issodhos, you cannot answer the question with "natural rights" since those exist only because you have said they exist.
The concept of natural and pre-existing Rights did not originate with me, Phil. It has not only a long history of thought behind it, but the US Constitution itself is written in a manor recognizing the pre-existance of Rights. Rights must already exist before a written restriction against their infringement or violation can make any sense.
The ball is actually in your court. give us a single "principled reason" for the rights you claim. And please, exactly what are those rights? I have tried in vain to drag the answer from you to no avail.
No, it is not. I already have. And the only thing you have "tried in vain" to do since recognizing that you started something you could not finish, is to try to hide that fact -- and in doing that you have been busier than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.:-)
I only see one right regarding property in the Constitution and I stated it at the beginning. There are no natural laws governing anything in the US. We have a written Constitution and that is the final word on the matter. Where is yours?
Oh really?:-) Apply that to the claim that willing parties have a right to enter into same-sex marriage. There is no such right stated in the Constitution. You say there are no natural laws governing anything in the US. We have a written Constitution and that is the final word on the matter? Really?
I show you two wide-open doors, Phil. The Constitution does
not grant Rights, it
recognizes their pre-existence and even enumerates a
few of them. We then look at a second really, really cool thing about what was going on in the heads of the Founding Daddies -- the nineth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall
not be construed to
deny or disparage others
retained by the people.") We are discussing Rights here, Phil, and that has precious little to do with the Constitution. So, if same-sex marriage is eventually shown to indeed be a Right, it will come from a concept of natural and pre-existing Rights because anything else would be nothing more than a privilege granted and easily rescinded by the state.
Like I have written before, you can either have your cake or you can eat it, but not both, and there are no free lunches. Don't like the smoke in my bar? Respect my property rights and go to a non-smoking bar where you will be happier, my customers will be happier not offending you, and I will be left in peace to enjoy my life and my property.
Yours,
Issodhos
