beastiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia? You wrote, “Unfortunately, people now will do the most unholy and disgusting things, such as having sex with animals, living or dead, wanting to have sex with their own children or somebody else’s, etc.”

While I think a debate about gay marriage is healthy, I think your statement that implies homosexuality is equivalent to necrophilia and other sexual disorders diminishes that debate. Homosexuality is certainly not equivalent to the other activities you mention. I would hope society has moved beyond thinking homosexuals are mentally ill, social deviants who don’t deserve equal protection under the law.

Curse of the Chicken, Mike?

There is nothing ridiculous about opposing government power in whatever form. I dont trust government and want its powers restricted by a short leash.

My second premise depends on one’s definition of reasonable, so it cannot be self-confirming where disagree on what reasonable is.

Here, I believe we disagree, the issue is where we disagree and then why. Your statements make it impossible to identify where and how our understandings conflict because you provided conclusions without a premise much less furnished the reasoning that leads to your conclusions.

Case in point, you advanced that it is a “reasonable” conclusion for “the people” to desire to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. The conclusion appears to be based on the following:

5000 years of evidence.

“5000 years of evidence” merely indicates some context for the factors you use for deriving your conclusion that the restricting marriage to a man and a woman is reasonable. But you fail to state what that evidence is much less what you think it says.

I presume that you refer to 5000 years of evidence where the understood definition of marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Are you attempting to argue that Judeo Christian tradition, which is the tradition that most dominantly informs the contours of our current society, historically defined marriage as one man and one woman? Even if I concede the conclusion, I could only do so if you specify a much tighter time frame (Solomon, circa 1000 BC, had many wives, thus, something less than 3000 years at most applies here) and concede that other hugely influential societies, (including the Greeks, Romans and barbarian tribes) defined marriage very differently than your pedestrian “one man one woman”.

I’m interested in your thinking, but please give me some idea what, specifically, you refer to when you cite 5000 years of evidence as support for your conclusion.

Thanks.

Marriage traditionally represented a contract between two families (and/or clans) involving a man and a female. The two families/clans protected the status of the married couple and their children - relationally as well as commercially. There was also an exclusionary element - in particular, children born to women not fathered by her husband were denied substantial protections and inheritance rights that the “legitimate” children were afforded.

More germanely, the families/clan also restricted the rights of their family members in terms of whom they could or could not marry - a guy and a gal couldn’t just go off and get hitched but needed approval of the respective families/clans. Men and women who had sexual intercourse outside of the approved structure ran grave risks of injury, death, exile if they were unsuccessful in getting familial acquiescence after the fact. We see echoes in the honor killings that get reported in tribal societies today. Divorce was also strictly regulated too.

Moving to a nation-state governmental structure moved the marriage arbitreur to the state, who for various reasons (particularly inheritance and property rights and care and provision of the children issued from the sexual relations) preserved the structure of marriage. And until very recently, no one ever tried to redefine marriage as other than between male and female. Divorce was also strictly regulated too.

Same-sex marriage represents a radical shift, but it also parallels a progressive shift (or recognition of shift) in marriage away from the families/clans and towards the two individuals as the sole decision-makers in establishing a marriage - as government has become multiple orders of magnitude removed from family and clan. Technology has shifted the parenting parameters. And traditional restrictions on divorce have loosened too.

As a result, the basic structure and process of marriage has become largely unmoored from family/clan in the modern nation state, which to finally answer your question, raises serious questions as to the degree to which society should regulate marriage. In particular, in terms of the contractual elements, it does appear that the sexes of the two parties are becoming less relevant in today’s societal structure, which weakens the case against forbidding same-sex couples from entering into the same contractual agreements as are now available to opposite couples.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

That was a long aside, but the purpose was to argue for some government agency in formalizing a structure for committed intimate relationships.

But as far as the word “marriage” - here I would allude to trademark, copyright, and similar laws regarding products and argue that five millennia-plus or usage provides a trade name protection for marriage. People can manufacture their own product to compete with existing brands, but they cannot just appropriate a brand name for their use and take this uniqueness away from existing producers. This loss of brand name damages existing producers and consumers.

Hence my acquiescence to same-sex contract structures, which can be manufactured to be generically equivalent to marriage is the demand is there, just so long as a different product name is used.

if children are raised by their parents, united in marriage. A secular definition of marriage is a lifelong union of a breeding pair of humans.

I don’t think we should be required to have a “marriage license,” or even that the state should have any say whatsoever about the subject (excepting, of course, what would be covered under child abuse laws and animal cruelty).

But that’s another thread.

I simply oppose giving government the power to restrict gays from entering the marriage contract because I cant think of a good reason to do so.

The above statement assumes that you dont consider the fact that I am personally grossed out by gays to be a good reason to prevent gays from entering marriage contracts.

Additionally, people can get married in all sorts of contexts that are entirely free of religious elements.

It is within the lemmings’ culture to run from danger — even if they run off a cliff. It is the way it is. It’s also still stupid.

Just state the reason you think government should restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

Is it because you regard marriage as a religious institution and that the religion that sanctions it forbids homosexuality?

That is just as much an excuse as the whole homosexual marriage argument in the first place. This is about government mandated acceptance and it is only the first step in a process to criminalize opposition to homosexuals. It is part and parcel to the whole hate crimes legislation.

Although I made it clumsily.

I am not a Republican anymore because Republicans aren’t conservative, as far as I can tell.

In my view, government should be limited at every turn because government is merely a necessary evil.

Republicans lost because they abandoned conservative principles, as you stated, but drew a line in the sand on social issues like gay marriage.

Let me state this: I oppose abortion because the government has an exceptionally strong interest in preventing …. well …. murder. The abortion debate centers on when does a human being become a human being. Since drawing a line between conception and birth is futile, I oppose any attempts to arbitrarily draw such a line and conclude that the only sensible line is the moment of conception.

But Republicans have also taken a strong stand on gay marriage. Those who oppose gay marriage do so for two reasons, as I stated:

1. They are grossed out by it.
2. They are religious and their religion specifically forbids homosexuality.

I dont think item 1 above is a sound basis for policy, since it is essentially based on personal preference.

I believe that item 2 above would be a constitutionally forbidden justification for laws forbidding homosexuality because of the establishment clause in the first amendment. I want to be very forthright that I believe we are a Christian nation and should remain so. The ethics and morals of Christianity are the best moral and ethical codes in existence. Its teachings are brilliant and Jesus was perfect. But the Constitution is clear that the state should not establish a religion and defining marriage on the basis of Judeo Christian ethics is a much too dangerous step toward establishment according to my understanding of the first amendment.

Therefore, I do not support granting government the power to restrict or define marriage.

I know most people oppose gay marriage, but that does not mean that the permitting the majority to decide the issue is in the best interests of the Republic. We are a Republic for a reason, because the Founders did not trust the will of the majority in many circumstances. One of them includes interference with the right of individuals to enter into contracts, which, given its legal nature, necessarily includes marriage contracts.

But you’re position assumes, incorrectly in my view, that in order for gays to get married that some sort of law must be passed in order for them to be able to do that, ie: that they must first obtain approval from government before getting married.

I believe that the correct view is that government does not have powers unless their Constitutions grant them that power. In theory, we could give government the power to forbid gays from marrying. All I am asking is why would we want to do that?

Apart from being disgusted by homosexuality, I cant think of a single reason why that should be done. Therefore, I oppose granting government that power, as I would oppose granting government any power unless I could think of a good reason to grant it.

with the whole “It is your OPINION that opinion is no basis for policy.” I didn’t expect that sort of moral relativism from a person supporting government power that seeks to interfere with contractual freedom. You’ve abandoned your own position, philosophically, by making that argument - assuming you place a premium on individual freedom from government interference.

Further, people cannot enter whatever contract they want. Governments enact the law of contract, and thus, people can only enter those contracts which are not forbidden to them by government.

As for your contention that the marriage contract is established by and with government, that is completely incorrect. The parties to a contract are those who exchange consideration. The government furnishes no consideration to those entering a marriage contract. The married persons exchange promises to one another. They do not promise the government anything. Thus, the government’s role in a marriage contract is merely administrative, and it does so only in order to facilitate allocating the benefits it sees fit to confer upon those who enter marriage contracts.

You also state that I paint marriage as an agreement established by government. I have specifically and repeatedly denied that idea is the case. Marriage is an exchange of promises between people. Government plays no roll whatever in that exchange. Others have implied, however, the case you are attempting to make out against me, that the power to regulate marriage, or any contract, is inherent to government. I disagree entirely. People are vested with the power to bind themselves. And only the People can grant government the power to pass laws restricting freedom of contract. The people should only grant government that power if there is a good reason to do so. I’m simply asking if anyone can give me one.

So far, no one has.

I asked for an example, not an obfuscation.

Can you name an example?

Redefining the terms to fit your argument doesn’t count either.

Well, I can. I think think of multiple ones. But I’m not going to help you out with that, since you prefer to dance around direct questions and throw out tired leftist tripe and call it some sort of argument.

please name a national interest that is reasonably served by allowing it.

And that is per the dictionary. Marriage = one man, one woman.

It seems you think you know a lot about us, but “homos” is not a term used here.

And FWIW, your challenge makes little sense.

Federally, because it is not a legitimate purview of the federal government. On a state level, it depends on the state constitution. In my own state, I would oppose it due to my beliefs. If it was not contraindicated by the state constitution and it was passed as a law should be passed, then it would be a legitimate law. It would be a law that damages society, just as no-fault divorce laws damage society, but it would be a legitimate law. Part of your argument states that a degradation of marriage among heterosexuals means that it shouldn’t be protected from being applied to homosexual relationships. I would argue that just because a boat is sinking doesn’t justify drilling more holes in the bottom.

I do not, by the way, share your homophobic views. I have counted several homosexuals as employees and as friends. I believe that sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex is a sin. It is not a worse sin than fibbing, cursing, adultery or fornication, nor is it a better sin than any of those. I do not treat people differently because they do things I believe are wrong, but I would be remiss if I pretended that wrong was right to keep someone from feeling badly.

Multiple times I said that I would accept* a law that created a parallel system to marriage that had the same rights and privileges but under a different name. And a number of states (including California) indeed set up a parallel system - and that is not good enough for gay marriage proponents - and the CA SC also said that this was not good enough, it had to be called marriage.

Again, when I said that this was acceptible to me, then you said it was not acceptible to you - you kept asking me on what grounds did the state have the right to withhold calling that laternate system “marriage”.

So what’s your game here, proposing this exact same scheme? Or are you just waiting to attack if Hooah_Mac assents? We’re rapidly approaching Hinz Rule territory.

You’d better have a good explanation for your behavior.

———————————-

*That’s not the same as my advocating for this - it’s still the burden for those who wish to change the status quo to convince enought legislators to pass sucyh a law. But I wouldn’t seek to overturn such a legislative action. Nor do I want the courts to impose this.

I hadn’t previously noticed the accumulated bigotry of this poster’s comments throughout this thread and others. He is either a bigot or a bizarre moby, either way, he uses language and characterizations of homosexuals that I don’t think are appropriate in any venue.