unless that practice violates the freedoms of another person involuntarily.
hmmm.. this part is difficult, the tongue twister part... unless that practice (beliefs, rituals, habits, traditions, customs) violates the freedoms (the desires, the beliefs, the goals, the unlimited rights) .. of another person involuntarily... (the innocent victim/the believer of ritual sacrifice, the rape victim/the practicer of hedonism, just two examples easy to see enough we could go on all day)...
What is not to understand? Do you think your rights usurp someone else's rights? I am sure that you don't believe that. So, the exercise of your personal rights should be allowed as long as they don't trample on the rights of others. Basically, your rights are restricted to the boundaries where they don't take away someone else's rights.
so I am confused, if we stop people from performing ritual sacrifice or raping, we protect tpossible victims but we violate the freedom of the other two, the practicers of sacrifice and hedonism or sadism, to freely practice their beliefs and customs, we violate their rights to freely exist.
Any action that has victims is not considered a right...our laws are for protecting the rights of the individual. So actions that violate an individual's rights cannot be rights.
You statement has some flaws even though it appears benign and righteous. Do you promote a pro-life stance? do you desire to protect the lives of the unborn or do you promote the idea that a victim, the denial of life to one, is sometimes neceassary to achieve the goals and satisfy the beliefs of another person? So, how does your statement stand in that context? It doesn't. just because you do not recognize the unborn as a life does not mean others must agree with you.
The unborn don't have a legal status under the law. They didn't have a legal status under the Bible laws either. Causing a miscarriage was not considered murder unless the woman died. See Exodus 21:22-23
Would you say the child's life is more important than the mother's life? Regardless, this is a subject best left for another thread. Care to start an anti-abortion thread?
A vote in congess indicates a majority in favor of a certain opinion. The only place it is in direct violation of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution is in the minds of people like yourself who see themselves and their beliefs as more worthy of protection than others. But obviously, in the case of The Defense Of Marriage Act, your opinion is the minority.
So you believe that the majority vote should rule regardless of how it affects the rights of the minority?
You fail to recognize the rights of others who do not believe that the recognition of same sex marriages is proper nor that they should be required to recognize such unions in direct conflict with their basic beliefs and long held traditions.
Looks like another subject that you would like to talk about. Maybe you could start that new thread with an explanation of how making same sex marriages legal prevents you from being allowed to believe it is wrong.
So, even though you state that you don't want anyone to enact laws that force you to act the way others want to act, you none-the-less are arguing incessantly that others should act the way you act, regardless of their beliefs.
Which one of my statements requires you to act contrary to your belief system?
the majority disagrees with you Linear. You are a dictator in a freeman's clothing but your jacket is invisible.
The majority could vote for enslaving all illegal aliens but I doubt that would make it right. I am a dictator for wanting the most freedoms for the most people...interesting.
