What Constitutes a "Right?"

[PubliusInfinitum]

If one accepts the premise of your statement as irrefutable fact, then God, because he exists, and because God didn't create himself, thus something else did...

Really? For that to be true, then we'd have to conclude that God is the same value as human... that God is finite, flesh and bone; is confined to one spectrum of time, to this dimension.

And to be honest I don't see that as being all that plausible... We like to believe that what our senses can observe is reality. That we have a full and complete understanding of what is... when the reality is that taken to infinity, the sum of human knowledge would fit within the space of the stuff that makes a quark look like a galaxy.

So while its cute to appeal to the notion that unknown values equal known values... its not a sound process.

...I guess that would be God's God. Which leads to the next question, who created God's God, since he couldn't have created himself.

Oops circular infinity... see the problem? Come to grips with the fact that there exists things we do not understand. Gravity exists... we don't know why it exists... we don't know where it comes from... and the only calculations that have ever made any sense at all of it, are those in M-Theory; which pegs gravitys origins in other dimensions.

Which FTR: where there exists entire universes that we can not see, that we can't touch... which are simultaneously infinitesimal and enormous... literally engulfing us, surrounding us... the minimum we can take from that is that we don't understand most of what there is to understand. Which not only leaves a TON of room for the existence of God... it makes such a stark certainty.

If you're going to be absurd, you could at least be brief.

Sweet Fail!

 

[AdlerianThinker]

If one accepts the premise of your statement as irrefutable fact, then God, because he exists, and because God didn't create himself, thus something else did...

...I guess that would be God's God. Which leads to the next question, who created God's God, since he couldn't have created himself.

Did the universe create itself, or was it always here?

Who knows? This might be the billionth reincarnation of the universe.

Brief bullshit is just as boring as long-winded bullshit.

If you don't want to answer the question either, then just say so.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Marriage doesn't fall under the category of 'pursuit of happiness'?? (no jokes please)

If not, what are examples of pursuit of happiness?

Marriage can fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. You have the right to pursue marriage if you want to do so. You don't have a right to get married, however. That would infringe on the right of the religious institution to define marriage for its religion.

Wait. The 'pursuit' of happiness is the inalienable right, but the actual attainment of the object of one's pursuit is not??

Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Civil marriage is a legally recognized union. If marriage is the pursuit of happiness, then it's an inalienable right. And since it's also, as the document says, self-evident that all men are created equal, then for the state to recognize heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage is to impose an inequality of access to an inalienable right.

RUnnnn FORREST! RUuuuuUUUN!


Homosexuals are created equal with everyone else; and they're equally free to make the choices which become their lives and the responsbility for which they are fully, solely bear.

One is entitled to pursue the fulfillment of one's life... and there are absolutely NO guarantees... why would there be, what possible purpose could that serve?


Do you guarantee your kids happiness?

What DO you guarantee?

 

[Oscar Wao]

Marriage doesn't fall under the category of 'pursuit of happiness'?? (no jokes please)

If not, what are examples of pursuit of happiness?

Marriage can fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. You have the right to pursue marriage if you want to do so. You don't have a right to get married, however. That would infringe on the right of the religious institution to define marriage for its religion.

Wait. The 'pursuit' of happiness is the inalienable right, but the actual attainment of the object of one's pursuit is not??

Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Civil marriage is a legally recognized union. If marriage is the pursuit of happiness, then it's an inalienable right. And since it's also, as the document says, self-evident that all men are created equal, then for the state to recognize heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage is to impose an inequality of access to an inalienable right.

Marriage isn't a union that's supposed to be recognized by the state. Marriage was always religious, no matter what religion you subscribed to.

If you want to solve this whole gay marriage headache, just remove marriage licenses, and allow for contracts to be created between the two parties, no matter which genders are marrying.

 

[truthsaga]

If you own it you have a right to it!

A privelage is granted permissions that can be removed.

 

[Intense]

To appeal to 'God' or 'Nature' or some other metaphysical vagueness is to attempt to avoid being responsible for your own actions and the state of the world around you. The secular humanist realizes that Man is responsible for the state of Man and Man alone can change that state. The humanist places the burden squarely upon Man to decide for himself what liberties are worth protecting at what are worth surrendering for peace and safety. The humanist realizes that if he wishes to protect his liberties and ensure for himself a state of relative freedom, peace, and security, he must be willing to defend all of his neighbors and their liberties and property and be able to trust them in turn. Realizing the natutre of the cosial contract, ther humanist- a liberal of the purest sort-sets his mind to determining what terms and conditions best serve the interest of peace, of safety, and of liberty for himself, fully aware that if he is not willing to fight for his neighbor's liberties, there will be noone to fight for his.

The center of the humanist's universe is himself.

Good luck with that.

John Locke Philosophy bastardized by a Nerd.

Let's hold on to everything but the reference to the Supreme Being.

How do we take the essence out of the two Great Commandments without referencing them directly.

 

[Intense]

Marriage can fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. You have the right to pursue marriage if you want to do so. You don't have a right to get married, however. That would infringe on the right of the religious institution to define marriage for its religion.

Wait. The 'pursuit' of happiness is the inalienable right, but the actual attainment of the object of one's pursuit is not??

Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Civil marriage is a legally recognized union. If marriage is the pursuit of happiness, then it's an inalienable right. And since it's also, as the document says, self-evident that all men are created equal, then for the state to recognize heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage is to impose an inequality of access to an inalienable right.

Marriage isn't a union that's supposed to be recognized by the state. Marriage was always religious, no matter what religion you subscribed to.

If you want to solve this whole gay marriage headache, just remove marriage licenses, and allow for contracts to be created between the two parties, no matter which genders are marrying.

The State does recognize marriage. It is a Legal Joining. Taxation, Responsibility to Spouse, Children, are enforced. Marriage can be both a Spiritual and a Social Contract. Bigamy could involve jail time. Plural Marriage could too.

 

[Intense]

Marriage can fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. You have the right to pursue marriage if you want to do so. You don't have a right to get married, however. That would infringe on the right of the religious institution to define marriage for its religion.

Wait. The 'pursuit' of happiness is the inalienable right, but the actual attainment of the object of one's pursuit is not??

Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Civil marriage is a legally recognized union. If marriage is the pursuit of happiness, then it's an inalienable right. And since it's also, as the document says, self-evident that all men are created equal, then for the state to recognize heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage is to impose an inequality of access to an inalienable right.

Marriage isn't a union that's supposed to be recognized by the state. Marriage was always religious, no matter what religion you subscribed to.

If you want to solve this whole gay marriage headache, just remove marriage licenses, and allow for contracts to be created between the two parties, no matter which genders are marrying.

My position on Gay Marriage is to create a new term to label it. Present that to the greater Society, and see what the reaction is.

 

[LilOlLady]

Depends on what "rights" you are talking about. Rights for gay to marry is not a civil right or a human right. They are entitled to human right as human but no special treatment because they are gay and want to marry.
There is nothing in the constitution they gives them the right to marry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage can fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. You have the right to pursue marriage if you want to do so. You don't have a right to get married, however. That would infringe on the right of the religious institution to define marriage for its religion.

Wait. The 'pursuit' of happiness is the inalienable right, but the actual attainment of the object of one's pursuit is not??

Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Civil marriage is a legally recognized union. If marriage is the pursuit of happiness, then it's an inalienable right. And since it's also, as the document says, self-evident that all men are created equal, then for the state to recognize heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage is to impose an inequality of access to an inalienable right.

Marriage isn't a union that's supposed to be recognized by the state. Marriage was always religious, no matter what religion you subscribed to.

If you want to solve this whole gay marriage headache, just remove marriage licenses, and allow for contracts to be created between the two parties, no matter which genders are marrying.

Proposing an absurdity is no answer. Civil marriage isn't going anywhere.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage can fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. You have the right to pursue marriage if you want to do so. You don't have a right to get married, however. That would infringe on the right of the religious institution to define marriage for its religion.

Wait. The 'pursuit' of happiness is the inalienable right, but the actual attainment of the object of one's pursuit is not??

Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Civil marriage is a legally recognized union. If marriage is the pursuit of happiness, then it's an inalienable right. And since it's also, as the document says, self-evident that all men are created equal, then for the state to recognize heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage is to impose an inequality of access to an inalienable right.

RUnnnn FORREST! RUuuuuUUUN!


Homosexuals are created equal with everyone else; and they're equally free to make the choices which become their lives and the responsbility for which they are fully, solely bear.

One is entitled to pursue the fulfillment of one's life... and there are absolutely NO guarantees... why would there be, what possible purpose could that serve?


Do you guarantee your kids happiness?

What DO you guarantee?

Why should the law allow heterosexuals the inalienable right of the 'pursuit of happiness' embodied in a legally recognized, civilly supported marriage, and deny homosexuals the same?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Depends on what "rights" you are talking about. Rights for gay to marry is not a civil right or a human right. They are entitled to human right as human but no special treatment because they are gay and want to marry.
There is nothing in the constitution they gives them the right to marry.

There is no 'special treatment' involved in allowing gays the right to legally marry. Allowing gays that right simply eliminates the 'special treatment' that heterosexuals are getting.

 

[Setarcos]

Does a Mexican citizen, in the Pursuit of Happiness, have the Liberty to cross the border into the United States to find a better job and make for himself a better Life?

That liberty is restricted by the People of the United States. He may do so through the appropriate legal channels.

 

[Setarcos]

Marriage can fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. You have the right to pursue marriage if you want to do so. You don't have a right to get married, however. That would infringe on the right of the religious institution to define marriage for its religion.

American Marriage has nothing to do with religion

if it does, then it's illegal and all marriages are unconstitutional

 

[Setarcos]

There are Natural Rights and Constructed Rights. .

Only the latter has been demonstrated

The former has, you just don't believe it.

Assertion is not demonstration

 

[Setarcos]

. If you are asserting that God does not exists, you must bear your burden of proof

As was shown before and linked numerous times, that is a lie.

Google: burden of proof

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

see example 3

You have proven nothing of the sort, unless you are claiming that you do not assert that God does not exist.

Is that the case?

Which god?

 

[Setarcos]

To appeal to 'God' or 'Nature' or some other metaphysical vagueness is to attempt to avoid being responsible for your own actions and the state of the world around you. The secular humanist realizes that Man is responsible for the state of Man and Man alone can change that state. The humanist places the burden squarely upon Man to decide for himself what liberties are worth protecting at what are worth surrendering for peace and safety. The humanist realizes that if he wishes to protect his liberties and ensure for himself a state of relative freedom, peace, and security, he must be willing to defend all of his neighbors and their liberties and property and be able to trust them in turn. Realizing the natutre of the cosial contract, ther humanist- a liberal of the purest sort-sets his mind to determining what terms and conditions best serve the interest of peace, of safety, and of liberty for himself, fully aware that if he is not willing to fight for his neighbor's liberties, there will be noone to fight for his.

The center of the humanist's universe is himself.

Good luck with that.

Actually, you're thinking of the christian

 

[Setarcos]

[THE EVIDENCE: human life exist; humanity didn't create itself; thus something else did and it is THAT som€ething else; which is God.

If one accepts the premise of your statement as irrefutable fact, then God, because he exists, and because God didn't create himself, thus something else did...

...I guess that would be God's God. Which leads to the next question, who created God's God, since he couldn't have created himself.

Did the universe create itself, or was it always here?

False dichotomy


Why are you dishonest?

 

[Setarcos]

he can't prove God doesn't exist.]

Depends on what god you calim

If you could prove either hypothesis, then what place would faith have? Isn't that what religion is all about?

Hebrews 11
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.


Religion is wishful thinking- the dreams and delusions of a child.

1. Nobody who is alive today has ever been dead. If they had, then they still would be because death is permanent, at least as far as we can tell.

Define: dead, death

 

[Setarcos]

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

Proof That God Exists

The Bible also claims the earth was made in 6 days, which disqualifies the Bible as a reliable source of the truth.

Define: days

Biblically? Morning and evening.

Which happened before the sun existed

Because the writers of the book knew nothing of cosmology