Legality of Same Sex Marriage

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by odooley6985

Well said. I agree. I just think its funny that people who want smaller government also want the government to tell people who they can and cant marry. I just feel the separation of church and state clause it up for interpretation. Many feel it was meant to keep the state out of the church. It also can mean the opposite.

Some people poo-poo the seperation of church and state. However, they fail to realize that the fastest growing religious body in the United States is the Islamic community. If we DON'T insulate our government from religious influence... within the next couple generations we'll see a "Coalition for Islamic Justice" and they will attempt to FORCE sharia law into the system. We need to stop listening to political dolts who are just using religion to get elected by politicizing hot button issues and return to the vision of LIBERTY that our Founders truly invisioned.

If you don't support the separation of church and state... as far as I'm concerned... you're an enemy to the Constitution. That means BOTH the Democrats (who undermine property rights) and the Republicans (who undermine human rights) are the enemy. It's time to press for the growth and defense of liberty. It's time to advance a truly Libertarian Party.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by odooley6985

First let me say I am against same sex marriage. That being said, saying nut ball stuff like "If men are allowed to marry men, then they will want to marry dogs." is the stupidest arguement ever and makes anyone who says it look extremely dumb and nutty. Please dont compare two consensual adults to that.

LOL

Agreed... but...

I'll take it a step further... even IF someone wanted to marry their dog (which is a stupid argument)... is it your's, mine, or the GOVERNMENT'S business??? Isn't that dog THEIR PROPERTY??? Or does the STATE have absolute authority over Fido too??? Fantastic... the STATE can require licenses for anyone wanting to own a dog, prosecute anyone with beastial tendencies, and ban you from buying peanut butter if you're a registered dog owner!!! LOL

Give me a break. Nobody is going to marry their dog. And IF someone does... it will just be another strange news story about some mentally ill quack.

[Aquila]

But... a Libertarian argument against being able to marry your dog would be that a dog cannot be a party to a consentual contract in accordance to it's own free will. Any assumed contract would therefore be invalid. Since a dog's consent cannot be demonstrated through private contract... Fido is protected from being forcibly married on account that it would endanger his God given doggie liberties. lol

[Aquila]

Tobacco is legal.
Alcohol is legal.
Porn is legal.
The Satanic Bible is legal.
Buying the Koran is legal.

Legality doesn't mean something is pleasing to God. Legality is only decriminalization. In my opinion... something should only be criminalized if it's demonstrated that it endangers the life, liberty, or property of another.

[odooley6985]

Originally Posted by Aquila

But... a Libertarian argument against being able to marry your dog would be that a dog cannot be a party to a consentual contract in accordance to it's own free will. Any assumed contract would therefore be invalid. Since a dog's consent cannot be demonstrated through private contract... Fido is protected from being forcibly married on account that it would endanger his God given doggie liberties. lol

Your a cool dude. I like you. Non homo of course. LOL

[odooley6985]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Some people poo-poo the seperation of church and state. However, they fail to realize that the fastest growing religious body in the United States is the Islamic community. If we DON'T insulate our government from religious influence... within the next couple generations we'll see a "Coalition for Islamic Justice" and they will attempt to FORCE sharia law into the system. We need to stop listening to political dolts who are just using religion to get elected by politicizing hot button issues and return to the vision of LIBERTY that our Founders truly invisioned.

If you don't support the separation of church and state... as far as I'm concerned... you're an enemy to the Constitution. That means BOTH the Democrats (who undermine property rights) and the Republicans (who undermine human rights) are the enemy. It's time to press for the growth and defense of liberty. It's time to advance a truly Libertarian Party.

Well said again.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by odooley6985

First let me say I am against same sex marriage. That being said, saying nut ball stuff like "If men are allowed to marry men, then they will want to marry dogs." is the stupidest arguement ever and makes anyone who says it look extremely dumb and nutty. Please dont compare two consensual adults to that.

Thank you for the insults... You asked a question and I took the time to answer that question, thoughtfully. Your response is that I am extremely dumb, stupid, and nutty. As mentioned in my above post I will stand firmly on the Bible.

The fact is that there is a "slippery slope" regardless of your insults. These other "nut balls" exist already.
Here is an example:
http://www.slideshare.net/rain143773...eird-marriages

This was a quick google search.


Once the "civil rights" of homosexuals have redefined marriage for their aberration there is nothing to stop "others" from demanding their civil rights as well. As mentioned these already exist.

Since you cannot have a reasonable conversation I will now bow out and simply ignore anything else you have to say. Prov. 26:4.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Some people poo-poo the seperation of church and state. However, they fail to realize that the fastest growing religious body in the United States is the Islamic community. If we DON'T insulate our government from religious influence... within the next couple generations we'll see a "Coalition for Islamic Justice" and they will attempt to FORCE sharia law into the system. We need to stop listening to political dolts who are just using religion to get elected by politicizing hot button issues and return to the vision of LIBERTY that our Founders truly invisioned.

If you don't support the separation of church and state... as far as I'm concerned... you're an enemy to the Constitution. That means BOTH the Democrats (who undermine property rights) and the Republicans (who undermine human rights) are the enemy. It's time to press for the growth and defense of liberty. It's time to advance a truly Libertarian Party.

Please show me where in the Constitution we are forbidden from holding to Biblical morality.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by odooley6985

No one commented or answered my question. What non biblical reason is there to ban gay marriage? Can we come up with one without mentioning one religious word? Until then, gay marriage wont be struck down. At least abortion is murder.

Some would say that gay marriages can't produce children, and say such marriages should therefore not be allowed. Very weak argument, of course, since many straight marriage either can't or won't (by choice) produce children, either.

And some say gay parents (e.g., by adoption) are bad parents. A child needs a male father and a female mother. Again, very weak. There are a lot of very fine one-parent families, and a lot of really, really dysfunctional straight parents.

Now, a strangely convoluted argument has been put forth by someone I admire and respect (an AFFer), but I'm not sure he's made the argument here or not, so I won't name him. But his argument goes like this: the government issues marriage licenses for the purpose of preventing risky pregnancies, such as between closely related people. A brother and sister, e.g., would be denied a license. A gay marriage doesn't have that danger, and therefore (here's the convoluted part) there is no need to license gay marriages at all. He seems to think this means there is no reason for the government to recognize gay marriages -- that a civil union, without license, is good enough. The trouble with this is that is it actually a very good argument in favor of allowing and licensing gay marriage! ("Trouble" if you are against it, that is. ) If a license (or denial thereof) is for the purpose of preventing risky pregnancies, then there is no reason not to issue a gay marriage license.

Now, I've saved the best for last. The National Organization For Marriage has provided the anti-gay-marriage folks with the most, um, "interesting" reason I have ever seen. And it is, in a way, the most honest. Here it is, from their "talking points" web page:

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

There you have it! Who would get "hurt" if gay marriage is allowed? The people who are against gay marriage!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by odooley6985

Your a cool dude. I like you. Non homo of course. LOL

Of course...



lol