I'm going to have to fade away from Oqodo for a while. (I know, you're all very grateful). I've been spending too much time writing these posts, although it's been good and fun. I wrote a lot here so I could try to put as much eggs into one basket, since I won't be responding much to other posts after this.
I have to speak up about this, though. I actually agree with the person's main point. "A right is not susceptible to plebiscite." A right is something that someone has precisely because they are a human person. (Incidentally, I would love for someone to show me a justification of this point without relying on religious principles. The idea that someone has 'innate' rights because they are a human person is ultimately rooted in the belief in the transcendent. It's ironic that people are using the Christian foundations to tear apart some of the 'Judeo-Christian' morality here in America. In time, people will realize that they've sawed off the branch while they were standing on it and crash to the ground. That's an issue for another post, though). He does conflate a legal right and a human right, though. In America, we might say we have certain 'rights' that may not be human rights. Rights given to us by the law and not by God or the fact of our being a human being.
There's a few other points I'd like to make, but will skip for now. I will say that the author made the point that 'it also sides with religion over irreligion, violat
...
expand this and all posts in this thread
I'm going to have to fade away from Oqodo for a while. (I know, you're all very grateful). I've been spending too much time writing these posts, although it's been good and fun. I wrote a lot here so I could try to put as much eggs into one basket, since I won't be responding much to other posts after this.
I have to speak up about this, though. I actually agree with the person's main point. "A right is not susceptible to plebiscite." A right is something that someone has precisely because they are a human person. (Incidentally, I would love for someone to show me a justification of this point without relying on religious principles. The idea that someone has 'innate' rights because they are a human person is ultimately rooted in the belief in the transcendent. It's ironic that people are using the Christian foundations to tear apart some of the 'Judeo-Christian' morality here in America. In time, people will realize that they've sawed off the branch while they were standing on it and crash to the ground. That's an issue for another post, though). He does conflate a legal right and a human right, though. In America, we might say we have certain 'rights' that may not be human rights. Rights given to us by the law and not by God or the fact of our being a human being.
There's a few other points I'd like to make, but will skip for now. I will say that the author made the point that 'it also sides with religion over irreligion, violating longstanding principles of neutrality etc.' and then 'prohibition on laws 'respecting an establishment of religion' is violated". A few points. First, for centuries, we've taken the side of religion over irreligion. You can argue that should change, but that would need to be argued. Those who support supposed 'gay rights to marriage' are taking a side too. It's not as if someone can be perfectly neutral. Then, the prohibition of laws 'respecting an establishment of religion' were intended to restrict the establishment of a single religion in the country, such as the Anglican Church in England, the Catholic Church in Spain, etc. If others want to re-write the Constitution to apply to agnostics and others, that's their business, but appealing to that clause in this case is ridiculous. No religion would be established...which brings me to another point. The legislation against gay marriage is a moral legislation, not a religious one. We have all sorts of moral legislation. Actually, almost every law on the books can be traced back to some moral decision. e.g. We should send bombers to Afghanistan, because terrorism is an evil. We should outlaw hate crimes, because people shouldn't be intolerant bigots. We should have desegregated schools ,because all people are created equal. Our budget priorities are based on a moral code. Those who favor gay marriage are arguing from a sense of morality. e.g. "Gays are human persons too. They deserve to have the right to marry just like everybody else." The point being, whatever side one takes, a person is legislating morality and not religion. Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, probably some Hindus, some Buddhists, and some agnostics can probably agree on this issue generally...because it's not based on dogma or articles of faith but the natural law and morality.
Finally, the comparison between the 'Gay marriage' movement and the Civil Rights Movement is a poor one. The same goes for the gender equality movement. Civil Rights had to do with people being mis-treated because of the color of the skin. People were being discriminated against because of something that had nothing to do with their actions, their character, etc. The same generally goes for women. People are not saying that all people who are gays should be killed. If that were the case, then I'd be the first to say it's terrible.
In the case of Gay Marriage, though, there is a so-called discrimination based on behavior. That's a completely different argument altogether. Conflating the civil rights movement and the gender equality movement with gay marriage is a false comparison. It's based on emotion and gets people's emotions going (e.g. Yes, we must fight for gay marriage just like MLK marched on Selma. It's the new issue of our times!) Once you start talking about a discrimination based on behavior, though, you need to look at each case. For example, we 'discriminate' against people who want to have sex with their five year olds or marry them. Shouldn't they have the right to marry? What about if I want to marry a dog? Or how about a 35 year old who wants to marry a completely willing 13 year old girl? Is there discrimination there? Is it discrimination against the serial killer when we tell him he can't murder his neighbor? Legislating behavior, especially something like marriage, which affects the whole of society and not just the two persons involved, is a completely different issue than gender equality and racial equality, which is based on the human person himself or herself.
P.S. I know the initial emotional reaction to the comparisons I made above is usually, "So you're comparing gays who want to get married to a man who wants to marry a five year old?" The answer, to anticipate, is no. I'm saying that we do legislate some aspects of marriage already. Marriage, defined as gay marriage advocates want to define it, is not a right.
Really, this question boils down to what your understanding of marriage is. If it's a contract between two people who love each other, then there's no reason why a pedophile can't marry his 8 year old daughter. Whatever the case, marriage is a societal concern, and we legislate it already. I could go on, but I better stop now.
