Desires Aren't "Rights"


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2009 May
2007 July
2007 May
2007 April
2007 January
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 June
2006 May
2006 February
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January

My Links
EWTN
Dayton Right to Life Org.
Just the Facts.Org
My Yahoo Group
Toys for Tots 2004

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


free web counters
Disney Store

dmoz.org
Visit the Previous Site in the Gunny Ermey's USMC Web Ring!

Gunny Ermey's USMC Web Ring

Prev 5 ? List ? Join ? Rand ? Next 5

Visit the Next Site in the Gunny Ermey's USMC Web Ring!
  There are currently sites in this ring.  


Desires Aren't "Rights"
09.22.05 (9:35 am)   [edit]

Today, an idiot speaks of the 'right' to live together outside of marriage. But it is not a right! It is be a desire, a yearning for some.



There doesn't exist a right to other forms of union that aren't the family. The right to have a family is like the right to live, liberty, property, is founded in the natural law. And the natural law is universal and immutable. Civil Laws cannot go against the natural law." 

For some time there has been a move to create new rights, "to the point of speaking of a right to abortion and to different models of family life. But these are not rights."

My point is that of reminding people that the tree of human rights, with all its ramifications, cannot give fruit if its roots are cut. With them the tree stops flourishing and will wither.

The link between human rights and the natural law is so intimate, that it goes beyond faith and has a bonding character even for those who don't believe in it.

 


posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 09.22.05 (11:23 am)

I understand that living together outside of the marriage commitment, and abortion, are moral decisions that can be seen as detrimental to society and personhood. I believe they are sinful acts.

But, when someone speaks of their personal right to do such things, they are speaking of a legal right. Are you inferring that someone should not have the legal right to these lifestyle decisions?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just seeking clarity.



posted by: LynnKramer (reply)
post date: 09.23.05 (7:43 am)

I am saying that without Natual (God's) Law, there is no basis for any other laws either. Without it society degenerates until it fails. Look at the Romans, Greeks, Soviet Union, or any other society that began to think they could exist without God as the basis of their societies. They are all gone. They thought that they the individual could make their own laws based simply on their own 'feelings' and their own morality. In other words they elevated themselves up to the level of demi gods and then failed.



posted by: graceshaker (reply)
post date: 09.26.05 (6:57 am)

how many gay people do you personally know?



posted by: LynnKramer (reply)
post date: 09.27.05 (3:14 am)

I don't know how many Gay people that I personally know. Several certainly, many more maybe, how would I know? They don't were labels perhaps you wish they would. I don't believe that there are 14% of the population which is a number usually put out by Gay activists, more like 1/2 of 1 percent. What difference would it make anyway? A gay life is a waste and a tragedy in any case.



posted by: Aliyah (reply)
post date: 09.29.05 (10:40 am)

Agree with you on those!

Your Name:


Your Comment: