Posted on 12/12/2013 6:50:05 PM PST by ReformationFan
Do our rights come from the government, or do they come from God or from natural law? The founders of the American Republic thought our rights came from God or from natural law. As such, our inalienable rights are the rights of all mankind and are universal, changeless, and applicable to all people, at all times and in all places. In terms of natural law, if man has a nature, then human rights must be in accord with that nature and must be necessary to the flourishing of that nature. If our rights are thus innate and fixed for all time, then the frequent legislation and adjudication of new rights is mischievous.
However, if man does not have an innate nature, but is a social-cultural construct, then man has a fluctuating nature which changes along with forces which mold him. In this case, the determination of human rights is relative, ad hoc, arbitrary, and political.
Enter stage left, the Progressive Movement, which goes back to1890, if not before. Progressive leaders claim that our rights are created by government. As such, human rights vary from time to time and from place to place. As ideological fads and political alliances come and go, legislators and judges will be inventing and abolishing rights all the time. They will be making them up as they go along.
The progressives were confident that magical "forces of history" would ensure that "change" would be beneficial and that the continual creation and abolition of rights by government would lead to a better world. However, if no such mystical cosmic force exists, and if man is not a social construct, then inventing rights which are alien to his nature and abolishing rights which are necessary for the flourishing of his nature is pernicious. When leaders of government misunderstand human nature and act according to that misunderstanding, they do great damage to man and to society.
Legislators, if you really believe that government creates rights, that man is a construct of contemporary society, and that gay sexuality is in accord with what a fluctuating human nature has come to be at this moment in time – you might consider voting to create gay rights. But before you do, ask yourselves if a new constitutionally-protected right can be established apart from an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
However, if you believe that man is not a social construct, but that man has a nature, you cannot logically believe that human rights come from government. Human rights are unchanging because they are based on the nature of man, which never changes. Government might discover and protect those rights, but cannot create those rights. That is what the founding fathers believed, and what the progressives have discarded.
Legislators, if you share the views of the founders regarding human rights, then you must ask yourself whether a sexual embrace between two men or a sexual embrace between two women is in accord with nature or against nature. My opinion is that it is against nature – for if this kind of sexuality is not against nature, then nothing is against nature.
Further, if you believe, as I do, that our rights come from God because He is the creator and designer of our nature, then you must ask yourself whether a homosexual or lesbian sexual embrace is in accord with or contrary to His design for us. It is impossible for me to believe that he designed anyone for this kind of sexuality.
Finally, legislator, if you fear God and wish to obey him, it is not hard for you to find out what his prophets and apostles wrote about this kind of sexuality.
I love that quote.
I want my Second Amendment rights fully restored before I'll consider any discussion about any possible new "rights".
the government can create an environment that fosters respect for our God Given rights guaranteed and nothing more or less
When what they do does not parallel the principles of God, they are asking for trouble. They may have trouble enough obeying; but bucking God will reap the whirlwind.
That being said, the gospel approach to sex sin today is truly anemic. A favorite factoid of mine is that professed believers have no better statistics on the durability of their marriages today, than the general population does.
“Beloved, this should not be.”
Just because you’re (the rhetorical you) heterosexual and you’re staying with one wife, though, you still might be sexually sinning! Why? Because you might not be offering it to God! You may be doing it selfishly!
“Can government ‘create’ gay rights?”
Let’s skip discussion, and just say no as government can’t “create” gay rights, only special rights the rest of us won’t have.
I doubt I want any of their rights, or lefts anyway.
Guess judges can by making bakers bake gay wedding cakes or go to jail.
ping
A government-given “right” to punish those who disagree with a certain perspective. I wouldn’t call that a natural right.
“Can government ‘create’ gay rights?”
Dropping the “gay” word out of the question, can government ‘create’ any rights? I would say no, they can only recognize natural, negative rights. And I consider negative rights a positive thing and so-called “positive” rights a very negative thing.
I don’t either but the baker may serve jail time. Is that our future?
An often missed biblical role of governors is to speak well of those who do right. In that sense, yes they can recognize positive rights without turning them into Caesar centered entitlements. It is kind of an honor roll system. We are way too sophisticated today to consider that... oh it is hopelessly naive... look, it is not hopelessly naive when the bible talks about it.
Well the bible itself says yes, if we are going to stop cowering in spiritual battles.
Yes. I’m very sad about it but I think it is.
The Civil War amendments proved they can. And they weren’t even ratified per the Constitution. It seems we have a government with no limitation.
Government cannot create rights...
Government can only create privileges..
Few know the difference..
Ironic that the same people who want the government out of the bedroom want the same government in their kitchens.....
I say kick the damn gov off everyones property.
Ironic that the same people who want the government out of the bedroom want the same government in their kitchens.....
I say kick the damn gov off everyones property.
I figure a secular atheist can only believe that rights are created by the government. The belief in inalienable rights implies the existence of a Creator.
Gay marriage advocates,though, are no longer calling it "Gay Marriage." They're calling it "Marriage Equality." That reflects their new line, that this is nothing more or less than "Equal Justice Under Law," the excellent principle carved on the lintel of the United States Supreme Court.
(Just like "Global Warming" turned into "Global Climate Change" and then into --- what is it? --- "Global Climate Disruption" or "Extreme Weather Caused by Cow Farts and Exhaling." They get to change and redefine all the terms, and you've got to accept and use their terms or be denied any voice in the discussion.)
The reason they can call this "Marriage Equality" is by simply assuming the key disputed point has already been settled in their favor, which is the definition of marriage.
And their definition of marriage, which they assume we all accept, is, "A loving commitment by two consenting adults, to share their lives together, as long as they both find it personally rewarding." With the codicil: "This deserves to be respected by society and recognized by the State."
This is dubious on the face of it, because members of a "free" society, i.e. all of us, will respect or not respect, as we judge a thing respectable or not. You can't really enforce respect. Only toleration. As MLKing said, "The law can't make you love me, but it can prevent you from lynching me." Right: and that's as far as it goes.
Plus, there is not reason at all to think that all our loves, liaisons, affections, amours, ruttings and romances are any business of the State. These things are what we can justly call "private." Our personal relations --- between two consenting adults, or three or four --- don't need State licensing or supervision.
The exception being: when the relation can bring into being a third person whose rights and dignity are to be protected.
And this child's interests are secured by the state recognizing (not defining, not inventing, not fashioning, but recognizing) the pre-existent institution of marriage, which is the only institution we have which joins a man and a woman, and any offspring which arise from their union.
Other than that --- the procreative factor --- the state has no interest our sex lives. Because without that procreative aspect, two consenting adults can simply manage their own affairs by custom, by culture, and by private contract.
Know what I mean?
Exactly.
‘This is dubious on the face of it, because members of a “free” society, i.e. all of us, will respect or not respect, as we judge a thing respectable or not. You can’t really enforce respect. Only toleration. As MLKing said, “The law can’t make you love me, but it can prevent you from lynching me.” Right: and that’s as far as it goes.’
In reference to that MLK quote, I noticed a long time ago that the homosexualists are hell-bent on “making everyone ‘love’ them” via persecution by the state if you do not. Otherwise, they would’ve been content with the tolerance they’ve experienced in the west for years. If homosexuality were really such a “great” thing, they wouldn’t need the approval of any other human. But their consciences are convicting them just as Herod Antipas and Herodias were convicted by the preaching of John the Baptist(Mark 6:14-29).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:14-29&version=NKJV
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.