Is marriage a "right"?

Oh, I see. I didn’t remember that (not sure if I ever knew it).

People demanding attention and fucking with other people.

isn’t it usually called a civil partnership? or do you have a problem with that aswell?

@mad_masala’s argument in a nutshell: by definition only men can be citizens. That’s how it’s been for centuries in good old Ancient Greece. I’ll grant that women are allowed to enjoy the same rights as men, but nobody should force men to call women citizens, and you can’t change the definition of a citizen because that will fuck everything up. So let’s just call women “city dwellers” and everybody will be happy.

Your definition strikes me as rather odd. Why would anybody demand something that brings them no benefit, and may indeed bring them problems? The word ‘entitlement’ makes even less sense than ‘rights’.

“I’m entitled to a regular flogging on Friday afternoons” is ridiculous for 99% of the population, although I suppose if I had certain proclivities I might be inclined to demand it as an entitlement. But then again, we’d be back to the idea of ‘benefit’, however incomprehensible my position might be to others.

Going back to your example of a plateful of dog turds, yes, technically we might say that it would be OK for some individual to demand such a thing as a “right” if it doesn’t harm anyone. But if everyone were shouting “me too!” we might legitimately ask WTF is going on, no?

See, this is why I’m nitpicking over using the word “rights”. It has knock-on effects.

Back there I suggested that reproduction might be considered a “right” if you are inherently capable of it. The problem is that people have now decided that this right should extended to them under all circumstances. If they are unable to reproduce, the gubmint still has to uphold their “right”, by means of technology or adoption.

I’m not having a purely academic discussion here. My partner can’t have kids, and IMO nature probably has a reason for this. I dunno, maybe nature deems it important to weed out reactionary old curmudgeons from the gene pool. Whatever the reason, it may be unwise to work around it. I’m saying “may” because I don’t know for sure. I’m simply observing that farmed populations of animals that allow nature to take its course have far fewer problems - on several different metrics - than populations that have their genetics fiddled around with by the farmer. The farmer, in his wisdom, gets it wrong more often than not. I don’t think humans stand outside of nature.

The underlying issue is that humans do have empathy and compassion. They don’t like to see suffering. However, as JP likes to say, life is suffering. The modern goal of swaddling every human being against every possible insult is a dreadful thing. I’m not sure where the middle ground is, but endless talk of “rights” is a big part of the failure to locate the right place to stand.

Unpleasant as that episode was, I think this decision is morally wrong. Nobody should be forced to conduct an exchange that they do not wish to participate in. Those bakers would have been adequately punished for their position by a drastic loss of business. The natural corollary of one’s “right” to free agency is the acceptance of the consequences of your decisions.

Is it really that difficult to understand what I said? Why do you ask me if I have a problem with it?

I will just destroy it with a small thing: I’m not talking about rights. When people started to use those terms there was probably no rights whatsoever acquired by marrying someone.

PS: @tempogain man, don’t I have the right to say what I want, in the way I want?

The actual concept of citizenship is pretty new. “Citizenship” in ancient times was based on social class, nothing to do with sex. We’ve pretty much projected our ideas of citizenship on ancient times. Many man were pretty much as low ranking as women, and there are the slaves as well. It was based a lot on wealth, social class, parental heritage, participation in politics, etc. It is clearly not the same concept we use today.

This goes back to who invented pasta? Chinese or Italians?

I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you. You’re saying that the fact that it involves obligations is relevant. I’m saying that it’s not and the point is that the government is in fact offering it as a right. Anyone has the right to do it, and they are not obligated to do it. It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand why people want it or think they shouldn’t want it.

1 Like

Do women have the right to be called women?


Do men have the right to be called women?

Oh, wait…

100% yes.

Wrong. Citizens were, by definition, men. And then, true, there were a few other conditions with social class.

@mad_masala lol to destroy a point you need to aim at it first. You’re missing by miles: your main argument is about the definition of marriage, and you’re basically saying we can’t change the definition. I’m just pointing at you we can and did, both in the dictionary and in some countries’ law books, same as we did with the concept of citizenship.

Yeah, sorry, that’s a mix of typos and broken edition. Dunno how I managed to do that.

Well, that’s the way you want to see it, but it’s not. Again, I will say it one more time, probably the last time: I’m explaining what the conflict is, why certain people oppose to “SSM”. You just want to focus on you view of it, but you know what? you can’t force other people to do, say and accept what you want without even listening to them.

I think that my point is very clear. Pretty much all civilizations had a name for the union of a man and a women. You can’t force other people to change that definition only because you feel envy or you want the same rights. Even if you get the same rights, 2 men or 2 women together is not the same than a heterosexual couple. Nobody says you can’t be with a person of your same sex, but don’t call it marriage because it’s not. You know what, I don’t even really care much, I’m trying to make people like you what’s all those fascists point of view, because it’s not what you think.

I understand your position; your argument basically asserts: “who are we to decide if people are right or wrong in their life decisions?”

I’m saying that, if a large section of society is vociferously demanding something that has no demonstrable benefit to anybody (you don’t seem to dispute that this is illogical if not exactly immoral) then that society might have a deeper problem that needs examining.

So all men were citizens? Nope. Many men couldn’t be citizens either.

The point is, their concept of citizenship is radically different. We’ve only projected our idea of modern citizenship to them. They clearly did not have the same ideas on citizenship.

We don’t even agree that’s where the idea of modern citizenship came from.

True, you can’t force every single person to agree on a change in the definition. But you can get a majority of people to agree on it, and their children and the children of the people who refuse the change.

That a certain definition has been used everywhere and since the dawn of time doesn’t prevent it from changing today. It happened in the past, it’s happening again, precisely because people want the same rights. In France, Australia, the UK and the US, people of the same sex are united by a bond called marriage. As for the law books and dictionaries of these countries it is defined marriage. Deal with it.

like I said. Not all men, but, by definition, no woman.

What’s your problem with using language in the proper way, instead of using it for political purposes?

I accept the dictionary’s definition as “the proper way.”