farrell2k wrote:greay wrote:farrel2k wrote:
Not allowing them to marry does not make them less equal. The equality argument does not apply. Gay couples have all the same rights as unmarried couples. No one is being discriminated against.
As I said before, yes, you can love and share your life with someone without people being married. Some people choose to do so. Some people aren't afforded the privelege of a choice, which isn't right.
And I should add, whether you define marriage as a right or a privelege (I'm granting you that it's a privelege, not a right), not allowing a certain class of couples the privelege of marriage
is still discrimination. Gay couples do
not have the same rights as married couples. NOT EQUAL. Most would marry if given the opportunity. We're trying to fix that.
Yes they do. They have all the same rights as married couples. I will admit that they do not receive all the same benefits of marriage, tax benefits come to mind, but none of their rights are being refused. Gay couples have the same rights as single heterosecual couples, and married couples for that matter. It doesn't matter how you look at it, or how you feel about it. No one has the right to marry. It is perfectly and legally acceptable to regulate privileges to certain groups. Blind people cannot have drivers licenses, and same-sex people are not given marriage licenses. Not having these privileges does not violate any of their rights, despite how emotional you are about it. Gay couples have all the same rights as single, heterosexual couples.
Rights are moral or legal entitlements to have or do (something). Marriage, therefore, fits the definition of a right as it is something which some people are legally entitled to, even though it is not afforded to everybody. The benefits that come with marriage are also rights, as they are the things that you are entitled to as a married couple. And, gay couples do not have the same rights as most single, heterosexual couples. Most single, heterosexual couples meet the legal qualifications which get them to the right to get married, provided they aren't related or already married to other people.
farrell2k wrote:
You and 138 should be arguing to make marriage a right, via an amendment to the constitution. When that happens, state govts will be forced to marry whomever wishes to marry.
Marriage
already is a right by definition. You have insisted that it is a privilege, but a privilege is by definition a 'special right.' Also, ammending the Constitution should not be needed thanks to this piece of brilliance here:
The Bill of Rights wrote:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
farrell2k wrote:toastman wrote:
farrell2k, stop ignoring things as you see fit. You take what you want out of a post and then casually discard the rest without regard to any relevant points therein.
I'll ignore points that are not valid, whn I see fit
Ignoring points or facts that are irrelevant is one thing, and not a particularly good way to win an argument. Ignoring facts on the basis that you cannot effectively argue against them, which is what you are most obviously doing, is another. If any of us raise points which you feel to be invalid, then it is upon you to demonstrate effectively how they are invalid. You have not done this.
farrell2k wrote:" Gays are being discriminated against, because they do not have the right to marry whomever they want." - Marriage is not a right, and no one has the right to marry whomever they want, so the argument is not valid.
That argument is not only valid, but is certainly not the only example of one you've ignored. In fact, you have not ignored that argument. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you only recognize a small subset of the entire category of 'rights,' and used that narrow view to try and argue that marriage is not a right, which it is by definition. If it is a privilege as you claim it is (and I won't dispute that,) then it is also a right. Not everything is as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
farrell2k wrote:
I can't marry my sister, and you can't marry the two beautiful twins next door, despite the fact that we love them more than anything. Are we being discriminated against?
Apples and oranges. This is just the same 'slippery slope' argument from another angle, and it doesn't work. Polygamy is a seperate case and must be looked at seperately. If handled properly, it is not inherently dangerous. I am concerned about your desire to marry your sister, though. No doubt you love her very much, but your children will be much more likely to have birth defects than those of a couple who is not related.
toastman wrote:farrell2k wrote:Moral right are legal rights that pertain to copyright, so I really have no idea what whoever started mentioning moral rights is babbling on about.
Whoa.
I'm sorry but with that statement you have just invalidated any arguement you may make in the future and every arguement you have made in the past. You clearly do not know what's going on if you seriously belief what you just wrote.
I agree with toastman.
Ender wrote:
So, rather than this thread going on as it has been, I'll give you another option. Answer the following question instead.
Why do you feel that you are entitled to push (or try to - because it really is pushing, whether right or wrong - legally or morally) your beliefs on others?
Is that question directed at both sides? If I am forcing my beliefs on somebody it is because I feel that they are using their beliefs to justify the maltreatment of others, and I am perfectly justified in forefully opposing such intolerant behavior.
