Pope calls gay marriage evil

[Untamed]

If you don't believe me, you could always go to china to try and exercise your right to free speech by publicly speaking out against the chinese gov't. You'll quickly find that you do not have the right to free speech. The only rights you have are the rights given to you.

You can always say whatever you want. It is a right. The fact that you can be punished for saying the wrong thing doesn't mean it's not a right. If it's the government that is punishing you for exercising that right, then they are wrong.

The government is defenetly not right 100% of the time. The government is there to keep the country running, but if you have people with that much power they will always try to push their beliefs on you.

Gay marriage is the goverment trying to tell you what's right and wrong, based on their notions. Close minded, or not. In a perfect world, they should be doing what's best for their country, whether they like the idea or not.

This is a situation where they are doing it because they don't like it, not because it's best for their country.

None of that should be tolerated, but it is because humans have flaws. No matter how good a person is, absolute power will corrupt absolutly. That kind of limits our perfect leader to... well.. nobody. Which means bullshit like this is tolerated, even gone along with, because the leader of the country can do no wrong?

Gay marriage may not better the country (in some people's minds), but I can't see how it will make it worse.


Thank God I'm not living in the U.S.

Oh, and F2k, there's a slight difference between an unelected Communist dictator and an publicly elected leader.

[greay]

And discriminate:

To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

Not allowing a blind person to drive is discrimination. As evidenced by this example, not all discrimination is necessarily bad. A blind person behind the wheel of a car would be a danger to others on the road. If a blind person could somehow demonstrate that he/she could drive w/o being a danger, then the discrimination would be unjust.

Without regard to individual merit is the key phrase. The blind are not being discriminated aganst, they are simply not qualified to receive the privilege of a drivers license, as you must be able to see. There is a difference.

Well, yeah, they're different; I said as much. And the key phrase is "without regard to individual merit". Blind people are not allowed to drive, on the distinction that they're a member of the class "blind people", without regard to individual merit. The reason that this discrimination is fair is that the distinction is a good gauge of merit, in this case, "driving ability".

If a blind person were able to prove that he or she could drive without being a danger to people on the road, (maybe Daredevil-esque hearing, or something), the discrimination would be unjust because it is not based on individual merit.

The analogy still has no bearing on gay marriage.

And are you still ignoring moral rights? The Chinese may not have the legal right to free speech, but they still have the moral right to it. Marriage may be a privelege and not a right, but a gay couple still has the moral right to be afforded the same benefits as a straight couple.

[Lartrak]

If a blind person were able to prove that he or she could drive without being a danger to people on the road, (maybe Daredevil-esque hearing, or something), the discrimination would be unjust because it is not based on individual merit.

"Are you blind?"

"Yeah, what's your excuse?"






But yeah, I think we can all agree Nick Parker, Zatoichi and Fung Sheng should be able to drive.

[OneThirty8]

I don't know how to explain this any more tactfully. You can not win an argument by repeating the same assertion over and over again without supporting evidence. When the small bit of evidence you have presented is called into question, you must present new evidence or you have lost the argument. I have demonstrated why marriage is a right.

I don't have to win any arguments.

Now that is the most amusing thing you've said so far! You are obviously arguing. What is the point in arguing if you're not concerned with winning the argument?

You cannot question fact, despite how you feel about it. No one has the right to marriage. You have done nothing but demonstrate that you think it should be a right.

That is not true. First of all, you haven't presented evidence which disputes my claim that marriage is a right. You have stated that the only rights you are willing to recognize are those afforded by the state, which is reason for much of my disagreement with you, but that alone doesn't even change the fact that marriage is a right. I am not disputing the fact that marriage is a privilege, and privilege is defined as "a special right, advantage, or immunity for a particular person > a special benefit or honour." In other words, privileges are things to which a person or persons may be legally entitled. A right, as I stated before, is defined as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something." Therefore, because a privilege is a legal entitlement, and a legal entitlement falls under the classification of 'rights,' marriage is a right which is selectively afforded to the couples who seek it and meet the criteria under which this right may be granted.

State legislatures have always exercised full control over marriage and have regulated it by laws based on principles of public policy.

I do not dispute this fact. The way in which it is being regulated is the problem. When public policy is unjust, it must be overturned. That's the entire point of this discussion as far as I can see.

The state has the power to determine the conditions on which a marriage may be contracted and dissolved. It may be regulated, controlled and modified, and rights growing from it modified or even abolished by the legislature. Marriage may be regulated by the state.

Again, when the public policy is unjust, it must be overturned. You are not presenting new information here. You're just re-hashing the same thing you have been - your assertion that marriage is not a right, when it has been clearly demonstrated that it is a right which the states selectively grant to people. You keep pointing to the law to back you up, and the entire argument against you is that the law is flawed. Try shifting your approach. I've shifted mine when needed, and quite honestly it gets tiresome restating the same things because you refuse to acknowledge the point of my statements. If I say, "You're wrong because of reasons a, b, c, and d," you essentially quote the "you're wrong" part and state that you're right. I don't see how you expect to validate your position that way.

If you don't believe me, you could always go to china to try and exercise your right to free speech by publicly speaking out against the chinese gov't. You'll quickly find that you do not have the right to free speech. The only rights you have are the rights given to you.

Correction - I would quickly find that the law doesn't recognize my right to free speech. This is the aspect of the concept of 'rights' that a few of us have been trying to drill into your head. There are two distinct sets of rights - there are those which are defined by the government, and there are those that are defined by what is morally right.

By all means, keep on with your silly notions.

I'm rubber and you're glue.

[farrell2k]

Correction - I would quickly find that the law doesn't recognize my right to free speech. This is the aspect of the concept of 'rights' that a few of us have been trying to drill into your head. There are two distinct sets of rights - there are those which are defined by the government, and there are those that are defined by what is morally right.

Typical stupid American thinking. It is not that the Chinese have that right, but the gov't for some strange reason doesn't recognize it. The chinese, and anyone else in their country do not have that right. It does not exist. A perfect example of this would be the wacky pakistani fathers who have every right to honor kill. They of corse could not do that in the U.S., because they have no right to. It's not that we just don't recognize that right, that right does not exist.

Your definition of a privilege as a special right is a good one. It's a special right afforded to certain people, not to be confused with a legal right. (and there's HUGE DIFFERENCE. ALL people are entitled to legal rights, but not special rights, privileges.) If same-sex couples were being denied their legal rights and were actually being discriminated against, I would agree with you, but they're not. You cannot claim discrimination when you have no right to that which you claim to be discriminated against. You'll have to come up with a better argument than the gays are being denied their right to marry. No one has the right to marry.

Proof that marriage is not a right is simple. Read the U.S. and your state constituion. You can bet your last $ that marriage will not be named a right. In the real world, the only rights you have are the ones in the U.S. and your states constitution. If you still want to go one believing that you have certain magical "moral" rights, go ahead.

[OneThirty8]

Correction - I would quickly find that the law doesn't recognize my right to free speech. This is the aspect of the concept of 'rights' that a few of us have been trying to drill into your head. There are two distinct sets of rights - there are those which are defined by the government, and there are those that are defined by what is morally right.

Typical stupid American thinking. It is not that the Chinese have that right, but the gov't for some strange reason doesn't recognize it. The chinese, and anyone else in their country do not have that right. It does not exist. A perfect example of this would be the wacky pakistani fathers who have every right to honor kill. They of corse could not do that in the U.S., because they have no right to. It's not that we just don't recognize that right, that right does not exist.

If it is legal for Pakistani fathers to 'honor kill,' then perhaps we should be examining the moral code in Pakistan to figure out why they would classify such a thing as a legal entitlement. Certainly nobody is morally entitled to murder another human being. Similarly, the moral code of those imposing such oppressive law in China should be questioned, as they are not honoring the human rights of the people in China. The government has no moral entitlement to deny the freedom of speech, which is precisely why the framers of the Constitution wrote that into the Bill of Rights. They also wrote in the Ninth Amendment that the enumeration of certain rights in that document should not be taken to mean that those are the only rights that would be recognized or protected by the government or posessed by the people.

Your definition of a privilege as a special right is a good one. It's a special right, not to be confused with a legal right (and there's HUGE DIFFERENCE. ALL people are entitled to legal rights, but not special rights, privileges.) that is afforded to certain groups. If same-sex couples were being denied their legal rights and were actually being discriminated against, I would agree with you, but they're not. You cannot claim discrimination when you have no right to that which you claim to be discriminated against. You'll have to come up with a better argument than the gays are being denied their right to marry. No one has the right to marry.

I don't believe that last sentence is entirely accurate. Marriage is a 'special right' granted to certain couples (ie, most heterosexual couples who ask for it). So, those people do have the right to marry. See below for further commentary.

Proof that marriage is not a right is simple. Read the U.S. and your state constituion. You can bet your last $ that marriage will not be named a right. In the real world, the only rights you have are the ones in the U.S. and your states constitution. If you still want to go one believing that you have certain magical "moral" rights, go ahead.

You're coming closer to seeing where I am coming from here, but you're still a little off the mark. The above quoted passage misses the mark entirely. Marriage, because it is categorized as a privilege, or a 'special right' (which is not my definition, but the one I found in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary) puts it under the heading of 'legal rights.' Some things fit in under both 'legal' and 'moral' rights. For example, the right to free speech is both in America. It's a right (or moral entitlement) that every human being has, and it is identified in our Constitution as a right which makes it a legal right as well. The reason that these rights were put into the Constitution in the first place is because the framers recognized that they were moral rights and wanted to ensure that they were protected. Marriage is entirely a human construct, and is the means by which a couple who has agreed to share their lives together may secure other entitlements which will be of benefit to them. My argument is that it is immoral to allow this opportunity to one group but deny it to another group when the only difference between the two groups is the sexual orientation of the parties involved. I am fully aware of the current state of affairs pertaining to the legal aspect of this, but I am arguing that the law is immoral and therefore must be changed.

[farrell2k]

I don't believe that last sentence is entirely accurate. Marriage is a 'special right' granted to certain couples (ie, most heterosexual couples who ask for it). So, those people do have the right to marry.

We have legal rights, and within those lagal rights are our inaliable rights (live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), and marriage is not included. There are no moral rights as you define them.

A special right is not a right. You are either confused by, or are attempting to misrepresent the definition of what a right is. A special right is a privilege, a benefit given to certain people. It is in NO way something to which anyone is entitled. A right is an entitlement. No one is entitled to marriage, or even a marriage license.

My last post.

[OneThirty8]

I don't believe that last sentence is entirely accurate. Marriage is a 'special right' granted to certain couples (ie, most heterosexual couples who ask for it). So, those people do have the right to marry.

We have legal rights, and within those lagal rights are our inaliable rights (live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), and marriage is not included. There are no moral rights as you define them.

A special right is not a right. You are either confused by, or are attempting to misrepresent the definition of what a right is. A special right is a privilege, a benefit given to certain people. It is in NO way something to which anyone is entitled. A right is an entitlement. No one is entitled to marriage, or even a marriage license.

My last post.

A 'special right' is a right by definition, and people who are able to obtain a marriage license are entitled to be married. So, whatever. I guess there's nothing more to say here.

[greay]

farrell: it doesn't matter if it's a legal right or a special privelege or anything else, for that matter. It doesn't have to be a legal right for it to be discrimination. We're arguing that it's morally wrong to grant the privelege to straight couples and not gay couples (discrimination), and that the legal rights or whatever you want to call it should be changed to reflect this.

[|darc|]

I don't believe that last sentence is entirely accurate. Marriage is a 'special right' granted to certain couples (ie, most heterosexual couples who ask for it). So, those people do have the right to marry.

We have legal rights, and within those lagal rights are our inaliable rights (live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), and marriage is not included. There are no moral rights as you define them.

A special right is not a right. You are either confused by, or are attempting to misrepresent the definition of what a right is. A special right is a privilege, a benefit given to certain people. It is in NO way something to which anyone is entitled. A right is an entitlement. No one is entitled to marriage, or even a marriage license.

My last post.

I don't give a fuck about whats a right and whats not.

What are we pushing for here? MARRIAGE REFORM.

So it DOESN'T MATTER whether its a right or not.

We're trying to REFORM it.

When blacks tried to vote, did they just go "Oops, forgot, we're not included in the constitution" and go pick more cotton?

[toastman]

We have legal rights, and within those lagal rights are our inaliable rights (live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), and marriage is not included.

You have that backwards. Legal rights are a subset of inalienable rights. But of course coming from someone who believes that moral rights deal with copyright law, I really can't expect much from you.

[Untamed]

I get ignored.

[Roofus]

I get ignored.

Don't feel bad. I get ignored all the time in here too. We should rename it the "farrell2k and OneThirty8 forum."

[OneThirty8]

I get ignored.

I happened to agree with you. I don't know why farrell didn't reply, unless he couldn't refute what you said. That, or he was more intent on insisting that I was wrong than anything else.

Don't feel bad. I get ignored all the time in here too. We should rename it the "farrell2k and OneThirty8 forum."

I don't mean to monopolize the discussion. I like to be a part of it when it's a topic I'm interested in, but I am certainly interested in what anyone has to say. I just happen to disagree very strongly with some, and will present and support my own opinion. That being said, I'm not like some who say 'This is how it is, and if you don't agree then you can move to Canada.'

[OneThirty8]

farrell: it doesn't matter if it's a legal right or a special privelege or anything else, for that matter. It doesn't have to be a legal right for it to be discrimination. We're arguing that it's morally wrong to grant the privelege to straight couples and not gay couples (discrimination), and that the legal rights or whatever you want to call it should be changed to reflect this.

Exactly.

[Untamed]

I get ignored.

I don't know why farrell didn't reply, unless he couldn't refute what you said.

I like the sound of that. Being smart enough to stump someone. ha.. I like my delusions.

[farrell2k]

I don't give a fudge about whats a right and whats not.

What are we pushing for here? MARRIAGE REFORM.

So it DOESN'T MATTER whether its a right or not.

We're trying to REFORM it.

When blacks tried to vote, did they just go "Oops, forgot, we're not included in the constitution" and go pick more cotton?

It certainly does matter. Oh, and it doesn't matter whether you give a "fudge" or not. Your entire argument, and the rest of the gay community's is that same-sex couples are somehow being discriminated against. In order to show discrimination, you have to show that gays are entitled to marriage licenses in the first place, and because no one is entitled to a marriage license, the entire argument is moot. This is why it gets shot down in court every single time.

Oh, and your analogy with the blacks was pointless. Marriage has nothing to do with civil rights, as.....you guessed it: marriage is not a civil right.

You have that backwards. Legal rights are a subset of inalienable rights. But of course coming from someone who believes that moral rights deal with copyright law, I really can't expect much from you.

Your legal rights define youir inaliable rights. Your inaliable rights are nothing but unenforcable beliefs until written into law.

You and 138 are the ones making up magical rights, dubbed 'moral rights', based on what you believe should and should not be allowed. There are no such things as moral rights. Just because you feel that gays should be allowed to marry gays, doesn't magically give them the 'moral' right to do so. When fighting for equality, you had better have legal rights on your side, or you'll get nowhere.

If it is legal for Pakistani fathers to 'honor kill,' then perhaps we should be examining the moral code in Pakistan to figure out why they would classify such a thing as a legal entitlement. Certainly nobody is morally entitled to murder another human being.

Gee, that's the thing about morals. His society's morals are most certainly different from ours. He's legally entitled to do it in his country, and that's what counts. I am more than sure he believes he has the moral right to do so. Morals rights are nothing but opinion. Legal rights actually exist, legally.

[Untamed]

In order to show discrimination, you have to show that gays are entitled to marriage licenses in the first place, and because no one is entitled to a marriage license, the entire argument is moot. This is why it gets shot down in court every single time.

If nobody is in entitled to marriage, then why let hetero couples marry?

If it's because they're sepecial, which they arn't, then gay people are being discriminated against.

You and 138 are the ones making up magical rights, dubbed 'moral rights', based on what you believe should and should not be allowed.

It's great that you think the government should be in control of every little aspect of our lives. How is it working for you?

There are such things as moral rights, and they exist because the government, publicly elected or not, doesn't allow them.

If they are publicly elected and they don't allow them, it's only because sheep like you insist on backing them up, rather than trying to improve the country you live in.

That gives them the power to do things based on their beleifs, because "they have the publics support" with people like you.

"baaaaahhh"

[Untamed]

[greay]

Can we please stop debating word definitions? Because, Farrell, you're using words in ways different from my dictionary, and it's getting really frustrating.

Discrimination does not have to have anything to do with rights. If I go door-to-door and give everyone who answers with blonde hair 5$, that's discrimination. No rights or priveleges involved. It's still discrimination.

And you choose to ignore the fact that darc's point was not that marriage is a civil right, but that the law shouldn't stop people who are being discriminated against from trying to change the law.