What is to prevent any 'abused' group from following the Gay marriage example?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

We have no rights outside of government. It grants us whatever rights it feels we should have. Try to say you have a 'right' to free speech in a country like the PRC. See how that works.

cmon now, you gotta do better than that. just because the PRC infrignes on that right, doesnt mean it dont exist.

[Wittlich]

Nope. I think it's a great series...very entertaining.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think those people would disagree with you. Rights are a product of social consensus, not a governmental entity. Rights existed in societies long before government institutions ever appeared. The entire purpose of forming gorvernment initially was to protect rights already accepted by the society.

Social consensus and government entity invariable end up as the same thing... if not sooner than later. I doubt that 'rights' existed in non-governmental societies. After all, who would enforce these 'rights'? The whole idea of rights requires an enforcement mechanism. To say the government was formed to protect the rights accepted by society is to misunderstand what rights are. 'Rights' which cannot be enforced aren't rights at all.

A government doesn't necessarily determine what rights are enjoyed by the masses. It is, in the end, social values that do so, and there are plenty of times when government contradicts accepted social values.

And yet, you don't have the right to do something unless the government allows it. Social values in San Francisco could be one thing, but if the government says no, then you have no right to it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And yet, you don't have the right to do something unless the government allows it. Social values in San Francisco could be one thing, but if the government says no, then you have no right to it.

see my last post.

[Imran Siddiqui]

just because the PRC infrignes on that right, doesnt mean it dont exist.

Of course it does. In a non-free speech granting state (to prevent UR from coming in and turning this into a China thread) the right to free speech does not exist.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

no. the right exists, the government is coercing individuals not to excercise it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the right exists, the government is coercing individuals not to excercise it.

No, the right does not exist, because the government hasn't granted it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Social consensus and government entity invariable end up as the same thing... if not sooner than later.

Only when governments are based on social consensus. Dictatorships are not based thus, and saying they will invariably come to that consensus is simply false.

I doubt that 'rights' existed in non-governmental societies. After all, who would enforce these 'rights'? The whole idea of rights requires an enforcement mechanism.

They did, ask any anthropologist. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about here.

Enforcement of rights was handled collectively. For instance, in Germanic tribes, you had the blood feud as a particularly violent way of "enforcing" rights. The threat of initiating a blood feud was a potent way of keeping one respectful of the rights of others. It frequently failed, mind you, but it was still an example of the recognition of such rights.

To say the government was formed to protect the rights accepted by society is to misunderstand what rights are. 'Rights' which cannot be enforced aren't rights at all.

I think you are the one under the misunderstanding of what a "right" is, not me. Rights supercede government recognition of them. You're confusing "right" with "legality," and they aren't the same.

And yet, you don't have the right to do something unless the government allows it. Social values in San Francisco could be one thing, but if the government says no, then you have no right to it.

Again, you're confusing "right" and "legality." We as a society determine what is right and wrong, not the government. The government is solely a mechanism of enforcing laws, it determines nothing in terms of what is or isn't right. People do that. The Founding Fathers, when creating the Constitution, were not magically creating rights out of thin air. They were codifying what their society already believed were rights and had for which they had fought against English law several years beforehand.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No, the right does not exist, because the government hasn't granted it.

no. the state is an artificial entity, as is nationality. if you were born in france 2500 years ago, you would be called Gaulois. now you are called french. what is the difference between those people, besides the clan name (totally invented) and the government (the mechanism for a clan to operate) either way, the state is artifical, and thus not natural. therefore, it cannot grant natural rights, or any rights at all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dictatorships are not based thus

That is true... and in a dictorship, social consensus of rights are irrelevent. They won't be realized and the 'right' isn't given.

Enforcement of rights was handled collectively. For instance, in Germanic tribes, you had the blood feud as a particularly violent way of "enforcing" rights. The threat of initiating a blood feud was a potent way of keeping one respectful of the rights of others.

So there was a governmental entity, ie, tribal laws. Tribes have governmental structures too you know? I think we may be confusing terms. I consider tribal councils, and any attempt at societal law making to be governing and thus run by a government. Perhaps in this case it is a direct democracy tribal form of government, but still government.

Rights supercede government recognition of them. You're confusing "right" with "legality," and they aren't the same.

Rights are granted by government and thus are underthem. All 'Rights' must be legal. If something ain't legal, it ain't a right.

We as a society determine what is right and wrong, not the government.

Actually the government decides what is right and wrong. In a democratic regime, society is the determiner (because it runs the government). In a dictatorship, the dictator determines what is right and wrong and society follow. If it doesn't like it, society can overthrow government and make up its own newer rights.

The Founding Fathers, when creating the Constitution, were not magically creating rights out of thin air. They were codifying what their society already believed were rights and had for which they had fought against English law several years beforehand.

The Founding Fathers were taking the rights people already had under the England and also creating new rights from the writings and posings of others. After all, how many in the society believed a freedom of religion was a 'right'? Seeing has how many states had established Churches in 1789, I'd say not many.

the state is an artificial entity, as is nationality.

As are rights.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

As are rights.

no, rights are called natural rights, because they arnt artificial, they exist for everyone.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Does the land of Oz allow governments to pick and choose which laws they will and will not follow?

Basically yes - you have to try really really hard to get chucked in jail for anything. Even a bank robbery on first offence will only get you probation and a stern talking to from the judge.

[DinoDoc]

/me makes plans to go to Oz

[Alexander's Horse]

The real issue on gay marriage here is legal rights on things like mortage loans, insurance payouts, power of attorney, pensions etc. Gay partners get no say and decisions like whether the life support machine should be turned off are made by relatives who in many cases are distant. The blood relatives also get inheritances, which can leave the gay partner homeless after many years of cohabitation.

I know the "ordained by God" crowd don't agree with this but marriage is basically a property contract and it seems unfair that life partners of gays are cut out of life decisions by hetero marriage laws. So I think most Australians don't have a problem with gays getting a marriage licence - even if they might not really believe they are married in the same way a hetero couple are (God help us).

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

But all individuals have access to the system. No individual is prevented from getting married.

Sixth time posting this lame argument.