What is your position on 'being given' rights?

I think it would be incorrect to say that we have been given rights, rather our inherent rights have finally been acknowledged and recognized as having always been there.

It's an important distinction: a removal of obstacles rather than a granting of rights.

 

Well where I live gay people can get married and adopt in my country. I do think it is silly that gay people have to fight for their right...it should be a non issue...

 

You don't get rigts. You can have rights taken away but it's a right and can't be given.

 

I'd like to think of it as more of an affirmation and acceptance of the rights we actually hold. We DO have these rights inherently, but some people, for some reason, seem to enjoy denying others the rights we should already have.

 

We've always had those rights. We just now have the privileged acknowledging those rights.

It's not a matter of being given them. Heterosexuals take them for granted, but when we get them with struggle, and often violent opposition, we're being "given" them?

 

The US Declaration of Independence defines the inalienable rights granted merely by being as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Finding love falls under pursuing happiness as far as I'm concerned, so obstacles to that go contrary to the letter of the words. Granted that the D of I is not a binding legal document, but it is sort of a... guideline.



I agree with the first comment which clarifies that we aren't being "given" rights; the rights are once again available to us after being unjustly taken away.

 

I don't really think it's a matter of being given rights or having them taken away. It's not like "I'm a 5-year-old and I get a peanut-butter sandwich when I ask for it or I throw a temper tantrum". I found this quote somewhere, it was possibly here. But wherever it was, it really stuck in my mind, or the general message of it:

"The law was made to keep people from hurting each other. How is it hurting someone when people love each other?"

That's really the foundation of what justice is. If someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their starving family, sure it's not really physically hurting the baker, but it's taking a good amount of money out of his pocket, or actually his store. When 2 people fall in love with each other, no matter what gender or sex, it's usually a case of true love. I don't really mean the fairy-tale "Happily ever after" kind of true love. What I mean is that two people genuinely love each other enough that they've decided, "This is the person I want to be with my entire life." Whenever the law takes away that decision, that's an act of emotion, not logic. The law then is becoming hurtful, which is counterproductive to what it is trying to do. And that's when a revolution starts. Whenever the law says "You can't be yourself" if you truly aren't hurting anyone, then whoever made that law, by law, is a criminal no matter what civilization that law is made in. That's what you call a crime against humanity. Vladimir Putin fits that bill to the tee at this point.

So whenever people are fighting "for their rights" what they're actually fighting for is a world where they can be themselves without being regarded as criminals, freaks, etc. so that they can, say, go to the grocery store without being worried sick that they're going to get shot because someone hates them, or that they'll get arrested for not being normal. Or for not following a certain religion. Where they'll be considered a criminal if they actually hurt someone on a high level, ie. murder, theft, rape, etc.

What I'm saying here is that the main goal of society is basically the opposite of what it seems to be right now: To make it so that people are regarded as people and are treated equally and fairly with justice. And that's really hard to do, especially since things that are fair could be considered unjust. Or vice versa.

 

I don't know how anyone could say we were "given rights", considering that it's been a long struggle for over 40 years and people have been killed over it. It's not some small thing that just suddenly happened. The government didn't randomly decide "Why don't we give those friendly gay people more rights", half of the country still thinks we're immoral freaks who deserve to punished for eternity...

 

Yeah right. Some of us, even on this forum, have suffered greatly to *earn* those rights. Tell that to the couples who had to battle in court and endure *5 years* of discrimination before finally getting justice.

 

Well, that's how governments phrase everything. They only ever magnanimously grant things, and are deeply troubled when circumstances beyond their control force them to take things away. To phrase it in any other way would be to admit there's things beyond their powers and that makes for a lousy election platform.

Though I do think you're right. It's not about being granted rights, it's about finally having them acknowledged and honoured. It would behoove them to deeply regret past errors. But my pragmatic side suggests that if they needed to do that, we'd have still been waiting. It's already satisfying enough that the opposition will one day be remembered as nothing but backwards and ignorant.

 

Everyone knows that the only part of our Founding Documents that is completely ironclad is the Second Amendment. - Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News For Throwing Out The Bill Of Rights - YouTube

In all seriousness though, I agree with what has been said above. We are not being 'given' rights, that is not how Civil Rights work. You always have those rights, at least in theory, the issue is that of recognition - and unfortunately there are a lot of moronic bigots out there.

 

They're more legal rights.

You can adopt you can marry, but it'd be hard to get through the legal issues if the law forbids it, but you can break the law, they don't actually exist, there is no physical barrier stopping you.

So it's more it's harder to adopt and marry.

Also the marriage rights are more for legal purposes too nothing is stopping anyone from having the ceremony, but you won't be protected under same financial laws; depending on where you are.

So technically a gay person could adopt as a single person and lie that they are inept and can't have children.

Life is too short to live by arbitrary non-existent rules anyways, don't kill, steal, cheat, the basics make sense, but if I wanted to adopt and the law forbid it, I would still adopt as straight, who cares about dumb fucking laws; there aren't too many of them but this one would be one of them.

As for being given rights, that has already been done before I even knew I was gay so I have always had the same amount of rights as any Canadian, except for in Saskatchewan where I could be denied renting in a Duplex because of my sexuality; but fuck Saskatchewan, and also the Territories where I guess Native's haven't gotten around to legislating gay rights laws because they aren't needed anyways(aboriginals were never homophobic).

I find it weird to observe gay people outside my country been given rights, it almost seems archaic for the U.S to think it's so progressive to do what they are doing, it's more leaving the past behind. For a country that is so technologically advanced how are they so socially retarded; must be something that rhymes with Pristianmanity. I also blame it on their truer version of democracy, they allow people to vote down laws in propositions and guess who turns out to all those votes; a bunch of rednecks. Unfortunately though the U.S practices true democracy the progressive thinkers in that country like Canada are too lazy to vote and let hicks be their voice.

 

I agree. We cannot be given something that already belongs to us, and if something can be given, it can be taken away - putting the implied power firmly in the hands of government to give and take rights at will.

 

My response to people is I don't ask for special rights, I just ask for equal rights... nothing more, nothing less.

 

Being given rights?

I haven't been given any rights I didn't have already just from being born... I've only had my inherent rights, acknowledged by law, like everyone else.

And if not for the social stigmas created by religion and that turned into laws in archaic times, that wouldn't even have been an issue to begin with.

 

There are no such thing as 'natural rights'. That's just a noble sounding figment of the imagination to make people feel good about themselves.

Your right of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' is utterly meaningless to a disease that cripples or kills you, or to a predator that kills and eats you. Rights are just a social construct, which is to say a figment of the collective imagination or an illusion we've all more or less agreed to follow. They have no more physical reality than things like good and evil or morality.

Rights can exist within the context of a social contract, whether that be a constitution or a set of laws or the like. In that context 'grant of rights' is a commonly accepted legal term and definition. So 'granting' us rights is really just a contract mod.

Todd

 

You are actually wrong...

Even so-called "animals" (we're animals too in case you forgot) have social rules, hierarchies and rights that come with their position within the group.

Humans are social animals... hence, social rules, rights and laws apply to us as well.

Ah yes... let's lock ourselves up in our houses and fear for whatever the future brings... let's stop living in case something kills us... let's stop trying to be happy because... hell if I know... can't wrap my head around this tripe you wrote.

Feel free to think what you want from life, good or bad... but don't generalize it. Not all us see life as some kind of black hole without any hope in it.

Aha... see my comment about the animals again...

Interesting... tell me... would you prefer having to fight, sometimes to the death, with another male for the right of having a "mate"?

You seem to forget what distinguishes us from other animals... these "rights and laws" that you like to shoot down as figments of the imagination.

They are not said figments... the difference is that, unlike other animals, we enshrine them in what is called "law" and make sure that they are respected by (almost) everyone.

But perhaps you would prefer a world without any kind of law or order where everyone did whatever the hell they pleased... however... don't forget that in such a world, whatever someone wants to do to you... is fair game... and no one will give a crap about it.

 

And you're certainly entitled to you opinion. However, since a large chunk of the opinion stated seems to consist of you making stuff up about what you think I said, or generalizing beyond what I actually said, I don't see that it has any relevance to the point at hand.

I'm perfectly well aware that humans are animals. Being an atheist, I also don't see us as having any special place in existence either.

Speaking of existence, the universe runs on physics. Physics in this case meaning a combination of processes, fields, and forces that combine to produce the universe we see and continue to discover. All of that works the same regardless of what humans observe (they can be from any given culture, creed, background, or beliefs about how people should behave). The speed of light is the speed of light, the gravitational constant is the gravitational constant, etc. no matter what your beliefs about how people should behave.

In stark contrast, human notions about 'rights' or 'rules' and all the rest differ across cultures, locations, and points in history. They are not principles hardwired into the universe. They are just made up constructs, no different in principle from any other construct created by humans. As far as animals, they operate on a combination of instincts and learned behavior (depending on the animal in question). Some social interactions do indeed appear to be hardwired in. But there is still a vast amount of variation across species, again indicating that there is no single 'law of physics of social interaction' involved.

Hm. This would be one of those making stuff up bits I mentioned earlier. I'm just acknowledging the reality of existence as I see it. That the universe does not care about you (or me) or anyone else. There's no functional difference between acknowledging that fact and acknowledging that gravity exists and that stepping off a very high place or being underneath a large falling object is a bad idea. That is in no way the same as being afraid of life or fearing what the future brings or being unhappy.

I'm a very happy and positive person and I have a lot of hope for the future. Probably more than a lot of people (possibly including you - but since (unlike you) I don't know you I don't presume to tell you what kind of person you are.) But I do it without any belief at all that the universe 'cares'. The universe can't care. It's an incomprehensibly huge lifeless void with the occasional insignificant speck of matter in it. It (like life) has neither meaning, nor purpose, nor value. It's a near tabula rasa - a blank slate.

Which means that we all have the ability (and freedom) to choose/decide our own purpose and our own meaning and our own values and how we will live our life based on those decisions. I for one, find that incredibly positive and exciting

And see my response in turn again

Again, you seem to be expending quite a lot of energy (and verbiage) on reacting to what you think I'm saying rather than actually listening to what I'm saying. Or (for that matter) simply asking for clarification about what I'm saying.

In any case, to respond to your vigorous posting: That something is an imagined construct does not make it worthless or null and void (at least within the context of a given culture). Literature, art, and music are all imagined constructs, many of which are widely enjoyed or valued (including by me). Laws and constitutions and bills of rights (along with the entire concept of rights) are all made up things. But taken together they can form the basis for a social contract that is useful for helping humans to work and live together in large numbers and can lead to a higher quality of life for those who live within their frameworks.

Which takes us back to the idea of contracts I originally mentioned. Contracts are made up things as well. But they are highly useful and can be worth expending a lot of time and effort on to modify for the benefit of oneself and ones friends/family/tribe. But acting as though it has anything to do with some set of 'supranatural' principles or the like strikes me as unnecessary and a waste of time. And even the most useful or most loved contract doesn't matter to the universe. See above.

On a final note, it's rather interesting watching you ranting semi-incoherently in outrage at the fact that I'm not just like you (or at least that's what you appear to believe - and belief is reality for most people). What's really amusing is that your behavior is functionally no different from the various religious and conservative people that take the fact that a person is LGBT and proceed to make up all sorts of other things about us, like that we want to destroy their religion or have sex with underage children or spread AIDS around. The next time you hear those sorts blithering on, take a moment to consider that you're perhaps not so very different from them after all...:eusa_clap

Cheers,

Todd