In Defense of Marriage

[volinbham]

BTW, before I'm accused of being intolerant, in favor of discrimination etc - I did not vote for the gay marriage ban on the ballot here Alabama. To me it's just not that big of an issue. I'm simply discussing the issue.

 

[CSpindizzy]

This is how marriage has been conceived in this country (what we are talking about) since its founding.

And look what all has changed as far as conceived and perceived ideas. People were described as property and were even counted as 3/5 of a human being just to count votes. Women, Blacks, etc. Good examples of ideas of the founding of this nation. Again, not arguing for, but just asking about your logic.

 

[volinbham]

It is an issue of separation - separation of the government "benefits" of a government sanctioned union from the social institution on which that sanctioned union is based.

Civil unions allow for the extension of said benefits while still allowing a majority to preserve a social institution that has existed since the founding.

In short, denial of the social institution to gay couples or to polygamists is not the same as denying the government established benefits of such unions.

The 3/5s sentiments along with other forms of discrimination are much more clearly violations of the Constitution than is the social institution of marriage being limited to a man and woman. The constitution provides for voting etc. Disallowing certain persons from specified activities/behaviors/benefits and remedies is a violation of the constitution. It is a stretch to say that not extending a social institution to certain people is the same thing.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

The definition of a marriage has not always been the union of two people. There are many example of polygamy in history and the bible.

:clapping: Thank you. I would personally have no problem with legalizing polygamy in the U.S. The only reason it was outlawed in the first place was so the government would have a reason to persecute mormons.

 

[Lexvol]

You just want Danica to have two husbands.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

I would have to kill him :machinegun:

 

[Lexvol]

I was thinking you would be number 2 hoss.

 

[CSpindizzy]

She'd have golddiggers from all over trying to marry her. It would look like Scarlet O'Hara at a Twelve Oaks BBQ.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

At this time the federal constitution has not been construed to protect a right of the people of the same sex to marry. So at least legally it is not a constitutionally protected right.

Is it some other kind or type of right? Is it a natural right? Certainly there is a natural right of liberty but the question becomes how much of it can each individual exercise while at the same time recognizing society's interest to infringe upon liberty to preserve its existence. Government cannot co-exist with an unrestrained natural right of liberty. The government must be accommodated with some discretion to infringe upon liberty to ensure order, peace, tranquillity, and preservation of society. To achieve these ends necessarily requires regulating morality.

The government can forbid or prohibit conduct it perceives or is established to have deleterious impact or effect upon individual members of society or collectively threatens all of society. This includes the regulation of drug use and the prohibition of illegal drug use. This would allow for the prohibition of prostitution. These are just a few examples.

A decline in the effectiveness and supremacy of a society seems to be proportionally related to a decline in morality. Yes it could be a mere correlation but the assumption underlying classical conservatism, AKA Lockean liberalism, is the people will not abuse liberty in such a way as to become excessively hedonistic thereby or so attached to the liberty to abuse it negatively that they will abandon or forego their societal responsibilities and in doing so harm society. A poignant example is perhaps the mother who has 5 children, no job, on some form of social welfare, and a drug habit, while the house is in a dilapidated condition as a result of parental neglect, demonstrates to me this woman had no business reproducing (in fact a judge entered an order denying her to liberty to have any more children when she had neglected the first three but was, unfortunately, overruled by a higher court).

More importantly in our system of government there is an expressed understanding in the great charter which established it that there does not exist an unrestrained natural right of liberty. The states are vested with the power and authority to regulate morality. They are not, of course, permitted to infringe upon those liberties and freedoms expressed in the Bill of Rights but possess, or should possess, great latitude and discretion in those areas outside of the Bill of Rights. Indeed the Framers and Founding Fathers regularly communicated with each other and the community of the necessity of having a morally inclined society to ensure the preservation of the Republican government the federal constitution created. I think this alone demonstrates the Framers and Founders were receptive to the state's infringement upon natural liberty. Yes in fact there did exist prior to the founding of this nation and afterwards laws against same sex sodomy.

This is of course the system of government bestowed upon us by our Framers/Founders. I am at least convinced the state must possess some degree of authority to prohibit conduct it renders or is established to have a detrimental effect, individual or combined, upon society. This necessarily includes a regulation of morality.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Not to get too graphic on a family-friendly board but do you realize that many states still have laws on the books that describe the exact method intercouse is only legal? One of my key arguments on this is that the laws on the books in most states defines marriage. It also defines intercourse in regards to marriage, bearing children in regards to marriage, divorce, etc. No one seems to have issues with those tenets on the books already. Children out of wedlock, divorce, etc. are 'problems' with the whole marriage issue but none of these 'principled Christians' will do nothing regarding these issues that have SOLELY degraded marriage. Marriage NOW is a joke in our society. People run off to Vegas drunk and wake up the next morning wondering who the $@#@#%R% they just married. I can go online and get a divorce for a couple hundred bucks. Divorces lawyers make millions while ministers and JP's make hundreds of dollars in comparison. Religious leaders and politicians preaching sactity of marriage commit adultery with secretaries and remarry two to four times.

Why is it when it comes to marriage, these Puritans let marriage degrade to its current state in the heterosexual world but run to pass constitutional amendments protecting marriage. Last I checked, marriage was in trouble without the 'help' of gays and lesbians. But no one wants to address those issues.

 

[therealUT]

the republicans pull this out every election year because they know they are losing the base on real issues like Iraq, immigration, and the government spying on American citizens. It has no chance of passing, it's just meant to stir up the base on issues that are REALLY important, like discriminating against an entire segment of the population.

As far as the states rights issue goes, the religious right really dosen't care about states rights when they see the opportunity to cram their religious views down the throats of the rest of us who don't share those views. :twocents:

Religious views...

Why don't you check out the Roman Empire's legal proceedings for marriage (B.C.) The two parties, man and wife, had to sign a contracting stating that their intention in getting married was to procreate. I understand a lot of eople nowadays have perverted the act of marriage, and many married couples have no intentions of ever having children, however the possibility is at least still there (people get pregnant who use condoms, BC, and even women who have had their tubes tied.) However, in same-sex marriages there is no possibility to procreate, and therefore, there is really no marriage.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I know a lot of couples that are married that either cannot have children or choose not to. In their case, is there no marriage?

I never knew when I got married there was a child requirement. I don't recall that mentioned in the wedding vows.

 

[therealUT]

I know when I got married, my wife and I both signed an agreement saying that we would be open to the possibility of children. Of course, this really only pertains to all the world's religions except protestanism. So, basically, it really only applies to about 75-80% of the world's population.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Why don't you check out the Roman Empire's legal proceedings for marriage (B.C.)

And to think, all these years I thought I was living in the United States of America, then one day I wake up and I'm in the Roman Empire

The two parties, man and wife, had to sign a contracting stating that their intention in getting married was to procreate.

Funny, I don't seem to remember ever signing such a contract.

I understand a lot of eople nowadays have perverted the act of marriage,

Yeah, it all started with the no fault divorce.

and many married couples have no intentions of ever having children,

The last time I checked, that was their right, or is there some constitutional requirement now to have children?

However, in same-sex marriages there is no possibility to procreate, and therefore, there is really no marriage.

My great Aunt, one of the greatest ladies who ever lived, was married for nearly 50 years before her husband died. And guess what, they never had any children. So I guess in your eyes they were never really married. :banghead:

Religious views...

Yep, and the last time I checked, the constitution allowed for each person to worship as they see fit, or to refrain from worship if they so choose. The whole reason the pilgrims came over here in the first place was to escape religious persecution. If you want to base your value system on some outdated book full of half truths that's your business, but that gives you no right to ram your opinions down the throats of the rest of us.

 

[therealUT]

Marriage, as it has been defined since its inception has been intended towards procreation. If you want civil unions for homosexuals, fine. However, don't go on some crusade to change the definition of marriage because you choose to carry on in a sexual manner with your like sex.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Marriage, as it has been defined since its inception has been intended towards procreation. If you want civil unions for homosexuals, fine. However, don't go on some crusade to change the definition of marriage because you choose to carry on in a sexual manner with your like sex.

First of all, I'm hetrosexual. Believe it or not, it is possible to support the rights of a people group without actually being a part of that group. That's a hard concept for some conservatives to accept. Secondly, whatever happened to that conservative concept of states rights? I guess that only applies when the conservatives agree with the laws that the individual states are passing huh?

 

[therealUT]

Whatever happened to marriages only being granted by religious institutions? The only reason it became a government issue was due to federal income taxes being imposed. Therefore, marriage has always been a federal issue.