quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Yes, it is just a declaration of independence. But it lays out the principles of human rights, which are self-evident (meaning the words explain themselves), of our natural rights which exist regardless of the law. I used the DOI because it's an important document which clearly demonstrates that ideal. Regardless of what source I use, self-evidently, all men are created equal, and as equal beings, they have a natural right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and/or estate. As such, gays also have the natural right to pursue their own happiness, as long as they do not violate someone else's natural rights. The legal rights of gay marriage are not in line with the natural rights of gays wanting to marry.

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?

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.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Nov-06-2008 at 05:09

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.