What one man one woman marriage? Find the Hellinic equivalent of marriage and see where it shows up in the Bible. Don't quote irrelevant passages about Adam and Eve. The words "holy matrimony" didn't exist in English parlance until fairly recently. Furthermore, the Old Testament is packed with cases of polygamy. So much for one man one woman theory. Again, show me where God says that marriage has to be between a men and women. That is not asking you to prove a negative.
The Bible restricts sexual relations between man a woman. That has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a social institution, not divine.
You also claimed that marriage fulfills the Biblical purpose of procreation. I called on your dissonance, because one need not be married in order to procreate, and vice versa. One can attribute the miracle of life and death on the divine, but definitely not marriage. Marriage is an institution that only exists among humans. It is an invention by man. It comes from the Latin word maritare, and if you find out what it means you will know why the early Church was opposed to it. Find out when the first sacrament of marriage was written. The earliest account of Christian marriage was simply a blessing in facie ecclesiae. The Church in the middle ages had no ecclesiastical definition of a valid marriage, and had no means on validating one either. All the touchy feely stuff you said about marriage and the Bible are all ex post. Sure, there are God's laws against sexuality but marriage isn't about God. It is about what kind of cohabitation the state things is proper. If you reflexively start quoting Bibilican passages with the word wife in it, just remember that any kind of cohabitation in those days meant you were someone's wife with or without (probably without) the blessing of the Church. It is no different than any other family law that is on the books, and they all need not conform to Christian values because it is about the state and not the Church. If we were to take your advice seriously, then couples who cannot have children shouldn't be allowed to live together because God knows they maybe doing something ungodly. Couples that engage in sodomy should definitely be forced to separate because we all know that sodomy is sinful. The Bible is full of accounts of polygamy and wives that are underage. Clearly, we cannot ask the govt to legalize those things. The Bible may or may not sanction certain things, but the state has a separate objective function to maximize. If the state were to enforce every single dietary laws in the book, then all restaurants will be bankrupt.
The Bible is a moot point on this issue because we are not asking the Church to accept homosexual marriage. The point is whether the state can discriminate against homsexuals to marry each other. The state should not recognize any marriage. Treat marriage as a contract that any party with sufficient capacity to make judgements can enter into. That was essentially the basis of Lord Harwidke's Act in the 18th century.
Your defense using the 14th Amendment is laughable. Heterosexuals are not being discriminated against if homosexuals get married. It is not like there are only so many marriage licenses to go along. It could be a 14th Amendment case if somehow heterosexuals feel threatened or discriminated against because of homosexual marriage. The 14th Amendment is a liberal's tool. No conservative should have any use for it. It is an intrusion into state's rights and conservatives should shun it and not embrace it.
I brought up the 9th because the federal govt keeps taking stabs at family law in the states. I don't see 38 states enumerating such rights to the federal govt. It is an overreach. The only way the feds have any control over this is if there is a Constitutional amendment, and I am sure a lot of conservatives will vote against it.
This is why I gave you the analogy about God saying that raping babies is wrong. Your argument is the last refuge of losers.
I am amazed how you went from not knowing about the Bible to being a Biblical expert in less than 50 posts.
You are advocating changing the definition of marriage. Therefore, it is incumbent on you to provide the reasons for employing Orwellian Newspeak. The Bible is a loser for you. You will find nothing in the Bible supporting marriage between those of the same sex. Nothing, zilch, nada. So lets leave religion behind and argue on the other merits.
The Bible is a moot point on this issue because we are not asking the Church to accept homosexual marriage. The point is whether the state can discriminate against homsexuals to marry each other. The state should not recognize any marriage. Treat marriage as a contract that any party with sufficient capacity to make judgements can enter into. That was essentially the basis of Lord Harwidke's Act in the 18th century.
That is the quintessential libertarian view and one that I don't concur with because it is naive. The institution of marriage in the USA has been the same institution since the getgo. One man, one woman. Lord Harwikes not withsatnding. The state is inextricably bound up in marriage and they would be in contracts as well because contracts are simply pieces of paper without the power of the state to enforce them. But anybody can enter into a contract right now. And anybody can get married as long as they fulfill the non discriminatory requirements of same. If marriage laws said "homosexuals can not marry anybody", then the institution would be discriminatory but it doesn't and it's not. And that won't change no matter how often you repeat the discrimination canard.
Your defense using the 14th Amendment is laughable. Heterosexuals are not being discriminated against if homosexuals get married. It is not like there are only so many marriage licenses to go along. It could be a 14th Amendment case if somehow heterosexuals feel threatened or discriminated against because of homosexual marriage. The 14th Amendment is a liberal's tool. No conservative should have any use for it. It is an intrusion into state's rights and conservatives should shun it and not embrace it.
What's laughable is your reading comprehension skills. You made this crap up out of whole cloth. I never said any such thing. It is amazing what a true ideologue sees when he peers through the looking glass. But feel free to quote me asserting that heterosexuals are being discriminated against. Good luck, you'll need it.
As far as the left and the 114th, I agree with you. But the 14th is exactly what SCOTUS used in Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade. Do you agree with those holdings which remove power from states and assign it to federal courts in contravention of the plain meaning of the US Constitution? I have found that social libertarians are among the most eggregious in supporting the usurpatation of state powers by federal courts and I'm hoping that that shoe doesn't fit you.
I brought up the 9th because the federal govt keeps taking stabs at family law in the states. I don't see 38 states enumerating such rights to the federal govt.
States have powers, the federal government has powers, citizens have rights and the 9th Amendment is simply a constraint on federal power, nothing more, nothing less. I think you know the difference but I'm not sure.
It is an overreach. The only way the feds have any control over this is if there is a Constitutional amendment, and I am sure a lot of conservatives will vote against it.
They will vote against it until the first federal court overrules DOMA and if that happens conservatives of all sorts will vote for it.