[TheRealThing]

^All good points and all can be substantiated. However, I would argue from a different perspective. The following article demonstrates perfectly my logic defining the meaning of human rights;
[SIZE="3"] "the concept of "certain unalienable rights" is evidence that the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in God and for the most part we're strongly religious men with strong beliefs in entitlements bestowed by God upon men, and that these entitlements were so important that no earthly power can rightfully deny them. Therefore, no Government can deny these rights.

The whole of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence sheds more light on this phrasing:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Definition
The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Certain unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.

In contrast, "inalienable rights" are those rights that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights." [/SIZE]



Man doesn't have the right to defy God rather, he has leave temporarily while alive and on this earth to do so. Albeit not without penalty, and as is the case with all men, the penalty is death if men choose to die in that defiance. That is the whole point. God put men on this planet earth to live out their lives and He gave all men something we call free will. With that free will, we have tremendous power, that being the power of choice. Which is magnified many times over for us who are blessed enough to have lived completely free lives in the United States. It is the choices men make that distinguish them in the eyes of God. He has charged every man to make a choice, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, and that is to choose for or against God. In other words, if we choose to repent and believe that His Son died a substitutionary death on the cross, thereby trusting Him fully with our soul, He is faithful and just to forgive us. But, if we choose to do things our way, and insist that a loving God would never send one of His creation to Hell for living in a fashion that seems perfectly fine to us, we forfeit any claim to the protection afforded to those who accept the unspeakable gift of His Son's death on the cross. The secret, if there is one, is that we are to compare our lives against the Lord Jesus Christ's life, not a flawed and fallible neighbor or church member. All of us have a viable argument if we want to use the life of any man to compare our own to. At any rate, God would not have allowed His only Son to die for men if there were any other way.

So, do men have the right to get married to other men when God has made it so abundantly clear in Romans Chapter 1, that homosexuality is an abomination to Him? Nope. Does God allow men to do that anyway, in defiance of His Word until His coming and the subsequent judgment of all men? Yep.

Even though I believe the scriptures state clearly that no man is better than any other man as they compare to one another, we err greatly when legislating for the purpose of expedience for sin. Dusty says that marriage is a totally moral issue and he is 100% right about that, in my humble opinion. Men ought not legislate in matters contrary to God's law. Legislation therefore, that contradicts or seeks to overturn God's law is foolhardy by any definition. Jesus said this about changing or altering God's law; Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And yet, men have dared to tread on His authority by passing legislation to circumvent the Word of the one and only, Omnipotent God. And, when they do, we ought to speak out against such legislation as wrong even though we are bound to uphold those laws by not mounting any sort of insurrection. As our only recourse and as Dusty said, we should seek to vote them out of office. Therefore, if the Democrats insist on a platform incorporating abortion, gay rights, and other such madness which, are so clearly in violation of the law of the God of this universe, how can any man who honors Him ever justify a vote for a Democrat? The same would hold true for any Republican who opposes the authority of God.