Gay marriage advocates, on the wrong track?

[Nosmo King]

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

But the argument is that allowing gay marriage will damage the institition of marriage. Your solution is a suicide pact with marriage.

My argument is that government intervention in marriages damages the institution of marriage more than anything else.

Doesn't a marriage license prevent 'kissin' cousins' or underage marriages? A marriage license provides protections and benefits like how to file taxes and what benefits can be applied to a spouse. How does a marriage license damage marriage?

 

[cbirch2]

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

Well clever twist, nice spin. I never said he supported gay marriage. I said he wrote against the harsh treatment of gay people. Gay people could be put to death, the law you speak about was in order to lessen punishments for being gay.

The article you provided contained no quotes in which Jefferson made any reference to the treatment of gays. There is no spin, your article simply didn't support your claim. Also, the article was titled "gay marriage? blame jefferson." If that doesn't insinuate that Jefferson would have been pro gay marriage, I don't know what would.

I just linked to the top link on google to show you how easy it was. Jefferson definitely wrote about lessening penalties for homosexuality. Nothing near what is par for today but he certainly did.

 

[cbirch2]

Cbirch is rapidly approaching my ignore list.

Um, what exactly about my post was wrong?

Jefferson obviously had a problem with homosexuals. Like any moral person. And you missed it.

Are you serious? The law your quoting is for sodomy not for homosexuality. I think youd have a hard time finding that jefferson personally hated gay people. Im about to find the glenn beck quote that agrees with me...just wait..

 

[ShackledNation]

Right and people owned slaves. You probably would have liked it more back then.

Two different issues. Congratulations on using a logical fallacy as a response. I am referencing the past as proof you do not need government for marriage to work. You failed to prove otherwise. If you would like to continue using logical fallacies, please do so somewhere else.

Actually people had marriage certificates going back to the 18th century. So you start with a fallacy yourself.
There was general agreement as to what marriage was and meant. So there wasn't too much dispute about it and that made it easy.
Today we live in a much more diverse society.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning, such as using personal attacks as arguments or illogical conclusions (i.e. There are birds in the tree, therefore birds are now extinct). If I was factually incorrect, that is not a fallacy, only a misconception. But I am not factually incorrect.

Marriage certificates do not mean marriage licenses. A certificate simply means you have been married, and you could be provided with a certificate after signing a marriage contract. My parents, married in the Catholic Church, have a certificate from the Catholic Church recognizing their marriage. In addition they have a certificate from the state of California. Certificates and licenses are not the same thing.

And there was too dispute about marriage. Interracial marriage was heavily disputed. To solve the dispute, government just banned them...via the marriage license.

 

[ShackledNation]

But the argument is that allowing gay marriage will damage the institition of marriage. Your solution is a suicide pact with marriage.

My argument is that government intervention in marriages damages the institution of marriage more than anything else.

Doesn't a marriage license prevent 'kissin' cousins' or underage marriages? A marriage license provides protections and benefits like how to file taxes and what benefits can be applied to a spouse. How does a marriage license damage marriage?

You can confer those benefits via private contract. A marriage license damages marriage by forcing individuals to bow before government to become united in what was once a private religious matter. Instead of being between husband, wife, and God, marriage is now between husband, wife, and the state.

 

[ShackledNation]

But the argument is that allowing gay marriage will damage the institition of marriage. Your solution is a suicide pact with marriage.

My argument is that government intervention in marriages damages the institution of marriage more than anything else.

People have been getting married for 200 years. How is that damaging?

I said government intervention is damaging, not marriage. Please refrain from the strawman fallacy and respond to my actual arguments.

 

[The Rabbi]

My argument is that government intervention in marriages damages the institution of marriage more than anything else.

People have been getting married for 200 years. How is that damaging?

I said government intervention is damaging, not marriage. Please refrain from the strawman fallacy and respond to my actual arguments.

Do you understand WTF you're talking about?
You claimed governement intervention in marriage damaged the institution. I want to know how that works.
If you can't answer, fine. Admit your beliefs are simply beliefs without rational basis and we can all move on.

 

[Nosmo King]

My argument is that government intervention in marriages damages the institution of marriage more than anything else.

Doesn't a marriage license prevent 'kissin' cousins' or underage marriages? A marriage license provides protections and benefits like how to file taxes and what benefits can be applied to a spouse. How does a marriage license damage marriage?

You can confer those benefits via private contract. A marriage license damages marriage by forcing individuals to bow before government to become united in what was once a private religious matter. Instead of being between husband, wife, and God, marriage is now between husband, wife, and the state.

In a marriage a new legal entity is formed. A legal partnership. Would you "privatize" all forms of contract law?

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't a marriage license prevent 'kissin' cousins' or underage marriages? A marriage license provides protections and benefits like how to file taxes and what benefits can be applied to a spouse. How does a marriage license damage marriage?

You can confer those benefits via private contract. A marriage license damages marriage by forcing individuals to bow before government to become united in what was once a private religious matter. Instead of being between husband, wife, and God, marriage is now between husband, wife, and the state.

In a marriage a new legal entity is formed. A legal partnership. Would you "privatize" all forms of contract law?

You're right to ask.
People who advocate crap like that have either not thought it through or are not aware how basic the marital bond is in law.

 

[ShackledNation]

In a marriage a new legal entity is formed. A legal partnership. Would you "privatize" all forms of contract law?

Read this article. Other contracts with government control can be dealt with on an individual basis, and you will have to be far more specific. You don't have to be in favor of anarchy to privatize marriage, so your point about other contracts (however general and lacking specifics) really isn't relevant and is more or less a red herring.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken135.html

Government marriage is not really marriage at all. It is just that: a legal economic partnership. Couples who wish to marry should approach their religious authorities about it. Then, if they wish they can join into some kind of civil union, which is just a contract. People who wish to have a civil union but no marriage may enter into that arrangement, and those who wish for a marriage with no civil union should be able to do that as well. Marriage, properly understood, should be considered off limits from government meddling. People are welcome to contract, but if the "defenders" of marriage had done their jobs right, there would be no confusion today about what is marriage and what is a government-approved contractual union.

Private institutions handled marriage in Western Europe for more than 1,500 years. Now we all act as if we need government to define marriage for us. The way government defines it, marriage has nothing to do with religion. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it.

People have been getting married for 200 years. How is that damaging?

I said government intervention is damaging, not marriage. Please refrain from the strawman fallacy and respond to my actual arguments.

Do you understand WTF you're talking about?
You claimed governement intervention in marriage damaged the institution. I want to know how that works.
If you can't answer, fine. Admit your beliefs are simply beliefs without rational basis and we can all move on.

Yes, I do know what I am talking about. I said government intervention in marriage is harmful. You insinuated I said marriage was harmful. If you did not mean to insinuate that, I apologize for the misunderstanding. As for my views on marriage, this article brilliantly sums them up, and I will leave this topic by posting parts of it.

Privatize Marriage - By David Boaz - Slate Magazine

In the 20th century, however, government has intruded upon the marriage contract, among many others. Each state has tended to promulgate a standard, one-size-fits-all formula. Then, in the past generation, legislatures and courts have started unilaterally changing the terms of the marriage contract. Between 1969 and 1985 all the states provided for no-fault divorce. The new arrangements applied not just to couples embarking on matrimony but also to couples who had married under an earlier set of rules. Many people felt a sense of liberation; the changes allowed them to get out of unpleasant marriages without the often contrived allegations of fault previously required for divorce. But some people were hurt by the new rules, especially women who had understood marriage as a partnership in which one partner would earn money and the other would forsake a career in order to specialize in homemaking.

So why not privatize marriage? Make it a private contract between two individuals. If they wanted to contract for a traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup, with specified rules for property and alimony in the event of divorce, they could do so. Less traditional couples could keep their assets separate and agree to share specified expenses. Those with assets to protect could sign prenuptial agreements that courts would respect. Marriage contracts could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse capitalist world. For those who wanted a standard one-size-fits-all contract, that would still be easy to obtain. Wal-Mart could sell books of marriage forms next to the standard rental forms. Couples would then be spared the surprise discovery that outsiders had changed their contract without warning. Individual churches, synagogues, and temples could make their own rules about which marriages they would bless.

Put simply, marriage should not be a one-size fits all formula. And I am not just talking about who gets to marry, I am talking about how the contracts economically effect the spouses.

As a Catholic, I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. To me, and probably most other Christians, marriage is a holy institution with spiritual benefits. Allowing gay people of other denominations or even secular ones to marry would not change this at all. We do not live in a theocracy. If other religions or secular groups believe in a type of marriage between two of the same sex, or polygamy, or whatever, they have every right to practice it. Government force sanctions upon us, nor will Catholics be forced to accept gay marriage in the Church. The sacramental or religious portion of marriage will remain exactly the same.

Aside from religious, and spiritual significance, none of which are affected by privatizing marriage, the only other benefit of marriage is economic. And there is no reason to deny economically beneficial contracts to anyone.

As for cultural acceptance, you can never legislate that. But if a gay secular couples enters into a marriage contract, the only benefits conferred upon them would be economic, so I hardly see how that is a problem or threat to any religion, including my own.

I am tired with this issue for now, so enjoy my post. And please, read the article if you wish to have an open mind.

 

[The Rabbi]

In other words you cannot explain your position because you read it in some blog somewhere and didnt understand it.
No problem. Have a good life.

 

[Anachronism]

Fact: The city issuing a marriage license is a civil and legal, not a religious, issue.

Getting married in a church means nothing without a marriage license. Two atheists can go get married by a justice of the peace in a parking lot. Therefore your argument that christian religious doctrine somehow applies to who the city provides a civil service to is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The primary role of Government is to protect and uphold the society of this nation. The foundation of this country is Morality and Values. Homosexual relations does not fall under either of those headings. Therefore it is most definitely the role of the Government to step in and protect this nation from further undermining by allowing those improper arrangements.

 

[Nosmo King]

Fact: The city issuing a marriage license is a civil and legal, not a religious, issue.

Getting married in a church means nothing without a marriage license. Two atheists can go get married by a justice of the peace in a parking lot. Therefore your argument that christian religious doctrine somehow applies to who the city provides a civil service to is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The primary role of Government is to protect and uphold the society of this nation. The foundation of this country is Morality and Values. Homosexual relations does not fall under either of those headings. Therefore it is most definitely the role of the Government to step in and protect this nation from further undermining by allowing those improper arrangements.

Homosexuality is not illegal. Your moralizing has no legal standing. In fact, it's wholly un-American to discriminate on flimsy, arcane moral grounds. We no longer burn witches. And your position is against the very freedoms, not morals, this nation was founded upon.

 

[JoeB131]

Morality is a relative thing. Things that were considered completely immoral 40 years ago, such as couples living together outside of marriage, are considered completely normal now and no one says boo about them.

Sorry, I don't see this as a moral issue. If gay people are programmed by nature to be attracted to their own gender, you might as well let them do it. It would be a lot worse if you had a society that forced them to play at being straight and make themselves and another person fairly miserable.

No, morality is NOT a relative thing. That's the revisionist logic that people have been using for the last century to promote the acceptance of everything from Women's Sufferage to Gay Marriage. These things are not appropriate; regardless of whether society accepts them or not. .

I'm not sure if why you put women's sufferage in a comparison to gay marriage. I generally think the emancipation of women is a good thing, for no other reason than I don't always have to pay for the date.

Slavery was considered moral all the way up to less than two centuries ago. Even had a slew of bible verses to support the proposition that you should stop whining and keep picking that cotton.

These people are no more programmed by nature to be this way than a pit bull is programmed by nature to bite a child's face off. There may be hints to it in the genetic code, but these people are simply being allowed to act in an inappropriate manner and in fact are being taught that their Wrong way of doing things is acceptable. .

Now funny you should mention that. My brother had a pit bull that was the nicest dog in the world. Until the day it bit his mother-in-law's face and she needed 120 stitches to put it back together again. (Suffice to say, the dog was put to sleep after that.)

On the other hand, I knew a girl who was a lesbian, and she wanted to prove to herself over and over again she wasn't, so she'd get into these relationships with guys, and break up with them after one night of what I presume was lame sex. Even tried to hit on me, but I don't take advantage of my friends when they are drunk. Really was on the wrong path in life until she came to terms with her sexuality.

Life is not and never has been about pleasure, fun, or happiness. It has been and always will be about living a Good, Decent, Proper, and Moral life. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I have a different definition of morality. You shouldn't harm people and should try to help them when you can. Now, frankly, the gay stuff doesn't appeal to me personally, but if you are into that kind of thing, one man's meat is another man's poison.

Frankly, I really have a hard time buying that a diety with a 14 billion year plan for a universe is really upset what kind of sex I'm having.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fact: The city issuing a marriage license is a civil and legal, not a religious, issue.

Getting married in a church means nothing without a marriage license. Two atheists can go get married by a justice of the peace in a parking lot. Therefore your argument that christian religious doctrine somehow applies to who the city provides a civil service to is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The primary role of Government is to protect and uphold the society of this nation. The foundation of this country is Morality and Values. Homosexual relations does not fall under either of those headings. Therefore it is most definitely the role of the Government to step in and protect this nation from further undermining by allowing those improper arrangements.

Homosexuality is not illegal. Your moralizing has no legal standing. In fact, it's wholly un-American to discriminate on flimsy, arcane moral grounds. We no longer burn witches. And your position is against the very freedoms, not morals, this nation was founded upon.

Homosexuality is still illegal in most states. An act of an unelected unaccountable group of judges suspended enforcement of those laws. They were not repealed by any vote.

 

[Nosmo King]

The primary role of Government is to protect and uphold the society of this nation. The foundation of this country is Morality and Values. Homosexual relations does not fall under either of those headings. Therefore it is most definitely the role of the Government to step in and protect this nation from further undermining by allowing those improper arrangements.

Homosexuality is not illegal. Your moralizing has no legal standing. In fact, it's wholly un-American to discriminate on flimsy, arcane moral grounds. We no longer burn witches. And your position is against the very freedoms, not morals, this nation was founded upon.

Homosexuality is still illegal in most states. An act of an unelected unaccountable group of judges suspended enforcement of those laws. They were not repealed by any vote.

Swing and a miss! If only you did a little research before you made such claims. There were 11 states (the old 'Solid South") where sodomy laws were over turned by SCOTUS decision in 2003. Others were overturned in state courts or in civil law suits.

 

[Moonglow]

some peole are still living in 1930

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexuality is not illegal. Your moralizing has no legal standing. In fact, it's wholly un-American to discriminate on flimsy, arcane moral grounds. We no longer burn witches. And your position is against the very freedoms, not morals, this nation was founded upon.

Homosexuality is still illegal in most states. An act of an unelected unaccountable group of judges suspended enforcement of those laws. They were not repealed by any vote.

Swing and a miss! If you did a little research before you made such claims, you wouldn't have to refer to this chart proving you wrong again. There were 11 states (the old 'Solid South") where sodomy laws were over turned by SCOTUS decision in 2003. Others were overturned in state courts or in civil law suits.

[]

So you agree with me. Good.
Now go inspect a toilet or something.

Anachronism is right that government has a role to play in upholding morality and values. The narco-libertarians deny this. That is the difference between a conservative adn a narco-libertarian.

 

[Nosmo King]

Homosexuality is still illegal in most states. An act of an unelected unaccountable group of judges suspended enforcement of those laws. They were not repealed by any vote.

Swing and a miss! If you did a little research before you made such claims, you wouldn't have to refer to this chart proving you wrong again. There were 11 states (the old 'Solid South") where sodomy laws were over turned by SCOTUS decision in 2003. Others were overturned in state courts or in civil law suits.

[]

So you agree with me. Good.
Now go inspect a toilet or something.

Anachronism is right that government has a role to play in upholding morality and values. The narco-libertarians deny this. That is the difference between a conservative adn a narco-libertarian.

You said there has never been a vote cast to overturn sodomy laws and you're wrong, as usual.

Now, as for government enforcing morality, I have a challenge for you. First, cite when and where any state has enforced morality on its citizens where the people were actually freer than they were after the overturning of the state decision.

And two, what can you tell us about Prohibition (other than the Glenn Beck inspired spin about Liberals forcing the government's hand) and how well did that bit of stupidity work out? Imagine the government ruling a bedroom.

How much would THAT government program cost? Who's the deficit hawk around here?

Or is it smaller government where public health and safety is concerned and intrusive Gestapo statecraft to minimalize sober, tax-paying responsible American citizens because you think they're creepy? Nice "liberty and justice for all" feeling there, eh?

 

[JoeB131]

Homosexuality is not illegal. Your moralizing has no legal standing. In fact, it's wholly un-American to discriminate on flimsy, arcane moral grounds. We no longer burn witches. And your position is against the very freedoms, not morals, this nation was founded upon.

Homosexuality is still illegal in most states. An act of an unelected unaccountable group of judges suspended enforcement of those laws. They were not repealed by any vote.

Swing and a miss! If only you did a little research before you made such claims. There were 11 states (the old 'Solid South") where sodomy laws were over turned by SCOTUS decision in 2003. Others were overturned in state courts or in civil law suits.

Great point, Nosmo, but a little elaboration.

The issue of the so-called "Sodomy Laws" came to a head in 1986, when the SCOTUS passed the Hardwicke decision that upheld the legality of Georgia's sodomy law. This was back when the AIDS epidemic was at its height and people were easier to scare. The immediate result was that states were shocked to realize that these things were still on the books. So a lot of them revised the laws to get them off the books. A few states, like New York, kept them on the books, but only used them as aggrevating charges. (For instance, throwing sodomy onto rape charges)

Then SCOTUS realized that these laws were just plain silly, and struck down the ones that remained.

Now I do think Lawrence v. Texas has opened the door to the legalization of gay marriage nationally. ONce the actual act is no longer a crime, what logic is there in keeping the marriage illegal. I personally would rather this be decided in the legislative arena than the judicial one, though.