New Rights?
Local Okie blogger soonerthought asks the deep question...
"How does denying basic human rights to others ensure the protection of your own?--Editor"
I think he meant to ask "How does denying basic human rights (the right to life) to the unborn ensure the protection of your own (right to life)?" Reditor.
If you are so interested in ensuring the rights of others, why do you turn your back on the most innocent among us when it comes to their basic right to simply live life?
On the subject of homosexual marriage, gay marriage or same-sex marriage and/or civil unions.
My question for soonerthought... when did marriage become a right?
We all have to meet certain criteria before legally getting married. Being one man and one woman is the key element of the criteria for marriage by a couple.
I thought our rights were "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of HAPPINESS"...
not ...
"Life is only a Choice, Spread the wealth and Marriage".
Is soonerthought saying that one MUST be married to be happy?
Or is he saying that any relationship other than marriage is invalid or less meaningful?
Is he saying that gay means happy and that we all have the right to a happy marriage?
Is he claiming that marriage is a right under any and all circumstances?
Why aren't civil unions okay when they will provide all the "benefits" as traditional marriage?
Why must you tear down something someone else has in order to get something for yourself that you could have anyway?
Just wondering.... while we are on deep thoughts.
"How does denying basic human rights to others ensure the protection of your own?--Editor"
I think he meant to ask "How does denying basic human rights (the right to life) to the unborn ensure the protection of your own (right to life)?" Reditor.
If you are so interested in ensuring the rights of others, why do you turn your back on the most innocent among us when it comes to their basic right to simply live life?
On the subject of homosexual marriage, gay marriage or same-sex marriage and/or civil unions.
My question for soonerthought... when did marriage become a right?
We all have to meet certain criteria before legally getting married. Being one man and one woman is the key element of the criteria for marriage by a couple.
I thought our rights were "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of HAPPINESS"...
not ...
"Life is only a Choice, Spread the wealth and Marriage".
Is soonerthought saying that one MUST be married to be happy?
Or is he saying that any relationship other than marriage is invalid or less meaningful?
Is he saying that gay means happy and that we all have the right to a happy marriage?
Is he claiming that marriage is a right under any and all circumstances?
Why aren't civil unions okay when they will provide all the "benefits" as traditional marriage?
Why must you tear down something someone else has in order to get something for yourself that you could have anyway?
Just wondering.... while we are on deep thoughts.
Labels: Gay (happy) Marriage, prenatal homicide
posted by RD at 9:43 AM
AOL Sports Hottest Athlete
6 Comments:
So would you be okay with the government abandoning the idea of marriages and renaming all contracts between individuals (formerly referred to as marriage) civil unions, and thus providing said civil unions to gay and straight couples?
Also, did you know that gay marriage was legal in ancient Greece?
Where did I imply any such thing?
Marriage is what marriage is. Gay couples are demanding the same rights as marriage... civil unions do that without changing the definition of traditional marriage.
The question is about re-defining what marriage is and whether it is a "human right"... I notice you conveniently dodged my actual human rights question.
If I agree that marriage is a basic human right... like the right to live, then you must all agree that an unborn human deserves the same right to live.
They did a lot of things in ancient Greece Dave... whats your point.
deal or no deal?
First Red I didn’t “dodge” anything. I asked a simple question based on your post.
In answer to your question though, I do not see marriage as a human right, but it is a legal right and homosexual issues are civil rights issues in my eyes. I truly believe that the 14th Amendment already covers gay marriage issue and would be judged as so if taken to the Supreme Court. As I have stated in the past, the easiest solution for all is for the government to get out of the marriage business all together and just to provide civil unions. That way everyone has the same legal rights and if you want to get “married” you can find a church to do it. That having been said, if some gay couples in CA get married it is in no way, shape, or form an attack on my marriage.
The reason for the comment about Greece is that you will often hear arguments against gay marriage that state marriage has throughout history been one man and one woman and that is simply not true.
How about 3 men and 4 women, two of which are gay, all married to each other?
Why have any rules or criteria for anything?
Why does someone have to be black to be black?
*sigh* Now you are just being ridiculous Red.
true... but that's where you took me.
The fact is that nowhere in the constitution or anywhere else in our founding documents have we granted the "right" for two dudes to marry each other... or three dudes or two dudes and four gals... sorry LDS'ers it's one man and one woman.
Civil Unions however could mean anything you want it to... why not go that route?
Post a Comment
<< Home