Posted on 10/21/2004 1:24:03 PM PDT by Agitate
snip...So do I have a case your honor?!
Only on one condition: you must be wearing your official tinfoil hat!!!
Everyone, except Libertarians, knows that society has a right and a duty to promote those morals and ceremonies that enhance a societies ability to survive. Without that, there is chaos and anarchy.
LOL.
As explained in an earlier thread, whether consent is given or not is irrelevant if another party is harmed. I've stated this position numerous times.
As I responded in the earlier thread. I don't condone the homosexual lifestyle and I blame liberals for forcing acceptance of deviant behavior on the majority of the population. The "Everyone is a Victim" mantra also makes it difficult for the rest of society to react to actions that are inappropriate.
The major disagreement is what do we do about it. I'm not proposing anarchy, but the Federal intrusiveness on private lives is an issue. The majority of Americans are not allowed to voice their discontent with what they feel is deviant behavior. Equal protection clauses have given deviants more power than ordinary citizens.
There is no expectation of privacy for actions performed in public. Furthermore, actions of individuals that take place in public are subject to social scrutiny.
At issue here is that you believe in the nebulous power of "The State". In your estimation, "The State" provides that right and duty. Yes, we need laws for without we'd have anarchy. However, the powers you'd like to propose to grant to "The State" over private individuals would enforce your version of morality. What if my version or morality is that killing animals for food is wrong, everyone that did so should be locked up, and we should all be vegetarians?
As stated in the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness .--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator (not necessarily YOUR Creator) with certain unalienable rights (Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness...happiness is a pursuit, not a "right"). The State gets the power from the consent of the people, NOT The State giving you those rights...those rights are unalienable...The State exists to SECURE those rights.
The Libertarian philosopy is that individual rights are guaranteed...NOT simply allowed or tolerated by the State. People are free to choose their own path so long as they don't infringe on those same rights of another citizen. As many people have stated here, gay-marriage hurts society. The essential question is how does it infringe on YOUR unalienable rights?
Now just start right over. You have no idea what "I believe" so don't go down that tangent.
What right are you being denied by the Marriage Amendment?
Isn't marriage a public act?
Personally nothing.
However, what of other citizens that will be denied their inherent rights?
Which rights?
Yes and no. Yes in that most people get married in front of friends and family. But most weddings are not open to the general public (try crashing a wedding party sometime). No in that it doesn't have to be a public act.
Fair enough. Then please explain what you believe in regards to this issue and why.
>>Would you support that?
>>>>No, for reasons stated earlier in the thread. I don't think the government should have any business in the marriage business.
Just curious.... How does that put them in the business of marriage? It is a statement of definition... of fact... which only serves to clarify.
I agree with you that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. I also don't think that judges should be in the "lawmaking" business either. The above suggested text for an amendment is not what is being suggested currently. What is being suggested goes much further then a simple definition, and regulates what states can recognize. I see that as a problem. I think the constitution is there to enumerate rights, not restrict them.
But the above is a definition only. It is clarity that would allow everyone to move forward on clear footing. It does not "outlaw" anything.
The problem (as I see it) is that the meaning of the word is being changed and interpreted randomly state to state. Yet, the defition (in reality) is clear. A "marriage" is the combination of two different things (i.e. "a marriage of strength and beauty" makes sense, but "a marriage of strength and strength" does not).
If we can all go ahead with the understanding that "gay-marriage" is an oxymoron by definition, then there is no longer a reason for anyone to suggest the federal government gets involved.
It's still a public act in that it must be registered publically.
Assuming it is FACT that gay-marriage hurts society, then doesn't it infringe on my ability to pursue happiness? How can we pursue happiness in a society that knowingly allows itself to be hurt?
However, my opposition to gay "marriage" is not that it hurts society (I'll let others prove this as fact). The issue is that you can not call a hippopotamus a swan. Gay "marriage" is an oxymoron by definition.
If we can all go ahead with the understanding that "gay-marriage" is an oxymoron by definition, then there is no longer a reason for anyone to suggest the federal government gets involved.
Point taken.
My point is that it shouldn't be.
To me, marriage is goes way beyond the realm of The State. The State should not have anything to do with marriage. If what we're talking about is semantics in that the state needs data to track for citizenship purposes, then all unions should be civil unions as marriage goes beyond that realm.
LiberalSlayer wrote,"Apples and Oranges. The point is what people do in the privacy of their own home SO LONG AS they aren't hurting anyone else, should be NONE of the government's business."
It is not apples and oranges - again you are defining what is right and wrong. Homosexuality is not just a sex act in private - it is the public affirmaation through marriage that is at issue. If your whole argument is that this is only a private affair (a sex act) then you have no argument. Furthtermore, Who defines consensual, you? the court? well we know that can change dont we?
The point Im driving home for you is that homosexual marriage is not a private act. It is the publc affirmation of its legal standing that is at issue. And which stands to de-value the definition of marriage.
I think you're missing my point. That federal government involvement in marriage is unnecessary and unwarranted. As I stated earlier, marriage is a personal and normally religious ceremony. As far as the government is concerned, they need to know (marriage) for citizenship and tax reasons. Yes, I'm aware we're talking semantics here, but if we're talking government, then we're talking all unions are technically civil unions. That is my point.
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.