![]() |
Besides the oppressive part, the big problem I have is that the Christian church (I'm using this as a general term) is trying to monopolize marriage in the United States. You cannot break the sanctity of marriage because their is no definition for marriage in general. You can break the sanctity of a Christian marriage, you can break the sanctity of an Islamic marriage, you can break the sanctity of a Hindu marriage, etc, because each religion or sect of religion defines marriage in their own way.
The state should recognize any marriage that involves two citizens that are at legal age (which can be debated) and leave the banning to individual religions. If the Catholic Church wants to ban gay marriages, ban it within the church. No one is going to force the church to marry gay couples if they feel it goes against their religion. |
Quote:
The Mormon church instructed their people to donate to the violation of civil rights and to volunteer. It also excommunicated those Mormons who campaigned on the side of equal rights. That's right, the Mormon church, which has historically been a bastion of polygamy, actually has the temerity to use the phrase "sanctity of marriage". It's this simple. If a church gets involved in politics, they are no longer entitled to tax exempt status. This should especially apply to the Mormon church which owns many for profit companies. The Mormon church is a business, and it looks like they are selling discrimination and hatred... oh and some cult like salvation on the planet Kolob. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Governments are created to provide harmony and peace throughout the population. What peace or harmony can be had when one group violates the rights of another? I'm saying if someone thinks it's ok to violate the civil rights of others because of their own bigotry or hatred, it's a two way street. Either we're all equal, or we're not. If it's ok for them to violate the rights of gay people, why isn't it ok for me to violate their rights? Why is their right to life more important than a gay person's right to marry? It isn't. |
Quote:
The rights of a single person are more important the opinions, desires, and votes of millions. In other words, YOUR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE. You have a right to express your opinion. You do not have a right to violate the rights of others or to vote for government to do it for you. |
Quote:
It's not that I'm always right. You're just always wrong when it comes to the Constitution, the role of the military, the founders, etc. and I just happen to be the guy to set you straight. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Civil Unions vs Civil Marriage.
taken from the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (who argued the Massachusetts case) Talking Points What's the difference?Framing the conversation: What's really at stake? First, let's be clear. This discussion is about substance - not symbols. The human stakes are enormous. This document explains why civil marriage, and not civil unions, is the only way to make sure gay and lesbian couples have all of the same legal protections as other married couples. Second, the discussion is about ending governmental discrimination against gay and lesbian families with respect to civil marriage and its legal protections and responsibilities-not about any religious rite of marriage. Every faith is and will remain free to set its own rules about who can marry and on what terms. Third, marriage is many things to many people. But it is also a legal institution in which governmental discrimination has no place. Let's compare civil marriage as a legal institution to civil unions as a legal institution. What is marriage? Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments the world over. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. Yet it is more than the sum of its legal parts. It is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other's side. It represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection. What is a civil union? A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000 and in California in 2003. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage." What are some of the limitations of civil unions? Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences: -Portability: Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states. GLAD believes there are strong arguments that civil unions deserve respect across the country just like marriages. But the two appellate courts that have addressed the issue (in Connecticut and Georgia) have disrespected them based on the fact that their states do not grant civil unions themselves. -Ending a Civil Union: If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have no way to terminate their legal commitment. -Federal Benefits: According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections. -Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family: Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs. -Filling out forms: Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don't fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal penalties. |
-Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status: Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We've been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do. How real are these differences between marriage and civil unions, given that a federal law and some state laws discriminate against all marriages of same-sex couples? Would any of this change immediately with marriage of same-sex couples? Probably not, because married same-sex couples will face other layers of discrimination against their marriages. Right now, a federal law denies recognition of same-sex unions conferred by any state for purposes of all federal programs and requirements and over 30 state laws do the same. Ending discrimination in marriage does not mean the end of all discrimination, but using the term "marriage" rather than "civil union" is an essential first step to opening the door and addressing whether continued governmental discrimination against civil marriages of gay and lesbian people makes sense. Marriage and civil unions remain different, both in practice and in principle. First, more than a dozen states have not taken a discriminatory position against civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples. In those states, civilly married gay and lesbian couples should be able to live and travel freely and without fear that their relationship will be disrespected. Second, even as to those states with discriminatory laws, legally married gay and lesbian couples from those states may well face some discrimination in some quarters, but their marriages will also be treated with legal respect in other arenas. Marriages are far more likely to be respected by others than newly minted "civil unions." Using the term marriage also prompts a discussion about fairness. Allowing same sex couples to marry (rather than enter a separate status) will allow gay and lesbian people to talk with their neighbors, their local elected officials, and the Congress about whether discrimination against their marriages is fair. Where gay and lesbian people and their children are part of the social fabric, is it right to continue discriminating against them in civil marriage? The federal government and states that have taken discriminatory positions against marriages of gay and lesbian couples could rethink those policies and go back to respecting state laws about marriage, as they have done for hundreds of years. In the end, we will not be able to have this discussion until gay and lesbian folks have what everyone else has: civil marriage. Civil Marriage & Freedom of Religion A myth: A major myth about ending discrimination in civil marriage is that it will somehow compel religious faiths to change their doctrine or practices about who they marry. This is flatly incorrect. We have freedom of religion in this country. When a court or legislature ends discrimination in civil (governmental) marriage, there is no compulsory impact on any faith. Each faith is-and will remain-free to define its own requirements for its marriage rite: who, what, when, where and why. Some people say marriage is a sacrament. And it is for some religious faiths. But the government is not in the sacrament business. The only "marriage" to which the couples in the Massachusetts case are seeking access is civil/governmental marriage. Governmental marriage already exists side by side with each faith's different rules for their religious rite of marriage. Nothing can change that. Two Types of Marriages Though people may think about marriage in different ways, there are only two types of marriage - either civil or religious. In some ceremonies, both are celebrated at once. Couples may have one or both types of marriage. However, to receive the legal protections of marriage, a couple must have a civil marriage. It is only civil marriage that can be addressed by courts or legislatures. Civil Marriage Any couple can have a civil marriage if they meet the government's requirements. Right now, the requirements in Massachusetts are that the partners be adults, pass a blood test, and not be already married or closely related. Most of us also think about marriage as a public commitment of love and support by adult couples. The government does, too, and uses the commitment of marriage as a gateway to hundreds of legal protections, responsibilities and benefits established by the state, and over 1000 by the federal government. Ever since the founding of this country, states have regulated who may enter into a marriage and under what conditions. Religious Rite of Marriage Only couples who meet the requirements of a particular faith tradition can have a religious marriage. Religions have complete autonomy in deciding which marriages they will consecrate; they do whatever suits their faith tradition. Some religions will not marry people who were divorced, or people of different faiths, even though these same people could have a civil marriage. Every religious community always has the right to perform or not perform any marriage rite it deems appropriate, regardless of the partners' sex. Religious marriages do not convey legal rights or responsibilities. Freedom of Religion The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects every citizen's right to freedom of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The founders of American government made it clear from the beginning that in this new nation religion and government would exist side by side, and the law would not define religious practice. In addition to allowing free rein to religious practice, our Constitution protects freedom of religion by preventing any one religion from dictating the content of law. For all religious views to be protected and respected, it is critical that laws not be made with a particular religious viewpoint in mind, including laws about civil marriage. As a result of American freedom of religion, each faith can independently answer the question of whether they wish gay and lesbian couples to marry within their religious tradition, and this will remain true no matter what the government does with regard to civil marriage |
Now that I think about it, anyone who is able to quote something that takes two posts MUST be right.
problem solved /thread . |
Well, just for the record, most everyone I know says Marriage over here.
Same as when they brought in Council Tax, denying it was Poll Tax, and everyone called it Poll Tax anyway. I suppose you're right, but it seems an awful shame to get bothered about words. Now the fact it's not legal in all states and does not confer the same benefits as marriage - yes, that I would be annoyed about. |
Sinner exposed in the NY Times of 15 Nov 2008:
Quote:
Quote:
When asked, "How do we tell good Catholics from bad?", he replied, "Kill them all. God will know his own." Religion again doing what it does best. |
Here's my views on it, presented in a manner much more musical and entertaining than I could achieve...
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
You don't have any "rights" - what you have is power. You have the "right" to do anything you can do without someone else stopping you from doing it. Calling it a "right" just gives a sort of fabricated dignity to the act of asserting your will. |
Quote:
Separate but equal never really is. |
We have a similar history in terms of gender but ours is more separate and absolutely not equal :P
Bear in mind we were still locking people up for homosexuality in my parents generation. Talking of the slow route to equality.....do you know what year the British legal system recognised rape in marriage as a possibility? Prior to this it was not considered legally possible for a husband to rape his wife. |
Bah, all kitchen stoves should be 2 feet high. :p
|
Quote:
Thanks for that. I really like the video. |
Quote:
Rights are not a "manmade invention". They are a part of natural law. They are as real, as immutable, as tangible, and as undeniable as gravity. I do indeed have rights and my rights don't come from "society" or from "government". My rights are mine at birth and they can't be bought, sold, given, taken, or voted away. I'd have the same rights whether I was born in America, or North Korea. If someone is violating my rights, it does not mean I lost them. If every person on earth unanimously voted for gravity to disappear, we'd still have gravity tomorrow. The same is true of our rights. They are a part of nature, and they can't be voted away. Our rights come from the fact that we own ourselves. I own myself and my life. Therefore I have a right to defend that life, or if I choose...to end it. This is why honestly obtaining and owning any kind of weapon is a right. I own my voice. This is why I have the right to free speech. I own my thoughts, this is why I have the right to free expression. I own my body and my labor, and this is why I own the fruits of my labor. When I buy something with the fruits of my labor (money), it is an extension of my own body. This is why I have the right to own property. No other person, or group of people, regardless of their number or what they call themselves (gang, society, government, etc.) has claim to my person, my labor, or the fruits of my labor. Nor do they have any legitimate authority to violate my rights or to limit them. The only valid limitation on my rights are the equal rights of others. To claim we have no rights, or that rights are a social construct, or a man made concept, is to say that slavery is appropriate. It is to say that one person may have more of a claim to your body than you have for yourself. It is to say that when you are enslaved, you have no right to complain. It is to say that you do not own yourself. Society or government, or whatever you want to call it, may never have any powers over and above the rights of a single individual. This is because all governmental power is derived from our rights. If we don't have a right to do something, it means we can't grant that power to government. It doesn't matter if it's one person or a billion people. For instance, if I were on an island where there were other people, but no government at all, I'd have absolutely no right to prevent a gay couple from marrying each other, or to prevent a woman from having an abortion, or to use force to prevent another person from using drugs, or gambling, or committing suicide, or trading sex for money. These are consensual acts and the only people affected by these activities are those involved, and they have consented to any dangers involved. Since I have no right to use force to prevent these things, neither do a thousand of me, a million of me, or a billion of me calling themselves "government" or "society". The bottom line is rights exist independently of whether or not you can exercise them, independently of whether you are living alone or with a billion people, and independently of whether or not anyone is there to exercise them. |
Quote:
The more power you have, the more rights you have. That sounds about right to me. ;) |
Yes, but where do they come from, these magical "rights"? Who says you've got 'em? Is there proof that they exist?
It's not so much that rights are a manmade invention, it's that man has decided that they must exist and gave them the name "rights." When you say you have a "right" do this or that, or "no right" to prevent this or that, you're talking about ethics, about what is morally correct or...what's the word..."right." Of course, ethics and morals are subjective and open to interpretation. What are our "rights," anyway? Is there a list? Who created it? Was it like Moses and the ten commandments? We do agree that one person's rights end where another's begin, but I think there's a great deal of overlap. For example, if you think a woman has a right to abortion, why doesn't the fetus have a right to survive? (and who says "rights" are given at birth instead of conception? Or even before conception, for that matter?) If you think someone has the right to suicide, why doesn't his family have the right to prevent it? Almost in no case are the only people consensually involved in an act the only people who are affected by that act. If you think you have no right to prevent someone from shooting up heroin, why doesn't that person's child have the right to a drug-free mother? See, the trouble with "rights" they way you define them is that they tend to overlap or have blurry edges. Which leads to the question of whose rights are more important. And since "rights" are not immutable - in fact, are nothing more than a concept invented by man to define his sense of ethics - it comes down to who's got the loudest voice or the biggest weapon. Don't agree? Prove it. |
Quote:
I've never used the word "magical" to describe rights. Is gravity "magical"? Where does gravity come from? Rights come from the same place as gravity; specifically from nature. They are all part of natural law. Quote:
Not really. Men discovered rights that always existed in much the same way Isaac Newton discovered gravity. Quote:
The natural state of man is freedom. The freedom to do ANYTHING you want as long as your actions do not physically harm, endanger, or violate the rights of others. No person has the right to initiate force against another, but all people have the right to use force in their defense. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your rights don't include changing the person, property, or behavior of others as long as their actions do not PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of another. Since the child has no claim to the body of their mother, they do not have a right to a drug-free mother. They only have the right to an endangerment free mother. Quote:
Nope. They are clear and simple, and easy to recognize. There are no blurry edges. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about it. You own yourself, and you have no claim to anyone else. End of story. Quote:
There is no need to question this since our rights do not overlap. Your right to swing your fist ends where another person's nose begins. Quote:
The Descent of Man - Charles Darwin Natural Law and Natural Rights - James A. Donald Second Treatise on Civil Government - John Locke The Rights of Man - Thomas Paine The Declaration of Independence - Thomas Jefferson Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen) - National Assembly of France The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Magna Carta - Archbishop Stephen Langton The Law - Frederic Bastiat Natural Law - Lysander Spooner Human rights have been self-evident for thousands of years throughout every part of the world. People have always known that freedom was the natural state of humanity. Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle even knew this. Rights are both self-evident and exist. You can't see air, but you can breath it. You can't touch gravity, but you know it exists. You have no proof that love exists, but few would doubt its existence. Humans didn't invent love. Nor did they invent rights. Rights have existed for as long as the universe has existed and they come from the same place that created the universe and natural law. Human rights existed before humans existed and will exist as long as the universe does. They just are. |
Are you having fun yet Juni? lol
|
To each there own...Just dont screw up my children
|
Well, you can list any number of opinions - smart men, great philosophers, but I'm still not convinced that is proof. Gravity can be proven and quantified. Love, much like rights, means different things to different people. Rights aren't something you can see, smell, touch, etc. so all those philosophers are just saying these "rights" are the way people should behave, ethically and ideally.
This argument is kind of silly anyway -- fundamentally we do not disagree. We do agree on what is right and wrong, what is best for society in general (with a few important exceptions). I just don't think that life comes with any guarantees. The only "rights" you get are the ones you're lucky enough to be given or strong enough to take. I do however appreciate your explanation of the pro-choice rationale. I disagree, but at least I understand better what I am disagreeing with. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/...nal-poster.jpg
Quote:
|
Just to throw in a thought or two. All this talk about rights, definition of marriage. What we are really talking about is changing deep cultural behavior/beliefs. Changing a deep cultural behavior, something that has been around for at least a couple of thousand years, probably won't happen in 50 years. It will take a bit more time for that to sink in.
|
Yeah, but queers have been around just as long. It's taken thousands of years to be tolerated, sanctioned probably won't take as long.
|
It's not changing anything. The marriage of straight people doesn't change one bit when gay people exercise their rights. Gay people aren't trying to force churches to perform gay marriages. They just want access to the same government services that any other citizen has access to.
|
Quote:
Whatever you say douchebag. I didn't say people should be thrown out for disagreeing with me. I said they should be thrown out for violating the rights of other citizens. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing on a subject. If that's all that was happening, there wouldn't be a problem. It's not the words of the right-wing dickheads like you that bother me. It's the actions. They are taking actions to violate the civil rights of one set of citizens simply because they don't like them. This makes them unworthy of living in America. In fact, it makes them unworthy to live period. If they get to decide on whether other people marry, then I get to decide whether or not they are allowed to live. Now run along you little cock jockey and try to pretend that I haven't beaten you in every political debate we've ever had. |
Quote:
|
Didn't they put the issue to vote in over 30 states this past election? It seems to me that the people have decided. Isn't that what you asked for? Now that it didn't go your way, you just sound like a sore loser.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Gravity" is a mental marker for a collection of physical effects, the cause and functions of which nobody really agrees on. "Rights" is a mental marker for a collection of ethical interactions, the effects of which we can see, the cause and function of which nobody really agrees on. |
Quote:
I suppose "gravity" itself cannot be proven or measured, but the effects of it can. But regardless of this, it can still be experienced - nobody can argue it does not exist. We can measure the effects of gravity. We can come up with mathematical formulas for gravity. You can't do that with "rights." |
The effects of violating someones rights can also be measured. Ever heard of the revolutionary war? Civil rights marches of the 60's? India winning independence from the United Kingdom?
|
Quote:
|
Here's the thing. Aside from nitpicky, circular-reasoning arguments about the definition and source of "rights," the point is what role popular opinion plays in our country's legislation.
Let's put aside the issue of constitutional interpretation too -- even if you're in love with the US constitution (and I have a lot of respect for it too) the fact is that it's experimental, it's constantly under review, and it wasn't handed down by divine authority. It is not imprimatur. The point of this is to question whether it is possible, if it is proper, if it is ethically sound to prevent a majority of citizens within a governmental unit - state, country, etc. - to pass a law that goes against what others perceive as being natural rights. Let's say for the sake of argument that 60% of a state's residents voted to make --oh, I dunno what -- anchovies on pizza illegal. Yet you, who love anchovies, and a lot of other people think it's your right to be able to order whatever pizza topping you want, and since it doesn't affect other people's pizza experience, you think it's a stupid law. Which it is. But if 60% of the people want it outlawed, you can't change that just by virtue of "having rights." Nope - your options are to go someplace that does allow anchovies, campaign to have the law rescinded, or eat them on the sly. The point is that it is not possible to keep a government that legislates by popular vote from doing some stupid things. The point is that it is not desirable to keep a government that legislates by popular vote from doing some stupid things. Why? Because to some, it's not stupid. The anti-anchovy activists believe in their cause. They are just as convinced that they have the right to ban toppings they don't enjoy. And maybe they do. It's totally a matter of opinion. How would they have this right? To follow your logic, Radar, perhaps they have the right to ban anchovies in retaliation to another group's assertion of "rights" that pissed them off. |
Quote:
You're awfully naive if you think those battles were fought for purely ideological reasons. I suppose you think the Civil War was about rights, too. |
Quote:
I am debating with a madman. :headshake Well, I was warned, and I didn't listen, eh? |
Quote:
|
It was about money and power, same as every war from the beginning of time. Rights were just a rationale, a PR spin.
|
Quote:
A violation of rights is a violation of rights. Just because you consider the right to life more important than the right to marry doesn't mean I agree. Nobody has the right to vote against gay marriage. They don't even have the right to put it on the ballot. It's no different to violate the rights of gay people to marry, than it is for me to enslave someone, or rape someone, or rob them, or kill them. If you think that makes me a "madman", so be it. I think anyone who violates the rights of other people to be insane so I guess we have a similar opinion of each other. I think people who deny that rights exist to be monsters on an epic scale. They are in the company of people like Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, Milosevic, etc. |
Huh. All rights are created equal, and I'm a monster. Ooh, not just a monster, an epic monster.
I'm like Hitler! You learn something new every day. |
The Northern States were bullying the Southern states (over money and power) because they had greater populations and were more industrialized and the Southern states decided to secede from the union because they didn't feel they were being fairly represented and they didn't like getting pushed around.
Lincoln violated the Constitution and got 600,000 Americans killed unnecessarily to prevent the union from breaking while under his administration. The Southern states did nothing wrong when they left the union. Slavery would have ended even in the Confederate States of America within 20 years. It didn't make fiscal sense to keep them after Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Slaves are expensive to keep. I realize the war was not over slavery, but this is often brought up by revisionists as the reason for the war. These are the people who look at Lincoln as a hero. Personally, I believe the U.S. would have been far better off if Lincoln didn't try to stop the Southern states from leaving. We would have better government, a more enlightened society, better political leaders, etc. Think about it, George W. Bush would never have been president. In fact, JFK might never have been killed. |
Quote:
If you don't believe human beings have inalienable rights, yes....you are a monster. The good news is identifying the problem is half the battle. Now you can seek help to fix it. |
:lol2:
I'll be sure to bring your name up at my next monster-anon meeting. |
:corn:
|
OK. You want to alter my opinion about these mythical "rights," you need to give me:
1.) a list of them 2.) the story of how they were "discovered": Quote:
Listen, I am not heartless. I think we have a very nitpicky argument here about "rights" vs. ethics. What I am saying is that "rights" do not exist, but ethics do -- there is always a question of what IS right. Therefore, good people will make an ethical decision based on the "golden rule" (treat others as you'd want to be treated). But the application of this depends on many things, not the least of which is money and power. Rights, like laws, are only worth their power of enforcement. |
Ethics are rules to keep from treading on other people's rights.
|
Quote:
|
I've never discussed "mythical rights". I've discussed the very real human rights that have been recognized as self-evident throughout the planet earth for over a thousand years.
1) List all of the stars in the universe, and then I'll list all of our rights. Both jobs will require similar effort. 2) The story is in the links I gave you. Read them. 3) What equipment was required to discover gravity? None. Someone sat under an apple tree and he was hit on the noggin with gravity. If you actually read the items I posted, you'll have a clue about how they were discovered. I could add plenty more. Another very early writer on the topic of inalienable human rights is Saint Thomas Aquinas. You could also read Alexis de Toqueville, Harry Browne, Peter McWilliams, David Bergland, etc. I know what you are saying, but you are wrong. Rights do exist, and ethics also. To deny the existence of rights is to say you would have no more right to complain if I rob you, rape you, enslave you, or kill you than you would to complain that it is raining. You are asking me for answers, and I've already given them to you. I created links to each of those things that you can read. At the very least read "Natural Law" and "The Law" if you're too lazy to read anything else. |
Quote:
Call me whatever you will, but don't you dare call me lazy. I've already read most of what you posted. As I said before, while I agree they were brilliant philosophers, they are not imprimatur. Theories. Opinions. Not proof. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Then I am a monster. I believe in the civilising power of progress...through that progress we have identified a set of 'rights' which we currently deem inalienable...but they're not actually inherent in our humanity. I am a card carrying member of Amnesty International and campaign in my country on 'human rights': but I also recognise that these rights are an intellectual construct, a theoretical framework into which we place our understanding of ourselves. I like that intellectual construct, it is useful for us as a species, and allows us to transcend some of the less appealing aspects of our humanity. In the identification and application of an agreed set of 'rights' we are able to transcend in large degree our animal selves. But those rights are not inherent. If they are then they must also apply beyond our species to other animals. We are animals. Thinking, feeling, advanced animals. [eta] in the centuries of philosophy to which you refer Radar, the concept of natural rights included within it an acceptance of inequality between the sexes. Tom Paine, whilst arguing for greater rights for all (including women) nonetheless drew a distinction. I'm paraphrasing now, because my copy of RoM is at my house and I'm down at mum's, but it goes something like this: Nature recognises no inequality except for that which exists between the sexes. The rights of man are not necessarily the rights of woman. To me, as a woman, the rights you speak of are profoundly alienable. |
Dana, I understand your point of view, but you're wrong. The differences in rights that you perceive are cultural, not natural. You should know that there have been and still are matrilineal societies where women have dominant rights. If there are these, and patrilineal rights, too, then there can be no "inherent" applied to either sex.
|
Quote:
By Tom Paine's logic, I, as a woman, am not equal in nature to Radar, as a man. I, as a woman, do not have the same human rights as Radar. |
OK, reading again, I misunderstood your post. And reading my post again, I misspoke. I agree with Radar that we all have inherent rights, but I came across as saying that no one does.
And fuck Thomas Paine. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.