Skip to comments.NOM’s Brown laughed at on ‘Stossel Show’ for argument against marriage equality
Posted on 08/22/2011 10:21:04 AM PDT by HerbieHoover
On Thursday night's "Stossel Show," which airs on the Fox Business channel, Brian Brown was unable to convince host John Stossel or his libertarian guest (and nationally syndicated columnist) David Harsanyi that civil marriage for gays and lesbians harms, or even changes, marriage between heterosexual couples.
In fact, Harsanyi's suggestion that the marriage debate could be solved if the U.S. decided either to privatize all schools or all marriage contracts was treated as a more legitimate idea by Stossel and Stossel's audience....
"It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be -- gay or not," Harsanyi said....
Brown argued. "The state should support what is true and good and beautiful...."
Stossel's live studio audience erupted in laughter at this comment, and Stossel replied: "I don't want the state deciding what's good and beautiful."...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanindependent.com ...
Certainly, we do NOT want the state getting anywhere near deciding what is true and good and beautiful, as this nitwit Brown suggests. Perhaps "Brown" is a reference to the shirt color worn by folks who agree with him that the state ought to make this sort of decisions....
I don’t see anything about marriage ‘equality’ in my Bible. I do, however, see marriage as exclusive between men and women.
Do you support the right of states to determine for THEMSELVES what marriage laws they will have, or do you support the federal government coming in an mandating gay marriage on them in the name of liberty?
It’s incoherent to talk about states having “rights”. Only individuals have rights.
I love Stossel, he points out how Libertarians would destroy anything that closely resembles a civilized society
PaulTards this is why he will never win. Lyndon Laurouche had a better chance.
There is a difference between "deciding" and recognizing.
i don’t want the Feds OR the individual states telling me anything about my beliefs.
i want the goverment of all levels, out of my life, as much as possible.
i don’t care if gays can sign a legally binding contract, that is similar to a marriage vow. simply contract law.
i care what my church says. if it marries gays, then i find a new church.
same thing with the school. voucher for ALL. the PARENT selects the school they want, that teaches the way they want. sure, FAR from perfect. but much better than now!
What the hell are you talking about? Are you honestly telling me that states don't have rights? They have the rights to enact legislation dealing with areas in with the feds have no jurisdiction, which is 95% of areas. Of course individuals have rights. In keeping with the spirit of this article, if a state wanted to legalize murder of homosexuals, for example, the feds would have to step in an intervene. States are not allowed to do things that violate the inherent human rights of their citizens. A state deciding that it wants to define marriage and exclude homosexual couples from that definition is not interfering with their fundamental rights. The homosexual couples have the right to do what they want in their own household, they have the right to own property, they have the right to vote, etc. If you think that gay marriage is included as a fundamental right then you're a liberal in my opinion, HERBIE. If you want to get your state out of the marriage business, then fine. But you don't have the right to force other states to get themselves out of the marriage business by using the force of the federal government. Currently, all 50 states recognize the value of their governments being involved in marriage.
While I certainly agree that I don’t want the state deciding what’s good and beautiful, the fact is that “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It doesn’t and can’t exist and should never be allowed to exist. “Gay marriage” does indeed harm the institution and sacrament of marriage.
Marriage is intended to foster the relationship between a man and a woman in the in the procreation and rearing of children. The fact that a couple may be infertile or choose not to have children, or even adopt, doesn’t change that fact. Two fully functioning individuals of the same sex can’t procreate. They may be loving people, may even be good parents, but to call any relationship they have a marriage IS destructive. In fact I think it is intended to be destructive by gay marriage advocates.\
A society may choose to sanction a homosexual relationship but it should never be called marriage and should not be equated with it.
Yeah, except it won’t happen that way. The government will “get out” of the marriage business but will still end up forcing religious institutions to solemnize these same-sex marriages.
I don not believe that the government should have any role in marriage other than making sure that the children of such relationships are supported if they dissolve.
There should be no such thing as a “wedding license” issued by the state.
I’m with Stossel on this one. Marriage is a socio-religious construct that governments should be involved in to the least extent possible. The more we diminish the governmental ‘footprint’ in marriage, the more the great marriage debate simply goes away.
What ‘private’ marriage would mean is that each church, culture, etc. Sets its own standard.
“I dont see anything about marriage equality in my Bible.”
Neither do I but seeing as we don’t live in a theocracy....
Dear God, you have no clue what the U.S. Constitution says, do you? Google it and read the 10th amendment.
The government decides what is good as an essential function - that is what criminal and civil law do. The issue is the scope and content.
Homosexuality was recognized as perverted before the "State" ever came into being: for example, the American Indian knew them as distorted and made them dress as women and live outside the village. The early Romans made it a crime and when their morals collapsed accepted it.
Libertarianism is a weird quasi religious cult which when followed to its logical conclusion embraces-inter alia- cosmopolitanism and is against love of country. It is a variant of Marxism in that it elevates ownership of the means of production as an explanation and as a goal. The only material difference of libertarianism from Marxism being who shall hold title to property.
Keep in mind people once thought marrying a cousin was a joke that only occurred in parts of the country. Mormons were chided for taking more than one wife. And now, we have mentally deranged vectors of disease obsessed with acts of rimming and felching telling others that the consumption of fecal material is another form of normal? Male homos are about the most disgusting perverts on the planet. The sodomites are no more close to normal than was their icon Michael Jackson.
Except for the small problem that he's right. States have powers. Individuals have rights.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
This was, no doubt, the exact mechanism that got Mr. Loving arrested on the night of his honeymoon for marrying his pregnant (black) girlfriend. By the morality I was raised with, this would be known as “doing the right thing”. By the morality of Virginia in the 60’s it was a crime.
The State of Virginia recognized and legislated marriage such that two people of different ‘races’ could not get married.
State involvement in marriage has a long and not very illustrious history. I would rather, as with most things, that they kept their involvement to a minimum or an absence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.