IL GOP Chair throws full support behind same-sex marriage

[Christian Liberty]

Follow up question: Do you think it was OK for me to marry an atheist woman in the drive through window in Las Vegas over 17 years ago, instead of in a church,

"OK"? Well, I don't know. If you yourself are an atheist, it makes no difference to me. Martin Luther correctly taught (Note: I do NOT get my theology from Martin Luther specifically, I'm just saying I agree with him on this particular point. I could dig for scriptures to support it but its late right now) that marriage is not a sacrament, but an institution for believers and unbelievers alike. I suspect, however, that unbelievers wouldn't/shouldn't marry in church. So where are you going to do it? Whatever. It doesn't matter to me.

If, on the other hand, you are a Christian, I would say it is wrong for you to marry an atheist. Its late, I'll dig for the scripture later if you want, but Paul (Since someone got confused last time, I'm talking about the BIBLICAL Paul, not "Ron Paul") said Christians should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. On the other hand, Paul says that if you are ALREADY married to an unbeliever, you should not terminate the marriage unless your partner insists. So while such a marriage should not occur, the Bible also says that if it does occur, it is a legitimate institution. Homosexuality, on the other hand (Again, the ACTIONS that come thereof, romancing/"marrying"/sleeping with members of the same sex) is a sin in EVERY situation, and so its impossible to reconcile that with the marriage being binding in any sense. In short, Christian/Atheist marriage shouldn't occur, but it is not denotatively impossible. Gay marriage is denotatively impossible.

and to obtain a vasectomy after our first child was a couple years old, ensuring we would never again procreate?

I don't think its really moral to permanently cut off the chance for procreation like that, I don't think contraception is wrong (Unless it causes an abortion) but I do think that its immoral to permanently rule out the possibility of having a kid, in addition to it being a form of self-mutilation, it ensures that if God calls you to have a kid later, you are UNABLE to obey. On the other hand, having a vasectomy doesn't change the definition of marriage. Being a thief is immoral, but it doesn't mean thieves can't be married, its a completely separate issue. Men can't be married to each other (As I understand, since the time of Moses it is also impossible for close relatives to marry each other, denotatively.)

Do you think it would be appropriate for the State to say my marriage is not valid because it does not fit the "Biblical" definition of a marriage? Would you support a law that defined my marriage as invalid? (And if so, why is it any business of yours?)

I don't want them to say its invalid. I don't want government to say "Marriage is between a man and a woman." I'd vote against that too (Or possibly not vote at all, since the ballot doesn't really have my preferred option.) I don't want them to come in and say "You can't do this." I just don't want them to put their stamp of approval on it.

For the record, since I didn't mention this before, in the short term I want to decentralize the issue to the states. While I don't support New York's recognition of gay marriage (While I do agree with California's recognition of civil unions) I don't want the Federal Government to tell any state what to do.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Fair question and fair enough.

Its still offensive to me, but I don't have a right not to be offended. And honestly, I don't think their marriage is legitimate. Granted, I don't think I have a right (Morally speaking, I do have a LEGAL right to do this) to be a total jerk, and I don't think that doing so would be in keeping with the golden rule, but I still don't agree with it. But they have every right to say it. I'd probably be nice, but if a fundamentalist wants to insult them and call them fing f*** or something, he would have a right to do that as well. I wouldn't condone that kind of jerkish behavior, but in a free society, as long as you don't violate the NAP or threaten to do so, you have a right to do whatever you want. I'm not as much of a hardcore about this as some of the ancaps, but I definitely hold to it as a principle as much as possible, and offensive speech certainly is NOT an exception to this.

On the other hand, when government, who claims to speak for everyone, claims that marriage can be between a man and another man, and wants to tax me to, among other things, to socially engineer people to believe that homosexuality (I'm talking about the behavior, not the feelings. I don't think temptation = sin), that bothers me more. Granted, its not my #1 political issue like some Evangelicals, but if I have a say in it, I'm going to say "OK, you as individuals can do whatever the crap you want, but I don't want the state declaring this to be OK."

Its like this. If a private school wants to teach that homosexuality is great, they can do so. I don't like it, but that's their right in a free society.

On the other hand, if a PUBLIC school was doing this, I'd be seriously upset, and because of my personal views, more so than I would be if they taught that it was immoral.

The most libertarian policy, of course, is not any kind of law saying public schools should or should not teach this. It is to abolish public schools and public funding for public schools. The second most libertarian option is school vouchers (At least IMO school vouchers is better than a straight up public school system, although not ideal), and little to no government involvement in what is taught. If we are forced to take the third most libertarian option, where public schools do not exist, it would be the most libertarian policy to have the schools NOT socially engineer either way. They shouldn't support OR oppose homosexuality. They should just shut up about it.

But what if all those options fail? What if the school MUST decide whether to promote or oppose homosexuality? Well then, and this is my opinion, not a libertarian principle, but for me, them promoting my opinion is less bad than them promoting the opinion I do not agree with.

Do I support public schools teaching that homosexuality is immoral? No. I oppose public schools or public funding for schools. If need be (I don't agree, but I'd settle for it) government should give school vouchers to send kids to private schools and still have nothing more to do with it. Butat the level of the individual school, I'd STILL advocate for it to be either taught that it is immoral, or at least not discussed.

But if I HAVE to decide on a government policy, I'm going to prefer the government to advocate the morality I agree with rather than the morality I don't.

Same thing with SSM. I don't want government involved in marriage. But if they are already declaring that they have the right to define marriage (A right they should not have) I'm going to support them doing it the way I prefer.

Does that make sense? People can do what they want in a free society. I accept the NAP. But if government is going to promote certain lifestyles, against my insisting that they should stay out of it altogether, given the choice I'd rather they promote the lifestyles that I agree with.

Does that at least make sense, even if you don't agree?

It does make sense, but you're right, I don't agree.

First, I support your right to be offended by anything that offends you. And if someone wants to call people names, as long as they're not committing violence or encouraging it from others, people should be free to say whatever they want. I personally don't like to see people calling black people n****** or gay people f****** and I will be the first to tell them they're being an asshole, but I'm not going to tell them they don't have a right to say whatever they want. They can say whatever they want, and I will promptly call them an asshole because that's how freedom of speech works.

So you don't want other people defining their own marriage in a way that you personally don't agree with, and you don't want the government allowing other people to define their own marriage in a way you don't agree with. I can understand that. But now I have another question for you.

Suppose in 50 years, Islam has spread so much, there's a state where 51% of the voters are Muslim. Now, these Muslims manage to pass a law defining a marriage as only valid when it's a Muslim marriage performed according to the specifications in the Qu'Ran. Because, they will be happy to tell you, the Qu'Ran is the one true word of God, the only real Holy Scripture there is.

So, the Muslim majority passes a law that instantly renders all Christian marriages, and all other non-Muslim marriages invalid in the eyes of the law and the government. They are doing this for the good of the children, to ensure a moral society in which children are not taught immoral teachings that probably come from Satan. Keep in mind it's not a question of freedom, it's a question of what is proper and moral, and if they're going to have the government define marriage, then they prefer that it is defined in a way that agrees with their morals and their scriptures. So here's the question:

Do you think it should be OK for this type of law to be passed by the Muslims, if a majority of the people all agree and vote that the government should define marriage for everyone in this manner, and render invalid any marriage that does not strictly follow the mandates in the Qu'Ran? Do you think doing so is consistent with freedom of religion?

 

[WhistlinDave]

"OK"? Well, I don't know. If you yourself are an atheist, it makes no difference to me. Martin Luther correctly taught (Note: I do NOT get my theology from Martin Luther specifically, I'm just saying I agree with him on this particular point. I could dig for scriptures to support it but its late right now) that marriage is not a sacrament, but an institution for believers and unbelievers alike. I suspect, however, that unbelievers wouldn't/shouldn't marry in church. So where are you going to do it? Whatever. It doesn't matter to me.

If, on the other hand, you are a Christian, I would say it is wrong for you to marry an atheist. Its late, I'll dig for the scripture later if you want, but Paul (Since someone got confused last time, I'm talking about the BIBLICAL Paul, not "Ron Paul") said Christians should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. On the other hand, Paul says that if you are ALREADY married to an unbeliever, you should not terminate the marriage unless your partner insists. So while such a marriage should not occur, the Bible also says that if it does occur, it is a legitimate institution. Homosexuality, on the other hand (Again, the ACTIONS that come thereof, romancing/"marrying"/sleeping with members of the same sex) is a sin in EVERY situation, and so its impossible to reconcile that with the marriage being binding in any sense. In short, Christian/Atheist marriage shouldn't occur, but it is not denotatively impossible. Gay marriage is denotatively impossible.

I'm not Christian, really not religious at all, but not an atheist either. (I think people sometimes forget there are lots of other choices.)

I don't think its really moral to permanently cut off the chance for procreation like that, I don't think contraception is wrong (Unless it causes an abortion) but I do think that its immoral to permanently rule out the possibility of having a kid, in addition to it being a form of self-mutilation, it ensures that if God calls you to have a kid later, you are UNABLE to obey. On the other hand, having a vasectomy doesn't change the definition of marriage. Being a thief is immoral, but it doesn't mean thieves can't be married, its a completely separate issue. Men can't be married to each other (As I understand, since the time of Moses it is also impossible for close relatives to marry each other, denotatively.)

I don't want them to say its invalid. I don't want government to say "Marriage is between a man and a woman." I'd vote against that too (Or possibly not vote at all, since the ballot doesn't really have my preferred option.) I don't want them to come in and say "You can't do this." I just don't want them to put their stamp of approval on it.

For the record, since I didn't mention this before, in the short term I want to decentralize the issue to the states. While I don't support New York's recognition of gay marriage (While I do agree with California's recognition of civil unions) I don't want the Federal Government to tell any state what to do.

Is someone who has surgery to correct a birth defect mutilating himself? They are surgically changing the way God created them, because they prefer a change, just as I did.

I would be fine with de-centralizing as well, at least until government is all the way out of the marriage business. (But again, I think it's more likely we'll see public schools go away before they stop issuing marriage licenses and giving tax benefits...)

If you say something is "denotatively impossible," aren't you deciding for everyone else how a word can be defined? If I decide to start calling my coffee table a dinner table, do you think you should have the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to? And will my calling my coffee table a dinner table somehow impact the function or durability of your own dinner table? What if I come in your house and tell you from now on, you MUST start calling your dinner table a coffee table? Would you do it just because I told you that is the correct nomenclature and anything else is impossible?

Or do you think it makes more sense to allow people to name their own stuff whatever they feel like naming it?

 

[The Free Hornet]

This isn't a big deal for me, but to me its an issue of I genuinely don't want the government to define marriages between a man and another man or a woman and another woman as being "Valid marriages."

If by chance you ever go to a bookstore, you might notice one of these dictionary brands:

• Oxford English
• Webster's
• Macmillan

There is no US Government brand dictionary. Not even Black's Law Dictionary. If you have a problem with what words mean, you ought to try influencing the culture yourself rather than insisting government make the defintions in accordance with your prejudices.

Seeing as government has already attempted and failed at redefined of marriage in accordance with your wishes ("To define and protect the institution of marriage. ... the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'." - DOMA text).

It is not that your type wants government to not redefine, rather, you want the status quo of government maintaining involvement in marriage.

 

[WhistlinDave]

If by chance you ever go to a bookstore, you might notice one of these dictionary brands:

• Oxford English
• Webster's
• Macmillan

There is no US Government brand dictionary. Not even Black's Law Dictionary. If you have a problem with what words mean, you ought to try influencing the culture yourself rather than insisting government make the defintions in accordance with your prejudices.

Seeing as government has already attempted and failed at redefined of marriage in accordance with your wishes ("To define and protect the institution of marriage. ... the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'." - DOMA text).

It is not that your type wants government to not redefine, rather, you want the status quo of government maintaining involvement in marriage.

Well, to be fair, I think FF did make it clear that he prefers government get out of marriage altogether, as you & I and most people here believe. I think he was saying that as long as government still is involved in marriage, then he prefers they define it the way that is consistent with his own moral beliefs.... Not quite the same as saying he wants to maintain the status quo of government involvement. More like, as long as the status quo remains, he wants it to stay "this" way for everyone instead of validating that it's OK for everyone to do "this," "that," or "the other." (Hope that makes sense.)

 

[Brett85]

Well, to be fair, I think FF did make it clear that he prefers government get out of marriage altogether, as you & I and most people here believe.

No, that's not what The Free Hornet believes. He's a big government liberal who calls himself a libertarian just because he's pro abortion and pro gay marriage. I'm not really even sure why he posts here. He's never made a libertarian argument on any economic issue, foreign policy issue, or anything else. He cares about two issues, keeping it legal to kill babies and expanding the definition of marriage.

 

[WhistlinDave]

No, that's not what The Free Hornet believes. He's a big government liberal who calls himself a libertarian just because he's pro abortion and pro gay marriage. I'm not really even sure why he posts here. He's never made a libertarian argument on any economic issue, foreign policy issue, or anything else. He cares about two issues, keeping it legal to kill babies and expanding the definition of marriage.

Well I should probably just let him answer whenever he's back online, but I think he uses the term "classical liberal" to describe himself, which is more of a small government civil liberties advocate. I know he (along with a few others) schooled me on the libertarian position on intellectual property a while back, and that discussion was heavily loaded with free market economics. And I'm sure I've seen him comment on plenty of things besides these two issues. I recall another discussion involving the Benson Principle, not sure what the thread topic was.

You two probably butt heads on these two issues, so you mostly encounter posts from him on these two issues, and that leads to the perception it's all he cares about. I think if you were to do a questionnaire with 100 multiple choice questions on it dealing with libertarian positions and give it to all 40,000 members, you'd probably end up with close to 40,000 different versions of libertarianism. Some would be more pure in their libertarian than others, I'm sure, but I guess the point is, to each his own. We're not all going to agree on everything all the time, and if we did, it would make for some pretty boring discussions around here.