Main > Everything Else
election irony
Mameotron:
--- Quote from: lucindrea on November 05, 2004, 12:13:04 am --- and at midnight I
--- End quote ---
shmokes:
TA, that's the worst definition of rights ever. Does that mean the right to an attorney came before the state? How about the right to a speedy jury trial? There is more than one type of right. I think you're talking about natural rights. But the state, obviously, can create rights. Anyway, labeling something a "privelege" instead of a right doesn't shield it from the 14th Amendment. I very much doubt that we have a natural right to sit at the front of the bus. But pass a law saying black people have to stand at the back and you're going to run into some problems with the constitution.
The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded. Apply that line of reasoning to a group that you don't hate and its absurdity becomes apparent. Imagine a law requiring that everyone has to pee standing up. The law would be enforced and applied the same to everyone. In effect, of course, the law would discriminate against women (and handicapped).
It's like passing a law that says everyone has to vote republican and then claiming that the law is fair because republicans are bound by the same new voting restrictions as democrats. Misguided at best. More likely disingenuous and hateful.
Crazy Cooter:
Whether a right or a priviledge, it's the ramifications of denying it that is in question. Consider this:
Man1 marries woman1. They have a kid and get divorced. Man1 dies, woman1 meets woman2 and they live together 10 years as a couple. Then woman1 dies. Who gets the kid? If woman1 had married man2, chances are good that the court would allow man2 to keep the kid. Since she did not "marry" anyone, woman2 has zero rights to the kid. Should she?
Now suppose instead of a kid, it's money, real estate etc.
It makes sense to me to just call it a marriage across the boards. Done deal. Avoids all the crap about defining civil unions and all the jazz that would follow. Marriage isn't some sacred entity. It's a piece of paper, some metal rings, and a pile of legal mumbo-jumbo. That's it. What that stuff "means" is defined by the people it joined. Some people are monogomous, some people are swingers, some are cheaters, some get divorced. How is any of this sacred? I don't think we can tell a couple of chicks they can't get married anymore than we can tell a guy and girl they can't get divorced.
Mameotron:
--- Quote from: Grasshopper on November 07, 2004, 02:57:35 pm ---Granting gay people the right to marry would have no significant effect on the straight majority.
--- End quote ---
Only that it devalues what straight people call marriage.
Look, if you work hard for 7 years and finally are awarded your PhD, how would you feel if I ordered my PhD online and got it instantly? Does it really have no effect on you or the value of your PhD?
shmokes:
What a spurious comparison.
It doesn't devalue your marriage. The value of your marriage as far as the state is concerned is $50 for a marriage license and the rights, such as filing taxes jointly, inheritence, decision making, etc. that go along with it.
If your gay neighbor gets married the "value" of your marriage is unaffected. Even from a religious context, your ability to get into heaven, if your religion requires that you be married or celebate, is not affected by whether or not gays are granted civil marriages. And if there were a conflict it would be up to your religion to make sure you got the proper religious marriage to get into heaven, not up to the state to make sure that its civil marriage proceedures covered all your bases.