Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Marriage most certainly is a right - it's a legal right. All 50 states have crafted marriage laws, and has such, have make it a legal right (or more accurately, it confers a collection of legal rights).
We also have a Constitution that says all people are to be treated equally under the laws of the several states. In that context, access to state marriage law (and the legal rights it confers) is a civil right.
Ahhh... so, now you're making distinctions.
What's the difference between a civil right, and say, the right to life?
Yes, you have a right to life. Explain why you think you do not.
If you have a right to life, and yet you die, who "violated" your natural right?
Rights language in that sense is largely meaningless. It's "assertive," but it isn't actually based in anything "fundamental" to the nature of the world.
For example, an actual natural law would be something like "objects dropped from height tend to fall down." It's not that objects have a "right" to fall which they choose to exercise - it's simply that the nature of reality takes place within a certain framework, and that's part of it.
But a "right to life" is meaningless unless it can actually be enforced, and it can only be enforced to the extent that any particular society fosters and defends its endorsement.
So? There are different kind of rights. You can talk about marriage in the context of several different kind of rights.
When you're taking about civil marriage (what the whole gay marriage debate is about), it's a fact that when a state government crafts something called civil marriage and attaches privileges, responsibilities, benefits, etc to it; then the state government has made marriage a legal right. It's also a fact that our Constitution protects the freedom of people not to be denied equal access to state laws. So if a state makes marriage a legal right, accessing that legal right to marriage is therefore a civil right.
From a religions or private perspective, you can talk about marriage in the context of civil rights or even natural rights. Some other civil rights protected by our Constitution are the freedom to practice religion, the right of privacy, and the right of free association. I would argue that marriage (that is a private or religions marriage association, not a civil marriage) is a protected civil right under all three of those larger civil rights. Outside of the context of any government, you could also say that the right to freely associate and marry is a natural right endowed to all men everywhere on Earth by a higher power.
Quote:
What's the difference between a civil right, and say, the right to life?
In general, a civil right is a freedom possessed by people that cannot be infringed upon by government. Our Constitution gives us a list of such rights. Foremost among them is the right to life. So to answer your question, the right to life is a civil right.
If you have a right to life, and yet you die, who "violated" your natural right?
Nobody.
Quote:
Rights language in that sense is largely meaningless. It's "assertive," but it isn't actually based in anything "fundamental" to the nature of the world.
That's a nice, dismissive argument. Essential, though, to construct the liberal meme, which is that "rights" are defined by the majority and thus, whatever they do is perfectly fine.
Quote:
For example, an actual natural law would be something like "objects dropped from height tend to fall down." It's not that objects have a "right" to fall which they choose to exercise - it's simply that the nature of reality takes place within a certain framework, and that's part of it.
But we are not objects without intellect moving by external forces.
Quote:
But a "right to life" is meaningless unless it can actually be enforced, and it can only be enforced to the extent that any particular society fosters and defends its endorsement.
Oh, I see. So, now that you've managed to try to muddy the waters for some purpose... What was your point in doing so? Do you deny your right to life exists, if there is no police force to stop someone intent on ending your life?
So? There are different kind of rights. You can talk about marriage in the context of several different kind of rights.
When you're taking about civil marriage (what the whole gay marriage debate is about), it's a fact that when a state government crafts something called civil marriage and attaches privileges, responsibilities, benefits, etc to it; then the state government has made marriage a legal right. It's also a fact that our Constitution protects the freedom of people not to be denied equal access to state laws. So if a state makes marriage a legal right, accessing that legal right to marriage is therefore a civil right.
That's all fine and good. But you're still failing the argument.
Quote:
From a religions or private perspective, you can talk about marriage in the context of civil rights or even natural rights. Some other civil rights protected by our Constitution are the freedom to practice religion, the right of privacy, and the right of free association. I would argue that marriage (that is a private or religions marriage association, not a civil marriage) is a protected civil right under all three of those larger civil rights. Outside of the context of any government, you could also say that that right to freely associate and marry is a natural right endowed to all men by a higher power.
So, great. Then civil marriage is NOT a natural right.
Quote:
In general, a civil right is a freedom possessed by people that cannot be infringed upon by government. Our Constitution gives us a list of such rights. Foremost among them is the right to life. So to answer your question, the right to life is a civil right.
No, it's a natural right. We may codify it in our laws, but the right to live has to exist absent the whim of a governing body.
Which gets me right back to my original point, which is to say that legal marriage isn't a right at all, but a privilege granted to the people the state endorses to have it - gay or not.
So, again, we arrive right where I started, which is to say that it's NOT a right, and the only actual argument AT ALL is whether gays deserve this privilege not granted to siblings, etc.
Essential, though, to construct the liberal meme, which is that "rights" are defined by the majority and thus, whatever they do is perfectly fine.
Sorry, but it's not a "liberal" argument. One of the best (relatively short) discussions of why "natural rights" don't actually exist is by the rather illiberal author LA Rollins, who published an essay called "The Myth of Natural Rights" back in 1984.
My claim is that there is no such thing as a "natural right" that exists independently of specific human moral structures. That's the only context in which such rights are actually meaningful. They cease to exist outside of that kind of framework.
This applies to everything. To say that there is a "natural right" or not to "marriage" is once again simply meaningless outside of a particular set of laws and institutions. Different societies have different practices and rituals in this regard.
There are certain natural tendencies which are inherent to humans - people don't generally like pain, they do like food and water, and so on. But you can't extrapolate the existence of independent "natural rights" from any of that.
All you can do is assert that they exist, and that for the good of society, everyone should agree that they exist, in order to foster respect for certain norms.
But that's ultimately a normative/social argument, too.
That's all fine and good. But you're still failing the argument.
How so? Under the US Constitution, if a state crafts a marriage law, then equal access to marriage law is a civil right that cannot be denied. How does my argument fail?
Quote:
So, great. Then civil marriage is NOT a natural right.
I agree 100% - civil marriage is NOT a natural right. I never said that it was.
And how you define what is or is not a natural right really depends on your personal religious/philosophical beliefs. I don't believe in gods or the supernatural, so to be honest, I don't buy into the concept of natural rights.
Quote:
Which gets me right back to my original point, which is to say that legal marriage isn't a right at all, but a privilege granted to the people the state endorses to have it - gay or not. So, again, we arrive right where I started, which is to say that it's NOT a right, and the only actual argument AT ALL is whether gays deserve this privilege not granted to siblings, etc.
Um, a privilege (or a benefit, protection, responsibility) granted to the people by the state is called a LEGAL RIGHT. Civil marriage is a LEGAL RIGHT. Why? - because all 50 states have crafted civil marriage laws and granted associated privileges to the people.
The process of granting legal rights is governed by a higher law - the Constitution. Again, our Constitution contains a collection of civil rights - rights that we've agreed we all possess and that no government within our boundaries can take way. One of those rights says that when a government creates legal rights, those legal rights have to be equally accessible to all. So if a state decides to make marriage a legal right, then the Constitution makes equal access to marriage a civil right.
I don't understand you desire to define rights as non-rights and then deny them to people. That strikes me as un-American and anti-freedom.
Sorry, but it's not a "liberal" argument. One of the best (relatively short) discussions of why "natural rights" don't actually exist is by the rather illiberal author LA Rollins, who published an essay called "The Myth of Natural Rights" back in 1984.
That people deny they exist is true. That people argue angels can dance on the head of a pin is also true. Neither argument makes sense.
Quote:
My claim is that there is no such thing as a "natural right" that exists independently of specific human moral structures. That's the only context in which such rights are actually meaningful. They cease to exist outside of that kind of framework.
Nonsense. Find me a culture in which the individual does not believe in his own right to exist and pursue happiness.
Quote:
This applies to everything. To say that there is a "natural right" or not to "marriage" is once again simply meaningless outside of a particular set of laws and institutions. Different societies have different practices and rituals in this regard.
Don't argue with me. I'm not the one who has asserted that there is a natural right to a legal privilege.
Quote:
There are certain natural tendencies which are inherent to humans - people don't generally like pain, they do like food and water, and so on. But you can't extrapolate the existence of independent "natural rights" from any of that.
Again, find me any human society where the individuals do not believe in the right to their own life, the pursuit of happiness, self defense, etc. Your argument is a theoretical one, but unconvincing, since the expression of and belief in natural rights is universal to mankind.
Quote:
All you can do is assert that they exist, and that for the good of society, everyone should agree that they exist, in order to foster respect for certain norms.
No, everyone AGREES they exist. Except for you and who ever that Rollins person was, that is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
