Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, May 08, 2009

Is "marriage" a "right"? (off topic)

Same sex couples are now placing adds in the classified sections of newspapers- namely "lost and found" as in "I have lost my right* to marry the person I love."

Since when did marriage become a "right"?

If it is then how about the "right" to marry or be married many people at the same time?

How about the "right" to marry children?

And what about the "right" to marry another type of animal?

Is there a "right" to redefine words to suit one's needs?


* entitlement for no other reason than being alive

posted by Joe G @ 8:49 AM  

10 Comments:

  • At 11:11 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Leaving the last sentence alone (with great difficulty), it depends on what you mean by a "right".

    A right can be a thing that is legally guaranteed. In this sense, same (and presumably sane) sex couples in several states and countries do indeed have a right to get married. In other jurisdictions, they clearly do not have a right to get married.

    A right can also be something that is morally or ethically allowed. I assume this is the sense that makes for the most interesting debate. In this case, it depends upon where one is getting their moral code. Does one's moral code include such things as control over one's neighbors lives? Does this code give different moral weights to a person's own behavior and person's right to control others?

    How are we defining a "right" in this discussion?

     

  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes blipey, everyone knows that you redefine words to suit your needs.

    For example you think that a patrilineage is a paternal family tree.

    And until you address that your comments will continue to be held in the moderation cue.

     

  • At 6:29 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Fortunately, rights come and go. The right for 2 same-sex people to marry will be an American right in every state very soon.

    I doubt if Americans will allow folks to marry their children or dogs, as you seem to fear. Even gay people think bestiality and incest are bad.

    Don't worry though, you can't catch Teh Gay, and fortunately, one can't catch Teh Stupid either!

     

  • At 10:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tft,

    There isn't any such thing as a "right to marry".

    It doesn't exist.

    The phrase was fabricated.

    Also the word "marriage" has been redefined in some dictionaries to match the whim of a minority. A very, very small minority.

    Also I don't fear that people will marry other animals.

    What I am saying is if we allow same sex marriages by redefining the word "marriage" then what stops people from redefining it further to suit THEIR needs?

    What gives gay people the right to say tat incest and beastiality are "wrong"?

    What gives anyone the right to say who/ what can and can't marry?

    That is if we redefine marriage to allow same sex marriages then no one has the right to stop others from adding their definitions also.

    One more thing- evolutionists HAVE caught "the stupid"...

     

  • At 2:31 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Redefining a word comes after people have decided the current definition is wrong.

    It's not that someone redefines a word and suddenly all who hear the new definition seize on the opportunity to do crazy shit the new definition allows.

    As to who can say who has the right to marry? Society is currently debating whether or not to allow same sex couples to marry. Society will decide. That's who.

    And it looks like you are in the minority. I guess you are just more frightened of gay people than most!

     

  • At 5:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The only thing I am "frightened" of is minority rule.

    And what "frightens" me is the repercussions of such a thing.

    As for this situation it is definitely the minority who wants to change the definition of marriage.

    I am sure if it were put to a popular vote that minority would lose.

    And when words are redefined there will always be people who push the new definition to the limit. That's just what people do.

    One more thing- there isn't any such thing as a right to marry.

    But I take it that is just too much for you little mind to comprehend.

     

  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    If there is no right to marry, why are worried about extending marriage rights to same sex couples?

     

  • At 6:49 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Joe, is there a right to breathe?

     

  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If there is no right to marry, why are worried about extending marriage rights to same sex couples?-

    How can I be worried about extending something that does not exist?

    And if the definition of marriage is changed to include same sex marriages then why not include multiple partner marriages, child marriages and marriage to another type of animal or object?

    The point being is once we bow down to one minority we have to do the same to ALL minorities.

     

  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK I found the following which proves I was wrong:

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    Article 16:

    1- Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    2- Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

    3- The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.    -

     

<< Home