Gay activists march in Calif. ahead of showdown

---

Originally Posted By: LuvMyCatsBut do you have the right to be happy? Is there anyone that can tell you that you can't? Nice way to dodge the question...again. You grant yourself that right. So, who's to tell you you can't be happy, then, hmm? I didn't ask who has the responsibility....of making you happy. How'd you get that out of "Do people have the right to be happy/happiness?" I thought Thor was pretty clear in his answer. How can someone have a right to be happy? That would entail others making adjustments to make me happy, which is something they can't do for me. Not to mention the fact that your respecting my right to be happy might very well compromise your happiness. Do you think we have a right to be happy? What if you're not happy? Who's fault is it and who, outside of yourself, has the responsibility to fix it for you? And if reality A makes you happy, but opposing reality B makes me happy, then how do you propose that both of our rights to happiness be preserved?This is why the founding fathers had the wisdom to draft a constitution that guarantees the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to BE happy.

Yes, I suppose I can see where you're coming from damien. Thor, I apologize, perhaps I just needed a re-read of your answer.Then I guess what I meant was, is it....I don't know, I just woke up, and I can't argue very well. Maybe later.

Originally Posted By: Rad

I don't want to get into semantics here, but, in my opinion, if you didn't "have the right to be happy", you sure wouldn't "have the right to pursue happiness."
Otherwise, after searching for it according to your right, you might be jailed for having it. (Drugs & stuff are excluded)

I think this reads more into it than is there. Like any right guaranteed by the Constitution, it has to exist in relation to other rights, and sometimes even take a lesser priority to other rights. Your right to pursue happiness doesn't allow you to break other laws or to compromise my right to life.

The government can't grant a right to something it can't help provide or protect. But it can provide, protect and enable your right to pursue happiness.

...or did I totally misunderstand your post?

Well, I guess what I meant by it, was that no one can take happiness away, in the sense that you can be happy whenever, and where ever you want. Rad, I completely understand that, and the example that I came up with to illustrate what I mean, is in the newer 007, Casino Royale, when he's being tortured, he's still happy, and makes jokes out of it, although anyone else would've surly passed out after what he went through.I mean as a personal right, not lawfully. The law applies, and any consequences you receive are yours to keep.I was just asking because I was reading about the Cardinal Vices, (interesting how thor doesn't respond to me when I brought that up in the other thread), and the Pope just had something to say, in expansion to the originals, that  Quote:These "social sins" include environmental pollution......and violation of the fundamental rights of human nature. and I figured that happiness would be one of those fundamental rights, in that you can be happy, no matter how much someone tries to take it away, and someone shouldn't take it away, lawfully.But, now that I've said that, I'm done with all 3-4 of these posts, now. I can stand his thick-headed ness, and I'm tired of putting up all these facts, and things, and being ridiculed. I wish you all luck, and to you, again, ntro.Article>> 7 Deadly Sins >> Social Sins

I just came up with the example, cuz it seemed to fit. And I only posted the links just in case anyone was interesting in the article about these Social Sins.  Originally Posted By: NtroducingmyselfIt is a pretty big deal on many different aspects...  Originally Posted By: LMCLike it's a big deal anyway... I'm sorry, that statement may have seemed insensitive of me. I meant that it's not a big deal that you should be allowed to marry Adam, not that it's not a big deal that you DO/DON'T marry him.

Originally Posted By: LuvMyCats  Originally Posted By: NtroducingmyselfIt is a pretty big deal on many different aspects...  Originally Posted By: LMCLike it's a big deal anyway... I'm sorry, that statement may have seemed insensitive of me. I meant that it's not a big deal that you should be allowed to marry Adam, not that it's not a big deal that you DO/DON'T marry him. Oh its all good, I knew you didn't mean anything malicious by it

Originally Posted By: RadI just think all human beings have the right to be happy.Out of anything you could wish upon someone else, isn't happiness at or near the top? Yeah, I think maybe our disconnect (if there was one) came because I was thinking in strictly legal terms. It seems that you and the cat-lover might have been thinking more in terms of fundamental human rights. It that case, I think we all agree that happiness is a basic, human right. Although I still believe that, while others can assist my pursuit of happiness, my happiness is pretty much my own responsibility. Originally Posted By: RadJust say what you feel.You don't have to put up a bunch of facts & figures & websites to prove what you feel.You feel it. It might not even HAVE an explanation.Just go with it.Thanks for saying this Rad. I sometimes get a bit put out when folks act like you're not allowed to say anything or assert an opinion on something without providing research to back it up. I'm all about verifiable proof when it's warranted, but sometimes a person just wants to say what they think or feel without having to submit peer reviewed proof. I see it happening more on another board I frequent, but it used to be more of a problem here as well.

I haven't seen this posted yet, but I think it is relevant:http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031109.html  Quote:SACRAMENTO, March 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - California same-sex "marriage" supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely, as well as the provision codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.The "Domestic Partnership Initiative" proposes to categorize all unions simply as "domestic partnerships," while retaining all the rights of marriage for heterosexual couples, and extending them to homosexual couples. According to the initiative's summary, "Legally speaking, 'Marriage' itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions." So basically, remove all government recognition of marriage, and leave marriages up to the church, unless I'm completely misreading that. I think it is a very Good Thing, perhaps even better than directly allowing gay marriages, as it keeps the Thorian Christians happy, while giving equal rights in the eyes of the law. What do you think Ntro(since you live there :P) ?

Originally Posted By: animefreak135I haven't seen this posted yet, but I think it is relevant:http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031109.html  Quote:SACRAMENTO, March 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - California same-sex "marriage" supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely, as well as the provision codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.The "Domestic Partnership Initiative" proposes to categorize all unions simply as "domestic partnerships," while retaining all the rights of marriage for heterosexual couples, and extending them to homosexual couples. According to the initiative's summary, "Legally speaking, 'Marriage' itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions." So basically, remove all government recognition of marriage, and leave marriages up to the church, unless I'm completely misreading that. I think it is a very Good Thing, perhaps even better than directly allowing gay marriages, as it keeps the Thorian Christians happy, while giving equal rights in the eyes of the law. What do you think Ntro(since you live there :P) ? I think it sounds awesome! Months back I made a post describing pretty much the same exact thing. I think having something like a "Domestic Partnership" for legal terms and allowing the Church keep marriage as its own seperate social ceremony is a win-win in my books for everyone involved.

I support this and think it's a great idea but I don't believe the American traditionalists would be willing to let it happen.

When people publish maps and put them out on the web with the names and locations of those who oppose their agenda, they've gone too far. That's harassment, and it's not part of the democratic process. In fact, it's a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. I'd have more sympathy for their plight if they'd start by policing their own. <<< Thor, You call this harassment?? You're kidding me, right? Why, in my place of residence, we publish, ("we" meaning the newspapers, websites, AND the police departments) and put up the name, address AND pictures of the pedophiles who molest children. And WE oppose THEIR agenda. Would you call this harassment too? Would you say this is not of the democratic process too? And you call advertising a demonstrative march, and posting the opposers,...harassment, or going too far?? And NOT part of the democratic process??? Do we not advertise the "opposers" of the voting process already? Do we not say who we vote for? For, or OPPOSED? Puhleeease...Give me a small ****ing break. Oh and yeah...the pedo's "police" their own alright. Police them into finding more children to abuse. You are a moron, at best, Thor with that statement. You seem to me, to be someone still in the mindset that homosexuality is pretty much the same as pedophilia. Wake up to the 21st century and smell the proverbial coffee.

Posting info of pedophiles because of safety for children is significantly different from posting info about people who oppose gay marriage.

Posting info of pedophiles because of safety for children is significantly different from posting info about people who oppose gay marriage.<<<Exactly my point, sdp. But for others, it seems it remains the same.