Posted on 07/13/2004 8:11:13 AM PDT by presidio9
That's what I thought. Ignore #96.
Wow. #97.
If governemnt is to remain involved in such things, then gay marriage is a must by any secular moral standard.
I cringe as I type...Why?
That's why government needs to get out of the marriage/relationship business. The fact that you are willing to support immorality and injustice simply because they exist is unacceptable and a shoddy standard by any means.
Marriage is not a right, any more than driving a car is. You have to qualify. Gay people do not qualify, and by definition they should not qualify. Their issue now is that they are trying to change the standard for their own benefit.
I don't know how to answer you in the legalise you seem to crave. If it is discrimination, it is necessary to protect the institution of marriage.
later,
Michael Medved doesn't call them "Losertarian" Party for no good reason!
I didn't ignore # 96. I don't want government involved in marriage in any shape or form--but if it has to be then it is certainly morally better for it to recognize gay marriages.
Both marriage and driving a car are rights, in spite of the present governemnt tyranny to the contrary. You know nothing of liberty and freedom--no wonder we've fallen so far into statist oppression...
No, not all all. The word marriage has an ancient meaning, as given in my above posts. Folks have a right to define words with concepts that are accepted by a mojority in the culture. Homos fit that definition of who can be recognized as married as well as a human and a swarm of mosquitoes.
Marriage is contract law. The State involves itself in this for purposes of property ownership recognition, first of kin recognition and child custody, rearing and responsibility purposes.
Most folks don't want the State recognizing a perversion as something acceptable to be taught and protected as normal.
That's bull, and is the sort of twisted morality that has been used to justify the tyranny of the majority throughout and the violation of human rights throughout history
Nonsence! The word has a universal meaning, regardless of any peripheral claims. THe fact that the word has that meaning is in no way tyranical whatsoever. What is tyranical is that the govm't seeks to impose a perverted minotity definition of the word.
The rights violation is being done by the perverts and their leftist allies, not by anyone else.
Hardly universal. Polygamy, for instance has been practiced in many cultures throughout the course of history. Yet another reason that government should not be involved in such things; these are private matters, and governemnt has no place in determining them.
It's universally hetrosexual and outside of Africa it's restricted to one woman.
"Yet another reason that government should not be involved in such things"
You haven't given a reason. Govm't is involved to recognize and protect rights. If you don't want govm't involved, then don't ask them to get married. Tthose that wish to be called married will get the license and be officially recognized as such.
You are perfectly free to call and have any relationship you want with whatever sex, species, or thing you want, but no one and no arm of the govm't will recognize the relationship as a marriage. It is a rights violation to coerce others into conforming to, or accepting that as marriage.
"LIBERTARIANS ARE IDIOTS"!
Government wants a monopoly on the contract. I have no problems with governemnt upholding the contracts agreed upon by private individuals, but governemnent has no legitimate authority to set the terms of the contracts themselves.
You seem to have ignored my comments about universiality and human history, Furthermore, polygamy is legal in Saudi Arabi and other countries, which are outside of Africa.
They do not. They have given an extremely limited criteria to the contract they will recognize as marriage. That limitation arises out of what is culturally held as a supermajority holding. That criteria is that the contract be exclusively between 1 man and one woman.
" polygamy is legal in Saudi Arabi and other countries, which are outside of Africa."
Right, the religion of berkkas, stoning, beheading and in general, pieces... This is the US and marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
And that's the monopoly. It's view is unjust and limited and it recognizes no other authority or view in the matter. In other words, monopoly.
Right, the religion of berkkas, stoning, beheading and in general, pieces... This is the US and marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
Changing the subject, eh?
Nonsense, the word monopoly refers to business and the lack of competition. The subject here is simply recognition of what IS!
"It's view is unjust and limited and it recognizes no other authority or view in the matter. In other words, monopoly."
The unique and supermajority nature of the concept of one man, one woman that defines the fundamental aspect of marriage makes it an authority on the matter. The word and it's concept belong to the individuals in that group. All others can eat sand.
"Changing the subject, eh?"
You brought up other cultures. I did notice that you failed to note any that had homo marriages, or allowed them, or any variation of marriage with other speceis, or things. This is about the American culture and the ideas and concepts we hold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.