How then would anyone know what they are? http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/r...de_999/hmm.gif

I might think I have a right to a ham sandwich, but demonstrating how I came by that right is what matters.

Not sure if serious...
Pardoning the wildly irrelevant and asinine comparison of human rights to the right of eating a ham sandwich, if you think human rights are solely defined by whether they were written on a document or not, then I am truly amazed.

While I'll give you (or anyone else, assuming you were just picking at a statement out of context of the point it was in) the fact that marital status and the material benefits it brings are more of a legality matter than a human rights mater, the implication of a recognized union that is not discriminated on based solely on whether or not that union is comprised of a male and female is CERTAINLY obvious and should not be referred to in a document.

Any prerequisite not based on personal morality, should you appeal to their nature, whether standardized or assumed, is met in the case of same-sex marriage. It's not hurting anyone if same-sex couples marry, and simultaneously, they would enjoy the same benefits that we afford traditional married couples not being discriminated against because of their choice of partner.

I think what he meant is that if it is not written into law, these civil rights could easily be denied to the victim because the oppressor (for lack of a better word) would play by the classic fallacy: "but you didn't say not to".

Indeed. I just mean to say that it's not the summation of all possible rights, which was what I thought he was implying.

Thank you for remembering this is about the material benefits of state recognized marriage.

In regards to the underlined; if that's you're line of argument, why offer anyone benefits for being married? Not being married doesn't harm anyone else, so why should those who are not married pay higher taxes, be burdened with unfavorable loan rates, unfavorable car insurance rates, etc.?

The arguments that justified these unfavorable conditions were primarily related to (1) increased reproductive rates of married couples, & (2) the improved outcomes of children from married couples. But do these arguments still make sense if you're going to extend marriage benefits to same sex couples?

Of course those arguments don't make sense in context with whether same sex couples are going to be fulfilling the purpose of (1), but if that was a necessary prerequisite at this point, then it seems to me there would be laws that actually require there be a pay-in to that original reasoning from each couple gaining the material benefits. Since that's obviously not the case, then it stands to reason that the system isn't being harmed by those that don't.

As to whether there should be material benefits at all, regardless of the situation, that's another topic. But, as it stands, there are... and as long as there are people marrying into those benefits with no prerequisites that would contribute to the reasoning behind them other than a statistical likelihood that is more than well off as it stands, considering the world is still full of heterosexuals and also full of people capable of raising a child whether it's theirs or not, then I don't see why a prerequisite of gender needs to be present if based solely on statistics.

Anyway, I don't think the issue (to people wanting to become married to a same-sex partner, and those that support it) is as much about material benefits as it is about acceptance and recognition as wed couples with the same status that other couples enjoy. I could be wrong, but it seems to me more of a societal issue that's being contested, rather than one of hard numbers.

.

Be amazed then, o pompous arbiter of asininity. Your entire argument is bluster. http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/r...e_999/haha.gif

.

*asininity

I'm not going to call anybody asinine but the truth is that there are no such things as universal rights. Those clearly don't exist because if they did, they would be universally recognized and none are.

Common decency is a slightly different idea but its one that also obviously doesn't exist among us. Try to define it and anybody will find opposition from human peers. That opposition will be based on emotions or statistical analyses or a combo of both.

We living humans make up rights as we go and assign them where and when we feel like it. Individually and collectively.

In fact, the concept of "rights" is entirely subjective. Even if objective standards exist, humans have proved themselves to be incapable of agreeing on what they are.

All we will ever have to work with are politics and polemics and the outcome of collective decisions based on those will never be certain or permanent. Sad but true for everybody.

That's good.