• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is marriage a right?

Is marriage a right?

  • Total voters
    50
Goobieman said:
So you DO argree with my use of the word "most".
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Not quite. I say that if exceptions are to be made, they need to be made for a reason. So far, you've provided no reason.
 
Rassales said:
Back at ya.

You could ask me to substantiate my claim, but you just want to say I'm wrong. I've asked you to substantiate yours (or at least explain it) but you refuse. I guess we're at an impasse.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are both wrong?

Wait, what were you talking about?
 
The Mark said:
Perhaps you are both wrong?

Wait, what were you talking about?
Click to expand...
The nature of two Bible verses. I made reference to their original language and their context. Blackdog told me I obviously don't know anything about the Bible. I asked him to explain--he repeated his belief in my ignorance.
 
Rassales said:
The nature of two Bible verses. I made reference to their original language and their context. Blackdog told me I obviously don't know anything about the Bible. I asked him to explain--he repeated his belief in my ignorance.
Click to expand...

Which is, of course, silly. The Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with American law, it doesn't matter what the Bible says with regards to equality in marriage.
 
Cephus said:
Which is, of course, silly. The Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with American law, it doesn't matter what the Bible says with regards to equality in marriage.
Click to expand...
I agree, though I don't think supposed Christians should go unchallenged when they make claims based on scriptures they only know in translation and whose context they've made no attempt to understand.

In other words, not only does the Bible have no standing in American law--it doesn't even say what some believers think it does.
 
Rassales said:
I agree, though I don't think supposed Christians should go unchallenged when they make claims based on scriptures they only know in translation and whose context they've made no attempt to understand.

In other words, not only does the Bible have no standing in American law--it doesn't even say what some believers think it does.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The Bible may be one of the most purchased books out there but it is also one of the least read and certainly least understood. That's because most people who cling to it do so on faith, they don't have any clue where anything in the Bible came from, they just blindly accept whatever the guy in the funny robes in the pulpit says.
 
I supose its for the government to decide.
 
Reviewing the original question in this thread, it would seem that in order to answer the question posed, "Is marriage a right", one would have to define marriage first.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage]Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


marriage - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: mar•riage
Pronunciation: \'mer-ij, 'ma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
Click to expand...

If one accepts the premise that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is correct, then:

Marriage can be either:
  • A legal union between two persons, or.
  • A union between two persons, not recognized by law as such.

Note that Merriam-Webster does not mention any religious aspect of marriage, and includes same-sex marriage in its definition.

It is incorrect to say that there is no religious aspect to marriage, IMO.
Even if at one point in time there was no religious aspect to them, there is now.
So, basically, I disagree with their definition, and additionally am of the opinion that it is partially influenced by political considerations.

Anyone have an opinion on my rambling?
 
The Mark said:
It is incorrect to say that there is no religious aspect to marriage, IMO.
Click to expand...

Individuals can include their religion in their marriage all they want, that's as far as a religious aspect goes. Religion has zero bearing on the legal aspects of marriage, which is all that matters as far as gay marriage, etc. goes. It's not really that there are religious aspects, but that religions take an interest in marriage and try desperately to force their views on society.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.
 
Rassales said:
Back at ya.
Click to expand...
Except that I am not wrong. I have proven that marriage is a privilege, as it is someting that you can have only because the state allows it, and that it woudl cease to exist if the state were to repeal the laws that offer it.

You have done nothing to counter this - indeed, rather than counter it, you have only put forth a red herring argument regarding 'equal protection' -- which, you agree, covers MOST, but not all, people.
 
Rassales said:
Not quite. I say that if exceptions are to be made, they need to be made for a reason. So far, you've provided no reason.
Click to expand...
I don't need to provde a reason, I only need to show that EP does not cover ALL people. I've done that, and so my use of the word "most" stands as sound.
 
Goobieman said:
I don't need to provde a reason, I only need to show that EP does not cover ALL people. I've done that, and so my use of the word "most" stands as sound.
Click to expand...

You've hardly done that. All equivalent people have the same rights. Arguing that because a 5-year old child can't vote, that equal protection doesn't count is ludicrous. The fact remains that *ALL* people, at age 18, get the right to vote. It doesn't matter if they're black or white, male or female, gay or straight, all gain the same rights at the same time. That's equal protection.
 
Cephus said:
You've hardly done that. All equivalent people have the same rights. Arguing that because a 5-year old child can't vote, that equal protection doesn't count is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- your example, above, absolutely proves my assertion that EP necessitates that when the state offers ia privilege, it must offer it to MOST people, not ALL people.

The fact remains that *ALL* people, at age 18, get the right to vote.
Click to expand...
MOST people. Non-citizens, who are still people, cannot vote.
 
Goobieman said:
On the contrary -- your example, above, absolutely proves my assertion that EP necessitates that when the state offers ia privilege, it must offer it to MOST people, not ALL people.
Click to expand...

To all equivalent people. You keep conveniently ignoring the "equivalent" part, mostly because it destroys your argument.

MOST people. Non-citizens, who are still people, cannot vote.
Click to expand...

Of course not, they're not part of the society and rights are granted by society. Is this the best you can do?
 
Cephus said:
To all equivalent people
Click to expand...
The claim that was made did not include this qualifier. My statement stands.
Of course not, they're not part of the society and rights are granted by society. Is this the best you can do?
Click to expand...
What's that? You agree that MOST, not ALL, people have the right to vote when they turn 18? Thank you.
 
Goobieman said:
The claim that was made did not include this qualifier. My statement stands.
Click to expand...
Your evasions here are the very person of sophistry.
 
Rassales said:
Your evasions here are the very person of sophistry.
Click to expand...
I haven't evaded anything. My statement, that marriage is a privilege and that EP dictates that a privilege, if offered at all, must be offered to MOST people, has been proven true.
 
Goobieman said:
I haven't evaded anything. My statement, that marriage is a privilege and that EP dictates that a privilege, if offered at all, must be offered to MOST people, has been proven true.
Click to expand...
But your qualification doesn't matter, since the status of "most" isn't haphazard--it's about cause. Denying equal protection should require proving there is a reason not to offer it. You seem to think this point releases you from any further argument--it does not.
 
Rassales said:
But your qualification doesn't matter...
Click to expand...
It does when -you- want to argue that EP guarantees equal access for ALL people to state-granetd privileges. Clearly, it does not, and so, the statement that it guarantees access to MOST people is correct.
Denying equal protection should require proving there is a reason not to offer it.
Click to expand...
In both of the cases I mentioned, said proof has been given.
You seem to think this point releases you from any further argument--it does not.
Click to expand...
I have no need to make any further argument -- both of my points have been shown to be sound.
 
Goobieman said:
It does when -you- want to argue that EP guarantees equal access for ALL people to state-granetd privileges. Clearly, it does not, and so, the statement that it guarantees access to MOST people is correct.
Click to expand...
Sophistry = making arguments on the minutiae of language in order to avoid the substance of an argument.
In both of the cases I mentioned, said proof has been given.
Click to expand...
Tell you what....cite the post numbers and I'll see if you're right.
I have no need to make any further argument -- both of my points have been shown to be sound.
Click to expand...
Okay...this is self-satisfied sophistry.
 
Rassales said:
Sophistry = making arguments on the minutiae of language in order to avoid the substance of an argument.
Click to expand...
Sorry that you do not see the need to be accurate in your discussions.
Fact remains that:
-Marriage is a privilege, not a right;
-EP guarantees access for MOST, not ALL, people.
Tell you what....cite the post numbers and I'll see if you're right.[
Click to expand...
I cted two examples where EP does not guarantee access to ALL people:
Minors, various instances
Non-citizens, voting
Okay...this is self-satisfied sophistry.
Click to expand...
What other argument do you think I need to make, and why?
 
Goobieman said:
Sorry that you do not see the need to be accurate in your discussions.
Fact remains that:
-Marriage is a privilege, not a right;
-EP guarantees access for MOST, not ALL, people.

I cted two examples where EP does not guarantee access to ALL people:
Minors, various instances
Non-citizens, voting
Click to expand...
Yes, and I (along with others) showed why your examples are not analogous to SSM. You haven't responded to further justify why it is analogous, you just propound your position.

What other argument do you think I need to make, and why?
Click to expand...
You have to show what public good comes from not making opposite-sex and same-sex marriage equivalent. In these discussions, we hear lots of vague references to "moral decay" and "undermining sanctity" and the need to preserve traditional institutions "as is," but I have yet to hear an actual, tangible reason that equal protection should not be granted in this case. There are reasons we do not grant all citizenship rights to minors or to non-citizens. There are no reasons we should not grant equal protection of the laws to LGBT people.
 
Rassales said:
Yes, and I (along with others) showed why your examples are not analogous to SSM. You haven't responded to further justify why it is analogous, you just propound your position.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
The fact is that EP does not in any way guarantee that if anyone is afforded a privilege by a state, then ALL people MUST be offered that same privilege.
This is -undeiniably- true, and nothing that you or anyone else has said changes this in any way.
You have to show what public good comes from not making opposite-sex and same-sex marriage equivalent.
Click to expand...
Why do I have to show this?
There are reasons we do not grant all [privileges] to minors or to non-citizens.
Click to expand...
Please note that (with the correction noted in [], reminding you that privileges, not rights, are -granted- by the state) you are agreeing with my uppermost statement...
 
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant.
The fact is that EP does not in any way guarantee that if anyone is afforded a privilege by a state, then ALL people MUST be offered that same privilege.
This is -undeiniably- true, and nothing that you or anyone else has said changes this in any way.
Click to expand...
So--to repeat--on what basis are they do be denied such a privilege? Your whim? The desires of the majority?

Give me an example of a privilege that is denied a whole group of people for which there is NOT a tangible reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom