How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 09, 2003 | Alan Charles Raul

[WOSG]

ah, a hypothetical ... never mind previous comment. ... the analogy doesnt compute.

pedophiles and non-pedophiles are equally told not to molest children. Equal protection problem against pedophiles?

(oy vey, I shouldnt ask!)

[NutCrackerBoy]

Well said ... equal protection is a process

It was gogipper who made that point.

[jwalsh07]

The only thing you lack however, is the chalk to draw that line with.

Honest debate requires honesty Luis.

Let's try again.

Would your redefinition of the word marriage include whatever individuals wanted it to include or would you limit it to couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual?

Jump in Luis, the morality is fine.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"More polyphobia. I think you are a repressed polysexual who is acting out against polysexuals."

I guess I should point out the obvious to you.

I have Biblical precedent to argue in favor of polygamy.

Now, you cite the Constitutional passage that grants the Federal government the power to deny Mormons the right to engage in polygamy.

[WOSG]

The US Constitution guarantees that even those who you would leave on the other side of your "line" get a voice."

Indeed, and nobody is proposing denying anyone the vote, here.


"The mistake lies in the very fact that there is government involvement in marriage to start."

oy vey - WE HAD TO DESTROY THIS VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SAVE IT.

[breakem]

while we're at it can we dump those hore meat prohibitions.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Would your redefinition of the word marriage include whatever individuals wanted it to include or would you limit it to couples."

I guess the reason I don't answer that question is that I don't suffer from a runaway case of megalomania which leads me to believe that I get to make those sorts of decisions.

[Luis Gonzalez]

There is a vast difference between Holy Matrimony, and marriage.

If you need, I can explain it to you.

[jwalsh07]

I have Biblical precedent to argue in favor of polygamy.

Then argue for individual "transcendent liberty" for all. Take a position, any position.

Now, you cite the Constitutional passage that grants the Federal government the power to deny Mormons the right to engage in polygamy.

You're confused Luis, I believe in a republican form of government for all the states as the Constitution requires. You are the fellow arguing in favor of judicial fiat from a central authority. Try to keep the scorecard straight.

[jwalsh07]

I guess the reason I don't answer that question is that I don't suffer from a runaway case of megalomania which leads me to believe that I get to make those sorts of decisions.

LOL, ah this is rich, Luis Gonzales is bereft of an opinion on FR because it doesn't become the law of the land.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...pedophiles and non-pedophiles are equally told not to molest children. Equal protection problem against pedophiles?"

No, protection of the rights of children who are not legally allowed to consent to sex, enter into contracts, or a myriad of other things.

As I said, your rights end where the rights of another start.

"...the analogy doesnt compute."

Then address it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The law of the land is the law of the land.

Now, are you going to get around to answering either question I possed to you?

[WOSG]

Protecting traditional marriage is also "protection of the rights of children" of course.

I can cite you many statistics where children do best in 2 parent heterosexual married biological parents than any other 'family' configuration. No matter how the anti-traditionalists slice it, undermining family values causes child abuse, lower child performance at shool, juvenile delinquency, and deaths of children.

Protection of children is a very good reason to defend traditional marriage from being washed away in the effluent of cultural socialism.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I can walk out of my front door and knock on the doors of four heterosexual married couples who either can't or won't have children...I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Around and around we go with the same tired arguments. Traditional marriage, one man and one woman, doesn't make a distinction for cases that don't fit the pattern of producing children. That emphatically does not mean that the reason marriage exists (and is regulated by government) has nothing to do with children.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You are the fellow arguing in favor of judicial fiat from a central authority."

Not at all, you are (as usual) defining the laws of the land as something which can be used to deny others of a right that you enjoy...in this case is that right of marrying the poerson of your choice (I am assuming that you are a heterosexual).

This argument (State's rights) always is used to argue in favor of laws which oppress the rights of some, and against legislation/judicial decision which go against those laws.

We are all two things, the most important pof which is "Americans" and as such, protected by the US Constitution from having our rights violated. States neither have the power or the right to violate someone's Constitutional rights.

[jwalsh07]

Now, are you going to get around to answering either question I possed to you?

Nope, not until you answer the one I posed originally and you answered with a question. But when you do take a position, restate your questions and I'll be glad to answer them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"That emphatically does not mean that the reason marriage exists (and is regulated by government) has nothing to do with children."

LOL!!!

Marriage existed before governments regulated it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We are discussing one issue here, gay marriage.

As usual, you want to discuss everything but the issue at hand.

Why is that?

[NutCrackerBoy]

Marriage existed before governments regulated it.

So?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I believe in a republican form of government for all the states as the Constitution requires."

And you also apparently believe that US citizens can have their Constitutional rights violated by the States.