Live Traffic Feed

Feedjit Widget

What Are Gay Rights?

This has been nagging me for some time. I constantly hear people complain about gay rights or want protection for their gay rights. Yet, whenever I ask them what rights they are talking about they keep referring to the same rights that other groups have. In and of itself, that doesn’t make sense to me. So I decided to look it up. The definition I found is

Gay rights: The concept that people of minority sexual orientations, such as homosexuality, are entitled to all the rights and considerations due to the majority orientation.

So, if I take this to mean what it says. Then there is no infringment on gay rights. What the gay people are saying is they want to change the law to make them a special group. They simply havent come out and said it that way yet. You see, for a homosexual to claim he wants the same rights as a heterosexual sounds silly on the face of it based on the definition.

Right now, the homosexual cannot marry a person of the same sexual gender. Well guess what, neither can the heterosexual. So what right is really being violated here? The heterosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, well gues what, so can the gay person. So again, what right is being violated? If everyone follows the current law there is no descrimination and no rights are being violated, so what I sthe real problem.

Now, people will surely say that this is an absurd point of view. Well, absurd or not, it is still true. What is being presented when these things come up is really an argument against current law and the desire to change those laws. These type of issues were never a problem until the government decided to get involved where it never should have been in the first pace.

Marriage laws first came about to stop white and black people from marrying. They have morphed over the years. None-the-less we still have marriage laws and they still do nothing but divide our society.

It will do no good to change the law to allow homosexuals to get married. The moment you do that then someone else will ride on the coat tail of the new law or a new group will spring up and you have the same old thing all over again. Continuing the morph will only continue to divide the citizenry.

So how do we solve the problem? The solution is very easy. Get government out of the marriage business. Remove ALL existing laws about marriage (no matter how small) and wham-o the problem instantly disappears.

You see, what the “gay rights” movement are all about is NOT that their rights are being violated but that they want acceptance in today’s society. They want to be accepted and treated as equals in society instead of having to hide in the closet all the time. From a Libertarian Viewpoint, this shouldn’t matter to anyone. Every gay person is exactly that, a person, and should be treated accordingly.

Their “rights” are the same as everyone else’s. Yet, for some reason, many people claim that having sex with other partners of the same sex is flat out wrong. Let alone something as complicated as being married.

To all those people who think it is wrong, state your claim and provide your proof in support of it. Let us have an open discussion on the matter and see if we can come to any real conclusions.

 Yours in Liberty

9 comments to What Are Gay Rights?

  • I didn’t know rights could be gay, hence the term gay rights.

  • DarrenA

    Since I totally agree to the premise of this post, I dont have much to offer as a counter point, but I would like to emphasis that the direction of this post applies to any special interest group, i.e. latin americans, polish americans, black americans etc. that look to the law as a special tool to bend to their will.

    The term justice for all doesnt allow for parsing of the law to suit a specific group. People that decide to use the law in this manner have no understanding of the philosophical ramifications this direction takes us. Laws become over bearing, cumbersome and disfunctional as there is no rational meaning behind the intent.

    The formula of selective application of law is insidious and fundamentally destructive to an objective standard of law. Although I had nothing original to add to Jims post, at leaset it lets me vent.


  • Jonathan,
    What the heck does your comment mean?

    Sorry buddy, you won’t get any argument from me on this one. I do believe you are correct. I would like to see what the people who do disagree with you think though. Too bad none of them are leaving any comments. It would be interesting to see their take on the subject.

  • lptbruce

    it would be interesting to see a counterpoint. lacking a logical or even a philosophical basis for one it is unlikely for anyone–other than some sort of a fanatic– attached to a pre-conceived set of notions or rigid ideological adherent or political opportunist– to oppose this reasoning. it is sound.

    jonathan i also “didn’t know rights could be gay” (LOL) whatever that means.

  • Thnx guys,

    I had been expecting some “religious” types, people with faith, which always say its wrong, to actually step up and make a case. It has not happened yet. I am sure there are people out there with some sort of argument. I am rather surprised that none are being laid out here.

  • Demosthenes,

    What I mean is, Rights are rights because you cannot label or categorize them in any other way. Black rights, Spanish rights, jew rights, gay rights… the end of the day the language AND PERSPECTIVE just ought to be, rights. Any other way perpetuates prejudice and intolerance and social inequality.

  • Jonathan,

    Ah, I see
    Yes I agree with you on that score

    OMG, did we come to an agreement on something without a fight? Will wonders never cease, LOL

    you go bro hoe

  • Mike B

    I’ve been advocating this for a long time. Many of our cultural and national problems would be solved if the government just kept its distance. This article was a great read, I will be sure to pass it on.

  • Again You go Mike B, write an article of your own in you like 🙂