Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Do the consequences of having a right give us grounds to deny recognizing it than?
Some here have said that homosexual marriage would lead to incestuous behavior, as if that's reason enough to deny homosexuals the same rights and privileges afforded to heterosexuals, which is forbidden by the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Even if homosexual or interracial marriage did lead to incestuous behavior, it doesn't mean that we have the right to deny others their rights. That's the price you pay for living in a Republic which recognizes the importance and value of individual rights. In America we don't deny others their rights because of the consequences it may lead to. Look at guns. People die because of guns (well, because people shoot them, but guns make it much easier to hurt and kill others, and far too often for bad reasons such as revenge or theft). Do I get to take away your right to have a gun because the consequences that will come from everyone having the right to have guns? No. Same applies to marriage and a slew of other rights we have. For example, we don't get to deny Catholics the right to exercise their religion because of the rampant pedophilia of their clergy.
@ How Would I Know:
They don't. For example, homosexual couples do not have the access to their partner's health insurance policies as married heterosexual couples do. Homosexual couples do not have the access to visit their ill partner in the hospital and to make medical and end-of-life decisions as married heterosexual couples do.
They would have these rights if they were allowed to marry their partner. But since they cannot, they do not have the same rights as heterosexuals.
The problem is with your logic.
Not mine.
@John:
So does wearing clothing made of two different types of fibers (read Leviticus). How about we ban that too?
Imagine the impact that would have on the market-place and businesses! Wow! That would be terrible.
@ American Citizen and Taxpayer:
Actually, it is a right. The Supreme Court declared it is actual a "fundamental" right in the case of Loving v. Virginia.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
@ Typical Lazy Entitlement Marxist:
Your lack of production of an argument in rebuttal says everything about the veracity of my own.
@ Typical Lazy Entitlement Marxist:
By the way, I want to be clear that I do not agree with incest. But, this is really no different than free speech. We will both agree that there are forms of speech in this country that are repulsive. For example, I despise the Westborough Baptist Church and how they picket the funerals of recently deceased military servicemen and women. However, I will defend to the death their right to say it. Same applies for marriage.
Be the first to answer this question.