Posted on 08/22/2011 10:21:04 AM PDT by 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."...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanindependent.com ...
Nonsense. There is no magical class of Philosopher Kings or Friends of the People or Pureblooded Aryans or New Soviet Men or anything else that will make Big Government "work" if only they take charge from the "corrupt" people currently in charge.
That’s funny. You call me a liberal. But your “libertarian” answer to the forces of the Left who are trying to destroy the institution of civil marriage is to destroy the institution of civil marriage.
Show me how your end result is any different than that which will inevitably be wrought by the liberals.
Sure. At the core, they hate God. And anything really good that He has given as a gift to mankind, such as marriage.
Go Army!
When the state tries to meddle with the individual building blocks of society, it invariably creates dependency, unfairness and ruin. Worse, it creates the perception that doling out candy is the role of the government, which makes citizens swing at it like kids chasing a pinata. They all try and hit it harder and harder, getting more and more goodies to drop. Which has led us to where we are now.
The state is inextricably bound in marriage law. How to you propose to untie that knot? And is it a good idea to untie that knot? The destruction of the urban family by Great Society programs would seem to be undenaible testimony that the state has an interest in encouraging marriage to promote individual responsibility and liberty for those who are bound by tax law to support the progeny of those who forsake marriage and family.
Do you honestly think that America will dissolve the welfare state? Because without doing that unentangling the state from marriage is the same pipe dream that open border Libertarianism congruent with a welfare state is. Insane.
at least we agree that this preacher is a lefty, so there is that ...
What on Earth are you talking about? Obviously, two slaves getting married would not change the fact that they owned nothing, therefore could bequeath nothing, and could take no action (regarding their children or anything else) without the master's approval.
If anybody cared about slaves getting married, it was simply a matter of masters not wanting the annoyance of keeping track of them as a "package deal".
...except I have no idea what you were trying to prove.
Bottom line is...marriage should be between one man and one
woman. Anything else can be called what one wants, but it is
NOT marriage. Period.
There's still the issue of the existing marriages. Realistically, they would have to be allowed to stand (even Nazi Germany's Nuremburg Laws did not go so far as to dissolve pre-existing Jew-Aryan marriages).
TLDR
Where have I heard this argument before...?
Ah, yes:
"The purpose of the Constitution is to 'secure the general welfare' -- therefore, welfare programs are obviously a proper activity for the Federal government."
Hogwash.
The slaveholders knew very well that the enjoyment of the benefits of the civil marriage contract was the pathway to liberty. Read some history.
Go ahead and laugh at the left’s misuse of the general welfare clause, while ignoring its true meaning.
“Gay marriage” is destructive of the interests of the entire society, which IS violative of the true meaning of the phrase.
And, in fact, it is the granting of special rights to those who practice sexual perversion. Just like the Left grants special economic benefits to some through their propagation of social welfare programs.
That's a very good point. I said this before but civil marriage has absolutely nada to do with love.
In fact, if civil marriage was about love there would be no need for it.
First of all our philosophy of government—is from Locke, mainly—and Reid and philosophers who all believed in Natural Law Theory (as did all the Founders)—that we have inalienable rights—(Natural Rights that come from God) that can not be voted away or given away-—there are Absolute Truths which all the Founders acknowledged and is established throughout our Constitution and in jurisprudence.
These idiots (Stossel, etc.) are denying these Objective Truths established in our Founding Documents which coming from Natural Law—which says there is a teleological reason for human beings and certain social contracts which create a flourishing society—the reason for government—social contracts. They are advocating a contract that destroys children—deprives them of their natural right of biological parents. It denies them of role models who unit both male and female to give children role models of all people so they can relate to both male and female in healthy ways. Homosexuality is about excluding half of the human race—it is sexist—all homosexual communities—like Afghanistan and Ancient Greece treat women inhumanely—they are only breeders and excluded. Pederasty—because homosexuality denies telos, denies sexual morality which always leads to pederasty since the behavior is learned and the behavior is fixated in childhood when there was trauma to the sexual identity formation.
This denial and teaching that sexual organs can be used in a myriad of ways and by force of law declared “good”—defies logic and reason and science—all three necessary for creating Just law.
They are destroying reason and logic—and that is why it is so damaging. They remove laws from using reason and logic and science. They are installing “urges” as a method of determining what law is. It is silly. Why not make the standards of Jeffery Dahmer law—his urges to sodomize boys and eat them.....what standards????????? That is what they are doing. God’s standards come from the Christian paradigm for that is what was the acceptable ideas of right and wrong. It led to the elimination of slavery and the elevation of the importance of women—unique to Western Civ because of Christianity and dignity and worth of ALL people...not just Christians.
Laws become irrational and arbitrary and for power of some to force their belief on other’s children. We can force the idea of God—it is not establishing a religion—it is a worldview that is necessary for Natural Rights in the US.
Without God, we have no inalienable Rights—no absolute truth—no God. That is why we were great—individual rights were SACRED as was private property—the means which gave people the ability to have freedom of thought and religion and to raise their children in their worldview. Homosexual marriage destroys the ability to raise children with a Christian worldview—especially when government has total control of curricula (which is unconstitutional and dangerous (John Stuart Mill). DOE is unconstitutional as is the establishment of something which does not lead to a “flourishing” human being....Nihilism is the result of homosexual acts.
They will have the “force” of government to be able to tell children how “natural” something is, which is a biological proven lie, and will cause confusion and sexual identity problems in young children who are by their very fundamental (natural) natures are trying to make “sense” of the world.
This “homosexual marriage” idea is teaching a BIG LIE to children—which creates cognitive dissonance—exactly from the book of cultural Marxist ideology which DENIES natural law and is antithetical to the Constitution and is incompatible with the philosophy of the US Constitution.
It teaches Marxism—there is no difference between a male and female—they are interchangeable. It is a Big Lie. Egalitarianism at its most destructive level which denies Natural Law—the very foundation of our government.
Marxism destroys the natural family for a reason....they want dependent, emotionally damaged children who are easily cowed and controlled. Loving biological parents create independent, responsible, individualism—a self-esteem which never allows for slavery when done correctly. That self-esteem comes from genetic connections, wisdom and knowledge, and biology which can never be denied.
Our documents claim that there is Supra Positive Law which is used throughout the history of the US and is embedded in our Constitution. These standards of right and wrong are the Universal Truths that we acknowledged at Nuremberg which stated that laws that go agains Natural Rights are man-made arbitrary laws that are null and void.
They are trying to legislate natural rights away—and saying it is ok to legally promote an idea which denies a child of their biological parents and destroys the natural family. They are destroying for the future generation the idea that biological parents are the best system for flourishing, emotional healthy and happy children—which is proven by Freud and many throughout the philosophy of Western Civ.
Arrogant bast*rds think they are the Supreme God who decide right and wrong and can make laws that actually deny Natural Law Theory.
One of the best posts on FR ever. Kudoes.
We got federal drug prohibition without an amendment because federal drug prohibition really came into being in 1970-71, three decades after the Supreme Court had upheld the power of Congress to regulate pretty much anything under the Commerce Clause. Alcohol prohibition, by contrast, came before the post-New Deal Commerce Clause cases, so Congress needed to pass an amendment to prohibit alcohol. It’s unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says, and it’s an abject failure.
You just gave yourself away. By the way, first one to invoke Nazism loses the argument.
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.'"-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Really? Please explain how.
The government is defining social behavior and rewarding those who engage in it. (A.K.A. Social Engineering) Now so-called Free Republic "Conservatives" are dead set against Gay Marriage because it is "Social Engineering" yet will threaten life and limb to defend their idea of social engineering.
Sorry but the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to stop the government from doing such. And any attempt no matter how good it sounds should be shunned with every fiber of our being!
When you surrender private control to the Government on who marries who then you are heading down the slippery slope at full speed. Let the Church and individuals decide who marries who and let the government issue limited legal status to such standard unions for the sake of dependents and allow others who wish to seek legal protections of dependents without the sanction of standard marriage the same but call it something different (so as not to stigmatize Church approved unions) and do away with all financial goodies based on marriage that are handed out by the government and the issue of gay marriage dies a quiet death.
Problem solved and no ones rights are violated in any way shape or form.
This debate is utterly pointless. If you don’t care about what the Bible says then it’s all just semantics anyway.
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.