government-free marriage

[Brett85]

I am a heterosexual. My nature demands that I would choose from the pool of opposite gendered non-related consenting adults for the purpose of marriage.

The nature of a homosexual demands that they would choose from the pool of SAME gendered non-related consenting adults for the purpose of marriage.

Prior to Loving v Virginia, inter-racial couples also enjoyed the right to equal access to marriage, as long as it was to someone of the same race and not the person they wished to marry. Do you agree with this practice?

No. People can't control the color of their skin. It's simply a genetic trait that they were born with. There's no scientific evidence at all that homosexuality is a genetic trait, and until this is actually proven by scientific evidence it is not "discrimination" to not grant government benefits to certain types of behaviors. I don't claim to know why homosexuality occurs, but it's simply a fact that science has not proven that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Certainly the equal protection clause of the Constitution was not meant to apply to certain kinds of controversial behaviors. We had a debate about the establishment clause of the 1st amendment the other day, and we obviously disagree about that. I see nothing that stops a state from legislating morality. Ron Paul agrees.

 

[AxisMundi]

State sponsored marriage is a Civil Privilege. Marriage itself is a right derived from self-ownership, that you have the ability innately to pledge your loyalty to another person for the purposes of maintaining a family.

Loving v. Virginia, as a U.S. Constitutional Law case simply stood for the idea that once an "equal protection" government starts handing out privileges to the general population, they can't discriminate against those who seek the privilege. The term used by the SCOTUS is "Civil right", and it also applies to voting and certain state services. These "civil rights" are not rights at all, except for the fact that the institution granting them claims to represent the whole of the body politic on equal footing.

The U.S. Constitution, in all of its faults and imperfections, never once claims to create a right. The first time it refers to anything called a "right" is in the Bill of Rights, and then it only establishes a prohibition on the Government invading those rights already inherent in the people.

If you're going to cite to something on your argument, at least make sure it supports you.

Firstly, the legal protections/privileges provided by legally recognized marriages are indeed a Civil Right. One can indeed proclaim one's self married, but without that legal framework of Civil and Constitutional Rights, no one is required to recognize that "spiritual marriage", or any of the rights and privileges inherent in a legally recognized marriage, including the g'ment.

Secondly, there are no rights inherent to human beings. They are decided upon by the combined will of society and enforced by g'ment. You can claim some "right to self-ownership" all you wish. In the absence of g'ment I can come along and claim I have a right to enslave you, and if I am the more powerful individual, guess who's "right" prevails.

And the Constitution certain lays out rights prior to the BoR, the rights of the States to equal say and equal representation in the g'ment.

And you admonish others for reading comprehension?

The Dec. of Ind. says that the people have the right to "alter or abolish" a government that becomes destructive of those ends.

And since you claim that "rights only exist in a legal framework", you must also be claiming that there is no law outside the state either. Rights and Law are constructs devised by individuals, and usurped by governments which then teach that they are the only ones that could possibly administer such. Just like the market created money long before government could take over with legal tender laws, so too did the market devise a code of conduct that could be described as "rights" and "law" long before the state could enforce geographic jurisdiction on people as though we all live in a large feudal plantation.

Again, the DoI and the Constitution as they are written do not even claim to "create" rights. So why do you keep calling on them to defend your position? If anything you should be looking to the philosophy of Bentham and the edicts of the North Korean chartering documents.

I do indeed admonish others for reading comprehension troubles, as you yourself exhibit here.

The document clearly states that for rights to exist and to be preserved, g'ment is created. If said g'ment ignores or removes those right, the people who formed that g'ment or live under it may dissolve said government in favor of a new one as a government is vital to the preservation of said rights.

And rights are certainly created. Do you have some inherent, natural right to speak your mind, to worship as you see fit, petition the government, or gather together? Are there some inherent, natural rights to be secure in your things, papers, etc? How about some inherent, natural right to be armed? Or not to have soldiers march onto your property and take it over for their own use? All these and more are examples of rights created by the governed and protected by the government they crafted.

Quite simply, there are no rights inherent in the human race, only those rights we assign, through legal proceedings or simple philosophy.

 

[AxisMundi]

No. People can't control the color of their skin. It's simply a genetic trait that they were born with. There's no scientific evidence at all that homosexuality is a genetic trait, and until this is actually proven by scientific evidence it is not "discrimination" to not grant government benefits to certain types of behaviors. I don't claim to know why homosexuality occurs, but it's simply a fact that science has not proven that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Certainly the equal protection clause of the Constitution was not meant to apply to certain kinds of controversial behaviors. We had a debate about the establishment clause of the 1st amendment the other day, and we obviously disagree about that. I see nothing that stops a state from legislating morality. Ron Paul agrees.

Science shows that people cannot control their sexual orientation. Preferences? Certainly, but not the inherent attraction to a particular gender. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and Bi-sexuality are as inherent and unchangeable as one's skin color. More so since one cannot "tan the gay away".

Science does indeed prove my point, not yours.

And morality is highly subjective, and for the purposes of this discussion fall into two main categories.

Social morality and religious law.

Social morality are examples that can be found across cultures and throughout religion as well. The prohibitions against murder, rape, and theft are examples of social morality.

Prohibitions against homosexuality are an example of religious law, not social morality, as it does not exist across all cultures, eras, and/or religions.

The g'ment is in no way, shape, or form in the business of legislating religious law. It is forbidden by our Constitution.

 

[AxisMundi]

And jsut to reiterate, ladies and gentlmen, government involvement in marriage is not required nor mandatory.

There already is government-free marriage.

Just don't expect individuals, corporations, g'ment, etc to recognize your marriage.

 

[mczerone]

Every single adult living in the United States has the right to civil benefits from the government after they get married. There isn't a single person who is actually denied benefits after they get married. The government simply says that certain types of unions do not qualify for a marriage licence. But the fact that certain types of unions don't qualify for a marriage licence doesn't mean that certain people are denied government benefits. Every American has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex and get government benefits.

Also, both Ron and Rand wouldn't agree with your interpretation of the "equal protection" clause. They've both said that the 14th amendment was created for the purpose of making sure that the children of slaves were entitled to full citizenship rights. The 14th amendment was never created for the purpose of ensuring "marriage equality" or anything like that. Ron Paul has even gone so far as to say that the states should have the right to make anti sodomy laws. He disagreed with the court's majority in the Lawrence v. Texas case which extended the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to homosexuals. So I'm certainly not the only liberty oriented person who takes this position.

Your "everyone has access to the rights of marriage" argument breaks down when one considers the types of privileges associated with having a state-marriage. The types of privileges granted to those who are "married" include tax benefits, but also the right to visit incarcerated spouses, to be included in the estate by default, to be considered as a custodian of the spouse's biological children, and other privileges that are specific to the spouse in question.

If the only privileges of marriage were tax benefits and other state provided services I would entirely agree with you. But the privileges that are actually bestowed are inherently related to the specific spouse that you choose. A homosexual couple is denied certain privileges that a heterosexual couple is explicitly granted in terms of access to the spouse's person and property. To say that a homosexual would be eligible for the privileges of state marriage if only they chose a heterosexual partner is blatantly wrong, in that they are not looking for the right to be considered the heterosexual partner of a stranger, but are looking for recognition from the state that they are familiarly related to the homosexual partner of their choosing.

As far as what "Ron and Rand" think that the EP clause means - this just goes to show the lunacy of a monopoly government where the chartering documents are left to interpretation. They think it means one thing, the men and women in robes think it means something else, you think it means a third thing, and I a fourth. But at the end of the day we are all going to be stuck abiding by what someone else thinks without the opportunity of enacting our own interpretation - and thus the market will never be tested, and no one will know if their interpretation was "the best". As far as Ron supporting anti-sodomy laws, my impression was that this was mere posturing against the Federal government's interpretation of the Constitution and not supporting the actual "right" to pass such a law from a libertarian theory point of view. He was, if I recall, saying "The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the power to dictate to the states, even based on the 14th Amendment". But in my reading of the equal protection clause, it doesn't say anything about race, religion, or sexual orientation. Therefore, from a libertarian POV, it should be read as giving true equal protection to ALL individuals with respect to gov't privileges, services, and recognitions, as long as those individuals haven't instigated force against another. I don't wish to challenge your interpretation of the Constitution, but I am merely explaining my own. As I expressed before, I just wish we each were allowed to associate with our own constitutions so that there would be no arbitrary interpretations to be made, and the most just interpretations would quickly win the support of the rest of the population.

 

[Brett85]

Science shows that people cannot control their sexual orientation.

Do you have some links that I can read that prove that?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Originally Posted by Chieppa1
Agreed. Also, where's Axis?

Originally Posted by JoshLowry
Counting his negative reps?

That is all...

 

[Brett85]

Your "everyone has access to the rights of marriage" argument breaks down when one considers the types of privileges associated with having a state-marriage. The types of privileges granted to those who are "married" include tax benefits, but also the right to visit incarcerated spouses, to be included in the estate by default, to be considered as a custodian of the spouse's biological children, and other privileges that are specific to the spouse in question.

If the only privileges of marriage were tax benefits and other state provided services I would entirely agree with you. But the privileges that are actually bestowed are inherently related to the specific spouse that you choose. A homosexual couple is denied certain privileges that a heterosexual couple is explicitly granted in terms of access to the spouse's person and property. To say that a homosexual would be eligible for the privileges of state marriage if only they chose a heterosexual partner is blatantly wrong, in that they are not looking for the right to be considered the heterosexual partner of a stranger, but are looking for recognition from the state that they are familiarly related to the homosexual partner of their choosing.

As far as what "Ron and Rand" think that the EP clause means - this just goes to show the lunacy of a monopoly government where the chartering documents are left to interpretation. They think it means one thing, the men and women in robes think it means something else, you think it means a third thing, and I a fourth. But at the end of the day we are all going to be stuck abiding by what someone else thinks without the opportunity of enacting our own interpretation - and thus the market will never be tested, and no one will know if their interpretation was "the best". As far as Ron supporting anti-sodomy laws, my impression was that this was mere posturing against the Federal government's interpretation of the Constitution and not supporting the actual "right" to pass such a law from a libertarian theory point of view. He was, if I recall, saying "The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the power to dictate to the states, even based on the 14th Amendment". But in my reading of the equal protection clause, it doesn't say anything about race, religion, or sexual orientation. Therefore, from a libertarian POV, it should be read as giving true equal protection to ALL individuals with respect to gov't privileges, services, and recognitions, as long as those individuals haven't instigated force against another. I don't wish to challenge your interpretation of the Constitution, but I am merely explaining my own. As I expressed before, I just wish we each were allowed to associate with our own constitutions so that there would be no arbitrary interpretations to be made, and the most just interpretations would quickly win the support of the rest of the population.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

 

[Sola_Fide]

Hahahaha "science shows" hahahaha

The infallible priests if the scientific elite have spoken LoL

 

[mczerone]

No. People can't control the color of their skin. It's simply a genetic trait that they were born with. There's no scientific evidence at all that homosexuality is a genetic trait, and until this is actually proven by scientific evidence it is not "discrimination" to not grant government benefits to certain types of behaviors. I don't claim to know why homosexuality occurs, but it's simply a fact that science has not proven that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Certainly the equal protection clause of the Constitution was not meant to apply to certain kinds of controversial behaviors. We had a debate about the establishment clause of the 1st amendment the other day, and we obviously disagree about that. I see nothing that stops a state from legislating morality. Ron Paul agrees.

So, imagine that there were some great benefit that you wished to get that was being given to homosexuals. Could you choose to be attracted to men and enjoy a penis ravaging your orifices?

While there are mixed results as to whether homosexuality is a genetic trait - it certainly isn't a chosen path for most people. If it were, why do you think so many people would endue the torture prevalent in society toward homosexuals? Why wouldn't they just choose to be hetero? Many people (notably conservative politicians and evangelical religious leaders) have tried to "just choose" to be straight. Then they end up banging their interns and alter boys, while preaching all day long that those "choices" are sinful or not recognizable by polite society.

People can't control their sexual orientation any more than they can control the color of their skin. If you wake up tomorrow lusting after Fabio and can't get a big enough penis to meet your desires, I'll start taking pigmentation treatments to become black.

 

[AxisMundi]

Do you have some links that I can read that prove that?

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/index.aspx

Plenty of related links there.

 

[AxisMundi]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

There is a right to privacy in the Constitution. the 4th Amendment.

 

[mczerone]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

I bolded what you seemed to miss. RP called them ridiculous, but said that the US Constitution was silent on a "right to privacy", and by the Tenth amendment States should have the right, as against the Federal government, to abridge that right of the individuals. I have no doubt that RP would be against anti-sodomy laws.

 

[Brett85]

I bolded what you seemed to miss. RP called them ridiculous, but said that the US Constitution was silent on a "right to privacy", and by the Tenth amendment should have the right, as against the Federal government, to abridge that right of the individuals. I have no doubt that RP would be against anti-sodomy laws.

I'm opposed to sodomy laws as well. I was just saying that controversial social issues like this should be decided by the people rather than the courts.

 

[mczerone]

I'm opposed to sodomy laws as well. I was just saying that controversial social issues like this should be decided by the people rather than the courts.

How? Who are "the people", and who are "the courts"? I'm saying that each person should decide for themselves, with disputes handled by independent courts. You seem to be saying that a group of suits in the State Capitol should be deciding for everyone, and telling the state courts what side should win disputes.

And do you care to answer if you think that you could choose to enjoy penis?

 

[AxisMundi]

I'm opposed to sodomy laws as well. I was just saying that controversial social issues like this should be decided by the people rather than the courts.

Then on has a tyranny of the majority, something our Founders tried to prevent.

It makes much more sense to have courts decide these issues as opposed to the emotional, unthinking masses.

 

[Brett85]

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/index.aspx

Plenty of related links there.

This is from your own link:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

 

[AxisMundi]

This is from your own link:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

And the usual cherry picking I've come to expect, and have seen countless times.

Would you care to show some honesty and copy/paste the rest of it, or shall I?

 

[Brett85]

How? Who are "the people", and who are "the courts"? I'm saying that each person should decide for themselves, with disputes handled by independent courts. You seem to be saying that a group of suits in the State Capitol should be deciding for everyone, and telling the state courts what side should win disputes.

And do you care to answer if you think that you could choose to enjoy penis?

I don't have any idea what you're talking about. My position on this is the same position that Ron Paul has. I'm opposed to sodomy laws and would vote against them as a member of a state legislature. However, I believe that the states should have the RIGHT to create laws regarding sex and other social issues. I don't believe that the United States Supreme Court should've overturned the sodomy law that Texas had on the books. I don't believe that the federal government should interfere with states' rights.

And no, I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice. I believe that it is most likely a trait that people develop over time as a result of the environment that they grew up in.

 

[Brett85]

And the usual cherry picking I've come to expect, and have seen countless times.

Would you care to show some honesty and copy/paste the rest of it, or shall I?

You want me to copy and past the entire article which would take up about 20 pages? What I copied and pasted flat out states that there is no scientific consensus that homosexuality is a genetic trait. There isn't any kind of context that changes the quote that I copied and pasted.