An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[riw]

Funny, I was not aware that people had to be married in order to have children or that without a "state sanctioned breeding system" all procreation would come to a screeching halt.

1. Have you looked at Europe recently? What is the birth rate there? Can you point out the social pressures causing that birth rate?

2. No, people do not have to be married to have children. When people who are not married have children, those children generally become wards of the state, in one way or another.

3. When children become wards of the state, the family takes a back seat to the state. There are two political systems where all the children are intentionally made wards of the state, and the family intentionally destroyed. Fascism and Communism/Socialism. How have those worked out for Christians, or in history?

You're apparently missing the point of my post, that you can have these things, but you won't like where they go. Just because they exist doesn't mean their result is good.



Russ

 

[riw]

SS marriage is about equality under the law, your supreme court will rule that, and SS marriage in the near future will be no more a point of contention than inter-racial marriage is now.

Let's go back to the beginning.... The only place the law can and should treat people equally is in the case of rights. Hence, you are claiming marriage is a right.

Now, if you agree with this statement, you need to answer these questions:

1. If marriage is a right, is it a positive right or a negative right?

2. If marriage is a right, where was this right granted? Is it through natural law, or the Scriptures, or (?). The Scriptures clearly state marriage is a privilege or responsibility, not a right. To some judge? Okay, so you're going to tell me that if some judge proclaims anything a right, you'll agree, no matter what it is they are proclaiming to be a right?

3. If marriage is a right, what is it a right to, specifically? To fall in love with someone? You don't need marriage to fall in love. To have certain benefits? Benefits are built on tax law, and have nothing to do with "rights." To have a certain stature within society? If you're going down the path of "I have a right to be respected," or "I have a right to have my choice to love recognized," this is a very slippery slope indeed.

Or perhaps you can answer this: What specific laws are you asking for equal protection before, as a person? What is it you can't do, other than use the words "we're married," that bothers you so much?



Russ

 

[riw]

So you will agree that heterosexuals who are infertile should be denied the right to legally marry…or is that somehow different?

So you would expect the state to go around testing everyone's fertility before they were allowed to marry? No, the state sets general rules, based on its interest, when it is not a matter of rights, but of privilege.

BTW, have you ever gotten married? Did anyone draw your blood so you could get married? They did mine. Wonder what that was about? Isn't the state presuming you will have children, and making certain any children you have won't have specific problems, before allowing you to get married? Doesn't the state set rules on things like marrying brothers, and sisters, and cousins, and children, and stuff? Are you saying all these rules should be abandoned, unless the state can prove the couple will have children?

If marriage is a right, then it's just much a right for a brother and sister to get married, or a brother and brother, or a man and his daughter, or a woman and her son, or a man and his ape, or a woman and her dog, or anything else, as same sex marriage is. Once you start declaring "rights" out of thin air, then you can do pretty much anything you want.

The exact same benefits society gets from the legal recognition of interracial marriages.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Interacial marriages still result in children, which are a good for the state.

Can you name any specific benefit the states gets for endorsing and legalizing discrimination against a minority?

You can only prove denying marriage to gays is discrimination if:

1. You prove marriage is a right. And don't quote some judge, quote the Scriptures, or make a reasoned argument from natural law.

2. You explain how not allowing two people of the same sex from marrying prevents them from doing anything they like other than having a specific social stature. And isn't that what this is about, in its entirety, conferring a specific social stature?

Aren’t the anti-gay forces attacking equal rights for just that purpose?

Again, you're assuming marriage is a right. It clearly is not a right, no matter what some judge someplace has said, or what some legislature says. If you think rights come from government, and can be given or withdrawn by a government, then you have a very skewed and shallow view of what a right is. The Constitution doesn't declare rights from nothingness, or by grant of the government, it argues from natural law and a religious base. There is a reason for that line of argument.

Show me the right to marriage in natural law or the Scriptures, and then you can claim that same sex marriage is an issue of 'equal rights.'



Russ

 

[Fin12]

Interesting, it seems morning star has chosen to conviniantly forget about my post.....

 

[Braunwyn]

Let's go back to the beginning.... The only place the law can and should treat people equally is in the case of rights. Hence, you are claiming marriage is a right.

I can't speak of other nations but in the US it's not a claim of right, it's a fact that it's a right.

Now, if you agree with this statement, you need to answer these questions:

1. If marriage is a right, is it a positive right or a negative right?

This is curious. I never thought of rights as being positive or negative. I would guess that it would vary depending on the individuals involved. For example, the right to free speech isn't always a positive thing (thinking of westboro (sp?) here).

2. If marriage is a right, where was this right granted? Is it through natural law, or the Scriptures, or (?). The Scriptures clearly state marriage is a privilege or responsibility, not a right. To some judge? Okay, so you're going to tell me that if some judge proclaims anything a right, you'll agree, no matter what it is they are proclaiming to be a right?

In the US, marriage is a right protected by the US constitution. It isn't a matter of a singal judge declaring anything but the legal structure of our nation. But, I'm sure you're right in that religious marriage isn't a right. Religious marriage and civil marriage are separate issues.

3. If marriage is a right, what is it a right to, specifically? To fall in love with someone? You don't need marriage to fall in love. To have certain benefits? Benefits are built on tax law, and have nothing to do with "rights." To have a certain stature within society? If you're going down the path of "I have a right to be respected," or "I have a right to have my choice to love recognized," this is a very slippery slope indeed.

As I understand it, marriage is a fundamental right. But your question is intersting and kind of odd. It's a right to what? A right to marry. We have the right to vote. It's another fundamental right. Asking, it's a right to what? is redundant. It's a right to vote.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Let's go back to the beginning.... The only place the law can and should treat people equally is in the case of rights. Hence, you are claiming marriage is a right.

Now, if you agree with this statement, you need to answer these questions:

1. If marriage is a right, is it a positive right or a negative right?

Define negative right for me, I've never heard that one before.

2. If marriage is a right, where was this right granted? Is it through natural law, or the Scriptures, or (?). The Scriptures clearly state marriage is a privilege or responsibility, not a right.

I wasn't speaking of religous marriages, but of civil marriages.

To some judge? Okay, so you're going to tell me that if some judge proclaims anything a right, you'll agree, no matter what it is they are proclaiming to be a right?

I never said any such thing.

3. If marriage is a right, what is it a right to, specifically?

To get married? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

To fall in love with someone? You don't need marriage to fall in love. To have certain benefits? Benefits are built on tax law, and have nothing to do with "rights." To have a certain stature within society? If you're going down the path of "I have a right to be respected," or "I have a right to have my choice to love recognized," this is a very slippery slope indeed

.
I believe most all slippery slope 'arguements' (including this one), are nothing more than admission that one has lost a debate, and has resorted to a 'what if' type of pleading.

Or perhaps you can answer this: What specific laws are you asking for equal protection before, as a person? What is it you can't do, other than use the words "we're married," that bothers you so much?

Discrimination is evil, it must be stamped out when ever it raises it's filthy head.

*

 

[riw]

This is curious. I never thought of rights as being positive or negative. I would guess that it would vary depending on the individuals involved. For example, the right to free speech isn't always a positive thing (thinking of westboro (sp?) here).

A negative right is a right you have to do something without interference, such as a right to pursue happiness. A positive right is a claim that someone else (generally spoken as "society") must do something to provide you with something, such as a claim to happiness.

Marriage, in one sense, is a negative right. It is a simple contract of association, and contracts made in free will are easily shown to be a protected negative right.

OTOH, Marriage as a matter of social stature, or conferring benefits, is a positive right, claiming that others must give you certain status and benefits because you've "fallen in love with some one," or formed a certain contractual relationship.

Now, which set of rights is it the advocates for same sex marriage actually want? The right to sign and break contracts with anyone they choose, the right to associate freely with one another, etc? Since these are all covered without marriage, just by virtue of being a citizen, the only 'rights' they can possibly be seeking are the positive ones, the accrual of status and benefits.

There are two counters to the giving of the "positive rights" of marriage to same sex couples. The first is to point out that positive rights are a figment of our imaginations. They don't exist. God doesn't give us the "right" to salvation, for instance, because we have no such "right." We have no "right" to happiness, only the pursuit of it.

The second is to try and figure out why marriage exists, what the point was, and see if it fits what this drive for same sex marriage is trying to achieve. If society is going to confer a positive right for doing something, there must be some reason for that grant. Positive rights are not grounded in natural law or the Scriptures, like negative rights are, but are rather granted by governments (which again shows they are not rights at all).

Here we fall back on the historical reasons for marriage, and the state's interest in promoting such a thing as marriage. The state really doesn't care about your emotions (as much as they pretend to), and the state really doesn't care about your contract (as much as they pretend to). The state cares about what the state gets out of the contract--nothing more, and nothing less. Which is children raised in a way that furthers the prosperity and continence of the culture which birthed the state.

We can make a lot of arguments about how marriage doesn't always fulfill what the state sees as the good from it--but now we are arguing against the institution of marriage, not the inclusion of a new set of folks in the process. This is a completely different problem, although its one we often fall in too.

In the US, marriage is a right protected by the US constitution.

In the positive sense, or the negative? In the negative sense, marriage is a contract of association, so it is protected by the relevant parts of the US Constitution.

I would like to see someone quote the section from the Constitution that makes marriage, in the positive sense, a "right."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html

Marriage is not even mentioned in the US Constitution.

As I understand it, marriage is a fundamental right. But your question is intersting and kind of odd. It's a right to what? A right to marry. We have the right to vote. It's another fundamental right. Asking, it's a right to what? is redundant. It's a right to vote.

The right to vote is fundamentally different from a "right to marry." Voting is based on the negative right of self-determination, hence voting is not a positive right. Speed limit laws are founded on the injunction not to murder, in the end, so they impose one possible reading of a negative right (which we as a society have decided to accept).

I think we tend to throw around the term "right" far too much without really trying to understand what a "right," is, and how a "right" is derived. I really hate to point at my own blog, but here are a couple of posts that might help for those who want some background reading:

http://pondrings.org/?p=18
http://pondrings.org/?p=24

Now, of course, you don't have to agree with my reasoning here.... It's always good to do your own research, and try to integrate what you know into what you can learn. But, if it makes anyone think about the underlying issues here, and come to a better understanding of them, I'm happy.



Russ

 

[Braunwyn]

A negative right is a right you have to do something without interference, such as a right to pursue happiness.

Not necessarily. This is going to depend on how the individual perceives pursuing happiness. My pursuit might not incur interference but that might not be the case if someone else's pursuit breaks the law. All of our rights are conditional. But, I'm not sure why you are defining this as a negative right. Perhaps this will become clearer as I read the rest of your post.

A positive right is a claim that someone else (generally spoken as "society") must do something to provide you with something, such as a claim to happiness.

? Can you give an example because claiming hapiness, in essence, doesn't seem like something that would be dependent on someone else, providing there isn't discrimination and active efforts to thwart someone's happiness.

Marriage, in one sense, is a negative right. It is a simple contract of association, and contracts made in free will are easily shown to be a protected negative right.

OTOH, Marriage as a matter of social stature, or conferring benefits, is a positive right, claiming that others must give you certain status and benefits because you've "fallen in love with some one," or formed a certain contractual relationship.

Well, when I consider these benefits, like taxes for example, I don't view it as receiving benefits from society, rather it's a matter of me taking a measure to pull back the benefits society receives from me. Civil marriage, as far as I'm concerned, isn't about love. I don't need the state's blessing for my relationship with my husband. I don't know if my dh would agree with that but whatever. I got the license largely to reduce my taxes, just as I'm purchasing a home for the tax write-off's. Also, since I cannot protect my husband via health insurance, and the like, due to the legalities of marriage, I opted for the license.

OTOH, being contractually bound to a person deepens decision making in a relationship, so I'll give you that.

Now, which set of rights is it the advocates for same sex marriage actually want? The right to sign and break contracts with anyone they choose, the right to associate freely with one another, etc? Since these are all covered without marriage, just by virtue of being a citizen, the only 'rights' they can possibly be seeking are the positive ones, the accrual of status and benefits.

Sure, that makes sense.

There are two counters to the giving of the "positive rights" of marriage to same sex couples. The first is to point out that positive rights are a figment of our imaginations. They don't exist. God doesn't give us the "right" to salvation, for instance, because we have no such "right." We have no "right" to happiness, only the pursuit of it.

This doesn't make sense. A, I don't believe in deities so right off the bat this is out in la la land. B, benefits are not a figment of our imagination. They are very real and have application in the day-to-day. Again, keep in my mind that my view of benefits is to thwart the subsidizing and control of the society I reside in.

The second is to try and figure out why marriage exists, what the point was, and see if it fits what this drive for same sex marriage is trying to achieve. If society is going to confer a positive right for doing something, there must be some reason for that grant. Positive rights are not grounded in natural law or the Scriptures, like negative rights are, but are rather granted by governments (which again shows they are not rights at all).

Here we fall back on the historical reasons for marriage, and the state's interest in promoting such a thing as marriage. The state really doesn't care about your emotions (as much as they pretend to), and the state really doesn't care about your contract (as much as they pretend to). The state cares about what the state gets out of the contract--nothing more, and nothing less. Which is children raised in a way that furthers the prosperity and continence of the culture which birthed the state.

Ok, but as we grow as a community, our needs change. What was good for society in the past, isn't necessarily good for society now. Don't get me wrong, the concept of marriage as representative for family is ideal for children. That doesn't mean that marriage cannot provide other positive outcomes for society if children do not enter the picture.

We can make a lot of arguments about how marriage doesn't always fulfill what the state sees as the good from it--but now we are arguing against the institution of marriage, not the inclusion of a new set of folks in the process. This is a completely different problem, although its one we often fall in too.

In the positive sense, or the negative? In the negative sense, marriage is a contract of association, so it is protected by the relevant parts of the US Constitution.

I would like to see someone quote the section from the Constitution that makes marriage, in the positive sense, a "right."

I'll try to do so once I grasp the differences between positive and negative rights.

The right to vote is fundamentally different from a "right to marry." Voting is based on the negative right of self-determination, hence voting is not a positive right. Speed limit laws are founded on the injunction not to murder, in the end, so they impose one possible reading of a negative right (which we as a society have decided to accept).

I don't see how the right to marry isn't about self-determination, the pursuit of happiness, etc. Our society is structured in such a way that allows contractual marriage to be a component of the pursuit of happiness, as well as a platform for discrimination. In this way, our hands are tied and if we don't utilize these constructs, disparity results.

I think we tend to throw around the term "right" far too much without really trying to understand what a "right," is, and how a "right" is derived.

That's reasonable.

Now, of course, you don't have to agree with my reasoning here.... It's always good to do your own research, and try to integrate what you know into what you can learn. But, if it makes anyone think about the underlying issues here, and come to a better understanding of them, I'm happy.

You offer some interesting ideas and it's good of you to put it out there. I'll try to take a look at your blog when I have some time.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Let's go back to the beginning.... The only place the law can and should treat people equally is in the case of rights. Hence, you are claiming marriage is a right.

Now, if you agree with this statement, you need to answer these questions:

1. If marriage is a right, is it a positive right or a negative right?

2. If marriage is a right, where was this right granted? Is it through natural law, or the Scriptures, or (?). The Scriptures clearly state marriage is a privilege or responsibility, not a right. To some judge? Okay, so you're going to tell me that if some judge proclaims anything a right, you'll agree, no matter what it is they are proclaiming to be a right?

3. If marriage is a right, what is it a right to, specifically? To fall in love with someone? You don't need marriage to fall in love. To have certain benefits? Benefits are built on tax law, and have nothing to do with "rights." To have a certain stature within society? If you're going down the path of "I have a right to be respected," or "I have a right to have my choice to love recognized," this is a very slippery slope indeed.

Or perhaps you can answer this: What specific laws are you asking for equal protection before, as a person? What is it you can't do, other than use the words "we're married," that bothers you so much?



Russ

Marriage isn't a right. It is a special right...Like driving or being a doctor.

 

[Polycarp1]

First, it's unfortunate that the Church of Rome has abandoned the longstanding understanding of Holy Orders that ordination to the priesthood imparts a lifelong 'mark' on the individual. A laicized priest is a priest who has left the ministry in order to marry or for such other reason, and does not have the 'faculties' from the Vatican or his bishop to act as a priest except in emergency -- but he remains a priest forever. If you were fatally injured as a Catholic on the campus where Dr. Lakeland teaches, it would be his right, privilege, and duty to give you the Last Rites in the absence of an active priest. That's solid Catholic theology. Or don't you know your own church's teachings?

Second, liberal Catholics are Catholics who are politically liberal. Are you a conservative "Catholic"? Are you insulted by the sneer quotes? If so, don't use them of others -- our Lord and Savior commanded that.

Third, a right to contract marriage is just that -- a right to make a commitment to another person to be united in marriage. You can be in love without being married. You can have sex without being married. You can bear or beget a child without being married. What you can't do without getting married is to commit yourself exclusively to another in a lifelong bond, in other words, to be married to him/her.

Fourth, people can marry by simply making that commitment -- but it's not recognized by law unless it meets the standards for a civil marriage. When people bring up the benefits of marriage, it's to say that two people who desire to contract marriage should have equal access to such benefits as we as a society choose to extend to those who marry. There's nothing that mandates that a given nation or state extend right of survivorship to pensions or jointly owned property to the surviving spouse of a married deceased person -- but if we do that for some whose marriages we recognize, we should be doing it for everyone who choose to commit in marriage.

Fifth, it is the settled law of the United States, constitutionally guaranteed, that civil marriage is a basic human right. That is fact, not opinion. It's not "something some judge once said," it's a formal definition that marriage is one of those things guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to citizens of the United States, made by the body given the right under the constitution to make such a decision. Whether that has anything to do with gay marriage remains to be seen; I believe it does, but that has not yet been ruled on definitively. What the Bible has to say about it is irrelevant; the Bible doesn't guarantee trial by jury either, but that's settled law, too.

Sixth, we have the word of two Connecticut State Senators that they were asked to introduce the bill by Catholic constituents. You have not refuted this -- you've dwelt on the fact that they were gay (though the House member who previously introduced the bill was not) and attempted to otherwise engage in assassination of their character. But you have not refuted their statement.

Seventh, you have not set forth one lick of evidence that this proposed bill has anything to do with this slippery 'gay agenda' that you seem to know so much about but never have bothered to define despite repeated requests to do so.

I'm prepared to be convinced that there was in fact some ulterior motive here-- but I need ot see proof, not accusation and innuendo. And to be completely honest, that's all I'm getting from what has been alleged so far -- that these two State Senators sponsored the bill, not because they want to protect Catholics giving their money to the church from unscrupulous people among the bishops and priests who have control of parish finances, but as some sort of attack on Catholicism. If Creed is right, there has to be some evidence proving it -- show me that evidence.

 

[Braunwyn]

Marriage isn't a right. It is a special right...Like driving or being a doctor.

I'm pretty sure driving is a privaledge. I don't think being a doctor falls under rights or privaledge.

 

[Belk]

Marriage isn't a right. It is a special right...Like driving or being a doctor.

The scotus disagrees with you.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man

 

[mpok1519]

Well I'm sure CiC will somehow try to refute the supreme court's perception on marriage. lol

 

[Maren]

1. Have you looked at Europe recently? What is the birth rate there? Can you point out the social pressures causing that birth rate?

From what I've seen, much of it is the pressures of modern life as well as couples waiting until later in life to marry. Scandinavian countries appear to have had success in raising their birth rates by removing some of the issues modern married couples face, such as providing subsidized, easily accessible child care and generous maternity leave.

2. No, people do not have to be married to have children. When people who are not married have children, those children generally become wards of the state, in one way or another.

Evidence? And before you quote that it is the children of single parents that tend to break the law more frequently, the fact is that appears to be a case more of correlation than of causation. When you look at income levels of single parents, the stats are roughly the same as children of married parents -- becoming "wards of the state" is typically caused by poverty and not based on the number of parents a child has.

3. When children become wards of the state, the family takes a back seat to the state. There are two political systems where all the children are intentionally made wards of the state, and the family intentionally destroyed. Fascism and Communism/Socialism. How have those worked out for Christians, or in history?

You're apparently missing the point of my post, that you can have these things, but you won't like where they go. Just because they exist doesn't mean their result is good.



Russ

Last, what does any of this have to do with gay marriage? Unless you can provide evidence that gay marriage will cause more children to become "wards of the state" this whole post of yours is off-topic. The fact is that gays do raise children and, in most states since a gay can adopt but a gay couple cannot, the lack of gay marriage causes more children to (at least officially) be raised by single parents -- not less.

Oh, and if you want to talk about Communism and Fascism, you really out to look at how those have worked out for gays. Pink Triangles anyone?

 

[Beanieboy]

Marriage isn't a right. It is a special right...Like driving or being a doctor.

Finally, a heterosexual admits that it is THEY who want special rights, by not extending it to gay couples.

Like driving? So, if I go to marriage school, I can marry my partner?
If I get marriage training, I can marry my parter?

What degree did you have to have to be married? BA? Masters? Phd? How long do you have to "study" to get married here?

You know why they have drivers licenses? So you don't kill other people or yourself with your car.
You know why you have to train to be a doctor? Because if you are going to cut someone open, you should know what you are doing.

Marriage for heterosexuals takes no proof of being ready. You can meet someone at a bar, and get married that afternoon. You can go to Vegas and get married in a Drive Thru, the way you would pick up a Big Mac.

So, how is getting married like becoming a doctor or getting a driver's license?
"We'd like to get married. Can I get some onion rings with that?"

 

[Maren]

This is something I still don't get, really. Start with this basis: Anyone in the US can write virtually any contract they want to. Why does the inability to call a given contract "marriage" have any bearing on equality? To me, it's a bit like a person suing because they want to call their loan for their car a "mortgage." Certain sorts of contracts have certain names attached to them. Applying one name to another sort of contract doesn't make the contracts the same.

Now, in the case of marriage--the problem is we want to spend time talking about how it's one interpretation of the Scriptures vs "equal rights." Since some folks think it's a matter of interpretation (I think the Scriptures a really clear, but many won't agree), let's just leave the interpretation out of the picture. And the easy way to do this is to leave the Scriptures entirely out of the picture, just for a moment, and deal with the "equal rights" issue without them.

What does this leave us with? The logical reasoning behind marriage in the first place. And what is that reasoning? Well, lets go back to Rome, for instance. They certainly didn't have a problem with homsexuality, but they didn't have "gay marriage." Why is that? They also didn't seem to think abortion was wrong for religious reasons, but they still outlawed it. Why?

Because they understood a simple fact: Men and women, when tied together, tend to have babies. Not always, but most of the time. The mental and physical well being of the child is generally tied to their mother and father being together, in the same house, raising them. Roman law didn't care about sex at all--affairs were fine, homosexuality was fine, etc, etc. What Roman law cared about was babies. Why? Because babies perpetuate the nation.

Now, you can argue that we shouldn't care any longer (and I would argue we should care). You can argue that homsexual couples can have babies (yes, but because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should). You can argue that homosexual parents, or single parents, do just as good raising children as man/woman couples do--and there you have to argue with study after study showing this to be wrong. That while such situations exist, they are not ideal for the children.

But, in the end, to make the case that this is about equality, and not the best interests of the society, you have to prove the underlying assumptions that men and women, together, tend to have babies, and that a father/mother couple is better at raising children than any other situation, are both completely wrong.

I have yet to see any evidence to show these two are not true.

So, am I "anti-gay?" No, not particularly. I think it's sad we live our lives so much around sex that we want sex to define marriage, but that's a societal problem, not a "gay" problem. We sell most of the products in our society based on sex, make "being sexy" virtually synonymous with "being healthy," and all love stories end with "sex ever after." Maybe if we just got out of the hyper sexual mode, we would see that marriage isn't about giving a license to have sex, and hence, gay marriage has nothing to do with "equality."

Just my 2c.



Russ

P.S. And no, a lot of married couples no longer have children, and yes, someone is going to throw that up here. That shows nothing about the natural order of things, or what's best for society, as a whole. All that goes to show is just how oversexed our society is in one more way.

This post is a straw man, and little more. Your claim is basically that the government only has a single reason for promoting marriage. You almost seem to imply that there can be but a single reason for marriage. This is the straw man.

In fact, the government has multiple reasons for promoting marriage, and this is why marriage does not being at the birth of the first child or at conception, or also why a couple that has a child together automatically become married.

Rather, married couples (even those without children) are more stable; they work harder, save more, are more law abiding, etc. There is a reason that of the thousand plus "marriage benefits" offered by the federal government, very few of them are dependent on children.

But since you claim that the sole reason for marriage is children, would you agree with a proposed law in Washington state that would have annulled marriages after three years of those that did not have children? And if not, since children are the sole reason to allow marriage, why not?

 

[BigBadWlf]

1. Have you looked at Europe recently? What is the birth rate there? Can you point out the social pressures causing that birth rate?

The birth rate of France the first country of Western Europe I could find, is 2.02 children per adult female, its higher than the birthrate in the United States which is at 1.98 children per adult female

Would I be correct in guessing that you are getting your “facts” from James Dobson and Focus on the Family. I know Dobson has a long history of misrepresenting statistics about the birth rate of Europe. He plays a fun numbers game by ignoring the fact that just like the United States the baby boomers are aging (and life expectancy continues to increase) and now past child baring age which affect total births (but not the number of Children an average woman will have in her lifetime) while ignoring the fact that the birth rate for women of childbearing years remains about the same as it was in the 1960’s

2. No, people do not have to be married to have children. When people who are not married have children, those children generally become wards of the state, in one way or another.

Can you back that claim up with some actual facts?

3. When children become wards of the state, the family takes a back seat to the state. There are two political systems where all the children are intentionally made wards of the state, and the family intentionally destroyed. Fascism and Communism/Socialism. How have those worked out for Christians, or in history?

Usually Christianity flourishes in fascist states

But its more interesting that you talk about attacks on the family in a thread that is about an attack on the family…an attack against the family spearheaded by the religious right

 

[BigBadWlf]

Let's go back to the beginning.... The only place the law can and should treat people equally is in the case of rights.

What about equal protection under the law?

Hence, you are claiming marriage is a right.

Actually the Supreme Court is the one saying that yes indeed marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Now, if you agree with this statement, you need to answer these questions:

1. If marriage is a right, is it a positive right or a negative right?

You might want to read what the Supreme Court said about that

2. If marriage is a right, where was this right granted? Is it through natural law, or the Scriptures, or (?).

Natural Law being used to justify discrimination is sort of joke, you might want to think about that before using it.
Can you identify just why the personal interpretations of the bible have any effect on the laws of the United States?

The Scriptures clearly state marriage is a privilege or responsibility, not a right. To some judge? Okay, so you're going to tell me that if some judge proclaims anything a right, you'll agree, no matter what it is they are proclaiming to be a right?

The laws of the United Sates are not based on Scripture the are based on the Constitution. The constitution says that everyone (even minority groups) are equal, they have equal rights and equal protection under the law

3. If marriage is a right, what is it a right to, specifically? To fall in love with someone? You don't need marriage to fall in love. To have certain benefits? Benefits are built on tax law, and have nothing to do with "rights." To have a certain stature within society?

How about the right to equal protection and equal treatment under the law? Or does that not apply to ALL minority groups?

If you're going down the path of "I have a right to be respected," or "I have a right to have my choice to love recognized," this is a very slippery slope indeed.

“Choice”? what choice are you speaking of/ the only choice gays and lesbians make is the choice to be honest.

You are right, next thing you know interracial couples will be wanting to get married, now THAT is a dangerous slippery slope

Or perhaps you can answer this: What specific laws are you asking for equal protection before, as a person? What is it you can't do, other than use the words "we're married," that bothers you so much?

Maybe its the over 1,500 rights and protections that same gendered couples are denied by the United Sates (only a small handful of which have anything to do with taxes)

 

[BigBadWlf]

So you would expect the state to go around testing everyone's fertility before they were allowed to marry? No, the state sets general rules, based on its interest, when it is not a matter of rights, but of privilege.

Ah so this is somehow different, I thought as much.

What you are saying is that your earlier claim, that the state has a vested interest in the production of children applies only to minority couples who you seem to think generally don’t have children.

You’ve presented a lovely double standard. On the one hand you want to justify discrimination against a minority by calling up “fertility” but on the other hand you don’t want “fertility” to apply to anybody but the minority you are advocating discrimination against. The logical result is that your point has nothing to do with “fertility” but rather with the minority you wish to discriminate against.

BTW, have you ever gotten married? Did anyone draw your blood so you could get married? They did mine. Wonder what that was about? Isn't the state presuming you will have children, and making certain any children you have won't have specific problems,

Since when does testing for venereal disease have anything to do with child bearing?

before allowing you to get married? Doesn't the state set rules on things like marrying brothers, and sisters, and cousins, and children, and stuff? Are you saying all these rules should be abandoned, unless the state can prove the couple will have children?

Nice red herring

If marriage is a right, then it's just much a right for a brother and sister to get married, or a brother and brother, or a man and his daughter, or a woman and her son, or a man and his ape, or a woman and her dog, or anything else, as same sex marriage is. Once you start declaring "rights" out of thin air, then you can do pretty much anything you want.

I have no problem with anyone marrying their dog so long as the dog can sign its legal signature indicating its desire to be married.

I have yet to meet any dog who can do that, have you?

BTW, you have quite an interesting collection of things you compare the legal recognition of same gendered marriage to. Would you be willing to use this same list as a comparison to interracial marriage?

You are comparing apples to oranges. Interacial marriages still result in children, which are a good for the state.

You asked “Can you name any specific benefit to the state?” I cannot help it you did not like the answer but the answer is accurate and it stands. The state receives the same benefit from legal recognition of same gendered marriage as it does from the legal recognition of same interracial marriage.

We are back to your double standard. On the one hand you want to justify discrimination against a minority by calling upon “fertility” but on the other hand you don’t want “fertility” to apply to anybody but the minority you are advocating discrimination against. The logical fallout is that your argument has nothing to do with “fertility” but rather with the minority you wish to discriminate against.

You can only prove denying marriage to gays is discrimination if:

1. You prove marriage is a right. And don't quote some judge, quote the Scriptures, or make a reasoned argument from natural law.

Misuse of Natural Law to justify discrimination is problematic at best. It usually involves ignoring logic in favor of personal prejudice. Those trying to use natural law for this purpose attempt to make what they refer to as "principled" arguments about why the recognition of same-sex marriages is somehow wrong while at the same time dismissing any pragmatic arguments with out explanation.

In writings about modern natural-law ideas of marriage we find that by "principle" something like this is meant: "Marriage must be between a man and a woman because only they can procreate.” As for infertile heterosexual couples…well they get grand fathered into being allowed to marry for no good reason other than the desire to employ a double standard.

I have read a couple attempts to justify this double standard by claiming that infertile heterosexual couples are excluded from discrimination because they can have sex of a reproductive kind. “Sex of a reproductive kind” is sex that involves a penis and a vagina, even if it can produce no more babies than could a male and a male or a female and a female. The conclusion of the argument is embedded in the "principle" and then offered as if it's an argument. It doesn’t take a philosophy major to find the flaw there.

In the end those trying to abuse natural law as a justification for discrimination end up asserting that male-female marriage, and only male-female marriage, has an “intrinsic value” that cannot be demonstrated. It is a mystery value. Its value must be grasped in intuitively but cannot be grasped logically. This non-logical intuitive grasping of discrimination is something not everyone can do. “In the end, one either understands that spousal genital intercourse has a special significance as instantiating a basic, non-instrumental value, or something blocks that understanding and one does not perceive correctly.” Gerard V. Bradley

More simply put what those using natural law to justify prejudice are saying is: “Same-sex ‘marriage’ is not marriage because only male-female marriage can be marriage and cannot be defined any other way because we don’t want it defined any other way. Trust me.” They rely on anti-logical mental gymnastics to say that the only way to understand why infertile heterosexual couples are not bound by the same argument we are using to justify anti-gay discrimination is to agree with them and their prejudices.

2. You explain how not allowing two people of the same sex from marrying prevents them from doing anything they like other than having a specific social stature. And isn't that what this is about, in its entirety, conferring a specific social stature?

Why don’t you ask Richard and Mildred Loving this

Again, you're assuming marriage is a right. It clearly is not a right, no matter what some judge someplace has said, or what some legislature says. If you think rights come from government, and can be given or withdrawn by a government, then you have a very skewed and shallow view of what a right is. The Constitution doesn't declare rights from nothingness, or by grant of the government, it argues from natural law and a religious base. There is a reason for that line of argument.

I am guessing you think that marriage is a right for people you like but it is somehow not a right for minorities you choose to not like

Show me the right to marriage in natural law or the Scriptures, and then you can claim that same sex marriage is an issue of 'equal rights.'

As noted above the brining of natural law into this discussion is a joke.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I would like to see someone quote the section from the Constitution that makes marriage, in the positive sense, a "right."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html

Marriage is not even mentioned in the US Constitution.

Too bad you aren’t a justice on the Supreme Court. They don’t seem to know anything about what is a right and what isn’t.