The Pitters' Place

Firstly, a “license" is an indicator that you do not have a “right" to do something. Licenses are a thing government issues, specifically to prevent someone from doing something, until they get government permission to so do. They are, by their very definition, a constriction on rights, a limiter of freedom. To license a thing is to outlaw it, and to then grant one permission to break that law. To say that you are fighting for gay “rights" by seeking to have licenses issued to them, is not just a complete failure to understand rights, it is a complete failure to understand rudimentary English.

That sounds like someone's been Gendoing.

Maybe Gendo should explain that one because this is the sort of logic that breaks my brain.

Assuming everyone has an equal opportunity (or, the "right") to obtain a license, I don't see how anyone's "rights" are being infringed upon.

Because the government not giving you permission to do something and then granting that permission is limiting the already limire.w.a asl Fuck this shit! I have no idea what that word vomit tried to say.

nah, it basically says that if something were a right, licenses for it wouldn't exist because people could just do it whenever they want without a license. It's like how giving people licenses to eat food would be a bad thing, because it would mean that people without licenses wouldn't be legally able to eat.

This thread shall go down in history. Liszt is right about something!

Anakin McFly wrote:nah, it basically says that if something were a right, licenses for it wouldn't exist because people could just do it whenever they want without a license. It's like how giving people licenses to eat food would be a bad thing, because it would mean that people without licenses wouldn't be legally able to eat.

Oohhhh... that makes it understandable.
Still kind of wrong, but understandable.

It's arguing over the definition of the word "right" while ignoring the bigger picture, a.k.a. Gendoing.

Dr_Liszt wrote:Firstly, a “license" is an indicator that you do not have a “right" to do something. Licenses are a thing government issues, specifically to prevent someone from doing something, until they get government permission to so do. They are, by their very definition, a constriction on rights, a limiter of freedom. To license a thing is to outlaw it, and to then grant one permission to break that law. .

Yeah - I'm not feeling this at all.

The premise is correct, licences are a way of controlling any given number of activities and so, your right to engage in these activities - but I also do not think these rights that are being regulated are intrinsic.. which seems to be the crux of the point?

People don't have a "right" to practice as a doctor, you earn the right to practice as a doctor by becoming qualified and getting a medical licence to practice. You don't have a right to drive, you earn the right to drive by qualifying to drive. Licences are more often than not a way to enforce a societal standard of care and proficiency given certain activities require people to be certifiably competent.. and that is much the way it should be.

In terms of a marriage, licence is more used as a vehicle to formally recognise a union as a legal entity, which brings with it certain advantages - access to these advantages is what is being controlled by the government.

so this bit

To say that you are fighting for gay “rights" by seeking to have licenses issued to them, is not just a complete failure to understand rights, it is a complete failure to understand rudimentary English

Is kinda arse over tit.. The right here that people battled for is the right to equity under the existing system so that a gay union carries the same legal weight and social advantage as a heterosexual union.. Its an argument against discrimination (which is a natural right) not an argument for the right to get married per se.

There is no intrinsic or natural rights defined by a marriage, its a legal or religious construct from beginning to end.

Well, I suppose there has to be a way to ensure that unlawful unions are avoided. Society and medical fields have determined that unions between an adult and child, polygamists, and related parties are harmful to the individuals involved. Regulating unions with the process of applying for a marriage license helps with that. The 2nd point is that there are benefits garnered to each partner within an union. A marriage license helps the government ensure that those within a union are protected and ensure their rights for things like medical decisions, insurance, and taxes.

I don't know, I guess it's sorta similar to drivers licenses. I really don't want to a blind person being able to drive.

Yep, that. And the rationale behind prohibiting pedophilic relationships - the child cannot consent and will be harmed - is the whole reason why allowing/legalising gay relationships isn't a slippery slope to all that.

People who make that argument just expose creepy patriachal assumptions that take for granted the man as the subject and his love interest the object: i.e. if a man can marry a man because he loves him in the same way other men might love women, then a man should also be able to marry a child if he loves that child in the same way. The target of his affections - the woman or child - implicitly has no say in the matter, and people who think that pedophiles would start demanding the 'right' to have sex with or marry children are probably the same people who think that a women's consent is irrelevant if a man wants to have sex with or marry her. It's the only way their argument makes sense, or else they would just as often ask: "but what if a 7 year old girl wants to marry an adult man? Would you let her, because love is love?" But they won't pose that question, because it's unthinkable to them that adult men should be subject to the whims of young girls.

I didn't notice just how creepy that argument is.

Dude that wrote that did say he could rape me but chose not to because he doesn't want to deal with the social repercussions or some shit like that. I bet all men go through these moral dilemmas all the time.

MORE PERFECT LOGIC:

SOMEDUDE: The factor you dont understand is that license allows for federal tax filling status changes, it give spouses the right to visit loved ones in the hospital, its a legal document, by a large i agree with you Creepy McFuckface, but in certain cases especially when it comes to divorce, and how you file your taxes we need a legal document verifying the act of marriage.
Like · Reply · 4 hrs

CREEPY MCFUCKFACE: I know that, but that just exemplifies that the issue was never marriage:
If they needed a religious marriage, there is the Anglican Church.
If they needed legal status all you needed is a contract and a lawyer. (For instance in hospitals there are many legal possibilities for that, like empowerment, power of attorney, etc.)
It was always about taxes, so this is the fun part, homosexuals tend to vote democratic i.e. higher taxes, and now they want to get off them, BUT get the benefits.
Like · 4 hrs

CREEPY MCFUCKFACE: All in all if the US didn't raise the taxes to what they are now, this would be pointless.
Like · 4 hrs

CREEPY'S LAPDOG: So basically if you vote for higher taxes but want to legalize a status so that you get less taxes, gee aren't you just as big an asshole as the big business you criticize?

So there you have it, homosexuals are just asshole thieves that are after our taxes.

If Creepy's Lapdog posts on my atheist page again, I might have a go at him.

Yeah, getting a contract and a lawyer for every fucking thing you buy as a couple is just as easy as getting a marriage license. Going through all the red tape to see your loved one in the hospital is just as easy as getting a marriage license.

Yeah... but what I understand from this. Only men married to women can have their lives made easier. If gay couples want to do that is objectionable, because only men married to women are allowed.

Seriously if their issue is tax benefits why don't they complain every time a straight couple marries?