|
The doll issue doesn't seem to be helping to clear the waters.
Let's try a more realistic proposition: could a consortium of investors incorporate as a limited partnership, called Bride, Inc., and should I be allowed to marry that corporation?
Kirth, you asked me to speculate about a valid legal argument for overturning Prop 8. I understand that Judge Walker based his decision on the Equal Protection clause, and that seems like a good place to start.
This is actually a very thought provoking question. Now that the SCOTUS has determined that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens, where do those rights end? I've heard of being "married to the job" but that's just taking it too far :P
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of SSM argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Is that what you meant to say? Because y'know it's not stupid and annoyingly obtuse to those guys who love their real dolls. BBC made an entire special on them.
Yes I'm being snarky. I find it amusing to say "Why can't you just let Bill and Ted be married and recognized by the state?" Then turn around and dismiss "Bill and Real Doll Ted" as being distracting and not relevant.
|
The doll issue doesn't seem to be helping to clear the waters.
Let's try a more realistic proposition: could a consortium of investors incorporate as a limited partnership, called Bride, Inc., and should I be allowed to marry that corporation?
Kirth, you asked me to speculate about a valid legal argument for overturning Prop 8. I understand that Judge Walker based his decision on the Equal Protection clause, and that seems like a good place to start.
Hmm. Unless there's a specific law specifying corporations are not people for purposes of marriage contracts, this might actually be legal under existing law.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
Corporations already have the right both to own property and entry into contracts, and pursuant to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, they have Constitutional rights as well.
Just stirring the pot because it's fun.
|
|
Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of SSM argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Is that what you meant to say? Because y'know it's not stupid and annoyingly obtuse to those guys who love their real dolls. BBC made an entire special on them.
Yes I'm being snarky. I find it amusing to say "Why can't you just let Bill and Ted be married and recognized by the state?" Then turn around and dismiss "Bill and Real Doll Ted" as being distracting and not relevant.
*facepalm*
Your comparison will be valid as soon as Real Doll Ted has:1) a pulse
2) free will and a thought process
3) legal recognition as an individual above the age of majority
Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of SSM argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Is that what you meant to say? Because y'know it's not stupid and annoyingly obtuse to those guys who love their real dolls. BBC made an entire special on them.
Yes I'm being snarky. I find it amusing to say "Why can't you just let Bill and Ted be married and recognized by the state?" Then turn around and dismiss "Bill and Real Doll Ted" as being distracting and not relevant.
*facepalm*
Your comparison will be valid as soon as Real Doll Ted has:
1) a pulse
2) free will and a thought process
3) legal recognition as an individual above the age of majority
We have already proven that #3 is not absolutely necessary, as proven by parents giving non-age of majority children consent to marry in various states.
If and when we create artificial intelligence, #2, might no longer be an issue.
How soon before #1 is no longer an issue at that point.
Does Data have rights?
Regarding the doll and/or corporation, let me ask this: does the state have the right to imprison and/or execute non-murderers for the crime of murder? My assumption is that most people would agree that, as a general principle, it does not. However, we know that a 100% determination cannot be made in 100% of cases, because of past instances in which a conviction has been proven false. Therefore, we accept that even though the general principle is binary, there are real-life cases in which some legal give-and-take regarding adjudication will be needed.
The principle is similar with "liberty unless it infringes on another's." That's a general principle, as is "don't unfairly execute people," and one that similarly needs adjudication as far as corner-cases. The blow-up doll is one such case. Throwing it out there as a demonstration that the general principle isn't 100% binary and is therefore invalid is a logical fail -- by that logic, the principle of "don't unfairly convict" also fails, and we can't convict anyone.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of SSM argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Is that what you meant to say? Because y'know it's not stupid and annoyingly obtuse to those guys who love their real dolls. BBC made an entire special on them.
Yes I'm being snarky. I find it amusing to say "Why can't you just let Bill and Ted be married and recognized by the state?" Then turn around and dismiss "Bill and Real Doll Ted" as being distracting and not relevant.
*facepalm*
Your comparison will be valid as soon as Real Doll Ted has:
1) a pulse
2) free will and a thought process
3) legal recognition as an individual above the age of majority
Ah, but you've already conceeded that #3 is a social construct, just like marriage, so we can define it away as being unneeded.
#2 isn't required. As has been pointed out, a parent is responsible for a child and can give consent. Heck, a POA can enter legal contracts (which you've also conceeded is what marriage is) for their ward if incapacitated. in fact 2 and three are exclusive. children are individuals with free will and a thought process. You're allowing society to define the age of magority.
as to #1, I don't see how requiring someone to have a pulse doesn't violate the equal protection clause.
Or are you admitting that society can put limitations on marriage that some might see reasonable? You necrophobe you.
*facepalm*
Your comparison will be valid as soon as Real Doll Ted has:
1) a pulse
2) free will and a thought process
3) legal recognition as an individual above the age of majority
Dolls aren't people? Crazy.
This is why I'm against all marriage as a legal concept.
This is why I'm against all marriage as a legal concept.
I am feeling the same at this point. Let's just toss out the whole thing and people can form whatever types of relationships they want.
Why stop the next guy from wallowing in his own private hell? That thing we call marriage. It's should be everyone's personal version of scalding water on the privates. Yes, throroghly enjoyable for a while but then it leaves us red and bitter from pain.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Why stop the next guy from wallowing in his own private hell? That thing we call marriage. It's should be everyone's personal version of scalding water on the privates. Yes, throroghly enjoyable for a while but then it leaves us red and bitter from pain.
"Marriage is an institution. But who wants to live in an institution?" Groucho Marx.
I will be happy to, as long as everyone drops the "prove it harms mixed-sex marriage, otherwise it has to be allowed".Can we please drop this stupid and annoyingly obtuse use of an irrelevant to the issue of SSM argument. The two are completely separate issues and using one to justify the other is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.You are drawing a false comparison. There is still somebody who has a brain and the mental capacity of an adult signing off on the contract. An inanimate object has neither.Sure it does, it has the person it is marrying. That person has a brain and the (assumed) mental capacity of an adult.
Alternatively, if we were to make this legal, then the company creating the dolls could potentially give permission, being the creator which in essence is what a parent is.
I think I'm the main proponent of that argument, so I don't think it's productive to carry this part of the argument to it's absurd logical conclusion with the other posters.
I think it's safe to say that I am the most likely person to have the most extreme ideological position regarding individual liberty.
I maintain that harm and theft are the valid tests for restricting rights, and I maintain that a voluntary relationship between consenting adults like marriage is indeed a right.
I think it's fair to say that the other pro SSM posters have more nuanced and less ideological positions than I do, so engaging them on the extreme aspects of my argument adds very little to the discussion.
Setting aside court intervention for a moment, can we agree that recognizing SSM benefits GLBT families and society to some degree, and that SSM for all practical purposes causes no harm?
The doll issue doesn't seem to be helping to clear the waters.
Let's try a more realistic proposition: could a consortium of investors incorporate as a limited partnership, called Bride, Inc., and should I be allowed to marry that corporation?
Yes.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think I'm the main proponent of that argument, so I don't think it's productive to carry this part of the argument to it's absurd logical conclusion with the other posters.
But it's fun!
I think it's safe to say that I am the most likely person to have the most extreme ideological position regarding individual liberty.
I maintain that harm and theft are the valid tests for restricting rights, and I maintain that a voluntary relationship between consenting adults like marriage is indeed a right.
I think it's fair to say that the other pro SSM posters have more nuanced and less ideological positions than I do, so engaging them on the extreme aspects of my argument adds very little to the discussion.
Setting aside court intervention for a moment, can we agree that recognizing SSM benefits GLBT families and society to some degree, and that SSM for all practical purposes causes no harm?
I agree that a voluntary relationship between consenting adults is a right. Government recognition OTOH...
Like I've said before, I'm all for creating a separate institution, and letting it be resolved on the state level.
|
I contend that Hetero marriages do more harm to hetero marriages than anything else. A divorce rate of %50+ is more than proof enough.
Marriage isn't really a thing that laws should be involved with anyway. If we are supposed to have a totally separated government and religion entity system then marriage is basically a religious institution that turned into a contractual institution that makes lawyers happy.
Why does the government have their hands in it to begin with?
I think I'm the main proponent of that argument, so I don't think it's productive to carry this part of the argument to it's absurd logical conclusion with the other posters.But it's fun!
I think it's safe to say that I am the most likely person to have the most extreme ideological position regarding individual liberty.
I maintain that harm and theft are the valid tests for restricting rights, and I maintain that a voluntary relationship between consenting adults like marriage is indeed a right.
I think it's fair to say that the other pro SSM posters have more nuanced and less ideological positions than I do, so engaging them on the extreme aspects of my argument adds very little to the discussion.
Setting aside court intervention for a moment, can we agree that recognizing SSM benefits GLBT families and society to some degree, and that SSM for all practical purposes causes no harm?
I agree that a voluntary relationship between consenting adults is a right. Government recognition OTOH...
Like I've said before, I'm all for creating a separate institution, and letting it be resolved on the state level.
From a purely theoretical ideological standpoint I might be able to accept your "Government recognition" argument, but today in real life real people suffer real loss because X is granted recognition and Y is not. I realize there is a legitimate slippery slope argument regarding granting one group more benefits than other being considered a violation of rights. In my minarchist world there wouldn't be a government of this scope giving out social benefits and socially engineering winners and losers.
However I'm going to break with my customary ideological rigidity, and I'm going to suggest that maybe SSM is a win win situation, and perhaps in this case it benefits the government as well as individual liberty and society to recognize it as a right.
If it is indeed a right then perhaps it's proper for the courts to rule to defend that right even if this particular ruling may have over reached.
I'd be all in favor of keeping marriage solely a religious rite, with no legal ramifications. Each adult could then choose a next of kin (as in a will) without having it chosen for them by default. Companies providing health insurance might permit one (1) designee as co-beneficiary, and/or multiple co-beneficiaries for a higher premium (this would apply to a spouse and kids or to a big polyamorous relationship or to three roommates or to a guy and his collection of action figures, provided he doesn't mind paying the higher premium). That way everyone could get all the current legal benefits of marriage (except the tax breaks) without any rights issues being trampled, or even involved.
The thing is, there would still be an angry mob of people lobbying for an amendment that says "No person shall ever be allowed to designate another person of the same gender as a beneficiary of any type in any way in any contract!" Take marriage out of the equation, and the intolerance still remains.
I contend that Hetero marriages do more harm to hetero marriages than anything else. A divorce rate of %50+ is more than proof enough.
Marriage isn't really a thing that laws should be involved with anyway. If we are supposed to have a totally separated government and religion entity system then marriage is basically a religious institution that turned into a contractual institution that makes lawyers happy.
Why does the government have their hands in it to begin with?
+1!!
I really prefer the concept of a sharp distinction between the cultural and religious aspects of marriage and civil union.
I must also note again that a lot of the harm that stems from the lack of recognition for SSM derives from the favored status of marriage particularly as it relates to big government functions like social security and federal employee benefits.
EDIT: I think this is also a good example of how the growth of government influence can have very harmful unintended consequences. I doubt all of the government factors that were meant to support and reward the institution of marriage and family were intended to harm anyone else, but that has become the current reality of the government defining marriage today.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The thing is, there would still be an angry mob of people lobbying for an amendment that says "No person shall ever be allowed to designate another person of the same gender as a beneficiary of any type in any way in any contract!" Take marriage out of the equation, and the intolerance still remains.
As much as some people would like to believe it, you can't legislate intolerance away. *shrug* Nor should you.
I hate pedophiles, for example. (So much so, that my shrink felt I had to be abused in my past) I don't care if some idiot passed a law saying that every pedophile gets (fresh) fruit and a free pass to a day care centre. I still will hate 'em and hope that karma comes and kills them slowly, only to have their intestines eaten from the inside in the next life. No amount of tolerance, NAMBLA parades or anything is going to change that.
I hate pedophiles, for example.
Yeah, you keep repeating that, like it's proof of your particular righteousness or something. And like most people, you fail to define the word, too. Legally, an 18-year old high school student with a 17-year-old girlfriend (one of his classmates, say) is a "sex offender" (i.e., pedophile). So is a guy who takes a whiz in his backyard and is unfortunately spotted by the neighbor's kid. Or the parents who pay the cell phone bills of the girl who texts a picture of herself to her boyfriend. You'd kill all of them without a qualm?
And at the same time we have priests who are raping children -- the most horrifying and flagrant abuse one can easily imagine -- and being empowered to go elsewhere and do it again by a large-scale conspiracy. Do you honestly think the high school kid is just as bad? Sadly, it's other people who think so -- or at least who can't be bothered to acknowledge the difference -- who write the laws.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I hate pedophiles, for example.Like most people, you fail to define the word, too. Legally, an 18-year old high school student with a 17-year-old girlfriend is a "sex offender" (i.e., pedophile). So is a guy who takes a whiz in his backyard and is unfortunately spotted by the neighbor's kid. You'd kill both of them?
And at the same time we have priests who are raping children -- the most horrifying and flagrant abuse one can easily imagine -- and being empowered to go elsewhere and do it again by a large-scale conspiracy. Do you honestly think the high school kid is just as bad?
I mean the 30+ guy buggering the kid. Or the 30+ girl for that matter. Hells, I'm almost 40, and can note a kid (defined by me at my age as under 21) is cute, will grow into a mature woman etc. There's a difference between saying Molly C. Quinn is a gorgeous girl who looks set to grow into a hot adult, and having gross sexual fantasies (and worse acting on them).
And don't get me started on the clergy. To violate a child (and their oaths) that is in their trust, death isn't good enough for them.*
I don't mean the guy taking a leak, or the couple who left their curtains open. I mean people who HURT kids.
*
There's a difference between saying Molly C. Quinn is a gorgeous girl who looks set to grow into a hot adult, and having gross sexual fantasies (and worse acting on them).
I'd also agree with Andrew Vachss, when he points out that the fantasies may be sick, but otherwise harmless (or at least not actionable, since we shouldn't set a precedent of prosecuting thought crimes) -- vs. acting on them, which is a deliberate choice to commit great and lasting (and possibly irreparable) harm on another human being simply for the fun of it. He hates the term "pedophile" for that reason, because conflating the two will open the door for some rapist to claim he's "sick" and needs treatment for his "pedophilia" -- vs. owning up to the fact that he knowingly and deliberately performed an act of pure evil.
I mean the 30+ guy buggering the kid. Or the 30+ girl for that matter. Hells, I'm almost 40, and can note a kid (defined by me at my age as under 21) is cute, will grow into a mature woman etc. There's a difference between saying Molly C. Quinn is a gorgeous girl who looks set to grow into a hot adult, and having gross sexual fantasies (and worse acting on them).
And don't get me started on the clergy. To violate a child (and their oaths) that is in their trust, death isn't good enough for them.*
I don't mean the guy taking a leak, or the couple who left their curtains open. I mean people who HURT kids.
*** spoiler omitted **
You could just expand and narrow that to "rapist", since that'd cover hurting kids (since they're unable to give informed consent) as well as adults.
And for the record, you don't want to know what I'd like to see done to rapists of any sort. People with strong stomachs have actually asked me to stop the description because it's too unsettling.
As far as the SSM issue...I agree that it should be handled by legislation, but in this case that has failed and been made a mockery of - if people must be forced to (legally at least) treat others equally, then so be it. In a perfect world they wouldn't be forced, but in a perfect world they wouldn't be bigoted in the first place.
My point is, by the standard that Bitter Thorn and I evaluate these things under, we shouldn't tolerate rapists, because they do grievous injustice to the rights of others. Whereas we should defend gay marriage, because it causes no such damage. So we don't litigate against intolerance; ideally and philosophically, we litigate against the abridgment of the rights of others.
And the point is, by the standard that Bitter Thorn and I evaluate these things under, we shouldn't tolerate rapists, because they do grievous injustice to the rights of others. Whereas we should defend gay marriage, because it causes no such damage.
+1
And the point is, by the standard that Bitter Thorn and I evaluate these things under, we shouldn't tolerate rapists, because they do grievous injustice to the rights of others. Whereas we should defend gay marriage, because it causes no such damage.
Exactly. Also the point you made above. Thoughts are fine (or should be) legally, it's acting upon them that's wrong. I doubt any of us hasn't thought about killing someone, after all, even if it was fleeting and we felt awful for it afterward.
I hate pedophiles, for example.Yeah, you keep repeating that, like it's proof of your particular righteousness or something. And like most people, you fail to define the word, too. Legally, an 18-year old high school student with a 17-year-old girlfriend (one of his classmates, say) is a "sex offender" (i.e., pedophile). So is a guy who takes a whiz in his backyard and is unfortunately spotted by the neighbor's kid. Or the parents who pay the cell phone bills of the girl who texts a picture of herself to her boyfriend. You'd kill all of them without a qualm?
And at the same time we have priests who are raping children -- the most horrifying and flagrant abuse one can easily imagine -- and being empowered to go elsewhere and do it again by a large-scale conspiracy. Do you honestly think the high school kid is just as bad? Sadly, it's other people who think so -- or at least who can't be bothered to acknowledge the difference -- who write the laws.
The 18 year old with the 17 year old lover wouldn't be a pedophile. They might be a sex offender, but not all sex offenders are pedophiles.
[2][3][4] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children they have either acted on or cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.[4]
Your 17-year old is most likely not prepubescent, thus the 18 year old lover is not a pedophile, or rather, they might be but having relations with a 17-year old does not prove it.
|
|
I'd be all in favor of keeping marriage solely a religious rite, with no legal ramifications. Each adult could then choose a next of kin (as in a will) without having it chosen for them by default. Companies providing health insurance might permit one (1) designee as co-beneficiary, and/or multiple co-beneficiaries for a higher premium (this would apply to a spouse and kids or to a big polyamorous relationship or to three roommates or to a guy and his collection of action figures, provided he doesn't mind paying the higher premium). That way everyone could get all the current legal benefits of marriage (except the tax breaks) without any rights issues being trampled, or even involved.
Honestly the modern western concept of marriage is thus. I see only one issue. If the spouse designates someone other as sole beneficiary. Other this is my opinion on the matter. It should not be in the hands of the government.
Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.
Thanks -- it's nice to know there's a clear definition somewhere. Now if only everyone were that careful with the word (most people aren't).
Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.Thanks -- it's nice to know there's a clear definition somewhere. Now if only everyone were that careful with the word (most people aren't).
We seem to expect too much from our law makers.
Honestly the modern western concept of marriage is thus. I see only one issue. If the spouse designates someone other as sole beneficiary. Other this is my opinion on the matter. It should not be in the hands of the government.I'd be all in favor of keeping marriage solely a religious rite, with no legal ramifications. Each adult could then choose a next of kin (as in a will) without having it chosen for them by default. Companies providing health insurance might permit one (1) designee as co-beneficiary, and/or multiple co-beneficiaries for a higher premium (this would apply to a spouse and kids or to a big polyamorous relationship or to three roommates or to a guy and his collection of action figures, provided he doesn't mind paying the higher premium). That way everyone could get all the current legal benefits of marriage (except the tax breaks) without any rights issues being trampled, or even involved.
Two problems: first and foremost, nearly everything that matters is, in effect, a right, duty, et cetera that comes from the government. It's an ugly truth, but what we're fighting for isn't so much SSM, but SS divorce, and for those points where we find it just and equitable for government-sourced rights to be affected.
Second, when you talk marriage law, the whole point of it is the intersection of the public and the private, of the contract between individuals and the government sanctioned action, and probably one of the last bastions of the idea of a law existing to try and encourage a certain sort of societal function. I like thinking about such a different society, but that might actually stray into real judicial activism, as opposed to the general sort of "I don't agree with that judge!" way the term's used.
Honestly the modern western concept of marriage is thus. I see only one issue. If the spouse designates someone other as sole beneficiary. Other this is my opinion on the matter. It should not be in the hands of the government.I'd be all in favor of keeping marriage solely a religious rite, with no legal ramifications. Each adult could then choose a next of kin (as in a will) without having it chosen for them by default. Companies providing health insurance might permit one (1) designee as co-beneficiary, and/or multiple co-beneficiaries for a higher premium (this would apply to a spouse and kids or to a big polyamorous relationship or to three roommates or to a guy and his collection of action figures, provided he doesn't mind paying the higher premium). That way everyone could get all the current legal benefits of marriage (except the tax breaks) without any rights issues being trampled, or even involved.
Two problems: first and foremost, nearly everything that matters is, in effect, a right, duty, et cetera that comes from the government. It's an ugly truth, but what we're fighting for isn't so much SSM, but SS divorce, and for those points where we find it just and equitable for government-sourced rights to be affected.
Second, when you talk marriage law, the whole point of it is the intersection of the public and the private, of the contract between individuals and the government sanctioned action, and probably one of the last bastions of the idea of a law existing to try and encourage a certain sort of societal function. I like thinking about such a different society, but that might actually stray into real judicial activism, as opposed to the general sort of "I don't agree with that judge!" way the term's used.
I fundamentally reject the assumption that the government grants rights. The government may list or defend rights, but they do not create them, or there is no such thing as a fundamental human right.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I fundamentally reject the assumption that the government grants rights. The government may list or defend rights, but they do not create them, or there is no such thing as a fundamental human right.
So say we all!
The premise of the Constitution remains that the Government is to defend the rights of the governed through its limited powers. If it's not defined by the constitution, the government should stay the hell out of it.
Enforcing contracts, fine. Defining contracts, not so much.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I fundamentally reject the assumption that the government grants rights. The government may list or defend rights, but they do not create them, or there is no such thing as a fundamental human...
Insofar as I believe the government acts with the consent of the people, I disagree. The Declaration of Independence says that some rights are inalienable, and indeed the government, in guarding the greatest amount of even those rights, has the duty to relieve certain people of their property, liberty, or even life, under certain circumstances.
There is no inalienable right to free speech, for example. As unlikely as it would be, the federal government, in concert with the states, acting with the consent of the American people, could amend the Constitution and remove the freedom of speech from the list of protected rights.
You have the freedoms you're willing to fight for.
I fundamentally reject the assumption that the government grants rights. The government may list or defend rights, but they do not create them, or there is no such thing as a fundamental human right.
You have the fundamental right to travel. You do not have the fundamental right to use a car. Your right to travel does not trump the government's interest to demand that you have a license, follow road rules, aren't drunk, et cetera. Feel free to describe this dance how you will.
You have a fundamental right to marry. The fundamental right to marry isn't the right to unlimited tax free transfers of wealth between two people. The government, since it created/defined/decided/delineated that portion of the right, has a strong interest in its orderly and purposeful creation/definition/decision/delineation.
I don't see how those are rights.You have the fundamental right to travel.
You have a fundamental right to marry.
Why not?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Why not?I don't see how those are rights.You have the fundamental right to travel.
You have a fundamental right to marry.
Same here.
You have the fundamental right to travel. You don't have a fundamental right to Amtrak. Or my car. migration to better one's self is one of our divinely given rights.
Likewise, you have the fundamental right to marry. You don't have a right for the government to recognize it.
|
Because they aren't just something you can just go do. You can't just say 'give me money, I'm exercising my right to travel'. And you can't demand someone be your spouse. *shrugs* I don't know, the phrasing of it sounds weird to me.
Edit: Looking it up on Wiki right now. Did not realize it was a legal term.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Because they aren't just something you can just go do. You can't just say 'give me money, I'm exercising my right to travel'. And you can't demand someone be your spouse. *shrugs* I don't know, the phrasing of it sounds weird to me.
Edit: Looking it up on Wiki right now. Did not realize it was a legal term.
If I'm understanding you TOZ, the problem is that you don't have a 'right' to someone else's money to travel, but there's nothing stopping you from going shank's mare, or bicycle, or (if you can afford it) a jumbo jet.
Likewise, I can't demand someone be my spouse (calling Grace Park!) but no one can keep me from marrying another who agrees to it.
|
|
"Rights" don't exist beyond society's desire to allow them. Or an individual's ability to defend them. I can't say this enough. And considering that at least 83% of the world's population do not live with what western civilization considers "basic human rights", "rights" do not appear to be "universal", either.
Because they aren't just something you can just go do. You can't just say 'give me money, I'm exercising my right to travel'. And you can't demand someone be your spouse. *shrugs* I don't know, the phrasing of it sounds weird to me.
Edit: Looking it up on Wiki right now. Did not realize it was a legal term.
If I'm understanding you TOZ, the problem is that you don't have a 'right' to someone else's money to travel, but there's nothing stopping you from going shank's mare, or bicycle, or (if you can afford it) a jumbo jet.
Likewise, I can't demand someone be my spouse (calling Grace Park!) but no one can keep me from marrying another who agrees to it.
Wait, so you support gay marriage? The way you've worded it here (bolded) seems inclusive of that.
Matt's position is that one can marry whomever one wishes but the government doesn't have to recognize it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"Rights" don't exist beyond society's desire to allow them. Or an individual's ability to defend them. I can't say this enough. And considering that at least 83% of the world's population do not live with what western civilization considers "basic human rights", "rights" do not appear to be "universal", either.
I believe (philosophy, like spelling, isn't one of my strong points) the idea is that while a government can supress the rights, by force or by ignorance, such a government isn't legitimate. Obiviously I couldn't hold several of my positions in China or Iran w/o facing repercussions for my beliefs. But to Western thought (or at least to the founders) China and Iran aren't legitimate because they try to deny those rights to their people.
Or to paraphrase a bumper sticker, "The second ammendment exists to protect the other 26."
The only true rights anyone has ends at their skull. Seriously, you have the right to think whatever you wish, but beyond that all other things are controlled by society/government.
As to the whole travel right issue, so South Americans have a right to travel into the U.S. without governmental interference?
You have the right to pretend in your mind to travel anywhere you wish, but your actual right to go there is limited.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As to the whole travel right issue, so South Americans have a right to travel into the U.S. without governmental interference?
They have a right to travel, and we have a right to defend our borders. It's courtesy (in this case, backed by law) to ask to come into someone else's domain. I have the right to refuse you entry into my home, and the right to gut you like a fish if you don't accept it and try.
Matt's position is that one can marry whomever one wishes but the government doesn't have to recognize it.Because they aren't just something you can just go do. You can't just say 'give me money, I'm exercising my right to travel'. And you can't demand someone be your spouse. *shrugs* I don't know, the phrasing of it sounds weird to me.
Edit: Looking it up on Wiki right now. Did not realize it was a legal term.
If I'm understanding you TOZ, the problem is that you don't have a 'right' to someone else's money to travel, but there's nothing stopping you from going shank's mare, or bicycle, or (if you can afford it) a jumbo jet.
Likewise, I can't demand someone be my spouse (calling Grace Park!) but no one can keep me from marrying another who agrees to it.
Wait, so you support gay marriage? The way you've worded it here (bolded) seems inclusive of that.
yep - I got that just after I submitted the post (I was a little slow, but that's why I deleted it). Thanks for confirming though. :)
"Rights" don't exist beyond society's desire to allow them. Or an individual's ability to defend them. I can't say this enough. And considering that at least 83% of the world's population do not live with what western civilization considers "basic human rights", "rights" do not appear to be "universal", either.
Maybe because, while you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
Might does not make right.
|
|
"Rights" don't exist beyond society's desire to allow them. Or an individual's ability to defend them. I can't say this enough. And considering that at least 83% of the world's population do not live with what western civilization considers "basic human rights", "rights" do not appear to be "universal", either.Maybe because, while you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
Might does not make right.
It doesn't matter if it is not the right thing to do. If you have no might to support your rights, then you have no rights. Isn't that what this thread is about? The judicial might being employed to stop those without might, the minority, from having their rights taken away by those with might, the majority?
