Legalize the Right to Pursue Happiness

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
111
63
#1
.

Freedom, is being able to do want you want, as long as you don't interfere with someones else's rights.

--

I am free to swing my arms around all I want, but if I hit you, then I have interfered with your rights.

If consenting adults go into their house at night, and shut the shades and doors, and do things?, is it anybodies else's business?

ARE THEY INTERFERING WITH ANYBODY ELSE'S RIGHTS ?

--

If they are quietly drinking heavily watching tv and they later go to bed, does that interfere with the rights of the man down the street? Or next door?

If they smoke pot and watch tv and go to bed does that interfere with the rights of the man down the street or anybodies?

If they are gay at night, in the bedroom, what business is that to anyone else? They are not interfering with anyone else's rights.

What if the woman is given money for sex, or the man, Or the man buys her dinner and entertainment with MONEY, what is that to anyone?

What about tobacco? (a powerful MONEY lobby), as bad as heroin? Why.....is IT still legal?????????????????????????(it should not be made illegal in my opinion)

Should swat teams storm a persons house for any of these reasons? BUT THEY DO !!!!!!!!

And take all their possessions, destroy the house, and haul them to prison!

=========

There is a difference between criminal and immoral.

--

Criminal is interfering with someone else's rights.

Immoral is against someone's religion.

--

Criminal, is simply, theft, assault, intentional property damage, etc..

Immoral, is religious intolerance, for minorities, such as prostitution, drugs, gay marriage, alcohol, tobacco, etc., which such things, if done behind closed doors, by consenting adults, in reality, do interfere with anyone else's rights.

(If you can vote to make everyone live by "Christian" morality (RCC? biggest "Christian " voting group), then others can vote in Hindu, or Buddhist, or Islamic morality laws. Kill a cow in India or eat beef and see what happens, people are being killed for this and less.)

--

People have always tried to push their "religion" on other people, I guess it's always been that way.

And pushing the illegal morality issues gets them lots of votes, they say, "I'm a Christian vote for me", and people do.

--

What if they made alcohol illegal again?

The same thing that is happening now with other "illegal immoralities".

The "trade" would go underground and create a gangster underground system fueled by money.

And the gang underground that had the MONEY would fight the authorities trying to enforce "morality" laws.

All the Mexican gang wars and power has been about the drugs, yes, but what gives those gangs their power, is not the drugs, but the fact that the drugs are illegal and there is money to be made.

If a person could go to the pharmacy, and by all the "whatever" drug they wanted, a pound for 5 dollars, who would buy it on the street? And a pound would last them a lifetime, (Probably a very, very short life, 2 days maybe).

If you could buy "meth" at the pharmacy, who would cook it themselves? (A big problem everywhere)

And the police could have a list of everyone who buys it, but it would be legal.

--

I believe that many of these things are wrong, and we teach not to do them, but there is a place where we must let others who have different moralities live their lives, as long as we don't interfere with the rights of others.

And the people who keep to themselves, who are quiet, and don't interfere with the rights of others,
should the swat team break down the doors, haul them off to prison for years, because they exercised the right to pursue happiness in their own house? (gay, pot, prostitution?)

Trying to make people live "morally" (RCC) by law enforcement is against the right to pursue happiness.

--

People have the right to be immoral, and pursue their happiness, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,312
1,039
113
#2
I'm inclined to agree. Only criteria for marriage should be that both are consenting adults.
 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
111
63
#3
I'm inclined to agree. Only criteria for marriage should be that both are consenting adults.
.

Generally speaking.

Where there is law, there should also be the law of mercy.

Should we put people in prison for love?

I think that the law should take that into account between young people, but it is a thin line between some times.

This is why judges should be given a great discretion in the cases before them, to allow for love.
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#4
What about a baby's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Are unborn babies allowed to pursue happiness, or just adults?
 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
111
63
#5
What about a baby's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Are unborn babies allowed to pursue happiness, or just adults?
Abortion is a sin.

What should be the penalty for a woman who has an abortion?

Death by firing squad? By hanging to death? Lethal injection?

Which one would you choose?
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,313
16,301
113
69
Tennessee
#6
What about a baby's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Are unborn babies allowed to pursue happiness, or just adults?
Sadly, in this country, unborn babies are not recognized as human beings so therefore they have no rights whatsoever. I pray that one day this changes. The problem is that those that are contemplating abortion block out the fact that they are carrying a human life. For the most part, it is a selfish choice to end the pregnancy.
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#7
Abortion is a sin.

What should be the penalty for a woman who has an abortion?

Death by firing squad? By hanging to death? Lethal injection?

Which one would you choose?
I would penalize the abortionists. If I were ruler of the United States, doctors who provide abortions would be stripped of their licenses and unable to practice medicine. I would close abortion clinics. I would not penalize the women, as they have already given themselves a lifetime punishment- one of sorrow, guilt, and regret that they killed their own babies.
 
W

wwjd_kilden

Guest
#8
I think part of the problem is that in some cases the private vs public / "it only affects the ones doing it" vs it causing damage is very foggy.

Let's seeeeeee an example.....

If my neighbour smokes week (or even does LSD), and remains in his home, causing no- one any harm, that is his problem alone .... but what if he, being high, goes out to his car, and happens to hit a pedestrian?
 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
111
63
#9
I would penalize the abortionists. If I were ruler of the United States, doctors who provide abortions would be stripped of their licenses and unable to practice medicine. I would close abortion clinics. I would not penalize the women, as they have already given themselves a lifetime punishment- one of sorrow, guilt, and regret that they killed their own babies.
.
So if a woman gives herself an abortion, or causes a miscarriage, on her own, then there would be no penalty?
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,339
2,427
113
#10
I think part of the problem is that in some cases the private vs public / "it only affects the ones doing it" vs it causing damage is very foggy.

Let's seeeeeee an example.....

If my neighbour smokes week (or even does LSD), and remains in his home, causing no- one any harm, that is his problem alone .... but what if he, being high, goes out to his car, and happens to hit a pedestrian?
Or what if virtually everybody is high, and no work gets done... and society begins to collapse.

This HAS happened historically.
More than once.
 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
111
63
#11
I think part of the problem is that in some cases the private vs public / "it only affects the ones doing it" vs it causing damage is very foggy.

Let's seeeeeee an example.....

If my neighbour smokes week (or even does LSD), and remains in his home, causing no- one any harm, that is his problem alone .... but what if he, being high, goes out to his car, and happens to hit a pedestrian?
.
But then he has interfered with someone else's right to walk down the street.

But if he drives and doesn't break any laws,

Can we penalize him for what might happen, but has not?
 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
111
63
#12
Or what if virtually everybody is high, and no work gets done... and society begins to collapse.

This HAS happened historically.
More than once.
.
Is it criminal to be lazy?

If your rich, it's OK, but if your poor it's a crime.

Because someone is lazy, how does that interfere with your rights?
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#13
.
But then he has interfered with someone else's right to walk down the street.

But if he drives and doesn't break any laws,

Can we penalize him for what might happen, but has not?
People who drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol are more likely to kill people, their reflexes are not sharp enough to operate a motor vehicle. If someone under the influence is driving erratically, and is pulled over, do you think they should not be arrested since they have not yet hit anyone?
 
W

wwjd_kilden

Guest
#14
.
But then he has interfered with someone else's right to walk down the street.

But if he drives and doesn't break any laws,

Can we penalize him for what might happen, but has not?
I think the thing is that some things increase the chance of bad things happening.
He must have bought it from someone ... what is he financing by buying that? Just more weeds, or more dangerous drugs?

.... a lot of the fights that are started have been triggered by alcohol, and it is also involved in many car accidents ... which means that the introduction of it makes it more likely for a person to break laws. I assume the same is true for narcotics of most kinds. (Even LEGAL prescription drugs...)

I am not in favour of the government detail- controlling peoples lives, but I do think that a lot of people are too ... can I say stupid? ... to know their own good.
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#15
.
So if a woman gives herself an abortion, or causes a miscarriage, on her own, then there would be no penalty?
If it is happening in her own home, how would anyone even know? I would assume some women actually do this already.
 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
111
63
#16
If it is happening in her own home, how would anyone even know? I would assume some women actually do this already.
.
I heard that wire coat hangers were the way to do that, would you suggest that method?
 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
111
63
#17
I think the thing is that some things increase the chance of bad things happening.
He must have bought it from someone ... what is he financing by buying that? Just more weeds, or more dangerous drugs?

.... a lot of the fights that are started have been triggered by alcohol, and it is also involved in many car accidents ... which means that the introduction of it makes it more likely for a person to break laws. I assume the same is true for narcotics of most kinds. (Even LEGAL prescription drugs...)

I am not in favour of the government detail- controlling peoples lives, but I do think that a lot of people are too ... can I say stupid? ... to know their own good.
.
What about the people who don't fight when they drink? Would you penalize all because 2 people got in a fight?
 
W

wwjd_kilden

Guest
#18
.
What about the people who don't fight when they drink? Would you penalize all because 2 people got in a fight?
If alcohol had been made illegal, yes, of course.
Should we legalize chemical weapons as well just because most people wouldn't use them?
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#19
.
I heard that wire coat hangers were the way to do that, would you suggest that method?
No, I would suggest they allow their babies the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,339
2,427
113
#20
.
Is it criminal to be lazy?

If your rich, it's OK, but if your poor it's a crime.

Because someone is lazy, how does that interfere with your rights?


I do not care how lazy you are.

But all governments run on taxes... all governments... everywhere... all through history.

I doubt the government cares if YOU are lazy... but they DO CARE if a huge portion of the population is lazy.




So, being lazy
(perpetually drunk, high, intentionally unemployed, or otherwise useless in society)
actually IS a societal problem which governments DO address.

There have been times and places where HUGE portions of populations were drunk or high all the time, and it caused massive breakdowns all through society... eventually effecting the government.
And when this happens, a government will step it to change it.




I do not care if YOU are lazy.

I could care less.

But if a huge amount of the population, of any nation, becomes useless as tax payers, or causes a breakdown in civic foundations... governments will step in to change that.




These are just the cold realities of life.