Some comfort for gay rights supporters...

[Lunar]

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?

I don't really see it as a right as I see it as a largely religious institution.  Why the government is involved there, I don't really know.  Conservatives who believe in the value of the family unit should be the ones out there trying to push this gay marriage thing on people to promote stability, monogamy, etc etc for the children in these families.  When I hear a gay friend talk about wanting to marry and start a family, that's not even an inclination I can identify with, but if social conservatives weren't so wedded to homophobia, they should be promoting gay marriage while us secularists should be out there trying to destroy heterosexual marriage and replacing everything government-imbued with civil unions.  What a strange world we live in, huh?

However, if you want to talk about this issue in language of institutional discrimination and human dignity, I think you  might get somewhere.

The whole "rights" talk has been getting over-saturated for at least a decade, to the point that we have constantly conflicting rights claims...right to life vs. right to choice?  rights rahts rights rahts

[Sbane]

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?

I don't really see it as a right as I see it as a largely religious institution.  Why the government is involved there, I don't really know.  Conservatives who believe in the value of the family unit should be the ones out there trying to push this gay marriage thing on people to promote stability, monogamy, etc etc for the children in these families.

However, if you want to talk about this issue in language of institutional discrimination and human dignity, I think you  might get somewhere.

The whole "rights" talk has been getting over-saturated for at least a decade, to the point that we have constantly conflicting rights claims...right to life vs. right to choice?  rights rahts rights rahts

There are a lot of benefits or rights or what have you that are derived from "marriage". I don't care what you want to call it, but those "rights" must be given equally. These people who vote against gay marriage probably do see marriage as a right, but feel that homosexuals are unworthy of it. I don't know what % of Americans think being gay is a choice, but I would think it is pretty high.

[Lunar]

There are a lot of benefits or rights or what have you that are derived from "marriage". I don't care what you want to call it, but those "rights" must be given equally.

Are you talking about the emotional reaction to the term "marriage" or the civil-union style benefits?  The latter I would approach to calling rights, especially things like hospital visits and inheritance, which can make one cry when one reads some of the stories gay couples have had to suffer through.

These people who vote against gay marriage probably do see marriage as a right,

Well, they'd certainly probably want to topple the US government if Obama passed an ordinance saying only homo's will get married now and heteros will just have to have civil unions, hahaha.  I'd almost support that just for shits and giggles.

[Sbane]

There are a lot of benefits or rights or what have you that are derived from "marriage". I don't care what you want to call it, but those "rights" must be given equally.

Are you talking about the emotional reaction to the term "marriage" or the civil-union style benefits?  The latter I would approach to calling rights, especially things like hospital visits and inheritance, which can make one cry when one reads some of the stories gay couples have had to suffer through.

The latter. Although I don't think a certain group getting civil unions and another group getting married will work.

[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.

[Scam of God]

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.

You know, as much as I loathe you, you've actually hit on a point I've been trying to make here. Few people today are much impressed by cries of "my rights", no matter how impassioned they may be; however, cries of "my freedom" will always be en vogue over here.

[Lahbas]

There should be a referendum in every state next year. That way, we'll find out that only Rhode Island supports gay marriage.

[Citizen James]

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. 

Well, according to loving v. Virgina it is a right.  It's wouldn't take much of a change:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have yet to see anyone provide an even vaguely compelling argument as to how such unions would harm the marriages of others, or otherwise harm society in any way beyond the hysteria of bigots (and the existence of groups like the KKK was not a reason to eliminate civil rights).  People are still free to be bigots.  Churches are still free to turn away couples for any reason, no matter how irrational, including skin color.  Justices of the piece should be willing to uphold the law, and bias against same sex couples should be viewed as repugnant as those against interracial couples.

[Lunar]

There should be a referendum in every state next year. That way, we'll find out that only Rhode Island supports gay marriage.

Maine probably has a more pro-gay marriage electorate than Rhode Island.

My guess is that only Vermont and maybe Hawaii (?) would win gay marriage referendums in 2010...but it's a rapidly shifting electorate.  California will likely overturn Prop 8 in 2012.  The rest will follow.

The anti-marriage side will finds it arguments losing more and more oxygen as they are forced to argue how terrible the status quo is...with or without gay marriage, kids are still going to ask about homosexuality, and same-sex marriages existing in other states will show that civilization is not going to be doomed. 

[Sbane]

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.

[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.

[Sbane]

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.

Well....duh.