• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Rights contradiction?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is something created by gay activists; you cannot just create a new institution and then demand it is your right.
Marriage by your definition is between a man and a woman.

You desire to be able to demand your concept of right on someone else; but you refuse to allow the same.

Gay marriage does no harm to you.

For many years; men were allowed to have multiple wives
Women were objects of wealth and breeding stock; not equals in a relationship.
In the majority of the world; this is still the case.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Most believe that in a democracy, everybody should have the same basic rights.

But many in the US oppose gay marriage and gay rights. Isn't this a contradiction? If one supports basic liberal democratic ideals, then there can be no selective thinking. To say "the Bible opposes it" is immaterial, since liberal democracy is not a Biblical system. The Old Testament God nor Jesus ever mentioned it or endorsed it.
Marriage isn't a right, period. Marriage is two things - 1) a religious ceremony and 2) a civil act granted to promote a healthy society. No one has a right to either of these things. A couple does not have to be married to be in a relationship together or to live together. If a gays want civil unions to be granted, they have to get the people to vote to pass such laws because the purpose of civil unions is entirely different from the marriages.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Marriage isn't a right, period. Marriage is two things - 1) a religious ceremony and 2) a civil act granted to promote a healthy society. No one has a right to either of these things. A couple does not have to be married to be in a relationship together or to live together. If a gays want civil unions to be granted, they have to get the people to vote to pass such laws because the purpose of civil unions is entirely different from the marriages.
Purpose in the eyes of what? Government or religion?
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
Brown v The Board of Education found that "separate but equal" is inherently not equal.
The two are in no way comparable.

One is quantified (civil union) while the other is not (school quality, etc.)

"Separate but equal" is a red herring in this argument and is completely meaningless.

My opinion is that all "state marriages" should be called "civil unions." Let gays and straights alike be unioned in the eyes of the state. Let the religions keep their ideas of marriage to themselves. For the purposes of the state, though, it doesn't matter what it's called as long as the rights stay the same.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
So you don't think monogamous relationships are good for society?
Monogamous relationships occur without marriage.

Marriage is suppose to be a life-long monogamous relationship. The same people who support same-sex marriage however have no problem with divorce.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Marriage is about more than saying something is ok. It is saying it is good for society.
Yet you can not show how it is wrong for society.

Interracial marriages were considered to be wrong for society also at one point.

Inter society levels are also considered wrong.
Inter faith is also considered to be wrong.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Yet you can not show how it is wrong for society.

Interracial marriages were considered to be wrong for society also at one point.

Inter society levels are also considered wrong.
Inter faith is also considered to be wrong.
I said it was ok.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Monogamous relationships occur without marriage.

Marriage is suppose to be a life-long monogamous relationship.
Those gay couples who seek marriage intend them to be life-long monogamous relationships too.

The same people who support same-sex marriage however have no problem with divorce.
That is 100% wrong. The people who have no problem with divorce are those who have multiple divorces... and there's a pretty even split between supporting and not supporting same-sex marriage among those people.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Those gay couples who seek marriage intend them to be life-long monogamous relationships too.



That is 100% wrong. The people who have no problem with divorce are those who have multiple divorces... and there's a pretty even split between supporting and not supporting same-sex marriage among those people.
If you eliminate no-fault divorce I am willing to give you same-sex marriage. Its a fair trade.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Marriage isn't a right, period. Marriage is two things - 1) a religious ceremony and 2) a civil act granted to promote a healthy society. No one has a right to either of these things. A couple does not have to be married to be in a relationship together or to live together. If a gays want civil unions to be granted, they have to get the people to vote to pass such laws because the purpose of civil unions is entirely different from the marriages.
Until the government will split the connotation between the civil and religious aspects; they are co joined at the hip.

Is it easier to separate the two cleanly or to completely fold the civil aspect into the legal mold.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,117
3,654
126
Most believe that in a democracy, everybody should have the same basic rights.

But many in the US oppose gay marriage and gay rights. Isn't this a contradiction?
Everyone is equally free to marry a member of the opposite sex.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Until the government will split the connotation between the civil and religious aspects; they are co joined at the hip.

Is it easier to separate the two cleanly or to completely fold the civil aspect into the legal mold.
Marriage is not just a judeo-christian institution. I dont even know why people seem to think it is?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Do you push for eliminating no-fault divorce or do you only push against same-sex marriage?
I am opposed to both no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage.

But it is called compromise. If you eliminate no-fault divorce at the very least society would be agreeing that marriage has some inherent meaning; as a life-long relationship between 2 people.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I am opposed to both no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage.

But it is called compromise. If you eliminate no-fault divorce at the very least society would be agreeing that marriage has some inherent meaning; as a life-long relationship between 2 people.
I know what you're opposed to.. I'm asking what you personally push for and advocate; what you support/oppose via money and/or votes.

I ask because while your opposition to same-sex marriage is very clearly documented here, your opposition to no-fault divorce has barely been mentioned.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
If you eliminate no-fault divorce I am willing to give you same-sex marriage. Its a fair trade.
Why should one be tied to the other.

People get into marriage for reasons that may have nothing to do with dissolving the marriage.

Why should someone be held at fault if it should not work out.
There is no need to force someone to be in the wrong.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Maybe because so many marriages take place in a church or a building that looks very much like one.
You mean except for the 2/3 of the world that is not Christian?

I know what you're opposed to.. I'm asking what you personally push for and advocate; what you support/oppose via money and/or votes.
Unfortunately there are pretty much no candidates advocate for an end to no-fault divorce :(
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Why should one be tied to the other.

People get into marriage for reasons that may have nothing to do with dissolving the marriage.

Why should someone be held at fault if it should not work out.
There is no need to force someone to be in the wrong.
Because if marriage has no meaning why should it exist at all?

If no one is in the wrong, why are they even getting divorced?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Because if marriage has no meaning why should it exist at all?

If no one is in the wrong, why are they even getting divorced?
I agree that divorces are too common and that the marriages that preceded them shouldn't have existed in the first place, but that is not something that impacts everyone else.

Why should I not be able to marry my partner because other people treat marriage so cavalierly?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY