The parts about "the freedom to marry" that are really about freedom, are the ability/right to have a relationship, to claim someone as your spouse, to live together, to have sex, to have a ceremony and call it a wedding, and maybe a few other things along those lines.
All of those gay people have and should have.
Since you are choosing to nitpick, let me amend what I said.........the right to get married legally.
You either misunderstand, or are deliberately choosing to ignore my point. Its not a nitpick, its the substantive point that "the right to get married legally", means a number of things, and that all of those things that involve personal freedom are already legal for gay couples. The one thing that can not do at this point is enforce a formal legal and societal recognition of their relationship as a marriage. When someone prevents you from doing something they might be unjustly limiting your freedom. OTOH when someone refuses to grant legal recognition to your personal relationships they aren't imposing a limitation on your freedom. They might be treating you unfairly (because other people get such recognition) but unfair treatment is not the same as an infringement on liberty/freedom. You can argue that it is just as bad, but even if it is just as bad, it still is a separate thing.
When someone prevents you from legally marrying, then its a restriction of freedom as well as treating you unfairly. Blacks who were made to ride at the back of the bus still were able to go to whatever destination they wanted but they were treated unfairly and unequally.......because they were not given the same freedom as the whites to sit wherever they wanted on the bus. Its why they demonstrated repeatedly. Now you may choose to see that as another example of unfair treatment but I see it as a restriction of freedom as well. Usually, the two conditions go hand and hand.
Gays are equal in every way tt the rest of society.....just as women, people of color, varying religions and other minorities are equal.
OK, so its about equality, not freedom?? You could have an argument here, equality is an important consideration, but as long as you argue base on freedom you are making an argument based on a fallacy.
Its about equality, freedom, being treated fairly.....all of it. In some cases, you can't separate one from the other.
That means they all get to participate in all the things available in this wonderful country of ours.
No one gets to "participate in all the things available in this wonderful country of ours." In any case gay people are legally allowed to participate in any activity that everyone else is allowed to participate in.
Not getting married legally. The distinction is that gays are denied freedoms offered by the gov't that everyone else is allowed.
When you assert a right for gays (or anyone else) to marry, if you mean a right to demand formal social and legal recognition of this marriage then you are not lifting a restriction from the homosexuals you are imposing one on everyone else.
What restriction is imposed on everyone else?
You are demanding that they recognize and give benefits to the homosexual couple.
No. What benefits are they getting that they would not get if the gay person married someone of the opposite sex?
Arguing that as a right is similar to an argument I am fighting against on another thread, the "right to health care".
No, they are not the same thing. Some people have health care because they or their company provides it. Its not something guaranteed by law.
Marriage is guaranteed by law to everyone but gay people. Even felons can marry.
You say that homosexuals have a right to marry. What does "to marry" mean?
The same as it means for straights.
Normal rights -
The right to live with someone else.
The right to have sex with a willing adult.
The right to call someone else your husband/wife/spouse
None of these rights is abused by a lack of legal recognition.
There is a right by omission.......the right to be married and have it be sanctioned legally. Everyone else has that right.....why not gays?
Claimed "Positive rights"
The "right" to compel societal recognition of the relationship as a marriage.
And the cost to society is?
The "right" to benefits for the people involved in this marriage.
If the government denies these rights to any group or to everyone, then no one's freedom is abused. You can (and other's have) argued that if they allow these things to some people and not to others that they are treating some groups unfairly, but even if they are they are not restricting people's freedom.
Huh? I have lost you at this point.
I keeping asking the same questions and I get no answers from you. Why?
You get answers, you just don't like them.
You ask "When will they stop trying to restrict people's freedoms?" and the answer is that they are not doing so.
If that's your answer, then you are not answering truthfully.
ted |
