"It's sick out there and getting sicker" - Bob Grant
This guy nails it.
“But, why “between two persons?” As long as we’re redefining marriage, why keep this last vestige of the medieval idea of marriage? Why not three, four or as many as the blissful spouses could tolerate? If it is a denial of equal protection of the law to prohibit any two persons of the same sex to marry, then why isn’t it also a denial of equal rights for three or more persons to marry? What is so magical about a couple, as opposed to a trio or a quartet? What’s the big deal about monogamy?
Is it not discrimination against those who wish to practice polygamy? Why should marriage be denied to those who wish to define it in their own way? Isn’t this a denial of their equal right to marry?
You might respond that there are good reasons to limit marriage to two persons, and I can think of a few myself. But whatever your or my reasons are, by what authority do we deny someone else their equal rights?
Under the proposed act, the right to marry also would be denied to other folks. Siblings couldn’t marry. Nor could cousins of the first degree. Aunts and uncles couldn’t marry their nephews and nieces.
Hey, it doesn’t hurt me; why should I care if siblings marry? Let them have as many genetically damaged children as they want. Their birth defects aren’t my problem.”
If “equality under law” is enshrined under the constitution, then I want to be deemed a 6’-2” blonde, buff knock-out model with a million dollars in the bank. It’s only fair.
Why the ‘state’ has any say in marriage is the real question.
Marriage ought to be the province of and defined by religion; civil contracts could be entered into by any willing parties.
This is all in the name of defining deviancy down.
It's not "to be taken lightly", it's to be dismissed "out of hand".
There is no "right" to marriage.
Marriage is historically an obligation undertaken by two persons prior to engaging in activities which might reasonably be expected to yield offspring, for the purpose of maximizing the likelihood that said offspring survive to become productive adults.
Since there is nothing two persons of the same sex can do that can be expected to yield offspring, there is no need for them to "marry".
The equality argument has been so persuasive...
Gah!!!!
The "equality argument" is a lie, and they know it.
With regards to marriage, everyone is equal already! Every American has the right to marry another person of the opposite sex. That is equality. Arguments to the contrary are pushing the wolf of marriage destruction clothed in the innocent-sounding sheepskin of "equality".
The very definition of the word is at stake here, as the article nicely illustrates!
The argument that same sex couples should have an equal right to marry is not to be taken lightly. I don’t.
For generations, we have given the State the power to create artificial persons, in the form of corporations, foundations, trusts and the like. Nobody is confused by this government-defined fiction. We know that a corporation is not a real human person. Where the left has a problem is where the Supreme Court has ruled, in Citizens United, that such “persons” have the right of free speech.
Another government-defined fiction that we have allowed for generations is that the State can also define “marriage” and who is “married” and who is not. But marriage predates any State because it is God who defines and defends marriage, not the State. Indeed, any “marriage” a State defines is just as much a legal fiction as when it tells us that a corporation is a “person” that has freedom of speech.
The State attempts to force us to recognize its power. One way is to presume the power to define who is married and who is not. We cede this power in part because we allow the State to tax incomes and estates. To administer such taxing power, the State must define who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Just as when it defines a corporation to be a “person”, as silly as this would be to God, the State does not hesitate to define anyone it pleases as being “married”, totally apart from how God would define them.
Jesus, who was recognized as a prophet by all three monotheistic religions, is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that His morality simply do not qualify for His freely given gift of eternal life. (for example, see Ephesians chapter 5). Of course, people are free to believe whatever they want, but that does not change what God clearly said to us.
If you review the arguments advanced by supporters of same-sex marriage (like at HRC.ORG), you will find that many of them are related to taxation, inheritance and medical issues. But existing law addresses those and any defects in the law can be easily repaired apart from the issue of “marriage”.
I don’t want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a secular Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination to Him.
If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.
However, once gays and their supporters have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, they don’t stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as God’s definition of marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your child from such indoctrination.
If you run a business that could provide services to the public, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat gays as non-gays. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding. This has already happened in California and New Mexico [1].
You may lose control of your own property. [2]
You might have to go out of business to stay true to your principles, so as to avoid being fined or sued into bankruptcy. [3]
From the article:
“Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost. Legal experts said Discover Annapolis Tours sidesteps legal trouble by avoiding all weddings.
“If they’re providing services to the public, they can’t discriminate who they provide their services to,” said Glendora Hughes, general counsel for the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The commission enforces public accommodation laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other characteristics.”
In short, gays will demand that non-gays accept them as moral equals, which they are not and cannot be. When the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
[1] Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico-appeals-court
[2] Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on
[3] Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-annapolis-trolley-suspends-wedding-servic-20121225,0,7100399,full.story
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
With population growth in decline we need as many marriages as possible. Homosexuals could be medically altered to be able to have anal children.
“As long as we’re redefining marriage, why keep this last vestige of the medieval idea of marriage? Why not three, four or as many as the blissful spouses could tolerate? If it is a denial of equal protection of the law to prohibit any two persons of the same sex to marry, then why isn’t it also a denial of equal rights for three or more persons to marry? What is so magical about a couple, as opposed to a trio or a quartet? What’s the big deal about monogamy?”
With state involved, at least in the modern era, the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public think marriage can be at any one time. That’s it, that’s all it can ever be, there’s no other way to do it. Sometimes the definition the state uses will coincide with the real definition, sometimes it won’t. It was always a danger, Pope Leo XIII warned about the state’s involvement in the institution 130 years ago. Makes one wonder what the state will consider marriage in another 130 years.
Freegards
Why should marriage be BETWEEN x number of people. I should be able to marry Al Gore if I want. Why should he be able to interfere with my marriage
[I really don’t care about the $50,000,000 that would be my share of the family wealth].
No two people have a "right" to marry. Every marriage has to be approved by the society in which the two are being married. This is old, settled law although the issue is mostly ignored in our modern era. You have to post the banns of marriage in advance so people can object if they have a reason. There's a last chance at almost every ceremony. Members of the community must witness the marriage.
It's not just two people deciding how they want to share their lives. It's a community accepting and agreeing to support a new family in conjunction with the new couple.
We can re-define it so it's not a community thing, but that's what marriage has historically been.
When this argument was shoved in the left’s collective face,
they’d try to flip it back to us like WE were the perverted ones for “wanting” such strange combinations to be called marriages.
Of course, their only standard by which to determine right and wrong is how it makes them feel about themselves, so there’s really no “intellectual depth” to their position that you can make them grasp onto and defend.
We need two countries - one liberal - one conservative. Then liberals can do anything they want... open their borders to every 3rd world country... raise minimum wage to a hundred bucks and hour and drug all their school age children.
Here’s a nice link about the side effects of psychoactive drugs - ALL of the school killers were on ‘em. Yep, and the effing ‘press’ isn’t the least bit curious... With two countries they can ‘marry’ whatever they want. And as many as they want and brother and sisters whatever... Think how happy liberals would be if we weren’t always standing in their way? And how happy we would be NOT to have to deal with them? They could outlaw all guns too - Chicago has shown us how well that works... But hey, it’ll be their country... well - their half.
Again, we’ve had guns for hundreds of years - and schools for thousands. The “new’ thing on the scene is mind altering drugs like antidepressants.
Every one of the school shooters was on psychoactive drugs... If we want to ban something we know where to start... for the children...
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/
"It's sick out there and getting sicker" - Bob Grant