Topic: Exercising rights or hate?

[suzifrommd]

• Tweet

In Maryland, where I live, some church groups are petitioning for a vote to make Gay marriage illegal. According to this article, it looks like they'll succeed in getting it on the ballot:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-same-sex-petitions-20120527,0,1107318.story?track=rss

From the article:

"Where do I sign up?" was the only question from Donald Johnson, a 76-year-old, born-again Christian who drove his pickup truck to the MVA for the express purpose of signing the petition.

Like most others observed at the site by a reporter, Johnson needed no pitch, explanation or convincing. "I have several nieces and nephews who are homosexual," he said. "I don't approve of their lifestyle."

Trying to take someone's rights just because you disapprove. He's entitled to his opinion, but when you act on your opinion to take someone's rights, doesn't that make it hate?

Where is the line drawn between participating in democracy and hate?

[Jamie D]

The libertarian in me wishes that government was not involved in marriage whatsoever, but as marriage is both a legal institution, as well as a social institution, laws regulating marriage are inevitable.

Laws should reflect societal mores, and change as those mores change.  I see the same-sex marriage issue as a battle of ideas, rather than one of "hatred."

[Dawn Heart]

If our laws changed as social mores changed, the laws would change on a weekly schedule. Being LGBTIQ is a HUMAN right that cannot be legislated. Our society has made this habit of mistaking opinion for fact, and not stopping to realize that facts are facts because facts have the weight of evidence to prove them as facts. Opinions are opinions because opinions fall into the category of personal thought and personal feeling. Opinions do not have the weight of evidence behind them so they remain opinions.

Society has made a second bad habit of deciding who gets legislated "out" and who gets legislated "in". Unfortunately, the bigger trend is towards legislating people OUT of society. Our legislators have decided that they can play God with the lives of citizens and decide who has a right, and who doesn't have a right, who gets to have rights at all and who doesn't have any rights whatsoever. I say either we all have rights 100 percent of the time or we have a list of temporary privileges.

Rights are either inalienable, or it just looks good on paper, but not so you'd really notice. I say either everyone can marry or no one can marry. Either everyone's relationships are equal, or no one can have a relationship at all. I say when not acting on hard facts, you're acting in hate.

 

[Jamie D]

If our laws changed as social mores changed, the laws would change on a weekly schedule. Being LGBTIQ is a HUMAN right that cannot be legislated. Our society has made this habit of mistaking opinion for fact, and not stopping to realize that facts are facts because facts have the weight of evidence to prove them as facts. Opinions are opinions because opinions fall into the category of personal thought and personal feeling. Opinions do not have the weight of evidence behind them so they remain opinions.

Society has made a second bad habit of deciding who gets legislated "out" and who gets legislated "in". Unfortunately, the bigger trend is towards legislating people OUT of society. Our legislators have decided that they can play God with the lives of citizens and decide who has a right, and who doesn't have a right, who gets to have rights at all and who doesn't have any rights whatsoever. I say either we all have rights 100 percent of the time or we have a list of temporary privileges.

Rights are either inalienable, or it just looks good on paper, but not so you'd really notice. I say either everyone can marry or no one can marry. Either everyone's relationships are equal, or no one can have a relationship at all. I say when not acting on hard facts, you're acting in hate.

You make a good point.  Human, or Natural, rights fall beyond the ability of governments to legislate.  They spring from your humanity.

I would call the right of association a natural right, but one guaranteed in the US Constitution.  Because "marriage" is a social institution, it will be governed by social conventions.