 |
 |
 |
 |
#237526 - 09/11/04 12:32 PM
Re: Same Sex Marriage
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
quote:
There is no such right of self-sovereignity.
Really? Let's see what Jefferson has to say about this and related topics:
quote:
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.
quote:
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government... This, like all other natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent, or by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60
quote:
"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.
quote:
"Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791.
quote:
"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
quote:
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
quote:
"Some other natural rights... [have] not yet entered into any declaration of rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:272
quote:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276
quote:
"Being myself a warm zealot for the attainment and enjoyment by all mankind of as much liberty as each may exercise without injury to the equal liberty of his fellow citizens, I have lamented that... the endeavors to obtain this should have been attended with the effusion of so much blood." --Thomas Jefferson to Jean Nicholas Demeunier, 1795. FE 7:13
quote:
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
quote:
"The manners of every nation are the standard of orthodoxy within itself. But these standards being arbitrary, reasonable people in all allow free toleration for the manners as for the religion of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Jean Baptiste Say, 1815. ME 14:262
I'm not going to bother continuing. A short Google search should suffice to prove that our Founders believed in limited government and the sovereignty of the individual.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#237527 - 09/11/04 12:39 PM
Re: Same Sex Marriage
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Neiby:
If you really believe that then you would support the following suppositions:
* Government can vote to ban interracial marriages
* Government can vote to ban interfaith marriages
* Government can vote to ban marriages of heterosexual couples who do not want children
* Government can vote to ban marriages of non-Christians
None of these represent any portion of my argument anywhere.
My point is that you MUST accept these statements for your argument to be consistent. If the government has the authority to choose who may or may not be married then they do, in fact, wield the authority necessary to make the decisions listed above.
If you would argue that they do not have the authority to make the decisions listed above then you must somehow define the limits of governmental authority and how it derives that authority.
You can't just say "That's the way it is!" That's not a valid argument. In a constitutional republic the government only has the powers granted to it by the people, and in no case does it have the power to infringe on the natural rights of the people unless we allow it out of our own ignorance.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#237528 - 09/11/04 01:51 PM
Re: Same Sex Marriage
|
Backstop
Member
Registered: 01/17/04
Posts: 2332
Loc: Texas
|
Hi Neiby,
quote:
Originally posted by Neiby:
First, marriage is a right. It is an extension of the right to self-sovereignty and self-ownership.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that marriage is an extension of self-sovereignty and self-ownership?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#237529 - 09/11/04 02:39 PM
Re: Same Sex Marriage
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
quote:
Originally posted by Backstop:
Hi Neiby,
quote:
Originally posted by Neiby:
First, marriage is a right. It is an extension of the right to self-sovereignty and self-ownership.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that marriage is an extension of self-sovereignty and self-ownership?
The principle of sovereignty of the individual presumes, among many other things, that we may voluntarily enter into relationships, religious affiliations, and civil agreements as we so choose.
Marriage is principally a religious arrangement that has been equated with a civil, legal agreement. There really are two aspects of modern marriage: the legal and the ceremonial (or religious).
The legal portion should be nothing more than the government making a record of the new civil agreement entered into by those getting married. It has no authority to determine who may actually get married in the first place.
If a person's religion or philosophy allows them to marry those of the same gender then they should be allowed to make that choice since they are sovereign over their own actions. As long as both parties are willing to the arrangement, it should not be hindered no matter what we think of it.
Just because your religion or viewpoint frowns on same-sex marriage, you do not have the right to force your viewpoint onto others.
For example, if your religion disallows the eating of meat, you do not have the authority to pass a law based on the religion that disallows everyone else from eating meat. Your religion only has authority over those who submit to its authority. Religions have no broad or civil authority, and legislation may not be enacted on the basis of religion alone if it is to remain constitutional.
Barring same-sex marriage because any particular religion forbids it is unconstitutional. Barring it simply because you don't like it oversteps your authority.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#237530 - 09/11/04 09:54 PM
Re: Same Sex Marriage
|
Backstop
Member
Registered: 01/17/04
Posts: 2332
Loc: Texas
|
Neiby,
My attention span and patience are kaput after reading for a few hours regarding the difference between a right and a benefit. I've also read at length on the GLAD site, and others.
Those people at GLAD are FUITH. Please go there and read. You'll see they want much more than just to be together. They want the benefits that are granted by our government to people who are married. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
And they are benefits, not rights. We disagree.
quote:
It has no authority to determine who may actually get married in the first place.
This statement of yours made me realize I'm wasting my time here. You've been indoctrinated - hook, line, and sinker. If the government does not dictate the standards of marriage, then I guess Jim Bob can marry his sister Betty Lou, right? Or a mother can marry her son, right? What's to stop them? In your world, nothing should be able to stop them from doing what they want. Have you actually thought this through??
Our society has laws in place. And yes, some of those laws are based on religious beliefs. I have no problem with that. Apparently you do. Those laws were established as standards of behavior.
Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. As such, it should not be rewarded with the benefits given to married couples.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#237531 - 09/12/04 12:14 AM
Re: Same Sex Marriage
|
Tripp
Member
Registered: 05/11/04
Posts: 670
Loc: Valley Forge, PA
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neiby:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Neiby:
If you really believe that then you would support the following suppositions:
* Government can vote to ban interracial marriages
* Government can vote to ban interfaith marriages
* Government can vote to ban marriages of heterosexual couples who do not want children
* Government can vote to ban marriages of non-Christians
None of these represent any portion of my argument anywhere.
My point is that you MUST accept these statements for your argument to be consistent. If the government has the authority to choose who may or may not be married then they do, in fact, wield the authority necessary to make the decisions listed above.
Your points are _NOT_ at all consistent with my argument. In fact you evidently do not seem to grasp my argument at all. THis is not about the government legislating nor prohibiting anything. This is about the structure of society and what that sociel structure has engendered over time.
Marriage is perhaps the most fundamental structure of society. It is the thread by which genealogy and family relationships are recognized in society. It is the thread by which legal and personal rights exist between intimate family assocations. It is the thread by which identity and name is established and genetics are disceminated within society.
This is not about the government at all and certainly not about the government prohibiting anything. This is about society and society's recognition of that which gives it structure and longevity and its recognition of those positive forces upon which society's positive growth is dependent. Marriage is a social institution founded on ethic and responsibility which is what creates a healthy society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of the institution of marriage upon society itself. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
Your argument of personal liberties permitting an individual to do *WHATEVER* one desires to do is in direct conflict with what our founding fathers wrote and not a one of your quotations applies to this discussion ... at least not to support your beliefs. You do grossly ignore the fundamental responsibility held with each freedom and the fact that no person's freedom is to encroach upon or diminish the liberties of another or groups of individuals which is what constitutes society itself and the welfare of that society.
Let's look at even only the first of your quotes:
quote:
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.
Your emboldened text above is an unchecked liberty without regard for others or society. Jefferson goes on to describe RIGHTFUL LIBERTY as being constrained within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. These gay marriages are, in fact, demanding recognition of special, personal rights beyond those of others, which gays do have, and doing so at the cost of other's rights and of society's welfare as a whole. Gay marriage not only does not offer any benefit to society as a whole but also does diminish society and undermine the institution of Marriage by blurring the boundaries and making it for personal benefit alone, and contributing only to an obligatory financial responsibility from society. The diminishment of what constitutes marriage does inherently adding nothing to societal structure and diminishes that structure.
If you believe that Marriage is now or ever has been only about an individual's freedom to derive that individual's pleasure pleasure in uniting with whomever they choose, then you do miss the whole foundation and origin of the institution of marriage and do not understand it at all.
You state that "Marriage is principally a religious arrangement that has been equated with a civil, legal agreement." No, marriage is principally a social contract, with ethical and social obligations and responsibilities associated therewith. You may wish to pidgeonhole marriage as being controlled by religion whenever ethic and responsiblity are involved, but these are the inherent foundation of marriage and reigion does not necessarily have to be involved.
Thomas Paine is perhaps one of the most enlightened authors on Liberty and even his quotation you cite from "Rights of Man" does limit liberies in the gualifying clause "which are not injurious to the natural rights of others". These rights of others include the rights of society as a whole.
What gays and proponents of gay marriage are currently doing is forcing their choices upon the rest of society. A few liberal judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, marriage, and through their personal views are forcing their opinion upon society as a whole and doing so in utter disregard of society. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.
Gays are in fact forcing others to accept their choices and the net result is to undermine society by legal, social,economic and, yes, even ethical means.
A few individuals are dictating their desires upon the entirety of society and choose to change what constitutes "marriage" at their own personal whim. This is NOT what the founding fathers viewed as a being RIGHTFUL execution of one's liberties.
TO put it point blank, gays do not contribute to the forward structural integrity of society and gay marriage would undermine that society. Gays will not engender a familial tree. Gays will not have offspring. In fact any unduring gay union will result in the truncation of any family tree and cessation of that genetic lineage. Thisi is contrary to the positive growth and structure of society.
The insitution of marriage has long-established reasons for existence within society, among these are genetic, social, economic, legal and contractual and gay marriage does not contribute positively to any of these in society while it does expect special economic benefits and rights accorded gays beyond those others receive.
Your liberatarian view of gay marriage as being a "freedom" is one which ignores, ethic, disregards responsibility, eschews obligation and only recognizes a anarchist's definition of "freedom" and nothing more.
TO rephrase your argument and your own logic you would have us believe:
* Any 2 or more males and one female can enter into marriage.
* Any 2 or more females and one male can enter into marriage.
* Any three or more consenting individuals, regardless of gender, can enter into a marriage for any reason.
* Any mature male or female can enter into marriage with any non-mature male of female for these individuals surely must have the same rights of choice and freedom regardless of age.
And society is obligated to recognize these all and more and grant them any and all special priveledges despite these unions undermining society itself.
While you may not have any regard for the destruction of the family and resulting destabilization of society that personal liberties without personal responsibility and obligation have led to, the rest of us have no obligation to recognise this irresponsible and destructive perspective and reward it with benefits. What you advocate is not liberty; it is only an anarchy where one's personal gratification is elevated above all else and hedonism has achieved god-like status.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#237532 - 09/12/04 10:21 PM
Re: Same Sex Marriage
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
quote:
Your points are _NOT_ at all consistent with my argument. In fact you evidently do not seem to grasp my argument at all. THis is not about the government legislating nor prohibiting anything.
Sure they are. You just refuse to consider all the ramifications of your position. Your position has as its foundation the premise that government has the right to determine who may or may not get married. The statements I made are consistent with that position. If you argue against those statements then your position becomes even more tenuous.
quote:
Marriage is perhaps the most fundamental structure of society. It is the thread by which genealogy and family relationships are recognized in society. It is the thread by which legal and personal rights exist between intimate family assocations. It is the thread by which identity and name is established and genetics are disceminated within society.
I have no disagreement with any of that.
quote:
Your argument of personal liberties permitting an individual to do *WHATEVER* one desires to do is in direct conflict with what our founding fathers wrote and not a one of your quotations applies to this discussion ... at least not to support your beliefs.
Every one of them applies to this discussion and supports my position, and it's rather clear that they do. If you don't recognize that then I think we have greater problems.
quote:
You do grossly ignore the fundamental responsibility held with each freedom and the fact that no person's freedom is to encroach upon or diminish the liberties of another or groups of individuals which is what constitutes society itself and the welfare of that society.
I most certainly do not ignore personal responsibility in any matter. How does gay marriage impinge on the individual rights of others?
quote:
Your emboldened text above is an unchecked liberty without regard for others or society. Jefferson goes on to describe RIGHTFUL LIBERTY as being constrained within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. These gay marriages are, in fact, demanding recognition of special, personal rights beyond those of others, which gays do have, and doing so at the cost of other's rights and of society's welfare as a whole.
Again, how does gay marriage affect anyone else's individual rights or impinge on them in any way?
Your last statement is indicative of bull-headed silliness. Homosexuals are demanding nothing more than that to which everyone else has access. What special rights are they demanding?
quote:
Thomas Paine is perhaps one of the most enlightened authors on Liberty and even his quotation you cite from "Rights of Man" does limit liberies in the gualifying clause "which are not injurious to the natural rights of others". These rights of others include the rights of society as a whole.
That's silly. Society has no rights. Only individuals have rights. Again, how is gay marriage injurious to anyone else?
quote:
TO put it point blank, gays do not contribute to the forward structural integrity of society and gay marriage would undermine that society.
Gum-flapping. Prove your point. Various forms of this irrational statement have been made many times as if it were some universal postulate as inarguable as F = ma. Specifically, how would gay marriage undermine society?
These people are already here, they already have families, and they already want to be joined together for the rest of their lives. How does official recognition of those unions injure anyone? And don't keep bringing up nebulous arguments. I want specifics.
quote:
Your liberatarian view of gay marriage as being a "freedom" is one which ignores, ethic, disregards responsibility, eschews obligation and only recognizes a anarchist's definition of "freedom" and nothing more.
Proof that you haven't been listening. I'm not an anarchist, my position does not eschew obligation and does not ignore ethics or responsibility. I hate to keep saying this, but you're being silly.
quote:
TO rephrase your argument and your own logic you would have us believe:
* Any 2 or more males and one female can enter into marriage.
* Any 2 or more females and one male can enter into marriage.
* Any three or more consenting individuals, regardless of gender, can enter into a marriage for any reason.
* Any mature male or female can enter into marriage with any non-mature male of female for these individuals surely must have the same rights of choice and freedom regardless of age.
And society is obligated to recognize these all and more and grant them any and all special priveledges despite these unions undermining society itself.
To the first three statements, all I ask is that you show me where the Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to decide on any of those matters. If it does not have the authority, then the rest of the discussion is moot.
To the last statement: surely you understand that with rights come responsibilities. Isn't that what you've been saying that I'm ignoring? Children do not understand the responsibilities that come with rights, and until they've reached the age of majority they may not fully exercise those rights. Each State has the authority to determine the age of majority and, perhaps separately, the age at which we may enter into marriage.
At least you didn't bring up the "What if I want to marry my dog?" argument. In the context of this topic, there's no surer sign of an idiot than someone who makes that statement.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#237533 - 09/12/04 10:35 PM
Re: Same Sex Marriage
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
quote:
Neiby,
My attention span and patience are kaput after reading for a few hours regarding the difference between a right and a benefit. I've also read at length on the GLAD site, and others.
Those people at GLAD are FUITH. Please go there and read. You'll see they want much more than just to be together. They want the benefits that are granted by our government to people who are married. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
And they are benefits, not rights. We disagree.
You're confusing two separate issues.
The first issue is whether homosexuals may be married at all, and that is what I believe is a right.
The second issue is benefits granted by the government, among others, to those who are already married. Of course, those are benefits by definition.
quote:
This statement of yours made me realize I'm wasting my time here. You've been indoctrinated - hook, line, and sinker. If the government does not dictate the standards of marriage, then I guess Jim Bob can marry his sister Betty Lou, right? Or a mother can marry her son, right? What's to stop them? In your world, nothing should be able to stop them from doing what they want. Have you actually thought this through??
Yes, I have. Have you? I am not indoctrinated, as you say. I used to be indoctrinated years ago when I was a radical fundamentalist Christian and far-right-wing Republican. If this topic had arisen ten years ago you would have heard me making the same arguments that you, Tripp, and others here have been making.
I am no longer a radical fundamentalist Christian or a right-wing Republican, as you can see.
The problem here is that you are blinded by religious dogma. If you honestly believe that homosexual behavior is deviant then there really is no reason to continue discussing the topic. Your mind is made up and is surrounded by an impenetrable wall of irrationality and hatred.
As I've said before, you are certainly welcome to your opinion and you have the right to express your opinion. However, if you want to make your opinion into law then you must show where government derives the authority to do so.
Hypothetically, imagine a United States two hundred years from now where another non-Christian religion has become the dominant force in American politics. If people from that religion came into power and had a majority in government, would they have the authority to deem Christian marriage as deviant and to subsequently outlaw it?
I would imagine that they would label Christians as deviants and deleterious to society. They might decide that Christians should not adopt because that would allow them to further spread their deviant doctrines.
Despite those arguments, do they have the AUTHORITY to make those determinations? It's obvious to me that they do not. If you choose to live in a society that would grant them that authority then that's your problem. I'd rather they just stayed out of it entirely.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered
and 10 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
