What's your view on "gay rights"

Then let them do it through PERSUASION (non-violence) as Jesus Christ did, and not through COERCION (violence - guns of government threatening punishment).


Marriage between a man and a woman is traditional and that in and of itself is basis enough for law. The onus is upon those who wish to change tradition to do it through persuasion. Any attempt to redefine an institution that has existed as man/woman since its inception through the law constitutes coersion (violence - guns of government threatening punishment) on the part of those who are attempting to grant a special right based on sexual preference.
 
Werbung:
You don't seem to understand what the constitution actually does.

I understand it perfectly. But we're really getting sidetracked because, ultimately, the issue isn't about the Constitution. The Constitution, in truth, is not a valid legal contract and cannot be used to deprive anyone of any rights. Lysander Spooner proved that conclusively in his treatise "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

Now, I happen to like the Constitution - but only because it was the most freedom orientied document (along with the Declaration of Independence) ever written. But as far as being a valid legal contract, it certainly is not.

So, we're going to go to the root logic on this matter, which has nothing to do with the Constitution - even though I'll talk about it a little more to address your other points.

It doesn't tell either the federal government or the states what they may do, it tells them what they may not do. In order for you to claim that the government has no right to do a thing, that thing must be specifically forbiden by the constitution.

Actually, in some areas, it clearly does tell the feds or the states what they may do. Now, it's primarily a negative document, in that it predominently tells government what it may not do, but it doesn't grant us our rights. And your assertion that "government has no right to do a thing unless it's specifically forbidden" is flawed. If a Constitutional amendment tomorrow is passed requiring every adult to kill one child under the age of 10 per year - is that ok with you because it's been made "Constitutional"?

There is no section of the constitution that forbids government at either the federal or state level from regulating contracts between people (if that is what you want to call marriage) or from regulating who may marry for that matter so the government may indeed become involved.

Yes, there is, even though the Constitution is not the ultimate authority in the matter for reasons previously stated:

* Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."
* Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding... All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."
* Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
* Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
* Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

"A central issue is whether a person owns his or her body. For the government or state to own our bodies would be slavery. But the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. Clearly, this means that we as individuals own our bodies, not the state or government.

Article I, Section 10 effectively guarantees the right to contract and prohibits any State from passing any law that impairs this right. It seems to me that a person who owns his or her body has the right to "contract out" the use of that body for the pleasure of another - provided no rights are violated.

There is also a Common Law principle which states that for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim (corpus delecti). In the absence of a victim there can be no crime."

Again, from: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua2.shtml


In order for government to be restricted from becoming involved in the issue of marriage, the right to marry whoever or whatever one wishes would have to be a protected constitutional right which it is clearly not.

The use of the specific term "marry" is not relevant, as the act itself is simply a contract.

The previous Supreme Court case I cited stated there is "an unlimited right to contract" - that ruling was correct and based logical reasoning.


Once again, the government has the right to regulate contracts between people.

No, it doesn't.

Following your logic, a brother and sister or a father and daughter could enter into a marriage contract.

Indeed they could. I certainly wouldn't advise it, just as I wouldn't advise same sex marriage, but since I don't own them, and since their actions don't violate my or anyone else's rights, I don't have a right to use force against them to stop it. I would certainly try to persuade them not to do this, but I may not use violence, either singularly or by voting for a larger group, such as government, to send armed men to threaten them if they do something I don't agree with.


Here, you have grossly misunderstood what was said in your rush to prove your point. The entire argument here is that our rights existed in the form of the common law long before the state held any sway over them and that the state's responsibility is to protect those rights that we held.

No, rights existed from the beginning of the universe. They existed prior to common law as well as prior to governments.

In the context of this argument, take some time to learn what the common law says about marriage. It does not recognize, or even acknowledge the possibility, of marriage existing between two members of the same sex.

Again, the common law is not the determining factor. Slavery was once common law. Did that make it right?
 
Marriage between a man and a woman is traditional and that in and of itself is basis enough for law.

But not a basis for logic and reason. If you stumbled upon a tribe in the wilderness whose tradition it was to sacrifice one child under the age of 10 for each adult in the tribe to the "magical chicken god" every year, would the fact that it's a tradition make it right?

Law can also be flawed - slavery was once legal, but it was still wrong.

The only consistent basis of morality to found law upon is freedom for all peaceful, honest, voluntary acts. This allows maximum freedom and the law only becomes a factor if people initiate violence or fraud against others.

The onus is upon those who wish to change tradition to do it through persuasion. Any attempt to redefine an institution that has existed as man/woman since its inception through the law constitutes coersion (violence - guns of government threatening punishment) on the part of those who are attempting to grant a special right based on sexual preference.

I'm not advocating a special right, what I'm advocating is that government get out of the institution of marriage - and stop interfering in contracts between free individuals.

My position is not the liberal position. I don't agree with "special rights" for some and not for others. My position is to remove all government involvement in marriage or any other contracts based upon peaceful, honest, voluntary activities.

A question for you - do you own yourself?
 
I understand it perfectly. But we're really getting sidetracked because, ultimately, the issue isn't about the Constitution. The Constitution, in truth, is not a valid legal contract and cannot be used to deprive anyone of any rights. Lysander Spooner proved that conclusively in his treatise "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority"

Actually, you don't, and your reference to Lysander Spooner's writing makes that abundantly clear. Like him, you believe that you understand it, but in fact you, and he have missed it entirely.

And his "treatise" proves nothing except that he is skilled with the language and has the capacity to say much without saying anything at all.

Yes, there is, even though the Constitution is not the ultimate authority in the matter for reasons previously stated:

No there is not.

* Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."

Obligation of contracts is the key phrase here and even then, the obligation of the contract must be legal. The fed and the state have every right to regulate what sorts of contracts may be entered into, and regulate the nature of said contracts. They may not make legislation that frees you from a legal contract that you have entered into, but they have every right to regulate how you enter into it.

* Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding... All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

Nothing to do with contracts.

* Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nothing to do with contracts.

* Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nothing to do with contracts

* Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Nothing to do with contracts.

"A central issue is whether a person owns his or her body. For the government or state to own our bodies would be slavery. But the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. Clearly, this means that we as individuals own our bodies, not the state or government.

I was going to ask if you are a libertarian, but you just answered the question. And the idea you just put forward is the flaw at the heart of libertarianism. No philosophy that freely expresses such a paradox can, or should be taken seriously.

Libertarians claim to be firmly against slavery, and yet, view bodies as property. If I own my body it is my property. Therefore, a good libertarian must admit that I may sell my body into slavery if I choose. And since, according to libertarianism, my body is my property, it may also be claimed for payment in a damages lawsuit if I have no other real property with which to pay damages.

This aside, it has nothing to do with homosexual marriage.

Article I, Section 10 effectively guarantees the right to contract and prohibits any State from passing any law that impairs this right. It seems to me that a person who owns his or her body has the right to "contract out" the use of that body for the pleasure of another - provided no rights are violated.

Legal contract. I have no right to contract a killer to do my wife in, and I have no right to enter into an illegal marriage contract. This is another flaw within libertarianism. You pick and choose principles that suit you and seek to absolve yourself of personal responsibility in those that don't suit you.

There is also a Common Law principle which states that for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim (corpus delecti). In the absence of a victim there can be no crime."

Again, nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Are you just slinging crap against the wall to see if something will stick?

The use of the specific term "marry" is not relevant, as the act itself is simply a contract.

Marriage is the sort of contract and is relavent and since marriage is a contract between a man and woman, it has no place in a contract between two men or two women any more than the decscriptive term real estate woud have a place in a contract between you and I for services to analyze a specific chemical. Language in contracts is of paramount importance.

The previous Supreme Court case I cited stated there is "an unlimited right to contract" - that ruling was correct and based logical reasoning.

Legal contracts, not illegal contracts. Again, I have no right to contract a hit man to kill my wife even though the transaction would in fact, be a contract. Marriage between two people of the opposite sex does not constitute a valid contract because marriage is between a man and a woman.

Indeed they could. I certainly wouldn't advise it, just as I wouldn't advise same sex marriage, but since I don't own them, and since their actions don't violate my or anyone else's rights, I don't have a right to use force against them to stop it. I would certainly try to persuade them not to do this, but I may not use violence, either singularly or by voting for a larger group, such as government, to send armed men to threaten them if they do something I don't agree with.

Owning them has nothing to do with the state's right to forbid the contract. The state doesn't own either me or the hit man I might hire to kill my wife, but it certainly does retain the right to forbid the contract and punish both of us if we make the contract anyway.

Tell me, would you argue that statistically, the children of traditional marriage fare better than the children of divorced or same sex couples? The evidence is overwhelming that you have a better chance of avoiding mental problems, drug abuse, and risky behavior if you are the product of a mom/pop marriage. If you accept this fact, then the argument could be made, that allowing a marriage contract between two people of the same sex, statistically violates the rights of the children of these couples to grow up to be well rounded, mentally healthy individuals. Since it is in society's interest to be made primaraly of mentally healthy individuals, society has a responsibility to do all it can to promote a healthy environment for its citizens and to do all it can to deny unhealthy environments.

No, rights existed from the beginning of the universe. They existed prior to common law as well as prior to governments.

So you argue common law, and when that argument is defeated, you switch to something else? You are losing credibility very quickly here.

Again, the common law is not the determining factor. Slavery was once common law. Did that make it right?

Then why did you reference common law?
 
awww isnt that cute..........T-B has a stalker buddy

What the hell are you talking about?

You haven't been here long enough to understand -- there are only a handful of active members and active threads, and so it is likely that if Truth and Palerider disagree in one thread about libertarianism, they'll also likely disagree on gay marriage.
 
Back on topic...palerider, could you sum up in a few easy sentences why you believe gay marriage shouldn't be legal (if that is what you're trying to say - when you and Truth-Bringer get into the message gets lost quickly).
 
Back on topic...palerider, could you sum up in a few easy sentences why you believe gay marriage shouldn't be legal (if that is what you're trying to say - when you and Truth-Bringer get into the message gets lost quickly).

Marriage is what it is. It is a union between a man and a woman. I don't favor redefining words, or granting special rights based on such trivialities as sexual preference.
 
I know most of you out there are going to scream "homophobic" at me but it is my belief that homosexuality is a choice and can not be genetic. Here is my reasoning:
1. If you accept evolution as true, a homosexual gene would be inconsistent with evolution. Homosexuals reproduce at a much lower rate than straight individuals but consume the same amount af scarse assets in a society. Development of a "straight" gene would be perfectly consistent with evolution. A "gay" gene provides a lower chance of survival of the society and could not develop, under evolutionary theory.
2. Because gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights, the "gay" gene would diminish in numbers with each successive generation and would soon virtually disappear. Example: assume generation 1 contains 10% homosexual individuals and 90% straights. If the homosexuals reporduce at half the rate of straights (and the actual rate is probably much lower than this) the compostion of generation 2 would be 5% homosexual and 95% straight. Generation 3= 2.5% homo and 97.5% straight. Do the math for 6 or 8 generations. The percentage of people professing homosexuality in our society is not declining, so there can not be a "gay" gene. It is a choice.
I know the next argument: why do we have any recessive traits at all? Shouldn't all recessive traits disappear in a few geberations? My father had wavy hair which is a recessive trait for an Anglo male. But wavy hair does not result in a lower birth rate. So wavy hair is passed on to each successive generation at the same rate as non-wavy hair.
I know my belief is not PC but it is based on dispassionate scientific assessment.
Homosexuality is a choice and not genetic.
And gays now have exactly the same marital rights as any straight: to marry a member of the opposite gender. Arguably, they have more rights than straights because they are protected by PC and hate crime laws.
And before you paint me with the broad homophobic brush, you should know that I am a volunteer to the AIDS community, bringing home services to final stage patients who are no longer able to leave their homes. I've seen them deteriorate and die and it is not a pretty sight. It is also not a sight for the faint at heart.
And, as final disclaimer, I have studied all aspects of evolutionary theory for 20+ years. I do not believe evolution is a viable explantion for origins.
 
Homosexuality, genetics and choice.

I know most of you out there are going to scream "homophobic" at me but it is my belief that homosexuality is a choice and can not be genetic. Here is my reasoning:
1. If you accept evolution as true, a homosexual gene would be inconsistent with evolution. Homosexuals reproduce at a much lower rate than straight individuals but consume the same amount af scarse assets in a society. Development of a "straight" gene would be perfectly consistent with evolution. A "gay" gene provides a lower chance of survival of the society and could not develop, under evolutionary theory.
2. Because gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights, the "gay" gene would diminish in numbers with each successive generation and would soon virtually disappear. Example: assume generation 1 contains 10% homosexual individuals and 90% straights. If the homosexuals reporduce at half the rate of straights (and the actual rate is probably much lower than this) the compostion of generation 2 would be 5% homosexual and 95% straight. Generation 3= 2.5% homo and 97.5% straight. Do the math for 6 or 8 generations. The percentage of people professing homosexuality in our society is not declining, so there can not be a "gay" gene. It is a choice.
I know the next argument: why do we have any recessive traits at all? Shouldn't all recessive traits disappear in a few geberations? My father had wavy hair which is a recessive trait for an Anglo male. But wavy hair does not result in a lower birth rate. So wavy hair is passed on to each successive generation at the same rate as non-wavy hair.
I know my belief is not PC but it is based on dispassionate scientific assessment.
Homosexuality is a choice and not genetic.
And gays now have exactly the same marital rights as any straight: to marry a member of the opposite gender. Arguably, they have more rights than straights because they are protected by PC and hate crime laws.
And before you paint me with the broad homophobic brush, you should know that I am a volunteer to the AIDS community, bringing home services to final stage patients who are no longer able to leave their homes. I've seen them deteriorate and die and it is not a pretty sight. It is also not a sight for the faint at heart.
And, as final disclaimer, I have studied all aspects of evolutionary theory for 20+ years. I do not believe evolution is a viable explantion for origins.
 
Werbung:
Interesting. I would say that its a combination of both genetics, but mostly the environment you live in. Life experience forms who you are, and its the only thing that makes you who you are.

As for do I believe gay marriage is OK, yes I do. If someone is not Christian, then the Christian ideal of marriage doesn't apply to them and they should be able to do whatever they like, just like they don't have to go to church.
 
Back
Top