Wednesday, April 10, 2013

"Take Gummint Out of Marriage"? Fuggedaboudit

Quite a few folks--including Governor Scott Walker--have mused that perhaps 'getting government out of marriage' is the better way to resolve the bogus claim by homosexuals that they have a "right" to marriage.

This essay should push that idea off the table.


Jim said...

Does ANYBODY have a "right" to marry?

Dad29 said...

No. There is no "right" to marry, period.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the "right" to marry exists, should citizens of a country, by majority rule, to exercise their freedom to create that right. It is elementary by dear Watson.

Dad29 said...

Wanna try that in English, Anony?

By the way, citizens do not "create rights" either.

Anonymous said...

<4% of our population bullying the rest into "gay marriage".

What's wrong with this?

Jim said...

Wait! You're saying that gay people are bullying you into marrying someone of the same sex?

Anonymous said...

Anony 10:51 p.m. here. Dad29, you are a supposed educated man. Figure it out.

"By the way, citizens do not "create rights" either."

Now you're just being obtuse.

Anonymous said...

Not obtuse, but contrarian to his core principles. Are not all men free to do as they please? Stop the hypocrisy d29 and man up.

So your position is that free people do not have the right to override your natural law bullshit by majority rule under the "democratic" process?

If the Constitution is neutered, what's the basis for the BoR?

Dad29 said...

Umnnhhh....what does "contrarian to ...principles" mean?

1) Principle: no one has a "right" to do what is wrong.

So you are correct: a "free people" does NOT have the "right" to overrule natural law--or nature, either.

If you ever learn anything about the Constitution, you might come to understand that it is based on natural law.

Which is why the US is a republic, not a democracy.

(After all, if it were a democracy, monkeys like you might be the majority.)

Jim said...

This is why a contract is not good enough.

Anonymous said...

Principle: everyone has a "right" of pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

So a "free people" HAVE the "right" to define one's own concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

And now some food for thought by this "monkey"...

The “state of nature” of social contract theory is really a theoretical construct of philosophy, not a phenomenon well-documented by history. So how can we decide what “natural rights” we enjoyed in this state?

Understandings of “natural rights” can and will change. For example, at the Founding, many classes of human beings were excluded from political participation (e.g., women, people of color, people who didn’t own land).

Society changes as well. For example, take technological change and its implications for human reproduction.

Dad29 said...

pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Actually, a right to life, not "safety;" and liberty--which is correctly defined as 'the freedom to do what is right'.

No "democratic majority" invented the 'right to privacy'--which is not in the Constitution.

(And the Kennedy quote is cute--but utterly inane. It is a prescription for anarchy; so much for "rule of law" from a Revered Blackrobed Moron.)

As to your question: the perfection of the state of nature of human beings is indirectly but perfectly outlined in the 10 Commandments--or, if you prefer more contemporary terms, the Big Two of the N.T. Note well that obligations are mentioned, not "rights."

Deviations--like homosexual practices, avarice, gluttony--occur because of the fallen 'state of nature' that is extant.

Anonymous said...

IOW, "My book says so. End of discussion."

Dad29 said...

Didn't say that; said only that it is *A* prescription.

If your alternative is Kennedy's formulation, defend it.