Rights contradiction?

[mammador]

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.

 

[BoomerD]

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.

What are "gay rights?" How are they different than "straight rights?"

By the way...the US of A isn't a "democracy," we're a constitutional republic.

There IS a difference.

 

[PokerGuy]

What rights might you be referring to?

Fail thread is fail.

 

[nehalem256]

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 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.

 

[nageov3t]

If one supports basic liberal democratic ideals, then there can be no selective thinking.

I don't think this holds true.

 

[Brainonska511]

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.

The dogmas of the past do not always prove correct or justify certain courses of action.

 

[nageov3t]

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.

that's a relatively new definition because, *gasp* the definition of marriage was redefined.

for the majority of human existence, marriage was defined as some form of polygamous slavery arrangement with 13 year-old girls.

 

[nehalem256]

that's a relatively new definition because, *gasp* the definition of marriage was redefined.

So you redefined marriage. And then are claiming you have a right to demand other people support your definition :hmm:

 

[nageov3t]

So you redefined marriage. And then are claiming you have a right to demand other people support your definition :hmm:

sounds right.

see also: making polygamy illegal, age of consent laws, etc.

 

[dank69]

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.

Why are men forced to marry women if they want to get married? It's just another instance of the law being used to keep men down. Women should have to earn their male mates on a level playing field not because the deck is stacked in their favor.

 

[Texashiker]

The US is not a democracy, its a republic.

 

[werepossum]

why are men forced to marry women if they want to get married? It's just another instance of the law being used to keep men down. Women should have to earn their male mates on a level playing field not because the deck is stacked in their favor.

lmao! +1

 

[Ketchup]

Tell you what, why don't gay couples get their own legal union, so they could have the tax benefits (and other benefits I may have left out) of a married couple? It wouldn't hurt the definition of marriage (which I think SHOULD be between a man and a woman) and they would have the rights they desire.

 

[nehalem256]

Tell you what, why don't gay couples get their own legal union, so they could have the tax benefits (and other benefits I may have left out) of a married couple? It wouldn't hurt the definition of marriage (which I think SHOULD be between a man and a woman) and they would have the rights they desire.

So now you ARE arguing for special rights for gay people

Why should such a union exist?

 

[Anarchist420]

I support getting the Federal government out of marriage. I favor getting my State out of marriage also.

A problem I have with the Church of Rome is the fact that they think they're the Finger of God on the definition of marriage.

 

[nageov3t]

So now you ARE arguing for special rights for gay people

Why should such a union exist?

marriage as it exists in contemporary society is a legal contract between two people.

I don't see why the government should have an interest in what gender those people are as long as they're freely consenting to enter into said contract.

NJ tried the separate-but-equal thing with civil unions and studied have shown that it hasn't worked out great (which is to say, better than nothing but it still faces hurdles that aren't faced by couples with the "marriage" label)

personally, I'd just as soon see the gov get out of the marriage business entirely and have nothing but civil unions for everyone (and if you want to get married, let it be a ceremony in your church with no legal implications)

 

[thraashman]

Tell you what, why don't gay couples get their own legal union, so they could have the tax benefits (and other benefits I may have left out) of a married couple? It wouldn't hurt the definition of marriage (which I think SHOULD be between a man and a woman) and they would have the rights they desire.

Brown v The Board of Education found that "separate but equal" is inherently not equal.

 

[nehalem256]

marriage as it exists in contemporary society is a legal contract between two people.

You mean unless the 2 people are related, or are all ready married...

I don't see why the government should have an interest in what gender those people are as long as they're freely consenting to enter into said contract.

Well quite frankly most people nowadays dont believe marriage has any meaning whatsoever. It means whatever anyone feels it means.

NJ tried the separate-but-equal thing with civil unions and studied have shown that it hasn't worked out great (which is to say, better than nothing but it still faces hurdles that aren't faced by couples with the "marriage" label)

Interesting... why didnt it work out? Why is the name so important?

 

[Ketchup]

So now you ARE arguing for special rights for gay people

Why should such a union exist?

Although I seemed to be in the past, I am not against people's rights, I am against a gay couple taking the definition of Marriage to places it should not go.

Our government has decided that marriage brings with it a lot of extra 'benefits,' taxes being the main one I am aware of. If our society is going to say that being gay is ok, it makes no sense that our government says the 'okness' stops at the legal union of a gay couple.

 

[nehalem256]

Although I seemed to be in the past, I am not against people's rights, I am against a gay couple taking the definition of Marriage to places it should not go.

Our government has decided that marriage brings with it a lot of extra 'benefits,' taxes being the main one I am aware of. If our society is going to say that being gay is ok, it makes no sense that our government says the 'okness' stops at the legal union of a gay couple.

Marriage is about more than saying something is ok. It is saying it is good for society.

 

[PokerGuy]

Brown v The Board of Education found that "separate but equal" is inherently not equal.

And yet, there are plenty of places where separate but equal is perfectly acceptable. Restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms are all set up as 'separate but equal' in most places. The court didn't hold that separate but equal is always a bad thing, it ruled that it was a bad thing in the context of that case.

 

[Retro Rob]

The Government is weak because it listens to the people too much and can't really exert it's authority like it should.

Everyone wants "rights" and are willing to fight the government for them. It's more of want people "want" to do, not what they should... and those wants are disguised as "rights".

Hence, politicians are weak and have become liars because of ... people, and these perceived "rights"...

 

[nehalem256]

And yet, there are plenty of places where separate but equal is perfectly acceptable. Restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms are all set up as 'separate but equal' in most places. The court didn't hold that separate but equal is always a bad thing, it ruled that it was a bad thing in the context of that case.

Reproductive rights... oh wait, men dont even have seperate equal reproductive rights :hmm:

 

[zsdersw]

It is saying it is good for society.

Do you think gay relationships that reach the level of marriage aren't good for society?

 

[zsdersw]

The Government is weak because it listens to the people too much and can't really exert it's authority like it should.

Exert what authority, exactly?

Government's power is derived from the consent of the governed. It doesn't have any explicitly defined power beyond that.