Marriage isn't a human right

no such thing. you'd need to first prove the existence of a "god" which grants these "natural rights". good luck

- - - Updated - - -

this doesn't contradict anything I've said.

don't need one. nothing prohibited it until the early 1970s

 

marriage has been redefined countless times since it's inception. civil unions are unconstitutional because they are "separate but equal" which the SCOTUS has already dealth with decades ago.

- - - Updated - - -

there isn't a single state that has gay marriage. only marriage. all that has happened is the gender restriction has been removed.

 

...... I don't have to prove anything. Look at it this way. We are all playing a "Game of Life, but instead of it being written and invented by Hasbro it was written and invented by the Founders. They believed in a "Creator" and wrote that "Creator" and the POWER of that "Creator" into the rules of the game which include the Idea of unalienable Natural Rights grated again by the "Creator" or God. Now you can disregard those "Natural Rights" like one can cheat in any game but such a position would never be "legal" or legitimate...

 

nope. all that happened was the gender restriction was removed, making marriage more equal. not all "any two consenting adults" are similarly situated.

- - - Updated - - -

refuted

 

except gay marriage is marriage. marriage has been redefined countless times since it's inception.

 

except same sex marriage isn't extra or special privileges.

- - - Updated - - -

if you want your argument taken seriously you do.

no such thing as natural rights or natural law. only legal rights and constitutional law.

 

And just from where do those Constitutional Rights come? Confused? Go read history, or the "rules of the game.'" You may start with the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed​

 

constitutional rights come from the constitution. the declaration of independence is not a legal document. it carries no force of law. no such thing as natural rights. only legal rights.

 

This is a Form of Socialism.

 

You write out of ignorance of history. The Founders based the Constitution on Natural Law. The Ninth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights is below clearly stating People have rights not found in the Constitution. Rights that MUST by definition be "Natural Rights." The Constitution would not have been ratified without the promise of a Bill of Rights so stating the Natural Rights of the Individual. All through they Bill of Rights it stats "The Right of the People to..." proclaiming a pre existing right BEFORE the Constitution.

Amendment 9 -

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​

 

I'm not ignorant of history. I know what the declaration says. it has no legal weights.

there is no natural law.

nope.

if there was such a thing as "natural rights" there would be no need for a bill of rights.

nope. without being given the force of law, those rights don't exist.

 

You think it would be alright to murder someone if there was no law against it?

 

Perhaps the Kentucky judge is technically correct (me not being a legal expert), but the spirit of what he is promoting (in saying what he did)... is incorrect.

Denying gay people (couples) legal marriage, isn't right to do. And that is why a large portion of American states have disagreed with that Kentucky judge.

And THIS (for anyone's general edification).

 

That is insane. "Marriage" is defined by humans. It means whatever we say it means.

 

How DARE you be 'correct'!!

 

Yep, which is why the term "gay marriage" must be used, so people understand! Again, if you go up to someone on the street and ask them if they think "marriage" should be legal they are likely to respond with "I thought it already was..."

 

morally? no, I don't think it's alright. but that is irrelevant to legal rights.

 

Only the right claims to believe in rights in private property, while denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States.

 

But morality is a component of Natural Law from God. IF you murdered someone you would feel bad because you know it was wrong. My whole life I have studied mobsters and gangsters, people who reject actual laws. Some live like 5 minutes and are then rubbed out by a competitor. Others like Meyer Lansky who some estimated to be at-one-time one of the richest men in the country LIVE in the MOB unscathed for decades, or the span of their natural lives. Meyer Lansky was never found guilty of anything more than illegal gambling, and lived to be 81 years old. When studying Meyer Lansky one quickly learns he was quiet, and liked to work behind the scenes cutting deals with others. He did not step on anyone's toes. He did not violate natural law. If he "wacked" someone they had it coming. He did not take that which was not his to take as that would violate the natural law of stealing. The mob is an example of Natural Law at work. Those who violate that "law" or natural balance literally are struck down.


Murdering someone in cold blood is a violation of that person's natural rights. There will be consequences for such a violation even if the perpetrator is not arrested.

Child molesters have a horrific time in prison because what they do is SO against the basic ingrained morality of even the most hardened gang-banging murderous felon in general prison population.

A child molester harms the soul of an innocent child, something a gangbanger who kills over drug territory, or for business can never understand. It's all natural law in action.

 

we've been through this. there is no such thing as natural law. before you can claim there is, you'll need to prove the existence of god. good luck

morality is based on the human emotion of empathy.

nice story. no relevance to the discussion though. no such thing as natural law.

it is a violation of their constitutional rights. there are no natural rights.

no consequences what so ever if not arrested and tried.

yes. back to the human emotion of empathy, and the morality that is derived from it.

prove there is such a thing as a soul, and that it is harmed by molestation. no such thing as natural law. only constitutional law.

 

"Natural" rights via Nurture instead of Nature can only be due to advances in socialism, not capitalism.

 

Probably has already been pointed out, but clothing isn't necessary to survive - just move south. And I wish health care was considered a human right, but it isn't.

And rights aren't defined as what is necessary to survive, obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't have the right to vote.

 

Yes, just where does the "human emotion of empathy" come from if not God? Can't argue nurture since one could argue that the hardest, murderingest felons most likely weren't nurtured much...

If you study the MOB you will see sharp contrasts. Some guys live like 5 minutes while others live their entire lives in the MOB until their natural death. You then look at differences and you quickly see those that live a long time and prosper do not violate natural law, and when they do, it is their downfall. If you don't believe adhering to natural law has anything to do with why some gangsters do so well for so long, you have to then say they were just "lucky!"

 

Higher brain function. you'd need to prove the existence of god in order to argue it comes from it. good luck

evolution

yes, of course they were lucky. no such thing as natural law, as we've established.

 

Anyone who knows anything about "luck" knows it does not run decade, after decade, after decade. Actual true "luck" is real and very fleeting. Casinos are built on this fact. Some people get "lucky" for a short time and literally can't lose, again for a short time. The rest of the people lose at games that always favor the house. The casinos make all the money from the losers and then can pay the "lucky" winners their large winnings. I saw this one guy that could not lose a hand of blackjack for nearly an hour. He didn't really even know how to play. He would make bad moves and STILL kept winning. Eventually, about an hour later he started losing nearly every hand. He could not keep up that streak for decades if in the MOB. Perhaps he could for like "five minutes" which is how long the "lucky" mobsters last...