“looking with fondness towards a reconciliation with Great Britain…I…would rather be dependent on Great Britain, properly limited, than with any other nation on earth or on no nation”. Thomas Jefferson; August 25 1775
It doesn't matter how anyone "thinks of something". Certain sociological rules are generated naturally in every group (given members of equal power, of course).There have been plenty of large population groups who never think of certain elements as a right.
Idiocy. As I noted earlier, natural rights can -and are- violated but they always exist as a natural abstract object understood via sociology.There is no "right" to life in the older Oriental cultures. In fact with Eastern and Oriental cultures a caste system is the natural process.
The caste system was not a natural sociological process, it was a system of tyranny created by those in power in order to violate the rights of others for profit.
I don't believe you have an understanding of what is sociologically natural. I'll give you a hint: it's not just "whatever happens" as your ridiculous claim above.
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK
Of course it's a legal contract, but having a legal contract is not really the issue. SSM is not about someone getting access to a legal contract as much as it is about someone getting access to the same treatment under the law. Being treated the same under the law is the bigger issue that causes me to consider that SSM in some way falls under human rights.and it is a legal contract as we all see.now tell me how it is not a legal right whether it is SSM or traditional marriage
Is source-specific multicast a right?
Ummm...I guess so.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
I responded no to the poll.
I'm supportive of SSM simply because if the government is going to be in the marriage business, they shouldn't be discriminating against the free choice of citizens. I'd prefer they get out of the marriage business entirely.
That said, it's hard to claim a human right for something that is not a requirement of life. I'd argue food is more a human right, yet the government will never provide everyone with sufficient food to survive and prosper. Water would be another necessity of life. I'd more argue that decent healthcare is more a human right than marriage is. You can have a mate and a family without a government piece of paper.
The modern day need of some to declare every desire a basic right is just idiotic, in my view.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.