• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

LDS Church will stay the course in opposing gay marriage

It some kind of wierd hybrid positive rights thing he has come up with.

I honestly would like him to point out an individual liberty that the state can't take away or can't seek to protect.

Nonetheless, his argument is purely philosophical in nature. It doesn't address whether or not same sex marriage is Constitutional.

He simply seeks to diminish marriage to the classification of "privilege" and in so doing, he reduces virtually all our rights to that classification and makes the concept of "rights" virtually meaningless.
 
This is the basis for the difference between rights and priviliges -- in libertarian terms, rights are a liberty you have, period, priviliges are a legal 'license' to take an action granted by the state.

Wrong. I don't subscribe to any philosophy such as natural or inalienable rights.. Oppressive governments can and have removed practically any and all human rights in the past.. access to guns, freedom of speech, religion, fair trial, torture, etc. If you think you're rights cannot be removed then you are privileged. You're ability to do something in the face of authority doesn't make something a right either... otherwise rape and trespassing would also be rights.
 
Wrong. I don't subscribe to any philosophy such as natural or inalienable rights.. Oppressive governments can and have removed practically any and all human rights in the past.. access to guns, freedom of speech, religion, fair trial, torture, etc. If you think you're rights cannot be removed then you are privileged. You're ability to do something in the face of authority doesn't make something a right either... otherwise rape and trespassing would also be rights.
Well then -- its hard to imagine that marriage, as a legal instituton, is, to you, or to anyone that agrees with you, anything other than a privilige.
 
Last edited:
Well then -- its hard to imagine that marriage, as a legal instituton, is, to you, anything other than a privilige.

I'll ask these questions one more time Goobie.

1. Is marriage a law?
2. What is an example of a right?
 
Well then -- its hard to imagine that marriage, as a legal instituton, is, to you, anything other than a privilige.

I'll say it again all "rights" are simply privileges allowed by the government and are social constructs that validate government authority. In this case, some have privilege and some do not... and that is coercive government. That is why I don't think this discussion is of importance... However, I see problems with your arguments because they ignore some facts as set by your own criteria for the difference between right and privilege..

But more importantly.. I think this privilege or right argument needs to be dropped, and the real issue should be debated. Should glbt people have access to marriage and to the same benefits and entitlements at state and federal levels?
 
Last edited:
However, I see problems with your arguments because they ignore some facts as set by your own criteria for the difference between right and privilege..
Like what?
 
But more importantly.. I think this privilege or right argument needs to be dropped, and the real issue should be debated. Should glbt people have access to marriage and to the same benefits and entitlements at state and federal levels?

I would say they do. LGBT people are citizens of the United States and thus they are entitled to the rights of Due Process and Equal Protection under the law. As the state can demonstrate no legitimate interest in denying them Due Process or Equal Protection when it comes to defining marriage on the basis of gender, their Constitutional rights are being violated. Either marriage law must be applied equally or it must be discarded entirely. If the state chooses to continue marriage laws, then it can still be limited to two people on the basis that the state has an interest in promoting monogamous relationships in order to promote stable households.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom