(July 21, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Cato Wrote:(July 21, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Anima Wrote: 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.
Ha ha. I really do not think you want to make an appeal to anthropology and biology. Anthropologically speaking marriage is for determination of the legitimate heir. As such it should be barred from homosexuals and all person not intending to have children.
Biologically speaking there is no such thing as a right. I think you are endeavoring to argue a thing should be allowed to be what it is biologically. Since we readily recognize we are not to allow the virus to be at the expense of human lives we may readily recognize that not all biological conditions are of equal valuation and to be promoted or encouraged. As such we must identify that which serves the teleological biological end and say that is to be encouraged and that which is in opposition to the end is to be prohibited. In this case hetero does serve that end and homo is in opposition to that end.
