Two other things that got overlooked: Gays & Drugs

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002
the pursuit of happiness is not a natural right. if it was so important, why was it omitted from a much more important document: the constitution?

and if im sad, does that make me illegal?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002
i don't think he meant anything by saying "man." he was pointing out that the rights listed in the declaration are proclaimed to come from god. i would agree with Q that god, if he/she even gives a shit, likely didn't intend for homosexual activities considering god created an opposite sex that is necessary for procreation. that said, i'm not a really religious guy, and i don't use god as support for any argument, i just see his logic.

You know, if whatever God we're talking about didn't intend for homosexuality, then that God shouldn't have made some people into homosexuals. Homosexuality isn't just a choice, it's a way of thinking, that comes from deep within the brain. Hardly a choice someone makes because they are just evil pervert fags! I'm sure you know of someone who will tell you, they didn't become gay, they were born gay.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002
the pursuit of happiness is not a natural right. if it was so important, why was it omitted from a much more important document: the constitution?

I disagree, doing what you enjoy is your natural right, so long as you do not infringe on anyone else's natural rights. The constitution is not a declaration of natural rights, but rather, is a legal document dictating the limits of the state.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and if im sad, does that make me illegal?

not sure i get that.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002
not sure i get that.

making fun of krypton's contention that the 'pursuit of happiness' is some kind of legal framework. probably wasn't funny, but its been a long fucking day!!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton
You know, if whatever God we're talking about didn't intend for homosexuality, then that God shouldn't have made some people into homosexuals. Homosexuality isn't just a choice, it's a way of thinking, that comes from deep within the brain. Hardly a choice someone makes because they are just evil pervert fags! I'm sure you know of someone who will tell you, they didn't become gay, they were born gay.

i don't believe god made anyone in any certain way so that doesn't work with me. however, using the term a "god given right" as support is weak considering almost every religion frowns down upon gays.

EDIT: humans also exercise free will. God commands people not to kill, however, man has always killed.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton
I disagree, doing what you enjoy is your natural right, so long as you do not infringe on anyone else's natural rights. The constitution is not a declaration of natural rights, but rather, is a legal document dictating the limits of the state.

ok - fair point. i was being overly broad when i wrote that the pursuit of happiness was not a natural right. i meant to say it is not a protected right. my bad.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
making fun of krypton's contention that the 'pursuit of happiness' is some kind of legal framework. probably wasn't funny, but its been a long fucking day!!

LOL....fair enough. 'make me illegal' threw me off.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
making fun of krypton's contention that the 'pursuit of happiness' is some kind of legal framework. probably wasn't funny, but its been a long fucking day!!

It's simple really. You have the right to do what you enjoy, whether that right is recognized by the law or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton
It's simple really. You have the right to do what you enjoy, whether that right is recognized by the law or not.

but maybe what i enjoy is killing puppies.

with so many people in the world living in abject misery, i fail to see why any argument concerning 'pursuit of happiness' is really that important. inevitably its an impossible concept which might be nice to argue about on forums, but hardly serves any real utility in real life.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but maybe what i enjoy is killing puppies.

Numerous philosophers have varying ideas on the issue of cruelty to animals. But what is universal among them is its inherent immorality to harm an animal simply for the act of doing so. Jean-Jacques Rousseau would say animals should be a part of natural law, not because they are rational creatures, but because they are sentient beings, with the ability to experience suffering.

quote:

with so many people in the world living in abject misery, i fail to see why any argument concerning 'pursuit of happiness' is really that important. inevitably its an impossible concept which might be nice to argue about on forums, but hardly serves any real utility in real life.

Well, what if your government outlawed all movies, video games, music, and the internet? What basis do you have to argue against such a law?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton
Well, what if your government outlawed all movies, video games, music, and the internet? What basis do you have to argue against such a law?

well, in your country most of that could be covered by your first amendment.

countries like australia, don't have any immutable rights enshrined. our constitution's core deals with how the national and state governments were to be arranged, as well as some other basic westminster stuff like how long MP terms are etc.

it offers few rights to the individual. as naive as it sounds, i have relative faith in the australian public to eventually right such wrongs committed by any government (at least in this context).

for instance, the government's plan to censor the internet. australians aren't going to tolerate it. even if its implemented, it won't be long before there's a serious backlash.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, in your country most of that could be covered by your first amendment.

countries like australia, don't have any immutable rights enshrined. our constitution's core deals with how the national and state governments were to be arranged, as well as some other basic westminster stuff like how long MP terms are etc.

it offers few rights to the individual. as naive as it sounds, i have relative faith in the australian public to eventually right such wrongs committed by any government (at least in this context).

for instance, the government's plan to censor the internet. australians aren't going to tolerate it. even if its implemented, it won't be long before there's a serious backlash.

But there has to be a reason why we should have freedom of speech. Our Framers did not establish the first amendment just for the sake of it.

If my government outlawed all media (music, games, movies, internet), and I were to mount a dissent of the law, I would need a very good reason to disobey the law and dissent. My reason must be just. Killing animals is not just. Advocating my self-evident natural rights is just. The foundation of my dissent would be my natural right to enjoy myself without harming anyone else. Without that foundation of an argument, I have no justification to disobey the law that says I am not allowed to watch movies, listen to music, play games, or use the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton
But there has to be a reason why we should have freedom of speech. Our Framers did not establish the first amendment just for the sake of it.

just because something was made into law doesn't mean it had an inherently good reason even if in this case it might have had.

anyway, i was merely answering your specific question, i am a believer in inalienable individual rights. i just don't necessarily think there should be (relatively) inalienable laws. i like the flexibility of 'cultural norms' being a part of what makes policy.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton
But there has to be a reason why we should have freedom of speech. Our Framers did not establish the first amendment just for the sake of it.

If my government outlawed all media (music, games, movies, internet), and I were to mount a dissent of the law, I would need a very good reason to disobey the law and dissent. My reason must be just. Killing animals is not just. Advocating my self-evident natural rights is just. The foundation of my dissent would be my natural right to enjoy myself without harming anyone else. Without that foundation of an argument, I have no justification to disobey the law that says I am not allowed to watch movies, listen to music, play games, or use the internet.

Because you think you have a natural right to do something does not give you a justification to violate the law. A legal and sometimes policy justifications are the only real justifications. Assuming natural right was a.valid excuse, who's to say whether you're actually harming someone. You can say that usage of marijuana isn't harming anyone, but you have no idea about whether its transportation to the US did any harm. Moreover, what if it harms you? Why should you be the arbiter of responsibilty when youre likely to impose a future cost on society (health reasons).

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton
What Creator are we talking about? See that's the point. None is named on purpose. So you're homophobic Creator hypothesis is moot. Freedom of religion...

...No specific god is endorsed by the state. Additionally, it says, "All men are created equal." Gays included. Therefore, gays have a natural right to pursue happiness, so long as they do not infringe upon any other person's natural rights. Gay marriage neither infringes upon anyone else's rights, and therefore, should be a recognized legal right by the state. This is only just and fair.

Declaration of Independence aside, this is a very powerful argument! ^^ (but replace "you're" with "your", please... grammar!)

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002
Because you think you have a natural right to do something does not give you a justification to violate the law. A legal and sometimes policy justifications are the only real justifications. Assuming natural right was a.valid excuse, who's to say whether you're actually harming someone. You can say that usage of marijuana isn't harming anyone, but you have no idea about whether its transportation to the US did any harm. Moreover, what if it harms you? Why should you be the arbiter of responsibilty when youre likely to impose a future cost on society (health reasons).

Good point, and that may be the case at times, but in general, I find that this tremendous opposition to phenomena like gay marriage and marijuana, are not solely -- or even remotely -- based in the fact that marijuana is obtained by dubious means (to take your example). It is the concealed, (Christian) religious/social values that are the basis for this level of opposition. If it wasn't, the opposition wouldn't be so vocal and seething.

With regards to gay marriage in particular, what Krypton's saying -- and what has been established in Neuroscience/Psychology -- is that there is a natural, general tendency for some people to be born with a preference of homosexual relationships. People in relationships, whether same-sex or heterosexual, also naturally want to express their love for their partners by establishing monogamous ties, which takes the form of marriage in our culture.

Therefore, how can one deny gays the right to pursue their natural desire to unify with their loved ones, simply because one doesn't like the fact that they form same-sex relationships?

In this case, it is the opposing voices to same-sex marriage that is causing the harm to people, not those who would want to commit to gay marriage. And the fact that this opposition largely stems from irrational socially conservative thinking (translation: traditional Christian thinking, bordering on the extreme), makes it all the more unacceptable. (IMO).

I don't understand why we can't just remove all the legal distinctions from marriage and require all couples, straight or gay, to get a civil union for the legal rights marriage currently holds. Straight couples could then go get their exclusive, precious marriage without it being "corrupted" or whatever bullshit they're claiming while gay couples could have their rights too.

Also, wtf at Arkansas passing a ban on gay couples adopting children. I'm almost positive it wont stand up in court, but what the shit is this? How is this any different from banning blacks from using 'white' water fountains?

Fuck the south.

The public has already made up its mind on this issue. Two other states also passed bans that day but CA was surprising to people. It will be a long long time before public opinion reaches a point to be able to reverse constitutional bans. In any case it is a sign of progress this issue is even being discussed at all. Not 10 years ago it was a completely different story.

Laws Regarding Same-Sex Partnerships in the United States Same-sex marriages Unions granting rights similar to marriage Unions granting limited/enumerated rights Foreign same-sex marriages recognized Statute bans same-sex marriage Constitution bans same-sex marriage Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo
fine, just stop quoting the Declaration of Independence.

FYI, taken at face value, the Declaration of Independence limits those "pursuits" as only those endowed by man's Creator. obviously, taken at face value, gays fall outside those limits.

WHAT?!

WHAAAAAAAAT??

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but maybe what i enjoy is killing puppies.

with so many people in the world living in abject misery, i fail to see why any argument concerning 'pursuit of happiness' is really that important. inevitably its an impossible concept which might be nice to argue about on forums, but hardly serves any real utility in real life.

Well, Raistlin, your "god" given right to the pursuit of happiness is exactly the same as everyone elses through the history of man following contention vs. progress:

You can do what you want in this universe should you choose yourself to be free.

Freeing others through words, is impossible. You have to feel and know you are free, to be free.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4
The public has already made up its mind on this issue. Two other states also passed bans that day but CA was surprising to people. It will be a long long time before public opinion reaches a point to be able to reverse constitutional bans. In any case it is a sign of progress this issue is even being discussed at all. Not 10 years ago it was a completely different story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s...States_by_state

We are.. still very young.

EDIT: this you will be arguing about in the future:

-Transexuals and their placement in society.

-Robots and their artificial "artificial" intelligence and its placement in society. It being society.