[One Degree]

Some communities may enforce fundamental rights; other, like the ones One Degree is keen on, may deny rights. And we see that he doesn't like some communities, such as a nation state, but wants something "local", for local people. He even has this silly idea, which he apparently thinks other should take seriously, of arbitrarily dividing the world into equal size pieces, and making them all completely autonomous, whatever the opinions, feelings or allegiances of the people in them are.

No, saying that I don't think "communities" deserve rights of their own is precisely why I wouldn't want to live in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Those were states that gave themselves "rights" above the individual, and thus persecuted individuals who didn't obey. Giving rights to states is nationalism.

There is not one single "community" that is the source of the law. We can belong to several communities. The idea of human rights is that they should be universal - and the right to marriage fits this category. We cannot create "universal community rights", because communities are so diverse, and can form and dissipate when we feel like it (I regard the privileges given to religions in the USA as tending towards this, and we can see the problems - people using religion to scam tax laws).

The only result I can see from your reasoning being followed is a world government based upon a list of human rights. How do you see this as being less restrictive on individuals than allowing smaller areas to decide for themselves? You are advocating the worst possible scenario of depriving others of rights based simply on your idea of what should be right. Human rights is a plan for eliminating rights and freedom of choice. What basis do you have for pursuing this other than your opinion?
Edit: Universal Community Rights is an oxymoron the way you seem to be using it. Individual rights supporters don't persecute people who disagree with them? You offer world wide persecution as a means of preventing local persecution?

Edit: Imagine a world where no country is larger than Belgium. Does that really sound like a horrible idea? I don't believe we blame countries this size for too many of our problems.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Your playing around with the word community to avoid the point. Lets rephrase it as society.

Society is definitely the source of the law, and it definitely gives itself rights, like the sole right to enforce the law with violence.

OK, that is usually called "the state". I don't think I'm "playing" with the word 'community'; it is used, in normal and political discourse, in terms like "the Muslim community" (inside a country), "the gay community", "the law enforcement community", "community organizers", and so on. "Society" is normally less precisely defined than "that which holds the sole right to enforce the law with violence". It's a vague idea, almost abstract, of a general consensus of feelings, goals, and relations between the many people who make it up, and you'll rarely see it used in any law definition (if it was, it would invite argument - "society can set tax rates", "the wishes of society are paramount in deciding if a person can become a citizen").

One degree's ideas about how society should be divided up notwithstanding, we definitely have less rights than any society except an anarchist one.

When you say "we", I presume you mean "our society" (which, by your usage, is the USA for you, and the UK for me), rather than "we individuals in the countries we have citizenship of". Yes, an anarchist society gives itself very few rights. An authoritarian one gives itself many.

Even then you in practice have less rights than the guy with more guns.

"The guy"? Does that mean you were talking about individuals who have fewer rights, after all? In that case, no, people like you and me in western democracies have more rights than many other societies - better freedom of speech, bodily autonomy, rights to fair trial and so on.

Theoretical rights are nonsense, the only rights that matter are the ones you actually have out in the real world. You only have those because society enforces them.

But the rights of individuals are the important ones. If my 'society' has the right to control who gets married, that doesn't help or please me. I don't gain when a functionary of the society arbitrarily imprisons someone, or decides what someone's education and job will be. If the right to direct their education and employment falls to the individual (or a person with a close interest, such as the parent, for a minor), then I get to have a large say in my own life. Which is desirable. Society, or The State, is something I want to enforce my rights, not something that should have its own rights just for the sake of it having rights. There may be such a thing as society, but that doesn't mean it deserves rights enforced by laws.

Many people are not happy with societies current rules, so they try to change them, others resist the change. Over time society evolves regardless. No amount of complaining that society should or shouldn't do any particular thing will actually matter so long as society at large disagrees.

You're using 'society' fuzzily here. If it has "rules", then you're talking about laws, or something very close to them, and 'society' is a formal state or other level of organisation. If you're talking about whether "society at large" agrees or not, then that's a vague consensus. And a state can end up changing its laws, even if "society at large disagrees" - the abolition of the death penalty in many countries, for instance.

The only result I can see from your reasoning being followed is a world government based upon a list of human rights.

I'm not sure that's the "only" result; but a worldwide recognition of human rights and enforcement of them would be good. The European Court of Human Rights does a fair job of enforcing a generally agreed list of human rights in the countries it covers. They have separate governments, but are meant to order their laws to conform to the universal rights. The US constitution also lists human rights, and provides the means to enforce them for the individuals, covering the states that make up the USA.

How do you see this as being less restrictive on individuals than allowing smaller areas to decide for themselves?

Because the individuals have the rights, which 'areas' cannot decide to take away.

You are advocating the worst possible scenario of depriving others of rights based simply on your idea of what should be right. Human rights is a plan for eliminating rights and freedom of choice. What basis do you have for pursuing this other than your opinion?

It's worked pretty well for the USA, and for Europe since the ECHR came into being. Human rights do not "eliminate rights and freedom of choice" for people. They may restrict what a government can do. I don't really care about the feelings of a government. I do care about people.

Edit: Universal Community Rights is an oxymoron the way you seem to be using it. Individual rights supporters don't persecute people who disagree with them?

Correct, individual rights supporters do not persecute people who disagree with them. I have no idea what your rolling eyes are supposed to mean there.

You offer world wide persecution as a means of preventing local persecution?

No, I'm not offering 'persecution'. If I say "2 adults have the right to marry each other if neither is married to someone else", I'm not persecuting anyone. If I say "a person has the right to a fair open trial by the laws of the country", I'm not persecuting anyone.

Edit: Imagine a world where no country is larger than Belgium. Does that really sound like a horrible idea? I don't believe we blame countries this size for too many of our problems.

Small countries can be authoritarian too. Equatorial Guinea, or Bahrain.

[One Degree]

@Prosthetic Conscience

It is clear your world view is tied to Individual Rights, to a degree, that you simply ignore the built in self righteousness of it. You have formed opinions that you have decided should be rights. You simply ignore others should have the right to live by a different set of rules, and to force them not to so is extreme discrimination not to mention eventually devastating for the human race. I know the futility of convincing you differently, but consider carefully...
An intelligent person believes they know the answers and everyone should be forced to abide by these correct answers.
A really intelligent person knows we 'know nothing' and time will change everything. The more options we have, the more likely humans will adapt and carry on. If we all follow the same road of 'what is right', then it is a mathematical certainty that we will eventually all go over the same cliff together.

[Suntzu]

"No, I'm not offering 'persecution'. If I say "2 adults have the right to marry each other if neither is married to someone else", I'm not persecuting anyone. If I say "a person has the right to a fair open trial by the laws of the country", I'm not persecuting anyone."

How 'bout a guy who wants to "marry" a goat?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

How 'bout a guy who wants to "marry" a goat?

It's pointless. A goat cannot exercise any rights or duties. There is no point in having laws written about the rights of goats. As I said, the dividing line between humans and other animals is clear.

[Drlee]

Well this thread has certainly brought out the idiot arguments. A serious subject and we have discussed cannibals and goat marrying.

This is a serious subject. So lets look at how profoundly stupid the goad ploy is. Answer:

Society honors and upholds the institution of marriage between two people. It does not honor and uphold relations between humans and goats. Indeed sex with goats is illegal in every state. So why is this analogy stupid? Because it does not apply.

The issue is not whether marriage between two people is good or bad. We decided it was good long ago. The issue is whether marriage is equally shared by all people. Are some excluded for no good reason is the question.

Not one soul, in all of these many posts has presented a good argument for banning gay marriage. I used to oppose it on religious grounds. Now I do not. I changed my mind because I could not present a good argument for banning gay marriage.

I am sure some mental midget will reintroduce the goat ploy or try to equate the love of two people to cannibalism but these people are not bright. We can safely ignore them.

[One Degree]

Well this thread has certainly brought out the idiot arguments. A serious subject and we have discussed cannibals and goat marrying.

This is a serious subject. So lets look at how profoundly stupid the goad ploy is. Answer:

Society honors and upholds the institution of marriage between two people. It does not honor and uphold relations between humans and goats. Indeed sex with goats is illegal in every state. So why is this analogy stupid? Because it does not apply.

The issue is not whether marriage between two people is good or bad. We decided it was good long ago. The issue is whether marriage is equally shared by all people. Are some excluded for no good reason is the question.

Not one soul, in all of these many posts has presented a good argument for banning gay marriage. I used to oppose it on religious grounds. Now I do not. I changed my mind because I could not present a good argument for banning gay marriage.

I am sure some mental midget will reintroduce the goat ploy or try to equate the love of two people to cannibalism but these people are not bright. We can safely ignore them.

These are legitimate points to demonstrate that people have a right to place arbitrary limits on what they find acceptable. You are simply attempting to limit the discussion to a level that your arguments can justify it. Limiting gay marriage to a legalistic/economic argument is a convenient way of not listening to moral arguments. 'Moral' meaning people have the right to make decisions on emotion you may not think is logical or fair. People should be free to choose and that freedom should not be limited by a 'scientific process'. That dismisses a large part of who we are and restricts decision making to a very narrow part of our humanity.
I see no reason that a community's decisions need to be based upon anything other than what they want. They do not need to be justified. We should avail ourselves of these arguments to convince others while realizing the choice is still theirs. No argument is therefore 'stupid'.

[Suntzu]

It's pointless. A goat cannot exercise any rights or duties. There is no point in having laws written about the rights of goats. As I said, the dividing line between humans and other animals is clear.

No its not. Some animals are self-aware to include dolphins and gorillas.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

These are legitimate points to demonstrate that people have a right to place arbitrary limits on what they find acceptable. You are simply attempting to limit the discussion to a level that your arguments can justify it. Limiting gay marriage to a legalistic/economic argument is a convenient way of not listening to moral arguments. 'Moral' meaning people have the right to make decisions on emotion you may not think is logical or fair. People should be free to choose and that freedom should not be limited by a 'scientific process'. That dismisses a large part of who we are and restricts decision making to a very narrow part of our humanity.
I see no reason that a community's decisions need to be based upon anything other than what they want. They do not need to be justified. We should avail ourselves of these arguments to convince others while realizing the choice is still theirs. No argument is therefore 'stupid'.

So you've no objection to a community deciding that female genital mutilation is compulsory? Or that blasphemy against against their preferred version of Islam should have the death penalty? Was the Rwandan genocide no problem for you, because it was the Tutsi minority that was being massacred? After all, "the community" wanted it. That's all morally fine, by your definition. As is, it seems, Islamic State.

[One Degree]

So you've no objection to a community deciding that female genital mutilation is compulsory? Or that blasphemy against against their preferred version of Islam should have the death penalty? Was the Rwandan genocide no problem for you, because it was the Tutsi minority that was being massacred? After all, "the community" wanted it. That's all morally fine, by your definition. As is, it seems, Islamic State.

That is basically correct. If the people voluntarily support it then they have a right to do so. It is important to remember these rights do not extend outside their own communities and is why I support very small autonomous areas compared to most today. You should also remember my views are also based upon a world organization to support a very few common principles that are necessary. One of those I would prefer is the freedom to leave a community and another is non interference in other communities. If people are allowed to leave a community, but choose to remain then they are assenting to the majority decision.

[mikema63]

Personally I just conceptualize one degrees ideas as a theoretical ideal. Honestly I don't really disagree with his apparent disagreement with any one correct moral view. I assume of course that one of his global principles is the free movement of people which would be a necessary caveat. However I don't think it's practical and I think it ignores some important problems that I don't want to go into in a thread on gay marriage.

On topic, I've been married for almost two years now and have yet to bring pain upon a straight couple. I want to live with my husband, have a stable job, have kids, get old, retire, and die. Hopefully with as few people screaming faggot in my face as possible. I was raised from far before I dealt with my sexuality to want these kinds of mundane things, yet so many wish to deny me them because of completely ridiculous feelings they get about thinking about what I do in private.

Ultimately, that's all I want, to have a boring life. Ultimately that's what we are talking about. Ultimately that's what a lot of people want to deny me.

[Suntzu]

How do two guys have kids?

[mikema63]

There are a variety of options available to us. Including adopting children who were tragically given up by or lost their parents. As well as getting a surrogate in the future, or with each other even in the future (there is research on converting sperm cells to egg cells that would enable this.)

[One Degree]

Personally I just conceptualize one degrees ideas as a theoretical ideal. Honestly I don't really disagree with his apparent disagreement with any one correct moral view. I assume of course that one of his global principles is the free movement of people which would be a necessary caveat. However I don't think it's practical and I think it ignores some important problems that I don't want to go into in a thread on gay marriage.

On topic, I've been married for almost two years now and have yet to bring pain upon a straight couple. I want to live with my husband, have a stable job, have kids, get old, retire, and die. Hopefully with as few people screaming faggot in my face as possible. I was raised from far before I dealt with my sexuality to want these kinds of mundane things, yet so many wish to deny me them because of completely ridiculous feelings they get about thinking about what I do in private.

Ultimately, that's all I want, to have a boring life. Ultimately that's what we are talking about. Ultimately that's what a lot of people want to deny me.

Yes, my ideas must be mostly theoretical because we do not have the political organization for them to be practical. They currently must be applied as states rights and many states are too large for this to be fair to either side in our social disputes. As you say, you want to be left alone to live your life and so do those who oppose gay marriage. There is no justice in this being decided by the US or a state the size of Texas, but it is what we have. I therefore support the states in making these types of decisions as it is as fair to both sides as we can currently be. Those who can not tolerate the decision of their state, at least have options.

[Stormsmith]

Here's the deal:

Married people usually have certain rights, ie, if one person is hospitalised, the other can visit. With gay couples, the family could stop that. The family took control of the sick members person if that person was in a coma. If s/he died, the living partner could lose the deceased partner's property.

For married couples, in the event of one partners death, pension would be maintained for the other for life. Medical insurance meant for a family didn't cover the gay partner. Mortgages that were insured so that in the event of a death, the home was paid was lost for gays.

There are over 1,000 laws and rules that short changed gays, many of which the couple paid for (ie pension). It is fundamentally wrong, un Canadian, un-American to treat people this way. Fairness is the bedrock of all civilised people. It's the very foundation of Christianity. And now the courts recognise it.

If you don't like gays being described as "married" use a different word. Hallmark might even print cards just for you.

[Pants-of-dog]

..... As you say, you want to be left alone to live your life and so do those who oppose gay marriage. ...

Not really. Those who oppose gay marriage are trying to interfere in the lives of others.

[One Degree]

Not really. Those who oppose gay marriage are trying to interfere in the lives of others.

Yes, so what? All laws interfere in our lives.

[MB.]

The state has absolutely no moral authority to limit the freedom of consenting adults to marry each other. Jesus Christ, Mormons in Utah get away with polygamy, but that's perceived as less of an "issue" than homosexual religious union? Really?

[One Degree]

The state has absolutely no moral authority to limit the freedom of consenting adults to marry each other. Jesus Christ, Mormons in Utah get away with polygamy, but that's perceived as less of an "issue" than homosexual religious union? Really?

The only people who should be concerned about my choices are my neighbors who must also live with my choices. Marriage has always been under state authority. As I said in another thread, a community is based upon agreement, not on right or wrong necessarily. It is an agreement on how they wish to live together. The larger the governing body that makes this decision the more meaningless it becomes, and the greater the number of people who are disenfranchised by it.

[MB.]

What are you proposing, One Degree? Some kind of homosexual marriage equivalent to a noise bylaw? No gay marriage within city limits? How could this proposal possibly be reasonable? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning in the thread above.