NOM’s Brown laughed at on ‘Stossel Show’ for argument against marriage equality

American Independent ^ | 8/19/11 | Sofia Resnick

[HerbieHoover]

On Thursday night's "Stossel Show," which airs on the Fox Business channel, Brian Brown was unable to convince host John Stossel or his libertarian guest (and nationally syndicated columnist) David Harsanyi that civil marriage for gays and lesbians harms, or even changes, marriage between heterosexual couples.

In fact, Harsanyi's suggestion that the marriage debate could be solved if the U.S. decided either to privatize all schools or all marriage contracts was treated as a more legitimate idea by Stossel and Stossel's audience....

"It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be -- gay or not," Harsanyi said....

Brown argued. "The state should support what is true and good and beautiful...."

Stossel's live studio audience erupted in laughter at this comment, and Stossel replied: "I don't want the state deciding what's good and beautiful."...

[Dryman]

Thanks for the Post.

[Ransomed]

That’s true. But it seems to me, at least in recent times, that the recognizing has only hurt the institution. It has become just another lousy contract that can be broken and resumed as long as the gov’t says so, at least for many. Now the state will not stop at benignly recognizing marriage, to many people the state actually defines it for them. And the statists and homosexualists love that, because it means many will accept whatever the gubberment puts forth as marriage, even impossibilities like “gay marriage”. That the state defines marriage in the minds of many gives the statists and homosexualists tremendous control of the culture. They especially love that the state has the power to punish if folks don’t accept their ever mutating version of marriage.

Freegards

[Sloth]

Brown argued. "The state should support what is true and good and beautiful...."

Idiot. The state should keep us from stabbing each other or violating voluntary contracts, and aside from that it should stay the heck out of the way.

There is ZERO reason for any non-statist to want the gov't licensing and approving sexual relationships of any kind.

[Antoninus]

Classic example of why libertarian ideology fails and fails badly. They can't even say that two sodomites should not be considered the equivalent of a married couple in the eyes of the state.

Libertarianism = epic fail.

[tophat9000]

I think Libertarian are way off there own philosophy in regards to Gay marriage

A true Libertarian thinker would start with the question why is government involved in any kind of marriage?

Libertarian...government should be issues you a marriage license????????????????? why what reason

Is marriage Government license of your sex life? no...

Is marriage Government license of your religious commitment? no... Is marriage Government license of your legal commitment with others ? no...

Marriage is a Government license grating a legal privilege for want reason should Government do that?...

The only aspect of marriage that give Government a justification to grating a legal privilege with a marriage license is reproduction..

Reproduction is a necessary for a society so legal form and legal struchure for people "making new citizan" is necessary for breeder and there children

Libertarian... Government license of marriage? for what reason should goverment be involved ....

One....reproduction...a legal statues for a possible child

[Mad Dawgg]

"I don’t see anything about marriage ‘equality’ in my Bible. I do, however, see marriage as exclusive between men and women."

Yep, and once government got its nose under the tent with marriage it was just a matter of time before the institution would be subverted by the government.

This should be a lesson learned for all of us. Keep Government out of everything except what is in the Constitution. Social engineering is wrong no matter if its to promote Conservative Ideals or Progressive ones!

[Peet]

HerbieHoover:

It’s incoherent to talk about states having “rights”. Only individuals have rights

10thAmendmentGuy:

What the hell are you talking about? Are you honestly telling me that states don't have rights?

Wow, tenth, one would expect better of one with the name you chose.

States have powers granted them by free citizens. Go reread the tenth amendment you've named yourself after; "powers", not "rights"...

[EternalVigilance]

Libertarians are just as dangerous to the survival of this free republic as Liberals.

Marriage is what marriage is, and has always been. A union between one man and one woman. Government can either acknowledge this fact of human nature and act in accord with it, to its own enrichment and security, or they can enter into the realm of unreality and pay the inevitable destructive consequences for that delusion.

[Neoliberalnot]

We have a homosexsual promoting his brand of deviance here. He/It is a new poster and previous postings indicates his/its purpose is to promote his brand of deviance.

[longtermmemmory]

newflash, unless you have public recording of marriage it is an invitation to fraud and bigamy.

This is what happened in the past before we had public records.

Also marriage is about children and the future of society. It is not about poping an orgasm or mere “love”. There is and never has been a love test in marriage. That is a delusion of the propaganda industry.

[Antoninus]

The government decides what is good as an essential function - that is what criminal and civil law do. The issue is the scope and content.

Exactly. The problem is not that the government decides, it's that we have corrupt scoundrels running our government. And THAT is because we as a nation have become corrupt.

If your culture is corrupt, your government will be corrupt no matter what form it takes.

[EternalVigilance]

The civil marriage contract is the legal, social and economic bedrock of our civilization.

For our government to pretend this isn’t so is national suicide.

[Blood of Tyrants]

If you broaden the definition of marriage to between two men or two women, who are you to prohibit the marriage of a brother and sister or or a father and his daughter? Why are you being prejudiced against a man who wants to have 2 or 3 or even 4 wives?

No, let’s just leave it where it has been for thousands of years.

[airborne]

[Antoninus]

newflash, unless you have public recording of marriage it is an invitation to fraud and bigamy. This is what happened in the past before we had public records. Also marriage is about children and the future of society. It is not about poping an orgasm or mere “love”. There is and never has been a love test in marriage. That is a delusion of the propaganda industry.

Outstanding post.

Libertarianism is a polite way of saying "anarchy". It is the old hippie mantra of "If it feels good, do it" made into a political ideology.

[jwalsh07]

There is ZERO reason for any non-statist to want the gov't licensing and approving sexual relationships of any kind.

Oh horsecrap. There is ample reason for a state to encourage marriage in a welfare society. When welfare is dissolved then get back to me from Libtopia.

[Neoliberalnot]

Please comment on what little herbie has to offer. He is marketing his deviance and needs a bit of normalizing. Neo

[10thAmendmentGuy]

You're just arguing semantics. What I meant by states having rights is that they have the RIGHT to enact legislation in many different areas, because it is the federal government that is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The states are free to enact any legislation that does not run afoul of constitutional principles. As I mentioned above, a state would not have the right to enact legislation calling for the death penalty for homosexuals in my opinion. A state OBVIOUSLY has the right, however, to criminalize sodomy with a more minor penalty if it so chooses. Before Lawrence v. Texas, most states had voluntarily repealed their sodomy laws. The Supreme Court stepped on the rights of the states when it struck down sodomy laws across the board. But when it comes to the issue of marriage, that is an issue that has always been left to states, and states are to deal with it as they see fit. As one candidate said, New York has gay marriage, and Texas doesn't. Your talk about getting the government out of marriage is little more than cover for your not-so-secret agenda.

"Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they argued that what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business. Now they want to make it everybody's business by requiring others to acquiesce in their unions and treat them as they would other unions, both in law and in social practice."

-Thomas Sowell

Why is that, Herbie? Why do you want to make it everyone's business?

[Deb]

Pure political garbage, newbie. If gays were required to join the military, they'd scream discrimination and launch a new, neverending protest movement. If they were required to marry, same thing. The same group that for decades mocked and delighted in trashing "normality" are now demanding to be called normal and embraced.

Its all politics.

Take your sorry ass back to DU loser.

[Mr Rogers]

“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.”

Rights come from God, not from man-made institutions. I think it is self-evident that God did NOT give homosexuals the right to marry and raise a family...seems he left out the body parts and capabilities for that.

The gay ‘rights’ movement is an attempt by man to overrule God. It will fail, but we don’t need our government fighting on their side.