Merlyn_LeRoy

So SeattlePioneer, you're fine with badmouthing atheists, but when I ask for actual examples of these 'intolerant atheists,' you change the subject? C'mon, give me some examples. Don't run away from your own statements.

Intolerant theists, like the UK scouting association at the start of this thread, are not content to allow atheists be atheists; they insist that atheists pretend to be religious by reciting oaths to a god they don't believe in, or to pray to a god they don't believe in just because it's time for everyone to pray. By the way, SeattlePioneer, got any examples of intolerant atheists that meet your definition? Nearly all US atheists qualify as the tolerant sort.

Brewmeister writes: Well, that's the term [freedom from religion] that the folks here who get the crches taken down and whatnot call themselves. No, those are the people who file lawsuits; the ones who get them taken down are called "judges". Scouting is an organization that requires a belief in God to join. So if you come in here proclaiming otherwise it is reasonable to accept vociferous disagreement. I got that back in 2001 when my first post pointed out that public schools couldn't possibly legally charter BSA units that excluded atheists. There's a bit more agreement about that now.

Peregrinator writes: Tell me more about this. Do you mean Christians on the Internet or in real life? Last I checked, the internet IS real life. Unprovoked, or after you push a couple of buttons? Both. Did you miss this thread a few weeks back? http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=365004 Just search for the death threats.

Peregrinator writes: What does it mean when a non-Christian says that something is "Christian," even sarcastically? Well, what I meant by that is that it was the usual sort of insult that Christians typically use.

When have I "changed aliases"? I believe my house is bigger than me, otherwise I wouldn't fit.

When did I say you were Christian? I only said your answer was very Christian. You weren't around earlier, where I helped get rid of public school BSA charters.

Ah Brewmeister, a very Christian answer. I really mean that.

Right, "magic man done it" is a great explanation. For anything. It explains everything and nothing. Not surprising to see the british scouting association is as hypocritical as its american counterpart; they pay lip service to allowing atheist youth -- you just have to pretend you're religious so as to not scare off the simpletons.

TwoCubDad writes: You know Merlyn, you really need learn when pushing buttons helps your cause and when it hurts it. "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad, obnoxious, or unjust laws so effective as their strict execution." -- U.S. Grant

A Scout who keeps such information private and confidential is eligible for continued membership as I understand it. So when does a scout go from not-avowed to avowed? How many people can he tell?

Didn't you just write this earlier today: The Truth of the matter here Calico is the boy doesn't believe in duty to god and is also gay. So he should have never been allowed to be a member..... Obviously, thrown him out immediately. He doesn't meet the membership requirements.

I'm not backpedalling; I'll leave you to your usual bizarre misinterpretations.

The supreme court only rules on matters put before it; the only matter before the court was a state law that outlawed marriage based on the races of the spouses. The court couldn't rule on anything else. >> Thank you for finally accepting the point I was making. Nope, you still don't understand. The supreme court DID rule that marriage is a civil right (obvious to anyone reading the ruling if they don't ignore words at random), but they only applied that to the matter before them. Apparently, since speech is a right, threats and conspriacy to commit a crime must be legal in your world, eh? No restrictions of any kind, right?

SeattlePioneer writes: It's quite clearly a throw away line in the decision. What, the supreme court is doing ironic asides now? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, I'm under the delusion that if the supreme court says X is a civil right, they mean "X is a civil right". The result of the decision effectively nullified laws preventing marriages based on race. It didn't outlaw limitations on marriage in general, did it? The supreme court only rules on matters put before it; the only matter before the court was a state law that outlawed marriage based on the races of the spouses. The court couldn't rule on anything else. Why don't you know this? You are simply reading something into the decision that isn't intended. You're the one desperately trying to ignore a supreme court decision by laughably claiming it was a throwaway line. Hey, maybe they toss in a limerick or two just for fun.

SeattlePioneer writes: I suggest you go back and read the decision yourself. You will find that the arguments presented revolve around race and whether race can be a reason to prohibit interracial marriages: I'll just ignore the part that actually says it's a civil right, that's it? "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" You can certainly try to ignore reality; I won't.

Peregrinator writes: My thought experiment shows that rights exist in a society; remove the society, and you no longer have rights. No, your thought experiment shows that rights can be (but may not be) recognized and exercised in a society; it says nothing about whether or not they actually exist. In what way do they exist in my thought experiments?

SeattlePioneer writes: > So you are acknowledging that marriage isn't a general right. No, I'm not. You are claiming that homosexuals have special rights that other groups that "love" each other do not have. No, I'm not. No, it isn't. The Supreme Court, decided that interracial marriage could not be prohibited. That didn't provide a general right to marriage either, except for those who want to confuse the decision as you are doing here. The only one confused here is you. You simply aren't dealing with what the supreme court has ruled. You rant against the supreme court, but that doesn't change reality. It simply said that government couldn't prohibit interracial marriage. Nope. You might want to read the actual opinion: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Peregrinator writes: In what way do those thought experiments comport with reality? They don't. You aren't familiar with thought experiments, I take it. You know, Einstein never really travelled at the speed of light to look at a standstill lightwave, it was a thought experiment that showed problems with Newtonian physics. My thought experiment shows that rights exist in a society; remove the society, and you no longer have rights. If you're the last person on earth and a lion is about to eat you, the lion isn't violating any of your rights because you have none. What would it mean to have a 'right' in a society of one person?

SeattlePioneer writes: Your claim that marriage laws must "comport with the constitution" is just an appeal to another political process --- you hope the Supreme Court will support your political position by a 5-4 vote or whatever. Yeah. So? Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has anointed itself as an unelected, super legislature. No, it hasn't. Of course, you aren't about to wait for the Supreme Court to do that, you have also anointed YOURSELF to decide that homosexual marriage is a right. Well, now you're just being a goofball. And to be more clear about the issue, you aren't claiming that MARRIAGE is a right. You are claiming that HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE is a right. I'm claiming that marriage is a right (because, under US law, it is). I'm also claiming that not recognizing gay marriage is in violation of the equal protection clause. It's a two-part argument. In your scheme of rights, homosexuals would join the very small club of human social relationships eligible for legal marriage. In fact, they would become a new privileged group. Yeah. So?

Peregrinator writes: You don't understand how the US legal system works. On the contrary, I understand how it "works" quite well -- but the U.S. legal system can't change reality. Those who think it can are the ones who are denying reality. Uh, no. Marriage is a social construct. There's no actual "reality" it needs to follow, and between countries and over history it has varied quite a bit. In case you haven't noticed, rights ARE ephemeral; they're social constructs that can and do change, and have changed over just the history of the US, never mind other places in the world. You've just successfully argued that rights are not rights at all. Rights do not depend on whether society or the State recognizes them. That's all it is, is a social contract. Here are a couple of thought experiments: 1) Everyone in the world dies, except you. Does it make sense to talk about what rights you have? No. There's no society left, so rights don't mean anything. 2) Everyone in the world dies, except you and another person. That other person wants to kill you and is heavily armed, while you are unarmed. Does it make sense to talk about what rights you have? No. There's no society left, so rights don't mean anything. In what sense do you have any rights in the two thought experiments above?

SeattlePioneer writes: A "right" doesn't mean the government can't make rules about it. Free speech is a right, but threats and conspiracy to commit a crime are just two examples of crimes that can be committed with mere speech, and they are definitely NOT protected. >> What hypocrisy! You claim that homosexual marriage is a right which government can't restrict, then claim that government CAN, of course, restrict marriage between other social relationships. No, I haven't. I'm claiming that having opposite sex marriage but not same sex marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment; state and federal laws have to meet that standard, including marriage laws. Other restrictions on marriage may be unconstitional if they also violate the constitution, but it's quite possible for the former to be a violation while the others are not. By the way, this would mean that same sex marriage between family members would also not be recognized, nor would polygamous same sex marriages (unless more laws were changed or restrictions struck down). You are really saying that marriage is properly defined by laws made through the political process, which is the correct view in my opinion. INCLUDING being in line with the constitution, and that equal protection clause. And previous court rulings determining that marriage is a right. THERE YOU GO AGAIN, Merlyn! Firstly, you are already signed on to the slippery slope argument for polygamy, just not ready to sign on for incest. Well, you've changed my mind. But WHY should all partners to a polygamous marriage have to approve of it? If two people LOVE each other, don't they have a right to marry? Because they are all considered married; they take on each other's debts, can make medical decisions for each other if one is in a coma, etc. You need to update your antediluvian thinking about incest and polygamy, Merlyn. No, my polygamy requirement is fine as it is. Merlyn demonstrates that there is really no place to stop with the arguments of the sexual liberation movement. The basic value is "If it Feels Good, Do It!" Not much is allowed to get between lust and indulging that lust. Nobody seems as fascinated by lust around here as you are. And that's the problem with marriage as a RIGHT. It logically leads to ANY social relationship being eligible for marriage. You're a bit late with the panic train, it left the station back in 1967, if not before. The alternative, which I support, is to recognize that only a tiny number of possible human relationships are eligible for legal marriage. In this society Merlyn is quite correct that government decides which of these human relationships are eligible for marriage. But they need to comport with the constitution, like all laws. The Washington State legislature passed a law earlier this year authorizing homosexual marriage. It decided to add homosexual marriage to the very limited number of social relationships eligible for legal marriage. It made a POLITICAL DECISION on the issue, and did not claim that there was a general right for people to get married. That is the correct and proper way to deal with the issue, in my view. That's certainly one way. Another way is through the courts. As it happens, that change in the law will appear as a referendum on the November ballot. If the people of the state of Washington approve that change, homosexuals will join the exclusive club of those eligible for legal marriage. But there will NOT be a general "right to marriage," nor should there be. You're way too late. You need to get the supreme court to reverse itself. You don't seem to understand that.

Peregrinator writes: They can rule until they are blue in the face, it won't change the fact that no one has a right to any kind of homosexual union. You don't understand how the US legal system works. If the (federal or state) supreme court says X is a right, legally, X is a right, until laws/constitutions are changed or rulings are reversed/overturned. Your opinion, no matter how emphatic, doesn't enter into it -- at that point, you're just denying reality. And a right is ephemeral in any case if you can't answer the question of why there should be such a right. In case you haven't noticed, rights ARE ephemeral; they're social constructs that can and do change, and have changed over just the history of the US, never mind other places in the world. That's just realpolitik.

Peregrinator writes: Once we understand that rights come from duties, however, it is clear why there can never be any right to homosexual unions. You can argue that if you like, but there's no requirement for US law to follow any particular legal theory for justification, and some state supreme courts have already ruled that gay marriage is a right.

SeattlePioneer writes: I've never claimed I speak for any supernatural being. I never said you did. I anchor my beliefs in the rational concept of natural law, as I've described earlier. Well, not in this thread. In this thread, what you have done is try to deny that marriage is a civil right, in spite of what the supreme court has ruled. However --- still no answer to my earlier question: You weren't asking me earlier.