Page 1 of 2

Sircoth's natural, legal rights

PostPosted: June 30th, 2015, 3:12 pm
by Sircoth
mtbturtle wrote:Denying people their rights because it would be "co-opting the definition of the word marriage" if not hateful I don't know what is.

I suppose you're talking about 'natural' rights and not legal rights; would you be willing to demonstrate the existence of these?

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: June 30th, 2015, 4:14 pm
by CanadysPeak
Sircoth » Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:12 pm wrote:
mtbturtle wrote:Denying people their rights because it would be "co-opting the definition of the word marriage" if not hateful I don't know what is.

I suppose you're talking about 'natural' rights and not legal rights; would you be willing to demonstrate the existence of these?

Many would find that the US Constitution was informed by Common Law. Common Law recognizes the existence of natural rights, although there is no comprehensive list of what those are. Nonetheless, most agree that the right to enter into a contract is a right under Common Law; since marriage is a contract, it is included.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 1st, 2015, 11:22 am
by Sircoth
CanadysPeak wrote:
Sircoth wrote:
mtbturtle wrote:Denying people their rights because it would be "co-opting the definition of the word marriage" if not hateful I don't know what is.

I suppose you're talking about 'natural' rights and not legal rights; would you be willing to demonstrate the existence of these?

Many would find that the US Constitution was informed by Common Law. Common Law recognizes the existence of natural rights, although there is no comprehensive list of what those are. Nonetheless, most agree that the right to enter into a contract is a right under Common Law; since marriage is a contract, it is included.

Okay, so let's deal with legal rights:

You're grasping at straws since the US constitution does not explicitly include this right; the constitution is informed by many sources and traditions but clearly does not incorporate every aspect of all of them. Certainly it is not the case that the constitution or current US Law recognises the right to make any and all contracts [between consenting adults]; examples that come to mind include marriage contracts between siblings, labour contracts with the wage set below minimum wage and contracts where one party sells himself as property.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 1st, 2015, 1:42 pm
by CanadysPeak
Sircoth,

I assume that you know a contract that includes an illegal action is defined as a void contract, meaning it is no contract at all.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 1st, 2015, 2:05 pm
by Sircoth
Indeed, as was homosexual marriage.

So we are agreed that there is no legal right to just any contract, so again I ask: can you (or mtbturtle) demonstrate that this 'right to homosexual marriage' existed (before the favourable rulings, of course)?

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 1st, 2015, 2:30 pm
by SciameriKen
Sircoth » Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:05 pm wrote:Indeed, as was homosexual marriage.

So we are agreed that there is no legal right to just any contract, so again I ask: can you (or mtbturtle) demonstrate that this 'right to homosexual marriage' existed (before the favourable rulings, of course)?


The 'right to homosexual marriage' became a legal right the moment the government granted licenses for marriages. Incorrect legal interpretation of marriage laws have led granting institutions to not apply marriage licenses to same sex partners. Greater and ubiquitous interpretation of marriage laws to cease excluding same sex marriages has happened in these recent supreme court rulings. In other words, Homosexual marriage became a right at the same time heterosexual marriage became a right (in the united states), we just realize it now.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 1st, 2015, 2:49 pm
by Sircoth
SciameriKen » July 1st, 2015, 1:30 pm wrote:
Sircoth » Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:05 pm wrote:Indeed, as was homosexual marriage.

So we are agreed that there is no legal right to just any contract, so again I ask: can you (or mtbturtle) demonstrate that this 'right to homosexual marriage' existed (before the favourable rulings, of course)?


The 'right to homosexual marriage' became a legal right the moment the government granted licenses for marriages. Incorrect legal interpretation of marriage laws have led granting institutions to not apply marriage licenses to same sex partners. Greater and ubiquitous interpretation of marriage laws to cease excluding same sex marriages has happened in these recent supreme court rulings. In other words, Homosexual marriage became a right at the same time heterosexual marriage became a right (in the united states), we just realize it now.

Which marriage laws were incorrectly interpreted and how were they misapplied?

And suppose a future ruling of the Supreme Court reversed its latest decision. Do we then realise that such a right never existed?

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 1st, 2015, 3:16 pm
by SciameriKen
Sircoth » Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:49 pm wrote:
SciameriKen » July 1st, 2015, 1:30 pm wrote:
Sircoth » Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:05 pm wrote:Indeed, as was homosexual marriage.

So we are agreed that there is no legal right to just any contract, so again I ask: can you (or mtbturtle) demonstrate that this 'right to homosexual marriage' existed (before the favourable rulings, of course)?


The 'right to homosexual marriage' became a legal right the moment the government granted licenses for marriages. Incorrect legal interpretation of marriage laws have led granting institutions to not apply marriage licenses to same sex partners. Greater and ubiquitous interpretation of marriage laws to cease excluding same sex marriages has happened in these recent supreme court rulings. In other words, Homosexual marriage became a right at the same time heterosexual marriage became a right (in the united states), we just realize it now.

Which marriage laws were incorrectly interpreted and how were they misapplied?

And suppose a future ruling of the Supreme Court reversed its latest decision. Do we then realise that such a right never existed?



Which marriage laws? Anytime a homosexual couple attempted to marry and were denied, and/or any attempt by government entities to establish laws further defining existing marriage laws to exclude same sex partners.

And to answer your second question - yes. Once the language of the law is written then interpretation of what the words mean is the actual effect on society. Courts only alter the interpretation of the law, therefore if such a reversal happens, then yes, then the interpretation of the marriage law is that same sex couples are excluded from those for whom the law applies.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 1st, 2015, 5:25 pm
by TheVat
I think there may be a mild confusing of meanings of "right" here - I took Turtle et al. to be stating an ethical position rather than honing a legal definition. Often, what someone construes as the right thing to do may be at odds with present law. People marching on Selma were asserting something about the philosophic good, not just analyzing legal structures. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." and so on. Sircoth, what is the opinion you are itching to share here? Life is short.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 9:30 am
by Sircoth
Braininvat » July 1st, 2015, 4:25 pm wrote: Sircoth, what is the opinion you are itching to share here? Life is short.

Well, in line with (what I took to be) the general culture of being able to demonstrate what is asserted (eg. 'We seek to provide a forum for you to explore your ideas. However, it is expected that you be willing to explain why you believe what you believe. Preaching, dogmatic assertions, circular arguments, rambling and other forms of unresponsive speech are not consistent with the ideal of ongoing discourse'), since mbturtle claimed that certain 'rights' were denied, I was wondering if he was willing and able to demonstrate the existence of these invisible, intangible things.

I think there may be a mild confusing of meanings of "right" here - I took Turtle et al. to be stating an ethical position rather than honing a legal definition.

As I stated in my first post, "I suppose you're talking about 'natural' rights". However, as CanadysPeak wanted to discuss legal rights I was happy to oblige.


Often, what someone construes as the right thing to do may be at odds with present law. People marching on Selma were asserting something about the philosophic good, not just analyzing legal structures. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." and so on.

Quite. But if you're talking about natural rights, (as above) I'm interested if the existence of these intangible, imperceptible, invisible (etc etc) things can be demonstrated.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 9:38 am
by Sircoth
SciameriKen » July 1st, 2015, 2:16 pm wrote:
Sircoth » Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:49 pm wrote:Which marriage laws were incorrectly interpreted and how were they misapplied?

And suppose a future ruling of the Supreme Court reversed its latest decision. Do we then realise that such a right never existed?



Which marriage laws? Anytime a homosexual couple attempted to marry and were denied, and/or any attempt by government entities to establish laws further defining existing marriage laws to exclude same sex partners.

I'm not sure how marriage laws defining marriage to be between a man and a woman (for example) can be misapplied in this manner. Again, I request that you provide specific examples.

And to answer your second question - yes. Once the language of the law is written then interpretation of what the words mean is the actual effect on society. Courts only alter the interpretation of the law, therefore if such a reversal happens, then yes, then the interpretation of the marriage law is that same sex couples are excluded from those for whom the law applies.

I do agree that from the alteration onwards whether a legal right exists depends on the change. However, it does not seem to me plausible in any way that whether a legal right existed in the past is dependent on future interpretations on the law; it seems eminently clear to me that the law (and the ruling interpretation) at that time determines whether a legal right existed precisely at that point of time, no more and no less.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 10:24 am
by TheVat
Sirc, thanks for clarifying and hope we can pin down the rather abstract ontology of a natural right as you suggest. (when a newbie homes in on a hot-button issue, sometimes it turns out they have a big axe to grind....forgive my moment of moderator paranoia)

And welcome!

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 10:33 am
by mtbturtle
Sircoth » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:30 am wrote:
Braininvat » July 1st, 2015, 4:25 pm wrote: Sircoth, what is the opinion you are itching to share here? Life is short.

Well, in line with (what I took to be) the general culture of being able to demonstrate what is asserted (eg. 'We seek to provide a forum for you to explore your ideas. However, it is expected that you be willing to explain why you believe what you believe. Preaching, dogmatic assertions, circular arguments, rambling and other forms of unresponsive speech are not consistent with the ideal of ongoing discourse'), since mbturtle claimed that certain 'rights' were denied, I was wondering if he was willing and able to demonstrate the existence of these invisible, intangible things.


If you expect me to produce some visible, tangible "thing" then you already know the answer and what would be acceptable to you on those terms. I don't think you are interested in discussing Natural Rights or legal rights at all and I'm not interested in playing with you either.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 10:39 am
by mtbturtle
A discussion of natural rights vs legal rights also belongs in its own thread - if people intend to pursue this topic please start another thread.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 11:05 am
by Sircoth
Braininvat » July 5th, 2015, 9:24 am wrote:Sirc, thanks for clarifying and hope we can pin down the rather abstract ontology of a natural right as you suggest. (when a newbie homes in on a hot-button issue, sometimes it turns out they have a big axe to grind....forgive my moment of moderator paranoia)

And welcome!

Thanks! I'll try to be clearer next time.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 11:16 am
by Sircoth
mtbturtle » July 5th, 2015, 9:33 am wrote:
Sircoth » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:30 am wrote:
Braininvat » July 1st, 2015, 4:25 pm wrote: Sircoth, what is the opinion you are itching to share here? Life is short.

Well, in line with (what I took to be) the general culture of being able to demonstrate what is asserted (eg. 'We seek to provide a forum for you to explore your ideas. However, it is expected that you be willing to explain why you believe what you believe. Preaching, dogmatic assertions, circular arguments, rambling and other forms of unresponsive speech are not consistent with the ideal of ongoing discourse'), since mbturtle claimed that certain 'rights' were denied, I was wondering if he was willing and able to demonstrate the existence of these invisible, intangible things.


If you expect me to produce some visible, tangible "thing" then you already know the answer and what would be acceptable to you on those terms. I don't think you are interested in discussing Natural Rights or legal rights at all and I'm not interested in playing with you either.

Clearly, I'm not asking you to produce some visible, tangible "things", but evidence that these invisible and intangible these things exist (such as how evidence can be produced for the existence of invisible, intangible neutrinos.)

Now, it's one thing to assert that it is a basic axiom in one's moral system that X exists, but it's quite another to denounce others as "hateful" for denying a right to some people, yet refusing to demonstrate that this right exists in the first place. So if you could be so kind, please explain your position.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 11:58 am
by TheVat
 I don't think you are interested in discussing Natural Rights or legal rights at all and I'm not interested in playing with you either.


This surprises me. I think his philosophic intentions are genuine.

I agree this could be split off into a separate thread.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 12:04 pm
by mtbturtle
Biv, The answer is no I have no evidence to offer along the lines of neutrinos that rights of any kind exist.

edit: But I didn't say anything about natural rights - you can read my previous statement as denying natural rights or legal rights over a quibble with a dictionary to be hateful - I don't see how it makes much difference.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 12:16 pm
by zetreque
I agree that this could be split off into a new thread.

Perhaps it is a mutual agreement. If we use nature as an example. A male may pursue a female or the other way around, but it is the one being pursued to allow them to come together. In other words, we all have the right to "pursue" a partner, and that potential partner should also have the right to fight back or get rid of that person pursuing them. In the human legal world, that's where you get into laws about stalkers and court restraining orders. When it comes to being together. They also both have the right to choose to spend time together (be it same sex or not or any combination) and make an agreement or contract between one another to be together. That is where it then becomes a legal issue and not a philosophical issue of what rights we hold.

Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 12:24 pm
by TheVat
Well, I suppose one line of evidence might come from observing that people are happier and have fewer psychological problems when they feel they are being treated equally to their fellow citizens. When we are free to do as others do, and feel accepted by others, our response is a feeling of pleasure. I am directing this response towards the question of what is a natural right.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 12:25 pm
by Sircoth
mtbturtle » July 5th, 2015, 11:04 am wrote:Biv, The answer is no I have no evidence to offer along the lines of neutrinos that rights of any kind exist.

Then I am puzzled: if you can't demonstrate that such [natural] rights exist, how do you expect others to believe they do? On what basis then do you accuse them of being 'hateful' or 'bigots' for preventing others from exerting/possessing these invisible, intangible 'rights' which you can't even demonstrate exist?

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 12:35 pm
by Sircoth
zetreque » July 5th, 2015, 11:16 am wrote:I agree that this could be split off into a new thread.

As I'm new I'm not sure about the practice here but I'm fine with splitting the discussion off.

Perhaps it is a mutual agreement. If we use nature as an example. A male may pursue a female or the other way around, but it is the one being pursued to allow them to come together. In other words, we all have the right to "pursue" a partner, and that potential partner should also have the right to fight back or get rid of that person pursuing them. In the human legal world, that's where you get into laws about stalkers and court restraining orders. When it comes to being together. They also both have the right to choose to spend time together (be it same sex or not or any combination) and make an agreement or contract between one another to be together. That is where it then becomes a legal issue and not a philosophical issue of what rights we hold.

Well, marriage is not merely a contract between the two involved parties; two males already had the ability to make mutual agreements/legal contracts about ownership and disposition of shared property, for example. What is also desired are also (amongst other things, including social recognition) certain benefits a third party - the government gives to the married couple.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 12:46 pm
by CanadysPeak
Sircoth » Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:30 am wrote:
Braininvat » July 1st, 2015, 4:25 pm wrote: Sircoth, what is the opinion you are itching to share here? Life is short.

Well, in line with (what I took to be) the general culture of being able to demonstrate what is asserted (eg. 'We seek to provide a forum for you to explore your ideas. However, it is expected that you be willing to explain why you believe what you believe. Preaching, dogmatic assertions, circular arguments, rambling and other forms of unresponsive speech are not consistent with the ideal of ongoing discourse'), since mbturtle claimed that certain 'rights' were denied, I was wondering if he was willing and able to demonstrate the existence of these invisible, intangible things.

I think there may be a mild confusing of meanings of "right" here - I took Turtle et al. to be stating an ethical position rather than honing a legal definition.

As I stated in my first post, "I suppose you're talking about 'natural' rights". However, as CanadysPeak wanted to discuss legal rights I was happy to oblige.


Often, what someone construes as the right thing to do may be at odds with present law. People marching on Selma were asserting something about the philosophic good, not just analyzing legal structures. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." and so on.

Quite. But if you're talking about natural rights, (as above) I'm interested if the existence of these intangible, imperceptible, invisible (etc etc) things can be demonstrated.

I did not want to discuss legal rights. We were discussing a SCOTUS decision, so the Constitution was relevant. Many scholars understand the Constitution to be informed by, if not based on, common law. Common law, in most minds, grants the right of contract to all.
Common law rights are not legal rights. Legal rights are those given a citizen by the government. Common law rights have long been recognized as being inherent, derived from human nature. If you believe in the existence of kindness, decency, honesty, then you believe in human nature, and natural rights are understood to be derived from human nature. Indeed, if you have ever used the word anthropomorphic, you have shown a belief in human nature and, thus, natural rights.
You, sir, are trolling.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 5th, 2015, 12:50 pm
by mtbturtle
Sircoth » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:25 am wrote:
mtbturtle » July 5th, 2015, 11:04 am wrote:Biv, The answer is no I have no evidence to offer along the lines of neutrinos that rights of any kind exist.

Then I am puzzled: if you can't demonstrate that such [natural] rights exist, how do you expect others to believe they do? On what basis then do you accuse them of being 'hateful' or 'bigots' for preventing others from exerting/possessing these invisible, intangible 'rights' which you can't even demonstrate exist?


I can consider them hateful for denying them any kind of rights, legal or natural, makes no difference, and that is what they have been doing and would rather have continued. The language I was referring to was specifically hateful. Demonizing gays by associating them with illegals another stigmatized group and freeloaders an obviously pejorative term, accusing them of destroying the American Dream and tyrannizing people is hateful language.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 6th, 2015, 1:18 pm
by Sircoth
CanadysPeak » July 5th, 2015, 11:46 am wrote:I did not want to discuss legal rights. We were discussing a SCOTUS decision, so the Constitution was relevant. Many scholars understand the Constitution to be informed by, if not based on, common law. Common law, in most minds, grants the right of contract to all.

As above, the Constitution is based on common law but does not include all of it; it does not grant the right of contract to all.

Common law rights are not legal rights.

The rights given under a law are not legal...right.

Common law rights have long been recognized as being inherent, derived from human nature. If you believe in the existence of kindness, decency, honesty, then you believe in human nature, and natural rights are understood to be derived from human nature. Indeed, if you have ever used the word anthropomorphic, you have shown a belief in human nature and, thus, natural rights.
You, sir, are trolling.

You, sir, are master of the non sequitur.

Re: Supreme Court upholds Marriage Equality

PostPosted: July 6th, 2015, 1:20 pm
by Sircoth
mtbturtle » July 5th, 2015, 11:50 am wrote:I can consider them hateful for denying them any kind of rights, legal or natural, makes no difference, and that is what they have been doing and would rather have continued.

Convenient polemic, but of course, since you're not willing to show that the rights existed in the first place, you can't even demonstrate the denial of the rights so you're just talking off your head.

Re: Sircoth's natural, legal rights

PostPosted: July 6th, 2015, 2:32 pm
by mtbturtle
Yah anti-gay marriage groups weren't denying any rights.

Re: Sircoth's natural, legal rights

PostPosted: July 8th, 2015, 1:28 pm
by TheVat
Sirc, I feel like you are striving to win on a technicality while the essential nature of humans is being disregarded. People like to be free to carry on with their lives and be allowed to do so -- the basic criterion most of us develop by the time we are teens is this: if it does no harm to others or abridge their freedoms, then it should be okay. It might not be good for us, but that is, again, a basic part of human nature: we like being adults, we like the idea that we can drive cars real fast, drink alcohol, skip the broccoli portion of the meal, have sex with attractive people we've only just met, perform unspeakable acts in the boudoir, and not have a Big Brother telling us to stop being naughty or foolish or whatever. If we do decide that such acts are naughty/foolish/unhealthy, we want to make the decision of our own accord and not be coerced. So, why not let people do what they want, if it causes you no harm? Some of the examples I gave actually do carry the potential to harm others, e.g. combining the fast driving and the alcohol consumption, but I can't really see how two gay people falling in love and getting marries does the SLIGHTEST harm to you. Or to anyone. So, however you construe rights, why block this particular one, especially when there are other rights that do carry the potential for harm? Don't overthink this - I am making a very simple point about what lies in the heart of human beings enjoying that heady rush of becoming adults.

Re: Sircoth's natural, legal rights

PostPosted: July 9th, 2015, 6:40 pm
by Sircoth
Braininvat » July 8th, 2015, 12:28 pm wrote:Sirc, I feel like you are striving to win on a technicality

I was under the impression that this was a philosophy forum.

Seriously now, I will address the argument that's being presented, and if it's "herp-derp you're denying rights but I can't even show that the rights even exist in the first place" I will address it.

while the essential nature of humans is being disregarded. People like to be free to carry on with their lives and be allowed to do so -- the basic criterion most of us develop by the time we are teens is this: if it does no harm to others or abridge their freedoms, then it should be okay. It might not be good for us, but that is, again, a basic part of human nature: we like being adults, we like the idea that we can drive cars real fast, drink alcohol, skip the broccoli portion of the meal, have sex with attractive people we've only just met, perform unspeakable acts in the boudoir, and not have a Big Brother telling us to stop being naughty or foolish or whatever. If we do decide that such acts are naughty/foolish/unhealthy, we want to make the decision of our own accord and not be coerced. So, why not let people do what they want, if it causes you no harm? Some of the examples I gave actually do carry the potential to harm others, e.g. combining the fast driving and the alcohol consumption, but I can't really see how two gay people falling in love and getting marries does the SLIGHTEST harm to you. Or to anyone. So, however you construe rights, why block this particular one, especially when there are other rights that do carry the potential for harm? Don't overthink this - I am making a very simple point about what lies in the heart of human beings enjoying that heady rush of becoming adults.

I am of two minds on how to approach this; there is the route pointing out that the 'harm principle' is hardly neutral since it presupposes a certain construal of harm, but I can very easily point out that two gay people can fall in love and make all the contracts they want without demanding that the contract be recognised as 'marriage' and that a third party - the government - must accord them the benefits afforded to marriage.

So it's certainly not the simplistic 'let me do as I like' but 'you - society in general, through the government - should do as I like.

And could you please move this thread to the Politics subforum, please? It would be much appreciated.

Re: Sircoth's natural, legal rights

PostPosted: July 9th, 2015, 7:08 pm
by mtbturtle
Sircoth » Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:40 pm wrote:
Braininvat » July 8th, 2015, 12:28 pm wrote:Sirc, I feel like you are striving to win on a technicality

I was under the impression that this was a philosophy forum.

Seriously now, I will address the argument that's being presented, and if it's "herp-derp you're denying rights but I can't even show that the rights even exist in the first place" I will address it.


why have you ignored CanadysPeak comments?
And could you please move this thread to the Politics subforum, please? It would be much appreciated.


No.