Peregrinator Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Hello Merlyn, 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 It's quite clearly a throw away line in the decision. The result of the decision effectively nullified laws preventing marriages based on race. It didn't outlaw limitations on marriage in general, did it? You are simply reading something into the decision that isn't intended. Grasping at straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 > Thank you for finally accepting the point I was making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 You were right the last time Merlyn! No backpeddaling! You are just making disingenuous propaganda by return to your old, unsupported claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I'm not backpedalling; I'll leave you to your usual bizarre misinterpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now