Your Opinion...

[Kanzler]

All I mean is that it's no freedom of speech. The more important a right is, the more willing one would be to martyr themselves for it, and the more opportunities a state will give for one to martyr themselves. Yes, I do find it to be trivial next to the freedom of expression and association, and the right to have a nationality. Put it this way, if I had to pick only one right to fight for, it wouldn't be marriage rights any day of the week. I find it relatively trivial, much like when certain people talk about their god-given "right" to carry arms. I think using the language of rights, however applicable, is trying too hard - and I'm repeating myself, but you can just argue for it on the basis of treating people with dignity instead of getting to an almost legal aspect of it through rights. I don't like how marriage is very much a legal matter, which is why I find arguing on the basis of rights quite the turn-off.

Same-sex marriage is contradictory when it's defined as between a man and a woman. I don't think marriage has much to do with property as its core, take the UDHR Article 16 for example. Anyways, it was an answer to this question:

Why do Americans continue to deny homosexual individuals the same rights as regular Americans?

... and it's a pretty straightforwards answer.

 

[KittenKoder]

All I mean is that it's no freedom of speech. The more important a right is, the more willing one would be to martyr themselves for it, and the more opportunities a state will give for one to martyr themselves. Yes, I do find it to be trivial next to the freedom of expression and association, and the right to have a nationality. Put it this way, if I had to pick only one right to fight for, it wouldn't be marriage rights any day of the week. I find it relatively trivial, much like when certain people talk about their god-given "right" to carry arms. I think using the language of rights, however applicable, is trying too hard - and I'm repeating myself, but you can just argue for it on the basis of treating people with dignity instead of getting to an almost legal aspect of it through rights. I don't like how marriage is very much a legal matter, which is why I find arguing on the basis of rights quite the turn-off.

Same-sex marriage is contradictory when it's defined as between a man and a woman. I don't think marriage has much to do with property as its core, take the UDHR Article 16 for example. Anyways, it was an answer to this question:



... and it's a pretty straightforwards answer.

You still keep calling it a contradiction when, in fact, language changes and you have been explained that human marriage has changed a lot throughout history, It does not inherently mean "between such and such." The only thing that has not changed, it is, and always has been, about property rights. Though today we also include other rights in it as a package deal, rights that are not recognized any other way. Eliminate all the rights and laws that deal with marriage, then you can claim it is not a right, but so long as there is even one law addressing the matter, it is a right.

Also, free speech is not truly a right, it's a privilege, we call it a right to elevate it's importance. You cannot legally yell "fire!" in a crowded theater unless there is an actual fire, you cannot lie about people as a means to besmirch them to the public, you cannot lie in a court of law. It's a privilege afforded us by the government, in reality, we decided it was a right, and it's not any more important than property rights, the right to fair representation, the right to choose your clothing, the right to change your name, or the right to marry someone you love.

Sure, you may think one right is more important, and you have the right to think so, but that doesn't make what you want to think any more real. Also, since there is zero evidence supporting any god, any invocation of "god-given" is inherently meaningless.

 

[Kanzler]

You still keep calling it a contradiction when, in fact, language changes and you have been explained that human marriage has changed a lot throughout history, It does not inherently mean "between such and such." The only thing that has not changed, it is, and always has been, about property rights. Though today we also include other rights in it as a package deal, rights that are not recognized any other way. Eliminate all the rights and laws that deal with marriage, then you can claim it is not a right, but so long as there is even one law addressing the matter, it is a right.

I might want to remind you that my response was an answer to this question:

Why do Americans continue to deny homosexual individuals the same rights as regular Americans?

You might not agree with it, but like it or not, this is what people believe and this is, at least one of the reasons, /why/ some Americans would like to continue denying homosexual individuals their rights.

Aren't there rights we consider unalienable, whether they are protected by law or not?

Also, free speech is not truly a right, it's a privilege, we call it a right to elevate it's importance. You cannot legally yell "fire!" in a crowded theater unless there is an actual fire, you cannot lie about people as a means to besmirch them to the public, you cannot lie in a court of law. It's a privilege afforded us by the government, in reality, we decided it was a right, and it's not any more important than property rights, the right to fair representation, the right to choose your clothing, the right to change your name, or the right to marry someone you love.

Tell that to Chinese and Russian democrats.

Sure, you may think one right is more important, and you have the right to think so, but that doesn't make what you want to think any more real. Also, since there is zero evidence supporting any god, any invocation of "god-given" is inherently meaningless.

Whether something is real or not doesn't matter too much - it's as real as much as we place value in it. I'm just making a point. Rights are social constructions, anyways. I don't think anything we say about rights can be verifiable or deniable, we can only make better or worse arguments. My argument is that the rights to expression and association have more far-reaching and powerful effects, whereas marriage has to do with, well, marriage. Not the most rigorous - of course - but I hope you're seeing what I'm getting at, whether you agree or not.

For your last statement you can tell that to the people who argue for their "god-given" rights.

On the topic of human rights:

China, Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and Algeria are elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

gg

 

[Sir Codin]

My opinion on being gay/lesbian/bi?

I don't really care if you are. My sister thinks she's bi and I straight up told her I don't care, I still love her anyway.

It's about as natural as natural can get and as far as I'm concerned denying LGBT's unalienable rights is a human rights violation. Simple as that.

 

[twocows]

I don't think you're going to get much variation here; most people here are of a similar mind on this issue, so you may as well be asking in an echo chamber. I don't think anyone here (myself included) sees anything ethically wrong with homosexuality, so the best you're going to get is people guessing at the other sides' arguments, which isn't going to be very accurate or unbiased.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

. . .they all just jump on this train. They're not driving it.

I think it's more a student driver experience, koff~

There is a subtle mentor grading you on how well you're ah. . . hm hating on gays/Loud Music/Italians/Hispanics/Whites/Blacks/British people/Women/Men/Jews/Germans/Michael bay (screw Michael Bay, if we're on a train on how much we all hate that guy I'd be the mf'n conductor).

That aside, I believe that you drive you're own vehicle and choose where it goes. A train is more strict i.e. I would call Neo-Nazism a car, while I would associate the Third Reich with a train. Er, does that make sense?

I think it's a set group of people all hyped up on their news media drugs and regular BS pies they shovel in their mouths. Maybe they also shovel some Jesus bread in there too. . . or they think they do; turns out Jesus bread made by morons is really a flaming bag of feces in disguise.

Anyway, hate is a choice, ergo a car. Or a Motorcycle, or BMX, or whatever you drive. Hate's a choice and only you can choose what to hate. Like Michael Bay, koffi~

 

[Danny0317]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay/bisexual. Many people (including my mom) don't like gays because of the bible. I don't even know why people choose to dislike gays because of the bible. I don't know why gay marriage is even discussed. Gays are people, just like straight people. It's because of people that dislike gays that most gays are scared to come out of the closet.

 

[Rezilia]

I would call Neo-Nazism a car, while I would associate the Third Reich with a train. Er, does that make sense?

Yup. Under that, seeing Hitler as a normal person - or a hero - is like a boat. You can get thrown to the sharks quite easily and nature is trying to destroy you what with its hurricanes, and whirlpools, and icebergs... However, you can still go in every direction in the endless ocean. It allows more freedom but still has its own risk.

It's the same way with LGBT. I support gays - I'm lesbian myself. I can go many places in the world and say this and there'll be those that either agree with me or atleast don't burn me at the stake. But here in my small hometown, saying so gets a mob coming for me. There's danger everywhere - I'm just willing the take the risk.

 

[AzuGazer]

i don't hate people who are happy or homosexual :I

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Hrm, that being said, koff~

We all seem to be on the same page. I guess we're all a little bit more tolerant in here than the rest of the world, eh? Also, I don't hate people for what they are, I hate them for who they are, think about that, koffi~

 

[Sandshrew4]

Well where I went to grammar school we all were against dating and really hadn't progressed in maturity since 5th grade. So no one was straight, no one was gay, we all just...were. So I had no opinion one way or another because I was ignorant, I didn't know about it. Now that I'm in high school, while I don't personally know anyone that's not straight, I have nothing against anyone based on anything but how they act.

From a very simple point of view: They're people, aren't they? We're just as bad as racist people when we believe otherwise. This is why I hate society, they judge people on the uncontrollable aspects of their being. Their face, body, speech, athleticism, sexuality, as oppose to their personality.

 

[zakisrage]

I personally don't think sexuality really matters. Everyone is different for a reason - we can't have everything in common.

Seems kind of odd for a Muslim to be saying this, since normally people think of Islam's attitude towards homosexuality as being "death to the gays". I admit, it is frowned upon in Islam, but personally I don't follow every word of the Koran. I don't hate gay people and I think they're allowed to breathe the same air as anyone else. I'm even friendly with a couple of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. One of my friends recently came out as a lesbian and I'm fine with that. I have another close friend who is bisexual. He prefers dating girls, but he doesn't mind romancing other guys.

 

[Nick]

My opinion on people being gay is that my opinion - and anyone else's opinion - means jack ****. Do you boo boo.

 

[PkmnTrainerElio]

I don't care if one is gay, it doesn't change a person in anyway shape or form, when it comes to sodomy that's where I draw the line, I just cannot stand it... I find it sickening and just nasty.

 

[Dakotah]

I don't care if one is gay, it doesn't change a person in anyway shape or form, when it comes to sodomy that's where I draw the line, I just cannot stand it... I find it sickening and just nasty.

Just to be clear, you do understand that strictly speaking, sodomy is not just limited to anal sex but includes oral sex as well, right? And also, straight couples engage in both types of sexual activities, not just gay couples. And besides which, how does what anyone does in the privacy of their homes affect you? If you don't find anal sex or oral sex appealing, then don't do it.