a couple of things on current events. read and learn, people. im trying to give people the opportunity to stop sounding silly. before i start i couldnt care less who marries who, im all for abolishing marriage so im not on either side.
1. marriage is NOT a basic human right, thats such a grossly misinformed statement. marriage comes from the idea that women were property to be sold for a bride price or a dowry, a practice that is still in effect all over the world, even democratic countries like nigeria and india. im sure women who are forced into marriages in countries like saudi arabia would have a very different opinion about the human right label because for them the men are the ones with the rights. if it was a basic human right then there is no excuse for leaving the benefits of that human right away from people who are not and will not be married. see below:
2. the people who always want "equality" always have a limited definition of the word. it always means "us" and thats it (for example, show me one speech during the civil rights movement that mentions native americans who are still forced to live on reservations and under harsh, constricting rules. or gay people. MLK in his 'i have a dream' speech, one of many he plagairized btw, only mentions little black boys and girls and little white boys and girls). i have to laugh at the word equality in this instance because in the usa, married people for some unexplainable reason, have 1,138 benefits that single people who never have and never will marry will not get to take advantage of. it was always about the beneifits and the decisions that married people have access to and now another group has it....leaving those who see marriage as a ridiculous custom out in cold. equality? i think not.
My earlier text disappeared so I'm just typing what I remember as succinctly as I can, hopefully it doesn't come across as snippy.
1. All these terms are human constructs, marriage is not a "basic human right" any more than education and social mobility + opportunities of self-improvement. But arguing that we maintain only what is basic for survival excludes all these and I feel that as we improve as a society we should consider things beyond surviving. Also, the majority of people and institutions are following the shared definition of basic human rights as set out by the UN, it's article 6 : http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
2. All these fights of equality contribute to the sum of equality, I'm not sure why that should take away from anything. It's like telling me I can't claim I'm eating fruit salad if it doesn't have every single type of fruit in it.
a) 1138 benefits are more of instances where federal law is concerned with marriage: http://blogs.rgj.com...riage-benefits/
ie, not all of them are benefits, some are outright disadvantages and inconveniences that you are obliged to undertake. Also the original report concluded:
“No conclusions can be drawn, from our identification of a law as one in which marital status is a factor, concerning the effect of the law on married people versus single people. A particular law may create either advantages or disadvantages for those who are married, or may apply to both married and single people.”
b) The point of laws are to address problems and the problem here was discrimination against homosexuals. The spirit of legalizing gay marriage is so that laws can no longer be used as a means of justifying the ignoring and active discrimination against those in homosexual relationships, at least in formal institutions.
c) Those in heterosexual relationship have the ability to get married if they so choose, even if they don't believe in it. As opposed to homosexual relationships where they could not. They technically could hold a ceremony and what not, but it wouldn't have been recognized. There's a distinct difference between "can but won't" versus "would but can't". Nobody and no law is hindering the unmarried to get married or stay unmarried, they have the discretion to do as they please.