Gay Marriage: Arguments Against, Right or Wrong?

[Llamalandia]

Like Rutuba says: writing it down in an official document doesn't make it fundamental.

Yes it does.

There are no "fundamental rights" that magically exist outside the scope of those granted by governments.

Which governments though? I'm pretty sure muncipal governments can't issue gay marriage licenses without the state or federal governments consent (or at least silent approval).

[Llamalandia]

Yes it does.

There are no "fundamental rights" that magically exist outside the scope of those granted by governments.

That necessitates that anyone cares in the slightest about what the UN thinks, or that the UN is somehow an authority on morality, or on the granting of rights.

Isn't "fundamental" supposed to mean that people have it regardless of what their governments think?

I believe the term youre searching for is actually inalienable (though I believe even that might be disputed).

[Alcmaria]

Doubt it.

Your doubts are without foundation.

Two others already pointed that out already, and I've revoked my doubts, at least regarding the US of A.

[Mavorpen]

Yes it does.

There are no "fundamental rights" that magically exist outside the scope of those granted by governments.

That necessitates that anyone cares in the slightest about what the UN thinks, or that the UN is somehow an authority on morality, or on the granting of rights.

Isn't "fundamental" supposed to mean that people have it regardless of what their governments think?

No. That's stupid.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes it does.

There are no "fundamental rights" that magically exist outside the scope of those granted by governments.

That necessitates that anyone cares in the slightest about what the UN thinks, or that the UN is somehow an authority on morality, or on the granting of rights.

Isn't "fundamental" supposed to mean that people have it regardless of what their governments think?

Yes.

Essentially, I believe that the argument is that there is no such thing as a fundamental right by that definition.

I agree, but I believe that the concept is a useful fiction, and I support it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Isn't "fundamental" supposed to mean that people have it regardless of what their governments think?

No. That's stupid.

I believe that you're incorrect there, and that is what a fundamental right is. Perhaps the term "inherent right" is better, though.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Your doubts are without foundation.

Two others already pointed that out already, and I've revoked my doubts, at least regarding the US of A.

Yeah, didn't mean to pile on. Fast-moving thread.

[Threlizdun]

Yes it does.

There are no "fundamental rights" that magically exist outside the scope of those granted by governments.

Which governments though? I'm pretty sure muncipal governments can't issue gay marriage licenses without the state or federal governments consent (or at least silent approval).

Just those government subject to the authority of international law, in ifher words all governments. The human right to marriage is enshrined in Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[Mavorpen]

No. That's stupid.

I believe that you're incorrect there, and that is what a fundamental right is. Perhaps the term "inherent right" is better, though.

No, I'm not incorrect. I'm not saying that's not what a "fundamental right" is. I'm saying that what he originally claimed is silly.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I believe that you're incorrect there, and that is what a fundamental right is. Perhaps the term "inherent right" is better, though.

No, I'm not incorrect. I'm not saying that's not what a "fundamental right" is. I'm saying that what he originally claimed is silly.

Okay. The manner in which you phrased the response confused me.

[Llamalandia]

Which governments though? I'm pretty sure muncipal governments can't issue gay marriage licenses without the state or federal governments consent (or at least silent approval).

Just those government subject to the authority of international law, in ifher words all governments. The human right to marriage is enshrined in Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Well that's true, but only applies with the consent of individual nations. I mean we could amend the constitution tommorrow to invalidate all treaties we've made and that would be legal (though Machiavellian).

[Christian Disciples]

As a resident of Oklahoma, I've heard just about every anti gay marriage argument in the book. One of the more popular arguments that is advanced by conservative leaders in our state is the ad populum fallacy that the laws are justified because the majority of the state is against it. Thus, court decisions overturning anti-ssm laws are unjustified because they are contrary to the "will" of the people. Its basically an argument from popular sovereignty that has a legacy in segregation and the slavery.

[Alcmaria]

Call it fundamental, inalienable, or inherent: marriage is a phenomenon with rules, and not a right that confirms human dignity.

[Llamalandia]

Here this should help.

inalienable
inˈālēənəbəl/
adjective
adjective: inalienable

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Technically marriage would be problematic as you can only marry one person at a time. Once you marry one person you've given up the right to marry until you divorce or your current spouse dies.

(unless you move to Utah of course )

[Seriong]

Edit: That also grants no fundamental right to marriage, merely a right to not have marriage prohibited due to race, nationality, or religion.

They are, in fact, the same thing.

No, they aren't. A business owner being unable to refuse service based on race, doesn't mean that everyone has a fundamental right to be served by him.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Call it fundamental, inalienable, or inherent: marriage is a phenomenon with rules, and not a right that confirms human dignity.

"Fuck human dignity, I have bigotry to keep up!"

[Mavorpen]

Call it fundamental, inalienable, or inherent: marriage is a phenomenon with rules, and not a right that confirms human dignity.

Yes it is.

[Mavorpen]

They are, in fact, the same thing.

No, they aren't. A business owner being unable to refuse service based on race, doesn't mean that everyone has a fundamental right to be served by him.

It's a good thing we aren't talking about that.

[Llamalandia]

Call it fundamental, inalienable, or inherent: marriage is a phenomenon with rules, and not a right that confirms human dignity.

"Fuck human dignity, I have bigotry to keep up!"

Well there's no right to be free from bigotry so here haha.

[Christian Disciples]

As a resident of Oklahoma, I've heard just about every anti gay marriage argument in the book. One of the more popular arguments that is advanced by conservative leaders in our state is the ad populum fallacy that the laws are justified because the majority of the state is against it. Thus, court decisions overturning anti-ssm laws are unjustified because they are contrary to the "will" of the people. Its basically an argument from popular sovereignty that has a legacy in segregation and the slavery.

[Seriong]

No, they aren't. A business owner being unable to refuse service based on race, doesn't mean that everyone has a fundamental right to be served by him.

It's a good thing we aren't talking about that.

I suppose an inability to understand analogies or comparisons is useful, if one desires only to push an ideology, and not to pursue that which is true, or honest.

[Keventle]

This is why I don't care about social issues, it's completely up to that person.
All I could say is where do we stop challenging? When do we preserve.

[Mavorpen]

It's a good thing we aren't talking about that.

I suppose an inability to understand analogies or comparisons is useful, if one desires only to push an ideology, and not to pursue that which is true, or honest.

I agree. You should start understanding them then, so that you can fix that issue of yours.

[Alcmaria]

Call it fundamental, inalienable, or inherent: marriage is a phenomenon with rules, and not a right that confirms human dignity.

Yes it is.

You take marriage too seriously. There was a time it didn't exist; it's invented. The right to marry a person can't be compared with real fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech (which always existed).

[Mavorpen]

Yes it is.

You take marriage too seriously. There was a time it didn't exist; it's invented. The right to marry a person can't be compared with real fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech (which always existed).

No, I don't. In fact, I don't particularly care about marriage at all. I just understand that it's a fundamental right.