I cannot fathom what you are babbling about.
Ya can't fathom? Well now... whatta shame... what must life me in the absence of the means to fathom... but such is the nature of left-think...
What rights are being taken away from "those that we are taking the rights away from?" Your right to not be offended?
Well, no valid right can be taken away from anyone, by another of equitable power.
What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards... Specifically wherein certain idiots use the color of science; thus the inherent authority of science, which is derived by the objective nature of true science... but in actuality is the subjective nature of pseudo-science... in particular the pseudo-science which pretends to 'study' sexuality...
Such is a machine which perpetuates myth, lies and colors such in empty platitudes, which portray the deception of reasonless conclusions of the vacuous variety, for the purposes of stripping the American culture of its VALUES...
It's rather frustrating...
We're a civilized people, who tend towards enduring the burden until it becomes unbearable... the long pause, wherein our endurance is being tested, tends to lead those who would rob us of our means to exercise our rights, into a false sense of security... in which they erroneously conclude that there is no point at which we will rise up... and inevitably, demand what we know is right, in terms from which there is negotiation; and through a level of determination, which they've no means to comprehend.
Such has proven to be a cultural ending mistake, in the past; for those who have failed to recognize the nature of our metal and the permanence of the bed-rock on which our we and principles are founded...
Let me just throw this out there. How about this concept:
No right is maintained except at the expense of another.
Tech, I gotta say, that is patently: Absurd...
If this were not true, there would be no need for "rights." The concept of rights exist at the edge of a political divide.
True human rights are few; each stems from the endowment of life, from one's creator, to each individual... on the reasoning that had the Creator not intended a right to one's life, they would not have provided that life... thus the premise extends that had the Creator not intended for one to be free to pursue the happiness of one's life, he would not have endowed the right, which stems from the life he endowed...
Now given that the Creator provided these rights to each individual, each RIGHT possessed by each individual, exist at equity with one another, NO individual having realized a right of superiority over another... reason is served that there exist a responsibility which sustains these rights, which is
inherent in these rights;a responsibility which must be observed and maintained to recognize that one's right to life, thus one's right to pursue the fulfillment of that life can not be exercised to the detriment of ANOTHER'S life, or the rights on which the AUTHORITY for that life rests and to defend, not only ONE'S OWN LIFE and it's intrinsic rights, but those of one's neighbor...
Now that is perfection... that is the natural order of balance and such perfection is ONLY disturbed where it is affected by the inherent imperfection of humanity...
Where a right is perceived and the exercising of that right comes to infringe upon the perceived right of another... a discussion ensues where these points are brought to a bench; each individual laying out their reasoning... without regard to the specific issues... it is the reasoning which must prevail... and that reasoning must begin at the beginning and flow to the end... for either to prevail in reason... there must be continuity; one cannot simply claim that I am rightfully entitled to X because I say so... or because Y says so... or because A-X says so and that out votes Y and Z... and all those people can't be wrong... the reasoning must consistently flow continually, with each measured step resting within a valid logical construct, which carries it's substantial reason from each step…
Of course, the imperfection of the species requires that such is not always the case; that often such is rarely the case... and THAT is the function of the governance... and THAT is the basis which requires that the leadership of a free culture must be comprised of virtuous individuals, who possess the means to reason soundly and who represent the best interests of liberty and who FULLY understand and thoroughly comprehend the principles of valid human rights and the sustaining responsibilities... and who understand the immutable nature of the equality with which EACH individuals rights are vested and to judge those circumstances of POLITICS against that equality; FAIRLY...
Which is NEVER to be confused with the deceptive misnomer which resides in the understanding wherein the immutable nature of the FAIRNESS is said to be that with which each right is vested... as reason requires that fairness is born of equality... and it does not translate to the inverse... and THAT is the corrupting element of this and every point of contest since this corrosive deception came to being in US Governance a century ago.
That is, politics is the art and science of determining who gets what and how in the division of scarce resources.
Again... you've jumped to conclude that government, which is the embodiment of politics... is the purveyor of rights... 'who gets what'...
REASON is the purveyor of who gets what; and all politics is, is the means by which that reason is explored and debated.
A right is claimed, by some or all, against the contestant for that same space that the right subsumes.
This calculation erroneously assumes that it is possible for all of the parties to correctly come to a point where a valid right exists which runs counter to the interests of two or more individuals... such is not the case... Such is an example of the above noted misnomer... where FAIRNESS is set before equality... where two or more individuals assume a right to which they are NOT entitled, through invalid, unsound reason... and push their position over specious ground... advancing it through deceptive reasoning and I'd say that this reasoning is, more often than not, believe by them to be valid and sound, thus it is up to virtuous leadership to apply the immutable principles noted above and correct this error in judgment, without regard to how the misguided individual or individuals 'feel' about it, in terms of fairness...
In the instant case, if gay people wish to maintain a right to same sex marriage
And it is HERE that the reasoning fails... wishing to maintain a right, does not a RIGHT MAKE... what is the basis of this right?
I wish to maintain a right to suit up as a starting Running back for the Dolphins next season and further to maintain a right to set new yardage records which will stand for a decade. Of course, my wish for such a right is set aside by the reasoning that I simply do not meet the NUMEROUS, WELL FOUNDED STANDARDS FOR SUCH... And I may feel VERY STRONGLY that it's not FAIR that the Dolphins do not recognize my STRONG DESIRE to be a record breaking Running-back... and that its NOT FAIR that the crowds of fans will not stand and applaud the greatness inherent in my WISH...
But, sadly, the reality is, that these days my 40 yard times are measured by a calander, my agility is equaled by a refrigerator and my general athletic skills are surpassed in most Girlscout camps on a regular basis... thus, I decidely do not meet the standard that is required by everything from COMMON SENSE to the Miami Dolphin coaching staff... and this
despite my being a team player, with a positive attitude and strong leadership skills; with the added bonus of presenting a delightful stage presents for the camera...
...
the new right (for it must be a new right if it does not currently exist) is created in the space currently occupied by societies current conception of marriage.
there are no new rights... at least not "Human Rights', there are only new protections which may have been previously ignored... but for such to be valid, they must serve justice... and to serve justice they must defend and maintain a valid human right... and such is NOT the case with regard to this erroneous notion that homosexuals have a right to CHANGE the standard to suit their abnormality, which that standard was specifically designed to EXCLUDE... and that they feel that it is NOT FAIR, is as irrelevant as it is erroneous...
As the relevance is EQUALITY, which in and of itself bears FAIRNESS... FAIRNESS cannot bear EQAULITY...
Homosexuality stands at diametric opposition to the standard of Marriage... thus they are not suitable for such. But they are in possession of equal rights, and what's more Marriage does NOT EXCLUDE HOMOSEXUALS from participation... ANY homosexual can make application, WITH ANOTHER HOMOSEXUAL... WHERE THE TWO APPLICANTS are representative of the distinct genders.
What's more, homosexuals are NOT being denied the just and valid right to cohabitate, to love one another, to commit to one another... they are not being denied economic equity... and where they feel that they are, they are entitled to pursue a remedy to that injustice through the SAME MEANS by which they are presently attempting to infringe upon the rights of those who understand and defend the standard of Marriage... Homosexuals have a clear and uncontested right to join as one legal entity, to establish their specific entity as they see fit, to determine their best interest, to pursue their common aspirations and to meet the exact same goals as that which THEY PERCEIVE the bi-gender couples who enjoy Marriage realize... they simply cannot do so through Marriage as MARRIAGE IS A UNION OF TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO REPRESENT
BOTH DISTINCT GENDERS.
Therefore, the new right to marry burdens the current right to marry. While it does not take it away, it modifies marriage and what it means to be married to some extent.
Yes, and it is THAT burden, which demonstrates the infringement of another's right... which demonstrates their failure to observe their responsibility to NOT INFRINGE UPON THOSE RIGHTS POSSESSED BY THE OTHERS, IN THE EXERCISING OF THEIR RIGHTS...
Whether the burden on the current concept of marriage is too great, is the question we are discussing.
The burden itself, sustains the valid and sound determination that their plea is invalid and unsound.
In contrast to circumstances where homosexuals were being treated inequitably... they'd have a case... where a homosexual came to apply for marriage with a member of the opposite gender and was denied the application based upon their sexual orientation... they'd have a case... where the Homosexual was being denied the right to cohabitate with other homosexuals, to join in a committed relationship with other homosexuals and to form a distinct, legal singular entity comprised of both homosexuals... they'd have a case...
As in every facet, they would realize a circumstance where valid rights were being infringed... valid rights which stem from their right to be free to pursue the fulfillment of their lives; which stems from their right
to their lives, which stem from the endowment by their Creator, that provided those lives; all of which resting upon the immutable authority OF the Creator... which is sustained at every level, by their uncontested freedom to exercise their rights in every facet of those circumstances...
They simply argue that it is not FAIR that they should be prevented from claiming the status of MARRIAGE... because the standards of such necessarily EXCLUDE THEM. But such is the nature of standards... and it is THAT which is at risk and THAT which is at play...
The left; the homosexual lobby is interested in only ONE THING... They aspire to the legitimacy which crossing those thresholds represent...they simply want to cross those thresholds without having to meet the standard...
Imagine if we, the fat assed fans of football... took that SAME tact in challenging the standards required for participation in such as the Left is taking in this circumstance...
WE Carry the day... the 9th circuit finds for our plea and the NFL folds and we're IN!
There was are, all suited up... the crowds, the smell of the grass... the flip of the coin and BLUHhhhhhhhh..... what we won throughthe absurd reasoning accepted by a civil authority enforcing an invalid plea... was the invalid RIGHT TO DESTROY THE NFL... As being a STARTING Running back NO LONGER MEANS that you're a massive, fleet-footed finely tuned althete... who can test himself against the rest of the best athletes in the world and succeed...
Being a Starting running back as revised by the invalid decision of the civil authority now simply means that Starting Running backs for the NFL are just below average fat guys, of sub-standard athletic ability who infringed upon the rights of the true athletes to exercise their rests... to pursue the fulfillment of their lives and to become to best at what they do... put out by idiots who managed to find a sympathetic civil authority, who failed to sustain their requirement for virtuous leadership and in so doing implemented a twisted, irrational, invalid notion of fairness... over and above the critical, sustaining function of equality.
Ya see, I have the RIGHT to pursue my 'wish' to be a Starting NFL Running back... but the standards of such are simply such that without regard to the time and effort I put into being such... it is never going to happen. PERIOD. I don't have the goods... that may not seem fair to some; but that I HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE MEANS TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT TO PURSUE THAT GOAL... provides that I have the SAME OPPORTUNITY as thosse who have earned their starting status...
It's plain and simple... nothing complex about it; it simply provides the simple conclusion that those so heavily invested in their advocacy to normalize deviancy are simply not prepared, or possibly not sufficiently intellectually equipped, to accept.
