Posted on 07/13/2004 8:11:13 AM PDT by presidio9
Sorry, but there are cases in which it is absolutely, positively, 100% certain that a given couple will NEVER reproduce -- and it only takes one such case to defeat this argument.
Yes. He is physically preventing you from exercizing your will with coercive measures.
"How far do we take "live and let live"?"
The perverts and their allies aren't after that. THey are attempting to force their music on everyone else and to coerce everyone else into confessing that it is OK. See #31, there's nothing libertarian about this. The marriage amend. simply acts to prevent an egregious, extensive rights violation.
When was there ever not some form of government?
Who let the DUmpster spill into here?
Ah, you view marriage as a 'right.' So you would have no problem with a daughter marrying her elderly mother so mom can get health benefits provided by the company she works for.
I get it.
The problem is gay activists don't 'Live and Let Live'. They are intent on promoting their deviant lifestyle to our children and defining it as 'normal'.
If they are successful, the collapse of societal foundation is not far behind. Many people think that changing our societal foundation (the family) will not change anything for them. It is like kicking a leg off a table (a four legged table) and still expect it to stand. Idiocy.
Fear not, you have an influential ally in the media:
Liberals stand for tolerance, magnanimity, community spirit, the defense of the weak against the powerful, love of learning, all American values worth conserving.
-- Garrison Keillor
Ruh-roh. The "nuke the Ay-rabs" contingent is going to be all over you when they find out that you defend the concept of "honor killing".
Not legitimate government. Any person or persons with sufficient force can exert power over others, that is not legitimate government, it is power.
What about dowries or asking her father for her hand ?
Many groups of people belived in the ownership of other human beings. They therefore sold them and bought them. That is illegitimate power.
What about the duty of her kinsmen to kill you if you dishonered her and thereby destroyed her marital value ?
Slavery often inspires defending what the slave holder conciders property.
So you see marriage has always been backed up by coercive agencies.
Many bad things, including slavery, are backed by force.
It was never just two people saying they love each other.
Nonsense, people are married because of promises made to and before GOD. Not people with guns.
The right is that the individuals that make up the culture decide what marriage means. They have and it's been in existence for 1000s of years. There is no individual right to define what it is for others.
Subjugation is different from government.
I will be happy to amend my comment to "legitimate government" or "government in a free society" if it will help you understand the concept.
Homosexual people cannot be married to people of the same sex because God doesn't recognise such unions. It has nothing to do with agreements by unconnected others.
People of the same sex can make committments to each other for a variety of reasons and purposes, but marriage describes a relationship which includes legitimate sexual activity, anal sex or other preferences between individuals of the same sex has nothing to do with marriage.
Not legitamite ? Are you saying that in traditional cultures people did not see family, tribe, church as legitamite government. Oh yes they most assuredly did. And it was always the function of government to protect and uphold marriage because it was the foundation of the family and the primary medium of welfare and property ownership. You had arranged marriages (and still do in many cultures) because it was far to serious a matter and far too important to society to be left to adolescent hormones.
Just as government law courts are the alternative to feud, duelling and vendetta, so government marriage is the alternative to arranged marriage, honor killing, the need for parental approval, fear of ostracism and all other coercive agencies by which societies have always forcibly upheld marriage.
Marriage has NEVER been between two individuals. The obligations are too heavy and it is too important.
People don't recognize these arrangements as marriage. That's what's important here.
The entire purpose of the societal sanctions around marriage have always been to look after the children and make sure the woman wasn't pitched into the street penniless when her looks were gone. Since society can no longer muster the coercive force to do these things, since the religious and cultural sanctions no longer hold, they are done by the state.
That's the way it works. Not some fantasy world of two people just working out a contract.
Slavery is illegitimate, even if you embrace it.
You don't get to suspend my freedom because YOU have decided I can't make decisions for myself.
In case you haven't noticed, arranged marriages and the like are not allowed in our society.
PS, Hillary thinks government should make all these decisions too. She thinks we should all get permission from people with guns to do all kinds of things.
Government might soon. And many here are arguing that the government gets to define marriage. I wonder what they will do when the government says same sex couples are married? Or when it says you can marry your pet?
Setting up government as the arbitor cuts both ways.
As far as government benefits are concerned, government gets to decide. But REAL marriage is not decided by government, just their rules in passing out favors.
Govm't has no right to define what is marriage whatsoever. The must recognize what the culture determines marriage is. Regardless of the various particulars found about why it is so, marriage is universally a contract between a man and a woman. That is what govm't must accept. If they don't, then any govm't action contrary to that is illegitimate. Govm't is also not an arbitor hear, nor does it have the right to do so. It must simply render itself an observer and report what it finds. ie. marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.
A: Mistaken in their original implementation. Nature, nature's G-d, and the common understanding of most societies have one man and one woman as the fundamental union.
Even those historic differences that modernity has changed(outlawing polygamy, repeal of miscegeny laws, etc.) have clarified, rather than diluted the standard of one man and one woman.
Your model of marriage as simply a contract between two people is ridiculously unrealistic. That is not what it is or has ever been.
Since the dawn of human history in every culture marriage has involved a series of elaborate and very expensive private and public ceremonies. Human societies have always thereby underlined the awesome importance, the sacredness of this institution and the lifetime permanence of the obligations undertaken. It is an institution the entire weight of human tradition and culture and religion and if need be coercive force have backed up. It is and has always been the backbone of human societies and that is more important than your likes and dislikes.
As is normal, human beings look to government to do what human civil society cannot. Civil society can no longer protect women and children in a secular, mobile society without shame or scandal.
So when it determines that people can marry in the same sex or to their animals,,it will be OK?
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.