Sam, I didn't know you watched Real Time with Bill Maher

Good show by the way

Dicecube:

A right is not a claim against a "third" party. It can be a claim against a "second" party. It can be a claim against more than one other party. Or it can be a claim against all other parties.

Roe v. Wade: I am not familiar with the legal basis of this case, but the right to privacy would be a claim against all other parties. Property rights in general are claims against all others that they are not to trespass, do damage, etc.

The right to vote: The official is compelled to give me a ballot if my registration is in order. The people who count the votes are obligated to count my ballot. I have a right to challenge improperly submitted ballots. If my candidate wins, the people are obligated to install that candidate to office.

The right to bear arms: a claim against all others.

The right against self-incrimination: an immunity. Immunities are claims against all others and are a special class of rights as defined by Hohfeld.

The marriage contract: a right against a second party, the spouse, to "forsake all others". Contracts in general also create a right of non-interference-with against others.

Check the Wikipedia article on Hohfeld to get a breakdown of the precise meanings of these legal terms: right, liberty (privilege), immunity, no-right, liability, disability, duty.

DC, if the local populace wants there publicly funded school to teach some aspect of religion (ie "class it is the Cristian, Muslim, Jewish ect....belief that XYZ" as opposed to "class XYZ is true"), then it should be allowed. The locals are the ones who are paying for the school anyway, so let them have at least some say in what is taught. It doesn't even need to be a required class. Nobody is shoving anything down anybodies throat that way.

Dicecube:

In regard to the issue of same-sex marriage in particular, here is an example of why religious people would push back against same-sex marriage.

Insurance companies often offer health insurance family plans under a legal definition of what a family is. Same-sex marriage will incorporate same-sex spouses into the definition of families. Same-sex spouses are more likely to have AIDS than opposite sex spouses. Insurance companies might respond to institution of same-sex marriages by dropping family coverage. Opposite-sex couples therefore would have an incentive to resist same sex marriage because it would result in a deterioration of the quality of the insurance pool (adverse selection).

Insurance companies are already starting to drop child-only policies because of the institution of the no-preexisting-condition rule.

Chiming in on a quick note, Skrum:

Insurance companies respond to the "institution of same-sex marriages" by charging them higher (assuming you're right in that gay couples have higher % of AIDS infection). By your rationale, middle age costumers would be pushing against the inclusion of young drivers on the car insurance pool, but instead they just pay a different price. Same goes for smokers etc.

Anyway, that wasn't "an example of why religious people would push back against same-sex marriage", since your model applies to any rational individual religiosity notwithstanding.

OK, change it to "why rational people would push back against same-sex marriage".

Marraige has been and should be the union of man and woman. And this is coming from an athiest, so religion has nothing to do with it.

Good points skrum.

Skrum, your first rebuttal post simply agreed with my post. All rights are a claim against society as a whole.

As to the incidence of AIDS as a justification for prohibiting same-sex marriages, the highest infection rates among Americans is in the Black population. According to one study, black women are 19 times as likely to develop AIDS as whites and African Americans make up almost 50 percent of the total AIDS cases. Are you going to say that Blacks should be prohibited from marrying because of increased incidence of AIDS in their population?

No other argument needs to be made other than proof that one party has a penis and the other has a vagina. If we were meant to marry the same sex then our species would reproduce asexually. We don't...

DC you obviously didn't grasp the point skrum was making.