|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 14, 2004 10:19:02 GMT -5
Saw a great discussion on the role of the government in unions/marriages: www.livejournal.com/community/libertarianism/558628.html?nc=46&style=mineWhether you like homosexuals, or want them being married or not, shouldn't the libertarian stance be that homosexuals have the right to whatever form of unification they please.
Where is the liberty in preventing them from doing so?
Quite frankly, I don't know where the government got off giving marriage licenses in the first place. Marriage is a religious institution. The only thing the government should have done was granted civil unifications for legal purposes. All this mumbo jumbo about what's right and wrong still veers us away from the question.
"Give me liberty, or give me death!" a? |
|
|
|
Post by PaleRose88 on Jul 19, 2004 19:11:55 GMT -5
Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
I am completely against gay marriages, it is an abomination. That is God's word and nothing can change that.
Love ya
|
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jul 19, 2004 20:18:46 GMT -5
PaleRose88 - "I am completely against gay marriages, it is an abomination."
What about civil unions, granting the same legal rights as marriage, but not necessarily having religious endorsement?
--TDv2.0
1:4:9
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jul 19, 2004 23:22:21 GMT -5
Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I am completely against gay marriages, it is an abomination. That is God's word and nothing can change that. Love ya You're in for a disappointment if you actually think that came from God. |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 19, 2004 23:47:56 GMT -5
Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I am completely against gay marriages, it is an abomination. That is God's word and nothing can change that. Love ya I'm not talking about how God feels about homosexuality. I'm talking about the government's responsibility in making legal unions between people. |
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 20, 2004 10:41:33 GMT -5
What about civil unions, granting the same legal rights as marriage, but not necessarily having religious endorsement? The reason I oppose homosexual marriages stems from the notion that to endorse such makes them equivalent of heterosexual marriages and they are NOT. As for civil unions with things like rights of survivorship and the like.... that's something I'm still mulling about and leaning heavily toward support. Peace, LJ |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 20, 2004 10:45:02 GMT -5
The reason I oppose homosexual marriages stems from the notion that to endorse such makes them equivalent of heterosexual marriages and they are NOT. As for civil unions with things like rights of survivorship and the like.... that's something I'm still mulling about and leaning heavily toward support. Peace, LJ Why would they not be equivalent under the law? Rights to shared property, live, custody of children, etc...? |
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 20, 2004 11:09:58 GMT -5
Why would they not be equivalent under the law? Rights to shared property, live, custody of children, etc...? As for your first two, those would be subjects for civil unions. The reason homosexual marriage is not the equivalent to heterosexual marriage centers largely on the children of said unions. Two men or two women are not equivalent --nor as preferable-- to raising children as a man and a woman together. That is not to say that two men or two women together cannot provide a loving, nuturing home for a child, but it is not the same as a two-parent (man and woman) home, just as a single parent is not preferable --or even equal-- to a two parent home. Each parent provides something different to the child. Children benefit most when they are exposed to BOTH masculine and feminine influences. To say one thing is clearly best and then turn around and say the other is just as good is just plain goofy, if you ask me. (which I guess you did!) You mention custody. Custody issues should be the exception and, sadly, are not. But when you're talking about sanctioning homoxexual marriages, isn't the assumption that the marriages are permanent? Why are we then discussing the eventuality of the dissolution of those marriages as if to say they are inevitable? It belies the basis for the movement. (I don't think that was your intent, but I wanted to point out this apparent fallacy of their argument) Peace, LJ |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 20, 2004 11:21:29 GMT -5
I can't say I know enough about child psycology to comment on the parents issue, though I know long ago children were raised by communities, not just their parents, but that's just different now. I'm just of the mind that two loving parents are better than most of the other options out there, same-sex or not.
Well, these would be as permanent as hetro marriages. To say that homosexuals would never divorce would be ludacris. So, should two adopt (or one have a baby of their own), wouldn't the two people acting as parents have the same claim as in the situation of hetro parents?
And then, there is the argument of how this will destroy marriage in the U.S. - but, given the fact that I can meet any girl, get married, all in the same day here, I wouldn't say marriage is that well respected.
In conclusion - If gays want the punishment of marriage, let'em have it ;-)
hehe
|
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 20, 2004 14:05:39 GMT -5
Well, these would be as permanent as hetro marriages. To say that homosexuals would never divorce would be ludacris. Well I know that. But to use the argument that we need homosexual marriage for the times when they don't work makes no sense to me. That's why civil unions make some good sense to me. Legal protections for the child --and legal recourse for the adults-- remain, but no one is left trying to say homosexual and heterosexual marriages are equally beneficial for children. Because some people abuse something does not make that thing in and of itself bad. (or worthy of disrespect) It does go to my main point, however. The two aren't equivalent. To say they are diminishes the one that is preferable. He he yourself.  Mae West once quipped, "Marriage is a wonderful institution. I'm just not ready for an institution." Blessings, LJ |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 20, 2004 16:50:32 GMT -5
Heh - yeah, 4 years in a relationship, and the m-word still gets me sometimes. Bleh.
Anyways, in your "we need homosexual marriage for the times when they don't work makes no sense to me" line of thought - we have laws in place for when hetrosexual marriages fall apart. I think these same laws should be applied to homosexual marriages.
|
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 21, 2004 10:49:54 GMT -5
Supporters of homosexual marriage regularly scoff at the argument which generally goes like this; "If we sanction homosexual marriage, where does it stop? Whose to say family members can't marry if they love one another? What if I love my horse? Who can say this is improper use of marriage?" So much for the scoffers: www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/staff200407210828.aspBlessings, LJ |
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 21, 2004 11:00:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 21, 2004 12:30:12 GMT -5
Supporters of homosexual marriage regularly scoff at the argument which generally goes like this; "If we sanction homosexual marriage, where does it stop? Whose to say family members can't marry if they love one another? What if I love my horse? Who can say this is improper use of marriage?" So much for the scoffers: www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/staff200407210828.aspBlessings, LJ Wow, what a biased article. I think its laughable, the conclusions it comes to. I would pretty much agree with Dean in this case (though I'd need more info), because to me, it sounds like these two people wanted to get married for financial reasons. I would support there should be some type of agreement they should be able to come within legal bounds. |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 21, 2004 12:38:11 GMT -5
Well, I think the first line says it all: there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalization of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trendsYet, though the trend continued something that happened BEFORE same-sex marriage, they can still attribute to gays. Ok, and why is this bad? And Europe isn't really the picture-perfect Christian family.... |
|
