I've come to a conclusion that I'm against gay marriage.

[giblets]

Anything that didn't exist 50 years ago is absurd. Internet? Absurd! I guess that makes internet access a privilege that government can deny people on a whim. China

[Wiglaf]

Really the only way out of your terrible line of thinking is to do what regexcellent said, which is to conceptualize marriage as an incentive given to a certain kind of sexual partnership. The government hands out incentives to behavior all the time. It doesn't hand out new rights very often, nor should it, or rights lose meaning.

[Wiglaf]

Anything that didn't exist 50 years ago is absurd. Internet? Absurd! I guess that makes internet access a privilege that government can deny people on a whim. China

Of course Internet access is a privilege. If you choose to live in a rural area or don't have disposable income, you don't get it.

The government can't deny certain people Internet access, but it doesn't have to give it to them. That's kind of the whole point.

[Aeson]

Really the only way out of your terrible line of thinking is to do what regexcellent said, which is to conceptualize marriage as an incentive given to a certain kind of sexual partnership. The government hands out incentives to behavior all the time. It doesn't hand out new rights very often, nor should it, or rights lose meaning.

It should hand out new rights as often as handing out new rights would be good. Putting things on a timer is what is absurd. If gay marriage was thought of a million years ago or just this second the value of it as a right (whatever you want to deem that to be) wouldn't change unless you're a moron who can only assign value based on how long an idea has been existent.

[regexcellent]

Anything that didn't exist 50 years ago is absurd. Internet? Absurd! I guess that makes internet access a privilege that government can deny people on a whim. China

The government doesn't have to provide it to you.

edit: Wiggy's got it.

[giblets]

The government doesn't have to provide it to you.

edit: Wiggy's got it.

Homosexuals aren't asking for any freebies. They want to not be prevented from visiting their partner in the hospital, and so on. They aren't asking the government to go find them a suitable partner to marry or to give them wedding presents or anything like that.

They need legal recognition, but the same is true for other supposed rights like a right to life (government police and courts must provide the service of preventing other people from killing you.)

[regexcellent]

Yes they are asking for freebies. They're asking for the tax deductions. They can get "married" to their partners if they go to a sufficiently left-wing church like the Unitarians.

[giblets]

Yes they are asking for freebies. They're asking for the tax deductions. They can get "married" to their partners if they go to a sufficiently left-wing church like the Unitarians.

It's a freebie to not have your money taken away?

[Wiglaf]

Wow.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's a freebie to not have your money taken away?

We've managed to get gribbler in his robotic contrarianism to adopt a distinctly Republican aphorism

[giblets]

We've managed to get gribbler in his robotic contrarianism to adopt a distinctly Republican aphorism

Why does regexcellent consider it a freebie?

edit: I don't personally think anyone ought to get tax breaks just for getting married, because I think it basically is a freebie. But if we do hand out freebies let's not act like gays have an entitled mentality just because they don't want to get screwed over by the tax code.

[Wiglaf]

It should hand out new rights as often as handing out new rights would be good. Putting things on a timer is what is absurd. If gay marriage was thought of a million years ago or just this second the value of it as a right (whatever you want to deem that to be) wouldn't change unless you're a moron who can only assign value based on how long an idea has been existent.

No one ever argued this point.

[Aeson]

No one ever argued this point.

I wouldn't say you're a "no one".

"It doesn't hand out new rights very often, nor should it, or rights lose meaning." - Wiglaf

You're arguing that frequency of adding rights affects the value of other rights. That is mutually exclusive with my statement that frequency of adding rights does not impact the value any given right.

The second portion of the quote is what reg is arguing against. He probably is a "no one" and so we can agree there.

[C0ckney]

No way.

What Ben's spouting here is far more offensive to me on every level than a comment like that can ever be. Enough is enough.

you responded to ben offending you by making comments about ben's dead father. you're just playing his game here. be the bigger man.

[Wiglaf]

I wouldn't say you're a "no one".

Arguing against frequently naming new rights is very different from arguing that new ideas are never worthwhile, which is what you seemed to think I was saying.

The bottom line is people like you and gkribbler and Asher throw around the term like "right" very casually. It's obvious from this thread how deep this entitlement runs. Seeing my sick gay lover in the hospital? Fundamental right! Getting a tax break for marrying a dude? Fundamental right! Accessing the Internet? Fundamental right! Health insurance? Fundamental right!

This kind of entitlement has consequences. It's why our country's in a financial mess.

Get over yourselves. The Huffington Post tells you you need something and you bend over and whine until you get what you want, then you just come back begging for more.