The rights given to an individual exist solely in the negative space of the rights taken by all others around the individual. The individual has rights only in that all others have a willingness to not treat the individual as a mean to their ends. In an ideal society, the individual would not need rights defined; the individual would not need to constantly fight and defend their rights.
There is no Right or Wrong - these are only subjective concepts. Right is that which is a benefit. Wrong is that which is a detriment. It only matters which individual or group receives the benefit or detriment. Further, in the case of a detriment, it only matters if the receiving individual or group has the power to exact retribution.
"The car is red."
This is a very common oversimplification of reality that is helpful, even necessary, for having simple, common, successful conversations. However, this cannot be used when the conversation is not so simple, such as when discussing metaphysical concepts. Less simply, the car is not red, rather the paint on the car is red. However, this is still too abbreviated. It would be more appropriate to say that...
"The car is covered with a material that reflects light with a wavelength roughly between 625 and 740 nanometers which the majority of English speaking humans with normal vision refer to the perception of as 'red'."
So, the car is not red, the paint is not red, and the light isn't even red. The only thing that is red is the perception - the image in the mind of the perceiver. But, even this statement takes some liberties. Consider that what a person with normal vision would call "red" may be closer to a shade of a different color to a person with some degree of color blindness.
"Red" is only a subjective concept, learned and shared by many, with roots in objective reality.
It should never be the case that a punishment is withheld simply because it is what is desired by those to be punished. Criminal punishment should force an offender to exist without social benefits. Taking an offender out of civilian-society and placing them in prison-society does not accomplish this goal since the offender's existence is still ensured through no action of their own. In tribal and even in animal societies, the offender is simply forced away from the group. The offender can then determine if the ease and security of life within the group is worth the price of obeying the group's laws. The death penalty also forces the offender away from the group, however the offender cannot learn from this experience.
Well meaning systems that have been abused and reduced to pointless, divisive crap.
See Politics. Note: Not the same as Faith.
Marriage in a civil setting is nothing more than a legal contract. The requirements to enter into a marriage should be no different than those for any other legal contract. Marriage in a religious setting is whatever the given religion defines, with requirements also defined. The government should not be forced to recognize a religion's marriage and the religion should not be forced to recognize a government's marriage. Those choosing to have a union recognized as marriage in more than one setting should go through each setting's steps for recognition.
If "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", then what is deserved by those who would give up Non-Essential Liberty to purchase much Prolonged Safety?
Will the fight for our sanity
Be the fight of our lives?
Now that we’ve lost all the reasons
That we thought that we had.
- The Flaming Lips
What God wants God gets God help us all.
- Roger Waters