It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Marriage a Right?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Is Marriage a Right?

I'd have to say that marriage was invented by humans as a legal contract so the right to the legal contract must be given by the humans as well. So no, the legal contract of marriage isn't a universal right but instead is a right given by the government as it wishes.

If there was no legal contract of marriage then there would be no exclusions and everyone would have a right to live as they wish and with whom they wish without fear of exclusion.




posted on May, 24 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

the only reason i can't buy into that is that whether you are married impacts things like tax status and discriminatory practices (i can't include my neighbor on my health insurance plan under "Family", for example). In that way, if marriage is not a right then the human made contract of marriage is an example of fascism in its most pure definition.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

if marriage is not a right then the human made contract of marriage is an example of fascism in its most pure definition.

Yep. That's kinda what I was trying to get at.
It's a legal contract invented by humans.
And humans guard who can and can't have access to the contract.
If you totally get rid of the contract, then the control ends.
The marriage contract is a human invention so the humans make the rules on it.
It's about control ... IMHO.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

1. The pursuit of happiness could very well include marriage.


Or perhaps the pursuit of happiness means not including marriage.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: nerbot

Unless it specifically states that it is precluded/excluded, then it is included.

Nothing in the law tells us its ok to poop. Only where we may not poop.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ChesterJohn

2. The 14th Amendment says that states' laws must apply to all citizens equally. Marriage is a state law.


We would have to go against that which is the laws of natural to extend marriage to same sex couples. and we would have to redefine Marriage from its natural and historical definition that has been established since the beginning.




"Marriage" is not a right.

It is a personal relationship existing within mutually agreed upon parameters, unique (as far as we know) to human beings.

In recognition of the unique properties encompassed by the compromises and commitments typically associated with a "marriage", governing authorities have traditionally granted certain "rights" and privileges to those it recognized as being "married". In modern societies, these rights and privileges are typically codified by being incorporated into the laws of the land.

Nor is "Marriage" a "natural law".

To date, there is no evidence of "marriage", as understood by humans, existing in any other species. Therefore, it cannot be rationally argued that "marriage" is in any way the result of "natural law(s)".

The purpose of "marriage" is neither exclusively, nor even essentially, procreation, or the promotion of procreation.

It is well known that sexual reproduction is but one means of procreation, and among those species utilizing sexual reproduction for purposes of procreation, only humans engage in "marriage". Most species utilizing sexual reproduction for procreation simply "mate" temporarily and then separate, once procreation is accomplished. A relatively few species (certain species of geese, for example) "mate for life" in monogamous relationships, although I doubt seriously that human proponents/defenders of marriage would accede to calling such relationships a "marriage".

And, whereas "marriage" itself, may not be considered a "right", where it IS recognized as a special relationship under the law, it therefore often bestows certain and/or special (legal) rights and privileges to its participates.

In the U.S., under the auspices of the 14th amendment, All citizens are guaranteed equal treatment under the law. Therefore, unless it can be shown why a certain citizen should not be considered eligible for marriage, that citizen should be allowed to marry; and all the legal rights and privileges associated with marriage should be granted to that citizen.

The on-going debate over the "right to same-sex (Gay) marriage" is a misnomer, and quite frankly, a red herring.


The question is not, nor should it ever have been, whether or not same-sex couples should have the "right to marry", since, in the U.S. no one has the actual "right" to marry (if such a thing can even said to exist). The question is whether denying individuals seeking to be recognized as married, ineligible for that status due solely to their sexual orientation, and whether THAT denial is a violation of their right to equal treatment under the law, as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
edit on 24-5-2015 by Bhadhidar because: grammar



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
No marriage is not a right for anyone. It is at best a civil privilege.

A basic right is intrinsic and imposes no obligation on others. Marriage doesn't fit. You have to have the agreement of the person you wish to marry and the agreement of the person who marries the two of you just to start.

When the state got involved, you then had to have the agreement of the state, too, in order to marry by law.

By definition, that is not a basic, unalienable right.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution authorizes neither the Federal Government or the States the power to allow or deny anyone's marriage. Gays have as much right to marry as heterosexuals or polygamists or even siblings for that matter. The only restriction I would agree with is an age of consent for the involved parties. But I think the age of consent should be more uniform. The age at which you can marry should be the same as the age at which you can buy beer or liquor, or drive, or join the military, etc. But that's another issue.

People are optimistic about the upcoming Supreme Court ruling that will allow gay marriage, but they shouldn't be. It's not the SC saying that gays have the right to marry, it's the SC saying that the government has the right to tell you who you can and can't marry. And, as many of us know, that will lead to corporations being able to tell us who we can or can't marry, and eventually who we must marry.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Beautiful post!

The OP speaks of homosexual or heterosexual marriage as if they are two different things... Marriage is marriage. If it's granted to some adults and not others, without a compelling reason for the distinction, it violates constitutional law.

Period. No need to consult nature or religion. It's secular law.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: nerbot

Unless it specifically states that it is precluded/excluded, then it is included.

Nothing in the law tells us its ok to poop. Only where we may not poop.


You missed my point.

Marriage may not always include happiness.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Oh man another who doesnt understand constitutional stuff.

Its a box the government is put in, to curtail its abuse of the sovereign freedoms of individuals. Individuals have needs and wishes for marriage as a part of their cultural heritages, that is how they do the family thing overall. Some for tradition and for the sake of children, and some for religious reasons. Government offering marriage and family law, is servicing its employers, the people. They are just employees.

The things mentioned in the constitution are the areas where people compromise their freedoms and sovereign rights for the collective.

The constitution does not give any sexual orientation the right to marry, their individual free will does.
edit on 25-5-2015 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The OP seems to have disappeared...

The poster seems to think that stating "Marriage is not a Right" means something. It actually doesn't matter if it's a right or privilege or none of the above.

In our secular government, and according to our Constitution, laws must apply to all citizens of a state equally. If adults are permitted to marry, and there's no compelling reason to restrict marriage to a specific group, then it applies to all adults equally.

And no one has EVER given a compelling reason why marriage should be restricted to a specific group. It really is that simple. Right or not, marriage (a civil partnership) should be available to all adults.
edit on 5/25/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

if marriage is not a right then the human made contract of marriage is an example of fascism in its most pure definition.


Yep. That's kinda what I was trying to get at.

It's a legal contract invented by humans.

And humans guard who can and can't have access to the contract.

If you totally get rid of the contract, then the control ends.

The marriage contract is a human invention so the humans make the rules on it.

It's about control ... IMHO.





the current contractual marriage that is implemented by law is.

But under Biblical terms marrigae did not have that. Man joined sexual with a woman and that was that they were married.

the whole marriage licensing was invented by the Roman Catholic church to earn revenue. Once the govts decided they would outs the RC from governing they implemented laws so that the govt could raise the income by charging for the marriage license. But it was not like that from the beginning


edit on 25-5-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

the thousands of years of human existence by nature showed that one man and one woman equal a marriage.

in order for same sex couples to marry under the spiritual and natural laws we would have to redefine marriage from the traditional view of over 5,000 years.

And what court has that right?

BTW, If I want to disappear from my thread I can. Some of us have Jobs
edit on 25-5-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar




Nor is "Marriage" a "natural law".



To date, there is no evidence of "marriage", as understood by humans, existing in any other species. Therefore, it cannot be rationally argued that "marriage" is in any way the result of "natural law(s)".


Did you know that the male and female Cardinal mate for life. If one of them dies they do not get another and usually they die shortly thereafter.

Did you know there are many other spiecies of animals that mate for life with one mate?

so nature does in fact show a type of marriage in the natural order under the law of nature, and these are one male and one female.
edit on 25-5-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Let me reiterate that sexual pleasure or happiness is not a guaranteed right either. Marriage is not always a happy thing now is it so how can we place it under pursuit of happiness.

Because we are not guaranteed happiness, we are guaranteed the ability to pursue it. Just because your marriage sucks does not mean you did not have the right to pursue a happy one.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: Bhadhidar




Nor is "Marriage" a "natural law".



To date, there is no evidence of "marriage", as understood by humans, existing in any other species. Therefore, it cannot be rationally argued that "marriage" is in any way the result of "natural law(s)".


Did you know that the male and female Cardinal mate for life. If one of them dies they do not get another and usually they die shortly thereafter.

Did you know there are many other spiecies of animals that mate for life with one mate?

so nature does in fact show a type of marriage in the natural order under the law of nature, and these are one male and one female.





You obviously either did not read, or did not comprehend, what I stated just two paragraphs below the one you quoted from my previous post.

Although quoting oneself is ofttimes considered a bit "pompous", I'll risk the epithet in this instance:




It is well known that sexual reproduction is but one means of procreation, and among those species utilizing sexual reproduction for purposes of procreation, only humans engage in "marriage". Most species utilizing sexual reproduction for procreation simply "mate" temporarily and then separate, once procreation is accomplished. A relatively few species (certain species of geese, for example) "mate for life" in monogamous relationships, although I doubt seriously that human proponents/defenders of marriage would accede to calling such relationships a "marriage".


(Emphasis added by me)





so nature does in fact show a type of marriage in the natural order under the law of nature, and these are one male and one female



In light of what I have previously written, based on your above quote, are you saying/arguing/promoting as a tenet of moral, philosphical, and physical certaintude, that the traditional human concept of Marriage is equivalent to animal mating behaviour?

Do you recognize the fact that by holding to this rhetorical position, you have, yourself, completely undermind the so-called "marriage-as-a-sacred-act" basis purported by those who would claim that marriage must be limited to one man and one woman! P.S.: There is no "type of marriage" as you allude to in your above quote; there is only "marriage", and not marriage.

You are , yourself, declaring that the basis of what you mean by the term "marriage" is nothing more than natural animal behaviour related to sexual reproduction; you're as much as saying that the tom cat in my backyard and the Queen he just humped are, and should be considered, nay, MUST be considered every bit as "Married" as any pious couple at any altar!

Seriously!?!



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

the thousands of years of human existence by nature showed that one man and one woman equal a marriage.


Not exclusively. You have failed to show that. Thousands of years of human existence by nature has also shown that homosexual coupling ALSO existed throughout history. It doesn't have to be one or the other. BOTH sorts of coupling HAVE, CAN AND DO exist in harmony.



in order for same sex couples to marry under the spiritual and natural laws we would have to redefine marriage from the traditional view of over 5,000 years.

And what court has that right?


The court that issues the licenses. For the purposes of SECULAR MARRIAGE (not biblical), the court issues the licenses, provides the benefits AND decides who can have a license. Nature and biblical texts have homosexual couplings throughout.

Trying to make marriage an exclusively man/woman prospect is a fool's game. Homosexuality has always existed and therefore homosexual coupling has always existed.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Did you know that the male and female Cardinal mate for life.
Did you know there are many other spiecies of animals that mate for life with one mate?


Did you know that bonobos, the hyena, walruses, lions and dolphins are all polygamous and quite promiscuous and many engage in homosexual behavior: Apes, lions, dolphins, sheep, elephants, giraffes, monkeys, some birds, lizards and even insects? And some others have life-long homosexual pairing and parenthood?

So, if you want to discuss the "nature" aspect of homosexuality AND "marriage", you'd better do some research.

So, given that there were homosexual love relationships in the bible and in nature, your OP is falling apart at the seams.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn



Did you know....

Did you know that the US is a secular country & not a theocracy. Your bible & your god hold no legal authority here.
Not everyone "believes" as you do, not everyone constructs their life & liberty around ancient superstitions dreamed up by a herd of goat humpers from the ME.

Gee you don't like gay marriage, fine don't marry a same sex partner. Just don't have the audacity to tell others they can't when no compelling societal reason can be found.

Pfft...sanctity of marriage, what's the divorce rate in the country, better than 50% now isn't it. How come your god isn't throwing lightning bolts around about that hmmm? Oh maybe because religion is BS, fairytale fantasies created by those who would crown themselves king.

Worship as YOU wish & leave everyone else alone to pursue their happiness as they wish.

K~




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join