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

[bipolarbear]

good point mindseye

[Elok]

Hmm. Government is an artificial construct, yes, but then so is the society that "rights" might proceed from. Why do they *absolutely* exist as something more than an abstraction, like etiquette or dietary habits?

[Az]

omg, it's the libertarian "rights exist because I say so" argument all over again. Be strong, Imran.

[DinoDoc]

You're all missing the point. The real issue of this thread isn't if gay marriage is correct or not. The issue is if you believe that a person who controls the machinery of governement has the right to engage in civil disobedience. I don't.

[Aeson]

Government has absolutely no power without the backing of people. In fact it doesn't even exist with no people to back it. As such it can't define rights, only people can. If they define these rights through government, then so be it, but government isn't the driving force. Government isn't the only way to define rights.

Each individual defines their own set of rights that they wish for themselves and are willing to allow others. Then those with the strength (either internal or through orgainization with others) to enforce those rights dictate what is acceptable behavior and what will be punished. Even then each individual still has the right to ignore those boundaries and face the consequences (or overturn the system). Yes, this definition and policing tends to be done through government in most cases, but it still doesn't change the underlying nature of government.

Government is there to serve the will of people. Not the majority numerically, but the majority from a power/influence/will standpoint.

[GePap]

The issue is if you believe that a person who controls the machinery of governement has the right to engage in civil disobedience. I don't.

I do. Any citizen can engage in civil disobedience unless their oath of office forbids it. NOW, as far as mayors marrying gay couples- if they are doing it becuase they interpret the law one way-that is fine up and until a court finds against them-once the courts have ruled their interpretation of the law is wrong, they can not continue to act, given that their oaths of office forbid them from breaking the law.

Back to GM:

The only reason I hear for gays to be treated fundamentally different is that by definition a gay couple can not procreate, and thus, without a third party is unable to biologically initiate a family:

There are 4 main objections for me to this:

1. The ones Ming always bring up about those who are infertile marrying

2.Once a marriage has gone beyond having children, what is the point of it then?

3. Why do only biological families count? gays can adopt and raise children unwated by others or orphaned

4. Polygamous and Polyandrous marriages are just fine for procreation and beginning new families-what is the arguement vs them?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap

The issue is if you believe that a person who controls the machinery of governement has the right to engage in civil disobedience. I don't.

I do. Any citizen can engage in civil disobedience unless their oath of office forbids it. NOW, as far as mayors marrying gay couples- if they are doing it becuase they interpret the law one way-that is fine up and until a court finds against them-once the courts have ruled their interpretation of the law is wrong, they can not continue to act, given that their oaths of office forbid them from breaking the law.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A precedent may be set that if certain localities don't agree with a law they can try to ignore it and wait for it to be vindicated by the courts. The nullification argument, which we though was struck down by Andy Jackson and the Civil War seems to be back... and it could be a very scary thing (imagine a city that decides the assault weapons ban is violating the 2nd amendment, etc).

[GePap]

Ignoring a law and interpreting a law differently are, well, distinct.

IF the state constituion fails to say ; "marriage is only between one man and one woman", or if it has clauses saying "the state shall treat all citizens equally", then a locality can always argue:

Given that the state does not explicitly prohibit homosexual marriages AND it calls for equal treatment for all individual under the law, then why can;t we issue same sex marriages as the civil authority?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel
omg, it's the libertarian "rights exist because I say so" argument all over again. Be strong, Imran.

That's not my argument, my argument is that Imran is being silly by saying rights derive from the government. They don't, they derive from the people.

A perfect example of where Imran's "logic" breaks down is that he asserts that the people have no right that the government can forcibly deny them. But what about then the government is toothless and can't enforce the laws? If the people have the power to assert a right and the government is powerless to stop them, even though the said right is technically "illegal," then the notion that government determines rights falls flat on its face.

We have copious examples from history of the people asserting rights against government fiat, and the people winning out. Ergo, the "might makes right" argument flips to the people having the might, not the government. And that means government itself does not determine rights. It merely embodies them, when the government happens to converge with the societal concepts of rights.

Rights are not just legal concepts, as any dictionary will tell you, as they also embody more ephemeral concepts of justice and morality. Government does not determine right and wrong in a societal sense, it simply does its best (in cases of popularly-mandated governments) to embody what society already believes into a civil code. A good example of this is lying. But it's only illegal in very strict circumstances, such as perjury or fraud. Someone going around telling white lies isn't breaking any laws. Yet it is immoral to lie in our society, (almost) anyone will tell you that. So wherein does the morality derive, if not from the government? Society, simple as that.

[GePap]

Of course righst stem from the government, or better said, the legal system we built. "The People" did not extend civil rights, the government did. "The people" can be selfish, biggoted, racist, a hunrded other things- rights are not based on the passing opinions of passing individuals, but form the general system created to uphold and perpetuate the system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

rights are called natural rights, because they arnt artificial, they exist for everyone.

Really? Who gave these 'natural rights'?

A perfect example of where Imran's "logic" breaks down is that he asserts that the people have no right that the government can forcibly deny them. But what about then the government is toothless and can't enforce the laws? If the people have the power to assert a right and the government is powerless to stop them, even though the said right is technically "illegal," then the notion that government determines rights falls flat on its face.

Even if the government cannot stop certain people from doing things, which they say are their 'right', it doesn't mean that the people have actually asserted a right. As GePap said, the govenment/legal system we have created is the ONLY way rights can come into being. Anything else (groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) is simply the opinion of certain people.

We have copious examples from history of the people asserting rights against government fiat, and the people winning out.

And the 'right' did not exist until the people won out... until the government acknowledged and granted said right. Before then, the people wanted the government to grant the right... if the government crushed the mob, then would that right have been said to exist? Probably not.

rights are not based on the passing opinions of passing individuals, but form the general system created to uphold and perpetuate the system.

Indeed

A few individuals clamoring that they have a 'right' to X doesn't make it a right. When the government/legal system enshrines it, THEN, and only then does it become a right.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Even if the government cannot stop certain people from doing things, which they say are their 'right', it doesn't mean that the people have actually asserted a right.

This contradicts what you said earlier. You asserted that the reason government determined rights was via force, i.e. if you can't resist the government's compelling you, you don't have the right.

Again, this argument fails when one considers a people asserting a right successfully that the government has contradicted with law but is powerless to enforce. If you believe that government determines rights via force, you have to be consistent and say the people have the same power. When you acknowledge that, it's clear rights don't therefore derive from the government.

As GePap said, the govenment/legal system we have created is the ONLY way rights can come into being. Anything else (groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) is simply the opinion of certain people.

And this is wrong, as government is just ONE method which societies have established a protection of rights THEY ALREADY BELIEVED EXISTED. Primitive tribes with no form of government or legal code still had acknowledged rights of their peoples, because their society said so.

And the 'right' did not exist until the people won out... until the government acknowledged and granted said right. Before then, the people wanted the government to grant the right... if the government crushed the mob, then would that right have been said to exist? Probably not.

And this is simply a twisting of the definition of the word "right" to mean what is legal, which is not the true definition. It is not solely confined to what is legal, it also encompasses what is traditional, moral and just, and these are social values, not governmental.

This is just devolving into a "uh-huh, nun-huh" argument, as usual, because you're standing by a false definition of the word.

A few individuals clamoring that they have a 'right' to X doesn't make it a right. When the government/legal system enshrines it, THEN, and only then does it become a right.

We're not talking about a few individuals, we're talking about a majority of society. This is just a strawman.

[Aeson]

As GePap said, the govenment/legal system we have created is the ONLY way rights can come into being. Anything else (groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) is simply the opinion of certain people.

And the government determined rights are different how? The government is only a tool for the people (read: "groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) to define rights for people.

Easiest way to understand the concept is to imagine a hypothetical government with no people, derived from no input by the people, and see how many rights it dictates to the people. Rights are inherently derived from the opinion of the people, regardless of the system they develop to protect and enforce those rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You asserted that the reason government determined rights was via force, i.e. if you can't resist the government's compelling you, you don't have the right.

The 'i.e' is incorrect. You don't have the right unless the government sanctions it. Plenty of 'rights' aren't compelling rights, but empowering rights.

one considers a people asserting a right successfully that the government has contradicted with law but is powerless to enforce.

Then it isn't a right. The people cannot assert a right without government backing... sorry.

Primitive tribes with no form of government or legal code still had acknowledged rights of their peoples, because their society said so.

'Because their society said so' indicates a governmental structure or legal code. Who decided these 'rights'? A council? Isn't that a governmental structure?

And this is simply a twisting of the definition of the word "right" to mean what is legal, which is not the true definition.

Rights are only legal creatures. They do not exist outside the law.

This is just devolving into a "uh-huh, nun-huh" argument, as usual, because you're standing by a false definition of the word.

The 'false definition' is to believe that rights exist without government sanction. There is no right to free speech unless the government says you have it. There is no right to life unless the government grants it to you. If the government can take away what you consider your 'rights' then it isn't really a right at all, is it?

we're talking about a majority of society.

And if they don't have power over the government, then they can't assert rights. The only way they can assert rights is if they get the government to change its tune.

The government is only a tool for the people (read: "groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) to define rights for people.

Ah, so you admit that government defines rights. GOOD, you are on the correct part .

Rights are inherently derived from the opinion of the people

Only those people in charge... ie, the government. And there is NO inherent rights. They are simply legal creations. No one is born with inherant rights.. they only get them because of what their government has given them. For example, a child in the US has more rights than a child in China.

[GePap]

The "right" not to be enslaved was not given by the people but by one government-and what was the legitimacy of that action? The legitimacy was granted by the pre-existing system
If people have a problem with the word government, the fact is then that The Legitimate Legal Authority, be ithighly structured or not, is what gives rights. Without a Legitimate Legal Authority, there are no rights. Put three starngers together-you know what, until they get together, created a Legitimate Legal Authority amng themselves, there are no rights there.