Proclamation of Teheran affirms the opposite, and most Western countries consider reproduction a right.
Go tell that to my friends who got married for visa reasons or to get a reduction in income tax. As for saying the benefits are a reflection of legal flaws, it’s like saying there is no such right to be safe in the streets since it does not involve any benefits, the few it does (right to protection from unjust harm) just being a reflection of the flaw that criminality is.
That we can agree on. But if you start giving that legal apparatus to heterosexual couples, as per people being equal in law, homosexual couples do have the right to marriage too.
Like I said, people tend to talk about “rights” because it allows them to skirt around hard questions.
Asserting that reproduction is a right imposes certain obligations on the State to uphold that right: for example, it must deal with the fallout of completely unsuitable parents reproducing (Fred West, to take a random example). Well: fair enough, we accept the tradeoff of occasional tragedy as the inevitable outcome of freedom for the majority. How about when infertile couples start demanding assisted reproduction at the State’s expense, because it’s their “right”? How and when do you decide to deprive someone of their child on the basis that they’re incompetent to care for it?
I’m just saying that superficially high-minded proclamations are actually facile and naive, and have far-reaching consequences that aren’t universally positive.
You don’t have a “right” to be safe in the streets. The statement is meaningless. We might reasonably expect our neighbours not to be psychopaths and for the State to keep a close eye on those who are, but “rights” don’t come into it. These are complex issues of social structure and governance.
This is what I mean about people stretching the meaning of “rights” to mean pretty much anything they like.
I think the phrase " Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins" comes to mind.
The example you use of infertile couples who demand the right to have children at the expense of the state, involves just that, a cost, an expense other people have to pay.
What cost or might I ask, what is being infringed by same sex marriage? Nothing as far as I can see.
@finley Here’s one thing we can agree on: morality is, in the grand scheme of things, arbitrary. Some will say one thing is good or bad, others will disagree. There is a certain consensus though, being it “sheeplish” or educated, about what is ethical and what is not. You have the right to debate it, but you also have to live with the conclusion of the debate.
Based on that consensus, people decide what rights human beings are entitled to. The Proclamation of Teheran is such a decision, claiming people have the right to choose when and how many children they want to have. Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states you have the right for security (meaning yes, there is a consensus that you do have the right to be safe on the streets; claiming the statement is meaningless only shows you still haven’t wrapped your head around what a right is).
We can agree it’s not written in the laws of physics, it’s not absolutely objective rights. But that’s the system mankind is building, and so rights decided within that systems are, in effect and in name, rights.
its such a non issue to me. its two adults, not an adult and a kid or an adult and an animal? i really don’t see what the fuss is about. it really winds me up how people make such a fuss about this, i personally think the law should be passed asap so we could move on to more important issues, things that actually effect our lives. whether two adults marry effects nobody.
Not necessarily, as I said earlier rather crudely. We still need a word for an entitlement, regardless of whether it entails any obligations. Right does perfectly well there, and that’s what people mean when they call marriage a right. They mean that they are entitled to it, and not that it necessarily will only bring benefits to them.
If you only mean “rights” in an objective or abstract sense, again I’m not interested. I’m arguing that there is a legal right to marriage, which that argument had no bearing on.
Not seeing how any of that is relevant!
I wouldn’t give a shit personally. My feelings for @Toe_Save are no one else’s business, call them what you like. But whether the government calls it a marriage is another question. If you don’t care to pay regard to the legal determinations of the government, that will be between you and them.
Sorry, but you could use that for pretty much any discussion. I’m just pointing out what’s one of the major reasons, at least in some societies, for people to oppose it. TRADITIONALLY, since the beginning of the use of that concept, marriage has been what has been. Now there’s a revision. OK, different parts will take different postures.
I believe marriage is a convent between a man and a women in the eyes of god.
My only grip with same sex marriage is calling it marriage. Otherwise I don’t care if two 2 people wanting to be together as consenting adults. I’m not really sure the state should handle marriage but that’s just where we are realistically. A piece of paper saying you’re married is not the original definition marriage I believe in.
