights.
One's rights are abilities or privileges that cannot be taken by an individual or group of people, including the government.

Things that are rights:
Free Speech
Owning firearms
voting
owning property
marriage

Things that are NOT rights:
adopting a child
tax benefits
social security benefits
workers' compensation
ceremonial marriages

there's nothing wrong with gay marriage, but don't call something a right if it isn't.

you left out one thing in the not rights,

Driving.

As fir gay marriages? that could go both ways. but then that would be a Bi Marriage wouldnt it? pardon the pun. but honestly. Some say it's a right others a wrong. I feel as if 2 people really love each other enough to want to marry. why not. who cares if they are both of the same sex. Just my feelings.

[Zeyomie 0]

First off, i'd like to start by saying that i have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality, and i believe they should be allowed to get married.
The whole topic of "Gay Rights" bothers me. Not in the way one might think. I do believe that gays should be allowed the right to marry one another, but i do have a problem with certain things being called rights.
One's rights are abilities or privileges that cannot be taken by an individual or group of people, including the government.

Things that are rights:
Free Speech
Owning firearms
voting
owning property
marriage

Things that are NOT rights:
adopting a child
tax benefits
social security benefits
workers' compensation
ceremonial marriages

there's nothing wrong with gay marriage, but don't call something a right if it isn't.

It is a right, any marriage is a right. And they have been denied that right in the US within the legal system. Just like people are denied to "right" to own firearms for whatever reason. You have to have a license to own a firearm, you also have to have a license to marry someone. And gays are denied that right. However you look at it, it's not just a privilege. This is supposed to be a free country, yet people are not free to marry whoever they want if they are of the same gender. Many times they are persecuted for expressing their feelings to their partner. It can never truly be a free country until these basic rights are restored, and that will never happen as long as there is prejudice.

[truefusion 3]

This is supposed to be a free country, yet people are not free to marry whoever they want if they are of the same gender. Many times they are persecuted for expressing their feelings to their partner. It can never truly be a free country until these basic rights are restored, and that will never happen as long as there is prejudice.

Your statement implies that they previously had the right to marry the same gender. They never had that right, so it can't be "restored." But does that mean they are not equal under the eyes of the law? No, for they still have the same rights as anyone else. Homosexuals have the right to gay marriage, they just want a different definition for it. If we follow the logic, what does marriage involve? It's a unity between a man and a woman. So it follows that gay marriage would be the unity of a homosexual man and a homosexual woman. But imagine if people had all the freedom that can possibly be given. In order for a country to be truly "free," all restrictions have to be removed. Restrictions maintain order; remove the order and you are left with chaos. Think about it, what's prejudice? I'm sure it's prejudice to jail someone for murder. I'm sure it's prejudice to jail someone for stealing. There are hundreds of things the law is biased against. A truly free country cannot exist, for that is to be free to do whatever you want.

[miladinoski 1]

Your statement implies that they previously had the right to marry the same gender. They never had that right, so it can't be "restored." But does that mean they are not equal under the eyes of the law? No, for they still have the same rights as anyone else. Homosexuals have the right to gay marriage, they just want a different definition for it.

Basically truefusion, your statement revolves around that the term 'marriage' needs to be changed so it could include gay 'marriage' because it never included that term earlier. But a term already exists, and it's union.

 

What I can't understand is that if people want to live together and they want that union to be allowed by the law I see nothing wrong with it. Don't say people then would want a 'union between them and an animal' because you can't compare an animal with a living and intelligent human being that has evolved that much from the beginning (I've seen this statement on Xisto on the "Gay 'marriage'" thread).

If we follow the logic, what does marriage involve? It's a unity between a man and a woman.

Logic by whose definition? Gay relations were popular amongst the rich people in ancient Greece and Rome. By them it wasn't illogical to make a union between two people of the same gender. What makes your statement 'logical' and mine not? Remember what Nietzsche said?

Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world.

Remember how it was illogical to say before that nudist beaches were a proper thing to do? Are the allowed now? When they are allowed, are people hopping into gangbangs because of this? Did it make nudist people to rape nudist kids or it made them happier? Make an analogy with 'gay-ism' here.

So it follows that gay marriage would be the unity of a homosexual man and a homosexual woman.

Flipping statements for fun, eh? You know what everyone here thought when they said 'marriage' and I explained that in the first sentence.

But imagine if people had all the freedom that can possibly be given. In order for a country to be truly "free," all restrictions have to be removed. Restrictions maintain order; remove the order and you are left with chaos. Think about it, what's prejudice? I'm sure it's prejudice to jail someone for murder. I'm sure it's prejudice to jail someone for stealing. There are hundreds of things the law is biased against. A truly free country cannot exist, for that is to be free to do whatever you want.

How can you compare murder/theft prejudice — which is something totally unrelated — with sexual orientation prejudice? And what do the restrictions have to do with gay unions? Are you now talking about restricting them (you talked about murder/theft/doing whatever you want restictions)? I thought we were talking about allowing them.

 

Just because something is accepted like it is, the opposite of it (which does no harm to you or the community) doesn't have to be banned or not allowed. If everyone had kids or sex in their marriage and you don't, why do you have to be discriminated (and believe me, you will get laughed at if that thing comes out in public). Not having sex in marriage is illogical for some, but for others it isn't, but it does no harm to you and you should prejudice them.

 

I hope you understood what I was trying to say there.

[rvalkass 5]

Homosexuals have the right to gay marriage, they just want a different definition for it. If we follow the logic, what does marriage involve? It's a unity between a man and a woman.

marriage n.

1. The union of two people, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

2. A close union.

3. A joining of two parts.

This definition, and most others I have found, say "two people" not "specifically a man and a woman". So, following logic and the actual definition, a "gay marriage" is a marriage between two homosexual men, two homosexual women or one homosexual man and one homosexual woman.

 

But imagine if people had all the freedom that can possibly be given. In order for a country to be truly "free," all restrictions have to be removed. Restrictions maintain order; remove the order and you are left with chaos. Think about it, what's prejudice? I'm sure it's prejudice to jail someone for murder. I'm sure it's prejudice to jail someone for stealing. There are hundreds of things the law is biased against. A truly free country cannot exist, for that is to be free to do whatever you want.

This is true, but there are laws that apply to everyone and are there for the good of society. Then there are things like the prejudice against gay marriage - it is discriminatory against a certain group of people. A free society, or the closest we can get, is surely one which does not discriminate?

[takotsu 0]

I'm not saying marriage isn't a right and I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry. in fact, i really don't care if they do or not. if you want to marry someone, to it.what i am saying though, is that some things that come with marriage, privileges and benefits, are being called rights and are being protested for as "Gay Rights."also, i feel that if the US government allows gay marriage, why shouldn't they allow polygamy? or marriage to minors?these two are also illegal in America, and if two men should be allowed to get married, why not three men? or a man and two women? or two fifteen-year-olds that say they're in love?on the matter of gay marriage, and any marriage in general, i think that if it's consensual, it should be allowed.

[rvalkass 5]

what i am saying though, is that some things that come with marriage, privileges and benefits, are being called rights and are being protested for as "Gay Rights."

If these privileges and benefits come with a heterosexual marriage, why not a homosexual one? I don't see a reason why these privileges and benefits should not apply to all marriages.

also, i feel that if the US government allows gay marriage, why shouldn't they allow polygamy? or marriage to minors?

The reason minors can't get married is a lack of maturity. Very few minors meet their life partners at their age, and allowing marriage as a minor would simply encourage marriages that wouldn't last.

[truefusion 3]

1.Basically truefusion, your statement revolves around that the term 'marriage' needs to be changed so it could include gay 'marriage' because it never included that term earlier. But a term already exists, and it's union.

 

2.What I can't understand is that if people want to live together and they want that union to be allowed by the law I see nothing wrong with it. Don't say people then would want a 'union between them and an animal' because you can't compare an animal with a living and intelligent human being that has evolved that much from the beginning (I've seen this statement on Xisto on the "Gay 'marriage'" thread).

 

3.Logic by whose definition? Gay relations were popular amongst the rich people in ancient Greece and Rome. By them it wasn't illogical to make a union between two people of the same gender. What makes your statement 'logical' and mine not? Remember what Nietzsche said?

 

4.Remember how it was illogical to say before that nudist beaches were a proper thing to do? Are the allowed now? When they are allowed, are people hopping into gangbangs because of this? Did it make nudist people to rape nudist kids or it made them happier? Make an analogy with 'gay-ism' here.

 

5.Flipping statements for fun, eh? You know what everyone here thought when they said 'marriage' and I explained that in the first sentence.

 

6.How can you compare murder/theft prejudice — which is something totally unrelated — with sexual orientation prejudice? And what do the restrictions have to do with gay unions? Are you now talking about restricting them (you talked about murder/theft/doing whatever you want restictions)? I thought we were talking about allowing them.

 

7.Just because something is accepted like it is, the opposite of it (which does no harm to you or the community) doesn't have to be banned or not allowed. If everyone had kids or sex in their marriage and you don't, why do you have to be discriminated (and believe me, you will get laughed at if that thing comes out in public). Not having sex in marriage is illogical for some, but for others it isn't, but it does no harm to you and you should prejudice them.

 

8.I hope you understood what I was trying to say there.

[1] That doesn't follow, since i wasn't the one that wanted the definition to be changed. My statement included gay marriage, just not the one homosexuals are arguing for. You're saying i said things i didn't. And by the way, "union" back then were attributed to children also, in that what was once two (man and woman) now became one: a child.

 

[2] The law doesn't prevent them from living together—neither am i saying they can't. They have every right to live together; but the right to marry never came from a government authority. The word "union" in the way you use it here can take up different definitions. But don't worry, i won't talk about beastiality.

 

[3] From the source of where the right came from. Just because there were gay relationships back then doesn't mean they were married. Chances are they didn't even bother with marriage. The Greeks back then did things that we today would abhor. They would place (new born) babies on a hillside for it to die all because they didn't want the child. It was their form of abortion. It should be safe to say that looking to them for morals is not a good idea. And i have no idea what statement of Nietzsche you are referring to; he said a lot of things.

 

[4] I don't recall people arguing for nude beaches; then again, such is (more) common in other countries (and yes, in some countries those still go on). But i'm not sure what you're implying with your statements about crude sexual acts. If you're saying i don't want gay marriage as defined by the gay community to occur because i would find it disgusting, brutal and such would turn homosexuals into child molesters, then i can tell you that's not the reason why. (Read my number 7 to know why i don't want it.) But i'm amazed your statement includes nudist colonies that allow children—didn't know such a thing existed, though they shouldn't.

 

[5] No, you just didn't follow my statement; you implied it was illogical and (or) inaccurate, which led you to believe i "flipped" my statement. I know what "everyone" (assuming it excludes me, of course) thought about the term "marriage." But "everyone" thinking that doesn't make it absolute.

 

[6] I already provided my reasoning. Prejudice is to be biasly against something. So it then follows that these things are prejudice. You can't allow someone to do something if they weren't previously restricted, prevented from doing something. It wouldn't be allowing then, for they don't need permission. Therefore restrictions are relevant to the gay marriage homosexuals want.

 

[7] It doing harm to me i consider it irrelevant, since i know it doesn't harm me; i am merely seeking their own good. I don't really care if people say i'm pushing my beliefs here, but i am convinced of an afterlife that would obviously be unbeneficial and undesirable to those who practice homosexuality. What's better: things desirable in this life or the afterlife? I realize all the complications; sure they'll argue that there is no God—they have to, it's not optional (though they may believe that it is). For in order to support their homosexuality, they have to get rid of and deny anything that stands in the way. Even homosexuals who call themselves Christians continue in their homosexuality (though some actually do change), saying, "Christ accepts who i am." I know they could care less, but everyone could care less if they believed otherwise. They could live together (considering everything i said, of course), but they should consider their arguments against God, for i have found them to be fallacious.

 

[8] Likewise.

 

1.This definition, and most others I have found, say "two people" not "specifically a man and a woman". So, following logic and the actual definition, a "gay marriage" is a marriage between two homosexual men, two homosexual women or one homosexual man and one homosexual woman.

 

2.This is true, but there are laws that apply to everyone and are there for the good of society. Then there are things like the prejudice against gay marriage - it is discriminatory against a certain group of people. A free society, or the closest we can get, is surely one which does not discriminate?

[1] That's why it's better to go to the source. I can pull up definitions too (though you didn't state your source, so i'd be justified in claiming you made it up) that state man and woman, just like you imply there are: married. I could go further in my argument by stating: "Note the second definition is figuratively, therefore the definitions you show could be assuming the term in its figurative state." Other definitions have the word "God" in the primary definition while the others include reference to religion: marriage. So following the logic, the actual definition cannot be decided by use of a dictionary, therefore requiring other sources.

 

[2] Yes, in order for there to be a truly free (without restrictions) society, there cannot be any discrimination.

 

1.If these privileges and benefits come with a heterosexual marriage, why not a homosexual one? I don't see a reason why these privileges and benefits should not apply to all marriages.

 

2.The reason minors can't get married is a lack of maturity. Very few minors meet their life partners at their age, and allowing marriage as a minor would simply encourage marriages that wouldn't last.

[1] I provided a reason in the beginning and afterwards.

 

[2] Irrelevant. The reason why it is irrelevant is because you contradict yourself in your first statement and because of the way one argues for the gay marriage that homosexuals want: people argue, "Why prevent two people that are in love to marry?" Therefore maturity is irrelevant. You would have to allow everything that wants to get married to get married if it were due to love—be it a person and an animal or what-have-you.

[rvalkass 5]

[1] That's why it's better to go to the source. I can pull up definitions too (though you didn't state your source, so i'd be justified in claiming you made it up)

I apologise. I thought I had put the name of the dictionary in the Quote part. I can't be bothered to walk back to the University library at the moment and find it however

 

Other definitions have the word "God" in the primary definition while the others include reference to religion: marriage.

That link includes the word "God" in an example of usage of a synonym of the word "marriage" not in the definition. The actual definitions provided by your source are:

1. the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)

2. two people who are married to each other

3. the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony

4. a close and intimate union

No mention of God. Or that the partners have to be male and female.

 

[2] Irrelevant. The reason why it is irrelevant is because you contradict yourself in your first statement and because of the way one argues for the gay marriage that homosexuals want: people argue, "Why prevent two people that are in love to marry?" Therefore maturity is irrelevant. You would have to allow everything that wants to get married to get married if it were due to lovebe it a person and an animal or what-have-you.

I wouldn't argue it on those grounds. I am following the argument of "Why discriminate against a particular section of society?".

[truefusion 3]

That link includes the word "God" in an example of usage of a synonym of the word "marriage" not in the definition. The actual definitions provided by your source are:

 

 

No mention of God. Or that the partners have to be male and female.

However, by stating in an example things related to religion and husband and wife, the intentions of the definition are therefore made clear—even if they use general terms in the definition itself. These examples are common and help provide insight in case the definition used is hard to understand. The thing about dictionaries, though, is that definitions tend to be dependent on the current times, therefore definitions are bound to change as societies change. That's why slang is included in certain definitions, though slang was never part of the actual definition before. Two or more sources who have the same authority but contradict each other shows dependence on society (since it is socially related) and cannot be deemed as completely reliable. Due to many places now allowing gay marriage as defined by the gay community, it should be expected that the definition of words relating to marriage will change. A perfect, parallel example to this would be with the word "religion," where atheists try to argue that atheism is not a religion. You'll notice how dictionaries are including definitions that trouble many atheists. Therefore it should be evident that dictionaries aren't the best source for objective information.

 

I wouldn't argue it on those grounds. I am following the argument of "Why discriminate against a particular section of society?"

Both grounds have equal complications.

[miladinoski 1]

Therefore it should be evident that dictionaries aren't the best source for objective information.

And what is the best source for objective information?

 

I studied at school (and in the book for Social Studies) that marriage doesn't necessarily must mean a union between a man and a woman. I don't know in other countries but if it isn't put like this, it certainly should — for the next generations to be more liberal on this matter.

 

Remember how in Iran two gay boys were executed by hanging publicly (story)? Don't you think that they need to accept the fact that people do have feelings like these and if they are killed like this the society can't continue forwards? Don't you think that's gross and further discrimination of gays can spread this foul and gross thing in other countries?

[truefusion 3]

And what is the best source for objective information?

Finding the best source of objective information is not so easy. One thing that makes it easy to find is knowing what it is meant when something is "objective" when it comes to truths and facts and similar information. Does the information change from person to person? Then it's subjective, sometimes running along the lines of moral pluralism and other forms of subjectivity. Does it hold true for everyone no matter what? Then it's objective.

 

I studied at school (and in the book for Social Studies) that marriage doesn't necessarily must mean a union between a man and a woman. I don't know in other countries but if it isn't put like this, it certainly should — for the next generations to be more liberal on this matter.

Even dictionaries say it's not necessarily a union between a man and a woman—it's called figurative speech. It became like that due to the socialism of the peoples, the kind of dedication and other emotional attachments to either their work or what-have-you. "He's married to his work," for example.

 

1.Don't you think that they need to accept the fact that people do have feelings like these and if they are killed like this the society can't continue forwards? 2.Don't you think that's gross and further discrimination of gays can spread this foul and gross thing in other countries?

[1] I'm pretty sure the reason why that occurred is because people did accept the fact that people have those kinds of feelings, for if they didn't acknowledge their existence, that wouldn't have happened. But it doesn't follow that accepting ("accepting" as in allowing it to happen) such a fact would allow society to move forward. Then again, it may depend on the kind of "moving forward" you are talking about, for there are plenty of ways of "moving forward." [2] Normally it takes a lot for something to gross me out, but i don't think it would cause other countries to join in. But if you want my point of view on the matter, go back and read my number 7 in my other post where i responded to you.