As simple as that
If you are against gay marriage, then you are against human rights.
posted by That which is called Darren at 7:44 PM
Monday, May 09, 2005
The Reality Check
Canada's weekly podcast that explores a wide range of controversies and curiosities using science and critical thinking.
Follow Me on Twitter
Tweets by @dbcmckeeFollow Me On Facebook
Help Me Reduce Suffering
Donate to the Against Malaria Foundation using this link, and I will match your contribution up to a total of $25,000 CAD by the end of 2013, effectively doubling your donation.
3 Comments:
is it as simple as that? how and who decides what a "right" is? is it a democratic decision or otherwise? is it a Universal or Transcendent right or just a historio-socio-temporal right that may change in a hundred years? is polygamy (sorry for spelling) a human right if all parties agree to it's terms? or incestuous relations between mature consenting individuals? murky - not simple territory.
1) Of course it technically isn't as simple as that, but I feel my statement is still accurate within the context of having human rights at all.
2) Rights can be decided individually (i.e., on a personal level or if there is a monarch/tyrant) but recently in history they are democratic choices.
3) Universal/Transcendent rights are incoherent concepts. Transcend what? everything? Rights may change in a hundred years.
4) Polygamy, if accepted in a society, would be allowed by that society and therefore be some sort of 'right.'
5) Incestuous relations have been deemed to be too great a cost to a society so most have laws negating them.
For the protection of the state, an individual gives up some personal rights. That seems to be the only way it can be. One can try to live separately, but that probably won't work out well.
While 'rights' are somewhat contextual, you'll notice (in NA for instance) a trend of 'equality' and the same laws for all people in a society. This makes sense philosophically as it is unconvincing to another agent to say "this is a rule for me, and this is one for you" (especially when your rule is better).
Consequently, if you think two people should be allowed to marry, then you should think any two (mature, consenting, mentally fit) people can marry.
Polygamy itself might not be such a bad idea. Most people, taking the role of defender, don't consider that being the second wife of a high status male might be better off than being a wife to a low status male or not being a wife at all.
The problem is to have people raised in an environment where they can examine issues objectively (or at least try to). You'll find support for female genital mutilation from women who have had it done to them, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Additionally, incest in less likely because humans are not usually attracted to those that they have been raised with. And the mutation rates for first cousins aren't that different than for unrelated people.
Lastly, Dave, *sigh* you know all this. I agree that clarity is important, but short phrases have their place too.
:)
pre-a) *sigh*
a) It is 'funny' how the word 'funny' can be used
b) The rates of polyandry are MUCH below those of polygyny, which is why I used it instead of using 'neutral' terms.
c) Your last line seems to imply you desire for group sex of some sort. I guess we should hang out more.
d) One might wonder how credible a commentary could be from someone that cannot even get a simple blog to work *eyes-rolling*
Post a Comment
<< Home