Legality of Same Sex Marriage

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Whatever...

The argument is not about the merits of govt. control over marriage. It has taken that control whether you like it or not. it is about mitigating the consequences of that control in a godly manner - being the salt of the earth.

I don't know if you realize it or not Pliny... but nearly 45% of American couples aren't in statutory "marriages". They are cohabitating in private living arrangements. Nearly half of American couples DON'T want the STATE involved in their relationships. Perhaps in ten years it will be half, or more, of American couples.

Point is... Marriage Privatization is the answer.

Privatize Marriage Now
http://lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken135.html

Privatize Marriage
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory68.html

Married to the State
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken86.html

Consider this quote from C.S. Lewis that mentions an ethical, liberty preserving, Christian approach to marriage and divorce. The implications of C.S. Lewis' logic on this issue are quite balanced...

"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question - how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not." -Book III, Ch. 6, p. 87. [emphasis mine]

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

And again... why is it possible that the definition of marriage might be changed??? Because we've allowed GOVERNMENT authority over marriage. With GOVERNMENT being in authority over marriage... GOVERNMENT has the right to define it. And should a lobbying body push hard enough, and courts agree, the GOVERNMENT will redefine it.

And that has absolutely NOTHING to do with my point that his argument was not a stupid one.

Open the door??? Gays are already living together and calling themselves married.

And? What does that have to do with my point? Just posting irrelevant facts that have no bearing on the scope of the point is not helpful.

Even various states and massive corporations are granting domestic partner benefits to accomodate gay couples who are in states where it is illegal to "marry". lol

Yes...again what does THAT have to do with what I posted? You haven't addressed the issue that it was not a stupid argument and that it's a potential slippery slope.

As for drugs... alcohol prohibition tore America apart once. Now it is the war on drugs. Harsh laws and the threat of jail and fines will not stop drug use. All they do is make it harder to help people. And just as Prohibition created organized crime, today's drug laws keep organized crime alive -- with all the violence and corruption that goes along with it. Before drugs were illegal, Americans handled them with few problems. Let's respect the right of people to control their own bodies. Drug addiction can be addressed as a health and safety issue. Companies can require rehab for employees with drug addictions. A company can still require drug testing. It's a safety issue.

So what is your point? We should legalize all forms of drugs? Or do you just like to post irrelevant facts and sound argumentative when in fact you really agree?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I agree the "slippery slope" argument is not the best. That's why it was placed last in my list of secular reasoning against homosexual marriage.
It is a biological perversion and it's not the best for children.

The slippery slope argument still cannot nor should be dismissed.

Slippery slope into Constitutional human liberty???

I'm not shocked that this would seem to be too much for some who depend on the GUBBERMENT to define everything for everyone.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I agree the "slippery slope" argument is not the best. That's why it was placed last in my list of secular reasoning against homosexual marriage.
It is a biological perversion and it's not the best for children.

The slippery slope argument still cannot nor should be dismissed.

I agree.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

And that has absolutely NOTHING to do with my point that his argument was not a stupid one.

My point was that you're exactly right... homosexual activists want to force a change of definition onto the rest of society. And the only way they can do this is if we continue to allow GOVERNMENT to have the authority to redefine marriage. If marriage is a private contractual agreement... it's defined by society in practice. Oh, gays will go down to a gay loving church and get "married"... but they can't force society to recognize it. We're going to lose the battle in the SCOTUS. They will not rule against personal liberty and civil rights. By not demanding to get government out of marriage... we're actually giving gays the power to redefine it.

And? What does that have to do with my point? Just posting irrelevant facts that have no bearing on the scope of the point is not helpful.

Yes...again what does THAT have to do with what I posted? You haven't addressed the issue that it was not a stupid argument and that it's a potential slippery slope.

The point is... the slippery slope argument isn't going to cut it. First, they're already "getting married". Second, dogs can't demonstrate consent to contract, so one cannot marry a dog. Also, children are minors and unable to show legal consent to contract. So nobody will be marrying children. Might some experiment with polygamy? Probably. But trust me... that will be short lived. lol

So what is your point? We should legalize all forms of drugs? Or do you just like to post irrelevant facts and sound argumentative when in fact you really agree?

Point is prohibition isn't winning against drugs. It's expensive with regards to the lives of law enforcement and the money it takes to lock up people with an addiction. It should be treated like a health problem... not a crime.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I agree the "slippery slope" argument is not the best. That's why it was placed last in my list of secular reasoning against homosexual marriage.
It is a biological perversion and it's not the best for children.

The slippery slope argument still cannot nor should be dismissed.

For me to take the slippery slope argument seriously one would have to demonstrate how Fido can consent to be married and thus allow people to marry their pets. Second, one cannot marry a child who is a minor and unable to legally consent to be married. Thirdly, while it might open the door to polygamy... we have hundreds of polygamous Muslim and Mormon families already in the United States. Why shouldn't their marriages be legally valid on our shores???

While I agree that homosexuality is a biological perversion and isn't best for children... I still don't see how gay marriage endangers the life, liberty, or property of another.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My point was that you're exactly right... homosexual activists want to force a change of definition onto the rest of society.

Couldn't you have just said that instead of appearing to argue with me?

The point is... the slippery slope argument isn't going to cut it.

Isn't that what I said though? I said it might be a weak argument but not a stupid one.

Point is prohibition isn't winning against drugs. It's expensive with regards to the lives of law enforcement and the money it takes to lock up people with an addiction. It should be treated like a health problem... not a crime.

no the point WAS about slippery slopes and open doors. Not drugs.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Couldn't you have just said that instead of appearing to argue with me?

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

Isn't that what I said though? I said it might be a weak argument but not a stupid one.

Amen.

no the point WAS about slippery slopes and open doors. Not drugs.

I don't see much of a slippery slope.

[Pliny]

Saw this and thought it pertinent to this subject:

Culture

THE TRUTH ABOUT CHILDREN WITH 'GAY' PARENTS
http://onenewsnow.com//culture/2013/...th-gay-parents

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Saw this and thought it pertinent to this subject:

Culture

THE TRUTH ABOUT CHILDREN WITH 'GAY' PARENTS
http://onenewsnow.com//culture/2013/...th-gay-parents

Great article. And I agree with it.

However, I don't believe it's the GOVERNMENT'S job to regulate private relationships of private citizens.

So, while this will assist us with recognizing what children have various challenges ahead of them... it doesn't justify the notion that the GOVERNMENT should regulate private relationships or marriage itself.