Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Sunday, November 16, 2008

It's About Inalienable Rights, Stupid

I've been meaning to lay out my thoughts on the atrocity that is Prop 8, but Andrew Sullivan has a post today, one among many about pro-marriage protests going on right now, that says it much better than I could. A selection:

"We are so often told by opponents of marriage equality that they do not oppose our right to have basic legal protections. What they do not understand, because they have never had to understand, is that without legal marriage, gay couples are always subject to the veto of family members who have more say over our spouses under the law than we do."

Denying people their fundamental rights because of religious bigotry is indefensible.


  1. What never fails to bemuse me is when people say that the idea of gay marriage undermines heterosexual marriage.

    I don't know about any of the rest of the married folk on here - I assume there are some - but my marriage isn't dependent on anyone other than my wife and me. It's no more undermined by other *heterosexual* marriages than it is by homosexual ones.

    Should I be concerned about the state of my marriage because Tom and Alice next door but one are getting divorced? Should I value my marriage less because Sarah from number 32 cuckolds her husband? If these sorts of things do not devalue my marriage (being, as they are irrelevant), how then can two people who *are* making a commitment to each other undermine it?

    Maybe I'm missing something important, but no one's ever suggested anything that seems remotely convincing.

  2. If marriage is one man and one woman, doesn't that mean that Jacob and some other Biblical all stars would be shit out of luck?

  3. Is marriage a right? I don't think so.

  4. Agreed. The only remaining question in my mind is:

    How long will decent people continue to defend the indefensible?

  5. MFT, why isn't it a right?

    Fernogodsake, man, don't just make pronouncements like that without defending them!

  6. whether marriage can be categorised as a "basic human right" ** or not, some people enjoy the ability to achieve the special status of "married" that is denied to others.

    This status of "married" can't be linked to heterosexual ability to procreate otherwise we would deny people the right to be married if they were knowingly infertile, say over a certain age, of if the woman has had a hysterectomy or the man a vasectomy.

    It cant be linked to the type of sexual congress couples might enjoy, otherwise anal sex and oral sex would be prohibited amongst heterosexual couples.

    The reasons for denying same sex couples the ability to be married lie with things said in religious texts such as the Koran or the Bible and personal prejudice.

    Personally, I believe that equality before the law is a right. A law that prevents same sex couple from marrying is not treating them as equal before the law.

    Some might raise the issue that by that same logic, paedophiles have a right to sexual liasons with children. I think it is evident that children are not treated equally before the law because they have different responsibilities. This is why there are laws stating that the have to go to school, they cannot drink alcohol, they cannot work etc etc depebding on age.

    some recognised universal human rights might include:
    right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

    The list of rights differs from culture and country, being more or less, inclusive.
    Some people believe that there are no such things as "rights" at all.

  7. There is no such thing as marriage.

    Get real.

    Long term relationships can be very advantageous but the concept of marriage is sooo twentieth century.

    Couples will stay together just as long without marriage except no government perks.

    The biblical concept of marriage is just another control technique and also was a benefit in health issues.

    Any two people can liver together and fuck each other all they want and there isn't a goddamned thing the cocksucking goment can do about it.

    So stick that up your ass MF, you MFer.

  8. That is the problem, MF with you and your ilk. You want to shove your silly beliefs down everyone elses throats.

    When the fuck are you gonna learn that our speech and personal freedoms are guaranteed by the founding document of our country and if you wanna try to change all that and make it a theocracy you are gonna have one heluva fight on your hands, And if you wanna fight about comeon over and I'll fight ya, bitch.

    I'll bitch slap you into the next county.

  9. Oh man, too much to respond to here.

    Charles, I agree: committed homosexual couples being prevented spousal rights is bigotry - pure and simple.

    I still think states have the right (legal, moral, ethical, etc) to establish what constitutes "marriage". But the prevention of those basic human rights is sheer hatred posing in the guise of family values.

  10. And, to keep the pot stirred, I agree with MFT: "Marriage" is not a right.

    (But some sort of legal equivalent should be made available to couples of any gender)

  11. Weemaryanne, it makes statements like that to get a reaction. Just ignore it and it will go back under the bridge it was hiding.


Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.