Heterosexual vs. Homosexual Marriage is a liberal division tactic

[PierzStyx]

I cannot believe that so many here do not understand this simple fact. They have us arguing over whether gays should have the same rights as straight people and be able to get "married". They have us fighting over whether gay marriage is truly marriage, if its the same as what straight people do, if its moral or not, etc. etc. And its all distraction. The fact is that no where in the US Constitution is the US government empowered to either define the word "marriage" or to make laws regulating it. But this is the exact power the government wants. It wants the power to reach into the most private part of our personal lives and to be able to regulate it and control it. If it can control our personal lives and mating habits to the nth degree then it can gain total control over us. This is the issue we should be paying attention to, not whether gay or straight marriage is morally right or if it should be legally recognized and empowered. The government is seeking the power to control our personal lives right down to the point of who we have sex with (a la 1984) and we're arguing over "rights". And what we're arguing over aren't even rights, they're governmentally handed out privileges to reward those who go along with its program.

Don't think I'm right? Look at the history of heterosexual marriage. Used to be that simply reporting that you were married was enough and collected only for census purposes. You were never required to provide proof, that was between you and God. The state had no power in it. You could marry whoever you wanted however you wanted. You could even have as many partners as you wanted. But slowly that began to change. The big leaps took place during the Civil War. The Republican Party came to power on the plank of eliminating the "twin relics of barbarism-slavery and polygamy." In 1862, Congress issued the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in all US territories. When this was challenged in court the SCOTUS ruled the act constitutional. With it the US government began to regulate who you could have a relationship with, and how many you could have an intimate relationship with, a swell as WHAT you called your relationship. Merely saying you were married to two women became a felony causing the seizure of your property and your incarceration. It is still like this today. And that was only the beginning. Today heterosexual marriage is regulated all the way from when you can marry to whom you can marry to when you can end your marriage. And all through it the government hands out tax rights as doggy treats to convince us we're coming out ahead.

Marriage licensing itself didn't become a legal requirement for marriage in the USA until after the Civil War, and then only as a way for the government to regulate marriage and prevent interracial marriages. Religiously its blasphemous to say the state has any power over such a bedrock religious institution and politically it only has existed AS a tool of exclusion and prejudice. Better to be rid of them altogether. Then everyone would have equal standing before the law and all issues of constitutionality would be satisfied.

The way to make relationships most equal is to get government out of it altogether. No one gets any more, or any less, privileges than anyone else does. And you don't have the government interfering in anyone's relationship either. The government shouldn't have the power to define your relationship, dictate how many people are involved in your relationship, who your relationship can be with,what you can do within the confines of your relationship, or what type of relationship you have. The more government gets involved in relationships, the more it does just those things. More liberty is obtained, for everyone gay and straight, by having government out of it all together.

This should be where our focus should be. It shouldn't be on whether gay relationships are moral or immoral but on the fact that government regulatiom of gay and straight relationships is immoral and illegal. We need to fight the good fight for the right reasons and not be divided by false arguments over government privileges given as an enticement to obey it. If we do not then not only will the liberals eventually carry the day, they'll control the most intimate part of our lives-who we choose to love.

[GunnyFreedom]

Hear here. Get government OUT of marriage, period.

[phill4paul]

I think it is simple. Ron Paul says, rightfully, that it comes down to the state. Not the federal government. I am currently a member of "Vote NO on Amendment One', the N.C. Amendment that would define disallow gays from marrying.. I'm satisfied, at this point, that it is a state proposal.
I AM against increasing government and doing what I can to shift the discussions in the "Vote no" circle to just getting government out of it altogether.

[PierzStyx]

Hear here. Get government OUT of marriage, period.

Just thought you might like to know that my thoughts on government regulation of marriage being blasphemous is not an original thought. Its actually something I heard from this speech of yours that hit me like lightning. I knew you were absolutely right and that point needs to be shouted from the rooftops to other religious people. Thanks for that insight. Keep up the good work man. The liberty influence you have stretches farther than may first appear. I, after all, live in California.

[PierzStyx]

I think it is simple. Ron Paul says, rightfully, that it comes down to the state. Not the federal government. I am currently a member of "Vote NO on Amendment One', the N.C. Amendment that would define disallow gays from marrying.. I'm satisfied, at this point, that it is a state proposal.
I AM against increasing government and doing what I can to shift the discussions in the "Vote no" circle to just getting government out of it altogether.

Agreed. Any state control over marriage is a horrible idea. The states control you, the Fedgov controls the states. Just because the state governments have a theoretical power doesn't mean they should be able to use it. Remember any time government spreads its power you lose liberty.

[phill4paul]

Any state control over marriage is a horrible idea. The states control you, the Fedgov controls the states. Just because the state governments have a theoretical power doesn't mean they should be able to use it. Remember any time government spreads its power you lose liberty.

I am pretty sure that we are in agreement in what I posted.

[PierzStyx]

I am pretty sure that we are in agreement in what I posted.

Sure sure. I meant to agree with you. I'll edit it and add "Agreed" to make it my intent clearer.

[Enforcer]

PierzStyx:

I can find a lot of room to agree with you on this. I have argued on this very board that employers ought to have the Right to hire whomever they damn well please and that immigration laws designed to force employers to hire "legal" Americans are unconstitutional to the core.

Now, you hit me with a Rights issue and I have personal feelings about it. Homosexuality is immoral from a Christian perspective. But then, in all due honesty, drinking to excess is immoral as well. If a church does not want to condone a homosexual ... or even an inter-racial relationship, they should not have to accept it. HOWEVER, what two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is nobody's business.

Landlords should not be compelled to rent to drunks, homosexuals... and even at the point of being called a heretic, inter-racial couples. Employers should not be forced to hire any of those classes, and it should be the decision of parents if they want to exclude certain people from accepting any given class of people teaching their children.

We've gotten too used to the system using trite phrases like obey the law and we "need" some form of regulation (a modern euphemism for registration) of human beings using permits and licenses.

The government regulates what we put in our bodies, who we choose to love, how we choose to defend our lives and property. The government wants to create a permit / license for us to ask permission to drive on a road we paid to have built. The courts have told us that our Rights are not absolute. In Georgia, the government has claimed it outlawed the common law marriage. They what????

The common law is federal law. How can a state take away a common law Right? I got divorced. In the judge's final decree and order, the judge states that I "shall have the Right to remarry." So, if we have a Right to marry and remarry, why do we need a marriage license? According to ALL law dictionaries, a permit or a license is permission from a governmental entity to do that which is otherwise illegal to do. WHY do we think we have to get the government's permission to exercise a constitutional Right?

Why does the gay community think they need validation from a de facto (illegal) government in order to get married? I think they would be better served to get employers to willingly hire them and get insurance companies to underwrite them based upon the fact that they would be a great financial base. I mean, there is no "law" that tells an insurance company that they cannot sell to gays.

Other than official validation from the government and the ability to get insurance for your partner, what use is a marriage "license?" If you tell me taxes, I'll tell you to grow a set and pull out of the income tax scam. If the gay community joined the constitutionalist community in refusing the communist income tax, Congress would be FORCED to look at the unconstitutional income tax.

I feel that I'm rambling and missing something. Like you said, marriage licenses were designed to prohibit inter-racial marriage. Now everybody's cool with that, so why are they sweating gays? Why would the gay community care about getting a license that is little more than proof that they have acquiesced their Rights for a few crumbs thrown at them by tyrants in government?

If you're gay and want to get married, find a willing official (minister, Rabbi, Priest, etc.) and get freaking married. Take pictures, have a marriage ceremony and live as a couple. You don't need Chris Christie's permission to exercise a Right. If it turns out it is immoral, you will be held accountable in the hereafter, NOT on this earth.

[PierzStyx]

Enforcer:

I'm right there with you. We allow the state to tell us how to think, how to act, when to act, who to be, who we can or cannot like, what food to eat, what to drink, and so much more. And why people allow this, or even want it, blows my mind. Why allow someone else to control your life for you? Are people so afraid of living? Its both frightening and heartbreaking. And we argue over who has the best treat given to them by the government for being a "good boy/girl" as if that were the issue, not the assumption that the government has the rightful power in these areas. Its enough to make me depressed sometimes.

[Brett85]

The thing about all of this is that I really don't agree that people who support a state or federal marriage amendment want to "impose their religious beliefs on others." If I really wanted to "impose" by personal religious beliefs on others, then I would support laws that actually criminalize homosexuality. If I believed that homosexuality was immoral and wanted to impose my beliefs on others, then wouldn't you logically conclude that I would support laws that imprison homosexuals for living together, sleeping together, etc? The truth is that I would oppose all such laws. If I was a state legislator, I would oppose any laws that in any way criminalized homosexuality. I would vote against these laws, even though homosexuality goes against my religious beliefs. I also supported ending the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, as I don't believe that a homosexual should get kicked out of the military simply for having a partner back home. So how exactly do I want to "impose" my religious beliefs on homosexuals when I actively defend their right to engage in homosexual acts?

[PierzStyx]

The thing about all of this is that I really don't agree that people who support a state or federal marriage amendment want to "impose their religious beliefs on others." If I really wanted to "impose" by personal religious beliefs on others, then I would support laws that actually criminalize homosexuality. If I believed that homosexuality was immoral and wanted to impose my beliefs on others, then wouldn't you logically conclude that I would support laws that imprison homosexuals for living together, sleeping together, etc? The truth is that I would oppose all such laws. If I was a state legislator, I would oppose any laws that in any way criminalized homosexuality. I would vote against these laws, even though homosexuality goes against my religious beliefs. I also supported ending the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, as I don't believe that a homosexual should get kicked out of the military simply for having a partner back home. So how exactly do I want to "impose" my religious beliefs on homosexuals when I actively defend their right to engage in homosexual acts?

By giving the government power in anyway in relationships, heterosexual or homosexual, you are giving it power to impose ITS will on them. And it will take that justification to the utmost degree possible. Remember what you intend,and what happens are two separate things altogether. Forget gay marriage. Why would you want to give the government the power to regulate your heterosexual relationship? That is exactly what you are doing by voting for any type of marriage amendment, whether you realize it or not. You are giving it power to define, control, regulate, and limit your heterosexual relationship. No government should have that power.

[Southron]

The problem is that the government already does regulate marriage. And the courts are giving us government sanctioned homosexual marriage. The government will license homosexual marriage if it isn't stopped.

So how can we stop it? Can we take away marriage licensing or are all kinds of immoral "marriages" going to receive the blessing of our governments?

[Brett85]

By giving the government power in anyway in relationships, heterosexual or homosexual, you are giving it power to impose ITS will on them. And it will take that justification to the utmost degree possible. Remember what you intend,and what happens are two separate things altogether. Forget gay marriage. Why would you want to give the government the power to regulate your heterosexual relationship? That is exactly what you are doing by voting for any type of marriage amendment, whether you realize it or not. You are giving it power to define, control, regulate, and limit your heterosexual relationship. No government should have that power.

Well, even if you support getting the government out of marriage all together, I would think that a marriage amendment would simply be a step towards that. It would simply prevent the government from expanding marriage beyond what it is now. You aren't going to stop the government from expanding marriage simply by introducing a law that abolishes marriage licences, which one or two of your fellow legislators might support.

[onlyrp]

Hear here. Get government OUT of marriage, period.

In other words, abolish marriage privileges? Allow any 2 people to file for domestic partnership?

[PierzStyx]

In other words, abolish marriage privileges? Allow any 2 people to file for domestic partnership?

Get rid of domestic partnerships too. Civil unions, the whole shebang should go. Who you choose to be intimate with, how you choose to be intimate with, how many people you choose to be intimate with, and what you call it is not the government's business. This is the way it was before marriage regulation laws. It worked then, it would now as well.

[Brett85]

Get rid of domestic partnerships too. Civil unions, the whole shebang should go. Who you choose to be intimate with, how you choose to be intimate with, how many people you choose to be intimate with, and what you call it is not the government's business. This is the way it was before marriage regulation laws. It worked then, it would now as well.

But wouldn't that essentially be like abolishing marriage? For all practical purposes, marriage wouldn't really even exist except for in people's hearts. Isn't that correct?

[PierzStyx]

Well, even if you support getting the government out of marriage all together, I would think that a marriage amendment would simply be a step towards that. It would simply prevent the government from expanding marriage beyond what it is now. You aren't going to stop the government from expanding marriage simply by introducing a law that abolishes marriage licences, which one or two of your fellow legislators might support.

I understand your meaning. And perhaps as a form of political triage surgery it could be needed. But even then think about what you're saying with it. You're still giving the government the power to define and regulate human relationships and their First Amendment rights to call that relationship what they like. And you're doing it not just to homosexuals but heterosexuals as well.

As for government expansion, the abolition of marriage licenses is just a beginning. You have to throw out all they laws connected to them as well.

[PierzStyx]

But wouldn't that essentially be like abolishing marriage? For all practical purposes, marriage wouldn't really even exist except for in people's hearts. Isn't that correct?

Marriage is a ritual in which one is joined by a religious official by the power of, and before, one's Deity or Deities. Its definition is not dependent on government's recognition of it whatsoever. Making it dependent on government cripples the institution and warps the rite. I don't know your religious affiliation, if any, but let me try this example. Is the fact that government doesn't recognize any specific form of the Christian baptismal rite pushing that act to the edge of extinction and nearly abolishing it? No. In fact it is a boon to it. The same with marriage. It would be a boon to divorce it from government in every way, not an attack on it.

And yes, I understand this is fairly radical. Right up there with how liberals see abolishing teh Fed or ending 5 governmental departments. I know its not going to happen over night. But this needs to be the goal. Give government an inch and it takes a football field. We'll we've given them our bedrooms. What do you think they;ll do to expand there power there next?

[Enforcer]

In other words, abolish marriage privileges? Allow any 2 people to file for domestic partnership?

The point is, marriage is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE.

[Eagles' Wings]

I know of two Christian communities where the ministers will only marry couples who agree to refuse licensing with the state. The thought is that the married couple is free of any spiritual entanglements with a system that allows marriage between anyone other than one man and one woman.

I've yet to research what would happen if people withdrew their marriage license, divorced? in a civil sense, and remained married in the eyes of their Faith.

Perhaps there is a legal expert here, constitutional lawyer, who would shed some light on this.

[Krugerrand]

Marriage is a ritual in which one is joined by a religious official by the power of, and before, one's Deity or Deities. Its definition is not dependent on government's recognition of it whatsoever. Making it dependent on government cripples the institution and warps the rite. I don't know your religious affiliation, if any, but let me try this example. Is the fact that government doesn't recognize any specific form of the Christian baptismal rite pushing that act to the edge of extinction and nearly abolishing it? No. In fact it is a boon to it. The same with marriage. It would be a boon to divorce it from government in every way, not an attack on it.

And yes, I understand this is fairly radical. Right up there with how liberals see abolishing teh Fed or ending 5 governmental departments. I know its not going to happen over night. But this needs to be the goal. Give government an inch and it takes a football field. We'll we've given them our bedrooms. What do you think they;ll do to expand there power there next?

Keep in mind that your approach suggests a shunning of marriage among atheists.

[GunnyFreedom]

Keep in mind that your approach suggests a shunning of marriage among atheists.

Not at all, atheists simply would not have a Church certificate. The only difference is they would not have to seek government permission before calling themselves 'married.' Of course, without the government recognition, their desire to call themselves married is liable to slack off over time, since unless you are in the Church it would become 'just a word.'

[No Free Beer]

For all the evangelicals, this is what I say...

MEANINGS OF WORDS CHANGE OVER TIME!

It is called SEMANTIC CHANGE!

[pcosmar]

It is called SEMANTIC CHANGE!

Orwell called it Newspeak.

[specsaregood]

Keep in mind that your approach suggests a shunning of marriage among atheists.

Which is why NJ law which prohibits heterosexuals from getting civil-unioned is discriminatory to hetero-atheists and agnostics.

[Southron]

The fact that people are getting married for tax benefits is disgusting enough as it is. My marriage is a covenant between myself, my wife, and God.

What we are going to end up with is more government licensed immorality.

[PierzStyx]

Keep in mind that your approach suggests a shunning of marriage among atheists.

Not at all. Since it comes down to the First Amendment, atheists can call their relationship whatever they want to call it. But are you asking me if I think an atheist couple who do not have a marriage ritual are definitional married? No. I do not. But in this system I advocate that wouldn't matter a bit since my influence over their relationship is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Only under the current form would it matter.

[PierzStyx]

For all the evangelicals, this is what I say...

MEANINGS OF WORDS CHANGE OVER TIME!

It is called SEMANTIC CHANGE!

And obviously it hasn't changed otherwise so many people (the majority of Americans) wouldn't have a problem with it./ Just because your definition changed doesn't mean you should force it on everyone else.

[The Free Hornet]

The fact that people are getting married for tax benefits is disgusting enough as it is. My marriage is a covenant between myself [1], my wife [2], and God [3].

Ohhh la la! You got yourself a 3-way.

Orwell called it Newspeak.

Did he in this context? Or in the context of individuals - not the state - using the language differently? Is it newspeak just because it is two dudes or two girls? If marriage were re-defined as having sex for a tax break, then I could see the newspeak accusation. I think your problem is that some people are using the word exactly as it was intended.

And obviously it hasn't changed otherwise so many people (the majority of Americans) wouldn't have a problem with it./ Just because your definition changed doesn't mean you should force it on everyone else.

"Civil union" is not a word and nor is it meaningful as a phrase outside of a legal context. You may not like two-dudes getting married just as you may not like a brother and sister getting married. Neither changes the operational definition of marriage. One set causes disgust among many if not most (gay) and the other likely causes disgust among 99% (incest). Would you say that the brother-sister marriage is more "marriage" than the gay-marriage marriage?

Also, regarding language and definitions, perhaps you should consider the difference between defining a term and describing that term. For marriage, "man woman - husband wife" is a perfectly good description but it is a not a complete definition. Likewise with "sexual intercourse". We know there are a million ways to do it, but the descriptive/dictionary approach is woefully inadequate:

sexual intercourse
noun
genital contact, especially the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...al+intercourse

Is gay sex somehow not sex? If I call anal intercourse "sex", am I redefining "sex" and engaging in Orwellian newspeak? No, I am using the language exactly as it was intended. You might prefer I say buttfucking instead of sex, but your personal preference has no bearing on the issue.

This reminds me of the quote, "everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts". You are very much entitled to use the words as you see fit, but you are not entitled to use the force of law making definitions that suit your discriminations.

Feel free to play dress up and speak Klingon if it pleases you. Metaphorically, you "marriage is defined as a man woman blah blah blah" types are playing dress up and speaking your own language (the costume is Christianity, to complete the metaphor).

How did you manage to start this thread kicking ass but end up kissing ass? ["And obviously it hasn't changed otherwise so many people (the majority of Americans) wouldn't have a problem with it./ Just because your definition changed doesn't mean you should force it on everyone else."] No "force" is in play beyond what already exists for hetero marriages. I can't force definitions upon you, they are what they are much to my continual disgust. As a quasi-objectivist (I abhor the IP $#@!), I'm always offended at how people define greed, selfishness, capitalism, etc. I will bitch moan and argue but never engage in the fantasy that some libtard is FORCING me to accept their definitions.

[The Free Hornet]

And obviously it hasn't changed otherwise so many people (the majority of Americans) wouldn't have a problem with it./ Just because your definition changed doesn't mean you should force it on everyone else.

We are fighting the penultimate evil in the universe. It is the exercise of collective force against individuals. And you think some marginalized culture is going to "force" a definition on you? Is that how we define "force" now? Are you forcing your definition of "force" on us?!

"I was walking down the street, and some hobo FORCED a dirty look on me!".

"The Dairy Queen was out of chocolate, and I was FORCED to eat a vanilla cone!".

"The shame was unbearable, I was FORCED to kill them upon being seen in my undies!"

I'm fighting one type of force, I sure the hell don't know what kind of force you are fighting.