Below The Beltway

I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

Debunking The Arguments Against Gay Marriage

by @ 5:20 pm on April 15, 2009. Filed under Freedom of Religion, Gay Marriage, Individual Liberty, Politics

Here’s a very good video that debunks the arguments that opponents of marriage equality are making that it would infringe on the religious liberty of churches:

Jason Kuznicki puts it best:

If you’re privately funded, you should be free to do as you like. Want to discriminate? Fine. Just don’t take tax money to do it.

And… if you support discrimination laws that touch purely private interactions and that benefit yourself, then you can hardly complain when others want those same benefits for their groups, too.

Ditto.

18 Responses to “Debunking The Arguments Against Gay Marriage”

  1. [...] Nod: Below the Beltway and Positive Liberty Sphere: Related ContentApril 12, 2009 — NOM Campaign Update (0)April 11, [...]

  2. DR says:

    The ability to create life is what government needs to recognize and that ability is best suited in a heterosexual married relationship, not a heterosexual relationship, but a heterosexual married relationship between a man and women. It is that possibility of life creation that government needs to recognize and encourage and that makes marriage a valuable institution for government to acknowledge, otherwise you have population decline and you lose national identity by immigrating your population (look at Europe).
    And I use the word CABAL with full knowledge of the definition. Marriage has always been defined one way, and now under the false guise of civil rights a group of people have organized to overthrow, not only an important government institution, but an important societal institution, marriage. Now the definition of marriage is being stretched and strangled to include ideas and thoughts that are contrary to its own definition. And this cabal is attempting to overthrow this institution not through standard ways of changing our laws (except Vermont) by changing people’s ideas and thoughts, but through activist judges who completely overextend and abuse the 14th amendment and ignore in totality the 10th amendment.
    What I don’t understand is why the homosexual community is so insistent that government recognize its relationship and call it equal to a heterosexual relationship, it is not, it cannot be because in the end a man and a women are best suited to raise children and grow families.
    In the end your argument about heterosexual married couples who do not produce children is invalid; government is not rewarding marriage it is encouraging marriage with the hope that children and a future society will be the end result. Homosexual relationships cannot produce that societal need, they can help by raising other people’s children through adoption or in-vitro, but they cannot create life, society needs to recognize an institution that creates that life, and so does government.

  3. DR,

    The ability to create life is what government needs to recognize and that ability is best suited in a heterosexual married relationship, not a heterosexual relationship, but a heterosexual married relationship between a man and women.

    So I guess you think that infertile couples, or couples who decide before they get married that they will never have children, should not be permitted to marry either, right ?

  4. DR says:

    Maybe you should read the whole comment before you respond,

    “In the end your argument about heterosexual married couples who do not produce children is invalid; government is not rewarding marriage it is encouraging marriage with the hope that children and a future society will be the end result.

  5. DR says:

    As to your The first one is that if the state is going to give special benefits (i.e., tax benefits, property laws, inheritance laws and the like) to people by virtue of a status, then there are really only two alternatives — either it has to give that status to everyone, or it gives that status to nobody.
    As to the point you made in a previous post, this only works or is valid if you have already redefined what marriage is to begin with, every member of this society has the opportunity to be married; a man to a woman or a woman to a man. To assume that two men or two women in a relationship can be married is to redefine what it means to be married to begin with, government has a duty to recognize institutions and reward behavior that benefits society, such as marriage, as sure as it has the power to punish behavior that it disagrees with, such as smoking. You cannot assume that redefining and damaging the family which is the cornerstone that every society in the history of world has built upon will have no adverse affects upon society. Believe it or not It matters that child be raised by a mother and a father, no fault divorce and gay marriage have and will continue the destruction of the family.

  6. Matt says:

    How about separation of church and state? Marriage is originally a religious institution so why is it controlled and regulated by the state?

    Dump marriage as a legal term and put it back into the churches where it belongs. If states want to give benefits or recognize people in committed relationships then they can have some sort of civil union. People who want to be recognized as in a committed relationship by the state (for whatever reason) can get themselves civilly unified. And religious people who want to get married can do so in their church.

    If gay people want to get married so badly I’m sure they can find some liberal church (unitarian?) to marry them.

  7. DR says:

    It needs to be controlled and regulated by the state because the state has a imperative interest in the way children are born, raised, and the strength that adds to a society, you cannot separate marriage from a strong stable society, you either have strong independent families creating a strong independent nation, or you have the adverse, weak family structure or anything goes, gay marriage, polygamy, bigamy, or single parent homes (and yes they all go together because all are in deference to what is best for children or the future society) can and will create a week nation.
    This is not a difficult concept to follow, when you have week families you have depraved and week society, therefore government has a compulsory interest in defending strong stable families, or marriage between one man and one woman.

  8. How are two people of the same sex who want to enter into a committed relationship together hurting you, or society ?

    And if the state gives benefits to heterosexual couples, it has an obligation to make those benefits available to all

  9. DR says:

    They hurt society only if they interfere with marriage; because marriage and the raising of families is the cornerstone of a healthy society and should be encouraged by government, a homosexual relationship is basically a narcissistic relationship (not in a negative sense) but in a sense that it provides no future for society, so why should government recognize and encourage a relationship that in its essence is to serve one of two people only.
    The state provides the same benefits to everyone and anyone who wants them, so long as they get married to someone of the opposite sex, because the state has an imperative interest in the way children are born, raised, and the strength that adds to a society.
    The homosexual community can do whatever it wants, but they cannot redefine an institution thousands of years old just because they feel slighted.
    Don’t you understand that to first make your point, you need to redefine what marriage is, if you have to change the language, culture, and definition of something to make your point, then you never had a point to begin with.

  10. Matt says:

    DR, why can’t traditional marriage compete on a level field in the marketplace of ideas against other forms of family creation? If it is truly the ideal way of raising a family (which I believe it is) then it should win out in the end. Societies/towns that have more traditional families will be more prosperous and more successful than societies that don’t.

    We already see this happening in suburbs. Do people move to suburbs and small towns from inner cities because of the architecture or because of the better neighbors/society (ie lower crime, better job opportunities, etc)?

    The success of traditional marriage will happen even faster if the government would stop rewarding people for having children. If you no longer get extra welfare money for being a baby factory, you’ll probably stop being one.

  11. DR says:

    You’re wrong on 3 points.
    First, morality is not a capitalist function, capitalism works when money is the object, morality works only when people defend it.

    Second, there was this wonderful thing that the Republicans instituted in the 90’s, after Bill Clinton vetoed it 3 times, called welfare reform. People no longer receive a lifetime of checks for having children out of wedlock.

    Third, the very point that you bring up of welfare rewarding single mothers and essentially destroying the black family, is proof that government can have an influence on marriage and keeping that institution together.

    And finally do you really want to put the future of our race in the grips of an experiment that pits one successful form of society against another, as you put it.

  12. Matt says:

    “do you really want to put the future of our race in the grips of an experiment that pits one successful form of society against another, as you put it.”

    Absolutely. Why don’t you? Do you think those who choose marriage will be on the losing side?

  13. DR says:

    It’s not a win lose situation, to allow it to happen is a lose lose situation. Last time we let societal experiments happen we got the eugenics movement, Hitler, and WWII. People just sat by and watched that happen until it was almost too late. And no I am no comparing gay marriage to eugenics and Hitler, but I am comparing the disruption of society, every time it is tried it ends in death.

  14. DR says:

    I don’t want to because it’s irresponsible and dangerous and a completely incongruous to the nature of society, there is a reason the family unit has existed, as it is now defined, in every society that has existed, because it works, don’t pretend we are the only society to ever face this question, it has been tried before and failed, and if allowed it will fail again. And as I stated before, “Morality is not a capitalist function, capitalism works when money is the object, morality works only when people defend it.” It is immoral to disrupt the family structure

  15. [...] the reasons, I noted last week and back in February, I’m not at all convinced that the religious liberty arguments that some [...]

  16. Matt says:

    Actually the family unit as it is now defined is a very new institution; nuclear family with 2 parents and 2.5 kids. That’s not how the family structure has been for the majority of history, it has generally been an extended family clan style system.

    Anyway, my solution does not disrupt the family structure, it just deregulates marriage completely.

    Currently a gay couple can live together and pretty much do everything that they would do if their ‘marriage’ was recognized by the state, none of it is illegal. But apparently the only thing holding back the floodgates of genocide is legal recognition of gay people’s existing relationships? Forgive me if I think the scenario you describe either won’t happen or will happen regardless.

  17. DR says:

    No. The family unit has always been man-woman-children. Anything else can’t create life. Man-Grandpa-children, does not work.

  18. Matt says:

    I think you’re confusing family with procreation. While related they are not the same thing.

    Why not address the actual argument in the third paragraph of my previous comment?

[Below The Beltway is proudly powered by WordPress.]