I find it interesting that the term used for flip flopping positions is “evolution”. Especially in the Gay Marriage issue. Evolution being an argument over Creationism pitting Science against Religion… And the whole Nature vs Nurture argument about homosexuality.
So essentially what the POTUS did was to make a solid stand on side of the fence over the other on an issue that is very divisive. States are voting against Gay Marriage… California did twice, as did North Caroline recently… Yet the POTUS is coming down hard for it. This isn’t surprising because of two reasons… He’s far to the Left and the Left loves this stuff and there is the rumors that the POTUS himself has homosexual tendencies. Evidence – the bike he peddles. But really the big “No Shocker” here is that this is a Big Government move. This is a path to take another decision out of the States. Carving anything out of States Rights is going to be – of course – the way Big Government is going to go. This isn’t about Gay Marriage… this is about States Rights. According to the Constitution, this issue is a State issue, not a Fed issue. And the POTUS just made it Federal. Expect to see the wedding announcements in your local papers next year.
What is my position on the issue? I’m very Libertarian on this. A. I don’t care. B. It’s not my business. C. Who the hell am I to say who someone can or can’t love? This isn’t advocating or accepting… it’s tolerating. Now, this position of National Acceptance of “What Consenting Adults want to do” opens the door. Polygamy is an issue that comes after Gay Marriage… and this is an entertaining one at that considering that this topic will come up and it will be asked of Mitt Romney – A Practicing Mormon. Mormons of course are Famous for the early church history of practicing polygamy which was later abolished. But that’s a whole other topic. Expect Mitt to fidget on that issue probably soon.
Taking away states rights probably does play into Obama’s support for gay marriage, but the main reason I think he supports it is because moral relativism in a country is crucial to moving the country towards socialism just as is destroying religion. As for point A I really don’t think most people care what other adults do in private, but when something like this becomes national policy I think it does affect the mindset of our children’s generation. And lastly, as one father to another, I think if one of your sons told you they wanted to marry a guy you would change your mind on A, B, and C.
There are a ton of perfectly legal things I wouldn’t be happy about my son growing up to be or participating in. I’d be disappointed as hell if he became a career politician, a vegetarian, a Scientologist, a pro-wrestling fan, a homeopath, or a communist. Most of those would actually be far worse than falling for someone with a Y chromosome.
____
In any case it’s a lousy excuse to advocate handing the power to eliminate those things over to the government.
____
What would really make me happy would be for the government to get completely out of the marriage business. I think there’s a strong First Amendment case to be made there.
Leave the legal complications up to contract and corporate law, and make the concept of “marriage” as legally relevant as “best friends” or “spiritual salvation”.
I think that we probably agree on many things politically. I’m all for less power for government and I have also questioned why government would have say in marriage since it was originally a spiritual concept. But I don’t think we should give the leftist faction of the government the power to change the definitions of words to suit their agenda. Which is what we voted on here in NC yesterday.
The way things are going we will next be voting on the right to say that we ” own a pet ” instead of we are its “caregivers” or what other nonsense some animal rights group comes up with.
Also the the Y chromosome makes a bigger difference than you make it out to be. Put a picture of Robin Williams in a bathing suit beside a picture of Kate Upton in bikini. Y chromosome makes a huge difference!
The way I see it Amendment One was less about keeping the leftist government from redefining words and more about letting the government define terms in general. You’ve essentially traded a gay marriage ban for allowing the state to define what “marriage” is. Sure, the definition they gave it suits your views this time, but what about next time?
Any libertarian who would give the government more power to advance their own moral views needs to re-examine their philosophy.
Or not, just my two cents.
I agree, this is more of the same ol’ bull excrement to divide one sub-group of society from another, to make it more and more difficult to present an “American” persona, which has always been right-centrist politically.But forget poligamy, which seems to be mostly heterosexual in nature. Beastality, anyone? Oh, and yeah, Barry’s bike is ghey…
Hmmm… I am thinking that this is purely a campaign tactic. By changing his position he takes up a contrary position to Romney and changes the discussion. The media will now want to discuss Gay Rights, and Gay Marriage at every turn. The discussion is no longer about foreign policy, economic policy, or the size of government, or the fact that their is no budget in place. This is purely a game changer for the purposes of the campaign. At every turn for the next six to eight weeks, or longer if they can swing it, Romney is going to answering questions on this topic and not on his campaign points.
Now, the question becomes what do the strategists in the Romney camp do to take back the campaign initiative and turn the topic (and keep it there) to the points that will win. And it maybe that this issue is one that will allow the GOP to take the offensive and grab the backing of a greater number of independents but they (the GOP) were caught unprepared and it shows.
Gay marriage, bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, marrying your tapeworm…..
Why should I care?
No, seriously: how would any of that affect me? Because I’m not really feeling any threat to the “sanctity” of my 27-year marriage….
I agree with you and disagree on this issue Ogre. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. It is pretty clear to me that this would be under “happiness”. I also think it makes it a Fed issue being in the Constitution. Of course this is my interpretation.
I am actually supprised that this hasn’t made a court case to the SCOTUS with the on again, off again states.
Divorce is more damaging to the sanctity of marriage as far as I am concerned.
But anyway you look at it the Prez is looking for votes right now. Gay marriage, gays in the military, gas leases in UT reenstated, the list goes on……
I’m amused that it took Obama this long to reach Vice president Cheney’s position on gay marriage.
Maybe Cheney should run for the Dem nomination. Hell, a convicted felon in WV got 40% of the Dem vote away from Obama … I think VP Cheney could do better.
If Obama brings up the gay issue then will Romney have the stones to ask him about his relationship with Larry Sinclair. Look it up, it’s a very sordid story about Barry’s past.
Just the first of many traps laid for Mr. Romney. Are we seriously to believe that Obama had some “crisis of conscience” this close to an election?
Nothing Obama does happens by chance. Mitt is running against a celebrity. I almost feel sorry for him.
I do feel sorry for the USA…
I think it’s more like he had a Crisis of Biden.
O.K. for all you who think “gay” marriage is no big deal. The “why should I care” attitude is just a cop out for not having the balls to stand up for what is right. I do care. My bible says homosexuality is wrong. This announcement by BHO is one more nail in the coffin of morality that the social left will use to destroy this once great nation. If a man can marry a man, then let’s just go ahead and let him marry his dog. Then when Ken passes on, your tax dollars will be spent providing for ol’ Spot in his golden years.
Others feel differently. This is America, not Saudi Arabia or Iran. You can believe what you want, I can believe what I want, the Ogre can believe what he wants, and each and every other American can believe what they individually want to believe.
Christ told others how he wanted them to behave, and tried to convince them to follow him. The Romans told others how to behave, and used the force of government to impose their views on everyone. Whom do you wish to emulate?
http://imgur.com/gallery/Q1nCX Here’s a cartoon to get you up to speed on why dude plus dude doesn’t slide downhill to dude plus dog.
Tex, ultimately both sides make this issue out to be a referendum on homosexuality. It is not. It is an issue on what legally consenting people can do with themselves.
Marriage is a religious practice and the government has no business defining it or licensing it one way or the other. Preacher marries people however he and his denomination sees fit, period end of discussion. That should be the extent of it. No government involvement whatever. For that matter some preachers HAVE been marrying folks that the state would not recognize for centuries (homosexuals, cross racial and cross religion marriages, plural (more than two) marriages, etc).
How adults go about their legal arrangements vis a vis survivor benefits, permissions to conduct certain financial actions and joint financial arrangements can and should all be handled under contract law. So long as all parties are legally able to consent to the contract (so obviously no minors, animals, minerals or other parties unable to legally sign contracts) then that is it.
The government has no right to tell you your beliefs are wrong, but likewise you have no right to use the coercive power of government to effect the actions of others.
This is not an issue of the morality of homosexuality, or shouldn’t be at least. It should be an issue of whether the state (federal, state or local) has any business telling people how they can of cant live their lives.
My wife and I don’t have a marriage license. To me, inviting a bureaucrat into our marriage sullies it, but that’s just how we feel about it.
Government should stay the heck out of marriage. At most, the government should be a registry. Just as you don’t have to get a license to sell your house, you should not have to get a license to get married. When you sell your house, you tell the registry of deeds about the change of ownership. When you form a marriage, you should have to do no more than register the marriage, so others can verify that it legitimately exists, in case of probate issues or whatnot.
I’ve got a better idea, as personally, I do not see how it is the job of ANY government at any level to tell any adults what to do. I could care less if 15 of them mixed in whatever proportion want to get married. It is between them and their choice of deity. So long as they work out between them who is responsible for what and they get a decent lawyer and accountant to take care of who owes what to whom, does it really effect anyone but them?
Have none of these people read Heinlein; the man had this mostly figured out in the 1940’s?
Texred, I’m sorry man but that argument doesn’t hold water. In what way is not giving a spit about what consenting adults do leading to marrying animals? Apples and elbows. My marriage started long before the piece of paper, and would go on without it even every sense but the legal ones, every gay couple already living as married (some of them for longer than me and my wife even) can probably say the same. Damn them to hell if you and your morality feel the need, their eternal souls are in the hands of fate and the creator, but while they live, why not give them the same fair shake as the rest of humanity? I doubt anyone is and know they should not should be forcing them to be married at your place of worship.
I suggest we leave the consenting legal adults to do as they please in a civil sense, and let the church business be conducted as each church sees fit. If one wants to get into things the OT bible allows, all but the most devout of Hasidic Jews are probably in for it, come what may, and the LDS folks probably would have something else to say on the matter entirely.
Better not wear any cotton/polyester blends. According to Leviticus, that’s just as much a sin as gay sex.
The Old Testament Laws were divided into 3 categories: ceremonial, civil and moral. Since Christ the 1st two no longer apply but the moral laws are still used for guidance. Just thought this may be interesting to some because I had the same question myself recently.
torquenc, Just FYI. That is a common misconception (even in the traditional approach you mention), but strictly speaking Christ said in his two new commandments that “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” “There is no commandment greater than these.” And “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” But he did not say they were above the OT, as evidenced by the fact that most Christians and Jews (Jews of course do not hold the NT in the same regard, still waiting for the messiah) still practice circumcision and versions of the Sabbath, even though parts of the NT could be seen to declare the entire old covenant obsolete, for the same reason ritual sacrifice was made obsolete by Christ’s death, and gave Christians the new covenant. One could argue that modern Christians have little leg to stand upon using OT arguments, while a Jew may have (not nearly familiar enough with the LDS church to know what it might say on such matters).
All of this is to say, that, if you truly believe that Christ was the messiah, you must accept the OT covenant to have been finished when Christ gave the new one, OR you should probably hold to the entire thing as valid except the things Christ specifically changed (See Sermon on the Mount and most of the gospel of Matthew).
In my opinion as an outsider (A deist with no particular identifier), Christ clearly fulfills the moral law in the Torah with his two new commandments, and the ritual aspect “Do not call anything impure what God has made clean” as well (now we can have pork again!). Christ’s agony and death was to wash the sins of the OT away, and is the reason modern Christians are ‘saved’ (or saveable). Thus are all sins now forgivable. Christ admonished that sins happen first and foremost in the heart, and told us to love each other as he loves us.
Perhaps all homosexuals will still need to atone when they die, the point some Christians seem to miss is that their Savior died so that they had the chance to do so.
“You turned my wailing into dancing; You removed my sackcloth and clothed me with joy, that my heart may sing to you and not be silent. O Lord my God, I will give You thanks forever.”
Thanks for your reply. You have obviously put in much study.
I do belief that Jesus died on the cross for all of our sins and we are completely out from under the law of the old testament. Jesus did completely fulfill the law. That is why I used the word guidance. What would have been clearer is that the Old Testament is still valuable for gleaning the character of God and what is pleasing to him.
I don’t think any person or group of peoples sin is worse or more / less forgivable than anyone else’s. I don’t dislike anyone because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. This subject from Ogre interested me mostly from a political standpoint. I see the present administration as radical leftists and I know from reading the works of Karl Marx and more current radicals like Bill Ayers, that religion, traditional marriage, gun ownership and moral absolutism in general are big stumbling blocks to what they want to accomplish.
torquenc, marriage licensing, itself, is not “traditional.” Traditionally (ie, throughout most of human history) both homosexual marriage and hereosexual marriage were accepted. Traditionally, individuals we would now consider children, were able to marry. Traditionally, a man could have as many wives as he could afford to support. Traditionally, raping the slaves wasn’t considered adultery.
We should not evaluate anything based upon “tradition,” rather than common sense. Some traditions make sense, while others do not. And common sense says that gays are gay, and denying them the ability to marry is just petty. Jesus didn’t say, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” and then start wailing rocks at everyone around, just because He could. He said to love even the sinner, and visiting petty torments upon others is not the act of one who loves.
Interesting notion. I don’t think it’s really reasonable to pick and choose. Either all the prior laws are wiped out, or all of them are still in force, unless Jesus provided an itemized list of which are and are not in force. I can’t write up a proposal for a bill and ask my state rep to submit it, and have it say, “repeal some laws, and enact the following…” – it needs to provide detail as to which specific statutes are being repealed. I can’t recall any passage in which Jesus says that some laws are repealed, and others are not. Nor can I find any separation between “moral” laws and others, in Leviticus or anywhere else – all laws are presented as being the path of right, handed down from God.
Flint, you have some valid points about tradition above that you addressed to me but with all I have written, it seems the only thing you have come away with from my comments is that I am someone who wants to spitefully give gay people a hard time in Jesus name. I don’t understand that. I suppose that you are a Libertarian and would not want to see the country become more socialist or worse. I would hope you support the right to own property, travel freely, own guns etc… Don’t you see how useful tearing down tradition and dividing people is to a commies agenda? Please answer if possible without mentioning Jesus or gays. I’m just trying to understand the bigger picture of where you are coming from.
Thanks
and I know the implications of using the work commie but just for the sake of brevity
I do agree that certain folks want to divide people, because breaking down the bonds of community make folks dependent upon the government to tell them what to do.
Setting various groups apart from each other does just that. We used to have “Americans,” but now we have “African-Americans” and “European-Americans” and “Gay Americans” and “Straight Americans” and “Wealthy Americans” and “Poor Americans,” and so on. The sub-group membership becomes more important than being an American. Laws that favor one group over another are /designed/ to create and maintain those divisions. A law that says straight couples can marry, but gay couples cannont, serves to keep both groups separate, with straight couples jealously protecting their special privilege, and gay couples resenting their second-class status.
Individuals like Obama don’t care about gay marriage. He’s spent the last three years and change sending Justice Department lawyers to defend the Federal ban on gay marriage. He brought it up now, in order to create division. He wants gays to see him as their protector, so they’ll ignore that his agenda harms them in many other ways (since most gay couples have two incomes and no kids, they are far more likely to bear a higher burden from his tax policies, for example). He brought this up right now, in order to divide. The only way to oppose that division, is not to play into his hand by doing exactly what he wants you to do.
Supporting laws that set one group apart from another, is exactly what the Statists want, because their whole philosophy thrives on playing groups against each other, whereas the philosophy of liberty thrives on finding how groups can work together. Capitalism works because the customer has money and wants goods, and the shopkeeper has goods and wants money; by coming together, both are better off, because they’ve gotten something they value, in exchange for something they personally valued less. Liberty thrives on voluntary cooperation.
I don’t think you “want” to be spiteful. I think you have just been taught for years that /allowing/ something is the same as /endorsing/ that thing. It comes from the socialist notion that everything not required should be forbidden. Standing back and saying, “it’s none of my business” is not the same as saying, “I support this thing and want it to happen.” If it were, then any gun store which sold a gun that got used for a crime, would be guilty – they didn’t /stop/ it from being used for a crime, so they’d be responsible. You’ve been taught that the only way to show your disapproval is to jump to the government for a solution, because that’s exactly what the Statists want you to do: they want you to rely on the government, rather than working within your community to try and bring about change voluntarily.
No it is not apples to elbows. The sad fact is that the gov. has intruded into our lives, but leaving that aside, it comes down, I guess, to a matter of principle, or morality, however you wish to define it. Once the camels nose is under the tent, the camel will soon follow. I do not want my grandchildren to witness what I feel is an abomination. It is a slippery slope and you cannot convince me that with this announcement by the POTUS that further acts of deviancy, once legitamized, will be forthcoming. Where is the line in the sand? If everything is o.k. as long as it does not intrude on your personal well being, well you’d make one hell of a neighbor. A guy breaking into my house to steal my stuff, you sitting there watching saying “well that don’t hurt me none”, by your reasoning he would be deserving of my stuff because he doesn’t have any of his own. No thanks, I don’t want that to be my world.
How about folks who consider inter-racial couples to be an “abomination,” then? Shall we outlaw inter-racial marriage? How about those who view Catholocism to be an abomination? Hot about those who view Protestantism to be an abomination?
There are plenty of places on this planet where you can live under a theocracy, if you’d like that. Attempting to turn American into another theocratic hell-hole is worse abomination than anything two or more consenting adults can manage to do amongst themselves.
[quote]I do not want my grandchildren to witness what I feel is an abomination. [/quote]
And who says you get to define what constitutes an abomination? Are you certain that the people in power will always side with your definition?
[quote]If everything is o.k. as long as it does not intrude on your personal well being, well you’d make one hell of a neighbor.[quote]
Sounds exactly like the kind of neighbor I prefer. Keep your issues to your side of the fence and I’ll keep mine where they belong too.
There are few things I hate more than a busybody.
[quote]A guy breaking into my house to steal my stuff, you sitting there watching saying “well that don’t hurt me none”, by your reasoning he would be deserving of my stuff because he doesn’t have any of his own.[/quote]
Now this is tough to follow. I find theft (whether by the government or an individual) to be the epitome of violating one’s rights. If someone is stealing your stuff, by all means deal with them however you like.
But it sounds as if you think there’s an additional obligation upon your neighbors to defend your stuff for you. I’d consider that to be polite, but outside of an explicit agreement saying so I would never presume that my neighbors were under any sort of obligation to me beyond keeping their issues to their side of the fence.
How about folks who consider inter-racial couples to be an “abomination,” then? Shall we outlaw inter-racial marriage? How about those who view Catholocism to be an abomination? Hot about those who view Protestantism to be an abomination?
My point exactly, Flint. By this line of reasoning everyone is free to do exactly as they want when they want where they want. There is no morality, all is moral, all is right, there is no right or wrong. Old men taking child brides, that will be o.k. by your line of reasoning, or maybe Jesse L. wouldn’t want me watching out for his daughters well-being because that would be, ahem, being a “busybody”.
Jesse, you find “theft” to be the epitome of violating ones rights. Who says you get to decide what violates ones rights? You go on to say that I am free to deal with someone who steals my stuff however I would like. But that is “your” interpretation. According to the “law” I cannot do that. Who makes the law? Who upholds it? Is it the government, or the common man who is being infringed upon. If it is the common man, then the government has no right to say what is right or wrong in anything, everything is legal. Might makes right. Is that what you are advocating?
Let me explain a bit about my philosophy to you Tex, so you’ll stop making such silly assertions.
I believe that each of us is the sole owner of our selves and our lives. The portion of our lives that we spend or trade to create or obtain our possessions means that we have as much sovereign entitlement to those things as we do our lives. Anyone who takes our stuff without consent has violated our rights by essentially removing a portion of our life, just as a murderer or slaveholder would steal our entire life.
An “old man who takes a child bride” is presumably doing so without the consent of the girl (who isn’t really capable of giving it yet) or her parents (whom even if they were inclined to consent, aren’t in a moral position to make such a decision from their position as guardians of her rights until she’s old enough to assert them). Without consent, the old man is essentially a rapist and slaveholder.
If the old man tries to force the issue, I believe his life is forfeit for failing to respect the sovereignty of others. The girl or her parents may exercise whatever force is necessary to resist his violation. They could even contract with others to defend their rights if they so choose. BUT, assuming that uninvolved parties have an obligation (to which they haven’t consented) to defend the girl is in the same class violations of their self-ownership as the original crime.
I invoke my status as a sentient and willingness to defend it as all the authority I require to assert this principle of self-ownership as the basis of my philosophy and morals.
I don’t think most people who think about it should have a problem with conforming, as all I ask is to be left alone. Anyone who disputes my right to be left alone is in essence asserting a claim to ownership of myself and had better be prepared to back up their claim with force.
No, by that line of reasoning, everyone is free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not interfere with another’s right to do the same.
You can oppose inter-racial marriage, or Catholicism, or Protestantism, or gay marriage, or whatever. That is your fundamental human right, and I’ll defend you to the end on that.
But when you want to use violence to impose your will on others, then /you/ are the one who /they/ need to be defended against. As a famous man is rumored to have said, “government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.”
No matter how many gays get married, it will never harm you. A million gay marriages cannot harm the institution of heterosexual marriage to the extent that even a single heterosexual divorce does. If you have not been harmed, then your rights have not been violated. If your rights have not been violated, then you have no business running to the government to forcefully defend you.
“I invoke my status as a sentient and willingness to defend it as all the authority I require to assert this principle of self-ownership as the basis of my philosophy and morals.”
So you can have your line in the sand, but I can’t? Hypocrite.
I have no problem with what consenting adults do behind closed doors, that is their deal. But when those acts, that I personally feel are repugnant are openly paraded in front of my face and my family, my children and grand-children are exposed to such filth, then I’m gonna push back. When the POTUS says that two men can marry and have all of the benefits of what traditionally has been a union between a man and a woman, I’m going to respond negatively. Homosexualism offends me. In your face gayness offends me. It offends me just as much as a naked pervert standing for hours at a time just outside my property line, but in view of my house. I’m not going to put up with that. My family should not have to put up with that. I will do something about it. If you think I’m in the minority on this, take a poll.
So, again, should those who find Catholicism, Protestantism, or inter-racial marriage be able to demand that they be protected from witnessing “such filth,” or not?
There are those who consider each of those categories to be examples of “filth,” so why should the things you consider “filthy” be more important than the things that they do?
Or are you suggesting a society based upon absolute political correctness, where no one is permitted to do anything that might offend anyone who might witness it? I, for one, think that political correctness is one of the most damaging things that came about in the 20th century. Popular things don’t need defense; it’s unpopular ideas that need defending. There are plenty of places where you can live in that sort of society. I hear Saudi Arabia is fairly similar to Texas in climate…
MY line in the sand doesn’t make anyone else a slave. You can believe whatever you like, just don’t coerce or initiate force against me and we’ll get along fine.
YOUR line in the sand would require me to abide by all aspects of your religion (as interpreted by you), regardless of my own personal beliefs.
It sounds to me like your desperate need to control people seems to stem from a fear that you’re unable to control yourself and lack the parenting, teaching, or leadership skills to adequately impress your morality on your children and grandchildren without isolating them from all the aspects of the world that you don’t like.
Me, if I had a naked pervert standing at the edge of my property I’d probably just put up a fence. Assuming I don’t find them attractive that is 😀
Texred:
Did Jesus hate sinners? Or did Jesus love sinners the same as everyone else? Let’s remove the reductio ad absurdum from this argument. You made this a question of Christian morality for yourself. Reference my above post, and please explain how it is that the new covenant given to Christians by the death of Christ allows the moral mindset you have chosen?
How can you love as He loved if you refuse to treat everyone the same, as He did? I’m not asserting you are in a minority, just that your moral absolutism is built upon silt as a foundation, and that your own stated morality should be making you question it.
Love your neighbor as yourself, treat others how you would want to be treated, UNLESS you happen to disagree with them or feel that a moral law that your savior died for everyone to be forgiven of has been violated?
Should you choose to believe that homosexuality is an unforgivable moral sin, you must also feel the same about tattoos, fabric of more than one type of thread, alcohol not made by Jews in the holy land, shellfish, women on their menses (whom you may not touch lest you be unclean also), meat that has not been properly koshered, pork, the hindquarters of animals who are cloven hooved and chew the cud, and so on and so on.
Leviticus exists to preserve Jewish identity in a time and place where it could easily have been corrupted by its neighbors, the converse of accepting the new covenant is following the thing in its entirety.
If it was that easy to follow Christ’s commandments, what would the rest of your faith be worth? It seems to be that following Christ was supposed to be difficult, you EARN your place at his side, by loving all His children and spreading his word, no? And that last part, I assumed, WAS absolute.
Tex, I just am not getting your argument. If someone is not doing something to me, I cant do something to him. When I speak of the use of force that means I cannot use force against someone else unless they are likewise initiating force against me. So I cannot assault another person unless they are assaulting me. If they are breaking into my home that is an assault on my person with intent expressed by obviously damaging my private property. I can use force to repel that threat. In the case of my neighbors house being broken into, I have no legal obligation to try to stop him, he is not violating my person or property. However he is doing something detrimental to my community and it would be moral if I decided to act. It might also be immoral not to act in that case. But there should be no legal obligation to do anything physical to stop him.
Likewise, using the power of the state to force a personal view of morality on other people is an initiation of force since the state ultimately uses physical force to make its policies stick. You can dislike, preach against, advocate for or against, attempt to convince or raise awareness for a position all you would like. But when you legislate what adult decisions people can make that dont involve harming others, you are advocating harming others. It is not illegal to THINK these things, but I would say it should be illegal to DO these things (ie use the power of the state to tell people who they can marry, so long as the party they want to marry legally consents).
You, your children and grandchildren have every right to not see things you find repugnant…simply remove yourself from the actions of others. Live on a mountain. But you have no right to tell people they cant hold hands in public because you dont like it. I will tell you another thing bucko…if you dont help fight against this idea that the government can dictate what people do with themselves on a whim you better get ready because the times they are a changin’ and one day your ideas could be illegal to even express. I hope not and I will fight to make sure that doesnt happen (though I find your ideas repulsive) but I think you should reflect on the difference between government that allows people of divergent beliefs to live in equal treatment under the law and a government that enforces the morality of one group.
I got that you have beliefs and you feel strongly, preach it brother! Good on you. At the end of the day though, you dont get to just say “Well I’m right and you’re wrong” and then make me dance to your tune.
If this were simply about “live and let live,” I could almost agree. However, this is about using the force of government to make me “approve” or “accept” homosexual marriage … or else. Tolerance used to mean that you could disapprove of something (without taking physical action against the disapproved person or activity). Nowadays it means that you must give affirmative or tacit approval … or risk being labled intolerant or bigoted. Just another step in marginalizing morality.
Our Founding Fathers warned us about maintaining the pillars of society. We have failed to heed the warning and the camel has had it’s nose under the tent for some time. It will not be long now.
Um, no. Allowing a group equal rights to another group is “live and let live.”
Banning gay marriage /is/ about “taking physical action against the disapproved person or activity” – having someone else do it for you does not change your culpability. Sticking some beat cop with the job of enforcing your opinions is not going to wash your hands clean… all it does is make his dirty, as well.
When “marriage equality” becomes the law of the land, we will see who that beat cop beats over the head. I would hate to be an employer or landlord … particularly a religous employer or landlord.
Government recognizing marriages equally, has nothing to do with “anti-discrimination” laws.
Everyone has a right to discriminate – freedom of association is one of the most fundamental of all human rights.
If you don’t want to serve homosexuals at your restaurant, or house them in your apartment building, or whatever, that’s your right. In a free society, the most “punishment” that you will face, will be that members of the community might boycott you (expressing their right not to associate with you, just as you’ve expressed your right not to associate with a particular group). You’ll either stick to your ban, and hope that customers who feel the same as you will seek you out to give you their business, or you will decide that your ban is not worth as much to you as the money you are losing, and change it.
For example, every store has a right to put up a “no guns allowed” sign, and I’ll honor their wishes by refusing to go in and give them my money.
By the way … I’m sorry if you misunderstood. I wasn’t talking about marriage and I don’t want gov to ban anything. I was strictly talking about the current societal view of the term “tolerance.” In the past, I could say that I disapprove of something but take no action and still be viewed as tolerant. On the other hand, intolerance meant that you disapproved and took action.
The way it stands now, I have to say that it’s ok either by word or deed or risk being called intolerant. In other words, the new tolerance demands an affirmative expression of support.
That does happen, and it is troubling, but it’s not hard to understand, given the attempts to legislate everything – so manny will say they are tolerant, and then turn around and try to get the government to enforce what they are not willing to do, personally. If folks are trying to force their will upon others, it’s not a shocker when their victims want some stronger sign that a given individual doesn’t plan to do that.
Governments, (Federal, State, Local), have powers.
People have rights.