Is There A Right Side In Politics?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is not correct. This is the the relevant agreed-upon moral standard: "…all men are created equal... [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [among which] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Begin there. Go no further. Explain why Pete Buttigieg, a man, in pursuit of happiness should be denied the right to marry his partner Chasten, to adopt children with him. No one would think to deny Donald Trump to marry the person he loved. Yet, a Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Justice, signalled from the Bench that the Court would appear willing to consider states writing laws to overturn Obergefell -- which permits same-sex marriage throughout the union. This was done deliberately, in order to encourage haters in many red states to start the process.

 

[Unfettered]

Begin there. Go no further. Explain why Pete Buttigieg, a man, in pursuit of happiness should be denied the right to marry his partner Chasten

I offer no such explanation because, appealing to the standard, government has no authority to deny him the right to marry Mr. Chasten, assuming Mr. Chasten also consents to the union.

[Explain why Misters Buttigieg and Chasten, once married, should be denied the right] to adopt children.

Absent any lawful judgment that might disqualify them as candidates for adoptive parenthood (equally as it would disqualify any other, potential adoptive parents), I offer no such explanation because, appealing to the standard, government has no authority to deny them the right to adopt a child whose natural parents consent to the adoption.

No one would think to deny Donald Trump to marry the person he loved.

I don't know what Donald Trump has to do with this scenario, nor do I understand the basis upon which you claim knowledge to make that statement. So let's keep our focus...

Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Justice, signalled from the Bench that the Court would appear willing to consider states writing laws to overturn Obergefell -- which permits same-sex marriage throughout the union. This was done deliberately, in order to encourage haters in many red states to start the process.

I've read in context the opinion of Justice Thomas to which you allude. What is the substantive basis of your claim that his opinion was to be a signal to anyone, for any reason, beyond that which he stated in his opinion? Here is the opinion, in case anyone wants to review it:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

------------

Summarizing our discussion progress, as yet I have seen no evidence presented to support the claim that the US moral standard relevant to the question has been fractured. If you believe you have posted such, please highlight it. (This is not a signal that the discussion is ended; it is just a summary from my perspective)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

as yet I have seen no evidence presented to support the claim that the US moral standard relevant to the question has been fractured. If you believe you have posted such, please highlight it.

Quite simple, really. If the right to same-sex marriage is "an agreed-upon moral standard," and if there are many seeking to take that right away (as there are) -- then I cannot think why anyone would call it "agreed-upon."

 

[Unfettered]

Quite simple, really. If the right to same-sex marriage is "an agreed-upon moral standard," and if there are many seeking to take that right away (as there are) -- then I cannot think why anyone would call it "agreed-upon."

The right to same-sex marriage is not an agreed-upon standard; the right to pursue happiness is. Again, we need to keep focus on the standard, not on any subdivision of the standard.

In application, taking Mr. Johnson as an example, if we were to ask him if he he agrees that a man with homosexual interests has the right to pursue happiness, what do you think he would say? Or, if he has been asked this question, what did he say?

 

[Kathryn]

Did you know that Puritans of all people refused to let the state condone their weddings or marriages?

 

[Unfettered]

Did you know that Puritans, of all people, refused to let the state condone their weddings or marriages?

Good for them! The state has no business regulating marriage between consenting adults.

 

[Kathryn]

Good for them! The state has no business regulating marriage between consenting adults.

I totally agree. One of the few things I agree with Puritans about. Maybe the only thing, I don't know.

 

[Unfettered]

I totally agree. One of the few things I agree with Puritans about. Maybe the only thing, I don't know.

One thing is something, right?

 

[Kathryn]

On thing is something, right?

I guess!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The right to same-sex marriage is not an agreed-upon standard; the right to pursue happiness is. Again, we need to keep focus on the standard, not on any subdivision of the standard.

In application, taking Mr. Johnson as an example, if we were to ask him if he he agrees that a man with homosexual interests has the right to pursue happiness, what do you think he would say? Or, if he has been asked this question, what did he say?

I know what he has said, so it doesn't matter what I think he would say, do you agree?

“Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and, the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone,” he wrote. “Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle. If we change marriage for this tiny, modern minority, we will have to do it for every deviant group. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and others will be next in line to claim equal protection. They already are. There will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet.”

 

[Unfettered]

I know what he has said, so it doesn't matter what I think he would say, do you agree?

“Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and, the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone,” he wrote. “Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle. If we change marriage for this tiny, modern minority, we will have to do it for every deviant group. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and others will be next in line to claim equal protection. They already are. There will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet.”

Only if what he said was in answer to the question I asked. Was it?

 

[Heyo]

That is not correct. This is the the relevant agreed-upon moral standard: "…all men are created equal... [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [among which] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Found in the US Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/frontmatter/organiclaws/independence&edition=prelim

You seem to be under the impression that the above quote has any relevance in US law. It doesn't. The Declaration of Independence is not part or even inspiration of any law or declaration of a right.
You think you have an unalienable right to life? Think again. Your right to life can be taken away (alienated) by a judge and jury in 27 States.
The same goes for Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. If it isn't repeated or clarified in a legal document like the Constitution or Bill of Rights, you don't have that right.

 

[crossfire]

You seem to be under the impression that the above quote has any relevance in US law. It doesn't. The Declaration of Independence is not part or even inspiration of any law or declaration of a right.
You think you have an unalienable right to life? Think again. Your right to life can be taken away (alienated) by a judge and jury in 27 States.
The same goes for Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. If it isn't repeated or clarified in a legal document like the Constitution or Bill of Rights, you don't have that right.

Ninth Amendment of US Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
​

 

[Unfettered]

You seem to be under the impression that the above quote has any relevance in US law. It doesn't. The Declaration of Independence is not part or even inspiration of any law or declaration of a right.
You think you have an unalienable right to life? Think again. Your right to life can be taken away (alienated) by a judge and jury in 27 States.
The same goes for Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. If it isn't repeated or clarified in a legal document like the Constitution or Bill of Rights, you don't have that right.

The Declaration of Independence is the first law in the US Code. The US Code is where the laws of the United States of America are codified. You can read the US Code here: https://uscode.house.gov/

 

[Heyo]

The Declaration of Independence is the first law in the US Code. The US Code is where the laws of the United States of America are codified. You can read the US Code here: https://uscode.house.gov/

Then why do some States (and the Union) still don't recognize an unalienable right to life?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Only if what he said was in answer to the question I asked. Was it?

Okay, you wanna play sophistry, I don't do that. Being a single contributor, I also don't have a team of researchers to go and look for every word that every American politician has ever said, and in what context. That, too, seems part of your play.

So why don't you do you, for just a moment. What is your answer to your own question: ", if we were to ask him if he he agrees that a man with homosexual interests has the right to pursue happiness?"

1. Do you agree that he does?
2. And do you agree that if he finds it, with a man, he has the right to embrace it (in other words, to engage in consensual sexual relations up to and including marriage)?
3. And do you agree that this relationship and marriage fit within your "agreed-upon moral standard?"

I ask this because you are trying to duck speaking for yourself at every turn, but I don't accept that you are Socrates.

 

[Unfettered]

Then why do some States (and the Union) still don't recognize an unalienable right to life?

Because there are imperfect human beings involved.

 

[Unfettered]

Okay, you wanna play sophistry, I don't do that.

I'm not playing sophistry. Everything I post is exactly what I intend to post. What I ask is exactly what I intend to ask. If you'll respond to what I write without trying to get out in front of the discussion or to read between lines—if you'll answer the question I ask instead of a question I don't ask—you'll have no cause to conclude that I'm being evasive, nor will confusion result.

Let's continue...

So why don't you do you, for just a moment. What is your answer to your own question: ", if we were to ask him if he he agrees that a man with homosexual interests has the right to pursue happiness?"

1. Do you agree that he does?
2. And do you agree that if he finds it, with a man, he has the right to embrace it (in other words, to engage in consensual sexual relations up to and including marriage)?
3. And do you agree that this relationship and marriage fit within your "agreed-upon moral standard?"

I ask this because you are trying to duck speaking for yourself at every turn, but I don't accept that you are Socrates.

On #1, because I don't know if he has answered that question, I can only speculate. But from other things he's said I would expect him to respond, "Yes." Meaning, I believe he would agree that, without exception, every human being has the right to pursue happiness, including a man with homosexual interests.

On #s 2 and 3, are you asking me, personally, or asking me what I think he'd say?

On the "ducking" charge, was that direct enough an answer for you? —Socrates

 

[Heyo]

Because there are imperfect human beings involved.

So, there are lawyers, judges and lawmakers who are unable to understand that the Declaration of Independence is part of US law, but you have figured it all out?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not playing sophistry. Everything I post is exactly what I intend to post. What I ask is exactly what I intend to ask. If you'll respond to what I write without trying to get out in front of the discussion or to read between lines—if you'll answer the question I ask instead of a question I don't ask—you'll have no cause to conclude that I'm being evasive, nor will confusion result.

Let's continue...
On #1, because I don't know if he has answered that question, I can only speculate. But from other things he's said I would expect him to respond, "Yes." Meaning, I believe he would agree that, without exception, every human being has the right to pursue happiness, including a man with homosexual interests.

On #s 2 and 3, are you asking me, personally, or asking me what I think he'd say?

On the "ducking" charge, was that direct enough an answer for you? —Socrates

You see? You ducked. I asked you very precisely "What is your answer to your own question."

Now, clearly I made a small slip in quoting "if we were to ask him if he he agrees that a man with homosexual interests has the right to pursue happiness," it would have been clear to an honest (not sophist) debater that I meant "you" rather than "he." I understand nit-picking and its uses, but it's not something I use, nor appreciate.