Spine Doner List

[RoadKingLarry]

You may want to study the whole history of human rights (you know the inalienable ones endowed to us from our creator) before you go trying to sever religious thought from influencing public policy.

Our civic ethic here in the USA has mirrored Christian morality to a greater or lessor extent from the beginning. To deny Christianity's effect on the common law and then our legal system is to deny reality.

All law is the imposing of someones morality.

Some of us consider them to be Natural Rights with out the need to provide an omnipotent source.

And no, I don't deny the influence of Judeo/Christian beliefs and ethics on our legal system though I don't agree with all of it.

I do get tickled though when the Christians insist that their brand of morality is the superior flavor and any differing opinion is delusional.

[griz]

I’ll be darned, here I’ve been lead to believe that this whole thing was about people who wanted the same treatment as everybody else, and now I learn that it is Godless Communist secretly trying to bring down our government by pretending to be attracted to somebody of the same sex!

Sarcasm aside, this actually reminds me of the anti-witch laws a few centuries ago.  “After all they had to be evil because they were not like us.”

[makattak]

I'll be darned, here I've been lead to believe that this whole thing was about people who wanted the same treatment as everybody else,

If that was what you were led to believe, you were lied to.

It is about using the force of government against those who don't treat them they way they want to be treated. As I've said many times, this issue alone makes it clear that libertarians care more about "fairness" than they do about "liberty."

[MicroBalrog]

If that was what you were led to believe, you were lied to.

It is about using the force of government against those who don't treat them they way they want to be treated. As I've said many times, this issue alone makes it clear that libertarians care more about "fairness" than they do about "liberty."

A lack of liberty is sort of inherently unfair.

[RoadKingLarry]

A lack of liberty is sort of inherently unfair.

Apparently not if that denial of liberty is based on the one true religion.

[griz]

The words "liberty" and "freedom" do not mean you have the power to restrict other people (even the ones that make you feel uneasy) from doing things that don't harm you.  This is the same logical fallacy as when gun control proponents say that outlawing full capacity magazines will give them the freedom from getting shot 11 times without the assailant reloading.

[makattak]

The words "liberty" and "freedom" do not mean you have the power to restrict other people (even the ones that make you feel uneasy) from doing things that don't harm you.  This is the same logical fallacy as when gun control proponents say that outlawing full capacity magazines will give them the freedom from getting shot 11 times without the assailant reloading.

And those arguing for Government enforced gay marriage are the same as gun control opponents saying that all we want is a REGISTRY so we know who has a gun. We don't want to confiscate your guns, NOOOO!!!

The purpose of government sanctioned marriage is to use the force of government as a bludgeon against those who do not grant the symbols of acceptance to homosexual relationships. Many of the so-called libertarians on this very site will freely admit that.

[MicroBalrog]

The purpose of government sanctioned marriage is to use the force of government as a bludgeon against those who do not grant the symbols of acceptance to homosexual relationships. Many of the so-called libertarians on this very site will freely admit that.

I don't think you understand this: The supporters of gay marriage are a disparate group of people with various ends.

In the same way as the supporters of gun rights are a disparate group of people with various ends.


Some supporters of gay marriage are socialists who no doubt want to also force churches to marry gay people, and others don't.

[makattak]

I don't think you understand this: The supporters of gay marriage are a disparate group of people with various ends.

In the same way as the supporters of gun rights are a disparate group of people with various ends.

Some supporters of gay marriage are socialists who no doubt want to also force churches to marry gay people, and others don't.

Your "preferences" aside, if the state grants "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples, will the force of the state be used against companies that refuse to provide "marital benefits" to homosexuals that have a government license (or other companies that similarly refuse to service homosexual unions)? Yes or no?

[Fly320s]

If that were true I would let society take its course without saying anything. As the other thread on this subject pointed out, the normalization and equalization of homosexual relationships with marriage legally is the foot in the door to start attacking religious institutions using the court system.

I haven't read that whole thread, so my question may have been answered.  How does requiring the government to recognize same-sex marriages equate to an attack of religious institutions?

[makattak]

I haven't read that whole thread, so my question may have been answered.  How does requiring the government to recognize same-sex marriages equate to an attack of religious institutions?

Your "preferences" aside, if the state grants "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples, will the force of the state be used against companies that refuse to provide "marital benefits" to homosexuals that have a government license (or other companies that similarly refuse to service homosexual unions)? Yes or no?

[Fly320s]

Your "preferences" aside, if the state grants "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples, will the force of the state be used against companies that refuse to provide "marital benefits" to homosexuals that have a government license (or other companies that similarly refuse to service homosexual unions)? Yes or no?

Are those companies currently required by law to offer those benefits to spouses?  That should be the litmus test.

Frankly, I think health insurance and other employee benefits should be left entirely to the company to decide how to offer to employees. Get the government out of area, too.

[makattak]

And, just as we can point to England and Australia for what the results of gun control will be (i.e. it only starts with registration...), we can point to Europe and Canada for what the results of gay "marriage" will be. (i.e. it only starts with government recognition.)

So please, tell me how these slippery slope arguments are SO FAR OFF BASE while the gun control slippery slope arguments aren't?

[makattak]

Are those companies currently required by law to offer those benefits to spouses?  That should be the litmus test.

Frankly, I think health insurance and other employee benefits should be left entirely to the company to decide how to offer to employees. Get the government out of area, too.

That's great that you prefer the government not to control a company's decision. Your "preferences" are not what the current state of the world is.

[Perd Hapley]

How did we decide what the "essence of marriage" is?  What authority should we defer to in answering that question?

What is essence?

What is authority?

Pretending not to understand basic concepts; where would the irrational marriage movement be without it?!

[Perd Hapley]

The words "liberty" and "freedom" do not mean you have the power to restrict other people (even the ones that make you feel uneasy) from doing things that don't harm you.

So government failing to recognize non-marriages - this is restricting people, in your fevered imagination?

It's precisely because homosexual relationships do not effect you or me that makes legal recognition of them so brainless.

[Fly320s]

And, just as we can point to England and Australia for what the results of gun control will be (i.e. it only starts with registration...), we can point to Europe and Canada for what the results of gay "marriage" will be. (i.e. it only starts with government recognition.)

So please, tell me how these slippery slope arguments are SO FAR OFF BASE while the gun control slippery slope arguments aren't?

It is the same all over. This country is slowly sliding to the left. People are becoming less responsible for themselves and more willing to let others tell them how to lead their lives.  That said, I think gay marriage actually expands freedom, which is a right-leaning idea.  

[Fly320s]

So government failing to recognize non-marriages - this is restricting people, in your fevered imagination?

It's precisely because homosexual relationships do not effect you or me that makes legal recognition of them so brainless harmless.

Fixed it for you.

[griz]

And, just as we can point to England and Australia for what the results of gun control will be (i.e. it only starts with registration...), we can point to Europe and Canada for what the results of gay "marriage" will be. (i.e. it only starts with government recognition.)

So please, tell me how these slippery slope arguments are SO FAR OFF BASE while the gun control slippery slope arguments aren't?

I haven't heard of Europe or Canada sliding in to extra gayness.  What did I miss?

[makattak]

It is the same all over. This country is slowly sliding to the left. People are becoming less responsible for themselves and more willing to let others tell them how to lead their lives.  That said, I think gay marriage actually expands freedom, which is a right-leaning idea.  

Then you are either totally ignorant or completely disingenuous in your preference for "freedom".

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/05/137622143/illinois-catholic-agencies-at-odds-over-gay-adoptions

Freedom!! (And before you spout about the "no right to government funds", adoption cannot be run in Illinois without the sanction of the state. This is another of those what you "prefer" and what the state of the world really is problems.)

[makattak]

I haven't heard of Europe or Canada sliding in to extra gayness.  What did I miss?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2007/11/30/boissoin-ruling.html

Canadian pastor is jailed for calling the homosexual agenda "wicked" in a letter to the editor. But that's OK, he was violating gay people's human rights not to ever hear anyone criticize their lifestyle.

[makattak]

I haven't heard of Europe or Canada sliding in to extra gayness.  What did I miss?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

The link gives the explanation as well.

[Fly320s]

Then you are either totally ignorant or completely disingenuous in your preference for "freedom".

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/05/137622143/illinois-catholic-agencies-at-odds-over-gay-adoptions

Freedom!! (And before you spout about the "no right to government funds", adoption cannot be run in Illinois without the sanction of the state. This is another of those what you "prefer" and what the state of the world really is problems.)

Those two articles are the exact definition of freedom. The churches are free to choose who they associate with. They have freely chosen to not support adoptions because of their beliefs.  They are not being forced to support adoptions.

[makattak]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/jul/04070505

Swedish pastor imprisoned for criticizing the homosexual lifestyle.

[makattak]

Those two articles are the exact definition of freedom. The churches are free to choose who they associate with. They have freely chosen to not support adoptions because of their beliefs.  They are not being forced to support adoptions.

Wow... I'm in awe of the mental gymnastics it must have taken to get to that position.