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.
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:
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:
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****
"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****
.
