Inalienable Rights

[teresaq]

When it comes to polygamy

same-sex marriage,

how do their unalienable rights affect others?

Do they affect anyone other than the parties involved?

[doug yowell]

When it comes to polygamy

same-sex marriage,

how do their inalienable rights affect others?

Do they affect anyone other than the parties involved?

Which inalienable rights are you referring to?

[Overaged]

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.

[teresaq]

When it comes to polygamy

same-sex marriage,

how do their unalienable rights affect others?

Do they affect anyone other than the parties involved?

Ok, since some do not appear to be capable,

I will.

Would I have to legally rent to a same-sex couple? Do I now have to rent to a couple living together?

That's for starters. Only those who can prove their answers with the specific applicable law, please.

[teresaq]

Rights of Clergy- Canadian Law

Canadian Same-Sex Marriage Info

[Overaged]

Ok, since some do not appear to be capable,

I will.

Would I have to legally rent to a same-sex couple? Do I now have to rent to a couple living together?

That's for starters. Only those who can prove their answers with the specific law, please.

Are you having fun posting to yourself? All those baited, leading questions...It must be hard keeping up with your own answers. If and when you present evidence against what the scriptures say a marriage is; I will reply to you again.

[Overaged]

Rights of Clergy- Canadian Law

Canadian Same-Sex Marriage Info

Interesting that you would resort to linking to a website that is clearly against certain religions

[teresaq]

Are you having fun posting to yourself? All those baited, leading questions...It must be hard keeping up with your own answers. If and when you present evidence against what the scriptures say a marriage is; I will reply to you again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

[teresaq]

Interesting that you would resort to linking to a website that is clearly against certain religions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

[Overaged]

You have clearly described yourself twice in a row; emphasis noted. LOL,

Maybe I am a "troll;" but what business is it of your's, and why do you subvert this topic, with this myopic commentary? Why don't you start a separate topic about me if you are so interested in practicing what you preach and sticking to the OP?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Interesting that you would resort to linking to a website that is clearly against certain religions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

[Overaged]

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

In Internet slang' date=' a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2'] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

[Alchemy]

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?

I must admit, your questions don't make sense.

Of course not for the serial killer or homosexual. Most of the founding fathers wanted the death penalty for homosexuals, Thomas Jefferson was kind in only wanting them castrated.

As far as the Africans of the time, there were many who wanted them included but couldn't get a majority. That is a very disgusting trade off to have to make, and we ended up going to war with ourselves to finally make it right.

But, homosexuals were never supposed to be protected and it should stay that way. The founding fathers got that part right. As far as the best way to handle their punishment, they needed to think about that some more.

But, we need to understand that intuitively, it is easy to see something is wrong or filthy without actually spelling it out. If we ignore this basic principle, the Declaration and the Constitution are up for grabs.

[teresaq]

Oh, my goodness!

[lazarus]

LOL

[doug yowell]

[but, we need to understand that intuitively, it is easy to see something is wrong or filthy without actually spelling it out. If we ignore this basic principle, the Declaration and the Constitution are up for grabs.

But isn't that just the point of this whole thread? Just ignore Who (or what) makes the inalienable inalienable,ignore the documents that spell out those distinctions, ignore the history of what those who first declared the existence of those inalienables meant for them to refer to, pretend like the historical legality of the inalienables doesn't exist and, ta da, we should be able to work this thing out (ala the Beatles)..."We can work it out...

[doug yowell]

The simple fact is that neither homosexual behavior or same sex marriage is an "inalienable right, granted by the Creator." But then, perhaps I'm out of place by referring back to the self-evidence of Nature and Nature's God.

[teresaq]

I think you are forgetting that "sin" is an unalienable right granted us by God.

If it weren't, Satan would have been destroyed instantly,

and we wouldn't,

each and everyone of us,

be living in sin

down here.

Open, unadulterated sin,

that we are free to commit

each and every day, all day, of our lives.

We all have the unalienable right to sin any way we choose, whenever we choose, as often as we choose.

[doug yowell]

That is a very twisted definition of "rights". If that definition was true then God would need to encourage humanity to take advantage of those rights and all laws restricting evil behavior would be labeled as an infringment of those rights. But isn't that exactly what the argument is about, redefining what is right and wrong? So why is restraining either evil or good an infringment of inalienable rights? By the above construct anyone has the inalienable right to deny inalienable rights to anyone else merely because it an inalienable right to do so.

[doug yowell]

I think you are forgetting that "sin" is an unalienable right granted us by God.

If it weren't, Satan would have been destroyed instantly,

and we wouldn't,

each and everyone of us,

be living in sin

down here.

Open, unadulterated sin,

that we are free to commit

each and every day, all day, of our lives.

We all have the unalienable right to sin any way we choose, whenever we choose, as often as we choose.

This explanation simply makes human volition God.It confuses God's saving mercy with a perception that He has an apathy towards sin.It is at it's core antinomianism. Ignoring the continuing Biblical warning that "we must all stand before the judgment seat..." for this they are willingly ignorant of..." Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."ect...ect...ect... can only result in believing that sin itself is

inalienable.

[doug yowell]

I think you are forgetting that "sin" is an unalienable right granted us by God.

If it weren't, Satan would have been destroyed instantly,

and we wouldn't,

each and everyone of us,

be living in sin

down here.

.

The Bible is full of historical examples demonstrating the point of no return that God has granted sin and sinners.The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah,Egyptian slavery,the Amorites,apostate Israel, debauched Babylonian kingdoms,Ananias and Sapphira, and hundreds of other stories. What a fake out if sin is an inalienable right that God eventually erradicates. What an incoherent example of inalienable "rights" accompany any perscribed punishment of sin in the Bible.

[teresaq]

Yeah, I think I see what you are saying, maybe.

God never gave anyone a real choice to not follow Him, cause in the end He will zap us good for not choosing Him? He's just letting us think we have a choice?

[Overaged]

I think you are forgetting that "sin" is an unalienable right granted us by God.

If it weren't, Satan would have been destroyed instantly,

and we wouldn't,

each and everyone of us,

be living in sin

down here.

Open, unadulterated sin,

that we are free to commit

each and every day, all day, of our lives.

We all have the unalienable right to sin any way we choose, whenever we choose, as often as we choose.

There is a point to be made when we say that we are "free" to committ sin/s. I would just add that the extent of that freedom varies depending upon the situation. For eg., society has various restrictions/limits on what we can do, so does God. He sets limits.

[Overaged]

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?

Anything that actually is established as a 'right" does have certain paramaters that we can go by. Just as we are "free" to exercise a right; we are free to not excercise a right. having certain rights does not mean we have to exercise them. What do you think? Or am I out in left field on that?