[Deep_6]

Re:
"...It seems to me that the first thing that needs to be done is to get
 the terms right; to get rid of the emotion and emotional words.

Is marriage a right similar to the right not to be killed or the right 
not to be enslaved? Is marriage as regulated by the State based on 
religion or is it a contract between individuals - similar to corporations 
or a license to practice medicine or law?...."

Marriage is of both kinds: Legal contract and Religious contract. I am 
concerned only with the legal aspects; It is the others that confuse the two.

The state has legalized and regulated marriage by offering certain benefits
provided only to those people that have decided to enter into the contract
of a licensed marriage. The day that the government made legal that bond,
and provided easements for it, marriage became a legal entity separate
from any Religious bond and ceremony. Blood tests are needed in most
States, along with proof of birth, Social Security numbers, relationship
information to avoid an incestuous marriage, etc. Church sponsored
ceremonies do not require such "proof" [sexuality of partners excepted].

To that above extent, in the eyes of the State, marriage is indeed a
licensable right and can be denied at will [that is what I am attempting
to debate].

In the eyes of Religion, marriage is an inalienable right between two people;
no state can prevent that union from taking place [I do not have any
argument with that concept, nor it's religious based restrictions].

Re:
"...In my post #82, I gave examples of ways that the same people who oppose same-sex civil unions because those contracts would "undermine traditional marriage" tolerate - endorse, condone, and actually pay for - actions that actually *do* undermine traditional marriage..."

To wit:
"To: hocndoc
Re:
"..TV sitcoms show every kind of sexual immorality, I wonder who's shocked and why......"

It's called "freedom of speech" and should be honored and cherished.

We should depend on good parenting to teach right from wrong, not some
TV show.

That aside.... What's that got to do with allowing the same rights for all?

84 posted on 11/29/2003 5:19 AM UTC by Deep_6"

The answer, I thought, was evident. I'm not concerned with the liberal
use of "free speech". If we start limiting through legislation, the type
of information we allow through free enterprise media, we begin to limit
all our freedoms and rights. 

If you were suggesting that those concerned with the improvement of 
our society and quality of family life use the usual boycott methods
to achieve their goal, I agree. The media, like any other enterprise,
depends on marketing strategies. If it's getting too many complaints,
it will change it's strategy. That's freedom at work.

But those that complain about TV, movies, and music for corrupting
their children, are barking up the wrong rope. Decency begins and
moral codes are taught at home. I do not blame any external force
for making the quality of life morally poor; it up to the parents to
teach right from wrong. Unfortunately, some parents have trouble
discerning right from wrong and the likeliness of having children
carrying the same prejudicial burden of their parents becomes systematic.

Re:
"...We should cherish the right to freedom of speech, but we don't have
to - and should never be forced by the State to - cherish, endorse, 
condone or pay for - what we consider immoral acts by others....."

We differ greatly in thought here. What actions I may consider immoral 
may be Constitutionally correct for the participants of that act. It is not
correct to assume that tax dollars should not go to the area or people
that offends me [or you] alone. If the actions are within our Constitutionally
protected rights, then any social program paid for with taxes shall be
correctly permitted.

I personally do not know of any "forcing" of any State to cherish,
or endorse anything that we do not desire to. But at the same time,
discriminatory actions in the line of business would not be tolerated
if the business is to be licensed by the State.

Re:
"...My intention in pointing out that an admitted adulterer was playing
basketball to the cheers of the supporters of "traditional marriage" was
that, in fact, the same freedom of speech would allow those who truly
believe in traditional marriage to act to remove any endorsement or
support, similar to those who objected to the Reagan movie......"

Absolutely. Add Rush Limp-bag, Mikey Jackson, Arnold S., etc to the
bag, and you've got the bullseye.

If they're going to preach morals, then preach it completely. Singling out a
group of people to cast stones at, simply does not make a more moral world.

The topic is the legalization of same-sex marriages. The comment was regarding
the "right" to be married. If it needs to be "legalized" to occur, then it has been
regulated. If it is regulated, then it must pass Constitutional muster. It doesn't and
it must be fixed.

Those condemning the right for gays to be married, should do so within
their own Church and congregation and not be concerned with Constitutional
rights of others within their circle.

All others...... Enjoy freedom.

 

[hocndoc]

I disagree that taxpayers must pay for protection of anything other than inalienable human rights. Otherwise, the State does, indeed have the right to interfer - with its virtual and real guns and prisons - into the most private of actions in order to make sure that its laws are followed. If no one's right to life, liberty or property is being infringed, the State can't legitimately use tax money. Bastiat, Jefferson, Locke, and the Declaration of Independence echo that the only legitimate function of government is to protect rights.

State regulation does not make something a right: for example, the practice of medicine, law and nursing, the ability to drive on public streets, the ability to purchase alcohol and tobacco are regulated and certain pre-requisites are in place.

If a group of people wish for a non-right to be allowed them as a privilege, they should convince a majority of the voters to allow them that privilege. If they can get the majority to vote them a tax benefit, then more power to them. But there is no right to that tax money.

The problem with the current movement to same sex marriage is, as someone has pointed out, that it is a re-definition of marriage, and one that is using UnConstitutional court decisions on a Federal level rather than votes of the majority within a State.

You dismiss the notion that polygamy and incest are just as legitimate as same sex marriages. On what basis?