5 ms·

I'm not sure you just read my post; my point is not about marriage, my point only included reference to a specific objection that is often raised in discussions

by jlgreco 13y ago

I'm not sure you just read my post; my point is not about marriage, my point only included reference to a specific objection that is often raised in discussions about marriage. The merits of the objection are not what I am referencing, only the obtuseness of its presentation. In this discussion/context, I am not concerned with the relative merits of gay marriage. I hope I have just made that clear. Just forget I said it. I regret saying it and causing this OT tangent.

einhverfr 13y ago
The presentation I think is underlying a more general problem. The question is, what is a right? I think you have a point that most of the discussion on rights is based on people sitting on their butts thinking "wouldn't it be nice if..." or "I want..." or "I think it would be fair if...." I would then say that most of the discussion on both sides of most of these issues (telephone metadata scooped up in large-scale operations, no-fly lists as violating due process, same-sex marriage, and much more). I agree that's unhealthy. I was trying to provide an alternative viewpoint that would allow for discussions.
- rhizome 13y ago
  The question is, what is a right? It's a question, but not The Topic of this thread.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    > It's a question, but not The Topic of this thread. How can you discuss whether interstate air travel is a right if we can't discuss what a right is?
    - rhizome 13y ago
      Read the thread again, there's only one person trying to have that discussion.
pyre 13y ago
I think that you just stepped into someone that wants to debate gay marriage. The best response is just to ignore them.