gay rights

[chanter1944]

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" - Ernest Gaines
We would like to know who really believes in gay rights on livejournal.
There is no bribe of a miracle or anything like that. If you truly believe in gay
rights, then repost this and title the post as "Gay Rights". If you don't believe in gay rights, then just ignore this. Thanks.

Comments

[morcath.livejournal.com]

I've always been confused with the whole notion of "gay rights." What does that mean? I don't want anyone to get killed off... not getting killed is a right. I don't want anyone to be put into slavery... not being a slave is a right. I think voting's a right, too. I don't think marriage is a right per se, though... And that goes for everyone.

So, I suppose I won't be posting anything like this, since I think the whole concept is too vaguely defined to be useful.

[vagablonde.livejournal.com]

I agree with your point about marriage not being a right - but what about the right to participate in such things as the legal rights endowed by marriage, ie the tax breaks, estate inheritance in the event of death, medical coverage under a spouse's work insurance(probably also not a right, but a legality issue certainly) -

I think you're right about the marriage issue being vague, but when you specifically deny someone the ability to do something based on who they are, then what are you violating if not their rights which should be afforded to everyone across the board without discrimination.

[morcath.livejournal.com]

but what about the right to participate...

See, again we're using the wrong word, here. We have no right to expect that we can enjoy the benefits of being married. As it stands, marriage is a privilege extended to one type of relationship, but not others. If the whole term "gay rights" is merely an attempt to change who qualifies for that privilege, then so be it. But, to refer to it in ANY way as a "right" is not only dishonest but wholly inaccurate. As it stands, people who are practice homosexuality and people who practice heterosexuality have the same rights, simply different privileges.

[chanter1944]

This is where we disagree, I guess. I *do* believe marriage is a right, and regardless of that fact, if we deny loving, consenting adults the chance to marry simply because they happen to be a same-sex pair, the issue of right versus privelige is completely moot. We're still in the wrong.

[morcath.livejournal.com]

If our only criteria for being marriable is being a loving, consenting adult aren't we then logically forced to extend that "right" to incestuous relationships? Aside from our tolerance of one and intolerance of another, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two. Loving? - yep. Consenting? - yep. Adult? - yep. One relationship can't produce children, the other shouldn't... Does our extending of "rights" such as marriage rely then on our taste and preference for one type of relationship over another? If it does, then the argument for homosexual marriage falls flat on its face.

[chanter1944]

I didn't even have incestuous relationships in mind when I wrote that, and still don't. Maybe I'm living under a delusion here, but last time I checked incestuous relationships were illegal. Maybe my emotions cloud my judgment on this one, but I consider it a personal insult not to be allowed to marry simply because my partner happens to be female. Not because my partner is also my mother, or my sister, just female. We go on and on about rights versus priveliges, but if we as a society deny ten percent of our population what the other ninety percent take for granted and in a growing number of cases throw away in divorce, then we are no better than the oppressors we're so desperate to denounce.

[morcath.livejournal.com]

They might be illegal still, but the same can be said of homosexual relationships until the comparitively recent past. The illegality, it should be noted, does not mean it does not occur. My point was that the criteria for homosexual marriage so often seems to be that we as a society have no business prohibiting two loving, consenting adults from marrying, when in fact we do that all the time and no one seems to notice. I'm not talking about the question, "who are you to define love," I'm simply referring to the legal ramifications of opening up this discussion. If we as a society recognise marriage between two people simply because they are consenting adults (love need not even apply), then we're going to need to recognise more things that are distasteful than simply homosexual marriages because we've left it simply to a matter of preference.

I should say that I hope I have not been disrespectful, but these are the questions I wonder about when I engage this topic. If no one else wants to consider this issue, then I'll shut up about it. I think it's important to be logically honest about what we're planning on doing with our society's laws, and all the more so when it hinges on something that has such far-reaching tendrils as marriage.

[chanter1944]

I don't mind discussing this sort of issue, not at all. I've been avoiding playing the religious card here, but I'm not certain I can keep that up for very long.

[morcath.livejournal.com]

You're welcome to play any card you'd like. I'm of the opinion, however, that the whole issue can be discussed without bringing up morality. However, you should feel free to bring up anything you want.

[jewelledfairy.livejournal.com]

There is not just the marriage issue, but adoption and other things as well.