| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Debate We Have to Win, Otherwise We Lose the Country |
| 2013-02-24 |
| Recently a discussion of this story about DC Comics being pressured by homosexual activists to fire one of its writers because he’s on the board of the National Organization of Marriage prompted vigorous debate on my Facebook wall. While perusing through the various comments, it was obvious there still exists much confusion in our country today about the term “rights.” There are two types of rights: unalienable and contractual. Sometimes referred to as a natural right (i.e. “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” reference from The Declaration of Independence), an unalienable right is a right that comes from God and thus can be accessed in your natural state without consent from another party because it existed before you were born, and will still exist in nature after you die. It’s inherent to being made in the image of God. Should another party attempt to stop you from accessing your unalienable (or natural) rights they are guilty of a crime, oppression, tyranny, or all of the above. For example, I do not require anyone’s consent to breathe air for it is foundational to my natural state of being. However, should you attempt to stop me from breathing then you are guilty of assault, battery, manslaughter, or murder if you’re ultimately successful. If it requires consent from another party to access it then it is not an unalienable (aka natural) right, because you have to impose upon someone else’s unalienable (aka natural) rights in the process. Taking someone else’s person or property without their consent is what we call a crime. Nowadays some are claiming unalienable (or natural) rights that don’t exist. For example, you do not have an unalienable (or natural) right to marry or have sex with whomever you want, because partaking of each of those activities requires consent from another party. We call people who believe they can have sex (aka “physical intimacy”) with whomever they want rapists and put them in prison whenever we can. We call people who believe they can marry whomever they want cult leaders, sultans, kings, and tyrants because they’re acquiring harems and concubines. Likewise, you also don’t have a natural right to live where you want as I’ve heard some claim on issues like immigration. To believe that requires you to believe that private property doesn’t exist. You can’t have it both ways. If you believe I have the right to defend my own property (which our founders absolutely did), then you also have to believe that “we the people” have the right to defend our own property as well. In a “government by the consent of the governed” that property in this case are the borders and lands of these United States of America. We own them and they are our private property. Therefore, we have a right to possess and police them accordingly. Rights that require the consent of another party are contractual rights. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 Usually after a big social backlash the offending parties are "brought low". They should really consider the course they have taken, and I mean that of all "activists". History repeats, we have lived in a time of gentile western behavior, but it has not always been like this. |
| Posted by: bigjim-CA 2013-02-24 15:31 |
| #3 ..no, it was and is about power. All else is a rationalization. It's part of the urban bubble civilization that no longer understands its dependency upon the non-urban environment to sustain it and merrily goes about undermining and destroying the very source for its own existence. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-02-24 08:58 |
| #2 Interestingly, I am told "same sex couples" [married or otherwise] have now been granted the "right" to military spousal benefits. It was never about equality, was it ? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-02-24 02:40 |
| #1 The one problem---you ain't gonna win this debate with words. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-02-24 01:09 |