Gay marriage to be allowed in NJ

[Liriena]

Except it does. In fact, marriage is one of the few things which most of the human civilization (with the exception of a minority of misfits) have agreed to define as a human right.

People should be allowed to marry or not marry because they choose to. The right to live your life as you choose and the right to private property respecting the right of others to do and have the same.

That's pretty darn obvious.

[IamJohnGalt]

Sure they did. What keeps a person from making medical decisions for another?

Staff at the hospital. Who aren't agents of the state. They're agents of the hospital.

Wrong track...

[IamJohnGalt]

Sure they did. What keeps a person from making medical decisions for another?

Cute. You're misconstruing legal protection to mean some sort of oppression.

This is closer...

[IamJohnGalt]

People should be allowed to marry or not marry because they choose to. The right to live your life as you choose and the right to private property respecting the right of others to do and have the same.

That's pretty darn obvious.

Exactly. Therefore marriage itself is not a right but the freedom to do so is.

[Liriena]

That's pretty darn obvious.

Exactly. Therefore marriage itself is not a right but the freedom to do so is.

... what the actual fuck?

[Genivaria]

That's pretty darn obvious.

Exactly. Therefore marriage itself is not a right but the freedom to do so is.

That makes no fucking sense.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Exactly. Therefore marriage itself is not a right but the freedom to do so is.

... what the actual fuck?

Yeah. It's amazing to watch that stretch, isn't it?

[Liriena]

... what the actual fuck?

Yeah. It's amazing to watch that stretch, isn't it?

And all of it just to namedrop "freedom" into it.

[Minarchist States]

One could say that, from a Hobbesian standpoint, all rights are privileges. After all, what should the State grant you beyond its original, primitive intentions? Food for thought.

[Genivaria]

One could say that, from a Hobbesian standpoint, all rights are privileges. After all, what should the State grant you beyond its original, primitive intentions? Food for thought.

And those are?

[Grenartia]

Except no. If marriage, as defined in the second sentence has no inherent rights, then by the same reasoning, neither does a singular person.



Meanwhile, I'm talking about things that are related to the topic of discussion, and not a fictional statement stated in what I can only assume to be some sort of pathetic attempt to threadjack.

1. If marriage is supposed to be beneficial (and thus unequal) to single persons, why should some people be afforded rights above others? Unless we actually are equal, but also unequal, and this is the matrix.

2. My comment held relevance. If the state has such a say in where our inheritance goes, why are animals inheriting fortunes? Certainly the state isn't that incompetent.

1. Marriage doesn't benefit single persons. It benefits couples. The rights associated with marriage are irrelevant to single people, and do not disadvantage them. My spouse being able to tell the doctor which medical treatment I'd want do not disadvantage you as a single person.

2. The state simply can't give your shit away to simply any person in particular, at least not without due process. The two people the state first look for, are your spouse, and your next of kin. If you have no legally recognized spouse, your property, by default, goes to your next of kin. If you have neither, it goes to the state, where it is liquidated to benefit the community as a whole. Without looking at your link, the only reason a poodle got the mansion was probably because the owner granted it ownership in their will.

[Liriena]

One could say that, from a Hobbesian standpoint, all rights are privileges. After all, what should the State grant you beyond its original, primitive intentions? Food for thought.

I've read Hobbes' Leviathan. Curiously enough, Hobbes recognized the right to defend our own life. According to him, the state had the right to kill you for whatever reason, but you had the right to attempt to escape, and the state could not force you to take your own life. Not to mention Hobbes' idea of the state was a sovereign power tasked with preserving the life of its citizens, and prevent humanity from falling back into its primitive state of perpetual war.

[Liriena]

One could say that, from a Hobbesian standpoint, all rights are privileges. After all, what should the State grant you beyond its original, primitive intentions? Food for thought.

And those are?

Avoiding the violent death of the state's subjects.

[Genivaria]

One could say that, from a Hobbesian standpoint, all rights are privileges. After all, what should the State grant you beyond its original, primitive intentions? Food for thought.

I've read Hobbes' Leviathan. Curiously enough, Hobbes recognized the right to defend our own life. According to him, the state had the right to kill you for whatever reason, but you had the right to attempt to escape, and the state could not force you to take your own life. Not to mention Hobbes' idea of the state was a sovereign power tasked with preserving the life of its citizens, and prevent humanity from falling back into its primitive state of perpetual war.

Frankly it seems to me that the word 'Right' basically just means 'ability to do it'.

[Genivaria]

And those are?

Avoiding the violent death of the state's subjects.

Ah. Well that's rather narrow.

[Grenartia]

Staff at the hospital. Who aren't agents of the state. They're agents of the hospital.

Wrong track...

How, exactly, do you figure that?

[IamJohnGalt]

Yeah. It's amazing to watch that stretch, isn't it?

And all of it just to namedrop "freedom" into it.

Wrong. Marriage as is referred to in the op is a product of the State. It's my contention the State should not be in the marriage business. Others claimed marriage conveyed certain "rights" (loot for moochers). I stated marriage does not inherently contain "rights". The right to live (which I have explained before is a dependent on the right to property) is the only right...everything else follows from there.

[Genivaria]

And all of it just to namedrop "freedom" into it.

Wrong. Marriage as is referred to in the op is a product of the State. It's my contention the State should not be in the marriage business. Others claimed marriage conveyed certain "rights" (loot for moochers). I stated marriage does not inherently contain "rights". The right to live (which I have explained before is a dependent on the right to property) is the only right...everything else follows from there.

And you are wrong. And simply calling people 'moochers' does nothing for your credibility.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And all of it just to namedrop "freedom" into it.

Wrong. Marriage as is referred to in the op is a product of the State. It's my contention the State should not be in the marriage business. Others claimed marriage conveyed certain "rights" (loot for moochers). I stated marriage does not inherently contain "rights". The right to live (which I have explained before is a dependent on the right to property) is the only right...everything else follows from there.

Marriage is a contract between consenting adults.

Government is in the business of enforcing contracts.

[Liriena]

And all of it just to namedrop "freedom" into it.

1. Wrong. Marriage as is referred to in the op is a product of the State. It's my contention the State should not be in the marriage business.

2.Others claimed marriage conveyed certain "rights" (loot for moochers). I stated marriage does not inherently contain "rights".

3. The right to live (which I have explained before is a dependent on the right to property) is the only right...everything else follows from there.

1. So, your contention is that something that has efficiently been managed by the state for centuries should be privatized? Why?

2. Your statement was demonstrably false. Civil marriage inherently contains several rights, most of which have been inherently associated with marriage for many centuries.

3. Even the worldwide recognized human rights to healthcare, education, food and a clean enviroment? Funny how the bulk of the world's human rights conventions disagree with the assertions that the right to live is the only right, or the source of all rights.

[Minarchist States]

1. If marriage is supposed to be beneficial (and thus unequal) to single persons, why should some people be afforded rights above others? Unless we actually are equal, but also unequal, and this is the matrix.

2. My comment held relevance. If the state has such a say in where our inheritance goes, why are animals inheriting fortunes? Certainly the state isn't that incompetent.

1. Marriage doesn't benefit single persons. It benefits couples. The rights associated with marriage are irrelevant to single people, and do not disadvantage them. My spouse being able to tell the doctor which medical treatment I'd want do not disadvantage you as a single person.

2. The state simply can't give your shit away to simply any person in particular, at least not without due process. The two people the state first look for, are your spouse, and your next of kin. If you have no legally recognized spouse, your property, by default, goes to your next of kin. If you have neither, it goes to the state, where it is liquidated to benefit the community as a whole. Without looking at your link, the only reason a poodle got the mansion was probably because the owner granted it ownership in their will.

1.) Yes, but arguably compared to each other, couples have some general advantages that may or may not be at the expense of other individuals, whether single or not.

2.) Can't say I agree with it. Arguably from another standpoint, why should you be allowed to give money to your animals when it could benefit said community better? Certainly it would be better for the state to seize said assets than give it to anyone. You are dead, after all.

[IamJohnGalt]

Wrong. Marriage as is referred to in the op is a product of the State. It's my contention the State should not be in the marriage business. Others claimed marriage conveyed certain "rights" (loot for moochers). I stated marriage does not inherently contain "rights". The right to live (which I have explained before is a dependent on the right to property) is the only right...everything else follows from there.

And you are wrong. And simply calling people 'moochers' does nothing for your credibility.

in case you are confused the right to live "as you choose" is inferred.

[Genivaria]

And you are wrong. And simply calling people 'moochers' does nothing for your credibility.

in case you are confused the right to live "as you choose" is inferred.

.....ok? How is that relevant?

[Agritum]

Nice.

[The Godly Nations]

And all of it just to namedrop "freedom" into it.

Wrong. Marriage as is referred to in the op is a product of the State. It's my contention the State should not be in the marriage business. Others claimed marriage conveyed certain "rights" (loot for moochers). I stated marriage does not inherently contain "rights". The right to live (which I have explained before is a dependent on the right to property) is the only right...everything else follows from there.

First, there is no such thing as 'rights' so long as there exist a government, which you seem to despise, to grant that right. If we are left to a state of Nature, then we would be in the state which Hobbes rightly calls 'the war of all against all', and the very idea of rights would be absurd, as you have no right to live or property, I can simply deprive it from you so long as I have the ability and strength to do so. All rights require the existence of the state, and the right to marry, and the associated contract, are rights granted by the government. There is no natural and inalienable right to property, there is no right to live, there is only those rights which the state gives you. There is first the government, and all else flows thenceforth.

The state, in this instance, has acted morally in providing homosexuals with the right to marriage, and the associated advantages of the marriage state being provided (which is not, as you would claim, without any reason, 'loot for moochers').