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

[Aeson]

If you want to argue with dictionaries GePap, go ahead. I don't define the terms, and only ask that more nebulous terms be qualified correctly when you are debating.

All you have to do is say "legal rights" instead of rights and no one (sane) is going to argue with you on the point that legal rights are derived by laws. When you claim all rights are only legal you are arguing definition of terms with a dictionary.

[GePap]

Your own dictionary speaks against you:

That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.

That is the first definition: and what does it mention? The law, twice (legal, just), and based on morality (morally good, proper), and morality is defined by a society itself. For example, in Tenochtitlan, human sacrifice was "just, morally good, legal and proper". NOT in Madrid at the same time.

A just or legal claim or title.

Again, the law.

The question is this, is there any 'right' which you have that the government will not give you? There is no 'right' for gay marriage because the government has not given it. How can you have a right if you cannot do the thing you think you have a right to?

How on earth can gay "not marry"? That is nonsense. Of course gays have the ability to marry. They can take vows. they can consumate the marriage. They can not have children, but then, is that a fundamental part of your definiton of marriage?

[Aeson]

The question is this, is there any 'right' which you have that the government will not give you?

Right to revolution. (oh, you mean governments have never been overthrown?) Right to my own thoughts. Right to die. Try to refute the last one by making me immortal through law.

You say government defines rights because it has the power to do so. Well guess what? It doesn't have all power. You are still trying to make government into God. I have individual power, so do you, so do we all. While it may pale in comparison to that which people have givin to government, is still power, and as such I have a relative ability to define rights myself.

Government's power is only what the people give it. Some people can give while others refuse, and whichever faction has more power will determine the fate of the government.

[Aeson]

GePap, you will notice I never said legal rights do not exist. I am arguing that there are other rights. As such, who cares if the definition includes legal rights? The issue is if it includes other forms of rights, which it does.

[Elok]

I'm confused. Are you guys arguing about something, or arguing about what exactly it is you're arguing about? Never has so much explicit definition had so little effect on clarity.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The Confederacy.

Yes, because we all know that preservation of slavery is a justifiable principle to use nullification.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They don't have these rights actually. B could decide he's stronger than A and C and enslave or kill them both. A & C had no rights, especially not to speak their minds, because B could shut them up if he wanted to. Only when A, B, & C agreed that they had a 'right' to speak their minds did they get that right. Before that, it was an anything goes situation where anyone else could easily prevent free speech (a 2x4 to the head is effective to stop that).

You have it backwards. B has the natural right to enslave or kill A and C in your scenario. A and C have rights to (run, fight back as best they can, try to talk it out, ect.), but they may be short lived if B exercises his.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Right to revolution. (oh, you mean governments have never been overthrown?) Right to my own thoughts. Right to die. Try to refute the last one by making me immortal through law.

None of these 'rights' exist. You don't have a 'right' to revolution. You can revolt, of course, but you don't have right to (you could be put down). You don't have a right to your own thoughts, you could be killed. You don't have a right to die, you could be kept on machines living who knows how long.

None are rights. Simply because you can do something does not make it a right. Ability does not translate into right. As GePap said, you don't have a right to eat. You don't have a right to pee. You have the ability to do so, doesn't make it a right.

Individuals do not have the power of rightmaking authority. Legal rights are not seperate from 'rights'. They are one and the same. Natural rights do not exist. They are simply a fiction created by people disastifed by their government and wanting people to replace it one the writer likes better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

B has the natural right to enslave or kill A and C in your scenario.

No he doesn't. B has the ability to kill A and C, but not the right to. No authority has given him the right to do so. In a situation with no authority, there exist no rights - no one can claim any right against another.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

sure, come on over elijah, and explain what gives you the right to decide what I do as long as I dont stop anyone else from living their lives

[GePap]

Originally posted by Aeson
GePap, you will notice I never said legal rights do not exist. I am arguing that there are other rights. As such, who cares if the definition includes legal rights? The issue is if it includes other forms of rights, which it does.

All rights are legal-if a right is not legal it does not exist.

For exmaple, if you travel to China, you have no right of free speech, becuase Chinese law does not grant you that right there.

I know you are arguing that there are rights above those the law gives. I think you are wrong. No such things as natural rights.

[Elok]

I'm not Elijah, but the main argument is getting damnably tautological, so why not. Where do "rights" come from, LoA? How exactly do you define "rights?"

[Lawrence of Arabia]

look at it this way - government cannot exist without the individual, but the individual can exist without government. therefore, the government has no power to grant rights, only to enforce them, just as individuals have no power to grant rights, only to adhere by them.

[Elok]

Oh no, I'm agreeing with GePap. Somebody mention God so we can settle into our accustomed pattern of bickering.

[Imran Siddiqui]

government cannot exist without the individual, but the individual can exist without government.

Add another layer... rights cannot exist without government.

the government has no power to grant rights, only to enforce them, just as individuals have no power to grant rights, only to adhere by them.

So who/what grants rights if government and individuals cannot do so?