The Media Style Book on "Rights"
Justin Katz
The Providence Journal reprint of this article has the headline "Gay rights: The backlash" and the following lead:
Some who oppose gay rights say their views are targets of discrimination.
I'm not sure I've ever seen such an excellent example of the way in which media bias begins even at the level of the style book. With one exception, every example of the "rights" in question is same-sex marriage. The one exception isn't even about any kind of rights, but about a group encouraging gays to change their orientation.
In other words, an objective media would have characterized it as same-sex marriage opponents who are the targets of discrimination. That doesn't quite have the same propagandistic ring, though.
Let's call a spade a spade, Justin.
Right (noun): A moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
Marriage is a right. Those who would deny marriage to same-sex couples believe they are not entitled to that right. Fair enough, but don't then bs us about it.
Russ,
"A moral or legal entitlement..."?
You fail on both counts; thus, there is no "right."
Yours is nothing more than the typical liberal stupidity attempting to redefine words and mores.
Hey, it's not my definition. But, OK, let's check a legal dictionary...
dictionary.reference.com/browse/right
Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: right
Pronunciation: 'rIt
Function: noun
2b : a power, privilege, immunity, or capacity the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law
I'm not the one redefining words here. Justin and you are by nonsensically implying the "right" means only "natural right" or that there are no legal rights in this country.
Russ,
Marriage (noun) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
Yes, marriage as currently defined is a right and that right is non-discriminatory. I am in favor of gay rights (i.e.: military service) and believe there are legitimate arguments in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples. But to use your phrase, let’s call a spade a spade. It would be a fundamental and significant change to the current and traditional definition of marriage. That is not to say that change has no merit. But the assertion that those who oppose SSM are supporting discrimination is seriously flawed logic or, in your own words, bs.
Doesn't society determine what's moral and/or legal? In order to be a right, wouldn't it need to be accepted by society? I have more of a problem with the whole civil rights argument than the actual SSM issue itself. What else are we going to call a right just because a minority chooses to practice it?
You people suck at reading comprehension. The point he is making is that characterizing opponents of same-sex marriage as those "who oppose gay rights" is wrongfully implying that they want other civil liberties and entitlements denied to gay individuals. In reality, they are only opposed to that one specific right being extended beyond how it exists now.
Yes, Russ, you are redefining words.
It is not moral and it is not legal.
Thus, it is not a right.
While I understand perverted liberal thinking allows for it, society does not.
One can't take anything Russ says seriously.
What dictionary did that come from, anyway? Every term in the definition begs substantial questions that have been the subject of thousands of pages of serious debate over the centuries.
I think Dan raises an interesting point (it does say rights). Although marriage does convey any number of legal rights to spouses. Point taken though, however I still disagree with Justin's point that "the one exception isn't even about any kind of rights..."
"Legal Rights And Benefits of Marriage"
myfamilylaw.com/library/marriage/legal-rights-and-benefits-of-marriage/
This is the Deseret News, the house organ of the LDS.
If the gymnastics was forced out because he backed Prop 8, well, that should not be happening. But I also wonder if he's trying to play martyr here.
Dan writes:
"The point he is making is that characterizing opponents of same-sex marriage as those "who oppose gay rights" is wrongfully implying that they want other civil liberties and entitlements denied to gay individuals."
Isn't this true across all issues regarding gays. Let's begin with "Homophobic", doesn't this imply that "fear" (phobia) is at the base. I have always thought that "Homo averse" might be a more descriptive term.
Yeah, Russ, let's call a spade a spade. The bottom line is that liberals have no problem maligning those they disagree with. They are vicious and hateful towards those that don't buy into their perverted views, particularly the homosexual ones. All this BS about mythical "rights" is a masquerade meant to give them the "right" to slander those they disagree with.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Let's call a spade a spade, Justin.
Marriage is a right. Those who would deny marriage to same-sex couples believe they are not entitled to that right. Fair enough, but don't then bs us about it.
Posted by: Russ at June 14, 2011 12:38 PMRuss,
Posted by: Mike Cappelli at June 14, 2011 12:48 PM"A moral or legal entitlement..."?
You fail on both counts; thus, there is no "right."
Yours is nothing more than the typical liberal stupidity attempting to redefine words and mores.
Hey, it's not my definition. But, OK, let's check a legal dictionary...
dictionary.reference.com/browse/right
I'm not the one redefining words here. Justin and you are by nonsensically implying the "right" means only "natural right" or that there are no legal rights in this country.
Posted by: Russ at June 14, 2011 1:04 PMRuss,
Marriage (noun) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
Yes, marriage as currently defined is a right and that right is non-discriminatory. I am in favor of gay rights (i.e.: military service) and believe there are legitimate arguments in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples. But to use your phrase, let’s call a spade a spade. It would be a fundamental and significant change to the current and traditional definition of marriage. That is not to say that change has no merit. But the assertion that those who oppose SSM are supporting discrimination is seriously flawed logic or, in your own words, bs.
Posted by: msteven at June 14, 2011 1:10 PMDoesn't society determine what's moral and/or legal? In order to be a right, wouldn't it need to be accepted by society? I have more of a problem with the whole civil rights argument than the actual SSM issue itself. What else are we going to call a right just because a minority chooses to practice it?
Posted by: Max Diesel at June 14, 2011 1:10 PMYou people suck at reading comprehension. The point he is making is that characterizing opponents of same-sex marriage as those "who oppose gay rights" is wrongfully implying that they want other civil liberties and entitlements denied to gay individuals. In reality, they are only opposed to that one specific right being extended beyond how it exists now.
Posted by: Dan at June 14, 2011 1:16 PMYes, Russ, you are redefining words.
Posted by: Mike Cappelli at June 14, 2011 1:31 PMIt is not moral and it is not legal.
Thus, it is not a right.
While I understand perverted liberal thinking allows for it, society does not.
One can't take anything Russ says seriously.
What dictionary did that come from, anyway? Every term in the definition begs substantial questions that have been the subject of thousands of pages of serious debate over the centuries.
Posted by: BobN at June 14, 2011 1:38 PMI think Dan raises an interesting point (it does say rights). Although marriage does convey any number of legal rights to spouses. Point taken though, however I still disagree with Justin's point that "the one exception isn't even about any kind of rights..."
"Legal Rights And Benefits of Marriage"
Posted by: Russ at June 14, 2011 1:51 PMmyfamilylaw.com/library/marriage/legal-rights-and-benefits-of-marriage/
This is the Deseret News, the house organ of the LDS.
Posted by: bella at June 14, 2011 3:32 PMIf the gymnastics was forced out because he backed Prop 8, well, that should not be happening. But I also wonder if he's trying to play martyr here.
Dan writes:
"The point he is making is that characterizing opponents of same-sex marriage as those "who oppose gay rights" is wrongfully implying that they want other civil liberties and entitlements denied to gay individuals."
Isn't this true across all issues regarding gays. Let's begin with "Homophobic", doesn't this imply that "fear" (phobia) is at the base. I have always thought that "Homo averse" might be a more descriptive term.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 14, 2011 4:15 PMYeah, Russ, let's call a spade a spade. The bottom line is that liberals have no problem maligning those they disagree with. They are vicious and hateful towards those that don't buy into their perverted views, particularly the homosexual ones. All this BS about mythical "rights" is a masquerade meant to give them the "right" to slander those they disagree with.
Posted by: Mike Cappelli at June 14, 2011 6:55 PM