Petitions delivered by Eagle Scout over Anti-Gay Policy

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

 

 

[Peregrinator]

If marriage is a right, where do you get off saying you can't marry your brother, sister, several wives (or husbands) or whatever?

 

It's a thoroughly modern idea to consider rights as absolutes. As far as several wives or husbands are concerned, those aren't marriages at all after the first so no rights are being violated in not permitting bigamy.

 

I believe you're chartered out of a Catholic parish - I don't know whether you are Catholic yourself - but the Church teaches that the faithful have a right to the Sacraments (including marriage) and must be given them as long as they are disposed to receive them. And the burden of proof lies not on the individual but on the one from whom he is receiving the Sacrament. If two Catholics present themselves to their pastor for marriage then he must marry them unless he can give a positive reason why they should not be.

 

So no, marriage is not a privilege. There is a general duty to propagate the race, so there is a general duty to marry, therefore there is a right to marry. Once we understand that rights come from duties, however, it is clear why there can never be any right to homosexual unions.

[packsaddle]

"There is a general duty to propagate the race..."

Setting aside the use of 'general' and 'race' for another discussion, and assuming you're thinking about people and not NASCAR, I'd like to know where you think this so-called 'duty' comes from. In nature I'd suggest that plants, for example, do not have a sense of 'duty', but they sure do devote nearly every aspect of their lives to 'propagation'.

'Duty' is something which we impose on ourselves by choice. And we can also choose NOT to view propagation as a duty.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[Peregrinator]

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.

 

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. And a right is ephemeral in any case if you can't answer the question of why there should be such a right.

[Peregrinator]

'Duty' is something which we impose on ourselves by choice.

 

Some duties we impose upon ourselves, others are imposed upon us by our Creator. I suppose one might argue that I have a duty to my children from my own free choice to get married; but their duty to me and my wife remains whether they choose it or not.

 

"Race" = human race by the way.(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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]

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.

 

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.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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]

Hello Merlyn,

 

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has anointed itself as an unelected, super legislature.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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]

In what sense do you have any rights in the two thought experiments above?

 

In what way do those thought experiments comport with reality?

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

So you are acknowledging that marriage isn't a general right. You are claiming that homosexuals have special rights that other groups that "love" each other do not have.

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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?