Some comfort for gay rights supporters...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bottom line, how do people vote against human rights? It's just incomprehensible to me.

Because they do not see it as a right.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bottom line, how do people vote against human rights? It's just incomprehensible to me.

Because they do not see it as a right.

Getting allowed to marry the one you love isn't a right? Of course the real answer is that those people feel homosexuals made a "choice" and shouldn't be allowed to dirty the "institution of marriage" on their whims and fancies. 

I think it's quite obvious that the people who vote against it don't think it to be a right, yes. That's not my personal opinion - certainly next-of-kin status is a right - but a recognition of reality. You can't win these people over, or at least win them over into not caring, by using the language of rights. Which is a bit of a problem in a country where political discourse is so utterly dominated by liberalism as the U.S - because it means that the language of rights is practically the language of politics.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bottom line, how do people vote against human rights? It's just incomprehensible to me.

Because they do not see it as a right.

Getting allowed to marry the one you love isn't a right? Of course the real answer is that those people feel homosexuals made a "choice" and shouldn't be allowed to dirty the "institution of marriage" on their whims and fancies. 

I think it's quite obvious that the people who vote against it don't think it to be a right, yes. That's not my personal opinion - certainly next-of-kin status is a right - but a recognition of reality. You can't win these people over, or at least win them over into not caring, by using the language of rights. Which is a bit of a problem in a country where political discourse is so utterly dominated by liberalism as the U.S - because it means that the language of rights is practically the language of politics.

No, I do think these people feel marriage is a right for everyone. They would just argue that homosexuals can get married too; all they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. These people think homosexuals chose to be that way and thus don't see the need to change the definition of marriage for them.

Haha, yes. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. What I was getting at though, is that they clearly don't see same-sex marriage as a right that homosexuals ought to enjoy.