So that means thatpeople that just sitting home and using the system, start working,maybe then they can get health insurance and not waiting on Mr.Obama toprovide them free insurance on my cost i have the above rights as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------
it means what it says - all men are entitled to equal rights and protection under the law, including homosexuals... and maybe if you took your own advice, you wouldn't have to announce to the entire forum that you're broke. don't expect any compassion (or handouts) from your conservative brethren

ecause, if "allmen created equal" guarantees gay marriage, according to someone, thenthe same rights should be extended to child molesters and such.

-------------------------------------------------------------
children are in no position to give informed consent... same reason why they can't enter into contracts (well, they can, but they're voidable)... whereas gay marriage takes place between two consenting adults.

But the age of consent is a measure imposed by society, some societies don't have it at all. Now, if a majority of our society is against gay marriage, to the point that the most liberal state opposed it by referendum, why are we extending it, based on "all men are created equal"?

But the age of consent is a measure imposed by society, some societies don't have it at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe it's a grey area when it comes to teenagers... but when we're talking about inflicting physical or psychological harm to a defenseless child, I believe that's when society must step in.



Now, if a majority of our societyis against gay marriage, to the point that the most liberal stateopposed it by referendum, why are we extending it, based on "all menare created equal"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
today they're against gay marriage, tomorrow they're against mixed marriage, next day it will be the Jews... this is why the rights of minorities will hopefully always be protected in our society - no good can come out of pure democracy.

Mike, having a "right" to health care and letting people die are two different things. You may choose to give a bum a dollar, but that does not mean that a bum has a right to get a dollar from you. As an individual you may well choose to donate to a charity paying for health care of those who cannot pay for themselves, and that's fine. We can even choose do to a similar thing as a society. That's less fine with me, since I believe it is not a legitimate function of government, and I will always vote against it, but I am willing to abide by the decision of the majority. What I vehemently object to on principled philosophical grounds is declaring some BS "right". It's a very dangerous (and Orwellian) corruption of language and very bad demagoguery. Just imagine that the government proclaimed that everybody has a right to health care, to food and to housing - and then everybody stops working and just demands all these goodies that he has a right to. What is government going to do?! It is not a right if the government can guarantee that right only to a minority of people at any given moment (that sounds more like an insurance policy than a right). The fundamental difference here is that real rights (such as rights under the First and Second Amendments) can be fully guaranteed and protected for everybody at the same time, regardless of the level of prosperity etc.

Lina, I am willing to fight over the principle, not actual access of somebody to health care. The concept of human rights is way to important to allow it to be corrupted by demagoguery. The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with this. Food is much more essential to life than health care - so what?! You fundamentally misunderstand Locke (whom Jefferson was paraphrasing). The natural rights are inherent to all people, they are granted by God, not by the government, and they pre-exist before any government is formed. The right to life simply means that the government cannot arbitrarily deprive someone of life (or liberty, or property) and must make a reasonable effort to protect citizens from violence. That's all.
On another topic, what do you know about conservative compassion?! I donate a lot more to charity than either Al Gore or Joe Biden.

Just imagine that the government proclaimed that everybody has a rightto health care, to food and to housing - and then everybody stopsworking and just demands all these goodies that he has a right to. Whatis government going to do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
well, if everyone stops working, then, of course there will also be no government, and everyone will be forced to fend for themselves... since your skills will most likely no longer be in high demand, you will be forced to join the ranks of indigents - whom you seem to despise so much - seeking the protection of those you once felt were beneath you.

negative rights, positive rights, left, center... you seem to be arguing semantics here... bottom line, every civilized society should ensure that their citizens are fed, clothed, have shelter, access to education and health care... if and when we all stop working, we will most likely cease to function as a civilized society, in which case your argument will become moot.

You fundamentally misunderstand Locke (whom Jefferson wasparaphrasing). The natural rights are inherent to all people, they aregranted by God, not by the government, and they pre-exist before anygovernment is formed. The right to life simply means that thegovernment cannot arbitrarily deprive someone of life (or liberty, orproperty) and must make a reasonable effort to protect citizens fromviolence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because I don't agree with your or Locke's definition of the right to life, doesn't mean I misunderstood anything. Jefferson's understanding of it is debatable. And why is it that just the government can't deprive me of my natural rights?

How about you tell me your understanding of a civilized society.

Lina, it's not semantics. It's about the foundational principles of this country. As I already said, a good test for whether something is a right or not is just to imagine that everybody simultaneously decided to enjoy that right. With rights like freedom of religion it is actually very easy to imagine (Sunday morning, everybody's in church, no problem). With others you see that it is really a promise contingent on government having sufficient resources.
Whether the society should provide everybody with certain minimal resources is a different topic. And I simply refuse to discuss it as long as somebody claims that people have a right to certain resources. Only once that claim is dropped, I am willing to discuss whether the society should subsidize access to certain resources by certain people.