End Government Recognition of Marriage

16 July 2004 | Me

[Voice in your head]

"That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Paine

[asmith92008]

Marriage is not simply a contract between two, or however many people, people who love each other. It is the basic social building block of our civilization. For government to simply turn aside as the forces of secular hedonism destroy it would be slow motion suicide for our civilization.

[Brilliant]

That Oregon county announced it was not going to issue marriage licenses a couple weeks ago. Seems like we're pretty close to ending marriage as it is.

Someone needs to do a study to determine how much money will be shifted from gay couples onto other folks as a result of the extension of marriage to the gay community.

[Batrachian]

The problem with gay marriage is not that it harms the institution of marriage. The problem is that it provides an official stamp of approval to homosexuality through government license. Those who debate this issue never mention this and are losing the debate. They don't have the guts to say that homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion and not only shouldn't be approved by the government, but should be vigorously stamped out.

This debate is lost because the right side can't even muster the correct argument. The sanctity of marriage isn't the issue. Homosexuality is the issue.

[FormerLib]

Stripping the primary family unit of any legal protections would guarantee the end of our society as we know it.

Look to the Democratic National Convention coming soon in Boston (or a "Gay Pride" parade) for a concrete look at the society that would rise in its place.

[conserv13]

... homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion and not only shouldn't be approved by the government, but should be vigorously stamped out.

I don't believe that, neither do most Americans.

[FormerLib]

The problem with gay marriage is not that it harms the institution of marriage.

But actually, it would harm the institution just as the left's adoption of "No Fault" divorce has done.

[Camel Joe]

The entire gay marriage issue is to serve as a revenue stream for lawyers. Gay divorce will provide some good income and that is all.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I prefer the traditional No Sex marriage.

[Boxsford]

Thank you for posting that statement.

[Batrachian]

"I don't believe that, neither do most Americans."

You're right. Most Americans are quite tolerant, which is why we're sinking into a morass of immorality like the Romans, and we'll wind up in the same place too. In the history books.

So if homosexuality is A-OK, then why not let them get married? That's where the "sanctity of marriage" argument breaks down.

[stompk]

".. homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion and not only shouldn't be approved by the government, but should be vigorously stamped out.

I don't believe that, neither do most Americans. "

I believe it.

[conserv13]

I don't think that gays should be 'married'. Civil unions are okay with me, though.

[Modernman]

They don't have the guts to say that homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion and not only shouldn't be approved by the government, but should be vigorously stamped out.

If you make that argument, you will lose the debate. Very few people agree with you on that matter.

[The Old Hoosier]

Stripping the primary family unit of any legal protections would guarantee the end of our society as we know it.

Really, just look at where the black community has sadly ended up because of weak families and illegitimacy. State government should do everything it can reasonably do to strengthen the institution of the family. It's part of our tradition here in state government.

And yes, sodomy is a disgusting perversion that should be re-criminalized, but the argument on the family is important, too. To compare sexual perversion to normal family life--as though there were any comparison--is obscene.

[Batrachian]

"But actually, it would harm the institution just as the left's adoption of "No Fault" divorce has done."

The institution of marriage is terminally ill and not long for this world. You're trying to close the barn door after the horses escaped. I'm not trying to save a dead institution. I'm trying to fight the acceptance and legal sanction of this perversion.

We're missing the boat here. Homosexuals don't really care about marriage. The level of promiscuity is incredible among them and their marriages would be an ugly farce. What they're trying to do is get official government approval of their "lifestyle".

[Modernman]

You're right. Most Americans are quite tolerant, which is why we're sinking into a morass of immorality like the Romans, and we'll wind up in the same place too. In the history books.

Nonsense. What homosexuals do to or with each other in no way influences the morality or immorality of the American people. In any event, the Roman comparison is silly. Rome lasted for a 1000 years. If America lasts that long, we should be so lucky.

So if homosexuality is A-OK, then why not let them get married? That's where the "sanctity of marriage" argument breaks down.

I'm fairly neutral on this subject, but I have to ask: How would allowing homosexuals to marry in any way influence heterosexual marriage?

[Old Professer]

If anything needs defining, it is sex itself.

[Batrachian]

"If you make that argument, you will lose the debate. Very few people agree with you on that matter."

I understand that. I never said that I have a mainstream position on this issue. Do I have to have one? Anyway, the argument is already lost. We'll never see a Marriage Amendment and state after state is passing gay marriage. What's left to debate about?

One of the reasons we lost this fight is because we picked the wrong argument. It's not really about marriage. It's about official approval of homosexuality, but our side lacked the courage to say it, or didn't believe it.

I will say now that if society deems that homosexuality is just fine then there is no rational argument against gay marriage. That's how we lost.

[conserv13]

And yes, sodomy is a disgusting perversion that should be re-criminalized, but the argument on the family is important, too. To compare sexual perversion to normal family life--as though there were any comparison--is obscene.

This debate already occured, and the gays won. Sodomy is not just gay sex, straight people can engage in it also. You can't make sodomy illegal for gay people only, nor should you.

I know several gay couples, and guess what? Their 'family life' is surprisingly similar to that of all the straight couples I know! They wake up, make coffee, walk the dog, go to work, come home, make dinner, watch tv, do the dishes, mow the lawn, etc...