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.
Often they do not.
A better analogy then yours would be if some people where given a government subsidy while others where not. The people who don't get the government subsidy are being treated unfairly but they aren't having their freedom taken away.
Its about equality, freedom, being treated fairly.....all of it. In some cases, you can't separate one from the other.
They are separate considerations, they may at times all be present in a certain situation. In this situation the freedom issues is not really a factor.
Not getting married legally. The distinction is that gays are denied freedoms offered by the gov't that everyone else is allowed.
They can get married. They can have a ceremony, call themselves married, move in together, ect. The government won't recognize the marriage as valid, they won't get legal benefits as spouses, but they won't be prosecuted and convicted for having a ceremony. The law doesn't limit their actions, it just limits how the government will respond to or recognize or support their actions.
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?
The requirement that society recognize the marriage.
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?
Even if the answer is no benefit whatsoever it still doesn't support your answer of "No." You are demanding that society recognize and give benefits to the homosexual couple. That fact doesn't change even if the benefits are exactly the same as are given to currently recognized marriages.
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.
They are the same in that they are both assertions of a "positive right", not just the right to keep someone from interfering with your life but that they give you benefits and support.
And the whole point of my opponents posts was that people supposedly do have a right to health care and that it should be legally recognized.
Marriage is guaranteed by law to everyone but gay people. Even felons can marry.
So if the government provides health care for some, or even most, then everyone has a natural right and should have a legal right to have the government pay for their health care? Again your making the case that gay marriage should be allowed because to not allow it is unequal treatment, you are doing nothing to support the case that not supporting it and recognizing it reduces anyone's freedom.
"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?
It isn't a "normal right" in this context. Its a claimed "positive right". Not the right to do what they want without interference if their actions harm no one, but rather a demand for recognition and benefits.
Claimed "Positive rights"
The "right" to compel societal recognition of the relationship as a marriage.
And the cost to society is?
There certainly is a cost to society, to freedom and democracy, if major social changes are imposed on them without majority support or a vote of their elected representatives. Is their a monetary cost? Probably not, at least not a major one. Would their be social harm by the recognition of such a marriage if society did broadly support it? Well a lot of people think there would be, I'm not sure their right, but I'm not 100% sure their wrong either. However I don't think it would be so bad if society did broadly back such marriages and this change in society became reflected in law. I could certainly accept domestic partnership laws, and if people really wanted to call them marriages I wouldn't stand in the way. But I do think there is grave harm when such a major social change is imposed on a society that is not broadly prepared to accept it.
"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.
Its a fairly simple and direct point. If the government gives benefits to married couples and doesn't give them to any type of homosexual couple its not unreasonable for them to argue that they are being treated unfairly, but even if they are being treated unfairly their freedom is not being restricted by the refusal to grant these benefits.
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.
I am answering with the truth, you just refuse to recognize it.
Look at your constitutionally protect freedoms. You have a right to free speech. That right is only violated if someone censors you, not if they refuse to listen. You have the right to keep and bear arms, that doesn't mean the government has to subsidize or encourage gun ownership. These rights are only violated if the government acts against you not if they don't encourage your exercising of the right or give you special benefits. A homosexual couple has a right to live together, to have a relationship, to have sex, they can call their relationship whatever they want. There freedom in this regard is not restricted. The proposed change is not to allow them to do anything different, but to require that the government grant them recognition and support. If this was supposedly a right, and an example of freedom, then government would be restricting their freedom and violating their rights if it did absolutely nothing to or for them. The idea that a government can destroy your freedom and restrict your exercise of your rights by doing nothing is not a sensible one.
Tim |
