Hacker News Reader

> I consider the entire premise of marriage is that it is a permanent thing until death do us part.

Right so you invented a notion of marriage which doesn't apply in the society you live in and then invented a problem created by that invented supposition.

This all sounds very normal.

If marriage is not some kind of "special" arrangement, why do we place so much value on the concept?

Marriage is clearly very different from and more significant than simple friendship or other mundane relationship arrangement, and everyone's reasoning as to why will vary depending upon their religious and/or cultural upbringing and values.

Personally, as I stated earlier, I consider marriage to be some kind of permanent-ish arrangement (and especially if children become involved). There is an artificial out (divorce), but as far as I'm concerned it isn't something that should be used with wanton abandon. Thus, I place a lot of weight on why I would marry in the first place; if I am going to divorce, I should not have married in the first place.

I am deliberately violating the "Do not let perfect be the enemy of good." rule precisely because I demand a would-be marriage to be perfect given how many human rights I would flagrantly violate. I know I am never going to marry with such prerequisites and I desire that, because otherwise I cannot live with myself.

If you have any worthwhile arguments to the contrary to bring to the table I am quite happy to hear them. My conclusions thus far are the result of many years of deep and thorough deliberation, but I am also aware that it is far from infallible.

> If marriage is not some kind of "special" arrangement, why do we place so much value on the concept?

Marriage is an economic and logistical framework for the raising of children.

Any society that doesn’t come up with a viable way to raise children ceases to exist almost immediately.

So that’s why.

> If we also were to have children, I/we would also be imposing my/our will upon them. I/we would be violating our childrens' unalienable right to liberty and potentially pursuit of happiness. I cannot accept that.

What? The only way to avoid mass human rights violations is the extinction of the human race in one generation?

So... you're part of a suicide cult basically.

The fact that I have no interest in violating human rights or propagating life have nothing to do with whether I am suicidal (which I am not).

I think that axiomatically quoting the US declaration of independence is a deeply unhealthy way of approaching the world the world at large.

So you disagree that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights?

Are you saying that they can (or should?!) be violated?

Why?

No GP but I think they such rights cannot be absolute because the same right can conflict with itself.

Say it's the 18 century with slavery is common. The slave owners are depriving the slaves of liberty and happiness. But the deprivation of the slaves liberty brings the owners happiness.

If you cannot persuade the owners to stop depriving slaves of liberty, then there two options remain.

One, you respect the owners right to happiness. But at the expense of the slave's liberty.

Two, you use force to stop the owners from violating the slaves rights. But in doing so you violate the owners right to happiness.

What's the answer then here if there no options that do not harm someone's unalienable rights?

Simple: A man's rights end where another man's rights begin.

To use your example, the slave owner's right to pursuit of happiness ends where the slaves' rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness begin. A would-be slave owner cannot and should not violate another man's (a would-be slave's) right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Going back to the subject of marriage, my right to liberty ends where my would-be wife's right to liberty begins and vice versa. Marriage is inevitably a compromise of both our rights to liberty. Thus, I find marriage a violation of human rights.

>To use your example, the slave owner's right to pursuit of happiness ends where the slaves' rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness begin. A would-be slave owner cannot and should not violate another man's (a would-be slave's) right to liberty and pursuit of happiness

Except you've chosen to violate the owners right to happiness by attempting to place limitations on the rights that were so called inalienable. What you think the limit should be and what the slave owner thinks the limit should be differ.

Same right, but in this case brought into conflict by disagreement of interpretations.

Second, what happens when the other side refuses to stop because he believes that your interpretation is wrong? What do you do then?

Two rights colliding is essentially an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. The two can not (should not) violate each other, thus one's rights end where another's begins.

Governments are also tasked with guaranteeing those rights, and those who violate another's rights are deprived of their rights as mandated by laws.

For example, a murderer (violator of another's right to life) is imprisoned (deprived of his right to liberty) and possibly even executed (deprived of his right to life).

Yes they can conflict. I chose slavery because it did conflict. 13 States left succeeded from the United States to form the Confederacy to protect slavery at the behest of their own citizens. And the remaining Union disagreed. Violently. The US Civil War was one of the bloodiest in it's history.

Even today. SCOTUS overturning Roe vs Wade and allowing States to prohibit abortions. A difference because of a disagreement on whether or not a human embryo is entitled to be treated as a full human being with all the same rights and responsibilities.

Hence the nuance. You can look at the same document that says these rights, but how they are achieved and what limits there are can differ due to differences in opinion.

You do realize the original quote from Locke was “life, liberty and pursuit of property”?