[DBeers]

I think the logical and valid argument against homosexual marriage is what Ron Paul proposes. Just get rid of the government involvement in marriage! When you hand the marriage power back to the churches/religious groups, they will define what it is. And homo groups’ definition of their own version of the marriage will be pointless.

Ron Paul is wrong. What Ron Paul advocates is a government that abdicates its role to maintain social order premised upon inalienable truths. Ron Paul seeks marriage anarchy much like Libertarians seek a morally devoid anarchy unencumbered by any social order.

The problem is not government involvement -the problem is a government that ignores its place under the Creator and instead seeks to replace God with itself and redefine things such as marriage...

[muawiyah]

In America, in colonial times, marriage was pretty much a matter of people, their churches, and their tribes, villages, or plantations.

The reasons for what is known as civil registration are varied, but in general it was felt, and then demonstrated, that knowing who was doing which to who, and where resulted in not just a more orderly society, but also a more peaceful society where children could be cared for more assuredly.

Not that civil registration was an all encompassing cure for social pathologies, but it helped concerned folks find where the need was greatest.

I"m sure Ron Paul has never thought the process all the way through.

[sagar]

“The problem is not government involvement -the problem is a government that ignores its place under the Creator and instead seeks to replace God with itself and redefine things such as marriage...”

Actually, the problem is the government’s involvement. Let’s see, a government is what people make it out to be. So, people(or their elected officials) can decide what marriage it, giving equal protection to the homo coupling. What a government “should be” is not reflected in what a government actually is!