Quote:
Originally Posted by Juniper
.
I'll tell you what it is -- it's Ostrich syndrome. You know, hiding your head in the sand. These people don't want to believe that two same-sex people could possibly actually love each other; they think it's pure deviant lust, so they think they can simply legislate against its expression and it will go away. Stupid.
|
I think there's something to that, Juni.
On the question of rights: I don't believe 'rights' exist as some kind of inherent and definable thing in nature or humanity. We have the 'right' to life? Life
is. We
are. We need to bear in mind that rights are an artificial construct, a theoretic framework with which we understand certain aspects of our humanity. Within that context, 'rights' are a communally agreed set of standards, an understanding which has shifted and developed over time. In truth, we can only really define our rights in the negative: it is only the threat to them which requires them to be identified/constructed.
Far easier to define is where our rights break down. I think Radar has a good point about humans having the right to do anything that doesn't impinge on another's rights. A little like common law, whereby the assumption is that an activity is acceptable unless prohibited.
In terms of government's role in this question, I think the description Paine gives of the concept of 'natural rights' and the relationship between rights and society sits at the heart of the matter. Our individual natural rights are invested by us into the collective of society and in doing so our rights are shared and defended. Our individual rights are imperfect inasmuch as we cannot individually defend them. The question then becomes, what is the relationship between society and government. If government is separate from society then our rights cannot be invested in government. If government is an expression of society, then it is the logical holder and defender of those collective rights.