Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?

[Apollo]

I know right? Total win for my first thread!

But seriously, what really sent me over the edge was what happened in Arkansas, not allowing gay couples to adopt. I'm assuming gay marriage is already banned there...so basicaly if you're gay you can't adopt.

I never thought I'd see that happen.

[Juniper]

Oh, the irony indeed. Like it or not, freedom and democracy means that we've got the right to vote in some really boneheaded stuff.

Living in a country that has such freedom has its benefits, but then, you have to deal with the crap too. On the bright side, you've got the right to express your opinion, no matter how radically that opinion advocates removing others' freedom in the process.

I'm not affected by these types of laws in any way - I don't have any gay friends or relatives - but I still think they're really stupid.

I've said it before: if we live in a world where it's legal for people who barely know each other to get married in Vegas on a whim, then get divorced a few days later -- if they happen to be male and female, respectively -- why the hell do we need to ban people who really love one another and have a serious commitment from getting married just because they're the same gender? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I'll tell you what it is -- it's Ostrich syndrome. You know, hiding your head in the sand. These people don't want to believe that two same-sex people could possibly actually love each other; they think it's pure deviant lust, so they think they can simply legislate against its expression and it will go away. Stupid.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Juniper

.

I'll tell you what it is -- it's Ostrich syndrome. You know, hiding your head in the sand. These people don't want to believe that two same-sex people could possibly actually love each other; they think it's pure deviant lust, so they think they can simply legislate against its expression and it will go away. Stupid.

I think there's something to that, Juni.



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.

[Radar]

Our rights don't come from government, therefore government can't take them away. Our rights can't be given, taken, bought, sold, or voted away.

I would like to take back a statement I made earlier. I said all people who voted yes on Prop 8 should be deported. I realize now I was very wrong.

Where would we send them? I wouldn't want to send these people to any other country. I can't think of a country I hate so much, I'd send a bunch of redneck retards there. Rather than deporting them, we should line them up and shoot them dead.

After all, if they've got a right to vote on whether someone else has the right to marry, I have the right to vote to take away their right to life. The civil rights of gay people to marry are no more or less important than the right to life for those who voted to violate their rights.

The civil rights struggle for gays in America is no less important or crucial than was the civil rights struggle of the blacks during the 60s.

[Aliantha]

With marriage becoming more popular again here, I expect this to become an issue here in Australia also.

Currently it's illegal for same sex marriage in any state as far as i know. I think this is wrong and I just can't understand why it matters so much to some people that it should be illegal.

Surely another couple's marriage is not anything to do with anyone else other than the couple involved...regardless of their sex. I would draw the line at people marrying their pets though. I'd have to vote against that I'm afraid...regardless of whether they have a 'god given right' to do so or not.

[Juniper]

Good gravy, Radar. Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel, OK?

The question of "rights" is complex. Are we born with rights by virtue of being human, or is it awarded by the government under which we live?

Enlightenment philosophes would say rights are integral to humanity and that all government is inherently oppressive, by its very nature.

Others, more pragmatically, might say "your rights end where mine begin."

And that is really the purpose of government, isn't it? It's about determining where one person's rights end, and another's begin, and enforcing the balance between the two. Pure, and distilled.

If you are a US resident, you have the "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The First Constitutional Congress (and John Locke) said we should have the right to "life, liberty, and property." And then the Bill of Rights came along to give us some other stuff, like free speech, peaceful assembly, right to bear arms, trial by jury, that kind of thing. Amendments came along giving women the right to vote, etc.

My point, though, is are these all "inalienable rights" or are we just lucky enough to live in a time and place that recognizes them?

What gives you the right to do whatever it is you think you have a right to do? Or who gives you the right?

What is a "right" anyway?

Is it given by God? Whose God? How do you know?

I am not arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I said as much. I just think you would be a much better asset to your cause if you had a more logical argument than "we've got the right." 'Cause what you're really saying is "I want this, others want this, and I want more people to agree with us than disagree."

[Apollo]

Really, I think the main thing that's f*cked up with the U.S Constitution and other state constiutions is that they allow rights to be taken away from people.

I mean, think about it. At any moment, even though it's VERY unlikely, the House and the Senate could be overrun with racists and biggots and our consitution would allow them to take away rights from blacks, women, athiests, muslims, you name it.

As long as three forths of the the states approve, it's all good! We could adopt slavery again if we REALLY wanted to.

That's what happened in California with Prop 8. The courts said full out that it was wrong to deny gays the right to marry. And everybody went CRAZY and loved it, and gay people were thrilled and everybody wanted to get married.

But through the tyrnnay of the majority, people were able to shut out the courts opinion and take away the rights of a group of citizens.

I'm not saying that constitutions shouldn't be able to change. Of course they should be able to change. We'd be in major trouble if they couldn't change because our country is in a constant state change. Wow I said change like 400 times in that sentence.

But I think when it comes to individual rights, that don't affect anybody else's rights, I think once those rights are given, they should never be able to be taken away.

Yup.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Apollo

Really, I think the main thing that's f*cked up with the U.S Constitution and other state constiutions is that they allow rights to be taken away from people.

Actually the US constitution has a great system of checks and balances. The Senate and House have been over run in the past with bigots and what not. We have made some great progress overcoming these problems in the States in the 232 years we've been around. I believe we will make more progress in time.

California seems to be using a full democracy, which in essence is mob rule. The whim of the majority. Not good in the long term, complete democracy tends to tear itself apart over the long haul.

The U.S. is a republic. It is much harder to change and does not depend on the mob rule of the majority. Make no mistake, the framers of our government knew the difference between a democracy and a republic. I don't personally believe our constitution is fucked up in the slightest. It has and will continue to withstand the test of time, with very few changes.

Oh, and do fasten in if you are going to argue with Radar. He is a man firm conviction. You won't change his mind about anything, you will have a fine discussion.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Oh, and do fasten in if you are going to argue with Radar. He is a man firm conviction. You won't change his mind about anything, you will have a fine discussion.

Not to mention he thinks he is always right and if you disagree with his position you should be deported. As HLJ stated, oh the irony..

[Radar]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not to mention he thinks he is always right and if you disagree with his position you should be deported. As HLJ stated, oh the irony..

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Juniper

Good gravy, Radar. Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel, OK?

The question of "rights" is complex. Are we born with rights by virtue of being human, or is it awarded by the government under which we live?

Enlightenment philosophes would say rights are integral to humanity and that all government is inherently oppressive, by its very nature.

Others, more pragmatically, might say "your rights end where mine begin."

And that is really the purpose of government, isn't it? It's about determining where one person's rights end, and another's begin, and enforcing the balance between the two. Pure, and distilled.

If you are a US resident, you have the "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The First Constitutional Congress (and John Locke) said we should have the right to "life, liberty, and property." And then the Bill of Rights came along to give us some other stuff, like free speech, peaceful assembly, right to bear arms, trial by jury, that kind of thing. Amendments came along giving women the right to vote, etc.

My point, though, is are these all "inalienable rights" or are we just lucky enough to live in a time and place that recognizes them?

What gives you the right to do whatever it is you think you have a right to do? Or who gives you the right?

What is a "right" anyway?

Is it given by God? Whose God? How do you know?

I am not arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I said as much. I just think you would be a much better asset to your cause if you had a more logical argument than "we've got the right." 'Cause what you're really saying is "I want this, others want this, and I want more people to agree with us than disagree."

Our rights don't come from government. Government is just here to protect those rights. We are born with our rights and they are one segment of natural law. There is no such thing as a Constitutional right. None of our rights come from the Constitution. The Constitution was just written so that other people would realize that all governmental power is derived from the rights of people, and that government may not have any powers that we have not granted to it. This means we may not grant any powers to government over and above the rights of any individual person.

Since no person has the right to use force to prevent the marriage of others, they may not grant this power to government.

How do I know what our rights are? Simple. We are born with the right to do ANYTHINGwe want as long as our actions don't physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others. This means, since I own myself, I own my voice. I therefore have the right to freedom of expression. You also have freedom of expression, but you do not have the right to go through your life without ever being offended by the expression of others. You don't have the right to use force against others to prevent you from getting your feelings hurt.

One persons right to marry any consenting other they choose is no more or less important than another person's right to life. Rights are rights are rights. If you violate one of my rights, I may violate one of the rights you hold more dearly.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Radar

Our rights don't come from government. Government is just here to protect those rights. We are born with our rights and they are one segment of natural law.

So we only have the same rights as a worm or a coyote or a bird or parasite??? Huh?

Originally Posted by Radar

There is no such thing as a Constitutional right. None of our rights come from the Constitution. The Constitution was just written so that other people would realize that all governmental power is derived from the rights of people, and that government may not have any powers that we have not granted to it. This means we may not grant any powers to government over and above the rights of any individual person.

Since no person has the right to use force to prevent the marriage of others, they may not grant this power to government.

There you go interpreting again. That gets into the realm of opinion vs fact and assumption.

Originally Posted by Radar

If you violate one of my rights, I may violate one of the rights you hold more dearly..

Oh I gotcha why didn't you just say it was an eye for an eye - blah blah blah. That makes real good sense - in the sandbox or at recess.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by classicman

So we only have the same rights as a worm or a coyote or a bird or parasite??? Huh?

No, we have human rights because we're human beings. All human beings have the same right to do anything they want as long as their actions don't physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.

Originally Posted by classicman

There you go interpreting again. That gets into the realm of opinion vs fact and assumption.

Nope. I don't interpret the Constitution. The founders knew full well that our rights came from our "creator" whether we deem that creator to be nature, our parents, Vishnu, Zeuss, or the Judeo-Christian god. They said as much in the Declaration of independence. The U.S. Constitution was created to establish a more perfect union between the states, and to protect the rights of citizens from tyranny.

Originally Posted by classicman

Oh I gotcha why didn't you just say it was an eye for an eye - blah blah blah. That makes real good sense - in the sandbox or at recess.

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.

[Juniper]

Originally Posted by Radar

How do I know what our rights are? Simple. We are born with the right to do ANYTHINGwe want as long as our actions don't physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others. This means, since I own myself, I own my voice. I therefore have the right to freedom of expression. You also have freedom of expression, but you do not have the right to go through your life without ever being offended by the expression of others. You don't have the right to use force against others to prevent you from getting your feelings hurt.

One persons right to marry any consenting other they choose is no more or less important than another person's right to life. Rights are rights are rights. If you violate one of my rights, I may violate one of the rights you hold more dearly.

I still don't think you're talking about "rights" here. Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as "rights" - I think they are a manmade invention, a rationale for what we're really doing, which is asserting our power over someone else.

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Juniper

I still don't think you're talking about "rights" here. Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as "rights" - I think they are a manmade invention, a rationale for what we're really doing, which is asserting our power over someone else.

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.

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.