government-free marriage

[monticello]

I've been seeing a lot of interest lately in the idea of government-free marriage. I think it is a great idea to redefine the gay marriage argument not as pro/con, but rather shoudl government be invovled in the marriage licensing business period.
ref: www.governmentfreemarriage.com

[erowe1]

Nice. Is that your website?

I just added it to the Facebook group, Christians for the Abolition of All State Marriage Licenses.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=98459775318

[Dan710]

I've never understood why the government has to be the third party in a marriage to make it 'official'. I agree that marriage isn't a government issue, it should be between the people and their respective church. If you want 40 wives, fine, if you want one, fine, if you want a same sex marriage, fine. How is any of that the governments business?

[Kregisen]

Definitely....my argument to all the anti-gay marriage people is just: I think all Christians should be more worried that the government is regulating a private religious event than whether two people marry eachother or not.

Not sure if this is an issue we can win part of the GOP over with, but if they want to debate it using logic they'll agree with us.

[heavenlyboy34]

awesome thread, thnx. :cool: :)

[fisharmor]

I can't get to the FB page right now, but the blog doesn't consider two points.
First, that the position of government-free marriage must consider the contract aspects between the people choosing to call themselves married.
After all, the gay marriage crowd uses hospital visits, inheritance, and property rights as the basis of their argument.
Despite being an inappropriate and dismal failure, these are currently the purview of the state, so the state has to pronounce on the matter in some form.
So married heterosexual couples would need to be informed that they would need to sign an actual contract stating the nature of the agreement with their spouses, or a grandfather clause would need to be legislated. I wouldn't be a fan of the latter, since it would bind couples to an agreement they didn't necessarily agree to.
How to avoid the pandemonium? You're either forcing married couples to redefine their agreement formally, or you're screwing married couples out of property.

Second, doesn't it naturally follow that many of our institutions which are based on marriage would crumble?
I'm speaking of employer-granted health insurance, federal and state tax breaks, and other government abuses which I would be well in favor of - but would be political suicide, if they weren't accompanied by a general decrease in government intrusion.
In short, there are a lot of other ramifications to this which would need to be fixed - it's a huge overhaul.

I'm a fan, but I'm not sure how it would get implemented without smashing the existing system to bits. Which I'd really love. But how to get there?

[TonySutton]

Since this is primarily a state issue, which state is best positioned to change first?

[erowe1]

I can't get to the FB page right now, but the blog doesn't consider two points.
First, that the position of government-free marriage must consider the contract aspects between the people choosing to call themselves married.
After all, the gay marriage crowd uses hospital visits, inheritance, and property rights as the basis of their argument.
Hospital visitation rules, including whether or not gay partners are considered spouses, should be left up to the hospitals. The government has no business telling them what their rules should be. Hospitals that want to treat gay couples as married, and hospitals that wish to discriminate against customers for any reason, should be judged by the market, not the state.


So married heterosexual couples would need to be informed that they would need to sign an actual contract stating the nature of the agreement with their spouses, or a grandfather clause would need to be legislated. I wouldn't be a fan of the latter, since it would bind couples to an agreement they didn't necessarily agree to.
Written contracts wouldn't have to be necessary. If these couples had weddings where they made vows in front of witnesses, then those are contracts. Written contracts may be prudent. But leaving it up to the couples to decide what's in their contracts, rather than using a one-size-fits-all state-based one is an improvement even if it does mean that people have to take responsibility for that.


How to avoid the pandemonium? You're either forcing married couples to redefine their agreement formally, or you're screwing married couples out of property.
Screwing them out of what property?


Second, doesn't it naturally follow that many of our institutions which are based on marriage would crumble?
I'm speaking of employer-granted health insurance, federal and state tax breaks, and other government abuses which I would be well in favor of - but would be political suicide, if they weren't accompanied by a general decrease in government intrusion.
It would be great if all those things crumbled. Employment-based health insurance only exists because of government-created tax incentives that favor it. It's a farce. And even given its existence, it should be up to those employers and those insurance companies to decide their policies regarding married couples. The state has no right to tell them they either have to or may not treat gay couples as married couples. It's a given that getting the state out of marriage would also mean the end of filing joint income tax returns I think. But that would also be a good thing. It that means married couples end up paying more, then it could be balanced with an across-the-board tax cut.

[fisharmor]

Hospital visitation rules, including whether or not gay partners are considered spouses, should be left up to the hospitals. The government has no business telling them what their rules should be. Hospitals that want to treat gay couples as married, and hospitals that wish to discriminate against customers for any reason, should be judged by the market, not the state.
Yes, but now you've entered the arena of having to allow competing hospitals, something which I'm not sure is legally possible anywhere in the US. Highly desirable - but again, getting the state out of marriage opens up a new problem.


Written contracts wouldn't have to be necessary. If these couples had weddings where they made vows in front of witnesses, then those are contracts. Written contracts may be prudent. But leaving it up to the couples to decide what's in their contracts, rather than using a one-size-fits-all state-based one is an improvement even if it does mean that people have to take responsibility for that.....
Screwing them out of what property?
When a man and woman get married, isn't it implied in many jurisdictions that they share property? And what about children?
When a man marries two women, has kids with both, and then divorces one, what happens with the children? How about alimony and child support? There's already a body of law dealing with this WRT state defined marriage.
If the bigamist man dies and one of his wives isn't on the deed to the house, what happens?
Again, I'd be fine with trashing the existing system - I'm merely pointing out how much the system has trenched in and is prepared to wait out this particular siege.


It would be great if all those things crumbled....
Complete agreement here. I just don't know how it's politically possible.
I'm on the side of the abolition of state defined marriage - I don't even know where my state marriage certificate is, and I don't even remember filling it out, because fuck them.
I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of trying to flesh these things out.

[Maximus]

CampaignForLiberty the website has a couple good articles on this when you do a search for marriage licenses. The marriage license is only about 100 years old.

[Seraphim]

Outside of GOVT and Churches...who marries the gays? Say, Govt is not involved (and it should not be)...that leaves the churches...To me, I see this as scaring the BEJEZUZ out of gays and anyone who supports gay rights. Kind of like fisharmour, I'm just playing DA...

Who marries the gays? I really don't see religious/church support for that.

[erowe1]

When a man and woman get married, isn't it implied in many jurisdictions that they share property?
Yes. I don't see the problem there. You don't need state marriage licenses for people to share property.


And what about children?
When a man marries two women, has kids with both, and then divorces one, what happens with the children? How about alimony and child support? There's already a body of law dealing with this WRT state defined marriage. If the bigamist man dies and one of his wives isn't on the deed to the house, what happens?
There is not a body of law covering that now, since bigamists are not included in state marriage licenses. Getting the state out of the marriage business would make it easier, not harder, to deal with situations like that.

[erowe1]

Outside of GOVT and Churches...who marries the gays? Say, Govt is not involved (and it should not be)...that leaves the churches...To me, I see this as scaring the BEJEZUZ out of gays and anyone who supports gay rights. Kind of like fisharmour, I'm just playing DA...

Who marries the gays? I really don't see religious/church support for that.

You're kidding right? There are pro-gay churches who do gay weddings all over the place.

That's part of why "gay marriage ban" is a misnomer. There is no gay marriage ban anywhere in the USA. Gays get married in every state all the time. They have weddings, live together, and live their lives with complete freedom to do whatever they think marriage entails for them without any of it being banned. The people who want more government aren't the anti-gay marriage folks, it's the pro-gay marriage folks.

[Kludge]

If you don't want a license, don't get one. They mean nothing. Wife or husband can use a different surname, no problem - just use your legal name for government forms. Not even an issue worth discussing, except maybe how much focus the gay community has put on it. Don't understand the point in fighting it.

With regards to children -- the government doesn't care about marriage, they judge parents, and unmarried men are still liable to pay child support. Most everything else can be resolved with wills.

[erowe1]

If you don't want a license, don't get one. They mean nothing. Wife or husband can use a different surname, no problem - just use your legal name for government forms. Not even an issue worth discussing, except maybe how much focus the gay community has put on it. Don't understand the point in fighting it.

With regards to children -- the government doesn't care about marriage, they judge parents, and unmarried men are still liable to pay child support. Most everything else can be resolved with wills.

I think you're probably right about how it works in practice. There are plenty of married couples who never get marriage licenses. But the letter of the law is not on their side. If they file joint tax returns, the IRS could go after them, since they require that people who do that be legally married according to the laws of some state, and most state laws say you're not legally married if you don't have a marriage license. I expect that laws regarding other things that come up in this issue are similarly specific.

Your final point is also right. The main reason this has become such an issue recently is because the role it plays in the gay agenda has made these phony gay marriage bans into a great non-issue for the two parties to fight about and motivate their constituencies to go to the polls.

[AxisMundi]

I've been seeing a lot of interest lately in the idea of government-free marriage. I think it is a great idea to redefine the gay marriage argument not as pro/con, but rather shoudl government be invovled in the marriage licensing business period.
ref: www.governmentfreemarriage.com

1. There already is marriage free government. You could go to any willing clergymen, secular marriage officiant, your neighbor or even your dog and have them marry you to your spouse. You could even wear rings and call yourself hubby and wife. It is not, however, legally recognized.

2. Some of us married folk happen to enjoy, and have utilized, the thousand plus rights and privileges inherent in a g'ment recognized marriage.

Leave MY marriage alone.

3. Since this topic usually is the result of the Fight for Equality for the GLBT community, there is no valid secular reason to deny gays the Civil Right of marriage.

[Icymudpuppy]

The hospital argument is easily settled by getting a legal declaration of "Next of Kin" This works for any non-government sanctioned situation. The only problem is in places where you cannot designate a person "next of kin" unless you are legally married, adopted, etc.

A gay couple could label each other next of Kin, a church sanctioned but govt free married couple could label each other next of kin. A polygamist could label all his wives next of kin, although in most such families, the eldest son would get that coveted position and it would be his responsibility to divy up any inheritance.

The employer insurance issue is only a problem because of our F'ed up healthcare system. Without the pre-tax incentives of employer based health care, all health care would be individual, and each person could pick a plan most suited to their needs, much like car insurance. A health insurance provider may allow a family to share a plan like many families share car insurance with a multi-car multi-driver discount.

[AxisMundi]

Hospital visitation rules, including whether or not gay partners are considered spouses, should be left up to the hospitals. The government has no business telling them what their rules should be. Hospitals that want to treat gay couples as married, and hospitals that wish to discriminate against customers for any reason, should be judged by the market, not the state.

Hospitals that accept g'ment subsidies and programs, such as Medicaid/Care, are bound by law to adhere to federal guidelines.

Also, say a gay couple with a committed relationship of 15 years is traveling and get smacked by a drunk driver, resulting in a horrible car crash. One comes out unscathed, the other sits at death's door. Do you REALLY think it would be proper for a hospital to be permitted to refuse visitation rights?


Written contracts wouldn't have to be necessary. If these couples had weddings where they made vows in front of witnesses, then those are contracts. Written contracts may be prudent. But leaving it up to the couples to decide what's in their contracts, rather than using a one-size-fits-all state-based one is an improvement even if it does mean that people have to take responsibility for that.

Vows taken in front of witnesses that no one can prove accept to those that were there. Again, a hospital could refuse a man to see his wife.


Screwing them out of what property?

One of the thousand-plus rights and privileges my wife and I enjoy is joint ownership of property.


It would be great if all those things crumbled. Employment-based health insurance only exists because of government-created tax incentives that favor it. It's a farce. And even given its existence, it should be up to those employers and those insurance companies to decide their policies regarding married couples. The state has no right to tell them they either have to or may not treat gay couples as married couples. It's a given that getting the state out of marriage would also mean the end of filing joint income tax returns I think. But that would also be a good thing. It that means married couples end up paying more, then it could be balanced with an across-the-board tax cut.

Would you support employers/health insurance providers discriminating against a black hetero couple? Asian? Irish? Catholic? Latino?

[Brett85]

That's part of why "gay marriage ban" is a misnomer. There is no gay marriage ban anywhere in the USA. Gays get married in every state all the time. They have weddings, live together, and live their lives with complete freedom to do whatever they think marriage entails for them without any of it being banned. The people who want more government aren't the anti-gay marriage folks, it's the pro-gay marriage folks.

This. I need to copy and paste this and show it to every single person who believes that being "pro gay marriage" is a libertarian position. People like Dick Cheney, Meghan McCain, and John Bolton can claim to be libertarians simply because they want the government to recognize same sex marriages. It's ridiculous.

[AxisMundi]

The hospital argument is easily settled by getting a legal declaration of "Next of Kin" This works for any non-government sanctioned situation. The only problem is in places where you cannot designate a person "next of kin" unless you are legally married, adopted, etc.

A gay couple could label each other next of Kin, a church sanctioned but govt free married couple could label each other next of kin. A polygamist could label all his wives next of kin, although in most such families, the eldest son would get that coveted position and it would be his responsibility to divy up any inheritance.

The employer insurance issue is only a problem because of our F'ed up healthcare system. Without the pre-tax incentives of employer based health care, all health care would be individual, and each person could pick a plan most suited to their needs, much like car insurance. A health insurance provider may allow a family to share a plan like many families share car insurance with a multi-car multi-driver discount.

Church? What about the Atheists, non-Abrahamic Theists and Dharmics? Would be be expected to go to a church for our marriage or do without? And why should married couples be limited to places where they can declare themselves next of kin?

And why should a couple spend thousands more for something given freely merely by saying "I Do" in front of a state-sanctioned marriage officiant, be they secular or clergy.

[AxisMundi]

Outside of GOVT and Churches...who marries the gays? Say, Govt is not involved (and it should not be)...that leaves the churches...To me, I see this as scaring the BEJEZUZ out of gays and anyone who supports gay rights. Kind of like fisharmour, I'm just playing DA...

Who marries the gays? I really don't see religious/church support for that.

1. The Church, nor religion, owns marriage. It is a secular institution that some people prefer to enact under a religious wedding ceremony.

2. There are plenty of Churches/Religions/Sects that endorse the recognized, monogamous commitment between gay couples, and provide religious wedding cerimonies.There are even sects that have openly gay ordained clergy.

[AxisMundi]

I think you're probably right about how it works in practice. There are plenty of married couples who never get marriage licenses. But the letter of the law is not on their side. If they file joint tax returns, the IRS could go after them, since they require that people who do that be legally married according to the laws of some state, and most state laws say you're not legally married if you don't have a marriage license. I expect that laws regarding other things that come up in this issue are similarly specific.

Your final point is also right. The main reason this has become such an issue recently is because the role it plays in the gay agenda has made these phony gay marriage bans into a great non-issue for the two parties to fight about and motivate their constituencies to go to the polls.

The main reason this has become an issue is that an American minority is being denied a basic Civil Right.

There is no valid, secular reason to deny gays the same rights and privileges that my wife and I enjoy.

[erowe1]

Hospitals that accept g'ment subsidies and programs, such as Medicaid/Care, are bound by law to adhere to federal guidelines.
Get rid of the subsidies.



Also, say a gay couple with a committed relationship of 15 years is traveling and get smacked by a drunk driver, resulting in a horrible car crash. One comes out unscathed, the other sits at death's door. Do you REALLY think it would be proper for a hospital to be permitted to refuse visitation rights?
Yes. But what I think shouldn't matter. I have no right to tell that hospital how to do its business. Nor does the state.


Vows taken in front of witnesses that no one can prove accept to those that were there.
Right, hence the importance of the witnesses in this imaginary world of yours where nobody has any record of their weddings aside from that piece of paper stamped with a state seal.


a hospital could refuse a man to see his wife.
I don't see the problem there.


One of the thousand-plus rights and privileges my wife and I enjoy is joint ownership of property.
And you still would without state-based marriage.



Would you support employers/health insurance providers discriminating against a black hetero couple? Asian? Irish? Catholic? Latino?
I would definitely support their right to do that. It's their business.

Thanks for providing us with a good illustration of how it's the pro-gay marriage side not the anti-gay marriage side that has a love affair with big government.

[Brett85]

The main reason this has become an issue is that an American minority is being denied a basic Civil Right.

There is no valid, secular reason to deny gays the same rights and privileges that my wife and I enjoy.

We don't grant "civil rights" to people because they behave in a certain way. Your "civil rights" argument might have some merit if you could provide scientific evidence that people are actually born gay.

[Icymudpuppy]

It doesn't cost thousands to make a documentation of next of kin. What fantasy world do you live in?

Who needs any officiant at all. Your vows are to each other, not the state, not the church, not the judge, not your dog. Just declare each other Next of Kin for the legal benefits, and the spiritual or non-spiritual benefits are up for grabs depending on your beliefs.

There should be no limitations on declarations of Next of Kin. I should be able to designate my wife, brother, son, father, homosexual lover, or whatever, or shared equally between all of the above. You could also have a legal declaration of dependency.

Legal Marriage today implies dependency AND next of kin. I can designate my brother also as a next of kin, but not a dependent if I want, or I can designate my invalid grandmother a dependent but not my next of kin. I could set up my son as both a dependent and a next of kin and he would have equal legal standing with my legal wife. A declaration of next of kin doesn't cost a dime if you know the legal language necessary. It's like a Will, or Power of Attorney. You can hire a lawyer to set it up if you want, or you can do it yourself. A Notary fee of $10.00 should cover it.

[Heimdallr]

We don't grant "civil rights" to people because they behave in a certain way. Your "civil rights" argument might have some merit if you could provide scientific evidence that people are actually born gay.

What? That makes no sense. He's arguing that all citizens should have the same "civil rights". That is the exact opposite of granting "civil rights" to people because they behave a certain way. He's saying that your "rights" (read: government priviledges) should apply to all citizens of the United States, regardless of what demographic they belong to.

I don't even know why RPFers are even discussing "civil rights". We're the Natural Rights crowd.

[AxisMundi]

Get rid of the subsidies.

Yes. But what I think shouldn't matter. I have no right to tell that hospital how to do its business. Nor does the state.

Right, hence the importance of the witnesses in this imaginary world of yours where nobody has any record of their weddings aside from that piece of paper stamped with a state seal.

I don't see the problem there.

And you still would without state-based marriage.

I would definitely support their right to do that. It's their business.

Thanks for providing us with a good illustration of how it's the pro-gay marriage side not the anti-gay marriage side that has a love affair with big government.

Get rid of the subsidies, many hospitals would crash and burn, especially those inundated with Illegal Aliens. Hospitals would also have to refuse medicaid patients, thus leaving almost our entire senior community SOL.

And unlike you, most Americans do not support unjustified discrimination based on race, religion, etc. Sorry.

[AxisMundi]

We don't grant "civil rights" to people because they behave in a certain way. Your "civil rights" argument might have some merit if you could provide scientific evidence that people are actually born gay.

Your argument is flawed.

Homosexuality isn't a "behavior".

[AxisMundi]

It doesn't cost thousands to make a documentation of next of kin. What fantasy world do you live in?

Who needs any officiant at all. Your vows are to each other, not the state, not the church, not the judge, not your dog. Just declare each other Next of Kin for the legal benefits, and the spiritual or non-spiritual benefits are up for grabs depending on your beliefs.

There should be no limitations on declarations of Next of Kin. I should be able to designate my wife, brother, son, father, homosexual lover, or whatever, or shared equally between all of the above. You could also have a legal declaration of dependency.

Legal Marriage today implies dependency AND next of kin. I can designate my brother also as a next of kin, but not a dependent if I want, or I can designate my invalid grandmother a dependent but not my next of kin. I could set up my son as both a dependent and a next of kin and he would have equal legal standing with my legal wife. A declaration of next of kin doesn't cost a dime if you know the legal language necessary. It's like a Will, or Power of Attorney. You can hire a lawyer to set it up if you want, or you can do it yourself. A Notary fee of $10.00 should cover it.

Next of Kin, joint property, joint custody, power-of-attorney...

The cost of even attempting to approach the thousand plus rights and privileges bestowed upon my wife and I for free the moment we said I Do in front of the Justice does indeed run well into the thousands.

[erowe1]

What? That makes no sense. He's arguing that all citizens should have the same "civil rights". That is the exact opposite of granting "civil rights" to people because they behave a certain way. He's saying that your "rights" (read: government priviledges) should apply to all citizens of the United States, regardless of what demographic they belong to.

I don't even know why RPFers are even discussing "civil rights". We're the Natural Rights crowd.

Good point. But the term "civil rights" doesn't only mean government privileges. It sometimes refers to government privileges and sometimes to natural rights, which makes it a very convenient term for AxisMundi to keep using here, since in the context of the gay marriage debate it's only government privileges and not natural rights that are being extended or denied to people.

You're right to turn the debate back to natural rights, rather than civil rights. When you put it in terms of natural rights, it becomes a lot more clear:

Do you have a natural right to a state marriage? No.

Do I have a natural right not to pay taxes to support a system of state marriage? Yes.

[AxisMundi]

Good point. But the term "civil rights" doesn't only mean government privileges. It sometimes refers to government privileges and sometimes to natural rights, which makes it a very convenient term for AxisMundi to keep using here, since in the context of the gay marriage debate it's only government privileges and not natural rights that are being extended or denied to people.

You're right to turn the debate back to natural rights. When you put it in terms of natural rights, it becomes a lot more clear:

Do you have a natural right to a state marriage? No.

Do I have a natural right not to pay taxes to support a system of state marriage? Yes.

Homosexuality is a natural, inherent, and unchangeable aspect found in a number of human beings. How would they sharing the same rights NOT be a natural right?

[Brett85]

Your argument is flawed.

Homosexuality isn't a "behavior".

Then actually provide scientific evidence that being gay is a genetic trait. I'm still waiting for you to provide a link proving that.

[erowe1]

Next of Kin, joint property, joint custody, power-of-attorney...

The cost of even attempting to approach the thousand plus rights and privileges bestowed upon my wife and I for free the moment we said I Do in front of the Justice does indeed run well into the thousands.

For free? Do justices not get paid?

And Icy is right. You listed 4 things here. Not one of them requires state-based marriage for their existence. And all of them could be done easily and cheaply without them.

Other things like getting men with guns to force hospitals to do business the way you want them to would cost a lot more, if that's what you have in mind with your thousand plus rights and privileges.

[AxisMundi]

Pro-Equality crowd - Permit a minority of consenting, tax-paying, unrelated adults to enjoy the same exact privileges as everyone else, an Equality that does not effect anyone else but gays.

Anti-Gov-in-Marriage folks - Destroy a time honored institution and MY marriage.

So you'll forgive me if I don't support getting gov out of marriage.

[Brett85]

What? That makes no sense. He's arguing that all citizens should have the same "civil rights". That is the exact opposite of granting "civil rights" to people because they behave a certain way. He's saying that your "rights" (read: government priviledges) should apply to all citizens of the United States, regardless of what demographic they belong to.

I don't even know why RPFers are even discussing "civil rights". We're the Natural Rights crowd.

People do have natural rights, but shouldn't have "civil rights" that are granted to them by the government. That's the point I was making. Having the government recognize your marriage is not a "right." You have a right to life, liberty, and private property. Nothing more.

[AxisMundi]

For free? Do justices not get paid?

And Icy is right. You listed 4 things here. Not one of them requires state-based marriage for their existence. And all of them could be done easily and cheaply without them.

Other things like getting men with guns to force hospitals to do business the way you want them to would cost a lot more, if that's what you have in mind with your thousand plus rights and privileges.

1. We were not required to give the Justice a dime.

2. I listed four out of over a thousand.

3. Hospitals are quite free to do as they wish. If they don't want to follow federal guidelines, they can do without federal money. Unfortunately, for your argument, they still have to follow the Law.

[AxisMundi]

People do have natural rights, but shouldn't have "civil rights" that are granted to them by the government. That's the point I was making. Having the government recognize your marriage is not a "right." You have a right to life, liberty, and private property. Nothing more.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Why did you change the last part of that colonial document quote?

[Icymudpuppy]

How much did you pay for your marriage license, Axis?

Mine cost $25. A Notarized next of Kin document, and a notarized statement of dependence would have cost $10 ea, or $20 total. $5 cheaper.

Name one legal thing that the NOK and Dependence Document can't do, that a legal marriage can.

[Brett85]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Why did you change the last part of that colonial document quote?

So people can't be happy without getting special rights from the government? As was said by Erowe, the government does not prevent gays from having their own private marriage ceremonies in churches or anywhere else.

[Icymudpuppy]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Why did you change the last part of that colonial document quote?

The DOI says life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The constitution reference the 5th amendment say Life liberty property.

[erowe1]

1. We were not required to give the Justice a dime.

So who paid him? Who paid the rest of the government employees involved? Who paid for the building? Did all those people who paid those things do so voluntarily? If not, can you not see how they had their natural rights violated so that you could enjoy that government privilege?


2. I listed four out of over a thousand.
If the four examples you listed are so easily answered, I assume the other thousand are easier. Or did you deliberately start with your worst examples instead of your best?


3. Hospitals are quite free to do as they wish. If they don't want to follow federal guidelines, they can do without federal money.
Right. But what about me as a taxpayer? I am not free not to pay taxes for those subsidies of hospitals so that the government can use that money as a way of controlling hospital policy. That's where the violation of natural rights is occurring.

[AxisMundi]

How much did you pay for your marriage license, Axis?

Mine cost $25. A Notarized next of Kin document, and a notarized statement of dependence would have cost $10 ea, or $20 total. $5 cheaper.

Name one legal thing that the NOK and Dependence Document can't do, that a legal marriage can.

tax breaks.

Want more?

Joint property ownership. Joint custody. Joint adoption. Inheritance. Medicaid/Veterans benefits through your spouse. In the case of divorce, property division and child visitation rights. Ensured marriage rights no matter where in the country you travel, and outside of the US to other Nations as well....

How many of these thousand plus right you want me to list?

Like I said, if you don't want government in your marriage, don't get legally married.

But leave my goddamn marriage alone!

[AxisMundi]

So who paid him? Who paid the rest of the government employees involved? Who paid for the building? Did all those people who paid those things do so voluntarily? If not, can you not see how they had their natural rights violated so that you could enjoy that government privilege?

There is no natural right not to pay for a building you use, or the g'ment officials who work in that building.


If the four examples you listed are so easily answered, I assume the other thousand are easier. Or did you deliberately start with your worst examples instead of your best?

Worst examples? There are many lists of the thousand plus rights and privileges marriage bestows upon a legally married couple. Look it up.


Right. But what about me as a taxpayer? I am not free not to pay taxes for those subsidies of hospitals so that the government can use that money as a way of controlling hospital policy. That's where the violation of natural rights is occurring.

You are certainly free to wheeze your last breath on your living room floor because you might be forced to use a service you pay for.

[Icymudpuppy]

All of these can be obtained with Next of Kin, Dependency, or Joint Property documents. Many other nations would also support legal documentation. You basically are saying that you want one document that does it all rather than several. I don't see why you couldn't get a multilevel contract that would have the same effect as a modern marriage certificate. For example, in my state I can buy separately a freshwater fishing license, saltwater fishing license, and shell fishing license, or I can buy any combination of the three at reduced price. Or, like in communication services. I can get phone, tv, internet all separately, or I can bundle them for a reduced rate. Likewise, I can get a Will, Power of Attorney, Trust, and Guardianship separately, or get a package deal.

I don't see why you insist on calling these legal setups marriage, or making having these legal setups dependent on being in a marriage. Why should you and your wife be able to share all those benefits you talk about because you are married, when my brother and I who live together in the same home and share our assets and get tax exemptions, etc, but don't want to get married to each other (because we're just cohabitating, not gay) can't? If it's a right to get tax benefits, it shouldn't be dependent on marriage.

[erowe1]

There is no natural right not to pay for a building you use, or the g'ment officials who work in that building.

But that's not what you're supporting. What you're supporting is the state forcing me to pay for the government building and government officials you use. And I do have a natural right not to do that. When you and your wife used those services for free that other people were forced to pay for, you were not exercising a natural right. Had you born the cost of your marriage directly through a user fee that covered everything involved then that wouldn't be a problem. But then in that case there would no longer be a purpose of having it be done by the state rather than by a private for profit entity.



Worst examples? There are many lists of the thousand plus rights and privileges marriage bestows upon a legally married couple. Look it up.
Since your four best examples were so easily answered, I don't think I'll waste my time looking at the other thousand even worse examples than those.

[fisharmor]

Anti-Gov-in-Marriage folks - Destroy a time honored institution and MY marriage.

So you'll forgive me if I don't support getting gov out of marriage.



But leave my goddamn marriage alone!

See, this is what I was talking about initially - if you eliminate state defined marriage, you end up with state-worshipers who currently define their marriage strictly by its being defined by the state, and won't know how to handle their own lives or partners otherwise.
It's essentially the same argument as why we can't get rid of medicare or social security overnight - there are too many people like Axis out there who simply wouldn't be able to cope with having his institution cut out from under him. It's just not politically feasible.

For other programs, there are transitional ideas, where we could let other people opt out - but in the case of medicare and SS, they're opting out of getting royally screwed later in life, or screwing their grandkids. In the case of state-defined marriage, if they opt out, they're only losing benefits - there's no down side to using state-defined marriage for the vast majority. So I don't see a transitional idea, and for once, Axis has a point that there are a lot of benefits that the non-state-married would lose, be they thousands or merely the dozens that I suspect.

[Vessol]

The only reason why the government is even involved in marriage in the first place was to prevent mixed race marriages.

[Sola_Fide]

I've been seeing a lot of interest lately in the idea of government-free marriage. I think it is a great idea to redefine the gay marriage argument not as pro/con, but rather shoudl government be invovled in the marriage licensing business period.
ref: www.governmentfreemarriage.com

Bump.

This is why all the people who argue for a state-endorsement of gay marriage and think they are arguing for liberty are a little off:).

Liberty involves limiting government.

[charrob]

Totally agree- government should not in any way be involved in marriage. There should not be any "special" government perks for being married, etc. Marriage should simply be a religious ceremony in a church between a couple and their preacher/priest.

If a married couple want the government perks such as inheritance, health insurance, etc., they need to get a civil union. Additionally any two persons who want a civil union should be allowed to get one. This would include two elderly, widowed, sisters who have no children and want the other to inherit the house should one pass away.

[Sola_Fide]

Pro-Equality crowd - Permit a minority of consenting, tax-paying, unrelated adults to enjoy the same exact privileges as everyone else, an Equality that does not effect anyone else but gays.

Anti-Gov-in-Marriage folks - Destroy a time honored institution and MY marriage.

So you'll forgive me if I don't support getting gov out of marriage.

Your statism is bizarre!

[amy31416]

Then actually provide scientific evidence that being gay is a genetic trait. I'm still waiting for you to provide a link proving that.

Whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice is absolutely irrelevant, unless, of course--you want the gov't to be able to restrict the choice a person makes.....like who they love, what church they go to, who they can live with, etc. Would you really change your mind on homosexuality if it were proven to be 100% genetic? I kinda doubt it.

Of course, like Axis and a few other folks, you're probably okay with giving the gov't the power to enforce your version of morality, while ignoring that pesky little fact that morality can not be legislated.

[AxisMundi]

All of these can be obtained with Next of Kin, Dependency, or Joint Property documents. Many other nations would also support legal documentation. You basically are saying that you want one document that does it all rather than several. I don't see why you couldn't get a multilevel contract that would have the same effect as a modern marriage certificate. For example, in my state I can buy separately a freshwater fishing license, saltwater fishing license, and shell fishing license, or I can buy any combination of the three at reduced price. Or, like in communication services. I can get phone, tv, internet all separately, or I can bundle them for a reduced rate. Likewise, I can get a Will, Power of Attorney, Trust, and Guardianship separately, or get a package deal.

I don't see why you insist on calling these legal setups marriage, or making having these legal setups dependent on being in a marriage. Why should you and your wife be able to share all those benefits you talk about because you are married, when my brother and I who live together in the same home and share our assets and get tax exemptions, etc, but don't want to get married to each other (because we're just cohabitating, not gay) can't? If it's a right to get tax benefits, it shouldn't be dependent on marriage.

Raising kids is tough, for the purposes of this debate, financially.

Even having two income earners in the house is not enough.

And to use a common argument around here, find a woman and get married. No one is keeping you from that right, or the tax breaks.

[AxisMundi]

Whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice is absolutely irrelevant, unless, of course--you want the gov't to be able to restrict the choice a person makes.....like who they love, what church they go to, who they can live with, etc. Would you really change your mind on homosexuality if it were proven to be 100% genetic? I kinda doubt it.

Of course, like Axis and a few other folks, you're probably okay with giving the gov't the power to enforce your version of morality, while ignoring that pesky little fact that morality can not be legislated.

Mind showing how I support the g'ment legislating morality?

[AxisMundi]

But that's not what you're supporting. What you're supporting is the state forcing me to pay for the government building and government officials you use. And I do have a natural right not to do that. When you and your wife used those services for free that other people were forced to pay for, you were not exercising a natural right. Had you born the cost of your marriage directly through a user fee that covered everything involved then that wouldn't be a problem. But then in that case there would no longer be a purpose of having it be done by the state rather than by a private for profit entity.

So you don't use public roads, libraries, have never had to visit a court room/house, never used a public park or beach, never had to use police/fire/emergency services, didn't attend a public school and/or have your kids in a public school, never had to utilize a county clerk's services, never had to get a building permit, never bought property or registered a car, etc etc.

Taxes are a fact of life. No level of government can operate without them. Get used to it.

What IS an abomination is tax revenue being used to support religion. Everyone uses government services of one kind or another. Not everyone goes to church.



Since your four best examples were so easily answered, I don't think I'll waste my time looking at the other thousand even worse examples than those.

Self education is never a waste of time.

[AxisMundi]

Well, I was wondering when this argument would come full circle.

First people claimed that "gay marriage would destroy marriages".

Seeing the writing on the wall, now people are out to destroy marriage all together.

[amy31416]

Mind showing how I support the g'ment legislating morality?

I guess "morality" isn't the right word in your case, you want gov't to over-legislate quite a few natural activities that people have partaken in for thousands of years, like agriculture, personal relationships (which may or may not be related to morality), medicine, etc.

We're already legislated out the wazoo--and you want more, more, more...until people can't breathe without the state's approval....all in the name of "safety." Didn't Franklin have a good quote about that?

When legislation goes over the top, as you continually promote, nobody will be able or willing to follow said laws. In a round-about way, you're promoting anarchy more than the most militant anarchists, and you don't even know it.

[erowe1]

So you don't use public roads, libraries, have never had to visit a court room/house, never used a public park or beach, never had to use police/fire/emergency services, didn't attend a public school and/or have your kids in a public school, never had to utilize a county clerk's services, never had to get a building permit, never bought property or registered a car, etc etc.

I use all of those things. I also oppose all of them. The state doesn't give me a choice not to participate in those programs, just as it doesn't give me a choice not to participate in your marriage. All of those things are a violation of my natural rights. The fact that I use the services after I'm already forced into them with violence does not constitute consent on my part.

[Seraphim]

No I was not joking. I didn't know that. Thanks.


You're kidding right? There are pro-gay churches who do gay weddings all over the place.

That's part of why "gay marriage ban" is a misnomer. There is no gay marriage ban anywhere in the USA. Gays get married in every state all the time. They have weddings, live together, and live their lives with complete freedom to do whatever they think marriage entails for them without any of it being banned. The people who want more government aren't the anti-gay marriage folks, it's the pro-gay marriage folks.

[fisharmor]

Well, I was wondering when this argument would come full circle.

First people claimed that "gay marriage would destroy marriages".

Seeing the writing on the wall, now people are out to destroy marriage all together.

Yes. I admit it.
But I am not out to destroy every marriage.
Just yours.
And also every other marriage that was consecrated by the state-god.
Bow down and worship your master, while you can.
My marriage is defined by a different master, and it will survive the coming crumbling of your master and the resultant destruction of your marriage.
For if the government does collapse, you'll apparently be left with nothing.

[Sola_Fide]

So you don't use public roads, libraries, have never had to visit a court room/house, never used a public park or beach, never had to use police/fire/emergency services, didn't attend a public school and/or have your kids in a public school, never had to utilize a county clerk's services, never had to get a building permit, never bought property or registered a car, etc etc.

Taxes are a fact of life. No level of government can operate without them. Get used to it.

What IS an abomination is tax revenue being used to support religion. Everyone uses government services of one kind or another. Not everyone goes to church.




Self education is never a waste of time.


Your statism is bizarre! Why are you here again? To try to prove statism to us? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[AxisMundi]

I guess "morality" isn't the right word in your case, you want gov't to over-legislate quite a few natural activities that people have partaken in for thousands of years, like agriculture, personal relationships (which may or may not be related to morality), medicine, etc.

We're already legislated out the wazoo--and you want more, more, more...until people can't breathe without the state's approval....all in the name of "safety." Didn't Franklin have a good quote about that?

When legislation goes over the top, as you continually promote, nobody will be able or willing to follow said laws. In a round-about way, you're promoting anarchy more than the most militant anarchists, and you don't even know it.

Morality is indeed the wrong word, as is the remainder of your reply as well.

Marriage has always been regulated in this country since our Colonial era.

It is not an example of "new" and certainly not an example of "more" legislation.

And to be frank, I do support "more" legislation, simply because you cannot remove a law from the books without "more" legislation negating that law.

I fully endorse and support less laws, which would, of course, require "more" legislation.

[AxisMundi]

Your statism is bizarre! Why are you here again? To try to prove statism to us? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I don't ever recall seeing a valid argument or atte4mpt to debate from you.

Are you here only to insult those who MIGHT disagree with you?

[Sola_Fide]

I didn't need to comment on what you said.

Erowe1 already pretty much destroyed it. Jus sayin...

[AxisMundi]

Yes. I admit it.
But I am not out to destroy every marriage.
Just yours.
And also every other marriage that was consecrated by the state-god.
Bow down and worship your master, while you can.
My marriage is defined by a different master, and it will survive the coming crumbling of your master and the resultant destruction of your marriage.
For if the government does collapse, you'll apparently be left with nothing.

1. Whether your desire for "Armageddon" comes to fruition or not, my marriage remains intact.

2. Like my marriage, teh vast majority of humanity, for the past 100,000 years, has never been married in a church.

3. The majority of human beings on the planet today have not been married in a church.

I believe this entire fiasco to end marriage, this "You're not playing right, I'm going home" juvenile mentality, is a result of the efforts of religious zealots in this Nation to eliminate our country as a Constitutional Republic and turn it into a Constitutional Theodemocracy, where the church takes precedence in all matters and the g'ment takes a mere supportive role of the church.

Legally binding or merely socially accepted, marriage would then come under the sole auspices of the Church. Atheists, and all non-Christians, would either be forced to attend church (which would be the law under theodemocracy anyways) and have weddings there, or face having their marriages not recognized legally or socially.

[AxisMundi]

I didn't need to comment on what you said.

Erowe1 already pretty much destroyed it. Jus sayin...

In other words you are a troll.

Just sayin'.

Thanks for playing.

[AxisMundi]

I use all of those things. I also oppose all of them. The state doesn't give me a choice not to participate in those programs, just as it doesn't give me a choice not to participate in your marriage. All of those things are a violation of my natural rights. The fact that I use the services after I'm already forced into them with violence does not constitute consent on my part.

Sorry if you don't like doing your civic duty like the rest of us.

And there is no natural right to use public services without helping to pay for them, sorry.

The term, natural rights, has become an empty catch-all phrase, and has lost all meaning as well as anything other than an attempt at offering a valid argument to support a premise.

[amy31416]

Morality is indeed the wrong word, as is the remainder of your reply as well.

Marriage has always been regulated in this country since our Colonial era.

It is not an example of "new" and certainly not an example of "more" legislation.

And to be frank, I do support "more" legislation, simply because you cannot remove a law from the books without "more" legislation negating that law.

I fully endorse and support less laws, which would, of course, require "more" legislation.

You support bigger government, despite admitting that it is ineffective and inefficient. You must also then support higher taxation, since none of these new regulations require ANY department to get their shit together, it just gives them more police power.

Tell you what? If you don't want to drink raw milk, DON'T. If you don't want to eat something that has the slightest chance in hell of being contaminated--cook it at 115 C for 15 minutes under pressure--anything less and you are at risk. That's a validated and proven way to destroy all bacteria in materials (YMMV in regards to heat penetration, but a few thermocouples can work that out for ya), beyond any doubt. I like sushi, oysters, rare beef, I want to make cheese with raw milk...and you'd support laws that make that impossible because someone ate a bad oyster, right? And I hope you're happy when the Feds crash down someone's door in the middle of the night and start shooting over it...it's almost happened already over MILK.

Are you insane wanting to give them more license to do such things, and take away any semblance of recourse that people may have to stop it?

Marriage licensing is only 100 years old. You want to have to get the state's blessing on who you love, you want the state to make your children legitimate, fine. Either you're simply a nanny-stater, trying desperately to get us off track, or you're deathly afraid that you might have to do something differently, in order to preserve liberty--for all.

You have no more business pushing that on everyone else than any of the religious people here have pushing their agenda on everyone else. You're a part of the problem.

[Sola_Fide]

1. Whether your desire for "armageddon" comes to fruition or not, my marriage remains intact.

2. Like my marriage, teh vast majority of humanity, for the past 100,000 years, has never been married in a church.

3. The majority of human beings on the planet today have not been married in a church.

I believe this entire fiasco to end marriage, this "you're not playing right, i'm going home" juvenile mentality, is a result of the efforts of religious zealots in this nation to eliminate our country as a constitutional republic and turn it into a constitutional theodemocracy, where the church takes precedence in all matters and the g'ment takes a mere supportive role of the church.

Legally binding or merely socially accepted, marriage would then come under the sole auspices of the church. Atheists, and all non-christians, would either be forced to attend church (which would be the law under theodemocracy anyways) and have weddings there, or face having their marriages not recognized legally or socially.


^^^lololololololololololololololololololololololol ololololololololololololololololololololololololol ololololololololololololololololololololololololol ololololololololol

How can a church - a private institution that people voluntarily associate in and can voluntarily leave - compel someone to do anything?



That was one of the most ridiculous posts on RPF that I have seen...

[Sola_Fide]

AxisMundi is not rational. There is no use to debate him.

Even when he is shown he is wrong over and over again, he just keeps on going:)

Fun to watch though!

[MelissaWV]

You don't have to get married in a church. You can have someone you really care about, respect, and who you feel has some sort of real meaning to you as a couple... read some of your favorite quotes about love, then pledge your undying devotion to one another, then exchange rings (or tie a rope around your joined hands, or jump over a broom, etc.), and you can do that in front of friends, family, or a stadium full of strangers.

How rocky is your relationship if you don't feel it's really a marriage until the State gets involved? :confused:

It only becomes an issue when taxes, benefits, and other things come into play. There are also matters of custody and compensation which, with the current absurdities that pass for laws, often depend upon the marital status of those involved. All of those issues can be resolved without Government marriage, if Government allows (for instance) insurance companies to provide policies for whatever sort of couple/family it wants, and if hospitals can set their policies on the matter of visitors or medical decisions (living wills are very, very good things, but they are sometimes ignored, which is a problem).

I have yet to hear someone explain to me why they had to be licensed by the Government before getting married, in any way that made sense to me. I'd rather be married by the Captain of a boat I happen to be on, or the Mayor of the city we're going to reside in, or even some random co-worker who has an awesome speaking voice.

[AxisMundi]

^^^lololololololololololololololololololololololol ololololololololololololololololololololololololol ololololololololololololololololololololololololol ololololololololol

How can a church - a private institution that people voluntarily associate in and can voluntarily leave - compel someone to do anything?



That was one of the most ridiculous posts on RPF that I have seen...

I wouldn't expect you to take any criticism of your church seriously.

Sheeple tend not to criticize.

[AxisMundi]

You don't have to get married in a church. You can have someone you really care about, respect, and who you feel has some sort of real meaning to you as a couple... read some of your favorite quotes about love, then pledge your undying devotion to one another, then exchange rings (or tie a rope around your joined hands, or jump over a broom, etc.), and you can do that in front of friends, family, or a stadium full of strangers.

How rocky is your relationship if you don't feel it's really a marriage until the State gets involved? :confused:

It only becomes an issue when taxes, benefits, and other things come into play. There are also matters of custody and compensation which, with the current absurdities that pass for laws, often depend upon the marital status of those involved. All of those issues can be resolved without Government marriage, if Government allows (for instance) insurance companies to provide policies for whatever sort of couple/family it wants, and if hospitals can set their policies on the matter of visitors or medical decisions (living wills are very, very good things, but they are sometimes ignored, which is a problem).

I have yet to hear someone explain to me why they had to be licensed by the Government before getting married, in any way that made sense to me. I'd rather be married by the Captain of a boat I happen to be on, or the Mayor of the city we're going to reside in, or even some random co-worker who has an awesome speaking voice.

Marriage is voluntary.

So is involving the g'ment in your marriage as well.

At this very moment, people can get married without ANY government intervention at all.

No government enforced rights either, but that's beside the point.

Look, it comes down to a few vital point.

We who seek equal access to a civil right for the gay minority seek to provide simple Equality. "Gay marriage" simply does not effect anyone else but gays.

Those who seek (as opposed to merely expressing opinions) to remove g'ment from marriage seek to destroy the institution thus effecting EVERYONE.

We seek to create, they seek to destroy.

[Vessol]

I think the fact that you base your entire marriage on the basis of the government recognizing it or not, is incredibly depressing.

[AxisMundi]

I think the fact that you base your entire marriage on the basis of the government recognizing it or not, is incredibly depressing.

Might make a great opening line.

"Hey baby, want to share some gub'mint"?

I define my marriage by the wealth it has provided me in a loving spouse, three great sons, and the most beautiful, brightest grand-daughter on the planet.

What rights and privileges bestowed upon us within the institution is secondary, even if we have had occasion to utilize those rights and privileges countless times.

[Swmorgan77]

See, this is what I was talking about initially - if you eliminate state defined marriage, you end up with state-worshipers who currently define their marriage strictly by its being defined by the state, and won't know how to handle their own lives or partners otherwise.
It's essentially the same argument as why we can't get rid of medicare or social security overnight - there are too many people like Axis out there who simply wouldn't be able to cope with having his institution cut out from under him. It's just not politically feasible.

For other programs, there are transitional ideas, where we could let other people opt out - but in the case of medicare and SS, they're opting out of getting royally screwed later in life, or screwing their grandkids. In the case of state-defined marriage, if they opt out, they're only losing benefits - there's no down side to using state-defined marriage for the vast majority. So I don't see a transitional idea, and for once, Axis has a point that there are a lot of benefits that the non-state-married would lose, be they thousands or merely the dozens that I suspect.

That's very true. I've actually had people respond to this idea of marriage independent of government as if I was a "Free Love" hippie and act as if without government licensing the marriage agreement that it doesn't exist at all. How sad is that? People just presume that the current conditions have always prevailed and don't realize that for most of human history government had no involvement in permitting marriage and yet it still existed.

[Swmorgan77]

Maybe we can get the state to go half-in on the engagement ring and wedding costs, since their a compulsive third party involved in the contract.

[AxisMundi]

Maybe we can get the state to go half-in on the engagement ring and wedding costs, since their a compulsive third party involved in the contract.

People can opt out of legally binding marriages and not include the g'ment.

[Promontorium]

I'll tolerate TraditionalConservative's nonsene about homosexuality if he accepts no married couple, no matter how Christian, deserves anything from the government, ever, for being married. No tax breaks. No spousal benefits to federal/military employees. Not one thing different between a married couple, and two people who never met.

Get your God out of our government, or you are nothing but a ***-bashing hypocrite and deserve nothing of liberty's ample bosom.

[JohnEngland]

As a Catholic and a libertarian, I'm totally supportive of government-free marriage.

I don't want the government distorting and "making official" that homosexual unions are the same as heterosexual unions and privatisation will help prevent that. Furthermore, Marriage is about procreation. You don't need to get married just because you love each other. Many people get married for the wrong reasons - I don't want people getting married for tax benefits or any other goodies from the state.

[AxisMundi]

As a Catholic and a libertarian, I'm totally supportive of government-free marriage.

I don't want the government distorting and "making official" that homosexual unions are the same as heterosexual unions and privatisation will help prevent that. Furthermore, Marriage is about procreation. You don't need to get married just because you love each other. Many people get married for the wrong reasons - I don't want people getting married for tax benefits or any other goodies from the state.

Firstly, marriage is about two adults, not making babies. Whatever their reason for marrying each other, that is their business. Not yours, not mine, not the g'ments.

Secondly, Marriage is not "about procreation". By that standard sterile people, people who have no intentions of having kids, or elderly widows past child bearing ages cannot get (re)married.

Lastly, there is absolutely no difference between same-gendered married couples and opposite gendered married couples. Each type of couple desires the same thing from their spouse. A committed relationship, friendship, companionship, mutual respect and support, et cetera ad nauseam. Gays wish to marry for the same reasons you or I did (or you will).

Marriage is much more about property rights than procreation.

[Fox McCloud]

We who seek equal access to a civil right for the gay minority seek to provide simple Equality. "Gay marriage" simply does not effect anyone else but gays.

Those who seek (as opposed to merely expressing opinions) to remove g'ment from marriage seek to destroy the institution thus effecting EVERYONE.

We seek to create, they seek to destroy.

This, right here, pretty much tells me you are not a libertarian, as you're labeling marriage for gays and non-gays as being a "civil right"; furthermore, you insinuate that removing government from marriage destroys the institution of marriage.....which, ultimately tells me you believe government grants or is the source of rights. If that truly is the case, you definitely are not a libertarian.

[fisharmor]

This, right here, pretty much tells me you are not a libertarian, as you're labeling marriage for gays and non-gays as being a "civil right"; furthermore, you insinuate that removing government from marriage destroys the institution of marriage.....which, ultimately tells me you believe government grants or is the source of rights. If that truly is the case, you definitely are not a libertarian.

Ouch, kidney shot!
+rep!

[AxisMundi]

This, right here, pretty much tells me you are not a libertarian, as you're labeling marriage for gays and non-gays as being a "civil right"; furthermore, you insinuate that removing government from marriage destroys the institution of marriage.....which, ultimately tells me you believe government grants or is the source of rights. If that truly is the case, you definitely are not a libertarian.

No, I am not a libertarian, as I have stated many times.

Also, marriage is indeed a Civil Right. See the Loving v Virginia ruling.

Finally, g'ment is indeed the source of Rights. See the US Constitution.

[Sola_Fide]

This, right here, pretty much tells me you are not a libertarian, as you're labeling marriage for gays and non-gays as being a "civil right"; furthermore, you insinuate that removing government from marriage destroys the institution of marriage.....which, ultimately tells me you believe government grants or is the source of rights. If that truly is the case, you definitely are not a libertarian.

/end thread.

[MelissaWV]

No, I am not a libertarian, as I have stated many times.

Also, marriage is indeed a Civil Right. See the Loving v Virginia ruling.

Finally, g'ment is indeed the source of Rights. See the US Constitution.

Oddly, granting rights is not in the Preamble, which states what the point of the document is. Rights are generally not addressed much until the Amendments. The Declaration of Independence, which actually does mention rights almost immediately, says we are endowed with such by a Creator.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Even if one wants to assign the "Blessings of Liberty" as being "rights," the Constitution does not talk about granting rights. It establishes whose responsibility various rights are, and who should generally be assigned to decide whether or not those rights are infringed. If the Government vanished tomorrow, you'd still have rights. If a new Government came into play, you'd still have rights, but pressing them might be easier or more difficult depending upon the new leadership. In other words, you may be punished for exercising your rights under a new regime, but there is no ultimate way of, say, stopping you from worship of the Christian God.

[Sola_Fide]

No, I am not a libertarian, as I have stated many times.

Also, marriage is indeed a Civil Right. See the Loving v Virginia ruling.

Finally, g'ment is indeed the source of Rights. See the US Constitution.



http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facepalm.jpg

[AxisMundi]

Oddly, granting rights is not in the Preamble, which states what the point of the document is. Rights are generally not addressed much until the Amendments. The Declaration of Independence, which actually does mention rights almost immediately, says we are endowed with such by a Creator.

Even if one wants to assign the "Blessings of Liberty" as being "rights," the Constitution does not talk about granting rights. It establishes whose responsibility various rights are, and who should generally be assigned to decide whether or not those rights are infringed. If the Government vanished tomorrow, you'd still have rights. If a new Government came into play, you'd still have rights, but pressing them might be easier or more difficult depending upon the new leadership. In other words, you may be punished for exercising your rights under a new regime, but there is no ultimate way of, say, stopping you from worship of the Christian God.

1. The DoI is a Colonial Document, not a US legal document.

However, that said, you apparently missed this portion of the DoI...

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

2. If the g'ment disappeared tomorrow, we would have no rights whatsoever in the anarchy that followed. Your property rights would only be preserved as long as you had more people and more guns than those seeking to trespass. You could be shot for speaking out against the local warlord, or for worshiping at all. Being secure in your papers would mean burying them in secret in your yard.

One has only to look at any area currently without a substantial g'ment, like Somalia for example, to see how rights are not preserved, or even present in the first place.

[amy31416]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,



tr.v. se·cured, se·cur·ing, se·cures
1. To guard from danger or risk of loss: The troops secured the area before the civilians were allowed to return.
2. To make firm or tight; fasten. See Synonyms at fasten.
3. To make certain; ensure: The speaker could not secure the goodwill of the audience.

vs.



grant
Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Medical, Financial, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Hutchinson 0.01 sec.
To confer, give, or bestow. A gift of legal rights or privileges, or a recognition of asserted rights, as in treaty.

In the law of property, the term grant can be used in a deed to convey land, regardless of the number and types of rights conferred or the promises made by the transferor to the transferee. It is a comprehensive term that encompasses more specific words of transfer, such as assign, bargain, and devise.

Do you understand the difference between the two terms? The founding fathers made it extra special clear that the gov't does NOT grant our rights, but is intended to preserve (or secure) them. You'd have to be pretty dense to miss that distinction.

So, if gov't disappeared tomorrow, would your marriage also dissolve? She'd no longer be your wife?

[MelissaWV]

1. The DoI is a Colonial Document, not a US legal document.

However, that said, you apparently missed this portion of the DoI...

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

2. If the g'ment disappeared tomorrow, we would have no rights whatsoever in the anarchy that followed. Your property rights would only be preserved as long as you had more people and more guns than those seeking to trespass. You could be shot for speaking out against the local warlord, or for worshiping at all. Being secure in your papers would mean burying them in secret in your yard.

One has only to look at any area currently without a substantial g'ment, like Somalia for example, to see how rights are not preserved, or even present in the first place.

I notice you didn't say my rights would only be granted so long as I had more people and more guns. It would seem, then, that people and guns (and Government) preserve rights, rather than grant them. Thank you for agreeing.

I didn't miss that portion of the DoI. I highlighted it. It does not say anything about granting rights. It talks about what we must do to preserve them. You must have missed the part after that, though, that talks about what happens if the Government is not doing a satisfactory job.


...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it...

Now why would a document so dead set on rights talk about altering or abolishing the very institution that "gives" them those rights? It doesn't. It talks about ditching the Government if the Government becomes destructive (in the context of the already posted paragraph) and establishing a new one.

[Sola_Fide]

vs.



Do you understand the difference between the two terms? The founding fathers made it extra special clear that the gov't does NOT grant our rights, but is intended to preserve (or secure) them. You'd have to be pretty dense to miss that distinction.

So, if gov't disappeared tomorrow, would your marriage also dissolve? She'd no longer be your wife?


Amy,

I think to some people, simple things like this are too difficult to grasp. It's better not to engage sometimes I've found...

[MelissaWV]

In fact, I'm going to be even simpler on this one.

Alex, earlier you talked about gay marriage being a right, didn't you?

How can it be so, since Government does not grant it?

[AxisMundi]

In fact, I'm going to be even simpler on this one.

Alex, earlier you talked about gay marriage being a right, didn't you?

How can it be so, since Government does not grant it?

Marriage is indeed a Civil Right.

There is simply NO valid, secular reason to deny gays equal access to the Civil Right of marriage, the same with inner-racial couples who were also denied access to that Civil Right.

Rights are decided upon by We the People, and enforced by our government. When rights are denied a minority for no valid reason, this is not only unconstitutional and unAmerican, it is a stain on the fabric of a society that claims to uphold Liberty and Justice for all.

[Sola_Fide]

Don't engage.... don't engage.....

[mczerone]

People do have natural rights, but shouldn't have "civil rights" that are granted to them by the government. That's the point I was making. Having the government recognize your marriage is not a "right." You have a right to life, liberty, and private property. Nothing more.

Fine, I agree. But when the state exists, as it does in our real world, and extends civil benefits to some but not all of the people living under its auspices, the libertarian position is that no individual should be treated differently based on traits that do not constitute aggression.

You are free to give privileges to anyone you want, and can discriminate if you want. But the government is supposed to be bound by its Constitution which includes "equal protection of law." So if a law is passed that requires a hospital visitor to be a state-recognized spouse, or the law gives privilege to state-recognized spouses in custody cases, those privileges should apply equally to any type of family, and thus the state should be forced to recognize all marriage between consenting individuals.

So, yes, the state and government in general should not have any say in who can be married. But since it does, it should at least give equal protection to peaceful people.

[AxisMundi]

vs.

Do you understand the difference between the two terms? The founding fathers made it extra special clear that the gov't does NOT grant our rights, but is intended to preserve (or secure) them. You'd have to be pretty dense to miss that distinction.

So, if gov't disappeared tomorrow, would your marriage also dissolve? She'd no longer be your wife?

If you were trying to make a point, I must have missed it. We the People decide on what constitutes a Right, and our government secures that right. I.E. grants and then preserves that right.

And as I have noted before, g'ment recognition only supplies certain rights, and privileges, to the married couple, over a thousand rights and privileges that may not be impinged or removed by entities or individuals, private or public.

[Brett85]

Fine, I agree. But when the state exists, as it does in our real world, and extends civil benefits to some but not all of the people living under its auspices, the libertarian position is that no individual should be treated differently based on traits that do not constitute aggression.

You are free to give privileges to anyone you want, and can discriminate if you want. But the government is supposed to be bound by its Constitution which includes "equal protection of law." So if a law is passed that requires a hospital visitor to be a state-recognized spouse, or the law gives privilege to state-recognized spouses in custody cases, those privileges should apply equally to any type of family, and thus the state should be forced to recognize all marriage between consenting individuals.

So, yes, the state and government in general should not have any say in who can be married. But since it does, it should at least give equal protection to peaceful people.

Every single adult living in the United States has the right to civil benefits from the government after they get married. There isn't a single person who is actually denied benefits after they get married. The government simply says that certain types of unions do not qualify for a marriage licence. But the fact that certain types of unions don't qualify for a marriage licence doesn't mean that certain people are denied government benefits. Every American has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex and get government benefits.

Also, both Ron and Rand wouldn't agree with your interpretation of the "equal protection" clause. They've both said that the 14th amendment was created for the purpose of making sure that the children of slaves were entitled to full citizenship rights. The 14th amendment was never created for the purpose of ensuring "marriage equality" or anything like that. Ron Paul has even gone so far as to say that the states should have the right to make anti sodomy laws. He disagreed with the court's majority in the Lawrence v. Texas case which extended the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to homosexuals. So I'm certainly not the only liberty oriented person who takes this position.

[AxisMundi]

I notice you didn't say my rights would only be granted so long as I had more people and more guns. It would seem, then, that people and guns (and Government) preserve rights, rather than grant them. Thank you for agreeing.

I didn't miss that portion of the DoI. I highlighted it. It does not say anything about granting rights. It talks about what we must do to preserve them. You must have missed the part after that, though, that talks about what happens if the Government is not doing a satisfactory job.



Now why would a document so dead set on rights talk about altering or abolishing the very institution that "gives" them those rights? It doesn't. It talks about ditching the Government if the Government becomes destructive (in the context of the already posted paragraph) and establishing a new one.

1. Said "rights" would not be rights at all, as rights exist only within a legal framework.

2. You are not reading the entire context of the text.

it states quite clearly that rights are granted by government at the will of the people who form said government, and that said g'ment then preserves the rights decided upon by the collective will of the people. If said g'ment was to become overly oppressive and remove said rights, teh people would retain the right to REPLACE said g'ment with one more conductive to said rights.

[mczerone]

No, I am not a libertarian, as I have stated many times.

Also, marriage is indeed a Civil Right. See the Loving v Virginia ruling.

Finally, g'ment is indeed the source of Rights. See the US Constitution.

State sponsored marriage is a Civil Privilege. Marriage itself is a right derived from self-ownership, that you have the ability innately to pledge your loyalty to another person for the purposes of maintaining a family.

Loving v. Virginia, as a U.S. Constitutional Law case simply stood for the idea that once an "equal protection" government starts handing out privileges to the general population, they can't discriminate against those who seek the privilege. The term used by the SCOTUS is "Civil right", and it also applies to voting and certain state services. These "civil rights" are not rights at all, except for the fact that the institution granting them claims to represent the whole of the body politic on equal footing.

The U.S. Constitution, in all of its faults and imperfections, never once claims to create a right. The first time it refers to anything called a "right" is in the Bill of Rights, and then it only establishes a prohibition on the Government invading those rights already inherent in the people.

If you're going to cite to something on your argument, at least make sure it supports you.

[mczerone]

1. Said "rights" would not be rights at all, as rights exist only within a legal framework.

2. You are not reading the entire context of the text.

it states quite clearly that rights are granted by government at the will of the people who form said government, and that said g'ment then preserves the rights decided upon by the collective will of the people. If said g'ment was to become overly oppressive and remove said rights, teh people would retain the right to REPLACE said g'ment with one more conductive to said rights.

And you admonish others for reading comprehension?

The Dec. of Ind. says that the people have the right to "alter or abolish" a government that becomes destructive of those ends.

And since you claim that "rights only exist in a legal framework", you must also be claiming that there is no law outside the state either. Rights and Law are constructs devised by individuals, and usurped by governments which then teach that they are the only ones that could possibly administer such. Just like the market created money long before government could take over with legal tender laws, so too did the market devise a code of conduct that could be described as "rights" and "law" long before the state could enforce geographic jurisdiction on people as though we all live in a large feudal plantation.

Again, the DoI and the Constitution as they are written do not even claim to "create" rights. So why do you keep calling on them to defend your position? If anything you should be looking to the philosophy of Bentham and the edicts of the North Korean chartering documents.

[AxisMundi]

Every single adult living in the United States has the right to civil benefits from the government after they get married. There isn't a single person who is actually denied benefits after they get married. The government simply says that certain types of unions do not qualify for a marriage licence. But the fact that certain types of unions don't qualify for a marriage licence doesn't mean that certain people are denied government benefits. Every American has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex and get government benefits.

I am a heterosexual. My nature demands that I would choose from the pool of opposite gendered non-related consenting adults for the purpose of marriage.

The nature of a homosexual demands that they would choose from the pool of SAME gendered non-related consenting adults for the purpose of marriage.

Prior to Loving v Virginia, inter-racial couples also enjoyed the right to equal access to marriage, as long as it was to someone of the same race and not the person they wished to marry. Do you agree with this practice?

Why should people be able to choose a spouse as per their individual taste, but not by their very nature?


Also, both Ron and Rand wouldn't agree with your interpretation of the "equal protection" clause. They've both said that the 14th amendment was created for the purpose of making sure that the children of slaves were entitled to full citizenship rights. The 14th amendment was never created for the purpose of ensuring "marriage equality" or anything like that. Ron Paul has even gone so far as to say that the states should have the right to make anti sodomy laws. He disagreed with the court's majority in the Lawrence v. Texas case which extended the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to homosexuals. So I'm certainly not the only liberty oriented person who takes this position.

Dr. Paul is a physician, not a Constitutional scholar. While I certainly do not claim either categorization, I have been an informal student of the Constitution since the Old Days when one had to study in a library since the Internets hadn't been invented yet.

While the Equal Protection Clause was indeed crafted to ensure rights to the children of former slaves, this by no means limited said clause to that purpose only. Like much of the Constitution, it addresses multiple concerns. If it had been intended solely for the purpose of providing rights to said children, the words of said clause would mirror those of the 19th Amendment, in other words it would have limited said clause to that purpose in detail.

Also, as per the Constitution and succeeding Congressional Legislation, the Appeals Process ensures that, like the supremacy of the Constitution itself, any matter brought before the SCOTUS is also a federal matter and therefor applies to all states. Anti-sodomy laws are designed specifically for the purpose of discrimination against a minority of US citizens and has zero foundation in valid, secular reasoning. Anti-sodomy laws, like discrimination towards gays in the area of marriage, are motivated by religious doctrines, and crafting laws based purely on religious doctrines is forbidden by our Constitution.

[Brett85]

I am a heterosexual. My nature demands that I would choose from the pool of opposite gendered non-related consenting adults for the purpose of marriage.

The nature of a homosexual demands that they would choose from the pool of SAME gendered non-related consenting adults for the purpose of marriage.

Prior to Loving v Virginia, inter-racial couples also enjoyed the right to equal access to marriage, as long as it was to someone of the same race and not the person they wished to marry. Do you agree with this practice?

No. People can't control the color of their skin. It's simply a genetic trait that they were born with. There's no scientific evidence at all that homosexuality is a genetic trait, and until this is actually proven by scientific evidence it is not "discrimination" to not grant government benefits to certain types of behaviors. I don't claim to know why homosexuality occurs, but it's simply a fact that science has not proven that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Certainly the equal protection clause of the Constitution was not meant to apply to certain kinds of controversial behaviors. We had a debate about the establishment clause of the 1st amendment the other day, and we obviously disagree about that. I see nothing that stops a state from legislating morality. Ron Paul agrees.

[AxisMundi]

State sponsored marriage is a Civil Privilege. Marriage itself is a right derived from self-ownership, that you have the ability innately to pledge your loyalty to another person for the purposes of maintaining a family.

Loving v. Virginia, as a U.S. Constitutional Law case simply stood for the idea that once an "equal protection" government starts handing out privileges to the general population, they can't discriminate against those who seek the privilege. The term used by the SCOTUS is "Civil right", and it also applies to voting and certain state services. These "civil rights" are not rights at all, except for the fact that the institution granting them claims to represent the whole of the body politic on equal footing.

The U.S. Constitution, in all of its faults and imperfections, never once claims to create a right. The first time it refers to anything called a "right" is in the Bill of Rights, and then it only establishes a prohibition on the Government invading those rights already inherent in the people.

If you're going to cite to something on your argument, at least make sure it supports you.

Firstly, the legal protections/privileges provided by legally recognized marriages are indeed a Civil Right. One can indeed proclaim one's self married, but without that legal framework of Civil and Constitutional Rights, no one is required to recognize that "spiritual marriage", or any of the rights and privileges inherent in a legally recognized marriage, including the g'ment.

Secondly, there are no rights inherent to human beings. They are decided upon by the combined will of society and enforced by g'ment. You can claim some "right to self-ownership" all you wish. In the absence of g'ment I can come along and claim I have a right to enslave you, and if I am the more powerful individual, guess who's "right" prevails.

And the Constitution certain lays out rights prior to the BoR, the rights of the States to equal say and equal representation in the g'ment.


And you admonish others for reading comprehension?

The Dec. of Ind. says that the people have the right to "alter or abolish" a government that becomes destructive of those ends.

And since you claim that "rights only exist in a legal framework", you must also be claiming that there is no law outside the state either. Rights and Law are constructs devised by individuals, and usurped by governments which then teach that they are the only ones that could possibly administer such. Just like the market created money long before government could take over with legal tender laws, so too did the market devise a code of conduct that could be described as "rights" and "law" long before the state could enforce geographic jurisdiction on people as though we all live in a large feudal plantation.

Again, the DoI and the Constitution as they are written do not even claim to "create" rights. So why do you keep calling on them to defend your position? If anything you should be looking to the philosophy of Bentham and the edicts of the North Korean chartering documents.

I do indeed admonish others for reading comprehension troubles, as you yourself exhibit here.

The document clearly states that for rights to exist and to be preserved, g'ment is created. If said g'ment ignores or removes those right, the people who formed that g'ment or live under it may dissolve said government in favor of a new one as a government is vital to the preservation of said rights.

And rights are certainly created. Do you have some inherent, natural right to speak your mind, to worship as you see fit, petition the government, or gather together? Are there some inherent, natural rights to be secure in your things, papers, etc? How about some inherent, natural right to be armed? Or not to have soldiers march onto your property and take it over for their own use? All these and more are examples of rights created by the governed and protected by the government they crafted.

Quite simply, there are no rights inherent in the human race, only those rights we assign, through legal proceedings or simple philosophy.

[AxisMundi]

No. People can't control the color of their skin. It's simply a genetic trait that they were born with. There's no scientific evidence at all that homosexuality is a genetic trait, and until this is actually proven by scientific evidence it is not "discrimination" to not grant government benefits to certain types of behaviors. I don't claim to know why homosexuality occurs, but it's simply a fact that science has not proven that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Certainly the equal protection clause of the Constitution was not meant to apply to certain kinds of controversial behaviors. We had a debate about the establishment clause of the 1st amendment the other day, and we obviously disagree about that. I see nothing that stops a state from legislating morality. Ron Paul agrees.

Science shows that people cannot control their sexual orientation. Preferences? Certainly, but not the inherent attraction to a particular gender. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and Bi-sexuality are as inherent and unchangeable as one's skin color. More so since one cannot "tan the gay away".

Science does indeed prove my point, not yours.

And morality is highly subjective, and for the purposes of this discussion fall into two main categories.

Social morality and religious law.

Social morality are examples that can be found across cultures and throughout religion as well. The prohibitions against murder, rape, and theft are examples of social morality.

Prohibitions against homosexuality are an example of religious law, not social morality, as it does not exist across all cultures, eras, and/or religions.

The g'ment is in no way, shape, or form in the business of legislating religious law. It is forbidden by our Constitution.

[AxisMundi]

And jsut to reiterate, ladies and gentlmen, government involvement in marriage is not required nor mandatory.

There already is government-free marriage.

Just don't expect individuals, corporations, g'ment, etc to recognize your marriage.

[mczerone]

Every single adult living in the United States has the right to civil benefits from the government after they get married. There isn't a single person who is actually denied benefits after they get married. The government simply says that certain types of unions do not qualify for a marriage licence. But the fact that certain types of unions don't qualify for a marriage licence doesn't mean that certain people are denied government benefits. Every American has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex and get government benefits.

Also, both Ron and Rand wouldn't agree with your interpretation of the "equal protection" clause. They've both said that the 14th amendment was created for the purpose of making sure that the children of slaves were entitled to full citizenship rights. The 14th amendment was never created for the purpose of ensuring "marriage equality" or anything like that. Ron Paul has even gone so far as to say that the states should have the right to make anti sodomy laws. He disagreed with the court's majority in the Lawrence v. Texas case which extended the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to homosexuals. So I'm certainly not the only liberty oriented person who takes this position.

Your "everyone has access to the rights of marriage" argument breaks down when one considers the types of privileges associated with having a state-marriage. The types of privileges granted to those who are "married" include tax benefits, but also the right to visit incarcerated spouses, to be included in the estate by default, to be considered as a custodian of the spouse's biological children, and other privileges that are specific to the spouse in question.

If the only privileges of marriage were tax benefits and other state provided services I would entirely agree with you. But the privileges that are actually bestowed are inherently related to the specific spouse that you choose. A homosexual couple is denied certain privileges that a heterosexual couple is explicitly granted in terms of access to the spouse's person and property. To say that a homosexual would be eligible for the privileges of state marriage if only they chose a heterosexual partner is blatantly wrong, in that they are not looking for the right to be considered the heterosexual partner of a stranger, but are looking for recognition from the state that they are familiarly related to the homosexual partner of their choosing.

As far as what "Ron and Rand" think that the EP clause means - this just goes to show the lunacy of a monopoly government where the chartering documents are left to interpretation. They think it means one thing, the men and women in robes think it means something else, you think it means a third thing, and I a fourth. But at the end of the day we are all going to be stuck abiding by what someone else thinks without the opportunity of enacting our own interpretation - and thus the market will never be tested, and no one will know if their interpretation was "the best". As far as Ron supporting anti-sodomy laws, my impression was that this was mere posturing against the Federal government's interpretation of the Constitution and not supporting the actual "right" to pass such a law from a libertarian theory point of view. He was, if I recall, saying "The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the power to dictate to the states, even based on the 14th Amendment". But in my reading of the equal protection clause, it doesn't say anything about race, religion, or sexual orientation. Therefore, from a libertarian POV, it should be read as giving true equal protection to ALL individuals with respect to gov't privileges, services, and recognitions, as long as those individuals haven't instigated force against another. I don't wish to challenge your interpretation of the Constitution, but I am merely explaining my own. As I expressed before, I just wish we each were allowed to associate with our own constitutions so that there would be no arbitrary interpretations to be made, and the most just interpretations would quickly win the support of the rest of the population.

[Brett85]

Science shows that people cannot control their sexual orientation.

Do you have some links that I can read that prove that?

[Anti Federalist]

Originally Posted by Chieppa1
Agreed. Also, where's Axis?


Originally Posted by JoshLowry
Counting his negative reps?

That is all...

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/laughing-calvin--26-hobbes-337864_504_313.gif

[Brett85]

Your "everyone has access to the rights of marriage" argument breaks down when one considers the types of privileges associated with having a state-marriage. The types of privileges granted to those who are "married" include tax benefits, but also the right to visit incarcerated spouses, to be included in the estate by default, to be considered as a custodian of the spouse's biological children, and other privileges that are specific to the spouse in question.

If the only privileges of marriage were tax benefits and other state provided services I would entirely agree with you. But the privileges that are actually bestowed are inherently related to the specific spouse that you choose. A homosexual couple is denied certain privileges that a heterosexual couple is explicitly granted in terms of access to the spouse's person and property. To say that a homosexual would be eligible for the privileges of state marriage if only they chose a heterosexual partner is blatantly wrong, in that they are not looking for the right to be considered the heterosexual partner of a stranger, but are looking for recognition from the state that they are familiarly related to the homosexual partner of their choosing.

As far as what "Ron and Rand" think that the EP clause means - this just goes to show the lunacy of a monopoly government where the chartering documents are left to interpretation. They think it means one thing, the men and women in robes think it means something else, you think it means a third thing, and I a fourth. But at the end of the day we are all going to be stuck abiding by what someone else thinks without the opportunity of enacting our own interpretation - and thus the market will never be tested, and no one will know if their interpretation was "the best". As far as Ron supporting anti-sodomy laws, my impression was that this was mere posturing against the Federal government's interpretation of the Constitution and not supporting the actual "right" to pass such a law from a libertarian theory point of view. He was, if I recall, saying "The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the power to dictate to the states, even based on the 14th Amendment". But in my reading of the equal protection clause, it doesn't say anything about race, religion, or sexual orientation. Therefore, from a libertarian POV, it should be read as giving true equal protection to ALL individuals with respect to gov't privileges, services, and recognitions, as long as those individuals haven't instigated force against another. I don't wish to challenge your interpretation of the Constitution, but I am merely explaining my own. As I expressed before, I just wish we each were allowed to associate with our own constitutions so that there would be no arbitrary interpretations to be made, and the most just interpretations would quickly win the support of the rest of the population.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

[Sola_Fide]

Hahahaha "science shows" hahahaha

The infallible priests if the scientific elite have spoken LoL

[mczerone]

No. People can't control the color of their skin. It's simply a genetic trait that they were born with. There's no scientific evidence at all that homosexuality is a genetic trait, and until this is actually proven by scientific evidence it is not "discrimination" to not grant government benefits to certain types of behaviors. I don't claim to know why homosexuality occurs, but it's simply a fact that science has not proven that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Certainly the equal protection clause of the Constitution was not meant to apply to certain kinds of controversial behaviors. We had a debate about the establishment clause of the 1st amendment the other day, and we obviously disagree about that. I see nothing that stops a state from legislating morality. Ron Paul agrees.

So, imagine that there were some great benefit that you wished to get that was being given to homosexuals. Could you choose to be attracted to men and enjoy a penis ravaging your orifices?

While there are mixed results as to whether homosexuality is a genetic trait - it certainly isn't a chosen path for most people. If it were, why do you think so many people would endue the torture prevalent in society toward homosexuals? Why wouldn't they just choose to be hetero? Many people (notably conservative politicians and evangelical religious leaders) have tried to "just choose" to be straight. Then they end up banging their interns and alter boys, while preaching all day long that those "choices" are sinful or not recognizable by polite society.

People can't control their sexual orientation any more than they can control the color of their skin. If you wake up tomorrow lusting after Fabio and can't get a big enough penis to meet your desires, I'll start taking pigmentation treatments to become black.

[AxisMundi]

Do you have some links that I can read that prove that?

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/index.aspx

Plenty of related links there.

[AxisMundi]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

There is a right to privacy in the Constitution. the 4th Amendment.

[mczerone]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

I bolded what you seemed to miss. RP called them ridiculous, but said that the US Constitution was silent on a "right to privacy", and by the Tenth amendment States should have the right, as against the Federal government, to abridge that right of the individuals. I have no doubt that RP would be against anti-sodomy laws.

[Brett85]

I bolded what you seemed to miss. RP called them ridiculous, but said that the US Constitution was silent on a "right to privacy", and by the Tenth amendment should have the right, as against the Federal government, to abridge that right of the individuals. I have no doubt that RP would be against anti-sodomy laws.

I'm opposed to sodomy laws as well. I was just saying that controversial social issues like this should be decided by the people rather than the courts.

[mczerone]

I'm opposed to sodomy laws as well. I was just saying that controversial social issues like this should be decided by the people rather than the courts.

How? Who are "the people", and who are "the courts"? I'm saying that each person should decide for themselves, with disputes handled by independent courts. You seem to be saying that a group of suits in the State Capitol should be deciding for everyone, and telling the state courts what side should win disputes.

And do you care to answer if you think that you could choose to enjoy penis?

[AxisMundi]

I'm opposed to sodomy laws as well. I was just saying that controversial social issues like this should be decided by the people rather than the courts.

Then on has a tyranny of the majority, something our Founders tried to prevent.

It makes much more sense to have courts decide these issues as opposed to the emotional, unthinking masses.

[Brett85]

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/index.aspx

Plenty of related links there.

This is from your own link:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

[AxisMundi]

This is from your own link:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

And the usual cherry picking I've come to expect, and have seen countless times.

Would you care to show some honesty and copy/paste the rest of it, or shall I?

[Brett85]

How? Who are "the people", and who are "the courts"? I'm saying that each person should decide for themselves, with disputes handled by independent courts. You seem to be saying that a group of suits in the State Capitol should be deciding for everyone, and telling the state courts what side should win disputes.

And do you care to answer if you think that you could choose to enjoy penis?

I don't have any idea what you're talking about. My position on this is the same position that Ron Paul has. I'm opposed to sodomy laws and would vote against them as a member of a state legislature. However, I believe that the states should have the RIGHT to create laws regarding sex and other social issues. I don't believe that the United States Supreme Court should've overturned the sodomy law that Texas had on the books. I don't believe that the federal government should interfere with states' rights.

And no, I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice. I believe that it is most likely a trait that people develop over time as a result of the environment that they grew up in.

[Brett85]

And the usual cherry picking I've come to expect, and have seen countless times.

Would you care to show some honesty and copy/paste the rest of it, or shall I?

You want me to copy and past the entire article which would take up about 20 pages? What I copied and pasted flat out states that there is no scientific consensus that homosexuality is a genetic trait. There isn't any kind of context that changes the quote that I copied and pasted.

[AxisMundi]

I don't have any idea what you're talking about. My position on this is the same position that Ron Paul has. I'm opposed to sodomy laws and would vote against them as a member of a state legislature. However, I believe that the states should have the RIGHT to create laws regarding sex and other social issues. I don't believe that the United States Supreme Court should've overturned the sodomy law that Texas had on the books. I don't believe that the federal government should interfere with states' rights.

And no, I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice. I believe that it is most likely a trait that people develop over time as a result of the environment that they grew up in.

Firstly, as the portion you cherry picked from the APA statement also shows, scientists agree that sexual orientations all share the SAME origins, and all are unchangeable aspects. Therefor, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, and shares the same origins as heterosexuality. being as they share the SAME traits and foundations, there is still no valid, secular reason to discriminate against gays.

Secondly, it appears you do not to agree with the Appeals Process, part of the First Amendment and petitioning the g'ment for redress of grievances. Clarify.

Lastly, Civil Rights are not a State matter, and should never be left up to the State. Otherwise, you would agree with a State banning, say, gun ownership.

[Anti Federalist]

Lastly, Civil Rights are not a State matter, and should never be left up to the State. Otherwise, you would agree with a State banning, say, gun ownership.

But if rights are not "natural" and "inalienable" then what's the problem?

You just spent the last page of posts saying it was up to the people to "decide" what rights government will "grant".

[AxisMundi]

You want me to copy and past the entire article which would take up about 20 pages? What I copied and pasted flat out states that there is no scientific consensus that homosexuality is a genetic trait. There isn't any kind of context that changes the quote that I copied and pasted.

Heterosexuality is not a "genetic trait" either. That is my point.

Shall we then be able to discriminate against heterosexuals?

Here is a good quote you could ahve used, among many...

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
heterosexual.

Note that they are referring to all three major classifications of sexual orientation.

[AxisMundi]

But if rights are not "natural" and "inalienable" then what's the problem?

You just spent the last page of posts saying it was up to the people to "decide" what rights government will "grant".

Yes? And?

We decide said rights within our Constitutional Framework.

[AxisMundi]

Heterosexuality is not a "genetic trait" either. That is my point.

Shall we then be able to discriminate against heterosexuals?

Here is a good quote you could ahve used, among many...

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
heterosexual.

Note that they are referring to all three major classifications of sexual orientation.

Another good quote as a counterpoint to your post...

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental
health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes? And?

We decide said rights within our Constitutional Framework.

Right, so then the people ban whatever they want.

Could limit what you say or force you to attend church or what have you. Correct?

But you said it should never be left up to the state.

The state is just the people.

So which is it?

Rights are natural and immutable, or subject to the whims of public plebiscites?

[Brett85]

Firstly, as the portion you cherry picked from the APA statement also shows, scientists agree that sexual orientations all share the SAME origins, and all are unchangeable aspects. Therefor, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, and shares the same origins as heterosexuality. being as they share the SAME traits and foundations, there is still no valid, secular reason to discriminate against gays.

Secondly, it appears you do not to agree with the Appeals Process, part of the First Amendment and petitioning the g'ment for redress of grievances. Clarify.

Lastly, Civil Rights are not a State matter, and should never be left up to the State. Otherwise, you would agree with a State banning, say, gun ownership.

A state can't ban gun ownership because it's a right granted to the people by the 2nd amendment. A state or city government can't violate any part of the Bill of Rights. But there's no part of the Bill of Rights that contains a right to sodomy or gay marriage. The states should have the right to decide controversial social issues that the Constitution is silent on. Also, "civil rights" are something that are granted by the government. I think most of us here believe in the idea of natural rights. It certainly seems like you have very strong disagreements with Ron Paul on these cultural issues. Do you just agree with Ron Paul on so many other issues that you simply overlook his stance on these cultural, Constitutional issues

[AxisMundi]

Also from the APA, please note the bolded portion...

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can therapy change sexual orientation?

No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

[AxisMundi]

A state can't ban gun ownership because it's a right granted to the people by the 2nd amendment. A state or city government can't violate any part of the Bill of Rights. But there's no part of the Bill of Rights that contains a right to sodomy or gay marriage. The states should have the right to decide controversial social issues that the Constitution is silent on. Also, "civil rights" are something that are granted by the government. I think most of us here believe in the idea of natural rights. It certainly seems like you have very strong disagreements with Ron Paul on these cultural issues. Do you just agree with Ron Paul on so many other issues that you simply overlook his stance on these cultural, Constitutional issues

1. Yes, there is a right to privacy. The entire 4th Amendment is devoted to the subject.

2. The 1st Amendment bans the use of religion as a sole basis for US laws. As the driving force behind this discrimination is, indeed, religious doctrine, said legislation discriminating against gays is not only immoral, but illegal as well. Also, gun rights are very controversial social issues, becoming a wedge issue in many cases. So, what constitutes a valid "socially controversial" issue that States should have a right to decide upon?

3. Do YOU agree with Dr. Paul one hundred percent? I seriously doubt it. No two individuals will share exactly the same ideology.

[AxisMundi]

Right, so then the people ban whatever they want.

Could limit what you say or force you to attend church or what have you. Correct?

But you said it should never be left up to the state.

The state is just the people.

So which is it?

Rights are natural and immutable, or subject to the whims of public plebiscites?

Do I really need to quote the Constitution where your Free Speech and Religious Freedom examples are concerned?

Where concerns addressed by the US Constitution are concerned, those subjects cannot be left up to the States.

Civil Rights, based on Constitutional Principles, should also never be left up to the individual States as they apply to the entire Nation.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

And unlike you, most Americans do not support unjustified discrimination based on race, religion, etc. Sorry.

Sure they do.... most people discriminate everytime they fuck someone or breed.

I see you for all your posts you have learned nothing about remedy:


Vows taken in front of witnesses that no one can prove accept to those that were there. Again, a hospital could refuse a man to see his wife.

If you could comprehend the fact that every legal system in human history is based on claims utilizing human observation, a police report = a notorized affidavit, and laws simply define the types of claims in which remedies may be obtained using force. Of course a hospital can refuse just like any entity can refuse. That does not mean a remedy is impossible, but it would appear impossible for you.

[Brett85]

There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

That's just a general statement without a link to a scientific study to back it up. Take a look at the link below. Do you think that all of these people simply make their stories up?

http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/blogcategory/20/149/

[Brett85]

1. Yes, there is a right to privacy. The entire 4th Amendment is devoted to the subject.

2. The 1st Amendment bans the use of religion as a sole basis for US laws. As the driving force behind this discrimination is, indeed, religious doctrine, said legislation discriminating against gays is not only immoral, but illegal as well. Also, gun rights are very controversial social issues, becoming a wedge issue in many cases. So, what constitutes a valid "socially controversial" issue that States should have a right to decide upon?

3. Do YOU agree with Dr. Paul one hundred percent? I seriously doubt it. No two individuals will share exactly the same ideology.

1. The 4th amendment contains a specific right to privacy. It prevents the government from coming into your house without first obtaining a warrant. This is why I believe that certain parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. However, there is no general right to privacy in the Constitution. The 4th amendment certainly doesn't apply to abortions performed in public clinics, and it doesn't apply to government benefits for married couples.

2. We disagree on the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Like Ron Paul, I believe that the establishment clause simply prevents Congress from creating a government run church that everybody would be forced to attend. The controversial social issues that [B]the people[B] should have the right to vote on would certainly include the two major social issues, abortion and gay marriage.

3. No, I disagree with Ron Paul on some issues as well. I guess I was just trying to point out that you can have a culturally conservative worldview and still support the principles of liberty.

[AxisMundi]

That's just a general statement without a link to a scientific study to back it up. Take a look at the link below. Do you think that all of these people simply make their stories up?

http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/blogcategory/20/149/

Are you kidding?

I post from a scientific source free from bias.

What you offer is a source who are self admittedly biased, and bigoted as well, and who cannot be father from simple science (or reality).

Ex-gay ministries are proven to be harmful. Not only as shown by the APA but from statements made by people forced to live that lie. Indeed, John Evan, founder of the first contemporary ex-gay ministry in the United States, Love in Action, now counsels the victims of the ex-gay ministries.

My own biased source, but one which works within the realms of science and not religious fantasy.

http://www.truthwinsout.org/learn-about-ex-gay-ministries/

BTW, you can dig through the APA statements and research to find links to the studies if you want to.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Are you going to demonstrate some intellectual consistency and demonstrate murder is also not a choice because it is an animal instinct? Can I count on your future support for killers because it is perfectly natural to kill?

Or will you be a hypocrite?

[AxisMundi]

1. The 4th amendment contains a specific right to privacy. It prevents the government from coming into your house without first obtaining a warrant. This is why I believe that certain parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. However, there is no general right to privacy in the Constitution. The 4th amendment certainly doesn't apply to abortions performed in public clinics, and it doesn't apply to government benefits for married couples.

2. We disagree on the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Like Ron Paul, I believe that the establishment clause simply prevents Congress from creating a government run church that everybody would be forced to attend. The controversial social issues that [B]the people[B] should have the right to vote on would certainly include the two major social issues, abortion and gay marriage.

3. No, I disagree with Ron Paul on some issues as well. I guess I was just trying to point out that you can have a culturally conservative worldview and still support the principles of liberty.

1. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we? The elimination of anti-sodomy laws are indeed covered under the 4th Amendment Right to Privacy. It is also a basis, along with property rights, banning your neighbor from entering your home and rifling through your papers.

2a. Shall I repost the quote from Bouvier's law Dictionary?

2b. We the People may not vote on issues covered under the Constitution and it's Principles. SCOTUS determined that the commerce laws outlawing abortions were unconstitutional. Outlawing abortion in the first trimester cannot happen.

3. Define liberty, as you see it and how it pertains to this debate.

[AxisMundi]

Are you going to demonstrate some intellectual consistency and demonstrate murder is also not a choice because it is an animal instinct? Can I count on your future support for killers because it is perfectly natural to kill?

Or will you be a hypocrite?

How about a rational discussion instead of throwing argument fallacies?

[AxisMundi]

Sure they do.... most people discriminate everytime they fuck someone or breed.

I see you for all your posts you have learned nothing about remedy:



If you could comprehend the fact that every legal system in human history is based on claims utilizing human observation, a police report = a notorized affidavit, and laws simply define the types of claims in which remedies may be obtained using force. Of course a hospital can refuse just like any entity can refuse. That does not mean a remedy is impossible, but it would appear impossible for you.

1. Argument fallacy.

2. Legal systems depend on PROOF, not witnesses.

Habeus Corpus.

[Brett85]

Are you kidding?

I post from a scientific source free from bias.

What you offer is a source who are self admittedly biased, and bigoted as well, and who cannot be father from simple science (or reality).

Ex-gay ministries are proven to be harmful. Not only as shown by the APA but from statements made by people forced to live that lie. Indeed, John Evan, founder of the first contemporary ex-gay ministry in the United States, Love in Action, now counsels the victims of the ex-gay ministries.

My own biased source, but one which works within the realms of science and not religious fantasy.

http://www.truthwinsout.org/learn-about-ex-gay-ministries/

BTW, you can dig through the APA statements and research to find links to the studies if you want to.

Well I wouldn't exactly say that the sites that you linked to are "neutral," and they didn't link to a scientific study that showed that homosexuality is a genetic trait. My point is simply that it's stupid to compare homosexuality to race. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Race is specifically a genetic trait that people can't control. Homosexuality is a much more complex issue that there is really no consensus on within the scientific community. And also, you're saying that these ex gay people are "bigoted" against how they once were?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

2. Legal systems depend on PROOF, not witnesses.

roflol, please explain what proof is. Be sure to eliminate witnesses from your explanation, which would mean anything discerned with human observation, or I will be spoon feeding you some more rational hypocrisy pie.


How about a rational discussion instead of throwing argument fallacies?

I should have went with my animal instincts and offered the forum odds on intellectual consistency taking a hypocrisy bet.

[amy31416]

If neither science, nor religion offers any definitive answers, how about the government--with all their biases either way, stay the hell out of it like they're supposed to? Social engineering is a failure whether it's religion, gov't or a combination of both.

And as I've said before, even if homosexuality is a choice, it's still nobody else's business but the consenting adults who engage in the behavior. Not to mention that it's gone on since recorded history, and no law will ever obliterate the behavior. Just like so many other human behaviors.

Both the pro and anti side want government to enforce their beliefs. It's a big battle of the buttinski's.

[Brett85]

1. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we? The elimination of anti-sodomy laws are indeed covered under the 4th Amendment Right to Privacy. It is also a basis, along with property rights, banning your neighbor from entering your home and rifling through your papers.

2a. Shall I repost the quote from Bouvier's law Dictionary?

2b. We the People may not vote on issues covered under the Constitution and it's Principles. SCOTUS determined that the commerce laws outlawing abortions were unconstitutional. Outlawing abortion in the first trimester cannot happen.

3. Define liberty, as you see it and how it pertains to this debate.

1. So you're basically saying that people have the Constitutional right to do whatever they want to do within the privacy of their own home? If that's the case, does a parent have the right to kill their child since it's being done within the privacy of their own home? The 4th amendment simply prevents the government from coming into your house without probable cause and a warrant from a judge. However, let's take the sodomy law that the state of Texas had. That law didn't give the police the right to come into somebody's house without probable cause and a warrant. The police still had to have probable cause and a warrant. However, if the police did have probable cause and got a warrant before they went into the gay couple's house, then there's nothing unconstitutional about how this law was enforced. Again, I think that these sodomy laws are ridiculous, but I just don't think they're unconstitutional.

2a. I don't care about a dictionary defintion. I go back and look at the original intent of our founders and what events caused them to create the 1st amendment. The events that led to them creating the establishment clause was the state run church in Britain that they were forced to attend. They wanted to have the freedom to worship freely in the United States. But if you go back and look at our founders' writings, their rhetoric and political views were heavily influenced by their religion.

2b. And you agree with Roe v. Wade? There's no general right to privacy in the Constitution, but there's absolutely no right to kill the unborn. That was the worst Supreme Court decision ever in my opinion.

3. In my opinion liberty means that people should have the right to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. However, there are people who have a different definition of liberty than I do. Some of these people are more supportive of laws concerning things like drug use and prostitution then I am. We should debate these issues and vote on them at the state level. Again, it's better for the people to decide all of these social issues rather than unelected federal judges.

[AxisMundi]

Well I wouldn't exactly say that the sites that you linked to are "neutral," and they didn't link to a scientific study that showed that homosexuality is a genetic trait. My point is simply that it's stupid to compare homosexuality to race. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Race is specifically a genetic trait that people can't control. Homosexuality is a much more complex issue that there is really no consensus on within the scientific community. And also, you're saying that these ex gay people are "bigoted" against how they once were?

How is the APA not neutral?

Also, you completely ignore the comments from that scientific source that clearly state that sexual orientation is unchangeable. Whether it is indeed genetic or not is moot. Human sexuality is indeed an unchangeable aspect of the human race. THAT IS agreed on across the board.

And please, point out where I claim people living a lie (ex-gay) are bigots? Your source was an ex-gay ministry. That's like citing a Catholic Church website.

[AxisMundi]

1. So you're basically saying that people have the Constitutional right to do whatever they want to do within the privacy of their own home? If that's the case, does a parent have the right to kill their child since it's being done within the privacy of their own home? The 4th amendment simply prevents the government from coming into your house without probable cause and a warrant from a judge. However, let's take the sodomy law that the state of Texas had. That law didn't give the police the right to come into somebody's house without probable cause and a warrant. The police still had to have probable cause and a warrant. However, if the police did have probable cause and got a warrant before they went into the gay couple's house, then there's nothing unconstitutional about how this law was enforced. Again, I think that these sodomy laws are ridiculous, but I just don't think they're unconstitutional.

2a. I don't care about a dictionary defintion. I go back and look at the original intent of our founders and what events caused them to create the 1st amendment. The events that led to them creating the establishment clause was the state run church in Britain that they were forced to attend. They wanted to have the freedom to worship freely in the United States. But if you go back and look at our founders' writings, their rhetoric and political views were heavily influenced by their religion.

2b. And you agree with Roe v. Wade? There's no general right to privacy in the Constitution, but there's absolutely no right to kill the unborn. That was the worst Supreme Court decision ever in my opinion.

3. In my opinion liberty means that people should have the right to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. However, there are people who have a different definition of liberty than I do. Some of these people are more supportive of laws concerning things like drug use and prostitution then I am. We should debate these issues and vote on them at the state level. Again, it's better for the people to decide all of these social issues rather than unelected federal judges.

1. Can we PLEASE try to stay away from the argument fallacies? Thank you.

2a. What makes you think Bouvier and his team of lawyers did not also examine the original intent of the Founders? Linguistic shifts would've been almost non-existent in the few decades between the Founding and Bouvier starting his work. Also, rabid Evangelical or rational Enlightened thinker, to the last man they knew exactly what occurs when the institutions of religion and government are permitted to mix. They shed blood to separate themselves from just such a monstrosity. The were not about to turn around and permit the same type of thing to happen again. Our Founders where quite able to separate their religion from their politics.

2b. I do agree with RvW, as, despite your denial, there is a general right to privacy within the Constitution. Everything else is personal opinion. It never surprises me when Libertarians, supposedly small government advocates, support more legislation in eliminating abortion. DOn;t like abortion, either don't have one and/or help educate people on alternatives. I do both.

3. Then, by your own definition of liberty, you should support Equality of Marriage for the GLBT community. Two men or two women who wish to have their committed relationship recognized by the state infringes on no one's rights.

[AxisMundi]

roflol, please explain what proof is. Be sure to eliminate witnesses from your explanation, which would mean anything discerned with human observation, or I will be spoon feeding you some more rational hypocrisy pie.

I'm sure others noticed you cut off "Habeus Corpus" in your quote.

A "witness" is not enough to convict someone. Charge them? Certainly, but all it takes is a shadow of doubt for the testimony of said "witness" to be thrown out. People lie, or can be mistaken. This is the key tool for defense lawyers.


I should have went with my animal instincts and offered the forum odds on intellectual consistency taking a hypocrisy bet.

Coming from you that is hardly an insult. Try better.

[Promontorium]

I can prove homosexuality is not a choice. And I know anyone else can. To say, that it is a choice, is like saying having a nose is a choice.

Traditionalconservative if you're a straight male, chose to be sexually attracted to men, suck a man's penis, and then have anal sex with him, and like it. And then I suppose you will have proven it is a choice.

Me, I'm trying real hard to want men, hrnggggg, almost, grrrrrr, almost, ahhhh, dammit! I'm straight.

Looks like it isn't a fucking choice.

I swear to your God, every person who says sexuality is a choice scares me. Literally. I am voluntarysexualityclaimer phobic.

Because for me, and everyone else in the universe, it isn't a choice. But you people keep saying it is. But I ask you people, if you specifically could chose, and you say no but you still swear gay people do chose. It is insane. You are missing a piece of reality in your brain, and that scares me.

This isn't some grand conspiracy theory, nor complex science, you people are claiming gay people have a super power that you or I don't have. But if only gay people chose to be gay, then how is it a choice? The ONLY WAY being gay can be a choice, is if being straight is a choice. So conservative, you chose to be straight? Do you slip sometimes? You know, do you watch a porn and every once in a while see some testicles and start liking them, and then remember you have to chose vagina for Jesus?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I can prove homosexuality is not a choice. And I know anyone else can. To say, that it is a choice, is like saying having a nose is a choice.

Traditionalconservative if you're a straight male, chose to be sexually attracted to men, suck a man's penis, and then have anal sex with him, and like it. And then I suppose you will have proven it is a choice.

Me, I'm trying real hard to want men, hrnggggg, almost, grrrrrr, almost, ahhhh, dammit! I'm straight.

Looks like it isn't a fucking choice.

Well if you believe in evolution then you would more than likely also have to believe that it is a choice, seeing as if it was genetic, it would be bred out of the species quite quickly, as homosexuals have not been known to reproduce. :p

[Brett85]

I can prove homosexuality is not a choice. And I know anyone else can. To say, that it is a choice, is like saying having a nose is a choice.

Traditionalconservative if you're a straight male, chose to be sexually attracted to men, suck a man's penis, and then have anal sex with him, and like it. And then I suppose you will have proven it is a choice.

Me, I'm trying real hard to want men, hrnggggg, almost, grrrrrr, almost, ahhhh, dammit! I'm straight.

Looks like it isn't a fucking choice.

I swear to your God, every person who says sexuality is a choice scares me. Literally. I am voluntarysexualityclaimer phobic.

Because for me, and everyone else in the universe, it isn't a choice. But you people keep saying it is. But I ask you people, if you specifically could chose, and you say no but you still swear gay people do chose. It is insane. You are missing a piece of reality in your brain, and that scares me.

This isn't some grand conspiracy theory, nor complex science, you people are claiming gay people have a super power that you or I don't have. But if only gay people chose to be gay, then how is it a choice? The ONLY WAY being gay can be a choice, is if being straight is a choice. So conservative, you chose to be straight? Do you slip sometimes? You know, do you watch a porn and every once in a while see some testicles and start liking them, and then remember you have to chose vagina for Jesus?

Go read my posts again. I never said that homosexuality is "a choice." I simply said that it's a complex issue that most likely has a lot to do with the environment in which children are raised in and their life experiences. I just think that it's ridiculous to compare homosexuality to race as many people do, as it's an apples to oranges comparison. Race is strictly a genetic trait that can be proven by science, while sexual orientation is a much more complex issue that there could be many different answers for.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I can prove homosexuality is not a choice. And I know anyone else can. To say, that it is a choice, is like saying having a nose is a choice.

Since the desires of human beings are like noses and not choices:

Desire to have sex with horses is not a choice.
Desire to rape is not a choice.
Desire to steal is not a choice.
Desire to kill is not a choice.

If all of these desires are like noses why is killing wrong? Are you going to persecute someone for having a killer nose?

Since human desires are like noses is it impossible to change desires or learn to love anything?

I don't have a problem with voluntarysexualityclaimer phobic's so long as they are not the hypocrite variant. Because if they are a hypocrite voluntarysexualityclaimer phobic they are full of shit.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I'm sure others noticed you cut off "Habeus Corpus" in your quote.

A "witness" is not enough to convict someone. Charge them? Certainly, but all it takes is a shadow of doubt for the testimony of said "witness" to be thrown out. People lie, or can be mistaken. This is the key tool for defense lawyers.



Coming from you that is hardly an insult. Try better.

Standing by for an explanation of proof that excludes anything discerned with human observation.

[AxisMundi]

Well if you believe in evolution then you would more than likely also have to believe that it is a choice, seeing as if it was genetic, it would be bred out of the species quite quickly, as homosexuals have not been known to reproduce. :p

1. Heterosexuality has no gene.

2. Homosexuals can, and occasionally do, reproduce.

[AxisMundi]

Standing by for an explanation of proof that excludes anything discerned with human observation.

In English please.

[AxisMundi]

Since the desires of human beings are like noses and not choices:

Desire to have sex with horses is not a choice.
Desire to rape is not a choice.
Desire to steal is not a choice.
Desire to kill is not a choice.

If all of these desires are like noses why is killing wrong? Are you going to persecute someone for having a killer nose?

Since human desires are like noses is it impossible to change desires or learn to love anything?

I don't have a problem with voluntarysexualityclaimer phobic's so long as they are not the hypocrite variant. Because if they are a hypocrite voluntarysexualityclaimer phobic they are full of shit.

Non sequiturs, ad hominems, and many other argument fallacies are the only argument against Equality of Marriage for gays.

That should tell you something.

[AxisMundi]

Go read my posts again. I never said that homosexuality is "a choice." I simply said that it's a complex issue that most likely has a lot to do with the environment in which children are raised in and their life experiences. I just think that it's ridiculous to compare homosexuality to race as many people do, as it's an apples to oranges comparison. Race is strictly a genetic trait that can be proven by science, while sexual orientation is a much more complex issue that there could be many different answers for.

As heterosexuality would also be a choice (there is no "straight gene") then there isn't any rational reason to provide preferential treatment to heteros, is there.

[Brett85]

As heterosexuality would also be a choice (there is no "straight gene") then there isn't any rational reason to provide preferential treatment to heteros, is there.

Well I at least support less government involvement in marriage then we have now. I don't think that married couples should get special tax benefits, as I support completely abolishing the IRS.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Non sequiturs, ad hominems, and many other argument fallacies are the only argument against Equality of Marriage for gays.

That should tell you something.

I don't think you know what in the hell you are talking about claiming it does not follow or human beings desire is an illogical statement. You are talking out your tailpipe and have no proof. Nor can you explain what proof is.

So here you are making a citation emphasizing the irrelevant. I will emphasize the very relevant first sentence:


Also from the APA, please note the bolded portion...

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation.

That should tell you something... don't go emphasizing B.S. when they are talking about theories... aka opinions coming out of peoples assholes. Theories prove nothing.



Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight.

Can therapy change sexual orientation?

No

Enter the hypocrisy. These hypocrite ******s would like us to believe human beings cannot choose sexual orientation but can choose social orientation.

In other words these hypocrite ******s want to force me to believe I can't choose where I am happiest putting my dick but I can choose where I would be happiest putting a bullet.

In other words these hypocrite ******s don't actually believe in the pursuit of happiness or people pursuing happiness. According to these hypocrite ******s the things that make one happy is not something that can be pursued, it is something you are born with.

I can get along with the non-hypocrites because a non-hypocrite says it's none of anyone else's business what makes me happy when the pursuit of my happiness does not harm another human being. A non-hypocrite says since it is wrong for an individual to steal so it is equally wrong for a group of people to steal, especially when it involves subsidizing happiness.

If I am going to be repeatedly accused of ad hominems by hypocrite ******s...

[AxisMundi]

Well I at least support less government involvement in marriage then we have now. I don't think that married couples should get special tax benefits, as I support completely abolishing the IRS.

Firstly, you have made the assertion before concerning "more government", but have yet to substantiate that assertion.

Secondly, for a Nation of over 300 million citizens, our government must have income. I support getting rid of the progressive tax system and shrinking the IRS, but is is a necessary evil IMHO. There must be some agency that oversees tax collection to ensure each citizen is paying their fair share of this civic duty.

[AxisMundi]

I don't think you know what in the hell you are talking about claiming it does not follow or human beings desire is an illogical statement. You are talking out your tailpipe and have no proof. Nor can you explain what proof is.

So here you are making a citation emphasizing the irrelevant. I will emphasize the very relevant first sentence:

That should tell you something... don't go emphasizing B.S. when they are talking about theories... aka opinions coming out of peoples assholes. Theories prove nothing.

Enter the hypocrisy. These hypocrite ******s would like us to believe human beings cannot choose sexual orientation but can choose social orientation.

In other words these hypocrite ******s want to force me to believe I can't choose where I am happiest putting my dick but I can choose where I would be happiest putting a bullet.

In other words these hypocrite ******s don't actually believe in the pursuit of happiness or people pursuing happiness. According to these hypocrite ******s the things that make one happy is not something that can be pursued, it is something you are born with.

I can get along with the non-hypocrites because a non-hypocrite says it's none of anyone else's business what makes me happy when the pursuit of my happiness does not harm another human being. A non-hypocrite says since it is wrong for an individual to steal so it is equally wrong for a group of people to steal, especially when it involves subsidizing happiness.

If I am going to be repeatedly accused of ad hominems by hypocrite ******s...

Your reply shows your bigotry, and the simple fact that even in the light of science you will refuse to change your mind.

Thus, I reply for those who use their brains for more than keeping their ears apart.

1. We speak of consenting, law abiding, tax paying, non-related adult citizens. Not murders, bestiality, or rapists. You do indeed offer nothing but argument fallacies.

2. I suggest you look up the term "scientific theory". Like many who remain willfully ignorant, you confuse the term "theory" and "hypothesis" as applied to science.

3. Your argument is simply disproved before it starts by the simple facts of...

a. People suffering under ex-gay "ministries" admit they are still gay and merely living a straight lifestyle.
b. Scientific peer review groups, such as the APA, note inherent damage to individuals who force themselves through these programs.
c. Even the founder of the first ex-gay "ministry" in the US now counsels gays who have suffered through these programs, saw them for the lies they are, and returned living as per their nature.

And finally...

d. Science proves you wrong.

[Flash]

I don't think you know what in the hell you are talking about claiming it does not follow or human beings desire is an illogical statement. You are talking out your tailpipe and have no proof. Nor can you explain what proof is.

So here you are making a citation emphasizing the irrelevant. I will emphasize the very relevant first sentence:



That should tell you something... don't go emphasizing B.S. when they are talking about theories... aka opinions coming out of peoples assholes. Theories prove nothing.



Enter the hypocrisy. These hypocrite ******s would like us to believe human beings cannot choose sexual orientation but can choose social orientation.

In other words these hypocrite ******s want to force me to believe I can't choose where I am happiest putting my dick but I can choose where I would be happiest putting a bullet.

In other words these hypocrite ******s don't actually believe in the pursuit of happiness or people pursuing happiness. According to these hypocrite ******s the things that make one happy is not something that can be pursued, it is something you are born with.

I can get along with the non-hypocrites because a non-hypocrite says it's none of anyone else's business what makes me happy when the pursuit of my happiness does not harm another human being. A non-hypocrite says since it is wrong for an individual to steal so it is equally wrong for a group of people to steal, especially when it involves subsidizing happiness.

If I am going to be repeatedly accused of ad hominems by hypocrite ******s...



What the fuck is wrong with you? Perhaps you should see a therapist before posting in this forum ever again. Welcome to permanent ignore.

[HazyHusky420]

I don't think you know what in the hell you are talking about claiming it does not follow or human beings desire is an illogical statement. You are talking out your tailpipe and have no proof. Nor can you explain what proof is.

So here you are making a citation emphasizing the irrelevant. I will emphasize the very relevant first sentence:



That should tell you something... don't go emphasizing B.S. when they are talking about theories... aka opinions coming out of peoples assholes. Theories prove nothing.



Enter the hypocrisy. These hypocrite ******s would like us to believe human beings cannot choose sexual orientation but can choose social orientation.

In other words these hypocrite ******s want to force me to believe I can't choose where I am happiest putting my dick but I can choose where I would be happiest putting a bullet.

In other words these hypocrite ******s don't actually believe in the pursuit of happiness or people pursuing happiness. According to these hypocrite ******s the things that make one happy is not something that can be pursued, it is something you are born with.

I can get along with the non-hypocrites because a non-hypocrite says it's none of anyone else's business what makes me happy when the pursuit of my happiness does not harm another human being. A non-hypocrite says since it is wrong for an individual to steal so it is equally wrong for a group of people to steal, especially when it involves subsidizing happiness.

If I am going to be repeatedly accused of ad hominems by hypocrite ******s...

Whoa, you sure do use the word ****** alot. Far more than me or any other gay person I know combined. Got any repressed feelings you want to let out?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Whoa, you sure do use the word ****** alot. Far more than me or any other gay person I know combined. Got any repressed feelings you want to let out?

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Like I said, if I am going to be repeatedly accused of ad hominems I am sure as hell going to earn it...

[HazyHusky420]

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Like I said, if I am going to be repeatedly accused of ad hominems I am sure as hell going to earn it...

I wasn't attacking you. All I did was ask a question based on observations.

What were my observations? You say ****** alot more than me or any other gay person I know, which leads me to believe you might have some repressed feelings. If not, then why do you care so much about homosexuality? Two consenting adults associating in a way that makes them happy has no effect on you. If it's because of some of the outrageous things done at gay pride events then I can sympathize because I myself hate being associated with those types, but nonetheless you did use the word ****** alot for a heterosexual.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Your reply shows your bigotry,

Which is it, ad hominem or bigotry? If you are going to repeatedly accuse me of bigotry I can earn that one too with even more colorful metaphors?


and the simple fact that even in the light of science you will refuse to change your mind.

You can't explain what proof is and there is no way to have a conversation on science when one party can't cover the basics such as explaining proof.




Thus, I reply for those who use their brains for more than keeping their ears apart.

1. We speak of consenting, law abiding, tax paying, non-related adult citizens. Not murders, bestiality, or rapists. You do indeed offer nothing but argument fallacies.

You don't know what a fallacy is, just throw around the terms. People who assert fallacy can explain the fallacy... you can't.




2. I suggest you look up the term "scientific theory". Like many who remain willfully ignorant, you confuse the term "theory" and "hypothesis" as applied to science.

3. Your argument is simply disproved before it starts by the simple facts of...

a. People suffering under ex-gay "ministries" admit they are still gay and merely living a straight lifestyle.

The hypocrisy is not the belief, the hypocrisy is inconsistency of belief and that you would persecute child molesters claiming they made the choice to do it. If you simply develop a consistent coherent belief and stop persecuting child molesters I have no further comment, I simply can't stand hypocrites who pretend to be something they are not claiming it's ok for some people to do something (same sex attraction) yet it's not ok for other people to do the exact same thing (child sex attraction).


b. Scientific peer review groups, such as the APA, note inherent damage to individuals who force themselves through these programs.
c. Even the founder of the first ex-gay "ministry" in the US now counsels gays who have suffered through these programs, saw them for the lies they are, and returned living as per their nature.

And finally...

d. Science proves you wrong.

What is proof again?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I wasn't attacking you. All I did was ask a question based on observations.

What were my observations? You say ****** alot more than me or any other gay person I know, which leads me to believe you might have some repressed feelings. If not, then why do you care so much about homosexuality? Two consenting adults associating in a way that makes them happy has no effect on you. If it's because of some of the outrageous things done at gay pride events then I can sympathize because I myself hate being associated with those types, but nonetheless you did use the word ****** alot for a heterosexual.

I am not feeling attacked. I could care less about gay pride events or the gay community except that of individual rights. What irks me is AxisMundi throwing around terms he can't explain and just reusing them. I am excessively using the word ****** to make a point to that poster demonstrating a proper ad hominem, If other forum members want to get all offended over my exaggerated use if the word ****** to construct a proper ad hominem I won't lose any sleep over it.

[HazyHusky420]

I simply can't stand hypocrites who pretend to be something they are not claiming it's ok for some people to do something (same sex attraction) yet it's not ok for other people to do the exact same thing (child sex attraction).

Uhhh how is pedophilia and homosexuality the same? Kids don't want to be raped by older people. However two adults of the same sex might want to be together.

I prefer the same sex yet I hate kids. Explain that.

[HazyHusky420]

I am not feeling attacked. I could care less about gay pride events or the gay community except that of individual rights. What irks me is AxisMundi throwing around terms he can't explain and just reusing them. I am excessively using the word ****** to make a point to that poster demonstrating a proper ad hominem, If other forum members want to get all offended over my exaggerated use if the word ****** to construct a proper ad hominem I won't lose any sleep over it.

I'm not offended by your use of the word ******, i'm actually amused, and your exaggerated use of the word makes you look like a closet case.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I'm not offended by your use of the word ******, i'm actually amused, and your exaggerated use of the word makes you look like a closet case.

lol, maybe i am, maybe i am not. The only thing I know in life is that I don't know. I do not know my name only what other people have told me my name is.


Uhhh how is pedophilia and homosexuality the same? Kids don't want to be raped by older people. However two adults of the same sex might want to be together.

I prefer the same sex yet I hate kids. Explain that.

I did not mention rape or any force. I am referring to acts of consent. I am sure I could dig up a few teachers that have been persecuted for consensual sex because they are attracted to teenagers.

Beyond sex, how can you claim sexual orientation is not choice but social orientation is?

Edit: After scrolling up, I did state child molester. Poor verbaige on my part. I am using the phrase child molestor in the context of having sex with someone under 18,

[HazyHusky420]

how can you claim sexual orientation is not choice but social orientation is?

maybe most don't remember choosing it. I sure as hell don't, and I live in a very homophobic area.

Ever considered birth order? Gays, left handed people and people with counter clockwise hair often have older siblings and the three groups overlap alot. I mean I don't see why large chunks of left-handed and counter-twirling haired people would choose to be gay any more than the same percentage of people with normal hair and a preference for their right hand, and yes I do have two older brothers. The oldest is a right-handed heterosexual, the other is a left-handed heterosexual and i'm an ambidextrous homosexual with a slight preference for my right hand.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

maybe most don't remember choosing it. I sure as hell don't, and I live in a very homophobic area.

Ever considered birth order? Gays, left handed people and people with counter clockwise hair often have older siblings and the three groups overlap alot. I mean I don't see why large chunks of left-handed and counter-twirling haired people would choose to be gay any more than the same percentage of people with normal hair and a preference for their right hand, and yes I do have two older brothers. The oldest is a right-handed heterosexual, the other is a left-handed heterosexual and i'm an ambidextrous homosexual with a slight preference for my right hand.

My only interest in posing the question is justice. I am not prepared to persecute someone for being who they are.

If the philosophical doctrine of the gay community is the sexual and social orientation of human beings is not choice and happiness is not something that can be pursued because biological chemistry pre-determines what makes one happy I am not on board with a justice system that says the biological chemistry of these people is ok but people with that biological chemistry must be murdered.

[HazyHusky420]

My only interest in posing the question is justice. I am not prepared to persecute someone for being who they are.

If the philosophical doctrine of the gay community is the sexual and social orientation of human beings is not choice and happiness is not something that can be pursued because biological chemistry pre-determines what makes one happy I am not on board with a justice system that says the biological chemistry of these people is ok but people with that biological chemistry must be murdered.

Ummm could you please re-type that like it was a school report? That sounds like a six year old high on sugar.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ummm could you please re-type that like it was a school report? That sounds like a six year old high on sugar.

Be more specific.

[oyarde]

Be more specific.

Live Free Or Die , how are you feeling ?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Live Free Or Die , how are you feeling ?

like a second degree burn victim :)


What the fuck is wrong with you? Perhaps you should see a therapist before posting in this forum ever again. Welcome to permanent ignore.

It's not my fault and a therapist can't help because Social Orientation is not a choice.

[HazyHusky420]

Be more specific.

this:


If the philosophical doctrine of the gay community is the sexual and social orientation of human beings is not choice and happiness is not something that can be pursued because biological chemistry pre-determines what makes one happy I am not on board with a justice system that says the biological chemistry of these people is ok but people with that biological chemistry must be murdered.

[oyarde]

like a second degree burn victim :)



It's not my fault and a therapist can't help because Social Orientation is not a choice.

I got you , good luck !

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

this:

What is the question?

[HazyHusky420]

What is the question?

I think you're just trying to annoy me.

I didn't ask you a question, I asked you to re-write this with more clarity, like you would in school


If the philosophical doctrine of the gay community is the sexual and social orientation of human beings is not choice and happiness is not something that can be pursued because biological chemistry pre-determines what makes one happy I am not on board with a justice system that says the biological chemistry of these people is ok but people with that biological chemistry must be murdered.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I think you're just trying to annoy me.

I didn't ask you a question, I asked you to re-write this with more clarity, like you would in school

I am not trying to annoy you I am trying to understand what requires clarity which is why I asked you to be more specific. Is there a particular word, sentence or phrase? It would greatly help if you would disect the post and be more specific.

Telling someone who has not been in school in decades and was never fond of english classes to rewrite something like i would in school is not conveying anything to me.

[HazyHusky420]

I am not trying to annoy you I am trying to understand what requires clarity which is why I asked you to be more specific. Is there a particular word, sentence or phrase? It would greatly help if you would disect the post and be more specific.

Telling someone who has not been in school in decades and was never fond of english classes to rewrite something like i would in school is not conveying anything to me.

nevermind

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nevermind

No problem, just keep in mind it's not my fault and a therapist can't help because Social Orientation is not a choice.

[AxisMundi]

..... Welcome to permanent ignore.

That I can agree with.

[Elwar]

Not to go off topic but...

I think the government should get out of the marriage business.

Hospital visits? Really? Is that really what that piece of paper is all about?

[osan]

I don't even know why RPFers are even discussing "civil rights". We're the Natural Rights crowd.

Is there, however, a fundamental difference between the two, or are they two terms for the same thing? I have always taken it for granted that they were, though I never really cottoned to "civil rights" much, always preferring "natural rights" and to a lesser extent "human rights".

[Brett85]

Not to go off topic but...

I think the government should get out of the marriage business.

Hospital visits? Really? Is that really what that piece of paper is all about?

I do agree that it should be up to each privately run hospital to decide visitation rights. The government shouldn't mandate to hospitals what visiters they have to accept.

[AxisMundi]

I do agree that it should be up to each privately run hospital to decide visitation rights. The government shouldn't mandate to hospitals what visiters they have to accept.

Why should hospitals be able to ban spouses?

[AxisMundi]

Not to go off topic but...

I think the government should get out of the marriage business.

Hospital visits? Really? Is that really what that piece of paper is all about?

Firstly, as noted, one can opt out of a legally recognized marriage, i.e. government is not some inherent requirement in a marriage and one can have what is termed a "spiritual marriage" completely void of government, and certain privileges and protections as well.

Secondly, there are over a thousand rights and privileges bestowed onto a married couple, ranging from tax concerns to automatic joint custody. Visitation rights are but one small aspect of a legally recognized, and protected, marriage.

A partial list of the 400 state rights and over a 1,000 federal rights...

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans;
joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Et cetera

[Brett85]

Why should hospitals be able to ban spouses?

Is has to do with private property rights. It's the same type of issue as the Civil Rights Act that Rand got in trouble for criticizing. If we're talking about privately run and owned hospitals, the owners should have the right to decide who comes on their private property and who doesn't. Obviously they're bound by law to accept patients who have some emergency, and I have no problem with that. But I think that the owners should get to set visitation laws for their own hospital.

[Brett85]

Firstly, as noted, one can opt out of a legally recognized marriage, i.e. government is not some inherent requirement in a marriage and one can have what is termed a "spiritual marriage" completely void of government, and certain privileges and protections as well.

Secondly, there are over a thousand rights and privileges bestowed onto a married couple, ranging from tax concerns to automatic joint custody. Visitation rights are but one small aspect of a legally recognized, and protected, marriage.

A partial list of the 400 state rights and over a 1,000 federal rights...

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans;
joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Et cetera

That just illustrates what a mess the government is and why we need to simplify our marriage laws.

[AxisMundi]

Is has to do with private property rights. It's the same type of issue as the Civil Rights Act that Rand got in trouble for criticizing. If we're talking about privately run and owned hospitals, the owners should have the right to decide who comes on their private property and who doesn't. Obviously they're bound by law to accept patients who have some emergency, and I have no problem with that. But I think that the owners should get to set visitation laws for their own hospital.

So in effect, you are stating that hospitals should ahve some inherent right to deny next-of-kin to see their loved ones, possibly for the last time alive?

[AxisMundi]

That just illustrates what a mess the government is and why we need to simplify our marriage laws.

Which of those rights listed (to make debate easier) should be eliminated, in your opinion?

[MikeStanart]

I came into this thread thinking marriages were free now. I was sorely dissapointed. I won't be able to afford to pay for my 14th one.

[Brett85]

So in effect, you are stating that hospitals should ahve some inherent right to deny next-of-kin to see their loved ones, possibly for the last time alive?

Yes, and if they did that they would be protested and would go out of business the next day. The market place works.

[Brett85]

Which of those rights listed (to make debate easier) should be eliminated, in your opinion?

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
joint filing of tax returns;

I can think of those two right off the back, since I don't think we should have the IRS or these socialistic government programs. We could just give everybody who paid into SS a one time refund check and then just abolish the program.

[AxisMundi]

Yes, and if they did that they would be protested and would go out of business the next day. The market place works.

And an area looses a valuable asset, said hospital.

Would it not be much better to require hospitals, many of which utilize public funds to stay afloat, to observe certain rules, such as visitation rights, rather than rely on free market ideals?

The free market might work to get rid of some silly ideas (my pet rock died, so I had buried it, BTW), but as far as essential services, such as hospitals, police, and fire, the free market will only see outrageous prices and lack of service.

When Big Corp has us by the short and curlies, they pull really hard. Profit is, after all, one of the three components of Price in microeconomic theory. And to maintain the 3-4% profit margin companies must have to remain viable, prices will skyrocket for such essential public services.

[AxisMundi]

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
joint filing of tax returns;

I can think of those two right off the back, since I don't think we should have the IRS or these socialistic government programs. We could just give everybody who paid into SS a one time refund check and then just abolish the program.

Leaving seniors, and those who will be seniors, out in the cold.

[Brett85]

And an area looses a valuable asset, said hospital.

Would it not be much better to require hospitals, many of which utilize public funds to stay afloat, to observe certain rules, such as visitation rights, rather than rely on free market ideals?

The free market might work to get rid of some silly ideas (my pet rock died, so I had buried it, BTW), but as far as essential services, such as hospitals, police, and fire, the free market will only see outrageous prices and lack of service.

When Big Corp has us by the short and curlies, they pull really hard. Profit is, after all, one of the three components of Price in microeconomic theory. And to maintain the 3-4% profit margin companies must have to remain viable, prices will skyrocket for such essential public services.

I don't think that any hospital would realistically refuse visitation rights to a spouse. My point is simply that these laws essentially mandate that only certain people are allowed to see the patients and others aren't. It would be better to allow each individual hospital to decide whether visitation rights should extend to gay couples, friends of the patient, distant relatives, etc.

[Brett85]

Leaving seniors, and those who will be seniors, out in the cold.

No, because I said that I would give them a refund check for the amount of money that they paid into the system. They wouldn't be cheated out of any money. Medicare is a more complex government program and couldn't be ended right away. With that program I would probably just phase it out over time for younger people like myself.

[HazyHusky420]

Here's what I ask gay people who take the statist position on discrimination:

Would you want to let straight people into gay clubs?

What about gay dating sites?

Should every gay club be infested with fruit flies and *** hags?

What if I own a gay bar and I don't want to let any stereotypical Lady Gaga/Madonna loving gays in and only allow non-conformists?

These questions are hardly ever asked in the gay community...

[jmdrake]

Hospitals that accept g'ment subsidies and programs, such as Medicaid/Care, are bound by law to adhere to federal guidelines.

Also, say a gay couple with a committed relationship of 15 years is traveling and get smacked by a drunk driver, resulting in a horrible car crash. One comes out unscathed, the other sits at death's door. Do you REALLY think it would be proper for a hospital to be permitted to refuse visitation rights?


I want to see an actual link to a real story where someone gay or otherwise with a durable power of attorney was denied visitation rights by any hospital. I do not believe such a story exists. I've never seen such a story. I've talked to law professors who support gay marriage and they don't have any such story. I believe this to be a lie and straw man and a scare tactic made up by the gay marriage movement.

[jmdrake]

Here's what I ask gay people who take the statist position on discrimination:

Would you want to let straight people into gay clubs?

What about gay dating sites?

Should every gay club be infested with fruit flies and *** hags?

What if I own a gay bar and I don't want to let any stereotypical Lady Gaga/Madonna loving gays in and only allow non-conformists?

These questions are hardly ever asked in the gay community...

LOL. I can just imagine a gay bouncer at a gay bar saying to someone "You look too straight so I'm not going to let you in." :rolleyes: I'm pretty sure most gay bars assume that anyone coming in the door is by definition gay or bi or "bi-curious" or whatever and as long as they meet the dress code they get it. I could be wrong though. And I won't be testing that theory out. :p

[HazyHusky420]

I want to see an actual link to a real story where someone gay or otherwise with a durable power of attorney was denied visitation rights by any hospital. I do not believe such a story exists. I've never seen such a story. I've talked to law professors who support gay marriage and they don't have any such story. I believe this to be a lie and straw man and a scare tactic made up by the gay marriage movement.

I am in no way defending Axis (his or her's opposition to free trade was enough to make my blood boil), but i'm sure he/she was just using that as an example, not that i'm supporting laws on discrimination as I believe 100% in freedom of association.

[AxisMundi]

I don't think that any hospital would realistically refuse visitation rights to a spouse. My point is simply that these laws essentially mandate that only certain people are allowed to see the patients and others aren't. It would be better to allow each individual hospital to decide whether visitation rights should extend to gay couples, friends of the patient, distant relatives, etc.

If these laws mandated anything else besides immediate next-of-kin, I could agree with you.

Legally recognized marriage does confer, for legal purposes, a familial relationship superior to all others after all.

[AxisMundi]

No, because I said that I would give them a refund check for the amount of money that they paid into the system. They wouldn't be cheated out of any money. Medicare is a more complex government program and couldn't be ended right away. With that program I would probably just phase it out over time for younger people like myself.

Still wouldn't work.

People would spend the money right away, perhaps to pay off the house for example, still leaving them out in the cold after retirement and/or disability.

[AxisMundi]

I want to see an actual link to a real story where someone gay or otherwise with a durable power of attorney was denied visitation rights by any hospital. I do not believe such a story exists. I've never seen such a story. I've talked to law professors who support gay marriage and they don't have any such story. I believe this to be a lie and straw man and a scare tactic made up by the gay marriage movement.

Nice try, the durable power of attorney completely eliminates any chance of finding an example, as it is a legally binding contract that must be honored by third parties.

[AxisMundi]

I am in no way defending Axis (his or her's opposition to free trade was enough to make my blood boil), but i'm sure he/she was just using that as an example, not that i'm supporting laws on discrimination as I believe 100% in freedom of association.

I am NOT opposed to Free Trade. I am opposed to the conservative idea of "Free Trade".

Then again I wouldn't expect someone like to to understand the subtleties.

[AxisMundi]

LOL. I can just imagine a gay bouncer at a gay bar saying to someone "You look too straight so I'm not going to let you in." :rolleyes: I'm pretty sure most gay bars assume that anyone coming in the door is by definition gay or bi or "bi-curious" or whatever and as long as they meet the dress code they get it. I could be wrong though. And I won't be testing that theory out. :p

When I was a regular bar goer, I had no problems going into gay bars with friends who frequented such establishments for more than drinking, or getting into the bar for that matter.

Got plenty of free drinks too, by way of apology for hitting on me when I let the guy know I was straight. :)

I would much rather get hit on by a gay man than an ugly, smelly, fat woman. The latter just refuse to give up, even when you flash your wedding ring and tell them flat out "No, go away".

[jmdrake]

I am in no way defending Axis (his or her's opposition to free trade was enough to make my blood boil), but i'm sure he/she was just using that as an example, not that i'm supporting laws on discrimination as I believe 100% in freedom of association.

Oh sure he's using as an example. That's my point. It's a false example. A gay couple can protect itself just as easily as a straight couple. A durable power of attorney is no more difficult to obtain than a marriage license.

[jmdrake]

Nice try, the durable power of attorney completely eliminates any chance of finding an example, as it is a legally binding contract that must be honored by third parties.

There is no try, there is only do. And any person who wants the protection of a durable power of attorney can get one just as easily as he/she can get a marriage license. This whole "I can't visit my sick loved one in the hospital unless the state changes the definition of marriage" is totally bogus. The dirty little secret that statist marriage advocates don't want you to know is that almost everything that can be accomplished through a marriage license can be accomplished through contract. The parts that cannot be accomplished through contract (taxes and health benefits) are due to the federal government being too big in the first place. (There shouldn't be an income tax and any tax benefit from health benefits should go directly to the individual and not to the employer).

[joshfarmer76]

The gay-mariage issue is a losing issue for the GOP unless they redefine the argument from pro/con gay marriage to whether government should be invovled in the marriage licensing business in the first place. By granting government the right to license marriage as it does hunting and driver's licenses, one ultimately gives government the same power to take those licenses away. Anything government gives it can take away. I checked out the Government-Free Marriage movement and am in agreement with all the issues they espouse, primary among them... solve the many problems associated with marriage by getting government out... Government-Free Marriage, an idea who's time has come. http://www.governmentfreemarriage.com

[Fox McCloud]

Legally recognized marriage does confer, for legal purposes, a familial relationship superior to all others after all.

it shouldn't though; it should be up to each individual institution to decide, for themselves, what is allowed (or not) on their own property; to suggest otherwise means you believe in some form of slavery or statism (which, from what you've stated earlier, I suspect you do).

[Brett85]

Still wouldn't work.

People would spend the money right away, perhaps to pay off the house for example, still leaving them out in the cold after retirement and/or disability.

That would be their own fault. Conservatives and libertarians are supposed to believe in personal responsibility. The government should not force people to save for their own retirement. People should make that choice on their own. And also, SS and Medicare are both blatantly unconstitutional.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That would be their own fault. Conservatives and libertarians are supposed to believe in personal responsibility. The government should not force people to save for their own retirement. People should make that choice on their own. And also, SS and Medicare are both blatantly unconstitutional.

why are they blatantly unconstitutional?

[Brett85]

why are they blatantly unconstitutional?

The 10th amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That means that the federal government can't do anything that isn't authorized by the Constitution. There is no authorization in the Constitution for Social Security and Medicare.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The 10th amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That means that the federal government can't do anything that isn't authorized by the Constitution. There is no authorization in the Constitution for Social Security and Medicare.

You can't claim it is unconstitutional if the constitutional supreme court declares it is constitutional.



On May 24, 1937 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the three cases. Justice Cardozo wrote the majority opinion in the first two cases and he announced them on what was, coincidentally, his 67th birthday. (See sidebar on Justice Cardozo.)

Mirroring the situation in Congress when the legislation was considered, the old-age insurance program met relatively little disagreement. The Court ruled 7 to 2 in support of the old-age insurance program. And even though two Justices disagreed with the decision, no separate dissents were authored. The unemployment compensation provisions, by contrast, were hotly disputed within the Court, just as they had been the focus of most of the debate in Congress. The Court ruled 5 to 4 in support of the unemployment compensation provisions, and three of the Justices felt compelled to author separate dissents in the Steward Machine case and one Justice did so in the Southern Coal & Coke case.

Justice Cardozo wrote the opinions in Helvering vs. Davis and Steward Machine. After giving the 1788 dictionary the consideration he thought it deserved, he made clear the Court's view on the scope of the government's spending authority: "There have been statesman in our history who have stood for other views. . .We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton . . .has prevailed over that of Madison. . ." Arguing that the unemployment compensation program provided for the general welfare, Cardozo observed: ". . .there is need to remind ourselves of facts as to the problem of unemployment that are now matters of common knowledge. . .the roll of the unemployed, itself formidable enough, was only a partial roll of the destitute or needy. The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose [other] than the promotion of the general welfare."

And finally, he extended the reasoning to the old-age insurance program: "The purge of nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. . . Spreading from state to state, unemployment is an ill not particular but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the nation. . . But the ill is all one or at least not greatly different whether men are thrown out of work because there is no longer work to do or because the disabilities of age make them incapable of doing it. Rescue becomes necessary irrespective of the cause. The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near."

With these cases decided, Justice Stone could then dispose of the third case in short order. "Together the two statutes now before us embody a cooperative legislative effort by state and national governments, for carrying out a public purpose common to both, which neither could fully achieve without the cooperation of the other. The Constitution does not prohibit such cooperation."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian7.html


Are you claiming the constitution is inadequate because you do not agree with the supreme court?

[Swmorgan77]

Since marriage is a contract, its not necessarily correct to view it as something which anyone has a "right" to because it inevitably involves the participation of someone else. Because of that, you have left the realm of "rights" and entered the realm of privileges and duties arising from mutual agreement.

The purpose of the site in the OP is not to remove government from adjudicating a dispute of a marriage contract, as they would any other contract, but to remove it from the role of granting permission to marry in the form of licensing.

[erowe1]

You can't claim it is unconstitutional if the constitutional supreme court declares it is constitutional.


Sure you can. The Supreme Court got that wrong, like they get many other things wrong.

[jmdrake]

You can't claim it is unconstitutional if the constitutional supreme court declares it is constitutional.

Oh sure you can. The supreme court gets stuff wrong all the time. And the only reason the supreme court gave in to FDR because he bullied them with his threat of packing the court.

See: http://reason.com/archives/2009/01/22/a-switch-in-time-saves-nine

The Dread Scott ruling was unconstitutional. So was Plessy v. Ferguson. By declaring that a SCt. ruling is unconstitutional we set the stage that someone growing up today who may later end up on the court will have the balls to say "That 19XX supreme court ruling was wrong and today we are reversing it."



Are you claiming the constitution is inadequate because you do not agree with the supreme court?

Disagreeing with an opinion of the supreme court is not the same as saying the constitution is inadequate. It is saying that 9 men and women got their decision wrong. Their wrong decision can be overturned by a later court ruling or by a constitutional amendment, or it can be rendered ineffective through nullification.

[Swmorgan77]

There's nothing in the Constitution that says or even implies that the Supreme Court was to have the final say on all determinations of Constitutionality. That is a presumption of law we have Marbury vs. Madison to thank for, but it was an incorrect ruling in that regard. Upon review of the documented understanding in the States' ratifying conventions, it is not tenable to assert that if they (the States) believed they were ratifying into existence a central government and giving it's agents sole discretion on deciding the extent of their own power that they would have done so under that understanding.

[Swmorgan77]

Here's a local story regarding Government Free Marriage:

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-13254-government-free-marriage.html