religion
Out of context: Reply #1612
- Started
- Last post
- 3,482 Responses
- ********2
@Gilgamush: For some reason you're obsessed with the idea of seeing a document that shows the "right" to marry. You claim that we don't understand the meaning of the word "right".
Here is a list of 14 cases where the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. The list is annotated with links, so you can read the documents, if that makes you feel better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma…Here is the syllabus from the most recent Supreme Court ruling. It mentions "right" 76 times. Read the passages, they explain in plain english how the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "right".
http://apps.npr.org/documents/do…Now, I presume you're going to say that the Supreme Court doesn't count because it's not in the Bill of Rights, or in the Old Testament, or tattooed on George Washington's ass, or something like that.
Regardless of your opinion, it is completely normal for everyone in America to assume a "right to marry". I'm basing this on over a century of language from the Supreme Court.
My point is this: We are not the oddballs for referring to marriage as a right.
- Why is this not not true?********
- a right you can exercise with impunity without a license. the argument that you are begging the state is for a right is backwards and contrary to being free.yurimon
- Oh great, now gilgamush is creating extra usernames for himself. Can we ban these trolls?********
- @yurimon: Good job choosing your own personal definition of the word "right". The rest of us will continue to use it in the current and correct way.********
- thats how rights work. if you have a right to do something you just do without state permission. if the state puts you in jail for doing something thats rightyurimon
- then your right were infringed or stolen. I posted the definition of a license, def of a petition which is an application for a license. what dont u understand?yurimon
- yuri you seem to have trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy. What nb is talking about is how rights are defined in the U.S. legal system, not youryuekit
- imaginary utopia. Rights are dependent on state laws and mutual agreement by society. Maybe you don't like that, but that's the way it actually works.yuekit
- I'm guessing your definition of mutual agreement is in defense of the general populace acting in ignorance of the reality.yurimon
- this how political correctness works. people are brainwashed to believe what is contrary to reality and everyone has to go along with it = society.yurimon
- Marbury v. Madison, read the case.yurimon
- but it works, if you have you have everyone acting on assumptions, you can build a nice institution base around where people are completely ignorant dependent.yurimon
- what i love is the arrogance and ego that usually flourishes around these assumptions.yurimon
- Your arrogance of accusing the vast majority of people (including scholars, Supreme Court, etc) of "acting in ignorance of reality." Lulz********
- i think scholars know the difference between rights, privileges, licenses, legal rights etc.yurimon
- read the case, its supreme court scholars.yurimon
- Assuming the majority of scholars agree with your fringe right wing theories = arroganceyuekit
- this is not right wing. its how rights work. it is what people fought for, to be left alone and not petition the gov and be free. you guys are opposite.yurimon
- Your view of government is very simplistic. Government exists for a reason, in part because it's the most efficient way to protect people's rights.yuekit
- if i controlled your education and wanted more power, id have u believing the same thing. build a nice institution base of control, have double speak pc thingyurimon
- have people like you worship me while being atheist. fuckin brilliant, i tell, you this organized crime scheme is genius.yurimon
- Libertarians are a dime a dozen these days and most of them are hypocrites. They whine about how oppressed they are but choose to live under the same system asyuekit
- the rest of us. Much like Ayn Rand who ended up relying on Medicare at end of her life. Complain about government all you want, actions speak louder than words.yuekit
- i read your list and those cases for marriage as a right prob based on traditional man woman, def. you prob just want to change the legal definitionyurimon
- to be inclusive of other genders. totally different.yurimon
- by your logic, you like to take up the ass and there is no hope. what you are saying. you bow down to gov when squeezed.yurimon
- 2nd of all im not libertarian. im relying on what is written as law of the land.yurimon
- You make over the top comments about how people are oppressed and raped by gov. but fail to consider how the alternative could be worse.yuekit
- My point was not about the definition of marriage, it was about how we define a "right", in our society. The society we actually live in.********
- Not the hypothetical made up delusion of a world that you've created in your mind.********
- you mean the society of big corporatist gov. and over reach of authority. okyurimon
- there is different types and dif contexts for rights. so start broh.yurimon
- lol, i was busy for eight or nine hours and everything goes to shit. no nb, you twat, i am me, the one and only gilga, don't need fake usernames to hide behind********
- that aside, thanks for providing your evidence, i stand corrected. i think it's complete fuckery but regardless, you have proved your point********
- Why is this not not true?