Legality of Same Sex Marriage

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Thank you for the insults... You asked a question and I took the time to answer that question, thoughtfully. Your response is that I am extremely dumb, stupid, and nutty. As mentioned in my above post I will stand firmly on the Bible.

The fact is that there is a "slippery slope" regardless of your insults. These other "nut balls" exist already.
Here is an example:
http://www.slideshare.net/rain143773...eird-marriages

This was a quick google search.


Once the "civil rights" of homosexuals have redefined marriage for their aberration there is nothing to stop "others" from demanding their civil rights as well. As mentioned these already exist.

Since you cannot have a reasonable conversation I will now bow out and simply ignore anything else you have to say. Prov. 26:4.

Here's the crusp of your problem... the homosexuals can only redefine marriage... IF you believe marriage is a possession of the STATE. Thus, your logic demands that if homosexuals sway the STATE to redefine it... they've won and have redefined it.

Don't you realize that the only reason why this is a problem is because... THE STATE HIJACKED MARRIAGE??? This wouldn't be a question if marriage was still a private institution based on contract between private individuals and families. Gays would sign a contract, call it marriage, and society at large would laugh. But since it's now the domain of the STATE... the STATE will legally force it's recognition.

Save marriage... PRIVATIZE IT again.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Please show me where in the Constitution we are forbidden from holding to Biblical morality.

YOU aren't forbidden to hold a biblical morality. But another isn't forbidden to hold a nonbiblical morality. Else you'd want the GOVERNMENT to prohibit second marriages if the original wasn't on the grounds of adultery. If you'd not demand that of GOVERNMENT... you're saying one sinful marriage is okay while another isn't. Now you'd be a hypocrite. So... do you think GOVERNMENT should prohibit second marriages wherein the dissolution of the first was on unbiblical grounds???

You CAN'T use the STATE to enforce YOUR interpretation of Scripture upon me or anyone else.

What if we took a more Catholic interpretation of the Bible, as many mainstream Christians do... let's assume one believes that the Bible prohibits ALL remarriage after divorce. Now do we ban remarriage after divorce????

This blending of religion and state was something that was tried before and it ended terribly. Our Founders stood for personal liberty, free from state sponsored religion and/or religious morality. Our liberty is based on one fundamental principle. We were intended to do as we desired as long as we didn't endanger another person's life, liberty, or property.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Some would say that gay marriages can't produce children, and say such marriages should therefore not be allowed. Very weak argument, of course, since many straight marriage either can't or won't (by choice) produce children, either.

And some say gay parents (e.g., by adoption) are bad parents. A child needs a male father and a female mother. Again, very weak. There are a lot of very fine one-parent families, and a lot of really, really dysfunctional straight parents.

Now, a strangely convoluted argument has been put forth by someone I admire and respect (an AFFer), but I'm not sure he's made the argument here or not, so I won't name him. But his argument goes like this: the government issues marriage licenses for the purpose of preventing risky pregnancies, such as between closely related people. A brother and sister, e.g., would be denied a license. A gay marriage doesn't have that danger, and therefore (here's the convoluted part) there is no need to license gay marriages at all. He seems to think this means there is no reason for the government to recognize gay marriages -- that a civil union, without license, is good enough. The trouble with this is that is it actually a very good argument in favor of allowing and licensing gay marriage! ("Trouble" if you are against it, that is. ) If a license (or denial thereof) is for the purpose of preventing risky pregnancies, then there is no reason not to issue a gay marriage license.

Now, I've saved the best for last. The National Organization For Marriage has provided the anti-gay-marriage folks with the most, um, "interesting" reason I have ever seen. And it is, in a way, the most honest. Here it is, from their "talking points" web page:

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

There you have it! Who would get "hurt" if gay marriage is allowed? The people who are against gay marriage!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Since you cannot have a reasonable conversation I will now bow out and simply ignore anything else you have to say. Prov. 26:4.

A "reasonable" conversation...???

YOU are the one advocating using the police power of the STATE to regulate a common natural right. The STATE has no business regulating marriage. Marriage was always a private contract between individuals and families before STATISTS stepped in and used the police power of GOVERNMENT to try to prevent marriage between different classes and races. Marriage should be returned to the private domain wherein various communities, churches, institutions, and families can define it for themselves. And any institution is free to recognize their marriages or not.

I firmly believe that you have the right to denounce any form of marriage you wish. However... you DON'T have the right to use the police power of GOVERNMENT to force your interpretation of marriage upon me or any other free citizen of the United States.

I believe that your STATIST desire to use the GOVERNMENT to control something so private between free individuals is unreasonable. According to your logic... the STATE could ban marriage altogether to institute a nationwide draft of all males. Rome did it. And if you remember a bishop by the name of Valentinius stood against it and married people illegally. Three cheers for St. Valentine!!!... a man who truly understood that the STATE has no authority with regards to marriage.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's the crusp of your problem... the homosexuals can only redefine marriage... IF you believe marriage is a possession of the STATE. Thus, your logic demands that if homosexuals sway the STATE to redefine it... they've won and have redefined it.

Don't you realize that the only reason why this is a problem is because... THE STATE HIJACKED MARRIAGE??? This wouldn't be a question if marriage was still a private institution based on contract between private individuals and families. Gays would sign a contract, call it marriage, and society at large would laugh. But since it's now the domain of the STATE... the STATE will legally force it's recognition.

Save marriage... PRIVATIZE IT again.

I understand full well how the state has taken over marriage contracts. That really does not matter much considering that it (the hijacking of marriage, as you put it) is history and we are living in the present dealing with an issue in the present. Whether this should have ever occurred or not is not the question, the fact is what is relevant is that it (the hijacking of marriage) has happened and that is the law of the land currently.

Whether state authority over marriage is the right thing or not is another subject and not relevant to the discussion at hand as it is based upon what the laws are currently.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I understand full well how the state has taken over marriage contracts. That really does not matter much considering that it (the hijacking of marriage, as you put it) is history and we are living in the present dealing with an issue in the present. Whether this should have ever occurred or not is not the question, the fact is what is relevant is that it (the hijacking of marriage) has happened and that is the law of the land currently.

Balderdash. The hijacking of marriage is the ROOT of this problem. Don’t you realize that if the GOVERNMENT hadn’t taken over marriage we’d not be worried about the GOVERNMENT recognizing gay marriage and legally forcing institutions to recognize it??? Also, consider how the STATE’S meddling and family court laws have made marriage such a high stakes risk, wherein it’s actually lucrative to file for “no fault divorce”. Family court law is so complicated and oppressive… nearly 43% to 45% of American couples choose to cohabitate (essentially privatizing their relationship and insulating themselves from the GOVERNMENT as much as possible). If you do a study on the subject of Marriage Privatization you’ll notice that a growing trend among more and more conservatives and libertarians is to push for the institution’s privatization. So… the “law of the land” is corrupt and oppressive. Ask any man who has been at the mercy of the family court system or religious parents that have had their religion used against them in the family courts. Statutory marriage has become something to oppose. There are even pastors admonishing congregation members NOT to seek marriage licenses and holding private marriages wherein the church signs a certificate in the couple’s family Bible and leaves it at that. Not only that, but Quakers also traditionally refuse to seek marriage licenses. The answer to the problem is to shove the state sanctioned “institution” back at the state and say, “Marriage is a private contract. GOVERNMENT get out!!!”

GOVERNMENT’S involvement is the SOURCE of the problem. And they will NEVER rule against personal liberties. So your desire to praise the “law of the land” is insuring that we all have to recognize gay marriage when your precious GOVERNMENT legalizes it.

Whether state authority over marriage is the right thing or not is another subject and not relevant to the discussion at hand as it is based upon what the laws are currently.

It’s the very essence of the problem. The question as to state involvement determines if we all should be forced by the GOVERNMENT to recognize gay marriage or not. Don’t you see that??? The SCOTUS will not rule against personal liberty and private legal arrangements. The ONLY way to insulate ourselves is not to seek to empower the GOVERNMENT even MORE and encourage that they vote our way with bated breath… but to TAKE IT BACK.

And if YOU believe that the STATE should be empowered to regulate the institution of marriage... your STATIST position will not only backfire... and even IF you see the SCOTUS rule in your favor... you've used the STATE to enforce YOUR convictions on millions of free citizens. Something no liberty minded Libertarian can just sit back and accept.

Here's the deal... gays aren't going away. They will NEVER stop fighting to do the very thing YOU'RE doing... they too want to use the STATE to force their convictions on us. The problem is... the GOVERNMENT is going to vote their way. Not only on the grounds of civil rights and personal liberties... but just to shut them up.

The ONLY true resolution is to take the stand that marriage should be privatized again. And if you get married... establish a private marriage and tell the GOVERNMENT to shove it.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

YOU aren't forbidden to hold a biblical morality. But another isn't forbidden to hold a nonbiblical morality. Else you'd want the GOVERNMENT to prohibit second marriages if the original wasn't on the grounds of adultery. If you'd not demand that of GOVERNMENT... you're saying one sinful marriage is okay while another isn't. Now you'd be a hypocrite. So... do you think GOVERNMENT should prohibit second marriages wherein the dissolution of the first was on unbiblical grounds???

You CAN'T use the STATE to enforce YOUR interpretation of Scripture upon me or anyone else.

What if we took a more Catholic interpretation of the Bible, as many mainstream Christians do... let's assume one believes that the Bible prohibits ALL remarriage after divorce. Now do we ban remarriage after divorce????

This blending of religion and state was something that was tried before and it ended terribly. Our Founders stood for personal liberty, free from state sponsored religion and/or religious morality. Our liberty is based on one fundamental principle. We were intended to do as we desired as long as we didn't endanger another person's life, liberty, or property.

You said:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Some people poo-poo the seperation of church and state. However, they fail to realize that the fastest growing religious body in the United States is the Islamic community. If we DON'T insulate our government from religious influence... within the next couple generations we'll see a "Coalition for Islamic Justice" and they will attempt to FORCE sharia law into the system. We need to stop listening to political dolts who are just using religion to get elected by politicizing hot button issues and return to the vision of LIBERTY that our Founders truly invisioned.

If you don't support the separation of church and state... as far as I'm concerned... you're an enemy to the Constitution. That means BOTH the Democrats (who undermine property rights) and the Republicans (who undermine human rights) are the enemy. It's time to press for the growth and defense of liberty. It's time to advance a truly Libertarian Party.

You have inferred that unless someone agrees with you they are an "enemy of the Constitution". This statement bothers me. I have simply asked you to prove the assertion that someone is an enemy of the Constitution because they vote Biblical values. I agree the state cannot be used to enforce various interpretations of scripture. Here is the conundrum, we must vote with our values and for the Christian those values are biblically based. What you are doing (as it appears to me) is to subtlety silence Christians from using their moral value system to vote. Had the Christians been silent on slavery who knows where that institution would be today. I renounce the idea that I must be silent because I am a Christian.

I do agree with this statement of yours:
"Our liberty is based on one fundamental principle. We were intended to do as we desired as long as we didn't endanger another person's life, liberty, or property."

The problem here as it relates to homosexual marriage is that it is far more than two people getting married. It effects adoption and the tax code as well. What is best for children? Is is a single parent home or a home where the two biological parent work together to raise the children? What is best for children? A homosexual couple or the biological parents working together to raise the children? Studies, science, have shown time and time and time again... That children have the best opportunity for success when raised by their biological parents. This is a proven scientific fact. We should set the bar high and not dumb it down. One recent study that comes to mind is the Regnerus study. I would recommend everyone read through the study. I don't have it with me currently so I will not speak specifically about because I have many studies from many sources and I don't want to infer something that may have been from another study. However, the Regnerus study is recent and had a high sample rate in comparison to other studies on the subject of what is best for children. This is the heart of the issue and the Biblical model has proven to be the best model.

As to the comments on Islam and Sharia Law - It is a real threat to the Constitution and goes beyond what "Christians" advocate. Sharia subverts the Constitution completely. It sets up a code of conduct that touches every aspect of society while doing away with the Constitution altogether and the Bill of Rights associated with it. No true comparison can be made between Sharia Law and Christians standing up for the Biblilcal family model.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A "reasonable" conversation...???

YOU are the one advocating using the police power of the STATE to regulate a common natural right. The STATE has no business regulating marriage. Marriage was always a private contract between individuals and families before STATISTS stepped in and used the police power of GOVERNMENT to try to prevent marriage between different classes and races. Marriage should be returned to the private domain wherein various communities, churches, institutions, and families can define it for themselves. And any institution is free to recognize their marriages or not.

I firmly believe that you have the right to denounce any form of marriage you wish. However... you DON'T have the right to use the police power of GOVERNMENT to force your interpretation of marriage upon me or any other free citizen of the United States.

I believe that your STATIST desire to use the GOVERNMENT to control something so private between free individuals is unreasonable. According to your logic... the STATE could ban marriage altogether to institute a nationwide draft of all males. Rome did it. And if you remember a bishop by the name of Valentinius stood against it and married people illegally. Three cheers for St. Valentine!!!... a man who truly understood that the STATE has no authority with regards to marriage.

Wow... You can argue the state has no power to regulate marriage all you want. It will not change the fact that is has taken that authority upon itself and until that changes you are just speaking to the wind. Some say they don't have the authority to tax yet they doo all the time. Some disagree with SCOTUS concerning Obamacare yet it is still the law of the land.

The reality is the govt. has taken the power thus wielding that power to control marriage. Like it or not that is the reality. We can either accept this reality or pretend it does not exist. I choose to acknowledge the reality and work within that reality. All the hyperbole about "Statists" will not change the facts.

[MrsMcD]

Originally Posted by Lafon

A "HOT BUTTON ISSUE" I know, but it must be said (and I'm not ashamed to do so):

Presently on the docket awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, is the legality of so-called "Same Sex Marriage."

In an attempt to lend a degree of credibility to deviant homosexual behavior, it has been said by some that "Sexual behavior is an expression of human love.”

I beg to differ. All "sexual behavior" is an expression of the 'natural' (the Creator made us that way, you know) lust of the flesh, regardless of whether such 'behavior' be between a male and a female, or those of the same sexual gender. While the former is altogether proper, the latter is not!

It really is just that simple, although it seems that the majority of contemporary society refutes this!

I just think same sex marriage is gross, not biblical, and not natural.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Balderdash. The hijacking of marriage is the ROOT of this problem. Don’t you realize that if the GOVERNMENT hadn’t taken over marriage we’d not be worried about the GOVERNMENT recognizing gay marriage and legally forcing institutions to recognize it??? Also, consider how the STATE’S meddling and family court laws have made marriage such a high stakes risk, wherein it’s actually lucrative to file for “no fault divorce”. Family court law is so complicated and oppressive… nearly 43% to 45% of American couples choose to cohabitate (essentially privatizing their relationship and insulating themselves from the GOVERNMENT as much as possible). If you do a study on the subject of Marriage Privatization you’ll notice that a growing trend among more and more conservatives and libertarians is to push for the institution’s privatization. So… the “law of the land” is corrupt and oppressive. Ask any man who has been at the mercy of the family court system or religious parents that have had their religion used against them in the family courts. Statutory marriage has become something to oppose. There are even pastors admonishing congregation members NOT to seek marriage licenses and holding private marriages wherein the church signs a certificate in the couple’s family Bible and leaves it at that. Not only that, but Quakers also traditionally refuse to seek marriage licenses. The answer to the problem is to shove the state sanctioned “institution” back at the state and say, “Marriage is a private contract. GOVERNMENT get out!!!”

GOVERNMENT’S involvement is the SOURCE of the problem. And they will NEVER rule against personal liberties. So your desire to praise the “law of the land” is insuring that we all have to recognize gay marriage when your precious GOVERNMENT legalizes it.



It’s the very essence of the problem. The question as to state involvement determines if we all should be forced by the GOVERNMENT to recognize gay marriage or not. Don’t you see that??? The SCOTUS will not rule against personal liberty and private legal arrangements. The ONLY way to insulate ourselves is not to seek to empower the GOVERNMENT even MORE and encourage that they vote our way with bated breath… but to TAKE IT BACK.

And if YOU believe that the STATE should be empowered to regulate the institution of marriage... your STATIST position will not only backfire... and even IF you see the SCOTUS rule in your favor... you've used the STATE to enforce YOUR convictions on millions of free citizens. Something no liberty minded Libertarian can just sit back and accept.

Here's the deal... gays aren't going away. They will NEVER stop fighting to do the very thing YOU'RE doing... they too want to use the STATE to force their convictions on us. The problem is... the GOVERNMENT is going to vote their way. Not only on the grounds of civil rights and personal liberties... but just to shut them up.

The ONLY true resolution is to take the stand that marriage should be privatized again. And if you get married... establish a private marriage and tell the GOVERNMENT to shove it.

Is there a bill or the threat of a bill to be introduced into Congress emasculating the fed. from the marriage process? If so I am unaware of it and it is possible I could be ignorant of it. if so please enlighten me on the status and what the bill number is so I can keep tabs on it. I would be in favor of it in principle but there are other considerations as well such as children and how adoptions would be handled. Unfortunately the tentacles of govt. have woven themselves around to much of society and uprooting one govt. power may have unintended consequences in other seemingly unrelated areas. Questions such as the tax code - what happens? What about child custody issues when people "divorce" in the new/old system. What about insurance whether it be health or life? All the laws surrounding these also have to be changed because they are based upon the fact of govt. control over marriage. All the hyperbole means nothing because the reality is that govt. does have control and we can either bury our heads in the sand or we can at least voice our collective opinion that homosexuality is wrong.
It is a biological perversion.
It is not the environment children prosper in.
It is a slippery slope to other aberrations.
Finally, it is sin.