What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

What are the three things we want even if we are in a state of nature...we want life, we want the freedom to do as we will, and we want to keep our property. Doesn't matter if there is a government or not...and that boils down to what rights are natural to us...our natural rights.

If you assume people as a whole are the same. Depressed people who want to kill themselves obviously don't want life. We want freedom to do as we will, however, we don't get it and that is what makes us different from animals. And we want to possess, but again, that doesn't always fly.

They aren't natural rights if only because constantly does our daily lives conflict with such rights. Rights are not rights if they can be taken away.

We can be killed, we can have our freedoms taken from us, and we can have our property taken from us.

Not without Consequence.

 

[Intense]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness...You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

A man has the right to marry a man.

Geography effects that.

 

[Modbert]

Not without Consequence.

Really now? Consequence from whom?

Do the words Eminent Domain and U.S. Patriot Act mean anything to you? How about Japanese Internment Camps? Or War?

 

[Intense]

but kevin,
...you don't have a right to have roads...

...Those are goods and services that could be supplied by the market.

Imagine if all the roads were privately owned.

Imagine how many tolls you would have to pay to get to work.

And where I live in a rural area, the owner of a road connecting point A to point B would not have any competition and would be able to charge an astronomical toll, yet make absolutely no improvement to the road.

Your only other choice would be to drive 20 miles out of your way to avoid the poorly maintained road.

No...I don't see that roads could be exclusively privately owned.

Come visit us in NYC, bring E-Z Pass. Troll Bridges and Tunnels as far as you can see.

Feds Can Maintain by Consent, which they do. Same with States, Counties, Cities, and Towns. A Primary reason for Taxation. Few private roads by us.

The con is making think we have no say. Divided we fall.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness...You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

A man has the right to marry a man.

Marriage is a religious institution. As such it is up to the private religious institutions to decide their own policy on marriage. If they decide that two men or two women can get married, great. If not then that's their prerogative. I don't believe the government has a role in defining marriage whatsoever outside of enforcing a contract, which is what marriage essentially is.

 

[Intense]

Not without Consequence.

Really now? Consequence from whom?

Do the words Eminent Domain and U.S. Patriot Act mean anything to you? How about Japanese Internment Camps? Or War?

Temporal, and technically with oversight. Who do you know that was messed up by the Patriot Act to Date?

Hamilton/Jefferson Federalism was Principled. Hamilton's was a means to an end, The Empire. We got Screwed, somewhat. Hamilton sort of Agreed to Enumerated Powers, planning all along to Trump it with Health and General Welfare. We got conned. Eminent Domain is sometimes Truly Justified, and sometimes an abuse of Power. When those Concerned are Fully Compensated and Appeased, that is a good indicator that all is well.

Japanese Internment Camps possibly saved lives. Can You prove otherwise? Had the war started differently for us, things may have played different.

 

[Intense]

Is sexual activity a requirement for marriage? Is marriage a requirement for sexual activity?

Yeah ... it is... as marriage is the JOINING of two people... where two become ONE... (see the metaphor coming into play here?) Thus the consummation thing... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...

Are you actually saying that there are laws that state that a married couple must have sexual intercourse before the marriage is legally complete and fully valid?

Where are you from...the Middle Ages???

Show me a current law from any state in this country that clearly states that a marriage is not valid until the couple has sexual intercourse.

That is your assignment.

Jewish, Catholic, I'd bet Islamic. Consummate or don't let the screen door hit you on the way out. Seriously, Personal Choice, but legal grounds for annulment.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you look at the fact that taxation must be collected by force, and is obviously not voluntary, then I think you have to come to the conclusion that taxation is nothing more than theft. The government has not worked for this money but yet it lays a claim on it. Now there seems to be a consensus from some in this thread that taxation is legitimate because we elect our representatives and they do what they do in our names. I grant that this is how the system is supposed to work. However, and I'll use the example of healthcare once again, our representatives are not sent to Washington with the authority to do whatever they please. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to enact universal healthcare, so would it not then, at least, be theft for the government to tax me for the funding of this universal healthcare that it does not have the authority to enact in the first place?

 

[Modbert]

Not without Consequence.

Really now? Consequence from whom?

Do the words Eminent Domain and U.S. Patriot Act mean anything to you? How about Japanese Internment Camps? Or War?

Temporal, and technically with oversight. Who do you know that was messed up by the Patriot Act to Date?

Hamilton/Jefferson Federalism was Principled. Hamilton's was a means to an end, The Empire. We got Screwed, somewhat. Hamilton sort of Agreed to Enumerated Powers, planning all along to Trump it with Health and General Welfare. We got conned. Eminent Domain is sometimes Truly Justified, and sometimes an abuse of Power. When those Concerned are Fully Compensated and Appeased, that is a good indicator that all is well.

Japanese Internment Camps possibly saved lives. Can You prove otherwise? Had the war started differently for us, things may have played different.

Japanese Internment Camps threw many innocent Americans into jail for no other reason other than the fact they were from Japanese decent. In fact, 62% of those thrown into the camps were citizens. There's also the fact that the majority of those thrown in the internment camps were primarily from the West.

The fact that Congress passed a apology and Reagan signed it pretty much showed that they knew that America fucked up.

Also, people died due to lack of medical care. Other innocent people had their goods, their property that you speak so highly of as being a natural right, stolen and taken care away. So all three of your so called "natural rights" were taken away from these people.

Also, if you are one who is all about rights, it violated Article 1 and Section 9 of the Constitution.

To further show you how much you're wrong:

Two of the people who ended up in the camps were Bob Matsui who ended up being a Congressman and Pat Morita.

If you don't recognize the second name:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1gAHil89Z4]YouTube - Miyagi and Daniel catch flies with chopsticks[/ame]

That's right, Mr. Miyagi.

 

[Intense]

I DO advocate that no man has a right to marry another man... as to do so demonstrates abnormal behavior; and is a sign of an unhealthy culture; and this due to the failure of the culture to maintain sufficiently high standards to prevent such; thus the remedy for such being to RAISE the standards of behavior, to hold ourselves to HIGHER standard, which will result in the restablishment of a healthy culture. And this on the certainty that to continue to lower the standard of personal behavior will and can only result in further cultural decadence.

Again, society over individual rights.

Not Necessarily. At the time of Our Humble Beginnings, Gay Relations were taboo. The Constitutional Remedy for something You to believe unjust is not the Court, but Constitutional Amendment. 2/3 to bring it up for debate. 3/4 to ratify. By All means follow your Heart. This would have been the Prescribed path for New Powers and New Perceived Rights, had we abided by enumerated Powers as promised.

 

[xotoxi]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness...You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

A man has the right to marry a man.

Marriage is a religious institution. As such it is up to the private religious institutions to decide their own policy on marriage. If they decide that two men or two women can get married, great. If not then that's their prerogative. I don't believe the government has a role in defining marriage whatsoever outside of enforcing a contract, which is what marriage essentially is.

Actually, I agree with you as well...but to take it one step further, I would say that the state should not recognize any marriage. Instead it should recognize civil unions between two consenting adults of any sex or persuasion. It should be a legal contract exclusively without any implied or required love or sex.

The state should remove itself completely from granting licenses or contracts for any thing which is linked to love or sex...it is not the government's place.

 

[Intense]

If you look at the fact that taxation must be collected by force, and is obviously not voluntary, then I think you have to come to the conclusion that taxation is nothing more than theft. The government has not worked for this money but yet it lays a claim on it. Now there seems to be a consensus from some in this thread that taxation is legitimate because we elect our representatives and they do what they do in our names. I grant that this is how the system is supposed to work. However, and I'll use the example of healthcare once again, our representatives are not sent to Washington with the authority to do whatever they please. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to enact universal healthcare, so would it not then, at least, be theft for the government to tax me for the funding of this universal healthcare that it does not have the authority to enact in the first place?

When We unite, We have the Power to stop it in it's tracks. We need Sight, Vision, plan, we have got allot of shit to clean up. We support Government, it really is not the other way around. We need reform. The Constitution is not Perfect. The Amendment process was the tool of reform until the Government decided that it no longer needed permission. Government by the Government, For The Government. The three headed Hydra feeding on us one at a time each in it's own turn. they have it worked out to a science.

 

[xotoxi]

I DO advocate that no man has a right to marry another man... as to do so demonstrates abnormal behavior; and is a sign of an unhealthy culture; and this due to the failure of the culture to maintain sufficiently high standards to prevent such; thus the remedy for such being to RAISE the standards of behavior, to hold ourselves to HIGHER standard, which will result in the restablishment of a healthy culture. And this on the certainty that to continue to lower the standard of personal behavior will and can only result in further cultural decadence.

Again, society over individual rights.

Not Necessarily. At the time of Our Humble Beginnings, Gay Relations were taboo. The Constitutional Remedy for something You to believe unjust is not the Court, but Constitutional Amendment. 2/3 to bring it up for debate. 3/4 to ratify. By All means follow your Heart. This would have been the Prescribed path for New Powers and New Perceived Rights, had we abided by enumerated Powers as promised.

Gay relations were not outlawed, nor was gay marriage. And they are not listed in the Constitution.

 

[Modbert]

Actually, I agree with you as well...but to take it one step further, I would say that the state should not recognize any marriage. Instead it should recognize civil unions between two consenting adults of any sex or persuasion. It should be a legal contract exclusively without any implied or required love or sex.

The state should remove itself completely from granting licenses or contracts for any thing which is linked to love or sex...it is not the government's place.

This:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to xotoxi again.

 

[Intense]

Again, society over individual rights.

Not Necessarily. At the time of Our Humble Beginnings, Gay Relations were taboo. The Constitutional Remedy for something You to believe unjust is not the Court, but Constitutional Amendment. 2/3 to bring it up for debate. 3/4 to ratify. By All means follow your Heart. This would have been the Prescribed path for New Powers and New Perceived Rights, had we abided by enumerated Powers as promised.

Gay relations were not outlawed, nor was gay marriage. And they are not listed in the Constitution.

There are States today that can charge you and your wife for certain sex acts. Are You actually claiming that Gay life style was common and out in the open in the 1700-1800's?

My advice is come up with a Special word or term, come to agreement on it, and introduce it to the States Individually. Or shoot for Constitutional amendment if You think you have 75% approval.

 

[Intense]

Actually, I agree with you as well...but to take it one step further, I would say that the state should not recognize any marriage. Instead it should recognize civil unions between two consenting adults of any sex or persuasion. It should be a legal contract exclusively without any implied or required love or sex.

The state should remove itself completely from granting licenses or contracts for any thing which is linked to love or sex...it is not the government's place.

This:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to xotoxi again.

Marriages are All Civil by State or Federal Law, and Some Spiritual through Religious Church, Temple, Mosque.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A man has the right to marry a man.

Marriage is a religious institution. As such it is up to the private religious institutions to decide their own policy on marriage. If they decide that two men or two women can get married, great. If not then that's their prerogative. I don't believe the government has a role in defining marriage whatsoever outside of enforcing a contract, which is what marriage essentially is.

Actually, I agree with you as well...but to take it one step further, I would say that the state should not recognize any marriage. Instead it should recognize civil unions between two consenting adults of any sex or persuasion. It should be a legal contract exclusively without any implied or required love or sex.

The state should remove itself completely from granting licenses or contracts for any thing which is linked to love or sex...it is not the government's place.

The civil unions idea is good step toward reform, but ultimately the government doesn't need to recognize marriage or civil unions.

 

[Intense]

Marriage is a religious institution. As such it is up to the private religious institutions to decide their own policy on marriage. If they decide that two men or two women can get married, great. If not then that's their prerogative. I don't believe the government has a role in defining marriage whatsoever outside of enforcing a contract, which is what marriage essentially is.

Actually, I agree with you as well...but to take it one step further, I would say that the state should not recognize any marriage. Instead it should recognize civil unions between two consenting adults of any sex or persuasion. It should be a legal contract exclusively without any implied or required love or sex.

The state should remove itself completely from granting licenses or contracts for any thing which is linked to love or sex...it is not the government's place.

The civil unions idea is good step toward reform, but ultimately the government doesn't need to recognize marriage or civil unions.

Why should Marriage change to please you?

 

[xotoxi]

Actually, I agree with you as well...but to take it one step further, I would say that the state should not recognize any marriage. Instead it should recognize civil unions between two consenting adults of any sex or persuasion. It should be a legal contract exclusively without any implied or required love or sex.

The state should remove itself completely from granting licenses or contracts for any thing which is linked to love or sex...it is not the government's place.

The civil unions idea is good step toward reform, but ultimately the government doesn't need to recognize marriage or civil unions.

Why should Marriage change to please you?

Do you want your state giving people a piece of paper and saying "Here. This is a license to fuck. We will file your heterosexual fucking papers in the state archives. Make sure you do a lot of foreplay."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually, I agree with you as well...but to take it one step further, I would say that the state should not recognize any marriage. Instead it should recognize civil unions between two consenting adults of any sex or persuasion. It should be a legal contract exclusively without any implied or required love or sex.

The state should remove itself completely from granting licenses or contracts for any thing which is linked to love or sex...it is not the government's place.

The civil unions idea is good step toward reform, but ultimately the government doesn't need to recognize marriage or civil unions.

Why should Marriage change to please you?

Marriage shouldn't change to please me. The marriage issue as it's framed today simply fails to acknowledge that marriage is not an obligation of the state but a product of private institutions of religion. To use the government to force the religious institution to define marriage in any way is to commit aggression against the rights of that religious institution to define marriage as they will within their religion.

Furthermore, I find the idea of state sponsored marriage lacking. Marriage is supposed to be a spiritual union between people who love each other and adding government bureaucracy into the mix simply undermines that.