(July 21, 2015 at 4:08 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 3:45 pm)Anima Wrote: I am sorry I do not follow.  The legislation granted rights.  Blacks were neither recognized as people (other than the 3/5th compromise) or as citizens.  They were not privy to any more rights at law than a cow.  By means of the amendments ratified by the States they were granted their freedom, citizenship, and rights.

By not given are you referring to, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the inalienable rights endowed by the creator that you do not believe in?  You have as much inalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness as nature allows or denies.  In turth you do not have a right to life.  However you do not have an obligation to give up your life.  You do not have a right to liberty; but you do not have an obligation to sacrifice your liberty.  You do not have a right to happiness and you do not have an obligation to sacrifice your happiness.  

This is not to say the state cannot take it from you for the sake of society.  Only that you are not obligated to surrender any of them for another without a reason.  Otherwise the only rights you have as a citizen are enumerated or substantively defined in the Constitution or if you are not a UN conspiracist the UN Charter.

I side with Mr. Jefferson and those of like mind that preceded him on the issue of rights. Governments do not grant rights, they can only serve to curb them or protect them. Governments are a necessary evil knowing that the biggest obstacle to liberty in nature is other people no better demonstrated by your vehement disagreement with the Obergefell decision.

In which case you side with John Locke (since he was the primary author to which Jefferson and the other founding fathers refer too).

Question. May a government curb a right such that a person may not exercise it in any case? If so would we say the government has taken the right? Now if said government were to then to change its curb in such a manner that a person may exercise that right, would we say they have granted the right?

As much as Locke's argument may endeavor to argue that society exist by nature. Nature itself would disagree with that. As previously said the right to life, liberty, or happiness does not exist. According to nature no animal or thing is prohibited from taking your life, liberty, or happiness. So by what right do you claim no one may take these from you? Surely not by means of the natural law.

(July 21, 2015 at 4:39 pm)Anima Wrote: So by what right do you claim no one may take these from you?  Surely not by means of the natural law.

Certainly so, with recognition that other possess the same fundamental rights. Observing other apes makes it reasonable to conclude that murder was considered immoral long before we learned to use language or conceptualize what a right was. You can't get much more natural than that. Our ability to conceptualize then allows us to extend these basic principles across any number of human interactions.

(July 21, 2015 at 4:33 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Anima Wrote: Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into the most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication.  Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.”

This is the blue in the face part. You're just going to have to get over it, the decision won't change.

As far as enumeration, remember that there was a loud camp that argued against a bill of rights simply because they thought that if certain rights were enumerated that some would interpret this as limiting rights to just those enumerated. I think you're guilty of this here.

Now if the petitioners had lost. Would you get over it because the decision would not change? No? Do you suppose you would say the law made a mistake (which based on precedence it would not have, where as it has in this case). Do you think you would try again to get the ruling you thought was right? Do you think those who are opposed to this ruling are that different than you?

(July 21, 2015 at 4:46 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 4:39 pm)Anima Wrote: So by what right do you claim no one may take these from you?  Surely not by means of the natural law.

Certainly so, with recognition that other possess the same fundamental rights. Observing other apes makes it reasonable to conclude that murder was considered immoral long before we learned to use language or conceptualize what a right was. You can't get much more natural than that. Our ability to conceptualize then allows us to extend these basic principles across any number of human interactions.

Ha ha. I like this. So you are saying you made up a right and then said others of like type have that right and thus all must now abide by this right? Nature does not prohibit the murder of another of the same species. So what is the inalienable rights crap? They sound entirely made up and far from inalienable to the species as a whole or our person in particular.

(July 21, 2015 at 4:46 pm)Anima Wrote: Now if the petitioners had lost.  Would you get over it because the decision would not change?  No?  Do you suppose you would say the law made a mistake (which based on precedence it would not have, where as it has in this case).  Do you think you would try again to get the ruling you thought was right?  Do you think those who are opposed to this ruling are that different than you?

I'm fine with the arguments and I certainly voice my opinion regarding cases I disagree with. What I struggle with is the fervent zeal with which some pursue denying fellow citizens participation in common social institutions. It's a clear example of attempting to use the power of the state to enforce a religious prohibition. Trying to get the ruling right is a bit bothersome for me in this case because it is a clear example of religious intrusion and obviously maliciously discriminatory, legal wrangling aside.

I believe your fealty to precedence is a matter of convenience in this particular case unless you're prepared to argue that the court got Brown wrong when it overturned Plessy.

(July 21, 2015 at 4:49 pm)Anima Wrote: Ha ha.  I like this.  So you are saying you made up a right and then said others of like type have that right and thus all must now abide by this right?  Nature does not prohibit the murder of another of the same species.  So what is the inalienable rights crap?  They sound entirely made up and far from inalienable to the species as a whole or our person in particular.

Invoking someone wishing to deprive you of the right to life does not invalidate the right. That argument is unreasonable.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 4:46 pm)Anima Wrote: Now if the petitioners had lost.  Would you get over it because the decision would not change?  No?  Do you suppose you would say the law made a mistake (which based on precedence it would not have, where as it has in this case).  Do you think you would try again to get the ruling you thought was right?  Do you think those who are opposed to this ruling are that different than you?

I'm fine with the arguments and I certainly voice my opinion regarding cases I disagree with. What I struggle with is the fervent zeal with which some pursue denying fellow citizens participation in common social institutions. It's a clear example of attempting to use the power of the state to enforce a religious prohibition. Trying to get the ruling right is a bit bothersome for me in this case because it is a clear example of religious intrusion and obviously maliciously discriminatory, legal wrangling aside.

I believe your fealty to precedence is a matter of convenience in this particular case unless you're prepared to argue that the court got Brown wrong when it overturned Plessy.

First I do not think the argument equating persons engaging in a volitional act to race which is neither a volitional (and in nearly all cases) an apparent condition. I know many on this site do not believe acts may be volitional (as they do not believe there is free will) and do not find such argument either compelling or tenable (since no act is volitional than no act is consensual and thereby no actor requires consent, so rape is indistinguishable from sex). I further consider acts of homosexuality as a preference which one may act upon or may not. I am aware there are those who argue homosexuality is a genetic condition. To those it may be said if it is a genetic condition it is not akin to race but may be consider an adaptation, inconsequential, or a defect. As genetic determination will be made according to the biological benefit conferred by the genetic mutation. In which case homosexuality would be considered a defect as it contains no biological benefit to the particular person or the species as a whole and is a condition which greatly interferes with the biological aspect of our humanity which is procreative. It is in this regard I recognize they are inherently not equal and may not be equated to race which may be considered equal from a biological standpoint and if treated as a genetic mutation would be considered an adaptation.

Second my zeal for denying fellow citizens participation in common institutions is that in arguing a fallacy of false equivalency one harms both the superior and the inferiors. In the former case we denigrate the importance of the superior for the sake of equality and in the later we deny inferiors much needed aid to bring about fairness because providing such aid is not equal. In which case I would ask what is your zeal in including all citizens in things even when they should not be included? I see your desire for equality for the homosexual but I do not see it for the necrophiliac or the cannibal. They are literally not hurting anyone so why are we not protecting them? Could it be because we recognize that false equivalency is just that; FALSE; and that people of different qualities are to be treated differently according to some societal utility? Again this I readily recognize and will not ignore simply for the sake of including people for inclusions sake.

Finally as argued in the other thread (which I know you have read since you have commented) my disagreement with this particular issues stems from many aspects including but not limited to law, biology, sociology, teleology, and (since I know you are dying to hear it) theology. I am not such a simple person as to be simply a walking mass of religious fervor (in fact as a realist I subscribe to the ideal of the golden mean, which is also in keeping with theological foundation of virtue being founded on temperance and thereby always work to keep my fervor in check). Furthermore I recognize the separation of church and state. And thereby do not view the biology or sociology of this issue in religious terms. As a catholic church houses church property. And I am not concerned with homosexuals attacking the Church (which unlike other religions is a Sovereign Nation and member of the UN with numerous international treaties). However, as I have pointed out I have yet to hear an argument in their favor which is not based upon the fallacies of false equivalency, appeal to novelty, or appeal to pity. Thus I do not agree they should be granted equality in all things though I am willing to say they should be granted equality in somethings.

However, I will ask as I have in the other thread, what is your argument in their favor that is not a fallacy? Biological, sociological, teleological, theological or otherwise. I would like to hear it if you have one.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:26 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 4:49 pm)Anima Wrote: Ha ha.  I like this.  So you are saying you made up a right and then said others of like type have that right and thus all must now abide by this right?  Nature does not prohibit the murder of another of the same species.  So what is the inalienable rights crap?  They sound entirely made up and far from inalienable to the species as a whole or our person in particular.

Invoking someone wishing to deprive you of the right to life does not invalidate the right. That argument is unreasonable.

Invoking a "right" because it is something you desire does not establish a right. That argument is far more unreasonable.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Anima Wrote: However, I will ask as I have in the other thread, what is your argument in their favor that is not a fallacy?  Biological, sociological, teleological, theological or otherwise.  I would like to hear it if you have one.

Homosexuality is a natural trait. This is well established and is found across the natural world. You of course cannot accept this since it alone invalidates your discrimination and renders your claims of fallacy nonsensical. If you cannot acknowledge that homosexuality is a natural trait and is most certainly not simply a volitional choice, there's no helping you. It's not up for debate, you're simply wrong.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Anima Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 5:26 pm)Cato Wrote: Invoking someone wishing to deprive you of the right to life does not invalidate the right. That argument is unreasonable.

Invoking a "right" because it is something you desire does not establish a right.  That argument is far more unreasonable.

I have made no such claim. Try this, go in search for the origins of rights. You'll have to use anthropology and biology, not history or philosophy to help find the answer. This should tell you something.