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.
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.
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.
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. You are demanding that they recognize and give benefits to the homosexual couple. Arguing that as a right is similar to an argument I am fighting against on another thread, the "right to health care". It is an attempt to assert a "positive human right". By "positive right" I mean the right to demand something from someone else, rather then the right to not have them infringe on your freedom.
If I don't do anything for you or to you I am not infringing on your rights or reducing your freedom. If I sit around and watch TV I am not limiting your freedom of speech, or abusing your freedom by imprisoning you without just cause; but if you had a positive right to something then I could be considered to infringe on your rights by not getting off my butt and working to help you achieve it.
You say that homosexuals have a right to marry. What does "to marry" mean?
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.
Claimed "Positive rights"
The "right" to compel societal recognition of the relationship as a marriage.
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.
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. It is a question like "When are you going to stop beating your wife", and you will only accept a time frame as the answer rather then "I have not and am not beating my wife".
Tim |
