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.
Thanks for the Post.
That’s true. But it seems to me, at least in recent times, that the recognizing has only hurt the institution. It has become just another lousy contract that can be broken and resumed as long as the gov’t says so, at least for many. Now the state will not stop at benignly recognizing marriage, to many people the state actually defines it for them. And the statists and homosexualists love that, because it means many will accept whatever the gubberment puts forth as marriage, even impossibilities like “gay marriage”. That the state defines marriage in the minds of many gives the statists and homosexualists tremendous control of the culture. They especially love that the state has the power to punish if folks don’t accept their ever mutating version of marriage.
Idiot. The state should keep us from stabbing each other or violating voluntary contracts, and aside from that it should stay the heck out of the way.
There is ZERO reason for any non-statist to want the gov't licensing and approving sexual relationships of any kind.
A true Libertarian thinker would start with the question why is government involved in any kind of marriage?
Libertarian...government should be issues you a marriage license????????????????? why what reason
Is marriage Government license of your sex life? no...
Is marriage Government license of your religious commitment? no... Is marriage Government license of your legal commitment with others ? no...
Marriage is a Government license grating a legal privilege for want reason should Government do that?...
The only aspect of marriage that give Government a justification to grating a legal privilege with a marriage license is reproduction..
Reproduction is a necessary for a society so legal form and legal struchure for people "making new citizan" is necessary for breeder and there children
Libertarian... Government license of marriage? for what reason should goverment be involved ....
One....reproduction...a legal statues for a possible child
Yep, and once government got its nose under the tent with marriage it was just a matter of time before the institution would be subverted by the government.
This should be a lesson learned for all of us. Keep Government out of everything except what is in the Constitution. Social engineering is wrong no matter if its to promote Conservative Ideals or Progressive ones!
Its incoherent to talk about states having rights. Only individuals have rights10thAmendmentGuy:
What the hell are you talking about? Are you honestly telling me that states don't have rights?Wow, tenth, one would expect better of one with the name you chose.
Libertarians are just as dangerous to the survival of this free republic as Liberals.
Marriage is what marriage is, and has always been. A union between one man and one woman. Government can either acknowledge this fact of human nature and act in accord with it, to its own enrichment and security, or they can enter into the realm of unreality and pay the inevitable destructive consequences for that delusion.
We have a homosexsual promoting his brand of deviance here. He/It is a new poster and previous postings indicates his/its purpose is to promote his brand of deviance.
newflash, unless you have public recording of marriage it is an invitation to fraud and bigamy.
This is what happened in the past before we had public records.
Also marriage is about children and the future of society. It is not about poping an orgasm or mere “love”. There is and never has been a love test in marriage. That is a delusion of the propaganda industry.
The civil marriage contract is the legal, social and economic bedrock of our civilization.
For our government to pretend this isn’t so is national suicide.
If you broaden the definition of marriage to between two men or two women, who are you to prohibit the marriage of a brother and sister or or a father and his daughter? Why are you being prejudiced against a man who wants to have 2 or 3 or even 4 wives?
No, let’s just leave it where it has been for thousands of years.
Oh horsecrap. There is ample reason for a state to encourage marriage in a welfare society. When welfare is dissolved then get back to me from Libtopia.
Please comment on what little herbie has to offer. He is marketing his deviance and needs a bit of normalizing. Neo
"Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they argued that what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business. Now they want to make it everybody's business by requiring others to acquiesce in their unions and treat them as they would other unions, both in law and in social practice."
Why is that, Herbie? Why do you want to make it everyone's business?
Its all politics.
Take your sorry ass back to DU loser.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Rights come from God, not from man-made institutions. I think it is self-evident that God did NOT give homosexuals the right to marry and raise a family...seems he left out the body parts and capabilities for that.
The gay ‘rights’ movement is an attempt by man to overrule God. It will fail, but we don’t need our government fighting on their side.
Perhaps brown is the color of your brain, as in shit for....
As I said above there are many reasons for states to encourage marriage in a welfare state, not the least of which is the current state of affairs in urban America where the state DISCOURAGED marriage with Great Society policies that destroyed the urban family and turned the USA into the Food Stamp States of America.
OK but never said it wasn't, the problem arrises when the government starts passing out goodies BECAUSE of Marriage. Better tax rates, Social Security Benefits etc...
Once that was in play then the "equal under the law" aspect is in play.
As I said to the other guy making a big deal about this, you are dealing in SEMANTICS. The federeal government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The states hold the majority of the power in this country, or at least that's the way it is supposed to be. Don't pervert what I'm saying and try to infer from my mention of states' rights that I think states are superior to the people and that the people's rights are subservient to those of the state. It is the opposite, but that is OBVIOUS. The people exercise their wishes through their elected state legislatures and executive. The states have broad power to enact legislation.
The civil marriage contract has been part of the government of this country throughout its history.
Even the Congress has involved itself in the protection of this most fundamental and important of human institutions. Four states were only allowed into the Union if they would forever foreswear plural marriage, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah and Idaho.
Are you claiming that we've been living all this time in a "theocracy," instead of a constitutional republic?
There's lots of issues that are best left to the states. This is not one of them. What if a couple got married in Massachusates and moved to Texas? Are they still married?
This is a bit of a different issue than setting local tax rates or speed limits, things that don't really matter once you cross a state boundary.
Libertarianism is a polite way of saying "anarchy". It is the old hippie mantra of "If it feels good, do it" made into a political ideology.
Way too broad of a brush. I am a small-l libertarian and I do not support the comments made by the original poster in this thread. The idea behind libertarianism is that you should be able to do what you want to do as long as it does not harm someone else. It is easy to apply this argument to smoking a joint in your own home. That harms no one. As Thomas Sowell said, homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they simply wanted the government out of their bedrooms. Now they seek to impose their sexual mores on the rest of society, and it is HARDLY a libertarian position to let them do this.
Neither the general government nor the state governments have the “right,” the “jurisdiction,” or the “power” to overturn the Natural Law.
They can try. But the result will be exactly the same as for every other group of men who tried to do so throughout history.
Reality and right can be very harsh when you put yourself on the wrong side of it.
This is a bit of a different issue than setting local tax rates or speed limits, things that don't really matter once you cross a state boundary.
Um, what is your solution? I don't support the idea of forcing states to recognize homosexual marriages from other states through the Full Faith and Credit clause. States are not required to recognize gun permits from other states. Why should they be required to recognize homosexual marriage licenses? And if you say that we'll get a federal constitutional amendment to ban it nationwide, it would never pass. Maybe 10 years ago, but not now. The priority should be ensuring that the 44 states that don't currently allow homosexual marriage are not forced to allow it by the 6 that do. The states that don't allow homosexual marriage should not be forced to recognize it through a Supreme Court decision based on faulty constitutional principles.
Nobody is banned from marriage because of their sexual proclivities. Everybody can marry as long as you marry a member of the opposite sex that meets the age and familial requirements. That is the definition of equal under the law.
The post to which I responded said nothing of “civil marriage,” Congress, or a constitutional republic. The post to which I responded referred only to the Bible.
To leave out that context in your response to me is at best an unfair tactic, at worst it’s flat out dishonest.