What Constitutes a "Right?"

[PubliusInfinitum]

Marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive...

Yeah man, I hear ya... just as hetero-sexual vaginal intercourse and conception are mutually exclusive. All ya need to get there is reject any premise which recognizes the moral imperative.

I did not say that heterosexual vaginal intercourse and conception are mutually exclusive...where are you getting that.

Just the moral imperative ... that's all.

I said that marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I got that... and I used the above to illustrate the idiocy of the assessment. There's a moral imperative to not exercise one's right to the detriment of another. You want to assert that there's no down side to anyone else when two people of the same gender engage in the pretense that they're married... there are real and certain ramifications to such, just as there are ramifications to hetero-sexual vaginal intercourse... and the cultural standards surrounding each are there as a result of those ramifications.

Is sexual activity a requirement for marriage? Is marriage a requirement for sexual activity?

Yeah ... it is... as marriage is the JOINING of two people... where two become ONE... (see the metaphor coming into play here?) Thus the consummation thing... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...

In fact, if you wanted the species to proliferate, you would not allow monogamy.

BTW... would you do my a favor and PM me, when you find yourself lamenting the perils of overpopulation? I'd like to chime in with my thoughts on the moral imperative, sustainable principles, monogomous marital relationships... and how such promotes regulatory growth...

Homosexual marriage really has little effect on overpopulation.

Well in fact it does... ya see, there's a species of reasoning which says that the proliferation of homosexuality is a direct biological result of population stress... it's a noted emperical reaction, which has long been noted in the studies of such.

So in summary, you would advocate that society NOT allow the right for two men to marry as their marriage would not benefit our culture by helping it to reproduce and grow.

I DO advocate that no man has a right to marry another man... as to do so demonstrates abnormal behavior; and is a sign of an unhealthy culture; and this due to the failure of the culture to maintain sufficiently high standards to prevent such; thus the remedy for such being to RAISE the standards of behavior, to hold ourselves to HIGHER standard, which will result in the restablishment of a healthy culture. And this on the certainty that to continue to lower the standard of personal behavior will and can only result in further cultural decadence.

However, you also want to make sure that our culture and species does not grow too quickly, so you would also advocate that society NOT allow people the right to non-monogamous reproduction.

Not a complex issue here sis... Everyone tends to their OWN responsibility; where each is able to sustain their OWN families and it all works itself out.

It only becomes problematic where we excuse bad behavior, concede responsibility for our families to the others, such as the State and hold no regard for the ramifications of our actions on anyone else.

Essentially, you believe in preservation of individual's rights, as long as you approve of the rights they wish to exercise.

As far as I'm concerned, individuals can do any damn thing they want, as long as what they do does not usurp the means of another to exercise their rights.

Again, it's not complicated... until you begin to rationalize around the immutable principles shich sustain it... to accommodate you particular kink.

 

[xotoxi]

Is sexual activity a requirement for marriage? Is marriage a requirement for sexual activity?

Yeah ... it is... as marriage is the JOINING of two people... where two become ONE... (see the metaphor coming into play here?) Thus the consummation thing... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...

Are you actually saying that there are laws that state that a married couple must have sexual intercourse before the marriage is legally complete and fully valid?

Where are you from...the Middle Ages???

Show me a current law from any state in this country that clearly states that a marriage is not valid until the couple has sexual intercourse.

That is your assignment.

 

[goldcatt]

Is sexual activity a requirement for marriage? Is marriage a requirement for sexual activity?

Yeah ... it is... as marriage is the JOINING of two people... where two become ONE... (see the metaphor coming into play here?) Thus the consummation thing... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...

Are you actually saying that there are laws that state that a married couple must have sexual intercourse before the marriage is legally complete and fully valid?

Where are you from...the Middle Ages???

Show me a current law from any state in this country that clearly states that a marriage is not valid until the couple has sexual intercourse.

That is your assignment.

What, you don't hang around at weddings long enough to see them display the bridal sheets?
I'll bet you leave when the open bar is over.

 

[xotoxi]

I DO advocate that no man has a right to marry another man... as to do so demonstrates abnormal behavior; and is a sign of an unhealthy culture; and this due to the failure of the culture to maintain sufficiently high standards to prevent such; thus the remedy for such being to RAISE the standards of behavior, to hold ourselves to HIGHER standard, which will result in the restablishment of a healthy culture. And this on the certainty that to continue to lower the standard of personal behavior will and can only result in further cultural decadence.

Again, society over individual rights.

 

[xotoxi]

Essentially, you believe in preservation of individual's rights, as long as you approve of the rights they wish to exercise.

As far as I'm concerned, individuals can do any damn thing they want, as long as what they do does not usurp the means of another to exercise their rights.

Okay...so now you are okay with gays marrying as you wouldn't want to usurp their means to exercise their rights.

We are on the same page now.

 

[auditor0007]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

spoken like a true totalitarian

Rights are determined by whomever is in power. Since we are a Democracy/Republic with representation, we basically decide what our rights are. Since we hear so much about healthcare being or not being a right, the fact is that it will come down to the voice of the people as to whether or not it should be considered a right in our society.

In every other industrialized country and some not, healthcare is a basic right, or at least the government feels that providing decent medical care to everyone is an important societal obligation. In third world countries and the US, this is not currently the case.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Can you spell that out for me? Just want to double check what you are saying....

Well there is a limit to the level which some issues can be stupified... but I'll try.


Would you agree that where one advocates for the lifting of restrictions on those things which are highly sought, that the certainty is that the highly sought thing will come to be engaged in at excellerated levels?

Meaning, for instance, that if people want a product... but there are restrictions which make it difficult to get that product, that the restrictions regulate how many people get that product...

Now the restriction might be the natural availability... which of course drives up the price, which limits the people who will get that product to those with the means to purchase it...

Well, Sexual gratification is a fairly coveted 'thing'... and cultural mores, taboo, standards... morals... call it whatever ya prefer... but THOSE are the ONLY things which stand between people and this highly coveted 'thing...'

With me so far? I mean, there's two genders... sexual gratification is already promoted through biology... the lion's share of the species has the means... so... REALLY... the only thing between 'sexual anarchy' or a sexual free-for-all, are the cultural standards of morality that generate the mores by which each individual is expected to respect in terms of behavior.

Are you somehow implying that if the rights for gays to marry each other was allowed, that there would be a sudden rush of heterosexuals into homosexuality?

Golly... let's see.. would established well balanced hetero-sexuals suddenly turn queer because homosexuals were granted the temporal privilege to engage in the pretense of marriage? Nope...

But such would be a cultural acceptance of abnormal sexual behavior as acceptable and normal... thus where individuals are coming into sexual awareness, they would be less inclined to avoid homosexuality and more likely to 'experiment' in such... thus be subject to all of the potential ramifications thereof.

Simple enough for ya?

Do you think that by NOT allowing gay marriage there is less gay sexual activity?

Absolutely... here's a clue... that which is discourage will realize lower levels of participation than that which is encouraged.

You seem to have not only grave concerns about the immorality of homosexuality as a whole, but also the concerns that homosexuality "add to that the promotion of debauchery, hedonism and general degeneracy" of our culture. But wouldn't gay marriage decrease debauchery and hedonism as two gay people would enter into a monogamous relationship, rather than just continuing a life of rampant sexual promiscuity and flamboyance?

Nope...

And lastly...how does it affect YOUR RIGHTS if two gay men get married and have sex in their home vs. two gay men NOT getting married and have sex in their home?

Homosexuals cannot be joined... two outties... or two innies... Marriage is the joining of a MAN and a WOman... outty and inny...

Now as far as what two pathetic sexual devients who lack the moral character to avoid succumbing to their misfiring sexual orientation, do in the privacy of their bedroom... I couldn't possibly care less...

But I care very much when they start demanding that their kink needs to be accepted by me and everyone else for them to be free...

 

[xotoxi]

Are you somehow implying that if the rights for gays to marry each other was allowed, that there would be a sudden rush of heterosexuals into homosexuality?

But such would be a cultural acceptance of abnormal sexual behavior as acceptable and normal... thus where individuals are coming into sexual awareness, they would be less inclined to avoid homosexuality and more likely to 'experiment' in such... thus be subject to all of the potential ramifications thereof.

I see what you are saying. Is your point of view on this issue from personal experience? When you were coming into sexual awareness, where you drawn towards "experimenting"?

If you weren't, rest assured that the vast majority of men and women who are coming into sexual awareness will remain fully attracted to the opposite sex.

 

[auditor0007]

However, you have to prove that the viability of the culture is undermined...and you have not done that.

Nope... that's established bydefault, through the natural tendency of the species to dry right up where homosexuality catches on... add to that the promotion of debauchery, hedonism and general degeneracy... as a rule... those things are not the things which sustain a viable culture.

And yet homosexuality was practiced and accepted among many of the greatest civilizations in human history. Certainly the greatest influcences on Western culture and thought.

Oh quit telling lies. We all know that homosexuality is a recent phenomenon brought about by Satanistic worshipers.

 

[xotoxi]

But I care very much when they start demanding that their kink needs to be accepted by me and everyone else for them to be free...

Why do you have to accept them just because they exercise their rights?

You certainly don't accept what LEFTISTS say, even though they are exercising their First Amendment rights to speak their mind.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

What constitutes a right? Whatever your wife or girlfriend allows you to do.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Is sexual activity a requirement for marriage? Is marriage a requirement for sexual activity?

Yeah ... it is... as marriage is the JOINING of two people... where two become ONE... (see the metaphor coming into play here?) Thus the consummation thing... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...

Are you actually saying that there are laws that state that a married couple must have sexual intercourse before the marriage is legally complete and fully valid?

Where are you from...the Middle Ages???

Show me a current law from any state in this country that clearly states that a marriage is not valid until the couple has sexual intercourse.

That is your assignment.

ROFLMNAO...

Well I don't know of any legal statute... but there's two relevant points here... First, my ignorance of such doesn't mean that there's not... and your standing on such is a flagrant ad ignorantum farce... Secondly, it's hilarious that you want to assert that what is legal equates to what is true and right.

I don't think that's a road you want to go down... First, you'd lose... and you'll never get that month back. It's a long one... and there's no future in it for those of your limited means.

Marriage symbolized the JOINING of a man and a WOman... we've already covered this...

The legal sanction merely represents the state legally recognizing the marriage as one legal entity... and towards encouraging such provides for certain legal benefits; benefits which are equally and readily available to EVERY CITIZEN... as long as they meet the standards required for such. Thus arguments which project discrimination are moot... as there is no discrimination of any kind... ANY man who can talk ANY WOman into marrying him... and vice-versa enjoy the temporal cultural privilege to take license for marriage.

Now personally, I do not ask the state for permission to marry... I do not recognize that the state has the power to determine who I pledge to join in sacred matrimony...

The wife felt that she needed such, so I obliged her wishes... but if the state decided tonight that marriage was out... that there would be no further legal recognition of marriage... it wouldn't effect me, my wife or our lives one scintilla.

And IF I were a pathetic sexual devient who lacked the moral character to avoid succumbing to my twisted sexual orientation... I wouldn't give to bloody shits about what the state had to say about it. If I had someone to whom I dedicated myself... that would be that. If I needed to be recognized by the state as a legal institution... I'd incorporate my relationship and we'd be one legal entity... wherein we could share income, benefits and enjoy the privileges there of.

So, you'll just have to forgive me for not being sensitive to all this nonsense...

My rights are mine... and as rights, as long as I maintain my responsibilities... I don't ask anyone's permission to exercise them.

 

[Modbert]

Sorry. He's wrong.

Far as I can tell, he is right. How is he wrong?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Essentially, you believe in preservation of individual's rights, as long as you approve of the rights they wish to exercise.

As far as I'm concerned, individuals can do any damn thing they want, as long as what they do does not usurp the means of another to exercise their rights.

Okay...so now you are okay with gays marrying as you wouldn't want to usurp their means to exercise their rights.

We are on the same page now.

Sis... homosexuals are not capable of marriage... that requires a full biological kit and homosexuals just aren't equipped for such.

They can pretend to be married of course... and as lond as they keep it to themselves... why the hell would I care?

My only issue with the twisted fucks is where they want to celebrate their bleeding asses...

Now to the board I'd ask: isn't it cool how the advocates of such ALWAYS run to issues of privacy... 'what's it matter to you what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes?"

When in truth... IF they had kept it private... it wouldn't be found being discussed in public.... It's like those "SECRET PLANS" they're always touting to have knowlegde of...

LOL...






Idiots.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

But such would be a cultural acceptance of abnormal sexual behavior as acceptable and normal... thus where individuals are coming into sexual awareness, they would be less inclined to avoid homosexuality and more likely to 'experiment' in such... thus be subject to all of the potential ramifications thereof.

That's if homosexuality is unnatural. I don't believe it is. Cultural acceptance is another thing all together. About time people grew the fuck up IMO. Nobody else's business but their own. I think homosexuality, in the western world, is well accepted except by a margin of small-minded conservatives, usually of a Christian bent.

 

[bodecea]

Sorry. He's wrong.

Far as I can tell, he is right. How is he wrong?

Read Locke's "Two Treatise on Government" Natural rights are life, liberty and property. We are born with them. We all are born with them. They are the one common denominator for all humans.

BUT, being born with them does not guarantee we will keep them. Shit happens.

 

[xotoxi]

Yeah ... it is... as marriage is the JOINING of two people... where two become ONE... (see the metaphor coming into play here?) Thus the consummation thing... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...

Are you actually saying that there are laws that state that a married couple must have sexual intercourse before the marriage is legally complete and fully valid?

Where are you from...the Middle Ages???

Show me a current law from any state in this country that clearly states that a marriage is not valid until the couple has sexual intercourse.

That is your assignment.

ROFLMNAO...

Well I don't know of any legal statute... but there's two relevant points here... First, my ignorance of such doesn't mean that there's not... and your standing on such is a flagrant ad ignorantum farce... Secondly, it's hilarious that you want to assert that what is legal equates to what is true and right.

...I'LL STOP RIGHT THERE AND NOT READ ANY FURTHER...

WAIT A MINUTE, BUSTER!

You are calling me out for "asserting what is legal..." when you yourself stated:

... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...

YOU said that sexual intercourse is required to make a marriage legally complete.

YOU said that sexual intercourse is required to make a marriage valid.

This has NOTHING to do with "what is true and right".

I stand by my statement that MARRIAGE AND SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Marriage is recognized by the Government. A marriage license is issued by the state.

I don't like to think that the state is issuing license for two people to have sexual intercourse. That is why it is important to separate the two.

Marriage (from the perspective of the state) is a contractual joining of two individuals for legal purposes.

Sexual intercourse (from the perspective of the state) is none of their business and will not be regulated or promoted by the Government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

While I am alive you can not take my faith or my thoughts. While I am armed you can not take much else either, except by killing me. I agree to the norms of society so long as the norms are understood and I personally chose to abide by them. I further understand that if I chose to ignore or break society laws or norms I face consequences but it is my right to make that choice and the consequences do not change that right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you actually saying that there are laws that state that a married couple must have sexual intercourse before the marriage is legally complete and fully valid?

Where are you from...the Middle Ages???

Show me a current law from any state in this country that clearly states that a marriage is not valid until the couple has sexual intercourse.

That is your assignment.

ROFLMNAO...

Well I don't know of any legal statute... but there's two relevant points here... First, my ignorance of such doesn't mean that there's not... and your standing on such is a flagrant ad ignorantum farce... Secondly, it's hilarious that you want to assert that what is legal equates to what is true and right.

...I'LL STOP RIGHT THERE AND NOT READ ANY FURTHER...

WAIT A MINUTE, BUSTER!

You are calling me out for "asserting what is legal..." when you yourself stated:

... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...

YOU said that sexual intercourse is required to make a marriage legally complete.

YOU said that sexual intercourse is required to make a marriage valid.

This has NOTHING to do with "what is true and right".

I stand by my statement that MARRIAGE AND SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Marriage is recognized by the Government. A marriage license is issued by the state.

I don't like to think that the state is issuing license for two people to have sexual intercourse. That is why it is important to separate the two.

Marriage (from the perspective of the state) is a contractual joining of two individuals for legal purposes.

Sexual intercourse (from the perspective of the state) is none of their business and will not be regulated or promoted by the Government.

Failure to consummate the marriage and prove of that fact can get the marriage annulled , which means legally it never happened.

 

[Modbert]

While I am alive you can not take my faith or my thoughts. While I am armed you can not take much else either, except by killing me. I agree to the norms of society so long as the norms are understood and I personally chose to abide by them. I further understand that if I chose to ignore or break society laws or norms I face consequences but it is my right to make that choice and the consequences do not change that right.

It isn't really your faith or thoughts though. They are all ideas proposed by someone else before you. Besides, have you ever 1984? Eventually, it might be possible to take control of your thoughts and therefore your faith as well.