Gay marriage to be allowed in NJ

[IamJohnGalt]

Marriage does't guarantee anything. NEED is subjective and irrelevant. WANT would be a better adjective.

Except, it does. And the things it guarantee reinforce some of the more basic need on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

You're demonstrably wrong here.

The right to life is the source of all rights.

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life." ~ Ayn Rand

Which is why we have government. To guarantee the recognition of rights, and to arbitrate when one person violates another's rights. Preventing government from recognizing marriage inherently prevents it from recognizing rights provided by marriage.

What rights are inherently provided by marriage? None. You are right the some government is needed to protect individual rights.

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government." ~Ayn Rand

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Except, it does. And the things it guarantee reinforce some of the more basic need on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

You're demonstrably wrong here.



Which is why we have government. To guarantee the recognition of rights, and to arbitrate when one person violates another's rights. Preventing government from recognizing marriage inherently prevents it from recognizing rights provided by marriage.

What rights are inherently provided by marriage? None. You are right the some government is needed to protect individual rights.

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government." ~Ayn Rand

Yeah, but Ayn Rand was an ultra-collectivist freedom hater. So what she says is irrelevant, because it's at best wrong, at worst maliciously devised to mislead.

If she really liked freedom and the sanctity of the individual she'd have been a communist, as I am.

[IamJohnGalt]

Agreed. So much complications arise out of the ordeal.

Except saying "Fuck it, lets just scrap the whole thing" like you two are doing creates a worse problem, where people can be barred from visiting spouses in the hospital, making medical decisions for them, making funeral arrangements, and inheriting their property.

The State created by the bureaucratic collective creates these problems.

[Grenartia]

Except, it does. And the things it guarantee reinforce some of the more basic need on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

You're demonstrably wrong here.



Which is why we have government. To guarantee the recognition of rights, and to arbitrate when one person violates another's rights. Preventing government from recognizing marriage inherently prevents it from recognizing rights provided by marriage.

What rights are inherently provided by marriage? None. You are right the some government is needed to protect individual rights.

Look at the underlined.

Agreed. So much complications arise out of the ordeal.

Except saying "Fuck it, lets just scrap the whole thing" like you two are doing creates a worse problem, where people can be barred from visiting spouses in the hospital, making medical decisions for them, making funeral arrangements, and inheriting their property.

Of course, this isn't a totally exhaustive list of such rights, but they do give a good idea of what kinds of things marriage guarantees.

[IamJohnGalt]

What rights are inherently provided by marriage? None. You are right the some government is needed to protect individual rights.

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government." ~Ayn Rand

Yeah, but Ayn Rand was an ultra-collectivist freedom hater. So what she says is irrelevant, because it's at best wrong, at worst maliciously devised to mislead.

If she really liked freedom and the sanctity of the individual she'd have been a communist, as I am.

Good for you

[Condunum]

Except saying "Fuck it, lets just scrap the whole thing" like you two are doing creates a worse problem, where people can be barred from visiting spouses in the hospital, making medical decisions for them, making funeral arrangements, and inheriting their property.

The State created by the bureaucratic collective creates these problems.

Because the powerful elite don't warp things with their money.

[Grenartia]

Except saying "Fuck it, lets just scrap the whole thing" like you two are doing creates a worse problem, where people can be barred from visiting spouses in the hospital, making medical decisions for them, making funeral arrangements, and inheriting their property.

The State created by the bureaucratic collective creates these problems.

No. The state has nothing to do with creating those problems.

[Liriena]

So... there is no right to freedom of the press, bodily sovereignity, privacy, vote or equality under the law?

The right to life is the source of all rights.

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life." ~ Ayn Rand

Thanks for providing definitive proof that Ayn Rand was a shitty philosopher.

[Liriena]

The State created by the bureaucratic collective creates these problems.

Because the powerful elite don't warp things with their money.

WHY WE WOULD NEVER...!

[Condunum]

Because the powerful elite don't warp things with their money.

WHY WE WOULD NEVER...!

So long as you use your family fortune to fund my army, I have no problem with my pope being a corrupt bastard

[IamJohnGalt]

What rights are inherently provided by marriage? None. You are right the some government is needed to protect individual rights.

Look at the underlined.

Except saying "Fuck it, lets just scrap the whole thing" like you two are doing creates a worse problem, where people can be barred from visiting spouses in the hospital, making medical decisions for them, making funeral arrangements, and inheriting their property.

Of course, this isn't a totally exhaustive list of such rights, but they do give a good idea of what kinds of things marriage guarantees.

These things are allowed or not allowed by the State. "Marriage" recognized by a persons God, commitment to one another, the universe, whatever...has no inherent "rights".

[Minarchist States]

Agreed. So much complications arise out of the ordeal.

Except saying "Fuck it, lets just scrap the whole thing" like you two are doing creates a worse problem, where people can be barred from visiting spouses in the hospital, making medical decisions for them, making funeral arrangements, and inheriting their property.

Meanwhile poodles are inheriting mansions...

What are these rights but merely glorified contracts?

[Liriena]

WHY WE WOULD NEVER...!

So long as you use your family fortune to fund my army, I have no problem with my pope being a corrupt bastard

What family fortune? All we have is two apartments and a boat.

By the way...

[Liriena]

Look at the underlined.



Of course, this isn't a totally exhaustive list of such rights, but they do give a good idea of what kinds of things marriage guarantees.

These things are allowed or not allowed by the State. "Marriage" recognized by a persons God, commitment to one another, the universe, whatever...has no inherent "rights".

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.

[IamJohnGalt]

The State created by the bureaucratic collective creates these problems.

No. The state has nothing to do with creating those problems.

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

[Condunum]

So long as you use your family fortune to fund my army, I have no problem with my pope being a corrupt bastard

What family fortune? All we have is two apartments and a boat.

By the way...

You're Argentinian. I know you have connections to Nazi gold, god dammit.

Also...

[Grenartia]

Look at the underlined.



Of course, this isn't a totally exhaustive list of such rights, but they do give a good idea of what kinds of things marriage guarantees.

These things are allowed or not allowed by the State. "Marriage" recognized by a persons God, commitment to one another, the universe, whatever...has no inherent "rights".

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

Except saying "Fuck it, lets just scrap the whole thing" like you two are doing creates a worse problem, where people can be barred from visiting spouses in the hospital, making medical decisions for them, making funeral arrangements, and inheriting their property.

Meanwhile poodles are inheriting mansions...

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.

[Liriena]

What family fortune? All we have is two apartments and a boat.

By the way...

You're Argentinian. I know you have connections to Nazi gold, god dammit.

Also...

I cannot confirm nor deny this.

*content purring* :3

[Grenartia]

No. The state has nothing to do with creating those problems.

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.

[Condunum]

No. The state has nothing to do with creating those problems.

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.

[Liriena]

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.

Isn't it a beauty to behold?

[IamJohnGalt]

These things are allowed or not allowed by the State. "Marriage" recognized by a persons God, commitment to one another, the universe, whatever...has no inherent "rights".

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.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

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.

It's inherent to Objectivist thought, which is concerned almost exclusively with form rather than substance.

It's European enlightenment-style thinking. Which is great if you're in the eighteenth century. However, our knowledge of how societies work has been greatly improved since then. The essence of Objectivism is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that the intellectual progress of the last 250 years ever happened. It's a backwards thought system, that is completely at odds with the progress of human reason and knowledge.

[Grenartia]

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.

Doesn't invalidate what Liri said.

[Minarchist States]

These things are allowed or not allowed by the State. "Marriage" recognized by a persons God, commitment to one another, the universe, whatever...has no inherent "rights".

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 poodles are inheriting mansions...

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.

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.

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.