PDA

View Full Version : Issue: Personal Liberty: Gay Marriage?




c10h14n2
06-24-2007, 10:12 AM
Can anybody clue me in of what a "Constitutionalist's" stance on Gay Marriage be?

From what I understand, it would be unconstitutional to have any legislation condemning or condoning the addition of gays into the legal term marriage - at the federal level. Does this mean that Dr. Paul would not pursue legislation on this issue at all? Does he mean to just leave it up to the states to decide?

To say that gay marriage is not a government issue and the the government should not have involvement in this issue is fine and good if gays cold marry. There wouldn't be any issue if a gay could get a states marriage license, but they can't. There needs to be more clarity in the existing law - both state and federal since taxes are paid to both entities and legal rights are applied via both entities.

I know Gay Marriage is not really a super hot election issue - at least not one you would win or lose over, but as a gay, I can see how we, as a group could potentially vote based on this issue alone. That is dangerous, I know this should not be how people vote, but everyone has that one election issue that affects them personally. That last check mark on the either the pro or con side of that issue could swing their vote either way.

Personally, I feel that all marriage at the state and federal level be converted to "civil union" and leave true marriage under God to the churches. The churches would then have ever right to deny marriage to gays.

Yorick
06-24-2007, 01:07 PM
I thought I had read that Ron Paul personally was against gay marriage, but that it's the kind of thing he would leave up to individual states were he elected.

The problem with a candidate agreeing with Gay Marriage is that there are a lot of people who aren't ready for it. Slavery ended more than a hundred years ago but you still have a lot of racism around today. The newer generations are getting better with it for the same reason the older people aren't. It's what you were raised with. The same can be said for women's rights.

Being gay wasn't something that was even largely talked about until the 60's-80's. Whereas when I was in high school I had a lot of friends who were openly gay and had no problem with it. It's something I was exposed to early enough to not form any prejudice about.

I think it will be a long time before we get a candidate who is really for it and willing to champion the idea, but the fact that it's been brought up and talked about the past few years has been great. It's one step closer to having equality for everyone.

It's understandable that everyone has one issue that will sell it for them. For some people it's the war. For some it's gun control. Being gay is an integral part of your life, it should be the issue you care about the most.

I agree with what you mean about having "marriage" as the church definition and 'civil unions' referring to the "merging" of two lives under the state/federal government. I really think that would be the best solution.

mikelovesgod
06-24-2007, 01:20 PM
Constitutionalists will let states decide.

Yorick... that was a horrible analogy. Slavery and homosexuality cannot be lumped together. Homosexuality is a violation of the natural law, slavery isn't.

Yorick
06-24-2007, 01:28 PM
Yorick... that was a horrible analogy. Slavery and homosexuality cannot be lumped together. Homosexuality is a violation of the natural law, slavery isn't.

In your opinion.

[EDIT] PS: Thanks for proving my point.

Bradley in DC
06-24-2007, 02:04 PM
I have to start by saying how gratifying it is to me to see both the level of discourse and analysis and also the wide spectrum of people coming together.

I'm not sure this is a single "Constitutionalist" position but it would not be unconstitutional to oppose gay marriage at the federal level. This was the issue for the Defense of Marriage Act which Dr. Paul supported that defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. I'm sure a major part of the reason was to limit taxpayer-funded welfare, etc., not as an attack on gays. Dr. Paul is NOT homophobic, I assure you.

Marriage was not a governmental issue in this country the way it is now until the Progressive Era. I do genealogy and have learned that state and local governments didn't even issue marriage licenses until the first part of the last century (different years in different states and even there it took some time to become uniformly enforced). Historically, civil law was custom enforced and marriage was an ecclesiastical law matter.

Of course, as all of us Hayakians know, customs and traditions evolve over time and know that the spontaneous order out of chaos approach is better than a few people with imperfect knowledge planning for the rest of us. There was a great debate on the issue of gay marriage on National Review Online with both sides trying to argue they were right based on Hayakian principles! Glimmers of what makes this country great, but I digress...

Dr. Paul has said, and I agree, that to the extent that government is involved it should be at the state, not federal, level but that ideally all would be better off leaving this issue to civil society (recognizing that governments are the default enforcer of private contracts). He would oppose an amendment to the Constitution on the issue defining marriage. I hope this helps.

NewEnd
06-24-2007, 03:18 PM
Ron Paul voted against a bill in DC to fund gay adoptions.

He also voted against the "defense of marriage act" which would have banned gay marriage.

Bradley in DC
06-24-2007, 03:26 PM
Ron Paul voted against a bill in DC to fund gay adoptions.

He also voted against the "defense of marriage act" which would have banned gay marriage.

He generally votes against all spending measures!

He voted, if I remember right, for DOMA but against a Constitutional amendment for the same.

Exponent
06-24-2007, 04:56 PM
I've heard him say (can't remember where, some video on YouTube) that he'd actually prefer that there wasn't even such a thing as a marriage license. He didn't really understand why people needed to get a license to be married. I wonder that same thing myself. Unless we want to move in the direction of regulating who can and can't get married. Wait, we already have done that. The next step in such a direction would be to disallow other types of marriage that those in power consider to be detrimental. People with STDs? People who are infertile? Muslims? Atheists? People who refuse to sign a contract with a federal Department of Marriage and Families? Once the federal government gets rolling with regulation, it can be hard to stop it.

Unless you have a damn good reason to regulate something, it's probably safer to avoid regulation. Some people think that allowing homosexual marriage will be the downfall of America, so they think they have a damn good reason, but that's obviously not a view that is shared by a strong majority. And since it isn't, that generally means that America, considered as a whole, as a singular entity, does not have a damn good reason to regulate it.

Man from La Mancha
06-24-2007, 05:19 PM
What two people do on their own that doesn't hurt me is none of my business. But what I have a problem with is the changing of the language. Language is the glue which holds us together it needs to be some what consistent. New words can be added but old ones should mean the same. Marriage as defined by language in most cultures for 1000's of years is marriage is between a Man and a Woman. You don't go calling an apple a orange or a man is now called woman just to make you feel good. Its like bowing down to the double speak of Gorge Orwell. If there has to be a license form of joining same sex couples then make the proper word for it. Such as Gayage or whatever pleases you. Our modern technology has created many new words with out no problem. Most people I know don't have a problem with same sex couples they just don't like people changing the meaning of what they hold sacred. If the gay community would get over this point I think they would have much less opposition.

Exponent
06-24-2007, 05:59 PM
What two people do on their own that doesn't hurt me is none of my business. But what I have a problem with is the changing of the language. Language is the glue which holds us together it needs to be some what consistent. New words can be added but old ones should mean the same. Marriage as defined by language in most cultures for 1000's of years is marriage is between a Man and a Woman. You don't go calling an apple a orange or a man is now called woman just to make you feel good. Its like bowing down to the double speak of Gorge Orwell. If there has to be a license form of joining same sex couples then make the proper word for it. Such as Gayage or whatever pleases you. Our modern technology has created many new words with out no problem. Most people I know don't have a problem with same sex couples they just don't like people changing the meaning of what they hold sacred. If the gay community would get over this point I think they would have much less opposition.
But from what I gather (because I can imagine thinking the exact same thing if I were gay) is that many homosexuals really and truly believe that the relationships that many of them in are indeed best described by the word "marriage". Language is indeed a very important thing. It is also a very relative thing. Just as much as you think that the gay community should "get over this point", I think that the community opposing gay marriage should learn to really see things from other people's perspectives, and see that homosexuals truly do think that what they have is essentially a marriage. By offering legal status to heterosexual unions under the name "marriage", and denying the same to homosexual unions, to homosexuals probably feels like others are saying to them, "The relationship you have isn't really as legitimate as you feel it is." That's rather insulting.

I know it's a complicated issue, but I just request that others consider it from the opposing viewpoint. Just imagine if you and a significant other felt like you had a relationship that was worthy of the word "marriage", but people, most notably the government, refused to acknowledge this, and at best referred to it as a "union". It would be rather insulting, and I bet many in the anti-gay marriage community would be quite up in arms over it if it happened to one of their own for some other reason.

maggiebott
06-24-2007, 05:59 PM
The way I understand it, he feels its a personal decision and every couple should decide this privately. Government should have absolutely no say in the matter imo.

What a screwed up world we live in. We promote genocide and torture, preemptive wars, and a guy who told the truth about abu ghraib is run out of his home town for fear of his families lives.

megan
06-24-2007, 06:03 PM
from what I can tell, RP seems to agree with the belief that marriage should be privatized. Why should the government be in the business of decreeing who can and cannot be married? "Privatizing" marriage can mean two slightly different things. One is to take the state completely out of it. If couples want to cement their relationship with a ceremony or ritual, they are free to do so. Religious institutions are free to sanction such relationships under any rules they choose. A second meaning of "privatizing" marriage is to treat it like any other contract: The state may be called upon to enforce it, but the parties define the terms. When children or large sums of money are involved, an enforceable contract spelling out the parties' respective rights and obligations is probably dvisable. But the existence and details of such an agreement should be up to the parties.

And privatizing marriage would, incidentally, solve the gay-marriage problem. It would put gay relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying official government sanction. No one's private life would have official government sanction--which is how it should be.

I am currently engaged and having a lot of trouble deciding whether or not to get legally married, because I feel so strongly that marriage shouldn't be govt-regulated. But even with a contract, having a marriage like that may hurt us legally someday when it comes to property, insurance, medical, inhertiance and parenting issues. It could hurt our children. Even though we don't think it SHOULD be so, it is, and the cost to our children and some of the lost legal rights might be too high of a price. We decided to travel to massachusetts to get legally married.

c10h14n2
06-24-2007, 07:27 PM
Thank you or your replies.

I have to be honest. Ron Paul really has me questioning what I know and believe about government. Following his campaign is truely a learning experience, and I like what I am learning. Prior to this, I was definitely hailing the idea that gays must be protected and given equal rights - under the law. However, given what I am hearing from a true "Constitutionalist", it seems teh government was never set up to deal with these issues. What we are dealing with when it comes to Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, Women, and the like is that societal norms has degraded/repressed these groups. But, Ron Pauls message seems to be that even though "this is the ways things are", the Federal government has no place to force tolerance of alternative lifestyles or race/gender. Does this mean he would get rid of all "laws" protecting these individuals? In a perfect world, we could get rid of these laws - because in a perfect world, the peoples attitudes towards different lifestyles/race/gender would be welcoming. Ron Paul talks allot about how "We have to change the way people think". I wonder how he would try to change peoples thinking when it comes to gay rights, because, we, the gays are one of the last groups of people to be discriminated against. The only other group of people who may face equal discriminate under the law are suspected terrorist. They don't have equality under the law either. I know it is a far stretch to equate the two - please don't think I mean to say that we suffer equally under the law - suspected terrorists suffer much much more. But the gays suffer too. When the government denies a marriage license to gays because gay lifstyle is not congruent to Christianity, the government is indeed enacting and enforcing laws based on religion and we, the gays are indeed facing religious persecution by not having access to governmental benifits and rights.

I want to live in the perfect world. I don't want a "special law" saying that gays are people too and everyone else must grant us our rights. I want to live in the country that doesn't even have to address the issue - a country that has liberty, a country without laws dictating our private lives. How will Ron Paul "change how people think". How will he reconcile the need for gays to have equal rights, not face religious persecution and have access to civil rights without having to create laws to force it?

Bradley in DC
06-24-2007, 07:50 PM
Thank you or your replies.

You're welcome, c10h14n2, we're all here to help each other. The bottom line is that we want a government that respects us as individuals. Think about it for a second: can you think of any examples where special interests use government against selected peoples? (hint: slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, etc.--how about thinking bigger: Aparteid, Arab-Israeli conflict, Balkans conflicts, Rawanda, gays under the Nazis, etc.) How about how the perception of special favors for certain groups breed bigotry? (racial quotas, immigration quotas, etc.).

As Dr. Paul explained in the debate about gays in the military--we have rights from our Creator and the ideal is to have a government that respects them. If one believes that rights come from the government, it's just for it to take them away--We don't believe that. The role of government is to protect our liberties and our rights (that we already have).

Man from La Mancha
06-24-2007, 07:56 PM
I apologize if I hurt someones feelings but I still can't understand changing the meaning of words to suit your own feelings. A same sex union can be just as sacred with all the same rights of a hetero marriage just called differently. Unless your implying that homosexuals are less as people and therefore a new word would be less meaningfully. Something that I would find repulsive to think that anybody would be less than someone else.

c10h14n2
06-24-2007, 08:18 PM
@ man of lamancha

I'm not sure what your trying to say. Are you against gays using the word marriage?

If not, I apologize, I just didn't read your post correctly.

If you are against gays using the word marriage, I do have a few points for you to consider.

I live in Mass where gay marriage is now legal. The reason why our group took it as far as we did was because "Civil Unions" DO NOT have the same rights that marraige offers at both the state and Federal level. There are approx. 300-350 specific "laws" related to marriage at both State and Federal Level. Civil Unions only offered about 25-50 of these specific laws to gays. The other 250 - 300 laws were denied to the gays. So we had to fight for the specific "word" of marriage.

So thats one point - and the biggest one. One other thing to consider, as a Dr. Paul supporter, you must believe in smaller government. Why would we create a new word (civil union) and rewrite 300 or so new laws to address this new word, just to appease religious folk who are using religious reasoning to deny the term marriage to begin with?? That sounds like a bloated government to me. Then there is the point that the government should not be using any religious ideology to define laws. Secular yes, but not religious.

We have no way of determining what religion is the true religion. Mormons can marry many women - does that mean Mitt Romney can inject his faith into our understanding of the constitution?

c10h14n2
06-24-2007, 08:24 PM
Oh, and just to back up my claim about how many rights are denied under civil union, here is a link --- It details the exact laws - in full language and states which laws apply and which do not...

http://glad.org/rights/PBOsOfMarriage.pdf

maggiebott
06-24-2007, 08:33 PM
I remember my big stumbling block in Pa. We wanted to get married but the state demanded a blood test. Never had one and certainly wasn't going to comply with one of my biggest fears. Went to Maryland to elope was a simple way of avoiding this rediculous law, and one of so many I've done in my lifetime.

I should write a book. lol

Man from La Mancha
06-24-2007, 08:43 PM
As a Dr. Paul supporter I believe all marriage licensing should be totally eliminated period. Get the government out of my private life.

Marriage discriminates against single people. I pay the same money toward my retirement fund where I work as a married man yet when I retire if I had a wife I would get 40% more money. Unfair

I think my view on word change will suffice. I'm against people twisting things like words for their own benefit. Please look up marriage in the dictionaries of 100's of countries for the past several 100 years.

More freedom for all!! If someone wants more than one partner in life like the Mormons or the same sex let them do it but not thru the government but by private contract.

c10h14n2
06-24-2007, 09:21 PM
I appreciate the open communication as well. I believe that the more we talk, the better Ron Paul's chances are. He's right when he says we have to get people thinking. Open discussions like these are the way to do it. I think the biggest turn off for me is when I'm trying to have dialog, the other person tries to silence you - usually using religious dogma. Discrimination doesn't mean "you think or feels bad thoughts about someone". It means you treat them differently under the law. Could a Doctor hate gays? Yes. Could he not hate, but not agree with gays. Yes. Could he deny them treatment? That answer should be no in my opinion.

What is the line between freedom of expression and bigotry?

I like just about everything about Dr. Paul - it is getting me to think. I do have some fear over giving the states so much power. How far could they go to discriminate if there was not a "higher" power governing them?

I'm just here to learn more. There is not only one question, nor is there only one answer, but through communication, the questions and answers can become clearer.

Bradley in DC
06-24-2007, 09:35 PM
I appreciate the open communication as well. I believe that the more we talk, the better Ron Paul's chances are. [snip] Could Doctor hate gays? Yes. Could he not hate, but not agree with gays. Yes. Could he deny treatment? That answer should be no in my opinion.

Respectfully, I disagree: the government has no right to interfere with the doctor's liberty (professional oaths are another matter, and best decided accordingly by civil society). Similarly, do you think gay establishments ought to have the liberty of kicking out groups of religious evangelicals preaching there that homosexuality is a sin and you'd all be damned to Hell? If not, what's the difference? The principle is accepting that people are different and to respect us as individuals with the same rights.

Gary
06-24-2007, 10:16 PM
I think there are two issue here:
1. What does the constitution actually allow wrt gay marriage
2. What do people think ought to be allowed

With respect to the first concern, it has already been pointed out that the constitution is silent on marriage. So it should leave marriage to the states.

Now of course we have some difficulties because there are already so many laws and regulations that are dependent on marriage. Some are benefits others burdens to marriage. So of course the constitutionalist would need to believe we need to get rid of all marriage laws at the federal level (hmm I guess this means removing "married filing jointly" from income taxes, but that is another issue).

Now for the second. I think it should be plainly obvious that marriage predates any and all forms of government, let alone the US federal government. Marriage is a natural institution with the goal of propogating the species. (Now I know many of you will say, "no it is for people who love each other!", but the reality is that propogation of the species is built into our DNA). For government to get involved and attempt to change the meaning of marriage is a form of despotic government, for it is an attempt to change that which pre-exists it, indeed it is an attempt to change our very nature. Put another way: traditional marriage does not need government, gay marriage does.

Has anyone stopped to think where this goes? Traditional marriage is fruitful (i.e. children are a possibility): and we have always recognized that those children rightfully belong to their biological parents (not as owners, but as parents). Gay marriage is naturally unfruitful: children may enter into this marriage through law only, never by nature. Ultimately this leads to a view that all children are wards of the state, and biology gives no particular rights to raise one's children. (Look at all of the weird cases around test tube babies and tell me this isn't already starting to happen).

So I believe that no government, state or local, has the right to redefine marriage any more than they have the right to take away any natural human liberties.

Which gets us to the final question: should governments be promoting marriage? Constitutionally, the federal government cannot, unless one reads the "promote the general welfare" clause broadly. But state or local governments most certainly could. Here are two important facts to consider:
1. Society ceases to exist without children
2. Children raised in a marriage between a man and a woman have a significantly statistically higher likelihood to avoid poverty and crime (and many, many other issues). This has been demonstrated repeatedly.

So, it is quite reasonable for a government to promote the natural institution of marriage as a logical means to sustain society. Government should have no interest in a contract between two parties if the only beneficiaries are the two parties. So if marriage is between two people who "are in love", the government should give a big "who cares!". But if the contract implies the possibility or likelihood of sustaining society in a healthy manner then, this earns the big thumbs up! The point is that marriage law is never about the two people, it is about the impact on society at large.

c10h14n2
06-24-2007, 11:05 PM
I see your point about Doctors. I would hope that their Hippocratic oath would compel them to treat a gay.

Now, onto the next topic:

"Marriage is a natural institution with the goal of propagating the species. (Now I know many of you will say, "no it is for people who love each other!", but the reality is that propagation of the species is built into our DNA)."

Actually, it is copulation that is built into our DNA. Marriage is not needed at all for the species to survive as long as people are copulating.

"Put another way: traditional marriage does not need government, gay marriage does."

I have to disagree - traditional marriage does need government if only for the reason for benefits. So both types of marriage are dependent on the Government if they are to receive these benefits.

"Traditional marriage is fruitful (i.e. children are a possibility):"

Its not marriage that is fruitful, its copulation. Marriage is not needed for our species to survive.

"But if the contract implies the possibility or likelihood of sustaining society in a healthy manner then, this earns the big thumbs up! The point is that marriage law is never about the two people, it is about the impact on society at large."

What about divorce? It seems your implying that the government should encourage marriages that will sustain society, e.g, have children? Divorce is more of a problem to children that gay marriage could ever be. Remember, gay parents are not the ones who made all these gay kids running around out there - Straight parents did.

Also, I have heard the sanctity of marriage debate (a institution that pre-dates everything) before. And I partially agree. I agree with the statistic. I do think things change and I *know* we can't never say for sure if gays were married way way way back in the day. Not in the Christian Church, but maybe pagan ceremonies - we know that homosexuality was rampart in Rome and Greece and England way way back. I think the only safe assumption we can make is that the Christian and Jewish faiths strictly prohibited gay behavior/marriage and they can still do that to this day here in America, but short of that, I don't think anyone could say for sure whether or not their were gay marriages way way back.

For the moment, we cannot say why people are gay and why some aren't. But gays are NOT a product of gay parents, they are a product of straight parents. It might be genetic. I can hardly say its learned, giving my own upbringing. But either way, I don't think society is in danger of extinction if we don't breed:")

I hope these issues can be talked about openly in the coming year. There a lot both sides can learn.

i think one of the neatest things about this election, thanks to Ron Paul, is that we, the people, can actually discuss in a meaningful way, exactly what the constitution is and how it is interpreted. No more fluff of just repeating the amendments mindlessly.

literatim
06-24-2007, 11:08 PM
I think there are two issue here:
1. What does the constitution actually allow wrt gay marriage
2. What do people think ought to be allowed

With respect to the first concern, it has already been pointed out that the constitution is silent on marriage. So it should leave marriage to the states.

Now of course we have some difficulties because there are already so many laws and regulations that are dependent on marriage. Some are benefits others burdens to marriage. So of course the constitutionalist would need to believe we need to get rid of all marriage laws at the federal level (hmm I guess this means removing "married filing jointly" from income taxes, but that is another issue).

Now for the second. I think it should be plainly obvious that marriage predates any and all forms of government, let alone the US federal government. Marriage is a natural institution with the goal of propogating the species. (Now I know many of you will say, "no it is for people who love each other!", but the reality is that propogation of the species is built into our DNA). For government to get involved and attempt to change the meaning of marriage is a form of despotic government, for it is an attempt to change that which pre-exists it, indeed it is an attempt to change our very nature. Put another way: traditional marriage does not need government, gay marriage does.

Has anyone stopped to think where this goes? Traditional marriage is fruitful (i.e. children are a possibility): and we have always recognized that those children rightfully belong to their biological parents (not as owners, but as parents). Gay marriage is naturally unfruitful: children may enter into this marriage through law only, never by nature. Ultimately this leads to a view that all children are wards of the state, and biology gives no particular rights to raise one's children. (Look at all of the weird cases around test tube babies and tell me this isn't already starting to happen).

So I believe that no government, state or local, has the right to redefine marriage any more than they have the right to take away any natural human liberties.

Which gets us to the final question: should governments be promoting marriage? Constitutionally, the federal government cannot, unless one reads the "promote the general welfare" clause broadly. But state or local governments most certainly could. Here are two important facts to consider:
1. Society ceases to exist without children
2. Children raised in a marriage between a man and a woman have a significantly statistically higher likelihood to avoid poverty and crime (and many, many other issues). This has been demonstrated repeatedly.

So, it is quite reasonable for a government to promote the natural institution of marriage as a logical means to sustain society. Government should have no interest in a contract between two parties if the only beneficiaries are the two parties. So if marriage is between two people who "are in love", the government should give a big "who cares!". But if the contract implies the possibility or likelihood of sustaining society in a healthy manner then, this earns the big thumbs up! The point is that marriage law is never about the two people, it is about the impact on society at large.

I agree.

literatim
06-24-2007, 11:26 PM
Actually, it is copulation that is built into our DNA. Marriage is not needed at all for the species to survive as long as people are copulating.

It requires an average of 2.1 children per woman to replace the existing population. A single middle class person does not have the ability to support a child by themselves. Single parents are generally those that were having pre-marital sex and did not have plans to have a child yet. Statistically, single parents ususally do not have more than one child due to the economic burden and are usually suffering from money troubles. This is a serious problem and the effects have already shown themselves within white middle America with population growth being in the negatives due to whites only having an average of 1.4 children per woman.


I have to disagree - traditional marriage does need government if only for the reason for benefits. So both types of marriage are dependent on the Government if they are to receive these benefits.

Marriage promotes stable normal households for healthy children to grow up in so that our population can be replinished.


Its not marriage that is fruitful, its copulation. Marriage is not needed for our species to survive.

I beg to differ. Science has shown us that a father and mother are both needed for the best chance of a child growing up mentally and physically healthy.


What about divorce? It seems your implying that the government should encourage marriages that will sustain society, e.g, have children? Divorce is more of a problem to children that gay marriage could ever be. Remember, gay parents are not the ones who made all these gay kids running around out there - Straight parents did.

Divorce is a necessary evil. Society will always have its ills, but it is best to not attempt to add to them.

Man from La Mancha
06-24-2007, 11:31 PM
A least in tropic locations you could say copulation is all that was needed for humans to continue because of favorable climate and generally food that can be grown or foraged all year. But in harsher climates with winter a family was needed to protect the children and this required a man to protect, shelter and bring in food. And a woman who cared for her children, foraged and prepared the food. Life was rough and it took a team, a family to survive. A marriage of skills that could be fruitful.

megan
06-24-2007, 11:38 PM
I don't think things should be illegal just because they are "unnatural."

literatim
06-24-2007, 11:50 PM
I don't think things should be illegal just because they are "unnatural."

Illegal? It is not denying homosexuals the ability to have relationships, it is simply not providing government benefits for such a selfish relationship.

If a government (in this case a State) is going to give benefits for anything, it should be for something that is beneficial to the society as a whole. A growing populace of healthy people is a benefit to everyone.

c10h14n2
06-24-2007, 11:54 PM
I see your point about Doctors. I would hope that their Hippocratic oath would compel them to treat a gay.

Now, onto the next topic:

"Marriage is a natural institution with the goal of propagating the species. (Now I know many of you will say, "no it is for people who love each other!", but the reality is that propagation of the species is built into our DNA)."

Actually, it is copulation that is built into our DNA. Marriage is not needed at all for the species to survive as long as people are copulating.

"Put another way: traditional marriage does not need government, gay marriage does."

I have to disagree - traditional marriage does need government if only for the reason for benefits. So both types of marriage are dependent on the Government if they are to receive these benefits.

"Traditional marriage is fruitful (i.e. children are a possibility):"

Its not marriage that is fruitful, its copulation. Marriage is not needed for our species to survive.

"But if the contract implies the possibility or likelihood of sustaining society in a healthy manner then, this earns the big thumbs up! The point is that marriage law is never about the two people, it is about the impact on society at large."

What about divorce? It seems your implying that the government should encourage marriages that will sustain society, e.g, have children? Divorce is more of a problem to children that gay marriage could ever be. Remember, gay parents are not the ones who made all these gay kids running around out there - Straight parents did.

Also, I have heard the sanctity of marriage debate (a institution that pre-dates everything) before. And I partially agree. I agree with the statistic. I do think things change and I *know* we can't never say for sure if gays were married way way way back in the day. Not in the Christian Church, but maybe pagan ceremonies - we know that homosexuality was rampart in Rome and Greece and England way way back. I think the only safe assumption we can make is that the Christian and Jewish faiths strictly prohibited gay behavior/marriage and they can still do that to this day here in America, but short of that, I don't think anyone could say for sure whether or not their were gay marriages way way back.

For the moment, we cannot say why people are gay and why some aren't. But gays are a product of gay parents, they are a product of straight parents. It might be genetic. I can hardly say its learned, giving my own upbringing. But either way, I don't think society is in danger of extinction if we don't breed:")

I hope these issues can be talked about openly in the coming year. There a lot both sides can learn.

i think one of the neatest things about this election, thanks to Ron Paul, is that we, the people, can actually discuss in a meaningful way, exactly what the constitution is and how it is interpreted. No more fluff of just repeating the amendments mindlessly.

c10h14n2
06-24-2007, 11:58 PM
eeks...whether homosexuality is natural or not will never be agreed upon. I'm gay - it is perfectly natural to me.

But for a Hetro? It is absolutely unnatural - that I believe.

If you don't "feel" it, it will never be natural to you. But Homosexuality can be evidenced in nature. It is just a small population. Just like we are a small population among humans.

Gays have also existed for centuries...hell the bible couldn't outlaw it if it didn't exist, right? So gays outdate the bible and Christainity.

I can't expect a hetro to feel the being gay is natural, unless you feel it, you wouldn't think so. I get that. My straight parents made me. Just like my girlfriends straight parents made her. We aren't asking the hypothetical "you" to join us. But believe that we could provide a loving and healthy home to a child. I agree, a child is better off with two parents, but it doesn't always have to be mom and pop. This world is so large...so many kids are going unloved and in the foster care system. I see no reason why gays should be allowed to raise some of these kids.

You can point out all the studies you want, but the first gay adoption didn't occur until mid to late 1990's. We have no stats on how successful it is yet or not. We simply don't know. So, its unfair to say a gay home would be unhealthy.

Sorry - i have no idea how I double posted above. I wasn't trying to make my point twice :)

Man from La Mancha
06-25-2007, 12:12 AM
I can't say that either I don't know. Two people can raise a child but with a man and a woman, each brings a different sexual attitude to the equation which could never be in a same sex relation. How a boy or girl views their own sex or the opposite could only be found in a hetero relationship. Yes I know the children can meet the other sexes some where else.. But why are the studies saying that a father is needed. Don't single mothers have male friends? Somehow it isn't the same. There are many children in this world that need adaption so a same sex couple would surely be a God send for these children but I just don't think that is ideal. my 2 cents worth

megan
06-25-2007, 01:18 AM
Illegal? It is not denying homosexuals the ability to have relationships, it is simply not providing government benefits for such a selfish relationship.

oh. I might have misunderstood because I don't think the government should give ANYONE benefits for choosing to be in a relationship.

if some people didn't have "fruitful" marriages, it wouldn't throw a wrench in any system.

(and to clarify my personal opinion to everyone, not that you care, I don't believe that homosexuality is unnatural.)
someone also asked me a question about deciding to get married in massachusetts. I'm marrying a man, but we want to get married in a place like canada or mass. that represents our beliefs about marriage most closely. it's an ethical choice.

Broadlighter
06-25-2007, 01:26 AM
Gay relationships are not exclusive to the human species. Animals have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, so to say that it is unnatural is disengenuous.

Some scientists have explained that the occurence of homosexual behavior is part of Mother Nature's way of curbing population growth among a particular species, within a particular environment. This seems to make the most sense to me.

The prevalence of Gays and Lesbians in our society is nothing more than a sign that we are overpopulated. It's not a freak of nature, a punishment or a curse, just simply an impersonal occurrence of nature that translates into very personal circumstances.

That said, Ron Paul has mentioned that we ought not to seek to use government force on people, who's lifestyle or behaviors don't agree with us if they are not directly harming anyone. However, we're looking at the principles of human liberty.
Why are we so afraid of it? I think if we were to act as free individuals, there would be no need to discriminate against anyone over anything other than to redress personal harm - if it were to occur. So the proper role of government would be never rule on matters of personal lifestyle or group association, but rather matters where individuals are harmed by other individuals.

literatim
06-25-2007, 10:19 AM
I can't say that either I don't know. Two people can raise a child but with a man and a woman, each brings a different sexual attitude to the equation which could never be in a same sex relation. How a boy or girl views their own sex or the opposite could only be found in a hetero relationship. Yes I know the children can meet the other sexes some where else.. But why are the studies saying that a father is needed. Don't single mothers have male friends? Somehow it isn't the same. There are many children in this world that need adaption so a same sex couple would surely be a God send for these children but I just don't think that is ideal. my 2 cents worth

It is not just psychological either, but biological. Science has shown how hormones effect child development.


oh. I might have misunderstood because I don't think the government should give ANYONE benefits for choosing to be in a relationship.

if some people didn't have "fruitful" marriages, it wouldn't throw a wrench in any system.

(and to clarify my personal opinion to everyone, not that you care, I don't believe that homosexuality is unnatural.)
someone also asked me a question about deciding to get married in massachusetts. I'm marrying a man, but we want to get married in a place like canada or mass. that represents our beliefs about marriage most closely. it's an ethical choice.

Marriage on a whole needs to be promoted for the sake of giving children a steady healthy home to grow up in. Will all marriage couples have children? Probably not, but it sets the foundation that can further be expanded on with benefits to help those with children.

Gary
06-25-2007, 10:30 PM
c10,
thanks for your thoughtful response. I will attempt to address a few of your comments:


"Marriage is a natural institution with the goal of propagating the species. (Now I know many of you will say, "no it is for people who love each other!", but the reality is that propagation of the species is built into our DNA)."

Actually, it is copulation that is built into our DNA. Marriage is not needed at all for the species to survive as long as people are copulating.


Touche. Actually, you might add "that is open to the possibility of new life". In this day and age, it is remarkable how many learned people seem to not understand where babies come from.

I was attampting to compare what I called natural marriage to proposed gay marriage.


"Put another way: traditional marriage does not need government, gay marriage does."

I have to disagree - traditional marriage does need government if only for the reason for benefits. So both types of marriage are dependent on the Government if they are to receive these benefits.


Well you are correct that government benefits require the existence of government. The point I was trying to make was that even in the absence of any form of government, marriages and families would exist and would be naturally recognized for what they are. So in this sense, marriage exists and has always existed without government.


"Traditional marriage is fruitful (i.e. children are a possibility):"

Its not marriage that is fruitful, its copulation. Marriage is not needed for our species to survive.


Once again, I was merely comparing natural marriages and proposed gay marriages. But thanks for pointing out this point that seems like it should be obvious yet is lost on much of society. I am reminded of an article I saw in the paper a couple of years ago about a high school that had an unusually high number of girls that were pregnant. The principle stated he was at a loss as to why so many girls were pregnant. Somehow the fact that they were having sex as a possible cause seemed to have escaped him. :(


we know that homosexuality was rampart in Rome and Greece and England way way back

And my understanding is that is rampant in some cultures even today. I guess you would have to say that the amount of homosexual ACTIVITY seems to be somewhat culturally biased, independed of the number of people who feel homosexual. Ancient Greece celebrated the relationship between a man and a boy. Today we call that rape.

Also, on the note about "unnatural". I was not attempting to make any commentary on whether homosexuality is natural or not. That is well beyond my competence. I was merely trying to say that marriage is a natural institution that does not require laws to make it valid.


What about divorce? It seems your implying that the government should encourage marriages that will sustain society, e.g, have children? Divorce is more of a problem to children that gay marriage could ever be.

This is a great point. No fault divorce laws are fairly recent. Prior, it was much harder to get a divorce, specifically because of an awareness of the needs of children. A government that promotes marriage should naturally not promote divorce when children are involved. I'm not at all sure that our liberal divorce laws have benefited our society at all.



if some people didn't have "fruitful" marriages, it wouldn't throw a wrench in any system.

Actually it throws some pretty big wrenches in systems. When people choose not to be fruitful, then populations can actually decline. This in turn has caused a variety of problems, some of them very predictable outcomes of socialism (which of course would be a non-issue on a RP view of government):
- Economies that are growing will have job demand outstrip supply. This causes the demand for more immigrants, illegal and legal both.
- If immigration is cut off, then eventually markets get smaller. This will cause economic downturn and shrinking economies. Wealth will inevitably shrink overall (although probably become more concentrated. Hey isn't that happenning already?)
- Social Security systems are bound to collapse. Popular myth in this country is that social security is strained because people are living longer. However, our population growth rate is declining, not growing, which you would expect if people were living longer. The reality is that social security is in trouble because there are not enough new workers paying into the system because the nation is not populating fast enough.
- Elder care will become increasingly difficult to pay for. One European country has solved this problem by simply killing off older people if their illnesses are too expensive to cure.
- Even in countries without social security, there will still be a shortage of younger people to care for the elderly.
- Countries such as India and China with traditional higher value for boys have big problems with sex-selective abortion and female infanticide (yes killing their young. I'm not making this up). This results in disproportionate ratio of boys to girls (in some provinces as much as 1.3:1) which in turns means women become forced to be slaves to multiple men.

Japan, Korea, and many western European countries are realizing that under-population is a huge issue for them and are now publicly talking about it. The USA could be next.

LibertyCzar
06-25-2007, 10:48 PM
My opinion is that politicians should have no official positions at all on gay marriage. It is not an issue of State. I consider it an issue of the church, or similar private institution. Marriage should be neither recognized nore subsidized by the State. It's none of anyone's business who is married to who, except for the people involved with the marriage: the couple. In fact, if the Mormons want to have many spouses, who cares. It's not anyone's business.

Public policy needs to get out of private lives. That's my opinion. :D

Gary
06-26-2007, 11:06 PM
Public policy needs to get out of private lives. That's my opinion.

I'm curious, would you also say that private lives needs to get out of public policy?

nexalacer
06-27-2007, 08:25 AM
Gay relationships are not exclusive to the human species. Animals have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, so to say that it is unnatural is disengenuous.

Some scientists have explained that the occurence of homosexual behavior is part of Mother Nature's way of curbing population growth among a particular species, within a particular environment. This seems to make the most sense to me.

The prevalence of Gays and Lesbians in our society is nothing more than a sign that we are overpopulated. It's not a freak of nature, a punishment or a curse, just simply an impersonal occurrence of nature that translates into very personal circumstances.

That said, Ron Paul has mentioned that we ought not to seek to use government force on people, who's lifestyle or behaviors don't agree with us if they are not directly harming anyone. However, we're looking at the principles of human liberty.
Why are we so afraid of it? I think if we were to act as free individuals, there would be no need to discriminate against anyone over anything other than to redress personal harm - if it were to occur. So the proper role of government would be never rule on matters of personal lifestyle or group association, but rather matters where individuals are harmed by other individuals.

I think this point needs to be expanded on. literatim said something earlier, which was seconded by Gary, that needs to be questioned. That is, currently, the population of human beings is approx. 6 billion. To suggest that we need a birth rate that increases the population for the sake of the economy is akin to saying that our nations' "homogeneous" population is more valuable than our progenys' need for a world where there is room to grow food to feed the population or where there is ample room to live that is not surrounded by centuries of waste.

Consider the garbage YOU and your family create in one week. One, maybe two trash barrels of garbage, if you're anything like my neighbors for the last 26 years. Multiply that by just the population of america for, approx 300 mil, and the tonnage is mind boggling. And that's just America... not counting the other developed nations waste output (as obviously undeveloped nations would have a considerably smaller impact considering mosst of their waste is likely biodegradable) imagine if you multiplied that by 2.0, 2.1, 2.5, or 3.0 (or wherever your preference for growth is) every generation for 100 years. Realize this is exponential growth... the thought disturbs me greatly.

My point is not to ramble on about population statistics and garbage, however. The point is that it is foolish to assume that only by maintaining a population from within a country can a country survive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, nor opening the gates to all comers, however, if we follow Dr. Paul's path and provide an excellent example to the world what the values of liberty can provide, then it is not crazy to assume that many people around the world who are drawn to the same values of liberty will come to America to work hard and fill the positions needed by our economy.

IMO, the assumption that we must sustain our population from within sounds like it comes from a belief that we must sustain some sort of homogenity in our population. And since the population of America is anything but homogeneous, it sounds like the same "race" nonsense that has created many of the cultural conflicts that have occurred since the beginning of the modern era (that is, the beginning of exploration and colonialism).

Our CULTURE should be what we strive to mantain, as culture is what makes (made?) America great. We have never been a nation of so-called racial homogenity, but we were founded on the idea that a love and belief in liberty is what makes someone an American. To suggest that we must keep our population growth (global net population growth) positive without taking in the effects that that could have on our children's children is a dangerous thing, as well as unnecessary as we can create a country were we can keep our culture AND sustain economic growth with the right kind of immigration.

Nefertiti
06-27-2007, 06:01 PM
As a Muslim, I have absolutely no problem with government sanctioned gay marriage. Now my religion considers homosexuality a sin, but a government issued marriage license also according to my religion is not a real marriage. It's a civil contract.

Now, that said, I do feel that the marriage laws we have in this country violate our rights to practice religion. That is because the marriage laws in existence apply to all the same regardless of their religion.

Think of Catholics for example. A practicing Catholic who marries in the Catholic church may not marry again if they divorce. Imagine a Catholic couple who divorces, and the husband divorces his wife, marries another woman under civil marriage laws, and has 5 more kids neglecting his kids from his first marriage. His first wife's religious rights in my opinion have been violated.

Muslim marriage contracts specify the amount of money the wife gets in the case of a divorce or death, but courts in this country will not recognize this amount because it does not conform to the civil laws concerning prenuptial agreements. That couple's religious rights have been violated.

Now, realistically, we can't hope to get rid of civil marriage or replace it with some other institution. But it would be nice if civil marriage could be combined with contracts between a couple that follow the rules of their religion entered into freely by both parties at the time of marriage and would be recognized by courts.

Nefertiti
06-27-2007, 06:14 PM
I can't expect a hetro to feel the being gay is natural, unless you feel it, you wouldn't think so. I get that. My straight parents made me. Just like my girlfriends straight parents made her. But believe that we could provide a loving and healthy home to a child. I agree, a child is better off with two parents, but it doesn't always have to be mom and pop.

I find that idea about what feels natural to be an interesting perspective and I have to agree, but what I want to comment about is the two parent idea. I disagree that parenting is just a number-2 being better than 1. Even if you prefer the sexual companionship of the same sex, when you go out into society, you have to deal with people on a daily basis of both sexes. A child is better off if they are exposed to that in the home.

And as you said, it took two straight parents to make you. Those who are strong creationists will talk of Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. But what about if you are an evolutionist? You have to admit that evolution has favored heterosexual reproduction and obviously heterosexual parenting as well, because although we now have medicine that can keep practically any child alive, that wasn't always the case and evolution kept our ancestors going even though there was a high child mortality rate. But those who were able to make it to adulthood outnumbered those who didn't and that was through heterosexual parenting.

Bradley in DC
06-27-2007, 07:07 PM
Think of Catholics for example. A practicing Catholic who marries in the Catholic church may not marry again if they divorce.

Without an annulment, yes, but otherwise they may in fact marry within the Church (as Rudy did the first divorce/annulment, but not his second!).

Gary
06-27-2007, 11:55 PM
Nex wrote:

I think this point needs to be expanded on. literatim said something earlier, which was seconded by Gary, that needs to be questioned. That is, currently, the population of human beings is approx. 6 billion. To suggest that we need a birth rate that increases the population for the sake of the economy is akin to saying that our nations' "homogeneous" population is more valuable than our progenys' need for a world where there is room to grow food to feed the population or where there is ample room to live that is not surrounded by centuries of waste.

Consider the garbage YOU and your family create in one week. One, maybe two trash barrels of garbage, if you're anything like my neighbors for the last 26 years. Multiply that by just the population of america for, approx 300 mil, and the tonnage is mind boggling. And that's just America... not counting the other developed nations waste output (as obviously undeveloped nations would have a considerably smaller impact considering mosst of their waste is likely biodegradable) imagine if you multiplied that by 2.0, 2.1, 2.5, or 3.0 (or wherever your preference for growth is) every generation for 100 years. Realize this is exponential growth... the thought disturbs me greatly.


I need to make two comments:
1. I personally have no problem with immigration. Frankly, we need it. But I know there are some people who post here that are against immigration but seem to be unaware of the negative implications that creates on our economy.

2. People have been spreading the fear of overpopulation for over 200 years. However, the problem is that every one of their dire fears has proven abjectly wrong. We haven't run out of food - it is more abundant. There are more trees now in the USA than there were 100 years ago. The falacy is that all of these people fail to take into account humanity's ingenuity at solving problems. In fact, the more people there are, the more problem solvers there are. And our economic system forces greater efficiencies as well, which also serves to make things better. Unfortunately, some people hate humanity so much, they are willing to continue to perpetrate these lies.

As for trash, I have faith that humanity will solve this problem when it gets to be a real issue. In fact we are already starting it by way of recycling. Cities such as San Francisco which have a greater need to avoid trash have nearly eliminated all waste already. Other waste will be eliminated when it makes sense economically and environmentally (or when government regulation accelerates the trend). And you know what? The people that invent the ways to eliminate that waste will be some of those great persons that others wished were never born.

Man from La Mancha
06-28-2007, 12:53 AM
No problem with trash this guy and other similar plasma machines has solved it. Can get rid of everything, all toxic wastes and even nerve toxin gas but not radioactive waste. Plus it pays for itself and makes extra energy

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

tonyr1988
06-29-2007, 11:10 PM
My opinion is that politicians should have no official positions at all on gay marriage. It is not an issue of State. I consider it an issue of the church, or similar private institution. Marriage should be neither recognized nore subsidized by the State. It's none of anyone's business who is married to who, except for the people involved with the marriage: the couple. In fact, if the Mormons want to have many spouses, who cares. It's not anyone's business.

Public policy needs to get out of private lives. That's my opinion. :D

I completely agree, and I'm kind of disappointed that few (if any) politicians hold this stance. It seems to be the most obvious (and free, and neutral) solution.

I've always thought that marriage should be like a baptism - entirely up to the church. As a Christian, I think that gay marriage would damage the sanctity of it; however, it wouldn't be the first thing - divorce, marriages between non-religious people, etc. have irreversibly damaged the sanctity of marriage far more than homosexuals could if they tried.

They government could easily establish a process to grant the same rights that married couples do today (call it a "civil union," or anything else for that matter), as far as taxes, medical rights, etc. Of course, there would have to be restrictions (such as: no more than 2 people, no inanimate objects, etc), but they would all be legal reasons, not personal or religious ones.

It reminds me of a quote from a book I have about the Crusades:


Whenever the church and the state enter into a relationship, inevitably the church ends up becoming the state's whore. She is used for the political expedience of the state, and then when she is no longer useful, she is tossed aside as an unwanted mistress. It is an unholy relationship, and the state is inevitably an abusive spouse.

Revolution9
06-29-2007, 11:45 PM
Gay relationships are not exclusive to the human species. Animals have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, so to say that it is unnatural is disengenuous.

Those are displays of dominance. The purpose behind them is not union. It is hierarchical and happens down the line in the pecking order or pack dominance hierarchy. The alpha male will never let himself be mounted by a beta. He will mount a beta as a dominance display though.

Best Regards
Randy