Well I clicked the "WWW" and cam across this:

"Do Homosexuals Have Equal Rights?"
http://aristophrenium.com/adam/do-homose...al-rights/

I'm pretty dumbfounded here by Arcanus' idea that homosexuals have equal rights regarding marriage, and the line of reasoning used to reach this conclusion is simply bizarre and rather bigoted.

Arcanus Wrote:When it comes to marriage, the question boils down to this; what “right” does someone with a heterosexual sexual orientation have that someone with a homosexual sexual orientation does not? The immediate response from those in the pro-homosexual camp is that homosexuals can’t get married. This is clearly not the case. What needs to be kept in focus during this debate is that “rights” are accrued to individuals. This is an issue regarding the law as written and concerns “rights”. Does a homosexual person have less “rights” than a heterosexual person in virtue of their sexual desire? Of course not. A heterosexual person can marry an eligible member of the opposite sex of their choice. The same-sex attracted person has the exact same “right”

What we have here is a so strange I'm not sure what to call it, firstly he talks about rights "in virtue of their sexual desire" which in relation to marriage is the Issue at hand, and then he claims that they have the same rights because, just like the heterosexual, they "can marry an eligible member of the opposite sex" - they have the "exact same right", but this right to marry someone of an opposite sex is not "in virtue of their sexual desire", nor in virtue of any emotional desires they may have.

We have a big problem here, and it's fairly clear that the rights are not equal, the heterosexual and homosexual both have the right to marry someone of their opposite sex, but only the heterosexual has the right to marry according to their sexual and emotional preferences. Not only that, but the ability to for a homosexual to marry someone who they are not sexually and emotionally attracted to is completely besides the point.

He goes on to say:

Arcanus Wrote:If they say they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, then my response is that they don’t have to. This is not meant to be cold hearted. It is an answer with regard to legality and “rights”. What is being sought here is a right that nobody has had previously under that government. Clearly not an equality issue. Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either. In both cases, each individual is treated exactly the same by the law.

He correctly identified the real issue in the opening paragraph, the ability to marry someone of your own sexual preference, but he's simply disregarded it to talk from a perspective that favours his conclusion, that being in regard to the opposite sex.

Also, the fact that these rights have not been previously established under government is so far from the point that I wonder why he's bothered with this line of reasoning. Racial and religious equality was something that did not exist in many legal systems throughout the world that has been changed to accommodate the populous that is being discriminated against.

This CLEARLY IS an equality issue. While both parties might have the right to marry the opposite sex only one can marry according to their sexual and emotional preferences and THAT is the issue here. Your thin veil of bigotry is easily seen through Arcanus.

His last line of reasoning "In both cases, each individual is treated exactly the same by the law." Is no more valid that saying regarding an Islamic regime "Each individual, Christian, Atheist, Hindu and Muslim is treated exactly the same by the law that requires them follow Islam" They all have the right to follow Islam, but this is not in virtue of their religious/philosophical preferences. And when they complain about the discrimination "What is being sought here is a right that nobody has had previously under that government" and "This is an issue regarding the law as written and concerns “rights”.

His next paragraph attempts some justification for his bigotry:

Arcanus Wrote:When it comes to individuals, this argument is compelling with regard to rights proper. But what happens when the rights of homosexual couples are brought into the equation? And in this regard they may seem to have a legitimate complaint. The problem is that constitutional “rights” are accrued to individuals, not groups.

Before we get side tracked with this obfuscation, let's deflate this bubble now. The rights of the individual to marry according to their sexual and emotional preferences are still a valid. We do not at any point need to get into groups to make this rights argument, so this distinction he is making, no matter how suspicious it seems, is erroneous.

****WILL CONTINUE WHEN ABLE****

What immediately irks me about the quoted response is that he asserts there is equality whilst seemingly regarding homosexuals' as having a lack of rights or less rights than heterosexual couples because unlike the latter, they're not, in his arbitrary definition "individuals".

The whole issue of same sex marriage is not whether homosexuals have the right to marry but about what constitutes a marriage. Throughout history marriage has always been a relationship between a man and a woman. This concept is no limited to any specific religion or culture but has until recently been universally accepted.

(December 2, 2010 at 1:20 pm)theophilus Wrote: The whole issue of same sex marriage is not whether homosexuals have the right to marry but about what constitutes a marriage. Throughout history marriage has always been a relationship between a man and a woman. This concept is no limited to any specific religion or culture but has until recently been universally accepted.

So was sacrificing people, but we got past that.

Why shouldnt two people who love each other be able to express it the way they want?

(December 2, 2010 at 1:20 pm)theophilus Wrote: The whole issue of same sex marriage is not whether homosexuals have the right to marry but about what constitutes a marriage. Throughout history marriage has always been a relationship between a man and a woman. This concept is no limited to any specific religion or culture but has until recently been universally accepted.

And the back of the bus was historically for black people.

Your argument from antiquity is fallacious.

(December 2, 2010 at 1:20 pm)theophilus Wrote: The whole issue of same sex marriage is not whether homosexuals have the right to marry but about what constitutes a marriage. Throughout history marriage has always been a relationship between a man and a woman. This concept is no limited to any specific religion or culture but has until recently been universally accepted.

It is about whether they have the right to marry. It has already been established (by sane people) that a marriage is between two people that love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Christians can still refuse to have them married in a church. I don't give a shit about that, but they have the right to be married and be considered a married couple whether the backwards people like it or not.

I can't wait until gays can marry all over the U.S. I am going to create a website that is for the explicit purpose of gloating.

There is a simple solution to this that solves the problem for all parties:

Remove the government from anything to do with marriage. Let marriage be, as it always has been, a social / religious ceremony. If a church doesn't want to allow gay marriage, you can go to a church that does. Or, if no church will have you, organise a private ceremony yourself.

This way, no church can complain about being forced to perform gay marriages, yet gay marriages can still happen.

(December 3, 2010 at 3:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: There is a simple solution to this that solves the problem for all parties:

Remove the government from anything to do with marriage. Let marriage be, as it always has been, a social / religious ceremony. If a church doesn't want to allow gay marriage, you can go to a church that does. Or, if no church will have you, organise a private ceremony yourself.

This way, no church can complain about being forced to perform gay marriages, yet gay marriages can still happen.

What about the societal / tax / etc benefits? Do you want to completely throw them away? I didn't realize how many things marriage enabled until I read this.


Most importantly: Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse & is recognized worldwide. Without government backing, marriage is literally just a scrap of paper.

(December 3, 2010 at 3:54 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: What about the societal / tax / etc benefits? Do you want to completely throw them away?

Yes.

If marriage is about love, why should it have any tax benefits? The problem with rewarding people for getting married is that it tarnishes the entire experience. People get married just to get the benefits, which is absurd.

Take the government out of marriage, and you solve all the problems.

(December 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(December 3, 2010 at 3:54 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: What about the societal / tax / etc benefits? Do you want to completely throw them away?

Yes.

If marriage is about love, why should it have any tax benefits? The problem with rewarding people for getting married is that it tarnishes the entire experience. People get married just to get the benefits, which is absurd.

Take the government out of marriage, and you solve all the problems.

What about the legal kinship part?