Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

Inalienable Rights


Recommended Posts

This may seem to have more to do with the government, but I see it as tying into religious freedoms also.

In an effort to understand both better, perhaps, could we ponder the meaning of

Quote:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

What about a pedophile? His/Her "greatest" happiness is in, well we all know what.

Or a serial killer?

For me the answer is that no one's rights take away the rights of another. That is probably a no-brainer.

When it comes to polygamy, homosexuals, and homosexual marriage, how do their unalienable (edit: sp corrected) rights affect others? Or do they affect anyone other than the parties involved?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • teresaq

    44

  • doug yowell

    32

  • Parade Orange

    27

  • Shane

    16

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Excellent question teresaq, and some very good answers or points. It seems we need to pin down exactly what those that wrote that had in mind!! Because it didn't do any good for African Americans, Women for a long time, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree pk. I remember when it dawned on me about the "all men". That included blacks also, yet we still had to add a separate clause-whatever I mean to say- to include them. That for me was like a back-handed acceptance.

And women. In many, if not most, "men" tend to include women, in general except when referring to someone(s) specifically.

But I hope this does not get diverted from the op.

Does someone see how homosexual rights, including marriage, could take away the rights of others?

What about polygamy? How would that affect the rights of others? I have an idea on the last one but I would like to others first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The most obvious answer would be to note the source of all human rights. Since, according to this Declaration, all rights have been endowed "by their Creator" it only follows logically that when in doubt of what is and what isn't an unalienable human right, the source of those rights should be consulted. This, of course, would rule out same sex marriage and discourage polygamy.

If,however,it were later determined by the government the original Declaration had established,that there was,in fact, no Creator then all unalienable rights would be then determined by the one who could arbitrarily create and forceably enact whatever rights they unalienably decided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a pedophile? His/Her "greatest" happiness is in, well we all know what.

Or a serial killer?

For me the answer is that no one's rights take away the rights of another. That is probably a no-brainer.

When it comes to polygamy, homosexuals, and homosexual marriage, how do their inalienable rights affect others? Or do they affect anyone other than the parties involved?

I think there's a difference between "marriage" and "civil union". Civil unions exist in almost any place you go. They can be both polygamous and monogamous. But it's a legal concept.

The problem is that church allowed state to dictate marriage in order to protect it and control it, and eventually comes back the full circle.

It should have been the church entity, instead of government controlled entity. The government could dictate civil unions and the legal aspects of it. They should have no hand in marriage.

That's why we have the conflict that we have. Gay people really are not seeking "marriage". They are seeking civil union. We should certainly let them.

As far as adoption, it's a questionable issue, but it certainly can be argued that two man union can raise a child better than dysfunctional family. I disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

What about a pedophile? His/Her "greatest" happiness is in, well we all know what.

Or a serial killer?

For me the answer is that no one's rights take away the rights of another. That is probably a no-brainer.

When it comes to polygamy, homosexuals, and homosexual marriage, how do their inalienable rights affect others? Or do they affect anyone other than the parties involved?

I think there's a difference between "marriage" and "civil union". Civil unions exist in almost any place you go. They can be both polygamous and monogamous. But it's a legal concept.

The problem is that church allowed state to dictate marriage in order to protect it and control it, and eventually comes back the full circle.

It should have been the church entity, instead of government controlled entity. The government could dictate civil unions and the legal aspects of it. They should have no hand in marriage.

That's why we have the conflict that we have. Gay people really are not seeking "marriage". They are seeking civil union. We should certainly let them.

One of the main purposes of governmental support of marriage has been to recognize the benefits and stability that certain relationships contribute to the society as a whole. Encouraging those types of connections strengthen and further the existence of such society. Same sex advocates don't seek allowance of their civil unions,this they already have been granted, what they demand is recognition of their relationships as equally as beneficial to the moral and social health of the country as the legally promoted,historical heterosexual institution of marriage.

Under the guise of "rights" same sex activists argue that the state has no right to deny them equal access to the unalienable rights which the state, which has always determined, has no right to determine. The demand is then made for the state to grant that equal right to same sex unions that they have argued that the state has no right to determine is not beneficial to the social health of the state. Very clever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

As far as adoption, it's a questionable issue, but it certainly can be argued that two man union can raise a child better than dysfunctional family. I disagree.

I am torn in this area myself.

I think of unwanted children, but homosexuals who want to adopt tend to be just like heterosexuals in wanting newborns if possible.

what would be the difference between a dysfunctional family and a homosexual couple? What has been the research so far, if any, on children from homosexual couples?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to polygamy, homosexuals, and homosexual marriage, how do their inalienable rights affect others? Or do they affect anyone other than the parties involved?

One of the main purposes of governmental support of marriage has been to recognize the benefits and stability that certain relationships contribute to the society as a whole. Encouraging those types of connections strengthen and further the existence of such society. Same sex advocates don't seek allowance of their civil unions,this they already have been granted, what they demand is recognition of their relationships as equally as beneficial to the moral and social health of the country as the legally promoted,historical heterosexual institution of marriage.

Under the guise of "rights" same sex activists argue that the state has no right to deny them equal access to the unalienable rights which the state, which has always determined, has no right to determine. The demand is then made for the state to grant that equal right to same sex unions that they have argued that the state has no right to determine is not beneficial to the social health of the state. Very clever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

As far as adoption, it's a questionable issue, but it certainly can be argued that two man union can raise a child better than dysfunctional family. I disagree.

I wholeheartedly agree with your disagreement. This type of argument commonly put forth as proof of equality is in itself flawed since same sex couples are by nature dysfunctional. While same sex couples can provide food, clothing, ect... they cannot provide that unique aspect which the opposite sex brings to the table. Nor can they properly teach or model how to interact with the opposite sex or how to fully control their own sexual identity.

Furthermore, the argument generally ignores the thousands of "functional" heterosexual couples that are immediately available to adopt children thus creating no need for same sex couples.

As Bible believers we also can add that the argument is a direct attack on the purpose and wisdom of God in creating,in His image,male AND female.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree with your disagreement. This type of argument commonly put forth as proof of equality is in itself flawed since same sex couples are by nature dysfunctional. While same sex couples can provide food, clothing, ect... they cannot provide that unique aspect which the opposite sex brings to the table. Nor can they properly teach or model how to interact with the opposite sex or how to fully control their own sexual identity.

Furthermore, the argument generally ignores the thousands of "functional" heterosexual couples that are immediately available to adopt children thus creating no need for same sex couples.

As Bible believers we also can add that the argument is a direct attack on the purpose and wisdom of God in creating,in His image,male AND female.

:like:

Link to post
Share on other sites

... since same sex couples are by nature dysfunctional. While same sex couples can provide food, clothing, ect...
I didn't see any mention of "love", in your list. Would that be an important ingredient, as you see it, in raising a child?

The question then is, which dysfunction is worse for the child. For example, a same-sex couple live quietly, are respectful and kind to all, a hetero couple are drunks, busy-bodies, cruel to all.

I think if I were a child I would pick the same-sex couple. Which would you choose, if you were a child?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to polygamy, homosexuals, and homosexual marriage, how do their inalienable rights affect others? Or do they affect anyone other than the parties involved?
Two different questions. That same sex relationships are inalienable rights begs the question. According to the document which first identified that there were in existence unalienable rights which governments were responsible for promting and protecting, the unalienable came from a Creator who gave to humanity those rights which human governments were duty bound to protect. If same sex marriage (much less same sex sex) can be determined to be a right granted by the Creator then those arguments have validity in the discussion.Since the institution of marriage can be traced back to the sixth day of creation it should be fairly clear whether same sex relationships are part of human rights that are to be considered equal to opposite sex relationships.

As to how those formerly unlawful (in modern western society)marriage and sexual relationships affect others when recognizing them as the equivelent of heterosexual, monogamous relationships,there are several roads that can traveled:......

I'll get to these later but right now I've got three 9 year old boys that are getting restless so I'll be back later.

In the meantime I think a little thought about the effects on others should uncover at least a few self evident answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: doug yowell
... since same sex couples are by nature dysfunctional. While same sex couples can provide food, clothing, ect...
I didn't see any mention of "love", in your list. Would that be an important ingredient, as you see it, in raising a child?

The question then is, which dysfunction is worse for the child. For example, a same-sex couple live quietly, are respectful and kind to all, a hetero couple are drunks, busy-bodies, cruel to all.

I think if I were a child I would pick the same-sex couple. Which would you choose, if you were a child?

That's easy. I would choose one of the thousands of loving, fully functional heterosexual couples that were living a quiet,respectful, and kind life and had been waiting for years to adopt.The options presented above do not represent the reality of the adoptional world and I would like to have both a mother and a father. More balanced, more functional,more better.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, the argument generally ignores the thousands of "functional" heterosexual couples that are immediately available to adopt children thus creating no need for same sex couples.
And you base that on, what? In other words to make such a statement one would have to assume they are God and able to determine "functional" in their fellowman, as God would determine it.

In addition, if that were so...why are there so many children without homes? You know, those children that are no longer newborns or babies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: doug yowell
Furthermore, the argument generally ignores the thousands of "functional" heterosexual couples that are immediately available to adopt children thus creating no need for same sex couples.
And you base that on, what? In other words to make such a statement one would have to assume they are God and able to determine "functional" in their fellowman, as God would determine it.

Interestingly you employed the word dysfunctional without any hesitancy in being able to determine it's human application. If humans cannot determine functional then dysfunctonal would also require it's employers to be God in order to determine dysfunctional behavior. You identified dysfunctional as drunkards,busy bodies,and cruel in contrast to quiet,respectful, and kind. Since it is self evident that all heterosexual couples do not fall into the dysfunctional (your term)category described, it logically follows that they would then fall into the "loving" latter category. And since same sex couples represent, at best, less than 3% (very generous)of the general population it doesn't take a rocket scientist to arrive at the overwhelming number of functional heterosexual couples that await adoption.

If the Bible is correct in it's assessment of human behavior then it describes homosexual behavior as "unnatural" or dysfunctional, against God's design, and thus destructive to the welfare of human society. If the Bible ceases to be the unfallible guide of right and wrong then logic and reason goes out the window and only those who have the physical or pursuasive power to enforce their mores become the arbitrators of right and wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
According to the document which first identified that there were in existence unalienable rights which governments were responsible for promting and protecting, the unalienable came from a Creator who gave to humanity those rights which human governments were duty bound to protect.

If same sex marriage (much less same sex sex) can be determined to be a right granted by the Creator then those arguments have validity in the discussion.

Since the institution of marriage can be traced back to the sixth day of creation it should be fairly clear whether same sex relationships are part of human rights that are to be considered equal to opposite sex relationships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the difrence between CIVIL UNIONS n MARRIAGE across the united states

Social Security

workplace benefits

immigration

military benefits

federal tax returns

health insurance

federal protection

Societal/Culteral/Familial/Religious Respect and Boundries

Veterens Benefits/Government Pension

over 1,000 benefits across the United States of America being Married

only over 300 for Civil Unions for those particular States that recognize The Unions

so some of you fools think that offering gays civil unions is the same as marriage?

think again

Gays are humans and deserve every dignity and respect

and if u say u are a christian without understanding that ...

Go to the CROSS and see how lacking u are in LOVE to thy Neighbors as thyself who believe YOU deserve every dignity and respect for your own family and spouses

Link to post
Share on other sites

the difrence between CIVIL UNIONS n MARRIAGE across the united states

Social Security

workplace benefits

immigration

military benefits

federal tax returns

health insurance

federal protection

Societal/Culteral/Familial/Religious Respect and Boundries

Veterens Benefits/Government Pension

Link to post
Share on other sites

straight couples shacking up can get married if both parties agree for any reason and no one can tell them they cant

True,but many say they don't believe in marriage or that it isn't necessary.Why should they be discriminated against?

If my husband passes away before me why do I have to make a choice of living alone or giving up his SS benefits.

Isn't it my right?

If a man wants two wives who are you to say he can't marry both.

There are consequences to the decisions we make and we may not like them.So what?

That does not give anyone the right to demand "rights" based on their choices in life.

No one says a gay couple cannot live together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

im sorry if you thought i have in any way show u unkindness

im stating a fact

'straight couples shacking up can get married if both parties agree for any reason and no one can tell them they cant'

and God offers dignity and respect for all humans

Jesus showed that on earth and it baffled peopleDont tell me you are baffled at what im saying

that gays deserve respect and dignity cause they are human

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...