Your views on gay "Marriage"? HRC claims rights violations. Do you?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Your views on gay "Marriage"? HRC claims rights violations. Do you?

Post  Objectivitees on Sat May 12, 2012 3:29 pm

Marriage is a privilege, not a "right".

The government secures our natural, or God-given rights. It does not create them.
All else, that needs some oversight, is considered a privilege, and therefore licensed.
Such as:

Driving: A person who wishes to drive a car, must prove they meet specific minimum criteria, apply for, and receive a license to drive.

Contracting: A person who wishes to contract, must prove they meet specific minimum criteria, apply for, and receive a license to contract.

Operating a business: A person who wishes to operate a business, must prove they meet specific minimum criteria, apply for, and receive a license to operate a business.

Purchasing wholesale without paying tax: A person wishing to do this must prove they meet specific minimum criteria, apply for and receive a license to purchase wholesale, without paying sales tax.

Now, please note the similarity to the following....
MARRIAGE: A person wishing to become married, must prove they meet certain specific minimum criteria, apply for, and receive a license to marry.

Conclusion: Marriage is not, and never has been a "right" recognized by government.

Therefore, the HRC is either intentionally misstating (deceiving, lying, falsely claiming) their position is valid, as they stand on the foundational claim that their advocacy is only to obtain what is theirs by "right", OR, they are incompetent. Either way, the argument that they are being denied their "rights" is a red herring, straw man, absolute fabrication.






www.objectivitees.com
avatar
Objectivitees

Posts : 120
Join date : 2009-10-08

http://www.objectivitees.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Your views on gay "Marriage"? HRC claims rights violations. Do you?

Post  Aught3 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:07 am

I don't see marriage as a right but I do see equal treatment as one. Discrimination of the LGBT crowd through marriage inequality is an infringement of their right to equal treatment by the law.
avatar
Aught3

Posts : 80
Join date : 2009-09-25
Location : New Zealand

http://www.indoctrinatingfreethought.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Your views on gay "Marriage"? HRC claims rights violations. Do you?

Post  benuk78 on Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:18 am

I guess my first thought would be 'says who?'

Are we not democracies? Does the government not reflect the people? Is there some sort of invisible barrier that stops us defining what a privilege is, and what a right is, and who gets what? What is that invisible barrier if it not just other peoples opinion?

The statement that 'The government secures our natural, or God-given rights. It does not create them.' is highly loaded with presumptions and assertions that, to me, seem to not be underpinned by anything.

What is the governments relationship to 'us' in 'securing' something? By what definition is a 'right' a 'natural' thing? Is it like a mountain, or a river, or something mathematical? How do we spot what a natural right is and ensure we have correctly categorised it and all its aspects? How do we ensure that our government, which after all only consists of people like us, has correctly identified all the natural rights and accurately quantified their differences compared to 'privileges' so that they have not made a mistake or missed something that should be natural or 'god-given' or be an aspect of it? By who's authority do we translate all this and say who gets what? Who is in what group and who is going to lose out? How do we know they are accurate?

History shows us that Christianity did create its own form of marriage. The rights and privileges afforded in a Christian marriage are different than in an Islamic one. They differ from the pagan rituals of 2000 years ago, and they differ from the local practices that occurred regionally before Christianity was brought by missionaries or invaders. There was a point in time when Christian marriage did not exist, and then over time it emerged. Even today there are marriage types that widely differ from our Western one. You can have multiple wives, or wives can have multiple husbands. In some places divorce is possible, in others it is not. If Christianity got to choose why can't we?

In all the examples you give licenses have been put in place because of human affairs. Typically they are there to protect people. In the modern world we do this based on an assessment of risks. Driving a car is a privilege allowed once of a certain age and ability not because it is not a natural law, but because it would be dangerous to do anything else. Meeting health criteria, such as food hygiene qualifications and standards, are not licensed by governments because they are obviously not natural laws; it is done for safety and often based on science and rationality. For example food hygiene standards may need to be changed if a common bacteria develops resistance to cleaning methods that previously worked under an old standard.

What I mean to say is that I think your distinction between a privilege and a right is nebulous at best - and the fact we licence things has little to do with what theologians or philosophers think and much more to do with the real world material (i.e the outcome of materialistic philosophy) outcomes.

Since theology is obviously not at the heart of any of the legal infrastructure behind your list of privileges and material assessments are we can turn to the subject of marriage using the same realworld philosophy that acts on privileges and rights to judge the privilege and rights of marriage to test if they are fair and moral.

And so we can ask using the same standards that are applied to other privileges and rights 'what is the harm that occurs in the real world that is measurable and that indicates that gay marriage does have aspects that emerge from physical nature?

Remembering that there are types of marriage that evidence indicates are not healthy when acted on by natural law, ie between siblings. So we do already license marriage based on the affects of how nature operates. The question is 'do we see any of these negatives directly resulting from gay marriage?'
The answer is no. In fact the strongest correlation to the physical and mental wellbeing of both the married couple and any children involved is still wealth. Poverty damages families, damages society and can make marriages non-functional in a way in which data shows gay marriage doesn't. The only correlation between gay marriage and problems comes from outside. It really doesn't seem good for people to be in a community that is set against them - and it affects the marriages and the children. But that is the community, not the marriages themselves. Back to the point though, we do not license marriage based on income, even though the affect is far far greater than sexuality - even greater than community punishment of families and especially on a societal level.

Marriages (relationships) fail because of stress and lack of communication, not because people love each other and want to spend their lives together. If anything that seems to be the 'natural law'. That is what we should respect and be cautious of and try to minimise. Tying to minimise gay marriage has no data to back it up. I've no problem with licensing against sibling marriages even though the people love each other. The data shows that 'natural law' is against it. It doesn't show that it is against gay marriage except to say for the obvious fact that you won't get children directly. However, I don't see that we can ban infertile men from marrying, or infertile women, or should even say that marriage is most importantly about having children. My wife's parents split up when she was young and are now both happily married. I would challenge anyone to say to her that they should have stayed together just for her. I suspect she would strongly assert that her Mum leaving was at the time in their best interests and worked out in their best interests. Children benefit by having happy loving parents, again much more of a natural law than an enforced situation of people who don't love each other being forced to stay together.

Systems that start with definitions of natural law that don't work and ignore all data and then go on to decide how we should all live our lives are best left well alone.

That would be my starting point.

benuk78

Posts : 5
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Your views on gay "Marriage"? HRC claims rights violations. Do you?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum