Inalienable Rights

[teresaq]

So don't marry someone of the same sex. Now that was simple wasn't it.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

The question is not, what does God want...the question is

For the true Christian the question is ALWAYS "What does God want?"

[doug yowell]

I'll be waiting to see if you have valid, "it will take away my, or someone else's rights" points,

We've already included (though you've chosen to ignore them)the taking away of the rights of the BSA to use public facilities,the right of a photographer to determine who he will or will not shoot in order to make a living, the right of Catholic adoption agencies to determine who they will or won't offer their children to, and literally hundreds of other examples could be drafted.

Let's add to that list the State of California's mandating the teaching of homosexual virtue in it's public school system, using my tax dollars to teach that my value system is indeed evil.

Given all the studies on homosexual mental and emotional struggles the addition of marriage will no doubt include the passing on of most or all of those problems not the least of which will involve the fostering of more sexual identity problems.

All this is a small part of the coming persecution of those who openly oppose legitimization of the homosexual lifestyle(an oxymoron).To ignore the present record of the gay rights movement is to invite and deserve a bigger dose of what's already here.

[Dr. Shane]

Ok. So you also appear to expect this nation to enact laws based on the bible...

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

The question is not, what does God want...the question is...

The question is "Where do unalienable rights come from, and (in this particular context)do they include same sex marriage?"

Well, where do you think they originate from? How does that compare with what the signers of the Declaration of Independence stated in the Declaration itself?

A lot of smack talk but you still haven't answered this core question. Where do inalienable rights come from?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

By your post I get the idea that you see this nation as a theocracy where we are to enforce the laws of God...

So are you admitting that the Law of God prohibits same sex marriage?

Ya didn't answer this one either.

[doug yowell]

The same question can also be asked of the proponents of same sex marriage."How does not being granted the social status of marriage infringe on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

Or this one.

[teresaq]

OK, this is semi legit.

Quote:

The right to marry someone of one's choice seems to me to fall under human rights

No, not even close to a human right. For example, I may want to marry a 10 year old girl but I have no right to do so.

[teresaq]

You haven't answered the ops question, yet you demand that you be answered? cute.

Quote:

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?

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

The question is "Where do unalienable rights come from, and (in this particular context)do they include same sex marriage?"

Well, where do you think they originate from? How does that compare with what the signers of the Declaration of Independence stated in the Declaration itself?

A lot of smack talk but you still haven't answered this core question. Where do inalienable rights come from?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I may want to marry someone from another country. I may be allowed to do that if I do all the right paperwork but I have no basic human right to do so.

Says who? The fact that you can do it says you do have that right.

[teresaq]

My point had to do with your post about the supposed loss of rights for some catholics. You may not have had time, or missed that post...

I need to see both sides of all supposed events, the catholic orphanage and catholic printer, since they were mentioned.

The point is, that segregation was forced on a people who did not want it. I am sure that people felt their rights were infringed on also. Try not to jump tracks, ok?

How did you guys feel about desegregation which was pretty much forced on the people, well on certain "people" anyway?

Should they have been forced to serve blacks in their restaurants, etc.?

Quote:

It threatens religious liberty. In one case a Catholic adoption agency was forced to either close its doors or start placing children with same-sex couples. The agency decided to close its doors. In another case, a printing shop owned by a Catholic was ordered to print wedding invitations for a gay couple.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

This is a prime example of the immediate effects of compromising the unique relationship between one man and one woman. ...

[Dr. Shane]

The point is, that segregation was forced on a people who did not want it. I am sure that people felt their rights were infringed on also.

I think you mean desegregation was forced on people.

Desegregation did not force anyone to violate their religious beliefs. For example, no religion taught that it was sinful to eat in a cafe that was not segregated or that it was sinful to send your children to a school that was not segregated.

The gay rights agenda does exactly that. It forces people to decide between obeying the teachings of their church or civil authorities. The right to practice one's religion is a human right while gay marriage is a special right. When human rights clash with special rights, human rights should always trump.

[teresaq]

Are you talking about this country or other countries, Shane?

Lets not jump tracks again. Please. The op has to do with the unalienable rights declared in the Declaration of Independence. We are not discussing any other country. This country does not prohibit any of its citizens from marrying outside of this country.

Quote:

I may want to marry someone from another country. I may be allowed to do that if I do all the right paperwork but I have no basic human right to do so.

Says who? The fact that you can do it says you do have that right.

[teresaq]

Thank you for the correction. Yes I did mean desegregation. You might want to check into the religious beliefs going on then a bit more.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

The point is, that segregation was forced on a people who did not want it. I am sure that people felt their rights were infringed on also.

I think you mean desegregation was forced on people.

Desegregation did not force anyone to violate their religious beliefs. For example, no religion taught that it was sinful to eat in a cafe that was not segregated or that it was sinful to send your children to a school that was not segregated.

[Parade Orange]

has anybody wise told that when the person has rancor in their heart

towards someone

the guy cant do any right nor say any right in their eyes

!

its true

[Dr. Shane]

Are you talking about this country or other countries[?]

We are talking about the difference between human rights, civil rights and special rights. I haven't jumped the track once in this discussion. Human rights, civil rights and special rights.

Human rights are not dependent on the civil government. Human rights cross international borders. Human rights come from God.

Civil rights are created by a civil government. That is why they are called *civil* rights. Those are very much dependent on the country. Often these rights are part of a nation's constitution - but not always. Many of the civil rights in the US came about by legislation passed during the LBJ Administration.

Special rights are created by legislation for only a select portion of a nation's population.

[Dr. Shane]

You might want to check into the religious beliefs going on then a bit more.

Which religious organization taught it was a sin to send their children to a desegregated school? Remember that segregation was limited to the South. The northern and western states had the same religious groups as the South and none of them felt they were living in sin because segregation was not part of their society.

[teresaq]

Are you talking about this country or other countries, Shane?

Lets not jump tracks again. Please. The op has to do with the unalienable rights declared in the Declaration of Independence. We are not discussing any other country. This country does not prohibit any of its citizens from marrying outside of this country.

Quote:

I may want to marry someone from another country. I may be allowed to do that if I do all the right paperwork but I have no basic human right to do so.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

Says who? The fact that you can do it says you do have that right.

Originally Posted By: Shane

People are denied the right to marry people from other countries every day. It is not a human right to be able to marry someone from another country. Denying someone from doing so is not considered a human rights' violation.

We are talking about human rights. (Shane's definition) We have a human right to marry someone of the opposite sex but the civil government has the right to limit our choices. A brother and sister can get operated on so they cannot produce children and a civil government still has the right to ban them from marrying. Banning them would not be a human rights' violation.

Says who? If they choose not to bring children into this world through their union then I would say it is a violation of their rights. What other reason makes it wrong?

[teresaq]

I repeat, You might want to check into the religious beliefs going on then a bit more. To be more precise what was taught in the pulpits during slavery days but had not left the minds of certain peoples even after "emancipation" of the black American people.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

You might want to check into the religious beliefs going on then a bit more.

Which religious organization taught it was a sin to send their children to a desegregated school? Remember that segregation was limited to the South. The northern and western states had the same religious groups as the South and none of them felt they were living in sin because segregation was not part of their society.

[Dr. Shane]

This thread is entitled "Inalienable Rights" and it is in the "Religious Liberty Issues" forum. Neither inalienable rights nor religious liberty are confined within man-made political borders. If we are going to discuss this things, let's not artificially try to manipulate the discussion.

[Dr. Shane]

I repeat, You might want to check into the religious beliefs going on then a bit more. To be more precise what was taught in the pulpits during slavery days but had not left the minds of certain people's even after "emancipation" of the black American people.

That seems like you are avoiding my question. Let's try again, please.

Which religious organizations taught that it was sinful to send your children to a desegregated school or eat dinner in a desegregated cafe?

What it seems you are insinuating is a very faulty argument. You seem to be saying that because many churches in the South were racist that they were teaching it was sin to abstain from racism. I think you would have a difficult time showing that. That is like saying that since the Baptist church teaches that it is OK to eat meat, they teach that it is sinful to be a vegetarian. That simply would not be true. They do teach it is OK to eat meat but they do not teach it is sinful to be a vegetarian.

Try again, please.

Which religious organizations taught that it was sinful to send your children to a desegregated school or eat dinner in a desegregated cafe?

[doug yowell]

You haven't answered the ops question, yet you demand that you be answered? cute.

I (as has Shane)have answered the ops question and you reject out of hand the answer without providing any legitimate rebuttal to the facts in the cases.It's not cute, it's critical to answer the question of where the inalienable comes from if we are to understand the meaning of the document which you quoted from. Just because Doug or Teresa thinks a right is unalienable doesn't mean that it is. The Declaration of Independence categorically states that all unalienable rights originate from a Creator.Your skepticism about the necessary religious connection of inalienable human rights seems to keep you from addressing the obvious. I simply asked a question that is directly connected with the original question that you posed.

You've stated your understanding of what you think human rights consist of but have failed to defend your beliefs when asked how they harmonize with the inalienable aspect.

I reject any of your subjective conclusions if you keep insisting that the origin of those rights is whatever you think they are. This is simply because if we can't agree on the source of those rights we can never come to agree on what those rights consist of. Since the document from which you framed the ops question contains the key to the answer to that question, wouldn't it be easier to determine whether we are going the same direction with this thread?

[doug yowell]

My point had to do with your post about the supposed loss of rights for some catholics. You may not have had time, or missed that post...

I need to see both sides of all supposed events, the catholic orphanage and catholic printer, since they were mentioned.

The supposed loss? The supposed events? Do you think someone just made up this story? Do you think that perhaps the Catholic adoption agency just packed up and left the children after 100 years service because they no longer cared about them? why would you even make a statement like this? Are you completely unaware of what states are doing with their new gay rights legislation? These laws are meant to eliminate any group that doesn't give gays the "rights" they demand at the expense of those children in need of adoptive services. Who's gonna pick up the slack now? But you're not sure this actually affects anyone else's rights?

[doug yowell]

We are talking about human rights. (Shane's definition) We have a human right to marry someone of the opposite sex but the civil government has the right to limit our choices. A brother and sister can get operated on so they cannot produce children and a civil government still has the right to ban them from marrying. Banning them would not be a human rights' violation.

Says who? If they choose not to bring children into this world through their union then I would say it is a violation of their rights. What other reason makes it wrong?

And on what objective basis would you conclude that?

[doug yowell]

In an effort to understand both better, perhaps, could we ponder the meaning of In the context of same sex marriage, if this is an unalienable right, why has it never been self=evident? There has never been any society or culture in the recorded history of the world that has ever granted homosexual unions the public recognition of marriage. Rome, Greece, not even Sodom and Gomorrah has any record of this being granted as a right even though homosexuality was commonly accepted and practiced. There is no record of the Creator (God) considering homosexual unions as an acceptable marriage option. Those who argue for this new definition of marriage stand alone in world history.Wiser than the totality of 6000 years of religious and philosophical input. More morally astute than the sum of the world's greatest religious leaders. Demanding as an unalienable right that which has never before been considered.Attempting to redefine the unnatural as the natural. Self-evident??Who's fooling who here?

[doug yowell]

Historically, laws prohibiting homosexual activity were in place when this document was drafted and nearly 200 years later they were still legally recognized. So apparently the founders were unanimous in their failure to recognize same sex marriage as an unalienable right.Unlike,the slavery violation which was vehemently divisive from day 1.Why the difference?