3 ms·
The argument is that a certain class of people ought to have the same rights as all others do unless there is a just reason to deny those rights. Surely you can
by GHFigs 18y ago
The argument is that a certain class of people ought to have the same rights as all others do unless there is a just reason to deny those rights. Surely you can think up an argument to support that notion. The exercise of those rights isn't important, i.e. I should not be denied the right to a fair trial simply because I don't intend to commit any crimes and thus don't "need" the right.
Moreover, while the institution of marriage may serve a societal purpose, the denial of marriage rights is itself a mechanism of social control independent of that purpose. Hence, "gay marriage" is the subject of debate, while "marriage" is not.
- cousin_it 18y agoIt's like the science fiction cliche where humans puzzle over artifacts of ancient alien technology. A mind brought up on modern politics is bound to be often baffled by strange and archaic things seemingly created by nonhuman beings. What's common law? What's religion? What's marriage? Our only framework for understanding is the idea of democracy and human rights, but this stuff predates human rights by hundreds or thousands of years, and the shoehorning fails. Slightly exaggerating, if you call marriage a "human right" today, you must also believe that free speech mandates taxpayer-sponsored newspapers to publish everyone's words :-) First make marriage totally non-binding on both partners and the government. Make divorce as easy as signing a paper. Abolish alimony and child support. Drop the tax breaks. Make hospital visitation rights, etc., a matter of civil contract. Those measures will change marriage from a state-sponsored targeted subsidy into a proper "human right".
- kajecounterhack 18y agoa.k.a abolish institutionalized marriage. all in favor say aye. aye.
- GHFigs 18y agoAt no point did I suggest that state-sponsored marriage must exist. Nor did I use the term "human right". In fact I don't think I'd be opposed to its abolition, as you've described. But that's like "helping" someone fix a flat tire by telling them to buy a new car. It's a solution, yes, but not a practical one in a democracy where the vast majority of the voting populace, regardless of their stance on gay marriage, does not oppose marriage in general. I'm sorry if that isn't broad-minded enough for you, but I can't help but view a modern political issue through the lens of modern politics. Arguing in the abstract strikes me as a convenient way of avoiding the problem entirely.