By inalienable rights, do you mean the inalienable rights given to us by the Creator as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?
Absolutely. We need a new version of EBT called a Whore Card that allows people to get some action every month.
No right may infringe on another person's right i.e. if the right to sex existed there would also be a right not to have sex, the one cannot overule the other. If it did rape would not be illegal.
I've had sex with many aliens. I find the Latin women to be the most into it, but do not discount women from several Asian countries by any means.
Self-possession is inalienable. Freedom of association is inalienable. No one has the right to interfere with whatever consenting adults want to do with each other. So long as it's peaceful.
with a consenting adult partner you mean? I do not think the gov should be telling consenting adults they can not have sex with other consenting adults if that is what you mean now if one is referring to rape and the right to force sex on others... then of course the answer is NO, one does not have the right to force sex on others http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 22:28-29&version=NIV .
To me, the correct question has to be, Does the Government have rights it can hand to citizens? If you say yes, who gave the Government such rights? The Government was called, of the people, by the people and for the people so we have superior rights to government. The argument between the two major party is who has rights. We republicans say confidently, the people have those rights. Democrats deny that and proclaim rights belong to the Government. To fight that idea the founders crafted the bill of rights.
I think this question demonstrates a semantic problem with the whole concept of rights. I think it would be much better if we thought of the inalienable responsibilities we all automatically have as the consequence of others rights. For example, its not that we have a right to life as such. Life is a natural process, we have life automatically. We do all have a responsibility not to take life from anyone else though. We dont really have a right to free movement. I could easily get up and move anywhere Im physically capable of doing so. We do have a responsibility not to restrict others free movement though. I think this makes the inevitable conflicting rights slightly less difficult too. It isnt a case of you being free to practice your rights unless that impacts someone elses but that you can only restrict someones elses rights if they would impact someone elses. Basically you have to give a positive reason to act against someones rights. This adjusted view makes questions like the one here irrelevant. Theres no reason to ask whether you have the right to do something, you just can. The only consideration needs to be whether youre failing in your responsibility towards anyone else.
Generally I think people have the right to do what they want so long as it doesn't impinge upon others right to do the same. So since sex generally involves at least 2 people, they have a right to do it so long as both give informed consent. Another complication is the possibility of a child resulting who is an innocent 3rd party, but since I'm pro-choice that part doesn't bother me.... Sometimes I do personally wish Americans were less puritanical about sex and it could be more of a fun activity with attractive friends than "making love" with one partner until you don't care about sex anymore, but I can understand why society did not develop that way. STDs, children, and jealousy I mean. Masturbation. There's an inalienable right.
` I deliberately left out definitions to this question (such a consent, religion, laws, etc) in order to get to the crux of sex. The answer is Yes, it is an inalienable right. Sex, as I see it, is a primal passion or instinct that is hardwired in us humans. Survival of the species comes to mind immediately. But sex is also (for most people) a pleasurable act. Perhaps is having sex was painful, we might not ever have an over population concern and as a result, people would treat human life with more dignity and respect and not be in such an all-fired hurry to kill each other.
I think this is covered in the Declaration of Independence under the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Basically, we have the right to pursue what will make us happy. It doesn't guarantee we will be happy, just that we can work at being happy. So, if sex makes us happy, we have the right to pursue sex. We are not guaranteed that we will get sex and obviously our rights should never affect someone else's.
"Rights" as in some supernatural law don't exist. From a practical and ethical standpoint, rights are just things we can do without disproportionately infringing on the quality of life of other citizens. Sex often fits that definition.
` Cut the crap. Is having sex with another person, a human right? Is having sex totally about procreation or can people have sex, just for the pleasure?
Great because I am not talking about semantics and neither am I an attorney, online or not. So the question remains, do you understand the essence of rights?
No. If there were a right to have sex there would be an obligation for someone to provide sex for that person.
