'Gay marriage' is not about 'rights'

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, February 27, 2004 | David Limbaugh

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Makes sense to me, we could coin a new phrase for the ceremony performed by a religious cleric.

[marktwain]

The institution of marriage is legally a state matter, and religious customs -- such as marriage restricted to male and female only -- should not prevail over individual freedom in a secular and multicultural state.

Why? Why should the State do more in civil contracts than make sure they are enforeced? If we are to say that anyone can "marry" anyone, why should the state put all the numerous restrictions and obligations on third parties that are not parties to the contract?

You are just stating a position when you state that "marraige is legally a state matter". For many, many years it was not. No marriage licenses were sold in many states before 1900. I am positing a position that marraige should not be a "state matter".

Please explain why marraige should be a "state matter" and if so, why should not the state restrict it?

[NutCrackerBoy]

There are traditional institutions of marriage going way back which are one man and one woman, making for an important norm in civilization. The results of men and women having sex was regulated to keep the men and women together in a strong family. If not reinforced by the teeth of the state, church authority and general disapproval probably would not have been sufficient to rein in the tendency of men to just leave their families high and dry as they go and explore other possibilities.

The reason for the state's continued involvement, i.e. the civil institution of marriage, is still the same. The state has a compelling interest in maximizing the number of children being raised with both a mother and a father who are married. The state does not have much of a compelling interest in gay couples staying together who in any case do not have as many children proportionately, and also are generally inferior parents, simply for not having both genders represented.

[thinktwice]

Please explain why marraige should be a "state matter"

That is a good question.

Marriage is truly a personal matter between parties that religious and civil authorities have -- over the course of time -- regulated, with consequent problems such as those presented in the gay marriage question.

I'd say that a secular state dedicated to individual freedom is a best-case power, if any power is necessary, for protection of individual rights in marriage situations.

[Regulator]

When you remove all non-reality based -- mystical elements-- from a religion, what would remain in that religion's philosohy?

You're still confusing the implicit causality with the explicit social codes. So here's a concrete example: Kosher rules exclude eating pig meat. We all know why now - Trichinosis. But it probably took the Israelite tribes 500 years of observation to come up with the axiom: don't eat pig meat, because you might end up dead. And so the leaders of the tribes - the Priests - made a rule, that they buttressed by saying "this is rule of God". Lacking a physical explanation, that was the best they could do.

But again, in what way is this "mysticism" as opposed to objective empiricism? You could just as reasonably say that indeed, God doesn't want you to eat uncooked piggies. The fact that the world actually is so constructed is easily ascribed to a deity - and science cannot and would not oppose that, because ultimate causality is outside of its charter.

There are legitimate contradictions between science and religion - the age of the earth, evolution, blah blah. But in many cases, those are controversies within the "faiths" themselves. In the end, anyone can see that much of religion is empirical itself, and that its conclusions regarding social behavior are based on experience and history, and not merely the ad hoc assertions of the local soothsayer - your "mystical" component.

Where the two approaches diverge is this: science has no opinion on ultimate causality, and would not posit one, absent a lack of a method of proof. Religion does, and posits a "faith" that such causality has been revealed through persons and history. It's as good an explanation as any. But the social systems so buttressed have, in the Judaeo-Christian case, borne out as successful. Might be a good "proof" that they really were the "laws of nature's god".

Neither you, nor I, or all the scientists and engineers I have known and worked with could say one way or the other.

[Laura Lee]

Obviously, the laws of nature can be harnessed for the benefit of the human race (electricity, nuclear power, etc.) Our spiritual quest as human beings is to, first of all, understand what those laws/universal principles are. To me, that is the purpose of religion. Not to construct "castles in the air," but rather to understand the First Cause.

If we can agree that we did not create ourselves but rather are created beings, then we might also agree that the creator/First Cause had a purpose or reason for creating everything. That is all religion does, really, try to explain the purpose of human existence by trying to offer glimpses into the mind and will of the First Cause.

Anyway, the efforts of Luther Burbank did not violate any of nature's laws but rather discovered new applications of them. By contrast, a homosexual man can ejaculate over and over again into another man's body and will never create a new human life. He will never extend his own lineage, never make his parents grandparents.

I mean, that's one of the biggest problems with homosexual activity -- it can certainly be done and HAS been done by many, many people. But it's an aberrant use of a natural function. Kind of like inhaling nicotine into one's lungs. Millions of people enjoy doing that, but nobody can deny that it's a misuse of the lungs and thus usually leads to disease. It's still very enjoyable but certainly not "natural."

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Politicization Of Love

Love has nothing to do with rights, and is independent of contracts. The use of love as a basis for State action is as arbitrary as the use of race, religion, compassion, gender, or any other majoritarian idea one might name. Such a vision of the proper function of the State is incompatible with the concept of impersonal justice. To the extent that it's allowed to penetrate political thought, it will displace objective thought about rights, justice, and the role of the State.

Very aptly put.