The Aristophrenium

Proclaiming the truth of the gospel and the centrality of Christ in all things

Thursday

25

November 2010

90

COMMENTS

Do Homosexuals Have Equal Rights?

Written by Adam, Posted in Ethics, Marriage & Family, Sexuality

Short answer – Yes.

When it comes to marriage, the question boils down to this; what “right” does someone with a heterosexual sexual orientation have that someone with a homosexual sexual orientation does not? The immediate response from those in the pro-homosexual camp is that homosexuals can’t get married. This is clearly not the case. What needs to be kept in focus during this debate is that “rights” are accrued to individuals. This is an issue regarding the law as written and concerns “rights”. Does a homosexual person have less “rights” than a heterosexual person in virtue of their sexual desire? Of course not. A heterosexual person can marry an eligible member of the opposite sex of their choice. The same-sex attracted person has the exact same “right”. If they say they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, then my response is that they don’t have to. This is not meant to be cold hearted. It is an answer with regard to legality and “rights”. What is being sought here is a right that nobody has had previously under that government. Clearly not an equality issue. Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either. In both cases, each individual is treated exactly the same by the law.

When it comes to individuals, this argument is compelling with regard to rights proper. But what happens when the rights of homosexual couples are brought into the equation? And in this regard they may seem to have a legitimate complaint. The problem is that constitutional “rights” are accrued to individuals, not groups. Governments always treat couples differently than they do individuals. For example, if two people enter into a contract to buy a house, then there are certain laws and obligations that apply to those two people as a couple that don’t apply to other couples who aren’t buying a house. Why? Because their circumstances are unique. And because they are unique, they get unique treatment under the law. The question then becomes; Is the unique treatment under the law justifiable given the unique circumstances? And given our example, those involved in the sale of a house are treated differently to those couples who are not. So the government does not treat you the same, because the circumstances are different.

Homosexuals have the freedom to do all the things that married people do – pledge their love, live together…etc. But the State does not recognise that relationship. It will not licence it, privilege it or control it. Why? Because it has no reason to do so. Governments are free to make provision for homosexual couples, and they do in some cases (civil unions), but civil unions between same-sex couples are not the same as marriages between opposite-sex couples. This is because they function differently in the culture. Long term heterosexual unions, as a rule, as a group and by nature, produce the next generation. Same-sex unions do not. Heterosexual unions are very different to same-sex unions in a way that matters to the State. This is why it is appropriate for the State to treat those unions differently. They are not obligated to declare them exactly the same when they clearly are not the same to the State when it comes to policy purposes.

While this may seem quite reasonable to most people, the homosexual activist will most definitely not be convinced. This is because they don’t really care about the facts of the matter; the issues of law. What they care about is getting public approval of same-sex relationships. That’s what it’s all about. This is not about equality of rights but rather a restructure of culture so that there is complete public and official government approval of homosexuality.

The distinctions offered here are entirely legitimate. Will they make any difference to the homosexual lobby or those sympathetic to them? No. Not one bit. Because what they want is for everybody to say that their lifestyle is the same as everybody else’s and that what they do is just wonderful. I’m not willing to say that. There are many others not willing to say that. The State of California was not willing to say that (Prop 8). Legitimate distinctions have been made with regard to public policy, to which the other side has become so unhinged that they broke things and punished people (in response to the Prop 8 decision).

Anyone who thinks should be able to see the difference. And I don’t know why we should apologize for the obvious. But this is what the politically correct leftist culture is forcing upon us.

What is demanded of us is a rationale. And when a rationale is given, it becomes very clear that they do not want a rationale, they want things their way. They want approval. Which strikes me that homosexual people are the thinnest skinned people on the planet. This then leads us to ask the question, why?

[Paraphrased from Greg Koukl's radio show, Stand to Reason]

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Zemanta

Equality homosexuality Sexuality

http://thebumblinggenius.blogspot.com Dan

Why…?

Guilt? Perhaps?
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

"Why" what, exactly? Your question is not clearly defined.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

1. There are rights that spouses and families enjoy due to marriage that are not extended to all individuals equally (e.g., family visitation rights in hospitals or prisons, tax-free transfer of property, various pensions and benefits). By denying same-sex unions a marriage license, the state denies them legal recognition as spouses and families; thus, the grievance that the rights of individuals are not given equal protection under the law. One of the reasons same-sex couples fight for a marriage license is to have those state-recognized rights that spouses and families enjoy.

2. The word "accrue" means to gain or receive by accumulation; with respect to the rights of individuals under American law (q.v. your reference to California), the word is inapplicable. American citizens do not receive rights from the government; in fact, that is completely backwards, for it is the government that receives rights from the people via the U.S. Constitution. Recall that the Declaration of Independence was about rejecting the British empire and its "divine right of kings," establishing the New World on the "consent of the governed" whereby the people would enumerate certain powers and rights to the government through the Constitution; i.e., the people are sovereign, not the government. "We the People" did not erect a government to grant or establish the rights of individuals. They recognized and acknowledged as self-evident the truth that all men are created equal, already endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Government was instituted among and by them to secure the rights they already had, a government which itself derives its powers from the consent of the governed.

3. Consequently, whether or not a person has a right to marry someone of the same sex—or their sibling, parent, pet goat, self, etc.—is not an issue the government can answer (in the United States), because the government is not the source of rights. Since marriage is a covenant instituted by God, it is one of the rights we are endowed with; therefore, our Creator is the source to which we must go to find out whether or not marriage includes people of the same sex. The U.S. government protects rights; it neither grants them nor has any authority over them.
http://aristophrenium.com Mathew

I think you'll find that Dan's comment was a general rumination, following directly on from the closing sentence of the post. He is suggesting "guilt" as a possible response to the question asked.
http://aristophrenium.com Mathew

A brief comment on your first point:

Bastardizing marriage law for the sake of hospital visitations, pension benefits, etc., seems a very round-about way of securing such rights. Surely these rights can be afforded by altering other aspects of law – and more easily so, I'd wager – rather than tampering with marriage / family law for such a narrow purpose as this?

And if that is the case, then the question still remains: why push for same-sex marriage?
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

I direct your attention to my position on the matter, which I articulated to you elsewhere; namely, that state and federal government should restrict itself to legislating and licensing "civil unions" and relinquish "marriage" as a religious institution.
http://aristophrenium.com Mathew

Yes I recall you mentioning that elsewhere, too; however, I'm not sure how it is relevant to my response on your first point.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

It avoids "bastardizing" marriage laws by avoiding marriage itself altogether.
http://aristophrenium.com Mathew

To which I'd then also respond that marriage is not only a convenant instituted by God but has practical and beneficial out-workings on this earth for the raising of children over and above any other family composition can achieve; and since having such beneficial environments for the raising of children is (or very well should be!) of concern to the State, the State ought still regulate marriage accordingly – unless it wishes to otherwise do so to the detriment of all of society.
Adam

1. I think the thrust of the point being made by Greg was aimed more specifically at the right to get married. Although I hear that in California, the State recognised rights are exactly the same for civil unions as they are for marriage, it is only federal rights which are different. So one wonders why the thrust is not for federal civil union recognition. Are those things (e.g., family visitation rights in hospitals or prisons, tax-free transfer of property, various pensions and benefits) “rights”? Or could they be more appropriately labelled as benefits of marriage. Just like the benefits of a drivers license will not be enjoyed by a child. Is equal protection under the law the same as equal benefits under the law? Are we to consider that which we would get a licence for a “right”? Is it my “right” to have a driving, gun, dog or marriage licence?

2. Perhaps the word “accrue” was a poor choice, but given that Greg was thinking on his feet during his live call in radio show, I think I can afford him some leeway. Perhaps “applied” is a more appropriate word. It’s an interesting point you make here that I had not thought of. I’m not sure if something similar lies in the foundation of the Australian Constitution. Worth looking into.

3. I think Greg wanted to keep the conversation “Christian ideology” free. Playing the religious card is only going to give the opposition opportunity to make it a religious argument rather than one pertaining to the law because that is where their objection lies, in an appeal to the law.
tavarish

I think this is one of those rare instances in which I, for the most part, agree with Ryft.

Mathew, your arguments hold no water. They were taken to court, and promptly taken right out, because there has been no evidence presented to suggest that raising children in a household that doesn't include a married, heterosexual couple is detrimental in any way.

In fact, recent studies have show that the opposite is the case:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6003794/…

Adam, family visitation rights, property transfer, and benefits are most definitely rights. You gain them when engaging in the act of marriage. You're entering a legal contract in which you have benefits and penalties.

Your argument rests on that of bigotry. I could just as easily say:

"A law that prohibits people of different races to get married isn't inhibiting rights or promoting inequality. Those who only want to marry into their own race are free to marry whoever they want."

Replace "different race" with "same sex", and you get a clearer image of how truly bigoted this mode of thinking is.

Do homosexuals have equal rights? No. They cannot marry whoever they choose, stripping them of various benefits they may have had if their partner happened to have a different set of genitalia.

This is not the case for the heterosexual, who is free to enjoy these rights without issue.
http://aristophrenium.com Duane

Hey, Tav's right. People should be able to marry whoever they like.

I mean, just replace "people of different races" with "creatures of different biological order" and the bigotry stands out like a Pliocene man on a Canis Rufus. I'll grant you that dogs and humans are from different biological orders, but like that should matter! They're both mammals for crying out loud. Personally though, I reckon he's just in it for the government benefits.

On a more serious note, Tav is right when he says that homosexuals cannot marry whoever they choose (i.e. have a formally recognised marriage, as opposed to a marriage ceremony, which anyone can have). But the truth is, no-one can marry whoever they choose. The same restrictions apply equally to everyone. Mothers cannot marry their sons, for example. Nor can brothers marry their sisters, regardless of how much they love each other or whether they are sexually involved. The restrictions apply equally to all. Therefore, the claim that marriage rights are applied unequally, is unfounded. Tav wants the desires of homosexuals to be taken into account when considering the rights of those to be married. But notice, this does not address the equality issue, merely on the basis of desire. If mere desire was sufficient, then mothers could, in principle, marry their sons, as could brothers marry their sisters, etc.

It could also, in principle, allow for humans to marry their dogs. But now you're just being ridiculous Duane. That'll never happen.
tavarish

Duane, I understand you're trying to be a bit tongue-in-cheek with your response, but your argument falls under the slippery slope fallacy.

First, I don't care if a man married his dog. I think it's a bit deviant, but it honestly matters not to me, because I'm not in that person's shoes. I also don't see it as being a problem for society in the least. It's not as if everyone will start marrying their pets and couches and automobiles at the drop of a hat. You're essentially trivializing the issue by presenting an argument which is entirely irrelevant.

Second, the same restrictions do not equally apply to everyone. Do you understand WHY immediate family members cannot marry? It's because it's demonstrably detrimental to society – you have a higher percentage of birth defect in an incestuous pregnancy because of the removal of variation in the gene pool. This lets recessive mutations become more obvious, which can lead to diseases and abnormalities.

However, this doesn't stop people from living and having sex with their cousins, so I suppose a case can be made for that, as long as they are consenting adults. Recent studies have also shown that the risk for birth defect in a first cousin relationship isn't necessarily significantly higher, so there may well be a change in legislation for marriage in that respect.

Third, since these restrictions are subject to change with new data and abolition of societal stigma, you have yet to make a case as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. You just linked to a page where an Australian man married his dog, and said "You can't marry family members". Yes, both of those are true, but it's not the issue I'm discussing, nor are they even related. We're not talking about gay cousins marrying, or gay men marrying dogs.

We're talking about gay consenting adults in a monogamous, loving relationship that want to make their commitment to each other legal, just like any other heterosexual couple.

I'm not addressing anything merely on basis of desire. I'm talking about two people striving to reap the legal benefits that would be available to them had they chosen a partner of a different sex. It's about being treated like second-class citizens for something that is out of their control, and has been a part of the natural landscape pretty much since the beginning of the sexes.

Marriage rights are indeed applied unequally. If you can't tell the difference between 2 consenting adults and a dog, then I honestly don't know what else to tell you.

It all boils down to this:
If you're heterosexual, you have the right to marry anyone you want.
If you're homosexual, you do not have the right to marry anyone you want.

Do Homosexuals have equal rights? No.
Adam

No evidence presented? There’s plenty of evidence. And I’m sure you are aware of it. Narth.com has reams of it. You may not accept this evidence as valid, but to suggest that there has been no evidence presented displays an irrational argument on your half. Studies may be informative, but studies don’t prove truth. Your studies show one thing while ours show the opposite. Each needs to be considered to determine which makes a more convincing case and I’m sure opinions will still be divided on the issue.

To quote Greg Koukl further:

It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals—non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers—share those benefits, either. Why should they?

If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she—and they—are still covered).

These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

Bigotry? Are you prepared to accept the same charge yourself as bigoted towards the conservative position? That aside, bringing up inter-racial marriage was not unexpected and clearly betrays the lack of understanding about bringing valid arguments to the table when trying to make your point. This is understandable as this challenge is nearly always brought up in response to opposition to same-sex marriage and your ignorance of its invalidity leads me to believe you are just regurgitating the standard homosexual rhetoric from a script. Your argument is invalid because you are not comparing apples with apples and it can be quickly dismissed.

Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin colour is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.

Homosexuals cannot marry whoever they choose. True. And neither can heterosexuals. Both are treated equally under the law. Your response to Duane betrays your complete lack of understanding or willingness to concede the point that heterosexuals can’t marry whoever they want. It’s just that what they want, has provision in the law. So it does boil down to an issue of desire.

And stripping is a poor choice of words, those various benefits were not had to begin with so there is no stripping being done.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

Tav,

You say “this doesn't stop people from living and having sex with their cousins.” But really, the restrictions on marriage licences do not stop brother and sister, or father and daughter, from having sex either. It does not stop them from having sexual relationships that potentially produce children with defects. Similarly, restrictions on marriage licences do not prevent homosexuals from having sex and spending their lives together. In fact, restrictions on marriage licences do not place restrictions on anyone having sex with anyone else or anything else. There are different laws for that, right? (e.g. I think some countries even consider it animal abuse to have sex with an animal, unless you’re married of course??)

But you argue a confusing summary point:
“If you're heterosexual, you have the right to marry anyone you want.
If you're homosexual, you do not have the right to marry anyone you want.”

I must embarrassingly point out that, although you claim you are “not addressing anything merely on the basis desire,” your summary statement makes the opposite point. That is, “homosexuals … do not have the right to marry anyone [they] want.” [emphasis mine] … In other words, it is about their desire after all. They want to marry someone of the same sex. If it’s not merely about desire, then why do you make desire, the thing that it “all boils down to”?

And I must also point out, that even by your own admission your summary point fails. Heterosexuals cannot just marry anyone they want. A heterosexual male cannot marry his daughter or sister, for example. The same restrictions apply to all and the law has nothing whatsoever to do with desire. So to object on the basis of desire is rather moot.
peacebyjesus

Keeping the debate "religion free" is not the answer, but it is the problem, and your question relates to the issue of separation of church and state. No government is removed from a basic ideology which functionally is like religion. It promotes certain values, while censuring others (including that pluralism is not the best ideology), and it expresses these in its laws. And while it is widely denied, the general Christian faith was at one time the default "civil religion of the USA, and its laws ultimately owe much to Biblical law.

But while it is also denied, the Christian faith of old can hardly be said to be the civil religion of today, being increasingly supplanted by State-sanctioned secularism with its ever morphing morality, based a finite and superficial and often sensual reasoning. And while it ostensibly has peace and harmony as its priority, it is actually antagonistic toward transcendent moral law, most uniquely that of the Bible, and thus it shows sympathy toward Islamic law. (a Pilate and Herod becoming friends type-thing)

It is thus that secular attempts to maintain traditional marriage as the only lawful kind will fail, and homosexual activists, who understand better than most others what really is their adversary, have spent inordinate amounts of labor and creative and writing seeking to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations, and even extrapolate sanction for the same.

However, God created man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, and they alone are joined by God in marriage, with opposite genders being specified by both Genesis and personally by Jesus Christ. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4)

The Bible only condemns homosexual relations – by design and decree, in principle and by precept – and never sanctions them wherever they are manifestly dealt with, and the injunctions against them are part of the transcendent and immutable moral law. (Lv. 18:22; Rm. 1:26,27)

Pro-homosexual polemics, in all their prolixity, are spurious, and ultimately require negating the authority of the Bible, and or the use of a hermeneutic which would negate any moral law.

An extensive examination and refutation of such attempts can be seen here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_vers…
tavarish

So starting a family is basis for marriage benefits?

Please then explain why:

1. A heterosexual couple that doesn't procreate (or can't physically) still enjoys the benefits of marriage.
2. A gay couple can adopt children and start a family.

If the point of marriage is to start families, then what about the gay couples who have ALREADY started families by adopting or procreating from a previous relationship? Woops. I guess they chose the wrong partner to start a family with. Not to mention this exact rhetoric was brought up in court and thoroughly dismissed because it had no bearing on reality. It was simply full of holes.

Gay couples can start a family, and by no means are heterosexual couples bound to procreate or raise children, nor is that their function. Your argument makes no sense.

Duane, as far as incest, it's a bit silly to compare the two. Incest is demonstrably more dangerous for the offspring. I'm not talking about morally or socially, it's physically more dangerous for kids to be born as a product of incest. I've mentioned that first cousins don't have a significantly higher chance of birth defects, but that isn't true for father-daughter or brother-sister offspring, which is by far the largest percentage of incestuous relationships.

Furthermore, even if I did grant the premise, it wouldn't mean anything because it's a different issue altogether. It has its own nuances, and they should be discussed separately, for the issue is wildly different.

Your quote that "sex is fundamental to marriage" is true. Did you know gay couples have sex?

"Skin color is morally trivial" – who says? A hundred years ago in parts of the country, I'd be willing to bet that interracial relations were not at all trivial, and I'm sure just as much bigoted justification was found for that at the time. This is my point.

Stripping is indeed the correct word to describe the situation. They would have had this right if it were not for their sexual orientation. Not to mention Prop 8 strove to literally strip the rights away from those couples who could already legally get married in the state of California.

I'm not prepared to accept any charge of bigotry, because I'm not advocating barring two consenting adults from the right to get married because it's not the sex I'd choose for them. I disagree with the "conservative" position, but in no way do I want to remove rights and benefits of those who oppose me. That's the fundamental difference.

One last point:

"And I must also point out, that even by your own admission your summary point fails. Heterosexuals cannot just marry anyone they want. A heterosexual male cannot marry his daughter or sister, for example. The same restrictions apply to all and the law has nothing whatsoever to do with desire. So to object on the basis of desire is rather moot. "

Ok, if you would like more qualifiers to make the point, I'll gladly do so, because it seems you're being overly pedantic.

1. A heterosexual man is interested in marrying a woman that is not directly related to him. They are both consenting and sound-minded adults. This is the vast majority of heterosexual marriages. The heterosexual couple has the right to do so at any time, for any reason.

2. A gay woman is interested in marrying a woman that is not directly related to her. They are both consenting and sound-minded adults. This is the vast majority of homosexual relationships. The homosexual couple does NOT have the right to do so, for any reason.

Taking incest out of this, and not comparing people to dogs or inanimate objects, and removing all other obfuscations, this is what the issue is. Homosexuals do not have the right to marry – anyone of their choosing, for any reason. That's the problem, and I don't know how much clearer I can put it.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

Thanks for your "qualifiers". Unfortunately, they don't make your point any clearer (not to me anyway) and they don't negate the point that I (and Adam) have continued to make regarding equal restrictions under the law. And seeing as you admit that you cannot make it any clearer, wisdom would dictate that you not respond further. Not that that has ever stopped you before.

(Over and out)
http://aristophrenium.com Mathew

Heck, based on that study (actually, a news article about a study) we should just ditch marriage altogether, make fathers redundant and ensure that all our kids are raised by lesbian mothers. That is, of course, what the so-called study implies: lesbians make better parents.

As for the study itself I'm sure you're aware of its obvious shortcomings, chief among them being a small sample size, a more than likely bias and its total lack of longitudinal data. Would you trust a study that favored the traditional family structure with such gaping flaws in its methodology? I wouldn't – and it's an insult to expect anyone to therefore treat this one seriously.
http://aristophrenium.com Mathew

A fairer question to ask is: do heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal rights under the law of marriage? To which the answer is, as both Duane and Adam have eluded to, an obvious "Yes".

To my hazy recollection, the following restrictions are outlined in the Australian Marriage Act:

1. must be an adult
2. must marry an adult
3. cannot currently be married
4. cannot marry a close relative
5. must marry a member of the opposite sex

It's a tough argument to say that the above criteria does not apply equally to all persons, irrespective of their sexuality. If point #5, however, read "must not be a homosexual" then yes we'd have a case for unequal rights. But as the criteria stands all rights are applied equally to all persons.

Note: none of the above restrictions hinges on any notion of desire or love. (I wonder why that is? Anyone? Hint: it has something to do with the purpose of marriage.)

If the pro-gay marriage proponent wants to argue marriage equality he should either put up and shut up (because equality already exists under law) or leave out the cries of a 'homosexual can't marry who they want" because desire is neither what the law is addressing (also equally applied) nor what his argument is based on (equality is about rights, not desires).
Adam

Again Tav, your argument is as predictable as the effects of gravity. By walking the “not all relationships produce children” path, you have belayed the fact you either did not read or just ignored the point made in my original post. Let’s revisit it. “Long term heterosexual unions, as a rule, as a group and by nature, produce the next generation. Same-sex unions do not.” Just because you can point out a few exceptions, it does not invalidate the rule.

Clearly, not all families have children. Some marriages are barren, by choice or by design.

This proves nothing, though. Books are written by authors to be read, even if large ones are used as doorstops or discarded ones help ignite campfires. The fact that many lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn’t mean they were not destined for higher purpose.

In the same way, the natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.

Procreation is not the all encompassing necessary criteria for marriage that’s not what I’m trying to convey here. It’s not about denying same-sex relationships as it is about privileging those types of relationships that governments care about. Governments do not make policy decisions based on exceptions.

“Did you know gay couples have sex?”

Now this is just plain silly. You know that what is meant here is sexual gender not the sex act.

Again with the apples and oranges huh? I guess some dogs just don’t want to let go of a bone no matter how rotten it may be. Who says skin colour is not morally trivial? The level of knowledge about skin colour of those people 100 years ago is irrelevant to this conversation.

Perhaps, if California had previously to Prop 8, recognised same-sex marriages, then stripping would apply. But in the majority of cases (like in my country), no previous licences were issued to be subsequently stripped. Your general use of the word did not make this distinction and made it look like you would call it stripping if an Olympic drug cheat (who came last in the event) got caught afterward and was thusly “stripped” of the gold medal even though he never had it to begin with.

Bigotry is a charge laid at the feet of conservatives because they disagree with something and want to do something about it. You, my friend, are doing exactly the same. You disagree with conservatives and are doing something about it. Your statement is dripping with hypocrisy because you yourself are prepared to ban two consenting (incestuous) adults from the right to get married. This makes it especially hypocritical due to the fact that you advocate that if it is possible for a relationship to produce no children then it should be granted a right to get married.

You may try to remove “desire” from your argument but you simply can’t, can you? Do I really need to highlight the words “…is interested in marrying…” and “..anyone of their choosing”? I guess I do. From the start this topic has been about how the law treats all equally. Be brave and admit this is an issue of desire for you and not inequality of law.
tavarish

Let's recap.

So if you acknowledge that not all families have children, and gay couples can adopt (not to mention have children in previous relationships), what exactly is your point? If that's the leg you have to stand on, consider it non-existent.

By your own admission, some heterosexual couples can't procreate. Should they not be allowed to marry in that case, if the purpose of marriage is to bear children? And by what demonstrable merit are you assessing this purpose? Should Prop 8 include those who are heterosexual, but can't procreate or don't wish to?

"Just because you can point out a few exceptions, it does not invalidate the rule."

Heterosexual couples that cannot/ do not want to reproduce can still get married. Homosexual couples that cannot reproduce cannot get married (even though they might have had children in past relationships). Do you not see an issue? It's not a rule if it's demonstrably falsified with census data.

In the last decade, married couples with children made up just 25% of households in the US. Married couples without children made up 28.9%, and 24% if you count truly childless households, not simply the ones where children have moved out. Is it still an exception when it overrides or matches the rule?

Adam, California had recognized same-sex marriage from June 16,2008 to November 5, 2008, and over 18,000 same-sex couples were legally married within that time. Proposition 8 was made to ban those that sought same sex marriage from doing so.
It was called "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act". You really can't get clearer than that, in case you wanted to launch into a jag about how homosexuals are granted equal rights.

Also, where did I say that I would ban two incestuous adults from marrying? I said that it's a separate discussion and irrelevant to the topic. I honestly don't care who marries who. No straw men, please.

Disagreeing with an oppressive ideology and doing something about it isn't bigotry, it's activism or concern at its very least. However, acting on an unfounded prejudice that actively tries to subjugate and force others to succumb to your ideology against their will, not to mention acts to have rights stripped away from them due to trivial differences – is bigotry, and it's exactly what you're doing.

It's not about desire, it's about recognizing that two consenting adults who choose to be with one another, enter a legally binding contract that is called marriage that has terms and conditions under the law. Yes, they choose to be in this situation, they are not forced to marry (in most cases), but reason for marriage is irrelevant. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but it's pretty clear you're trying your hardest to trivialize this as much as possible.

It's about the state recognizing the right to a legal contract of partnership between two consenting, unrelated adults. Heterosexuals can do it. Homosexuals can't.

Every single point you've come up with has fallen flat.

You: "Marriage is for having kids"
Me: "What about those married who don't want kids?"
You: "They don't count, they're an exception"
Me: "Their populations are nearly identical, backed up by nationwide statistics."

Me:"Gays don't have the right to marry who they want"
You:"Mothers can't marry their sons!"
Me:"That's irrelevant, it's an entirely different discussion"
You:"You want to ban incestuous marriage! You're a hypocrite!"
Me: "I never said such a thing."

Me: "Gays have had their rights stripped away"
You: "They never had the right to begin with"
Me: "The State of California recognized same sex marriage in 2008. Thousands were married. Proposition 8 overturned that, stripping others of the right to marry that they once had."

You: " It's about desire! It's not about legality at all!"
Me: "I don't care who marries who or for what reason, it's about the state recognizing the legally binding contract that is marriage under the law, something that heterosexuals can do and homosexuals can't."

I hope I've established my points as clearly as I could.
tavarish

Let's take the gay marriage thing out of this for a scenario:

If the law stated that all men with smaller than average height could not own property, would that be an example of equal restriction?

If not, why not?
If so, please elaborate on how it's equal.
tavarish

You do realize religious objections to a legal matter are inadmissible in court, and one of the reasons Prop 8 was thrown out, right? It wouldn't matter if homosexual relations defy or support the Bible – the separation of church and state overrides any religious authority or doctrine in a court of law.
tavarish

What if #5 read "must marry a member of the same race", would that be a case of inequality?
Adam

As far as I’m concerned there is only one race – the human race.

Must marry a human being? I see no inequality there. Unless you’re championing marriage to animals now Tav?
Adam

I think we have gone about as far as we can in this discussion as we are now going in circles. So it’s probably best to call it a day and say “we rest our cases” and leave it to the jury (our readers) to make their decision as to who was more convincing.

One conclusion I can have assurance of is that the comment in my original post that “…the homosexual activist will most definitely not be convinced” was accurate. I did not think for one minute that you would be convinced by any point here and have only confirmed this with your comments.
fr0d0

The statistics (for married couples with children) shows that developed countries produce fewer children, and not that the reason for marriage isn't for having kids. It weakens the case for supporting childless marriage, which would also affect those homosexual relationships. Perhaps that's how it should be viewed: set a different status for families not wanting deep commitment or children. Don't call it marriage.
tavarish

Yay! Another obfuscation.

I'm actually glad the way this discussion turned out, much like the way the court case turned out. You brought your reasoning, and it didn't make sense in the least. I can only hope that others may think critically about your position and analyze it for its various faults.

Through countless red herrings and straw men, we have come to the crux of your argument – absolutely nothing. Awesome.

Yes, I want humans and animals to be married. That's next on my activist agenda, don't you know? ;)
http://aristophrenium.com Mathew

Since we ought only argue based on what the current legislation is, point #5 applies equally to all persons just as it stands, Tav.
http://aristophrenium.com Mathew

Marriage is not about the right for people to marry who they choose because the law cares nothing for desire – it is simply not addressed. And on that basis alone, current marriage legislation caters for full equality.
JoE

Ha, I Love this topic!! The very definition of a good debate is if it causes a person to rethink their position. My favorite part, that I had never considered in the provided context, and the most persuasive to anyone of an open mind: equal rights under the letter of the law. Tricky, for sure, but so very true. For my part, I used to support gay marriage. But now I don't think I can, as long as marriage is a purely religious affair. To get my support of it back, someone would have to demonstrate to me a culture somewhere in history that had an original concept of marriage as a strictly secular concept. Why don't I go look for it myself? I don't think it exists, so the burden of proof is on those who want the status quo changed.

On the other hand, I also agree with tavarish's concept (which everyone else seemed to glaze over, while accusing him (her?) of missing their points) of redefining what a "Civil Union" is, and who and what it should encompass. After reading here, I now say let churches be the sole arbiters of Holy Matrimony, and governments leave it alone in entirety. What governments should be left to decide is who gets what tax breaks based on what kind of communal relationships they deem it necessary to enjoin (this is a grossly oversimplified statement of concepts and discussions far more numerous than I have time to write about).

Thank you all again, for the very enlightening, and lively, discussions here on this forum!
Adam

Thanks Joe for your input.

I don’t recall tavarish’s promotion of Civil Unions rather than marriage though. Perhaps I missed it. From our conversation, it seemed pretty clear that nothing short of marriage would suffice. I’m not sure why though because his argument seemed to focus on the benefits and privileges that marriage provides. While this is true, he failed to see how these benefits and privileges could be obtained via a civil union or defacto relationship status. The fact that the homosexual lobby is going after marriage instead of civil unions or defacto relationship status simply proves that this issue is about social acceptance of their lifestyle.
JoE

After re-examining the somewhat exhaustive thread here I must concede to the very likely probability that I am guilty of reading between the lines. In my (lame) defense it was late for me and I was tired. However, I would also like to present my reading of said lines:

TAVARISH
"…it's about recognizing that two consenting adults who choose to be with one another, enter a legally binding contract …. that has terms and conditions under the law. Yes, they choose to be in this situation…"

"…It's about the state recognizing the right to a legal contract of partnership between two consenting, unrelated adults."

Yes, I edited out that he called the contract 'marriage', this was done simply to show that the underlying *description* could certainly be construed to mean 'Civil Unions', and as such is where I may have read too far into it. Another point was made (I remember not who or where) about marriage being bound by God and not by the laws of men, to which I personally agree with. In light of this, I presume "legally binding contract" can only mean the laws of men, and therefore pertain only to 'Civil Unions', which are *not* marriage. Perhaps I saw an underlying concept that Tav wasn't precisely framing into words, or perhaps Tav will think I'm just a terrible psychic (aren't they all ;).

Now I have a question line. Keep in mind this is all merely hypothetical. Is it simply that gays want to secure marriage rights that people are primarily against? Of course the destruction of Christian values are in there somewhere, but let's look past the 'gays are evil' reasoning for a moment. If the majority of the gay movement would be completely satisfied with government supplied Civil Union, as long as it allowed the exact same rights and responsibilities as a religious marriage, would any of you capitulate? In addition, what if government gave entirely free reign for churches to administer marriage. Meaning your church could decide on it's own, who could, and could not, be married, with no fear of Big Brother reprisals. What this would mean for the faithful is simply to get their religious marriage certified by the state in order to receive all that ghuv'ment cheeze, which is pretty much what we already do now. This state certification would be the only thing that gays would be allowed, or required of. I'm not sure if I'm getting the concept across very well (it's late again, lol) but it is certainly not a new idea. I'm just curious of peoples thoughts/feelings on it.

Wanted to write more, but ran out of time. Oops, perhaps more another day…
Adam

There are a lot of “ifs” there Joe. We can pontificate all we like but that doesn’t mean much if it doesn’t connect with reality. And the reality is the word marriage is sought. If this were not the case then there would have been no Prop 8 referendum. In California, the state gives equal benefits and privileges to both opposite-sex and same-sex unions. If it were really about these benefits then the focus would have been at the federal level not the state level in order to equalise benefits and privileges.

I know there are many (in the Christian camp) who are quite prepared to give same-sex unions the same benefits and privileges under the term “Civil Unions”, but this doesn’t seem good enough to the homosexual lobby. They seem to want social acceptance more than they want benefits and privileges.
Steffan

Why on earth are people so homophobic that they argue over law, morality, and Christianity when it comes to homosexuals marrying? Firstly we have the law, which quite simply has not kept pace with reality. It was only a relatively few short years ago that homosexuality was illegal and even fewer years ago that same sex couples had any rights at all! Secondly, we have morality. And I do not believe that I or anyone else has the right to impose their morality onto others, so long as it is between consenting adults—and I stress ‘consenting adults’. (And please, no ridiculous comparisons about murder, paedophilia, etc.). What consenting adults do in their bedroom is not my concern! Thirdly, we have Christianity, the touchiest of subjects. The Bible condemns homosexuality; however, if someone is not a Christian (and the majority of people in the world are not), why should they be expected to adhere to a creed that they do not accept? I realise that my arguments are simplistic, but remember that complex laws have allowed murderers, rapists, and pedophiles to escape justice, and in some cases to re offend, that moral values, for better or worse, are always changing, and that Christians should be forgiving of the sins of others, whether or not those sins are real or perceived.

Note (Ryft): Edited for grammar. We allow guests to make horrible arguments, but not to use horrible grammar.
Adam

If it is wrong to impose your morality on someone else (like you said), then why are you imposing your moral standard on us here on this blog?
JoE

Is he imposing? Anything? I certainly don't feel imposed upon.
Adam

If voicing your morality in an attempt to change the culture is imposing your morality on others (a charge he laid at my feet here which he claims is wrong), then he did the exact same thing. He voiced his morality in an attempt to change or influence the opinions of myself and/or the readers of this blog.

Claiming it is wrong to push/impose your morality on others is a self refuting statement when spoken to others. It cannot stand up under the weight of its own conditions.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

I also agree with Tavarish's concept of redefining what a ‘civil union’ is … and who and what it should encompass. After reading here, I now say let churches be the sole arbiters of holy matrimony and governments leave it alone in entirety. … Another point was made, I remember not who or where, about marriage being bound by God and not by the laws of men, which I personally agree with. In light of this, I presume ‘legally binding contract’ can only mean the laws of men and therefore pertain only to ‘civil unions’, which are not marriage. Perhaps I saw an underlying concept that Tav wasn’t precisely framing into words …

I suspect you were even more tired than you thought, because it was actually me who made those points, not Tavarish. In the first instance I said “that state and federal government should restrict itself to legislating and licensing ‘civil unions’ and relinquish ‘marriage’ as a religious institution.” In the second instance I said that “whether or not a person has a right to marry someone of the same sex—or their sibling, parent, pet goat, self, etc.—is not an issue the government can answer (in the United States), because the government is not the source of rights. Since marriage is a covenant instituted by God, it is one of the rights we are endowed with; therefore, our Creator is the source to which we must go to find out whether or not marriage includes people of the same sex. The U.S. government protects rights; it neither grants them nor has any authority over them.”

And Adam is quite right (as are others who make the same point he does), that being granted ‘civil unions’ with all the privileges and protections they want simply will not suffice for the LGBT community because that is not what they really want. They want government-backed social acceptance of same-sex marriage.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

I have a better question: Why are there astonishingly ignorant people who think ‘homophobia’ has any causal relationship with legal and moral arguments against same-sex marriage? I would like to know why they are so incapable of properly grasping what ‘homophobia’ actually means. Am I guilty of coprophobia if I criticize feculent arguments?
tavarish

Here's the issue:

Personally, I have no problem with placing government in its place of granting civil unions, and delegate marriage solely to churches, but the system doesn't work like that. You aren't required to have a religious ceremony to have your marriage legalized, but you are required to go to the courthouse and get your marriage certificate and have it cleared with the state for the contract to be valid.

In this instance, with a government that indeed does grant legal marriage (a legally binding institution), there simply aren't any good arguments to keep same sex couples from marrying that wouldn't also affect heterosexual couples negatively.

Getting rid of government-administered marriage would be great, but it's a different issue entirely.

Adam, civil unions and marriages don't have the same amount of benefits. A civil union's benefits end at the state level, while marriage operates at a federal level. There are many key differences that include child/spousal support in the case of dissolution, death benefits, taxes on gifts, and immigration rights. By the way, the focus IS on the federal level, but progress has to be made within states first. It won in district court, now the case will be taken to the state Supreme Court, then the Federal Courts. Is it wrong to want the right to be legally married to their partner, as well as have community support and approval of it?

It's not seeming to want social acceptance – civil unions and marriages simply aren't the same. If the government granted same sex couples all the same rights and benefits of marriage, but just called it something else , this would be a huge and redundant waste of taxpayer money. Why would you legislate a series of regulations identical to another, but just has another name? Does that make any sense?
tavarish

And with that logic, marriage catered for full equality before the miscegenation laws, when interracial couples couldn't get married, and prior to the civil war, when blacks couldn't get married at all.
http://aristophrenium.com Mathew

And yet the immutability of skin color has no relevance to the institution of marriage and as such that legislation was rightly altered – and once it was, marriage still remained what marriage has always been right throughout history and all known cultures: the wedding of male to female.
tavarish

Do you not see the error in your logic?

Here's the argument formed in your exact words.

"And yet the immutability of sexual orientation has no relevance to the institution of marriage and as such that legislation was rightly altered – and once it was, marriage still remained what marriage has always been right throughout history and all known cultures: the wedding of two consenting adults. "

Before the miscegenation laws, skin color was a factor in being allowed the right to marry, much like sexual orientation plays a part today. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and you can proclaim that skin color was irrelevant – but it was just as hot of a topic as gay marriage is today, perhaps even more controversial. I honestly don't know what's so hard to understand.
http://aristophrenium.com Mathew

Here's some more of my own words, since you're fond of quoting them. I stated that marriage is legislated with the following restrictions that are equally applied to all persons:

1. must be an adult
2. must marry an adult
3. cannot currently be married
4. cannot marry a close relative
5. must marry a member of the opposite sex

You then imply that by 'my logic*' that the anti-miscegenation restriction was also equally applied. Very well, let's add that back in:

6. must marry a member of the same skin color / race

Put all six together and is there still full equality available to all persons? Yes – the restrictions equally apply, i.e. not only must you marry a member of the opposite sex but that member must also be of the same 'race'. Even under anti-miscegenation laws you could be a black homosexual with the same equality as a black heterosexual – neither could marry a white female but both could marry a black female.

So … now what? Do you want to talk about equality under the law, which was the purpose of Adam's post, or do want to talk about the purpose of marriage?

* Actually, it's not my logic, only an observation that the law currently caters for full equality, so if there's an error with anything it must be my observation re: full equality. But I'm yet to see how that observation is in error.
tavarish

You made my point for me. Thanks for that. :)

If you can't make a distinction between equal rights and restrictions under the law, then I really don't know what to tell you. When you have a set of laws that purposefully bars a citizen from his/her rights based on a superficial or immutable feature, that is not an example of equal rights at work.

Please acknowledge the difference before you make the same faulty argument again.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

If he made your point for you, then you agree with him—because he is making the case for his side. There is nothing wrong with you agreeing with him, of course, but it is strange.

I am going to pull this into the context of American politics because that is what you and I understand, although we shall use his six restrictions. You are pitting the rights of the people against restrictions on what constitutes lawful marriage, playing on a distinction between the two and claiming the latter infringes upon the former. Implicit in your criticism is the suggestion that people have the right to marry whomever and whatever their precious heart desires. I should love to see that satisfy its burden of proof. Nevertheless, in the U.S. that is simply false; people do not have the right to marry their own mother, son, sister and so forth, nor livestock, toasters, cat turds, blades of grass, coma patients, pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, green clovers, or blue diamonds and so on. The list of who and what an individual may not marry is potentially infinite; if the government had to list them it would be several hundred thousand pages of small print, and constantly being updated as technology produces new products and science discovers new things (e.g., newly discovered planets that you may not marry).

Rather than a practically impossible list of what is disallowed, we have instead a very succinct list of what is allowed. Everyone has the right to marry within the limits of that short list, and it is applied to all persons equally. But while everyone has the right to marry, where does that right come from? Not from the government; that was established to protect rights, not grant them. (See the Declaration of Independence, the writings of the founding fathers, like the Federalist papers, the U.S. Constitution and so forth.) The government cannot grant what the people already have, certain unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. The government can only protect rights; it has no authority to grant rights. The right to marry—which government protects—is an endowment of our Creator who instituted marriage for reasons several and sundry—which the government again had nothing to do with. The only thing the government is empowered to do is protect the rights we already have, and to ensure equal protection under the law. And to that end, the laws laid down by the government do not bar anyone from his or her rights vis-a-vis marriage. Homosexuals are permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals are, someone who is of age, who is not already married, and who is not a close relative. Heterosexual, homosexual, transgendered, etc.; the law is applied equally to all.

If you think people have the right to marry whomever (or whatever) they want, the burden of proof falls upon your shoulders to make that case. We both agree that everyone has the right to marry. Support for my argument is drawn from the Constitution (the supreme law of the land), the Declaration of Independence (which described the foundation of a new nation) and so forth. Where is support for your argument drawn from? Your own convictions? Is that the source of all American's rights? My argument says the source of their rights is the God who created all men equal, which is precisely what the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution support. When Americans want to know about their rights, those are the documents they turn to, the ones that support my argument.

“Peter has the right to marry Paul!”

“Who says?”

{crickets chirping}
JoE

Incorrect, sir! Absolutely and unequivocally! The architects of American liberty were very specific in NOT creating a government based on religion. I haven't read every single word of the actual Constitution in quite some years, but I did just reacquaint myself with it and the Declaration of Independence to reaffirm it for myself (as there is so much of the "under God" stuff making rounds these days it is permissible for memory to become cloudy; impermissible would be to simply accept the cloudiness of what others profess about a subject and relay that as fact). No, I did not just return from a trip to Washington D.C., instead I feel a source such as http://www.archives.gov is more than suitable for reading an unmolested version of the U.S. Constitution.

"God" is NOT in the Constitution. Period. Full stop. The "Year of our Lord" as part of dating the revered document is a common argument of Christianity in the Constitution, but that's like saying christmas trees are a strictly Christian affair. Anno Domini is simply a way of differentiating a particular method of time-keeping from any others. As I understand, it isn't even officially adopted in all parts of today's world, let alone used. The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, does have the word "God" in it; as in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". I'm not as theologically learned as many of the rest of you regulars, but that sounds substantially more like Deism to me, which is ideologically opposed from Christianity. The next "god" reference in the DoI is "Creator". That is remarkably noncommittal in that it could be referencing Jehovah, Vishnu, Zeus, Darwinism, nothing, etc, etc. The American Government was created specifically without the inclusion of religion, partly because of how we humans use it against each other. Seriously, if America IS a godly nation, *whose* god did those architects intend: theirs, yours, mine, Bob's…

Another common argument for America being founded on Christian principles is that the three branches of government are based on the Trinity. Well, I suppose with that logic one could argue that Christian Trinity is based on the Roman Republic, since it had three separated branches of government hundreds of years before Christ made an appearance.

Since there is so much mention of Epistemology on this forum it would be an obvious waste of my time to discuss Locke and how his writings were quite influential to many of the Founding Fathers (especially dear Mr. Jefferson, author of that highly drawn from Declaration). It should be a foregone conclusion that the study, and subsequent referencing, of a particular subject would also involve the study of it's origins and how it has influenced other subjects through history. Granted, not everyone can know everything about any thing, but perhaps connecting the dots just a little more may bring some additional insight.

And finally, for the sake of contributing to the discussion, I will hypothetically agree for a moment that America really is based on religion and the Christian God. Let's abolish even the thought of restricting a Holy Christian marriage in any way. So, gay marriage is now totally an afterthought. But also gone is the restriction of Monogamy, and the Mormons can have as many wives as they see fit. Any argument against Mormonism being a branch of Christianity is doomed to fail, as, regardless of whatever else they believe, Christ is still the Son of God and He will come again in glory, yada, yada. There's a cake around here somewhere that I didn't get a bite of. ;)
Steffan

I haven’t tried to impose my morality on anyone. I do not feel that I have the right, and I am at a loss to see how you came to that conclusion?
Steffan

Unfortunately, the vast majority of heterosexuals, including myself, are to some degree homophobic and allow that to influence their decisions. I like to think that I can overcome my personal prejudices when justice and fair play are involved. Most people cannot!
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

My goodness, Joe! That was something! Yet despite the passionate enthusiasm of your response, it is still remarkably irrelevant. From God not being in the U.S. Constitution to the federal government not being based on the Christian religion, it is clear that you extrapolated my argument beyond what it actually said. I hardly know how to respond, other than pointing this out. I am not sure who you were addressing but it cannot have been me and my argument.

Incidentally, the influence of Locke is an arguable point; a meticulous ten-year analysis of the sources that most influenced the founding period and development of American political theory showed that Locke accounted for less than three percent of the citations found in letters, articles, pamphlets, books, monographs and so on, written between 1760 and 1805 by American colonists of the founding era, whereas the Bible accounted for thirty-four percent—over ten times more influential than Locke. Notwithstanding the contributions of Locke, the Bible and covenant theology constituted the majority influence of the founding era—which is not surprising given that eighty percent of the Founding Fathers were Calvinists.

Lutz, D. (1984). The relative influence of European writers on late eighteenth-century American political thought. The American Political Science Review 78:189-197.
Hutson, J. (Editor). (2000). Religion and the New Republic: Faith in the Founding of America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Koukl, G. (Host). (1995). America's unchristian beginnings? [Audio Podcast]. Stand to Reason. Retrieved from http://www.str.org/.
JoE

Wow. I must have landed in the wrong alternate reality, because I was pretty sure you had mentioned that four-page document many call the Constitution of the United States of America and then added your God into it. (Of course, I only presume it was your God, for why would you have meant any other?) In that regard, my extrapolated response was actually remarkably relevant to your statement of God and American government, relating to law and rights. But first:

…where does that right come from? Not from the government; that was established to protect rights, not grant them. (See the Declaration of Independence, the writings of the founding fathers, like the Federalist papers, the U.S. Constitution and so forth.) The government cannot grant what the people already have, certain unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. The government can only protect rights; it has no authority to grant rights.

Bravo! Well said. Your reference to the quote “by their Creator” is indeed in the Declaration of Independence. Many people confuse this Declaration as being part of the actual American government. However, it was simply a document to inform the citizenry, the monarchy of England, and the world at large of the intentions of its writers to declare ‘separation’ from said monarchy and their reasons why. It certainly discusses concepts of how they intended to set up a government, but it is in no way a governing document. It is in the Constitution—and that alone—that rules for governance are written out. Regardless, I see some inconsistency when comparing this quote with the following one:

Support for my argument is drawn from the Constitution (the supreme law of the land), the Declaration of Independence (which described the foundation of a new nation) and so forth. … My argument says the source of their rights is the God who created all men equal, which is precisely what the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution support. When Americans want to know about their rights, those are the documents they turn to, the ones that support my argument.

Again I ask: whose God are those rights derived from? The God of Abraham? Islam falls under that. The God of Jesus Christ, then? Which God of Christ? Catholicism traces its roots back to Christ himself, but I don’t hear very many pronouncing that America is a Catholic nation. This is precisely the problem, and precisely why the Founding Fathers left religion out of the Constitution. The Constitution is the sole source of American government. It is from this that laws are written or rights restricted. Oh yes, rights have been restricted through American history; see Amendment XVIII for a glaring example. Of course the Founding Fathers were religious men; not very many weren’t in those days. Of course they wrote letters, and papers, and pamphlets, and books. And I have no doubt that God was mentioned extensively. Men of faith discuss faith in at least some point in their lives. But a letter to Bob does not make law. A published book extolling the virtues of Episcopalian morals does not build a government. There is no point in my reading of the works you suggest because I can reference just as many more that support secular America, and vice-versa until we exhaust the supply. The First Amendment should be quite sufficient enough for anyone to understand. Barring that, the Constitution should be read again. The website I mentioned (Archive.gov) is the official website of the National Archives of that godly government you talk of (based on the “.gov”, denoting “gov”ernment), so they should have plenty of references of your God being in it there.

Further, my understanding is that Calvinists are simply (in simplest expression) supporters of the religious Reformation movement, and not necessarily falling under any specific branch of religion. If that is the case then your statement of the Founders being 80% Calvinist tells me you support Reformation in America. (I don’t really want to go into this one so I’m condensing it to a single sentence; read it however you wish.) I found a reference stating there was only one single Calvinist but very many Episcopalians. I’m sure Calvin started there, as Episcopalian, but is that really where the movement stopped? I will still refer back to “Nature’s God” sounding much more like Deism to me.

The point we are discussing here is the law, and whether or not homosexuals have equal right under it. American laws come from the the rules written out in the Constitution. As such, it is entirely relevant to illustrate what is and is not in the Constitution. ‘Rights’ we are born with, and laws can protect or restrict those rights. That is why law is an ongoing process. The Constitution does not mention marriage, so it is up to lawmakers to establish regulations for it. However, since marriage is a religious act, making laws based on any specific version of marriage excludes many others. For this reason marriage laws are, technically, unconstitutional. I stand for doing away with government legislation of marriage and letting churches have it back exclusively. If government wants to come up with its own version, then by all means. But they really should be different.

While I will certainly admit that poor phrasing of my Locke statement gave the wrong impression of what I was getting at—it is done and over with, no point in me trying to fix it—I am somewhat disappointed, Ryft, that you chose my admittedly weakest argument and focused almost solely on that. I am still curious of your take on letting churches have exclusive custody of marriage, and therefore Mormons getting polygamy back. See the final paragraph of my previous post for the details.

P.S. For the record, I intend no ill feelings by being here, and am taking none in return. To the contrary, this debate is the most enjoyable I’ve had in ages. I just hope others here have at least a similar stance, that debate allows us to flesh out each other’s opinions (and can sometimes open our own minds to new ideas), and should not necessarily be taken as aggressive. Thanks again, all, for allowing my opinions be part of the discussion! (Didn’t mean for this one to be so long.)
Steffan

For someone so smart, you make some surprisingly dumb statements. I, like you, merely stated an opinion. And I made it perfectly clear that I did not believe that anyone, myself included, had the right to impose their morality onto others. If, as you claim, I am in fact doing so, then so is everyone on this blog who voices an opinion that can be construed as having a moral context. And that includes you. I apologize to JoE; my comment was meant for Adam.
Steffan

It would seem that Adam, making a statement that is at best spurious, now has to defend his position. If, as Adam claims, I am imposing my morality on others by saying that I do not believe that I or others have the right to do so, does that mean that Adam has that right? Using Adams logic that would seem to be a fair statement, wouldn’t it? I thank you for backing that part of my statement, although I suspect you don’t agree with everything I have said. But then a forum upon which everyone agreed would be pointless.
JoE

Steffan, no apologies to me are necessary. I was actually defending that you had NOT imposed any of your morals on me. But I agree, Adam's statement did leave me a bit concerned that I wouldn't be able to visit here anymore.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

PART 1

1. Allow me to save you a great deal of typing (for future reference) by letting you know that I am very well versed on the founding era and the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the history lessons are unnecessary as you are not informing me of anything I do not already know—for example, your remark that the Declaration of Independence does not constitute the rule of law, or that the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid a national religion.

2. While I certainly mentioned the Constitution, I did not by any means add God into it—mine or otherwise. That is in part what I meant when I said that you “extrapolated my argument beyond what it actually said.” Such are rhetorical fictions of your own making—to what end I can only speculate, although it is all irrelevant to what I had actually argued. To presume I meant my God is bad enough; to claim that I added God into the Constitution at all is even worse. I said, “The source of their rights is the God who created all men equal, which is precisely what the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution support.” Do please pay attention to that last word. (And all my words, quite frankly, for I choose them with calculated care.) To claim that the Constitution supports X is not to claim that it says X. The Declaration of Independence, which does say it, is the ideological framework behind the formation of the government (namely, the Constitution), a hermeneutic device allowing us to understand properly its history and context. Both documents support what my argument says: “The government cannot grant what the people already have, certain unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. The government can only protect rights; it has no authority to grant rights.”

3. The government is certainly able to infringe upon rights, but that hardly detracts from my point that it cannot grant rights. Again, the government cannot grant what the people already have, and the Declaration of Independence tells us that the Founding Fathers held that these rights are unalienable because they are endowed by a power higher than government, that is, God. As a matter of fact—and I know I have said this somewhere else—the U.S. Constitution is the people granting the government rights; that is the very meaning behind “consent of the governed” (in opposition to “divine right of kings”). Whether or not Peter has the right to marry Paul is not something the government can decide, for the government is not where the people get their rights from; rather, their source is greater than and above government, that is, God our Creator.

4. Whose God is being referred to is an important but separate question, one which does not detract from my point that the source of people’s rights is God, not the government, as proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence and operating in the U.S. Constitution. Both documents support what my argument says.

5. There is indeed a point to having you read the works I cited, particularly Lutz and Hutson. For example, Lutz is where the “meticulous ten-year analysis of the sources that most influenced the founding period and development of American political theory” came from, using not just any old letters, articles, pamphlets and so forth from just anyone, but only those related and relevant to the men who developed and drafted the Constitution. They reviewed 15,000 documents from the specified period, narrowing it down to over 2,000 that were relevant to founding politics, then narrowing it again to just over 900 that were relevant to the formation of the new government. From these they analyzed more than 3,000 quotations cited, in order to determine who and what influenced the founding period and development of American political theory. The Bible constituted the greatest influence of all sources at 34 percent of the citations. “Notwithstanding the contributions of Locke,” I said, “the Bible and covenant theology constituted the majority influence of the founding era.”
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

PART 2

6. Obviously “a letter to Bob does not make law,” but who ever suggested otherwise? Again, not me.

7. Do you have a source that claims America was founded on the concept of laïcité (strict secularism)? I have my doubts, nor do I think you could be that ignorant of the facts. As de Tocqueville and Maritain noted (both deeply familiar with laïcité), there is a distinct and actual cooperation between church and state in America, which they recognized as an historical treasure. Surely the only thing you meant was that America eschewed a national religion, which my argument is already conscious of.

8. How does my statement that eighty percent of the Founding Fathers were Calvinist mean that I “support Reformation in America”? That is to say, how the hell did you manage to draw an ideological conclusion from a simple statement of fact? That is all it was: a simple matter of fact, one quite relevant to a discussion about the intent of those responsible for the founding of American political theory (particularly with reference to the relationship between the people’s rights and government). And I do not know what your reference is, but there was more than “one single Calvinist.” The Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Dutch Reformed all held to a Reformed theology (e.g., Oliver Ellsworth).

9. I am not terribly bothered if the phrase “Nature’s God” sounds like Deism to you; that amounts to biographical detail relevant to you, not the Founding Fathers. When it is understood that of the fifty-five delegates of the Constitutional convention, fifty-one were Christians and only three were Deists—Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin (and the latter is debatable, as he was Deist only for a brief period in his younger years)—it strains credibility to think the context of the phrase was Deism.

10. The rights of homosexuals are identical to those of all other people. However, neither the government nor the Constitution are the source of the people’s rights; the source is greater than and above government, that is, God our Creator. Government can infringe upon the rights of the people, but it cannot grant rights to anyone; such a thing would be antithetical to “the consent of the governed,” where the people are sovereign and whose rights are endowed by God. Furthermore, marriage regulations are unconstitutional only if they violate some feature of the Constitution. And there is nothing about marriage regulations that is contrary to the First Amendment, since such regulations neither establish a national religion nor give preference to one religion over another.

11. I am with you in “doing away with government legislation of marriage and letting churches have it back exclusively.”

12. I did not focus my attention on your Locke comment, but rather on how basically your entire response was irrelevant to what I had actually said. (For example, I did not insert God into the Constitution, much less my God; I did not imply that the Declaration of Independence in any way constitutes the rule of law; and so on.) After having noted that, I took your reference to Locke and placed it in its proper context, since I felt that was important to note (in my fight against historical revisionism).
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

Whether or not there is a “vast majority” of heterosexuals who are to some degree homophobic is another matter (and I shall not press you to supply evidence for that claim). The fact of the matter is, legal and moral arguments against same-sex marriage does not indicate homophobia. Q.E.D.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

Adam does not impose his morality on anyone, namely because the morality he has is not his; it is a morality prescribed by God and it is imposed on everyone, including Adam and you. I know you reject that, but I have no idea how that is supposed to change anything.
Adam

Steffan,

The BIG difference is that I'm not claiming it as a "moral wrong" to influence others in order to convince them into agreeing with me. You're the one making that claim. To which all I did was highlight how your argument self destructs. The "surprisingly dumb statement" is rather making a statement which does not hold up under scrutiny. If you were intellectually honest, you would have said that "your view is wrong, you should adopt my view instead" which is essentially what you say with the rest of your statements. If you really did believe it is wrong to impose your morality on others then your response would have been silence.
Steffan

God gave us free thought and the right to make our own decisions, good or bad. And Adam has chosen his morality, as I have chosen mine. This is my God-given right and I believe Adam’s opinion is based more on his disapproval of my view than my trying to impose my morality on others. I’m afraid that Adam, like so many others, has a closed mind on any subject which he objects to. I thank you all for reading my views, but I am a little disappointed at the lack of objectivity by some. I should state that I have known Adam personally for some years and he is far more intelligent than myself, in many respects. As we seem to be nitpicking, perhaps it is time we closed the subject.
JoE

12 points. How very articulate and exacting! And yet you still excused yourself from any actual rebuttal to any of my statements by simply glazing over them and most of my direct questions to you. Since I do not know your worldview my arguments to you are an attempt to get you to expound upon your statements in order that I may understand your view point better, as the final paragraph of my previous post mentioned. The Debate approach has not worked – as you simply give me back the same answers with ever greater detail but little further insight – so instead I will ask in question form. Some of these questions will necessarily need a description as to their context. Perhaps it will please you to know that this will be my final appeal at understanding your statements.

"Do please pay attention to … all my words … for I choose them with calculated care."
That calculated care is exactly why I have enjoyed reading your eloquence (even when it is against me), and is precisely why I defended your arguments (in the "apples to apples" topic) as like "brick men" in the face of others accusing you of using "straw men". However, it is some of these worded statements, when comparing with some of your others, which cause me some confusion. The greatest is this: **"My argument says the source of their rights is the God who created all men equal, which is precisely what the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution support. When Americans want to know about their rights, those are the documents they turn to…"**(in response to Tavarish). If rights come from God then why would Americans go to man made documents to learn about them? And where would I find something about those rights listed in the Constitution; "the supreme law of the land"?
Also, saying a document supports X implies there is a statement in said document in support of X. Hence, when you say God is the source of rights and that the Constitution supports that, how can you then say that the Constitution does not say X? Perceived meanings of written truth are the reason why there are so many different branches of belief about the the God of the Bible, let alone any writings in general. So, I am asking what statements *in the Constitution* inform you that it supports a Christian God? The "intended meanings" of the authors, by way of interpreting any of their other writings, is not a valid answer. If they had "intended" it then why didn't they write it into the actual Constitution with absolute clarity. Will you accept this National Archives website as a common ground in which to refer to said Constitution? http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constit…

While I am aware of only the basics of Calvinism, I must admit total ignorance in what your definition of it is. While not wanting to argue a point further I must ask in return: "how the hell did you manage to draw an ideological" conclusion from me when I used a question mark, and such subjective statements as "my understanding" and "tells me"? Please help me understand what is it you mean by saying that 80% were Calvinists. And how do the Founding Fathers being Calvinists bear on the governing rules of America? Six different Google hits gave me six differing takes on what "Calvinism" means, so I am asking for yours in order to understand your context and meaning.

Did the "ten-year analysis" include cross referencing for indications of compromise? And did it confirm what parts of any of those writings made it into the verbiage of the Constitution itself?

I am a little confused as to the purpose for referring me to the article from StandToReason.org. Several of Mr. Koukl's points support my stance of the Constitution, such as: "This fact doesn' t give Christians a trump card in the debate on public policy". But even then, I question the article's validity after this one: "His approach is to quote seven different people: Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and Ben Franklin. His point is to quote these individuals who he thinks apparently are, first of all, Founding Fathers…". Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but is Mr. Koukl implying that NONE these people are Founding Fathers?

The fact that the Founders were primarily God-fearing Christian men is not in dispute by me, and should not be by anyone. Even a sanitized version of history cannot hide that without omitting vital other details. Perhaps it is just a point of wording. I can tell by your writings that you believe in a very different God than I. Does that make either of our beliefs any less meaningful to the other? Not on my end, at least. I have as much respect for your belief (not even knowing what it is) as I have for my own. Perhaps that is why I find this issue so important.

Thanks again for any consideration,
JoE
http://usualrhetoric.blogspot.com tavarish

I'm going to reply to bits and pieces of arguments posted here. I'd like to comment to the staff that the format for replying is needlessly convoluted, and it takes way too long to find a response if you weren't originally a part of it. It would be very much appreciated if you could clean up the format, or at least indent the replies so it becomes easier to read and not a massive wall of text.

Ryft, it does not mean I agree with Mathew when I said "he made my point for me". It means his argument does so well to refute itself that no further work is needed. Since it's often difficult to show people how to read between the lines, I'll elaborate.

Equal application of laws do not mean people have equal rights under the law. I'll repeat that and explain further:

Just because people are subject to the same laws do not necessarily mean those laws promote equality. I'll refer to your example, and I'll make one of my own:

1. must be an adult
2. must marry an adult
3. cannot currently be married
4. cannot marry a close relative
5. must marry a member of the opposite sex
6. must marry a member of the same skin color / race

According to Mathew, there is nothing here that promotes inequality, because he erroneously equates application of the law with civil rights, as seen here:

"Put all six together and is there still full equality available to all persons? Yes – the restrictions equally apply, i.e. not only must you marry a member of the opposite sex but that member must also be of the same 'race'."

Let's define equality here:

Equality:
1. state of being equal: rights, treatment, quantity, or value equal to all others in a specific group

With that reasoning, the argument is necessarily restricting the rights of those people that don't fall into the criteria, not to mention restricting the rights of citizens because of, more often than not, religious ideology in a secular government. Simply put, there is no rational, secular reason to exclude same-sex couples from being married that is supported by any kind of credible evidence. I understand this is not the law of the land in the US, but I felt it could be used as a shining example of how equal application of a law that necessarily restricts the rights of its citizens is necessarily unequal.

Marriage, by the way, was established by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right and freedom in the ruling of Loving v. Virginia in 1967. At what point are the rights of American citizens in a suspect class up for vote by the majority, and why haven't any arguments been put forth that don't hinge on religion, when it's religious ideology is completely irrelevant in court?

Here's another example:

1. It is a fundamental right and freedom for all citizens to wear red shoes.
2. Only women can purchase and wear red shoes.

The law applies to all citizens, but the law is inherently unequal. I hope I've made myself transparent.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

PART 1

I am a little appalled right now. Despite the overtime I worked during the day, I took a couple hours out of my evening to offer you a serious and thorough reply…

…only to find you characterizing my efforts as “glazing over” your comments.

That is just incredible. So this may be my last response to you, depending on how you respond next. (That is to say, people who show little appreciation for my responses and what I put into them need not worry about having to bother themselves with me anymore, as I will invest my energies elsewhere.)

1. The issue here is whether or not the rights of anyone, particularly homosexuals, are infringed upon by the government. And the answer is surprisingly simple, “No.” First, because marriage laws are not discriminatory, being applied equally to all people. You are permitted to marry only someone who is an unmarried consenting adult of the opposite sex who is not a close relative, whether you are straight or gay or something else. The law does not care; it is applied equally to all people without discrimination. Do you want to marry your brother? A 12-year old? The planet Gliese 581 g? Your goat? Your neighbor who is already married? Too bad, that is against the law—regardless of who you are or how you identify yourself.

Second, while marriage is a right you have, it is not one that the government granted you (executive, legislative, or judicial). And whether or not you have the right to marry whoever or whatever you please is not an issue the government has any authority to decide because, again, the government is not where the people get their rights from. The government is tasked with protecting your rights, but what your rights happen to be is not something the government has authority over. Your being endowed with rights was a transaction that happened apart from government.

2. My own perspective about marriage is biographical material irrelevant to this issue. It has no bearing on whether or not there exists equal protection under the law vis-a-vis marriage. However, despite this I have indicated several times in this thread what my perspective is. And you saw it, and you understand it. What you want to do is explore that view, the ramifications or how it plays out (q.v. Mormons and polygamy). But this thread is not the place for that; biographical tangents get away from the context of this thread (constitutionality of marriage laws).

3. “When Americans want to know about their rights,” I said, “those are the documents they turn to.” What I did not say, however, is that Americans can learn from those documents what the extent of their rights are. I thought the context was clear enough, but apparently it was not. Perhaps the addition of a clause will add greater perspicuity: “When Americans want to know about their rights in relation to the government…” As I have been saying throughout, rights are outside the purview of government beyond its task of protecting them. That is what Americans can know about their rights by consulting the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, documents which support my argument.

4. “Where would I find something about those rights listed in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land?” you asked. Principally in the first ten Amendments (called the Bill of Rights); by describing what the government cannot do or must do, there are implicit or explicit indications of certain rights the people have. An example of a right explicitly stated, the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms). An example of a right implicitly stated, the Fifth Amendment (the right to due process).

However, they are not an exhaustive list of the people’s rights; they only enumerate an individual’s rights in relation to the power of the government. But even this fact an American can learn by reading the Constitution; the Ninth Amendment clearly states that the people retain rights beyond what is enumerated in the Constitution.

5. The Declaration of Independence says that God is the source of the people’s rights. And the Constitution supports that in three ways: first, it presupposes the rights of the people throughout; second, it frankly admits that the people retain rights not enumerated therein; third, in describing the nature and powers of the government, nowhere included is the power to grant the people any rights. Yet where these rights came from, if not the government, is not an impossible mystery; the Declaration of Independence states it quite plainly, which the Constitution presupposes—expectedly, with such men as Franklin, Morris, Clymer, Wilson, etc., being signers of both.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

PART 2

6. “What statements in the Constitution inform you that it supports a Christian God?” you asked. None that I am aware of. But then who said the Constitution supports the Christian God? Certainly not me. I always find it baffling when I am pressed to defend things I never even said.

7. If the Founding Fathers intended the Christian God as the source of the people’s rights, then “why didn't they write it into the actual Constitution with absolute clarity?” you asked. That is a very bizarre question, sorry. I mean, why would they? The Constitution had nothing to do with the people or where their rights come from. It had to do with the government and where its rights come from.

8. As for you attempting to infer an ideological conclusion from my simple statement of fact, I must remind you that you did not use a question mark. You made a statement: “If that is the case,” you said, “then your statement of the Founders being 80% Calvinist tells me you support Reformation in America.” Not a question. You drew a conclusion, an ideological one (that I support some cause), from my simply stating a fact. I found that baffling; namely, I have no idea how that conclusion follows from what I had said.

9. “What [do] you mean by saying [they] were Calvinists?” I mean their beliefs aligned with Reformed theology. What that itself means is beyond the context and scope of this thread, for it would require an exploration of church history (from the 16th to the 18th centuries). How does several of the Founding Fathers being Calvinist bear on the governing rules of America? It doesn’t. They clearly did not want a national religion—which makes sense, given what they had fled from—and saw fit to make sure the Constitution stated that.

10. As for your questions about the “ten-year analysis,” I refer you to the work cited.

11. I am glad that you find much agreement with what Koukl had to say. Ironically, Koukl and I advance the exact same argument (as we so often do); we both share similar knowledge of the founding era and the key players, we both have the same take on the Constitution and the government it creates, particular that it eschews a national religion, Christianity or otherwise, and so forth. And I say “ironically” because while you find agreement with several of his points, for some reason you do not agree with mine—despite Koukl and I advancing the exact same argument. Very strange how two people can both say X, and you agree with one but argue with the other. Very weird.

12. “Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but is Mr. Koukl implying that NONE these people are Founding Fathers?” You are definitely reading it wrong, to a degree that makes me wonder if you truly even read it. He not only says nothing of the sort, but goes so far as to explain quite clearly what he does mean (paragraphs six, seven, and eight).

P.S. Is there some way you could be encouraged to write less, or require less writing from me?
Steffan

I was invited to this blog to “engage in actual intelligent conversation”—only to be disappointed, but not surprised, by the lack of objectivity of some of the participants. I expected my views to be questioned, and indeed would have welcomed it. But when I am confronted about my comments on homophobia and accused of trying to impose my morality on others, I am at a loss as to how this is relevant to the main points that no one has questioned? As my views are obviously at odds with the majority of participants, there seems little point in my visiting this blog again. However, I would encourage JoE to continue engaging because without people like him this blog runs the very real risk of becoming a self-gratification society, which I am sure was never its intended purpose.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

Freddy,

You are repeating your argument without accounting for the response I had lodged against it. It might have moved the discussion forward if you had. Again, your argument presupposes that people have the right to marry whomever or whatever they want—an assumption I challenge, calling you to shoulder the burden of proof it incurs. Do people have the right to marry? Certainly. That is not in contention here. No need to support that point (q.v. your Supreme Court citation). But does that right to marry mean that Joe can marry his guitar, or Jane can marry her father, or John can marry his neighbor who is already married? They have the right to marry, after all.

At minimum, your argument assumes that people have the right to marry whomever they want. All right, but who says? You? Where does that right come from? Government? My argument says the source of their rights is the Creator of all men, which is precisely what the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution support. Where is support for your argument drawn from?

At this point my argument is the only one that draws upon credible support.

P.S. Absolutely everybody—whether straight or gay—has the fundamental right and freedom to marry. Absolutely everybody can purchase red shoes. But an alleged right to marry whomever we please is a very different thing. The list Mathew provided defines the red shoes. To change that list is to call for shoes of a different colour.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

Your views were questioned. For example, I questioned you equating legal and moral arguments against same-sex marriage as "homophobia." But you did not respond, other than to say you struggle somewhat with homophobia, which did not address my question to you. You're free to take your leave of this site, of course, but don't kid yourself that no one questioned your views.

And if you want to "engage in actual intelligent conversation," it helps if you don't come to the site and start accusing people of homophobia. Consider the ongoing discussions with Tavarish and Joe; intelligent conversations happen here all the time if that is how you approach the people here.
http://usualrhetoric.blogspot.com tavarish

"At minimum, your argument assumes that people have the right to marry whomever they want. All right, but who says? You? Where does that right come from? Government?"

Since this is a legal matter, the rights are set in motion by the founding documents of the nation. We have the Constitution for a reason, to explain the rights of the people and government. We also have a court system that can interpret these rights as changes in society become more apparent.

"My argument says the source of their rights is the Creator of all men, which is precisely what the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution support. Where is support for your argument drawn from?"

…and of what relevance is this to anything? Exactly what creator is the DOI referring to? And why would this creator necessarily support a heterosexual marriage only? What role does this creator play in a system of laws that is inherently secular and hinges on human rights and individual freedoms, rather than ideology?
JoE

Ryft,
Much more informative! Thank you! Sincerely.
I fear my initial input to the current discussion came across too arrogant and presumptuous, setting the tone for furthered escalation. For that, I Apologize. First and foremost, I am NOT trying to cause friction or aggravation, as I have stated to this effect several times in follow-up posts. And I actually did note your diligent responses to me. I do sincerely appreciate your continued efforts, despite any indications you may have to the contrary. Obviously we both feel very strongly on this subject, or else we wouldn't be throwing so many words at it. Because of the strength of your convictions I am open, and accepting, to the concept that I may be wrong. Or at the very least, of learning something. My last post stated it would be my final appeal, however, I really hate to leave anything on a sour note. Let me connect the dots to try to show you your argument as I see it, then perhaps you can see where I am flawed and correct me in this manner. Btw, I'm trying to write less, so things will be condensed, please keep an open mind for interpretations.

The Facts that we seem to agree on:
The Founding Fathers were… very religious. Do we agree they were Christian?
The Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is not law or policy.
We are conceived with all of our rights.
Churches should be sole custodians of Marriage.

Statements you have made to support your argument:
The Founding Fathers were Calvinist, by 80%
The Founding Fathers were Christian, by 93%.
The Bible was the greatest influence to the men who developed the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence says God is the source of people's rights.
The Constitution supports that God is the source of people's rights.

Extrapolations by implication ahead! Why? When I asked for more pieces of this puzzle you kept giving me the same three statements, repeatedly. They must have been important, so I put them together: they made a circle. I'm going to make three quick observations/points that I saw of it: 1) I found where the Christian God was hiding in the Constitution, i.e. the Constitution supports it, though the DoI, by way of the Founders being so heavily influenced. 2) Now we have to figure out WHICH version of Bible to read our rights from, and then WHICH branch of Christianity will interpret what those rights mean for us. 3) But of course, the DoI can't enforce anything, so that puts us back to trying to figure out where our unalienable rights are.

I'm sure you will say I just read something out of context, but 1) you have already been doing it to me, ever since I arrived, and 2) I have asked and pressed for clarification, several times and in several ways, only to get led back into the above circle. You argue "our rights come from God." I ask "which God?" You reply "doesn't matter. Declaration says it, Constitution supports it, both those support my argument." Can you not see this terrible circle you have me trapped in by "glazing over" my vitally important question in there? Different Gods grant different rights to their faithful, and if you say American rights come from God then I would certainly like to know what those rights are. One God says you can have one wife, another says four. One says 42 virgins wait in Heaven, another says it's version is the only one. Or perhaps you mean instead that your rights come from whatever book you read about your God and my rights come from reading my Grimorium Verum? Talk about unequal application of rights!

Over two hundred years ago some people read in the Bible that God condoned slavery, and set an American legacy that still haunts us. It was perfectly legal to own slaves then, just as it is perfectly legal to keep LGBT's from getting married today. Not the same? How about women being able to vote? Those issues weren't considered by the majority of their time to be discriminatory either, but both needed CONSTITUTIONAL Amendments in order for the respective groups to attain 'Rights' that they were presupposed not to have. There are MANY more examples, but I hope my point is made with just these.

Has the Constitution unjustly restricted these God given decrees?
King James Version, 1611 Edition
Colossians 3:22-24
I Peter 2:18
I Timothie 6:1-2
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

This circle is your own construction, for you are the one inserting God into the Constitution. Anyone else can plainly see that I have rejected that notion repeatedly throughout these threads (viz. the Constitution does not make any reference to God, not even the Christian God). The Constitution sets up the nature, structure, and limits of the federal government and its powers; God is irrelevant to this.

When I said that our rights come from God and you asked which God, I did not (and would never) say, “Doesn’t matter.” I said it was a separate issue. Relevant to this discussion, the issue is that our rights do not come from the government, for our rights already existed prior to the creation of the government (U.S. Constitution), as the Declaration of Independence indicates.

If you want to know which God they were referring to in the Declaration, it would be both prudent and relevant to read their articles and correspondences, which were certainly not shy about the matter. As the Lutz and Hutson analyses previously referenced indicate, it was the God of the Christian Bible. And it is irrelevant that the Declaration has no force of law; ‘law’ refers to government, which is neither the source nor arbiter of our rights. Government only secures and protects our rights, which are preexistent and unalienable.

And finally, Constitutional amendments were not how those groups “attained” their rights. They already had them. The Constitution is a document FROM we the people FOR the government, not FOR we the people FROM the government. Blacks and women alike were included in “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” such that blacks cannot be property and both blacks and women constituted “the consent of the governed” and must be allowed to vote.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

First, what our rights are is not a legal matter. Legal refers to law and thus government, which is neither the source nor arbiter of our rights. Government only secures and protects our rights, which are preexistent and unalienable. Second, the Constitution explains the rights of the government (vis-a-vis “the consent of the governed”) and that is all; the only reference it makes to the rights of the people is to enumerate those rights which the government is prohibited from infringing upon. (Note especially the Ninth Amendment). Third, the courts have no authority to interpret our rights. What courts have authority to interpret is the constitutionality of laws and acts of government; that is, whether such laws and acts adhere to the Constitution. You will not find anywhere in Article 3 an authority to interpret our rights. And fourth, the system of laws are NOT inherently secular; that system arises via the consent of the governed, constituted by a free and equal people created by God and endowed thereby with certain unalienable rights. You will find laïcité in France or Belgium, but not in the United States.
JoE

I'm just going to reply down here, as tavarish stated, it takes to long to find where we left off.

It's a funny coincidence Ryft, that I was just coming by tonight to add a little something… and here you are! Divine? (actually, my post was ready only a few hours after yours, but my 3 year old wiped it out for me. finally now getting back to it)

Anyway, as I was brushing up on a little trivia I came across these. I should think the Custodians of the very Documents we are discussing would know a thing or three about them. From the National Archives:
"Q. What is the source of the philosophy found in the Constitution?
A. The book which had the greatest influence upon the members of the Constitutional Convention was Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, which first appeared in 1748. The great French philosopher had, however, in turn borrowed much of his doctrine from the Englishman John Locke, with whose writings various members of the Convention were also familiar."
And from the Declaration of Independence:
"The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers."
Hmm, perhaps I wasn't so wrong after all!

Yes, I created the circle, by my own admission!! However, it has apparently failed in it's primary purpose, which does tell me quite a bit about how you read me…

Did God create blacks and women as equal as white men? If not then the discussion is over. But if so, and if the Constitution protects those unalienable rights that God created us with then how is it we know of such names as Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony? *Technically* the Constitution doesn't grant or create rights, but it had to be Amended to *protect* rights that those groups were prevented from having! By the very government made to protect them!! I fail to comprehend your logic in reconciling this with your statements that the Constitution supports that our rights come from God, and then that the Constitution doesn't support God, so I will aggravate you no further in it.

Finally, I didn't think it was terribly relevant until you referenced religion in America as being "an historical treasure", so I must ask Ryft, do you live in Australia along with your Aristophrenium co-founders and associates? If you have not experienced America firsthand then your discussions of it can only be Academic. Or if, by some possibility, you do call America your home then I presume you to belong to one of the few elitist, major religions here. I say this because you seem to have no clue as to what actually living here is like. "No national religion" is a rather loaded concept, as whatever religious affiliation is in position of political leverage creates laws and restricts rights in ways that fall in line with their own doctrinal stance. Another election cycle does the same thing with a differing doctrinal viewpoint, causing redundant and contradictory laws and spastic interpretations of rights. Religious freedom by way of tolerance is practically non-existent. Minority religions, or those not even in the mainstream suffer ridicule, discrimination, and sometimes condemnation from the more prominent faiths. That supposed "treasure" is certainly wonderful for those at the top of the Hierarchy, much like capitalism. No, I am not bitter or cynical. I love being American and the concept that America represents. I just despise that others pervert it for their own self-serving purposes.

Am I of a minority religion here? Technically not, but that in no way means I don't respect the beliefs of *everyone*! Religious intolerance in America is the reason I feel so strongly about keeping it out of our government, *As The Constitution Supports*!
Amu

“Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either. ”
Your argument is completely invalid. This concerns ‘gay rights’… obviously gay rights do not apply to a heterosexual.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

Are you implying that gays should have special, applies-to-gays-only rights? That’s all I can fathom from your comment that this is about ‘gay rights’. Should we then have special rights for all minority groups?

Offering special rights to minorities (ie. rights that apply to group A but not to group B) moves us in the opposite direction of a society that promotes equal rights for its citizens.
Erik

Okay so answer this question why? If god does not allow a heterosexual couple to bear children, for example sterile man or barren woman, then should their marriage be considered unrecognized by our government or state and not offered the same tax breaks that married couple who biologically can procreate? What about married couples who can legally adopt children, they did not give birth to this child because God would not allow it to happen, so should our government allow heterosexual married couples who adopt the same tax breaks as married couples with biological children have?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

I’m not entirely certain why we’re talking about tax breaks – perhaps you could elaborate so that I or others can more ably respond?
Robertcandrews

I think Erik was “speaking” about tax breaks because it is the only thing same sex couples supposedly don’t get that married couples do.

My argumnet to that would be many married couples file separately and quite frankly the way to solve that problem for us all is to rid ourselves of taxation without representation by the federal government and its illegal income tax law to begin with.
http://www.facebook.com/trapperg John Gerard

Interesting that you use the word, “rationale.” Because this whole argument is nothing but rationalization.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

I’m not certain I understand the point you’re wanting to make. Could you clarify / expand?
Tom Chen

Thank you for writing this article! I could not have said it any better myself. Gays and Heterosexual individuals DO have the same rights. People can not just demand that the government create new laws for them just because they see things differently. Also, to the hardcore liberals out there, I know that you want “equality” and that you want to take care of everyone, but the truth of the matter is, you can’t. You can not take care of everyone’s needs and desires, and when try to, there are consequences that everyone else pays for. Many liberals always seem to forget about those hefty consequences…
Sean Rothrock

This dialog did draw me in at the beginning, but then had a really strong twist close to the end of it. I believed it was going to be a good level-headed article about civil rights between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Then it became an article of extreme bigotry. To the author, in order to make a sound argument of equality in your article, you cannot make an assumption on how a group of people live out their lives without strong material of fact. In other words, you do not understand the behavior of a homosexual so you cannot speak as if you do know. There is one thing that you are absolutely right between heterosexuals and homosexuals; equality, and I thank you for sharing that with us.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

Thanks for the comment, Sean. You have placed a very strong charge against us here – I wonder if you would extrapolate as to how the view presented translates into mere bigotry and is not a reasoned, sensible approach to the issue?
http://www.facebook.com/michaelsoles80 Michael Soles

i hope everyone of u have a gay child so that u can see just how unfair it is for gays in this country…..IT IS NOT A CHOICE TO BE GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!the question is WHY DOES AMERICA HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN MY BEDROOM? That is the number one reason why straight people have a problem with us. this is just a homophobic answered in a nice way that all
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

Michael – Firstly, I can understand that you believe no one decides to be gay, but the article does not attempt to address that issue. The article is dealing with the legal rights with regards to marriage and I believe it adequately demonstrated that the restrictions of current marriage law are equally applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Full marriage equality, therefore, very much exists under current law.

Secondly, prior to the debate on marriage redefinition, Americans (and other nationalities) weren’t too concerned with what couples did within the privacy of their own homes, and I think that is still very much the case so I’m not sure what you were implying by your comment.

Thirdly, proponents of traditional marriage aren’t campaigning to have homosexual acts outlawed, nor are they pushing for legislation to prevent homosexuals from forming long-term, loving relationships, holding public commitment ceremonies, working in jobs, running companies, giving to charity, paying taxes, running a household together, being involved in the local tennis club, or any other aspect of wider society. Proponents of traditional marriage simply believe that marriage serves a very particular function in society and that society stands to be harmed if it is redefined from being the union of one man to one woman. I would hardly call that “homophobic”.

BTW, if either of my two children announced to me that they were gay, they would still be my children and I would continue to love them as such.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

Yet the act of homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a behaviour – and behaviours (the manner in which we act) are things people choose, almost without exception. No one acts black; they simply are black. But one who engages in a sexual act does so by choice.

Not all married couples are able to have children, this is true. But a book that remains unread on a bookshelf never ceases to be a book.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

I’m confused. How is it relevant that one needs to understand the behaviour of a homosexual to have a reasoned discussion about equal marriage rights?
Meep

This is a interesting topic that like slavery, not as serious of course, sort of divides our country. All I have to say is if two people love each other then they should be together. But when it comes to marriage … If they love each other enough it shouldn’t matter. So the question becomes, at least to me, why does it matter?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

Thanks, Meep. Although, the issue is unlike slavery as those who identify as gay are not treated, nor considered, as sub-human, while African-Americans were.

People may desire to get married because they do love each other, but that would seem a very strange reason why the government issues marriage certificates, don’t you think? How many other types of relationships (say, between siblings or cousins or friends or dorm-mates or even tennis partners) are there wherein there are people who love each other but which the government does not license?

The Aristophrenium

25

90

Do Homosexuals Have Equal Rights?

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Popular Posts

Honor Roll

Index

Categories

AristoVault

Meta

The Aristophrenium

25

90

Do Homosexuals Have Equal Rights?

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Share:

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Popular Posts

Honor Roll

Index

Categories

AristoVault

Meta