The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: free_joker on January 31, 2006, 10:15:23 PM
-
The christian right loves to argue that homosexuality is a travesty unto god and our children need to be protected from exposure to such activity..
the funny thing here is, by invoking religion and god in their argument, they nullify their own argument in the face of asking the government to make laws reguarding whom we may marry.
Quoting from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So.. by arguing that their god says homosexuality is wrong and because of that, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, they make gay marriage a religious issue, and therefore cannot restrict those religions who do not condemn homosexuality from recognizing same sex marriages..
Buddhism for the win, chuck.
-
All rights are acknowledged and protected by our constitutional governments. The right to marry is a right that may not be abridged by a constitutional amendment making marriage between a man and a woman, as it would be a violation of the natural rights of people. The only way such an amendment would work is if it was a marriage granted by the state. Any time the state grants something to someone, that is a privelage, not a right; privelages come at state disposal, while rights come at your own disposal.
You don't need to look to the constitution to argue for or against marriage, gay or straight. Ever heard of common law marriage? Do you know that marriage is a contract between the two parties wanting to enter into the contract? No external party, like the state, may stipulate anything in a private contract -- that's all homosexuals who want to get married need to know! Their constant bantering to government makes me wonder if they're doing it just for the attention and not for an actual solution.
-
How about this-
People who want to get married write their OWN damn contract instead of the gov't having a blanket contract to cover marriage.
-
To be frank, Free Talk Live pushes the bounds of my support with the Shrine of Female Listeners and the policy of moving calls from women to the front of the queue.
As a general rule, I do not wish to support, financially or in spirit, organizations that discriminate in such ways. Far more egregious than Free Talk Live, however, is the United States Government's policies on the recognition of things like the power of attorney. If a man and a woman are married, even in a common law marriage (in what states recognize them, anyway), and one of them is incapacitated, the other is able to make decisions regarding what sort of treatment, if any, they are to receive; likewise, if one dies, the other is considered to have claim on their property (even if the deceased had a will specifying that their spouse was to receive little or nothing!). If two men or two men, or any combination of three people or more, were in the same position, such authority would not be recognized.
While it would be extraordinarily nice if everyone were as clever and informed as we are, and stopped involving the government in their relationships, this would not be a state issue at all. However, until such time as their legal involvements are equal to those of "traditional" marriages, gays absolutely have legitimate complaints. This is yet another reason my blood boils and my teeth grind whenever I decide that it is, at least for the moment, less horrible to sacrifice my money in the taxes the government demands from me than to suffer the consequences of not paying them off.
-
No external party, like the state, may stipulate anything in a private contract -- that's all homosexuals who want to get married need to know! Their constant bantering to government makes me wonder if they're doing it just for the attention and not for an actual solution
Well, if you can explain to me how a private contract would allow me to get a green card for a foreign-citizen same-sex spouse, I'm all ears.
-
No external party, like the state, may stipulate anything in a private contract -- that's all homosexuals who want to get married need to know! Their constant bantering to government makes me wonder if they're doing it just for the attention and not for an actual solution
Well, if you can explain to me how a private contract would allow me to get a green card for a foreign-citizen same-sex spouse, I'm all ears.
That's an interesting point, and one I haven't heard before. But from my point of view, once we ax welfare and get the gov't out of contracts between individuals, we can open the borders freely and becoming a U.S. citizen will occur by "naturalization," (as stipulated by the US Constitution) regardless of your state of contract with another person.
Libertarianism solves everything!