...and equally as suddenly, to dismiss it.

I can't agree to that because it violates so many founding principles.

Personally, I've always known this - but seldom did anyone ever listen when I've said it - 99% of the time I hear bullshit about how Fox isn't biased, but MSNBC, etc. is. (No shit sherlock, msnbc, a news company, is biased? How about fox? Good grief) The bias doesn't come in explicit liberal/conservative form, per se. The fact is that they are companies...and every company has a product to sell. Hence, they cater to the people who will buy their product.

"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."

It's funny how some liberal interpretations of the statement above from the Declaration of Independence remove the part I have in bold and substitute "Creator" with "Government" or just conveniently leave that part out to twist it to their benefit. Of course I suppose for some their god is Obama.

No, he is the Messiah.  God is the government.

Nitro, conveniently, brings up a good point:

"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."

Bingo - all are created equal, unalienable rights, life - liberty- pursuit of happiness.

Granted, but the point of the matter is that enacting laws that go against our basic principles is just wrong. The majority may have control, but it is expected that the majority would pay attention to what we are founded on, not attempt to circumvent them.

I think stevendadelious (sp?) said it perfectly (i think it was him) - that we all should be able to pursue our lives as we see fit without the fear of others stomping on it, or denying us life.

Frankly Charles, I feel you're making excuses for people to push their views on others. So be it if so. I, as a bisexual man, support your right to believe what you want and live your life as you see fit. (As do many, many LGBTQA people do.)

All I, and many many others want, is to be able to do the same - as we see firt. (i.e. free will)

Of course people have the right to be against it. I and I'm sure many others are not saying that. What our issue ultimately entails, is - what about us too? By your own argument, you claim "what about my right?", what about "group A, B,C,D,E and F's right?"

Charles, what about our rights? We do not have the same rights, because we're not straight.

The laws (and constiution) were written largely from a heterosexual perspective, but that doesn't mean that bias, ignorance, and narrow minded views should dictate our founding principles. The founders were brilliant men, and they were right ALL people are  created equal - but they were also human, just as much as we are.  

Our laws are not equal; they're drawn from the minds and written through the eyes of human agenda and bias. An orthodox Christian politician will not necessarily step up and promote something that is against HIS values, even if it is something that promotes our founding principles. Hence, bias and agenda.

How can we hold to our principles, when human eyes and minds are subject to bias, hate, ignorance, etc.? Only when we explore our nation's values (life, liberty, justice, fairness, equality, equal access to the law, fair and equal treatment by the law, et al.), look at them clearly and concisely with logic, AND, look with our hearts - because that ultimately is where our principles stem from (We all know our founders could have logically came to a diferent conclusion, but were driven by passion and heart against the British government's trampling of their (minority) rights).

The constitution embodies some of our deepest most treasured values, including justice and equality, for which veterans/soldiers across the ages have fought and died for. They fought and died for those principles; they knew that this nation is great, and that in our nation  people can live their lives. 

Back to an earlier point: What about group G's right to live? What about their lack of means (legally) to live their lives, via their own free will (win or lose)? A straight man can go and marry his girl and raise a family. A gay man cannot. A lesbian cannot.

This is our national government we're talking about, not holding up its part of the deal - viewing everyone as equal, regardless of who they are.

***

Another point - There comes a point in time when someone's rights to do or believe whatever, infringe on others lives. (ie. it causes them harm) I believe you said once that sometimes people have to just deal with others dissent and/or actions.

Why don't those Christians who push their view points simply just deal with it? No one, aside from a few fringe people, is saying that Christians (or muslims, etc.) cannot believe what they want. (Many whom I've talked to would like to be treated with dignity, respect, etc. and not be called faggots, but I digress, apparently manners are lacking these days)

Example:

I am doing some research for a Journalism 205/206 project currently, and because of that I talked at length with an elderly gay couple.  Something one of them said struck me, and I mean it struck me hard.

Recent-ish, Oregon allowed same sex marriage, but that was eventually struck down by...politics. This couple had stood in line, anticipation at hand, and waited to get married. They wanted to validate, through their beliefs, their relationship.  (They've been together for 43 years)

They didn't get to.

One of them said to me, "In all my life, I never thought I'd see people be ruthlessly selfish in their beliefs. I fought two wars so these people could go on living how they want, believe what they want, and say what they want about me and my joe. I had hoped they would afford me the same - not as veteran, but as an American."

Just as many of ous afford others the

***

*sighs* 

Btw, Your comment about children and marriage is a straw man charles, because we're talking about our rights through LAW and those granted by the constitution. By both, no child can give legal consent. Thus, they cannot EVER get married. Only someone who is of sound mind, and legal age - can give consent (as per the fact that marriage, according to the government, is a contract. Btw, I think those are the qualifiers, I could be wrong - been a while ).

And if someone wants to marry more than one person, then so be it. Where does it say in our constitution that I (or anyone else) am allowed to tell others how to live their lives? The government's job is to set the rules up so that everyone can pursue their (legal) american dream, then work within them. It's job is not to cater to one groups religious beliefs and view of what is moral.

The government, nor the majority (See: British government, and majority opinion) constitutes our principles, the constitution is. Our founding fathers fought against the majority and the government telling them what they could and could not do, and allowing some people to do things while others couldn't.

That's not right, and that's not what our nation is about.

The system of laws we have were established so that people could live their lives as seen fit. They are supposed to reflect our principles, yet we do not live by those principles. Would you really want the majority to tell you that you couldn't marry the person you wanted?

Where's the liberty in that? Where's the pursuit of happiness? Where's life in that?

I understand why you would say that, charles; you're comfy and most likely perfectly happy sitting where you are, you have nothing to worry about. You can go and visit your wife in the hospital should she get sick, you can take care of your children as seen fit or even adopt some. You can go and take care of the legal paperwork for things like insurance, wills, and so on - no hassle there.

I'd like to ask you a favor or two. First, I ask that you read this one or two times and then leave it be for a day or two. Then, by all means, come back and comment. Second, I ask that during the time between that you take a second and stand in our shoes, if you would. I'm not saying to look at this in a total emotional bleeding heart way - I'm simply saying - if you were like me and others - how would you feel?

We can't.  We're treated as separate but "equal".

Ultimately, it isn't just a economic, political, founding matter - it's about the principles of the matter. Our nation was founded on the belief that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Not some, not the christian or muslim, not the straight - ALL.

But a nation that was founded on people who rarely got what they fought for, would it not be right to let people get what they've strived for?

~AJ 

Some people don't believe in God, others may just believe in God as being the government. To each their own right?

~AJ

Could someone explain to me why the quoting I did is so funky? I was hoping my points would be clearer than they are.

~AJ

And again "endowed by their creator" is left out.

I guess if you don't have a creator- no right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness for you. If you want to assume (I have no problem with this, as it is a biological fact) your parents are your creator, I guess it's their responsibility to provide this. I don't see government listed here. 

1. Not all believe in a creator, but that doesn't imply that they should be withheld their natural rights.

2. It's implied, and is actually in what I quoted.

3. Getting nit picky now, eh?

Your first comment comes off as tongue in cheek, but I'll take a swipe at it none-the-less.

On the contrary, natural rights existed outside of government. That time period really necessitated a reference to a creator since many, if not all americans were religious/faith based.

Additionally, given that the founder fathers were people of faith (not necesarily christian, theist, etc.) - I don't know if they really had a grasp of atheism. It seems like it would be a foreign concept in society at that time. Perhaps that is why they didn't put "or noncreator" in it.

On that same note though, if in fact there is no god and we're simply random - we still have a source of creation. Thus, our rights are derived from it - in essence:  society/reasoning/though/etc. Hence "by their creator," whatever that creator (or source) is.

And where can I find a copy of these "Natural Rights"? Who wrote them and when were they enacted? Frankly, it sounds made-up to me.

No...it isn't "actually" what you quoted, you captured my quote then this is what you said:

No mention of the "Creator" just that we were "created"...like I said a word quickly omitted to suit a purpose.

Again these secret "Natural Rights". I didn't get a copy.

They were well aware of atheism. Missionary's went to convert the "godless" heathens long before the discovery of America. The founding fathers put exactly what was needed in the document. Revisionists are busy attempting to circumvent it by implying it need interpretation.

As my point wasn't about any creator, my point was to emphasis the points in it - hence why I didn't put it in. Wow, what a conspiracy nitro.

Yeah, apparently that's not the only thing you didn't get a copy of. I just don't understand you sometimes nitro. I'm honestly flabergasted by you right now.

***

You said:

Whereas I quoted:

Yup, I misquoted you. It's totally not what I "actually" quoted. >_>  (That's what I was talking about, when mentioning quoting you - not my commentary on it.)

You mean the indians, mongols, egyptians, et al.? If so, then --> Wow, that's not pretentious. Haha, you're unreal sometimes nitro, you really are. Wow.

Love your right to privacy do you? It isn't explicitly enumerated in the constitution, but you enjoy it none-the-less via judicial interpretation. Fact is Nitro, the constitution was left to be interpreted. Hence, why we have courts (namely SCOTUS). Their job is to interperate the constitution and so on. It was interperated that people had those rights, granted by the constitution. In fact, look at the 9th amendment:

You're joking right?

Who wrote them?  Try those who had a hand in formulating them: Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, Rousseau.

When enacted? For the US - July 4, 1776.

Natural rights = unalienable rights = rights derived from life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

No, AJ.

"...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..."

Another little tasty bit:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Exactly, you trim the document as needed to fit your agenda, to make someone other that who (in this case the "Creator") listed by name in the document. Great for you, the govt. owes you. Whatever makes you feel good. See we both know and agree...yet still you go on to bloviate. This is were your rant should be over, but no chance of that...the hot air continues.

Like I care? Your probably flabbergasted at anyone that doesn't "get you". Your right, I didn't receive a copy of your medication times either, so I don't know when I'm speaking to ADD patient or a moron.

More misdirection and subterfuge. Your good at it. If something doesn't fit your argument you change the rules to fit them. Who the hell was talking about the Constitution? The phase that was being discussed, because only the part that some wish to use, is used, is from the Declaration of Independence. This document makes no mention of privacy. You're a piece of work...at least your consistent. Try to focus on what is being discussed, and wasting my time.

Is that your opinion or are you going stop waffling and misdirecting and point me to this "Natural Rights" Document in which YOU refer to? Or is it now being twisted into inalienable rights to suit your needs? No worries, I researched it and it doesn't quite match up to your " rights derived from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It seems based more on the right to personal security, liberty, and acquire and enjoy property. No mention of privacy, marriage or anything other controversial issues mentioned on this or other threads. (I placed the bold text). LINK

  Unalienable Rights - Absolute Rights - Natural Rights

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).

Chancellor Kent (2 Kent, Comm. 1) defines the "absolute rights" of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained. In re Jacobs (N. Y.) 33 Hun, 374, 378.

That is scary, and sad. and probably true.  Many idiots do believe that. And that is why we have Pol Pots, Stalins, Maos and Hitlers.

That's seems to be the modus operandi of all extreme leftest governments.. make the state the religion. Faith in anything other than the state is a potential enemy, an alternate view. I'm not religious, but I'm glad it's available. Some are oblivious to the danger in the name of fairness (usually to support their cause) . The founding fathers were very smart to put these references in as they are absolute, even though that doesn't stop some from trying to twist the meanings.

Obama's not fit to fetch coffee for the Clintons.

Nitro,

Clearly you're intent on beliving in your own little version of the constitution, etc. Obviously I'm not going to be able to explain to you natural rights; the premise, meaning and such; court rulings on what the constitution/founders meant, and so on -when you're so clearly biased against it. I would likely go on for days and days, and still...get nowhere. All I can suggest is that you go read up on the issue. Much of what you enjoy, is because of constitiutional interpretation (by the SCOTUS no less), the 9th amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people ), etc.

I'm just not going to waste my time, nor stress myself out.

Have a good night.

~AJ

No you're not. You've made it abundantly clear both here and on other threads what you want the Declaration of Independence to do for you. That's fine, I really am unconcerned what you what from it. The whole reason I mentioned anything in the first place was to point out that people, you included, use the parts that suit their need. Plain and simple.

You explained nothing (except being flabbergasted, nice redirection though) as I provided the information from the relevant cases, sorry it doesn't come close to doing what, I'm sure  in your mind, you'd like it to do, good luck with that endeavor. 

BTW Is "bias" a new word you learned? You seem to use it it every thread lately, squawking like a parrot. Wish I had a Jackson (the monetary note type) for each time you've said it. I'll let you in on a secret, everyone here knows what it is and it is implied, but keep practicing its use it helps you.

According to Halperin, Bill figured that was the one thing he was fit for.

We get no rights from the DOI? It is just that, a declaration...of independence, a statement of principles (which include natural rights/unalienable rights). We derive our rights ultimately from the constitution (or more so the gov't is told what they can/cannot do). I believe it was John Adams who did attempt to use it in a court case, though I don't remember how that turned out.

I think the problem arose is that I'm not talking about the government as a source of rights. I'm talking about natural rights - which it seemed to me like you knew nothing about. I realize now that I completely spaced about your comment's context in relation to "government" because i was so dumbfounded. I was literally going "Is this guy really asking me what natural rights are?"

**

One last attempt because, yes, I am bullheaded and can't believe you're being, in my opinion, so obtuse. So, going waay back to where this whole 'natural rights' debacle started....

You said:

To which I responded with:

Which means simply that despite your comment of "I guess if you don't have a creator- no right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness for you." The belief was that every living being had unalienable (natural rights), period. Now, I added that given the mindset of the time (seeing as most colonists were of some faith) - that they would put put in "their creator."

They were religious, most colonists were religious - and given that they were human and just as shortsighted and narrow sighted as we are now days, it seems logical. Makes sense that they would. Could you image if they put in "non creator"? People would've had a shit fit.

Anyways, back on topic.

 I also replied with:

To which you replied with your spiel and I replied with mine and son on.

Point being:"

Your view seems to suggest that atheist or non-religious people would not get rights, since they don't believe in a creator. This is a bad conclusion because the basic premise of the natural rights (unalienable rights) is that EVERYONE has these rights, regardless of who they are. (There's no religious qualification what-so-ever in the DOI or constitution, remember?)

Thus, they have the same natural rights (see: unalienable rights) that anyone else enjoys.

Now, point two.

The concept of natural rights - which you so stupidly reject and snidely comment on - are the SAME RIGHTS you enjoy.

Freedom of speech? - unalienable right

Freedom to keep and bear arms? - unalienable right

I would go on but i rather not waste the energy in typing the list.

Again.... The natural rights that you want a list of - are the ones you enjoy and the ones that are derived from those principles. Such as the ones the constitution provides (which was derived from the founding principles of life, liberty, pursuit of happpines).  (Life = privacy; Life = gun rights, life/liberty/pursuit of happiness = all, etc. etc.)

I said nothing about the government, nothing about anything like that. I'm talking about our God (or not god) given rights.

The ones that exist in nature, outside of government and society. The ones that our nation was founded on.

Do you get it now Nitro? Jesus...really?

~AJ

Declaration of independence = statement of principles. Thus, our founders framed our constitution around those principles, and got our bill of rights, plus various other amendments (9th, 14th, etc.). Each congress looks to the constitution and the DOI as a point of reference on what are, and are not rights.

Essentially, does a supposed "new" right equate to the unalienable "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I'm not talking about being given happiness, nor that the government explicitly "grants" them, but that the government (more so, the law) has to interperate the constitution.

~AJ

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html

"Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

The concept of natural rights received one of its most forceful expositions in the writings of Englishman John Locke (1632-1704), who argued that man was originally born into a state of nature where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence man was entitled to enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property.

However, not all men chose to live within the confines of the natural laws and presented threats to the liberties of the others. At this stage man entered into a social contract (compact) in which a state (government) was formed to guarantee the rights of the members of society.

Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

These ideas were eagerly accepted by many American colonists in the 18th century, an age when political philosophy was widely read and discussed. James Otis made an eloquent appeal to natural rights in his argument against the writs of assistance in 1761 and Thomas Jefferson offered a classic restatement in the Declaration of Independence in 1776."

Do you understand now?  The rights that we gain, are drawn (derived) from these principles. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Example: 

Right t privacy is drawn from Life/liberty, and the 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendment.

Hence, while the constitution doesn't explicitly state it - it says:

Privacy of person and possesions (4th amendment):

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Privacy of the home (3rd amendment):

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Rights not listed (9th amendment):

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

(Source: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html )

Hence, interpretation Nintro - is essential to understanding the constitution. It was built to be interperated as necessary.

~AJ

Nice redirect to the Constitution (again). Now what document were we discussing? Oh yes the Declaration of Independence, and what phase were we talking about again? Oh this one:

"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."

I'm just not seeing where says rights are "drawn" from the Creator, which you again leave out....and the entire reason for my posts. PEOPLE LIKE YOU IGNORE THIS PART TO PUSH YOUR AGENDA. Do you understand now? This paragraph contains my entire point. I don't care about any extraneous BS your trying to add. It's irrelevant to what I said. Don't comment on my post, add a bunch of crap I wasn't talking about in the first place, then accuse me of not following your rules.

I'm not discussing what the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence mean to you or me, just what people take out of the later. How much more simple can it get?

Now do you want to throw the Bill of Rights or Roe v. Wade into the discussion to muddy it up more? Focus, brick wall.

When I said, scary, I was referring to the fact that it had been tried in the past and we have seen the results.  Yet we have idiots still saying "machts nichts".  As if somehow by repeating the same failed idea will eventually cause some sort of revelation among the beneficent dictators that will change the outcomes.  I think they refer to that as insanity.  But I dont think the ones spouting it now are smart enough to be insane. Vegetables are not insane no matter how funny they look.

What the revisionists fail to grasp is the distinction of the 2 documents.  The declaration could be thought of as the Theme sentence of the US.  The constitution is the details.  One sets forth a set of beliefs (The Declaration), the other sets out how that is to be accomplished.  In the correct context, one does flow from the other (it helps that the primary author of both was the same person).  However, for those failing to understand either, they of course confuse the 2 and also corrupt both.  I would not ask a child to interpret a Dickens novel, and this clearly is more complex than those.  So why ask a child to understand the intent and differences between the 2 most important founding documents of this nation?