Heterosexuals Do Not Have Special Rights
Ranked #33,197 in Culture & Society, #676,054 overall
Heterosexuals Do Not Have Special Rights
The idea of "gay rights" has always baffled me, however. Inherent in the term is the idea that rights are awarded based on pre-requisits. "Gay" rights makes no more sense than "blonde haired" rights and implies often that heterosexuals have some sort of "special" rights that homosexuals do not have.
I intend to rebuke that thinking with the following lens and show that heterosexuals do not have special rights!
Recent entries from SaveTalkRadio.com
Heterosexuals Do Not Have "Special Rights"
...Contrary to the views of gay rights activists
Look in any dictionary and the term "marriage" is defined in some form as follows:
"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."
Based on simple definitions, the argument of denied rights for homosexuals holds no standing. Indeed, using both the definition of marriage and any current laws that specifically deny same-sex marriage, there is not one right being granted a heterosexual that a homosexual does not share.
To wit:
A male can marry a female. It doesn't matter if that male is homosexual or heterosexual; the same right to marry a female exists for both individuals. No special right is being granted the heterosexual that the homosexual does not also share. Ah, but the homosexual will claim that he can't marry the person (another male) that he loves and wants to marry and is therefore being discriminated against. The problem here is that the homosexual is left attempting to define a "want" as a "right". While having the same right to marry a female as a heterosexual male, the homosexual is now demanding his want to marry another male. Thankfully, in civilized society, the state and other individuals do not place the burden on themselves of guaranteeing other people's wants. Society would crumble if it did. I "want" a nice yacht and a BMW, but it is by no means my "right" to have them.
To the contrary of the denied right argument, and the subject of another essay, is that new so-called "hate crimes" legislation actually begins to grant special protections and preferred class status to many minority groups, including homosexuals, in excess of what their majority counterparts are awarded. Odd how we don't find proponents of gay marriage fighting "hate crimes" laws based on the same argument of equal protection under the law that they mistakenly apply to marriage law.
To be clear, I support a government that establishes protections for voluntary contracts entered into by two consenting adults. If two men or two women desire to legally share in each others fortune or debt, grant medical decision making power to each other, or establish any other coequal status amongst themselves, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Contract protection is indeed one of the few proper functions of government. The act of sexual intercourse should also not be regulated against when it is being carried out by two consenting adults.
Marriage, however, has a standing definition. It is this definition that same-sex marriage proponents are attempting to change, much to the chagrin of countless individuals who, based on their religious ideology, simple tradition, or other factors, would rather not see changed. This is understandable in the same way (to give an admittedly excessive example) that a baseball player couldn't simply start calling a base hit a "home run" or a football player could call making it to the 10-yard line a "touchdown". Changing those definitions would so fundamentally change the sport (or society in marriages case) that doing so is simply unwise and unnecessary.
My solution offered to homosexuals? Stop rocking the boat and demanding that society change it's definitions just for you. What have you accomplished other than peeving off a large number of people and possibly making actual discrimination a larger problem? Come up with your own word to describe the legal union of a same-sex couple. Call it whatever you want. Take pride in it! Be as creative as we know you are! Relieve the stress of attempting to change society's definitions by just coming up with your own word. Then feel absolutely free to take exception when Tom and Suzy want to muddy the waters by stealing your word and it's meaning.
Seems fair to me!
*****************************************************************************************
Visit http://partisanpride.com for all your bumper sticker and t-shirt needs!
Great Stuff on Amazon
Reader Feedback
Should "gay marriage" be legal?

Yes! Everyone should be treated the same.
myste says:
YES!
thebinextdoor says:
i dont think homosexuals are looking for the title of being married or of haveing any religious meaning.... just rights
Jason says:
There should be no such thing as "gay marriage". Only marriage as defined as a union between two consenting, of age adults, regardless of their gender.
Jt says:
sure, why not, how could it possible harm the institution of marriage that is so sacred that more than half fail.
Mousers09 says:
Gay Marriage should be legal. Clearly you have not studied this issue at all, the issue is same-sex unions DO GET LESS RIGHTS, you can thank the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT which prevents the federal government from giving OVER 1000 RIGHTS to same-sex couples, that are GIVEN TO HETEROSEXUAL couples. So yes HETEROSEXUALS HAVE MORE RIGHTS.
Aside from this, marriage isn't defined as between a man and woman in any dictionary, there are multiple definitions, but the most widely used are;
"the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage"
"an intimate or close union"
I don't know, maybe you should actually take the time of day to read into the issues instead of pushing some ignorant political agenda.
No! It would be an insult to the institution of marriage.
gemai Yoj says:
i say no to this matter or issue because it discriminated an individual looks.. specially in there status.. e.g. a guy kissing with a guy in the public .I agree that the people who saw them will say"nka didiri tingnan" right? if im a normal i do choose a girl than a gay..
ls says:
no
Lil ol Me says:
NO,They can have Civil Unions.
Homosexuals get more rights than heterosexuals have, how about extended health-care benefits to partners of homosexual employees, but not to unmarried partners of heterosexual employees.
The ?hate-crime? law would't be so ridiculous if all people received the same protection against discrimination. The law protects Blacks, Hispanics, Disabled persons, Homosexuals and even Illegal immigrants.
But what about run of the mill white people? What about Those who want to follow their faith which says Homosexuality is wrong? and its not just the Christian faith that says this, when will someone fight for that portion of the population?
The Civil Rights Act, which was passed in 1964, outlawed discrimination on the basis of Color, Race, Religion, Sex {Man & Woman} and National origin. Homosexuals demanded that "Sexual Choice/Orientation" be added in 1972. So to say that Dr. King included Homosexuals as a group is wrong.
I hate when Homosexuals try and say their issue isn't about morality, because it is.
New YouTube vids
Reader Feedback
Alright, let me have it!
-
-
directorprops
Mar 27, 2010 @ 4:17 pm | delete
- Great lens. All of your content are most important and useful information. I love your lens very much. So I right back to your lens.
Thanks for sharing such like a lens.
-
-
-
Naked_Girl
Nov 18, 2009 @ 3:35 pm | delete
- I blogged on you, by the way: http://socialsmores.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-guy-says-gay-can-marry-just-not.html
Thanks again!
-
-
-
Naked_Girl
Nov 17, 2009 @ 4:55 pm | delete
- Your argument is well-written and reasonably well-conceived, considering its basis in convoluted logic.
Marriage is the "institution" governments use for recognising that two people have entered into a contract that makes them legally and economically reliant on each other, but more than that, it implies an emotional bond not present in your average partnership contract. This emotional element is what raises marriage above, say, drawing up a few business contract papers in a lawyer's office.
Married couples are automatically extended certain rights, privileges and protections as they relate to tax, health benefits, custody of children etc - not just because of economic reliance, but because of this perceived emotional dependence on each other. It is recognised by government and the broader society that it will be more difficult and "painful" to unravel the lives of a married couple should this "contract" end, and it is also understood that during the course of a marriage, these bonds entwine two people together, so that they act almost as one and are treated as such.
Gay people want to access these same rights and privileges offered by their government, as well as the acknowledgment that they are bound together just as intrinsically as an opposite-sex couple.
You say gays can access marriage, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. And that's where your logic gets pear-shaped. Understanding this exceptional, recognised bond seen to take place within a marriage, a gay man or woman could marrying someone of the opposite sex would be far more damaging and offensive to the institution of marriage than opening it up to couples that fulfil and embrace this implied bond. I argue that by suggesting it, you are showing a disrespect for the institution of marriage that goes against your claimed defense and protection of it.
As for saying equal access for individuals is equal access, period - Marriage requires the right of the individual to be measured by their relationship to another person. Marriage is not an individual act. I don't care what dictionary you're reading, there has to be two people involved. If neither of these people are having their freedom of speech and expression, or cultural freedoms upheld and
respected, this practice is discriminating. Access to governmental and legal protections ONLY IF you are a certain way is discrimination. You cannot means-test liberty.
As a conservative, fiscal or otherwise, I am surprised your argument would sanction the suppression or abolition of individual freedoms. If nothing else, they are the reason we can have this conversation right now - You can express your opinion, I mine, and neither of us expect to be punished for doing so.
You have every right to believe gay people should not be allowed to get married. But it is better to use straightforward honesty, such as "I just don't feel it is right", than to argue with false logic. In a free society, I cannot fault or discriminate against someone for feeling a certain way.
Of course, neither can you.
-
New Del.icio.us bookmarks
by savetalkradio
Retired political consultant and computer tech turned courier (It's not just a job, it's an adventure!)
If you believe in Astrology, I'm as pure a...
more »
- 0 featured lenses
- Winner of 2 trophies!
- Top lens »
Explore related pages
- Adventures of a Traveling Gay Couple Adventures of a Traveling Gay Couple
- Top Gay And Lesbian Travel Books Top Gay And Lesbian Travel Books
- Alternate Rituals for Weddings, Baby Namings, Health Conditions Alternate Rituals for Weddings, Baby Namings, Health Conditions
- Gay Rights History Gay Rights History
- Love Letters from the Heart Love Letters from the Heart
- Ron Paul Polls and Debate Ron Paul Polls and Debate