In reality, NO marriage is a right.
Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.
Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.
I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.
In reality, NO marriage is a right.
Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.
Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.
I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.
Should the State be required to issue drivers licenses to gay people? Apparently. So, why not everything else?
I was married once and I don't recommend it to anyone but.....
In reality, NO marriage is a right.
Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.
Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.
I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.
In reality, NO marriage is a right.
If there is a group of people who cannot enjoy the same ability to marry the person they love, then that's wrong, and the rest is just semantics.
"Driving is not a right, it's a privilege" granted by government is a slogan burned into everyone - and it is absurd.
The Right in this case is to be Equal Before The Law.In reality, NO marriage is a right.
Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.
Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.
I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.
No marriage of any sort is a "natural" right.
There can be a societal right to marriage, varying in meaning in various societies, that is an off shoot of the natural right of association.
"Societal Right" and "privledge" are similar in nature, but slightly different. Both are creations of men through a social contract. However, the difference is generally where the power lies within the social contract. Typically, a societal right grants greater power upon the individual than society with the general notion that as long as the contract is intact then the individual can do said thing. On the flip side, a privledge typically is something where the society is granted greater power with the notion that the societal structure can bestow the ability upon individuals as it see's fit.
Theoritically, a societal right could not be fully removed without the destruction of said Social Contract, only limited. Where as a privledge could just stop being issued with the Social Contract still being upheld.
being that a "Societal Right" is one that the individual within society is promised by that social contract and is inherent while that contract remains, where as a "privledge" is one that the society is given the ability to allow or disallow to individuals within it while the contract remains.
Drive, no. Walk, ride a horse, skateboard, bike, and usually drive your lawnmower, yes. They are Public roads after all and none of those require a license.Technically you do have a right to drive all you want without a license. So long as it is done on private property. It is when you start using government provided, maintained roads that you do not have a right to drive. That is the actual priviledge.
If you want to take this stance then ALL the Rights that we have are "Societal Rights". I don't buy that.
Drive, no. Walk, ride a horse, skateboard, bike, and usually drive your lawnmower, yes. They are Public roads after all and none of those require a license.
And where do you think they come from, God?
Well you can certainly state that. It makes no sense in the real world but you can. If they were fundemental, we wouldn't keeo going to court to try and figure them out and work out the exceptions to them. We do that, and so does everyone else. That points to Society not some other Source.Sorry, not going to get into a theological debate. But I will state that I believe rights to be fundemental. Not societal.
There's no reason why we couldn't require a license for those, we simply don't.Thats because none of those have the damaging potential of a car.
Well you can certainly state that. It makes no sense in the real world but you can. If they were fundemental, we wouldn't keeo going to court to try and figure them out and work out the exceptions to them. We do that, and so does everyone else. That points to Society not some other Source.
Rights that you can't get enforced don't exist. It's not like it's a teapot on the moon and it's just really hard to get hot water to. When it's a right you can't get society to uphold, there is no teapot.Actually a Right being fundemental means that the Right exists whether society accepts/allows it or not. Many Rights can be surpressed and even ignored but just because they are surpressed/ignored does not mean that they are not there. They just have to be fought for. One of the reasons that the old saying of "Fighting for your rights" exists.
Actually a Right being fundemental means that the Right exists whether society accepts/allows it or not. Many Rights can be surpressed and even ignored but just because they are surpressed/ignored does not mean that they are not there. They just have to be fought for. One of the reasons that the old saying of "Fighting for your rights" exists.
Rights that you can't get enforced don't exist. It's not like it's a teapot on the moon and it's just really hard to get hot water to. When it's a right you can't get society to uphold, there is no teapot.
A good example of a law that was tossed because it made otherwise rightful people Unequal before the Law.BTW, for an example of this look to miscegation laws (to keep in line with the thread).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?