Posted on 06/05/2015 8:35:19 AM PDT by wagglebee
I heard Steve Deace making this argument.
I don’t think there’s any basis for saying that a “right,” by definition, must be fulfillable by an individual without reference to any other individual.
To marry is a natural right. Any man has the right to marry any woman who gives her consent. And any woman has the right to marry any man who gives his consent.
Obviously, there are some rational limits as to who MAY legitimately give such consent. I.e., only those who are not married already, and of a certain age, mental capacity, etc.
no, marriage is a construct to end or at least reduce the problems resulting from sexual promiscuity and management of personal wealth.
the marriage restraints are accepted by both religious and governmental institutions to enable people to live together in large groups
The Christian view is that marriage is a divinely-instituted reality. The necessity and utility of marriage exist because of fundamental aspects of human nature.It consists in the mutual consent of the spouses. Among most Christians, marriage between two baptized persons is believed to have been raised by Jesus Christ to the status of a sacrament—Matrimony.
Dead giveaway that he’s an atheist libertarian.
“I don’t think there’s any basis for saying that a “right,” by definition, must be fulfillable by an individual without reference to any other individual.
To marry is a natural right. Any man has the right to marry any woman who gives her consent. And any woman has the right to marry any man who gives his consent.”
Is it the individuals ‘right’ to ‘marry’ you speak of or their ‘right’ to request a union?
You do not have a ‘right’ to be granted union by the other parties, just as you don’t have a ‘right’ to the union itself. Only a ‘right’ to request it.
Natural rights must exist in nature or their not natural. ‘civil rights’ call themselves ‘civil’ because they claim to be premised on the ground that they are promised by other people. Theses of course can be the subject of dispute on what other people had promised and had been entitled to promus in terms of services much as it is easy for anyone to claim that I had promised them anything in an effort to acquire that thing. Much as it is also popular for certain ideological factions to make such a claim against everyone else in-order to provide for themselves at our expense. Even Government leaders situate their unjust power upon this foundation. But whatever the claim is if it is from anther person it is not a natural right but a claim toward some sort of ‘civil’ entitlement.
Conflating the two is no different then declaring a man’s existence makes him a slave to anther man.
The qualification was ALREADY in my definition. You went on and on and on about a qualification that I had ALREADY made.
Any man has the right to marry any woman WHO GIVES HER CONSENT. Any woman has the right to marry any man WHO GIVES HIS CONSENT.
Marriage is the exchange of consent by a man and a woman to engage in those acts which are, by their nature, apt for the generation of children. No one has the right to engage in such acts except men and women who have entered marriage with one another. Such acts, by their nature, demand a lifelong common life, so that children may be nurtured properly.
Our society has accepted divorce, and sodomy within marriage (i.e., contraception). Therefore, no reason remains not to redefine “marriage” as a union of two men, two women, three men, three women, two men and one woman, two women and one man, etc., ad infinitum.
“Natural law” and “natural rights” have nothing to do with any fictitious, theoretical “nature”—i.e., a man alone in a forest. No human being other than Adam has ever been alone.
“Any man has the right to marry any woman WHO GIVES HER CONSENT. Any woman has the right to marry any man WHO GIVES HIS CONSENT.”
I’m afraid that is not true, in many if not most states men and women who are too closely related or too young in age are not permitted to enter that particular form of contractual relationship with each other.
As for other combinations such a polygamy that too is banned by all states.
Still other combinations of union not involving members of the other sex that is not called a marriage union but rather has anther name consistent with its natural propose which cannot be by the laws of nature and nature’s God to have children and raise a family. And therefore must exist for some other propose and by some other set of terms.
We actually have as many such contracts as any two or more people can imagine. Most are some sort of business partnership given they are founded for financial proposes. There are however other kinds such as social fraternal orders and roommate agreements.
Once again because they can’t possibly be able making and raising families they are not called marriages.
The fact that the State has largely destroyed the legal institution of marriage over the last 100 years as you have described does not in itself change the nature of that contractual union. Merely fail to reinforce it with the power of the state. To that question if you wish to be more honest the State should simply drop its support from the institution all together not mock it by forcefully redefining it nature.
“The author errs both in asserting there is no human right to marriage and in asserting there’s such a thing as self-ownership.”
Tell me then what is a “human right” if it is separate and apart from a “natural right” as described by the anther and our founders?
To be honest The only times I find myself at odds with people who uses the term “human rights” is that they frequently try to clam people have rights to other people’s hard earned Goods or services.
This is of course to infringe upon a potentially infinite number of natural rights of everyone who must be bound to somehow provide for those select services that YOU have decided they somehow owe to everyone else.
As for “self-ownership” perhaps you could tell me if I do not own myself then who does? Or perhaps you simply reject the notion of ownership which is of course a problem of your imagination not a practical one.
Everything in the universe can be said to be owned by someone, some group, or unclaimed by everyone. Your usage of that property is a demonstration of your claim to own some part of it or at least have the consent of those who do.
God owns you. Thanks for asking.
I believe I also said that there are some rational limitations. Consanguinity is one of those.
You really thought that I MEANT that brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry? You walk around with that much contempt for other people’s intelligence? You thought I needed it explained at great length?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.