Is this a bad time to point out that our rights are not determined by our sexuality?
A gay male or female has EVERY right I, as a heterosexual do. He can marry any female old enough, unmarried, of sound mind, etc, etc.... just like me.
So what's the big deal?
Yeah, yeah.... I know... it's not the same thing for those supporting gay marriage.
Unfortunately,
however, rights are rights: and applying the term "right" means that
while *I* can marry someone of the opposite sex, for example, it only
becomes discriminatory if someone else can't do EXACTLY the same thing.
And
by "exactly," I mean EXACTLY. If I can't do something, and you can't do
something, then it's not discriminatory. If I CAN do something; and you
can't do EXACTLY the same thing, then it IS discriminatory.
A case in point was the debate about insurance companies being required to provide birth control because many of them provided viagra or some such.
Women
threw a fit. But no one stopped to look at the issue: Viagra or
something like it is used to treat a medical condition so that something
works properly. Birth control is the exact opposite: it is used as a
treatment to STOP something from working properly.
The differences are both clear and obvious... precisely like the issue of gay marriage.
These
insurance companies didn't cover birth control for EITHER sex, thus no
discrimination was taking place. But, like the gay marriage kerfuffle,
politics determined, based on a completely fallacious discrimination
argument, that insurance companies would be REQUIRED to provide birth
control to women.
Not because it was right. Not because it was
Constitutional. Not because it was discriminatory... but because women
whined, sniveled and bitched like cut cats until they got what they
wanted.
Sound familiar?
Correspondingly, I don't have the
non-existent "right" to marry someone of the same sex. That someone gay
also doesn't have that right is called "equality."
And that's the problem with this entire argument from the gay perspective.
They
demand a right that isn't a right; that is, they demand the ability to
marry someone of the same sex, when that "right" doesn't exist.
As
a hetero, I have no problem denying homosexuals the "ability" to marry
the same sex, since it is not a "right." I don't have that ability...
homosexuals don't have that ability... so what's the problem?
And,
BTW, I don't need to go to the Bible to determine this... human rights
were around, if not in place, before there was a Bible. This is not a
moral issue for me; this is a legal issue.
Society makes
the determination as to which norms are practiced. If gays want an
ability that straights do not have, then they should seek society's
approval to gain it. If they can't get our approval, well, that's just
too damned bad. But calling this discrimination?
The military discriminates against a wide variety of protected classes every day without comment by these same cheerleaders.
Women LOVE discrimination when it benefits them (Women are a minority? Seriously? Women don't have to register for the draft.... seriously? Must be that situational equality thing again.)
The bogus nature of the "reasoning" for this is just another sign of "progressive" success in the continuing face of conservative failure.
Socialist/progressive NEVER give up. They believe, rightfully, that time is on their side, as conservatives turn away from the fight.
The left is like a river in a canyon. Over time, they carve through solid rock. And over time, the left's attacks cause the right to fold. Because they are more than willing to do what they must to achieve their aims, while conservatives recoil in horror from the thought of doing what must be done.
There. See? It's easy when you think about it.
"Birth control is the exact opposite: it is used as a treatment to STOP something from working properly."
ReplyDeleteThat is one use of it. Women/girls as young as those in their pre-teens are often prescribed birth control to help regulate their menstrual cycle.
Apropos of the rest of your post, once you firmly established your false premise on which to build your entire argument on, it was an interesting read. But then...remove the false premise, and you've got nothing. Sorry (not sorry) you lost, though!
Good article.
ReplyDeleteLet me amplify your point about rights: No one in society has had the right to marry someone of the same sex. So the left demanded legislature or courts create a new right and then bestow that right on whoever gets it.
"New" rights means there is someone who creates them, who hands them out. Whoever does that has the final authority in society -- society is no longer democratic principle or based on law, but based on the power of a person who hands out "rights."
The left will be interested in cutting through the rock of moral society as long as there is power in it for them. The politicians dance in glee whenever a leftist begs for less individual authority and autonomy.
Fuzzy logic.
ReplyDeleteLet me help you out:
LIBERTY means I can do anything I want unless there is a goddamn good reason I can't and it can hold up in court.
Your reasons didn't hold up in court. Done deal. Move on.
I think we're just in a big hurry to destroy this nation as fast as we can. I think many people are hoping for a "quick death" for America. no wonder why the Russians and Chinese are thumbing their noses while the rest of the world laughs at us.It's hard to believe that this nation has gotten so incredibly stupid so quickly.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you'll dance on America's corpse until you find out just how much it will affect YOU, Martin.
ReplyDeleteWell, anon, while you claim it's a "false premise," you offer nothing to support that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI wish you had.
Your feelings on the matter are no more relevant than my own. It is what it is, but I would have preferred a factual construct by the court, not the obviously false "we can't get married" crap... when they certainly can.
Sorry, Martin, but I have to disagree.
"Liberty" does not mean, for example, that you can marry your sister (yet.) Nor does it mean you can have 14 wives (yet.) Nor does it mean you sell or take drugs you're not legally supposed to sell or take.
There are a wide variety of things "liberty" means. Changing society to suit you isn't one of them.
And, there's nothing fuzzy about my logic; you as an attorney should have been able to disprove it easily.
Rights are rights. Gays had precisely the same rights I have. Thus, there is no discrimination.
It's not really that difficult. And, of course, as I pointed out, discrimination that the left typically LIKES is all around us, but there's no discussion of that sort of thing... is there?
Where, for example, are the women rioting in the streets over the fact that they're not eligible for the draft, or that the military has, and have had, a double standard for women for decades?
No where. Because that's the kind of thing they like.
It's the situational ethics that make this decision suck the most... and how it illustrates that conservatives have no stomach for the fight.
Martin, you tell me "Your reasons didn't hold up in court. Done deal. Move on."
Kinda like Dred Scott, you mean?
Dred Scott lasted for 100 years. Don't hold your breath...
ReplyDeleteyou meat that the supreme court was WRONG for over 100 years, Martin?
ReplyDelete