View Single Post
Old 03-27-2013, 10:03 AM   #129
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $105224
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
No, actually it hasn't. Marriage has been defined for millenia as a social contract that is recognized by Church and State. This includes a wide variety of situations, although almost exclusively involving those of opposite gender. The idea of marriage as it is practiced in present day America being the definitive form is relatively modern.
Actually, that's not true. People just up and married without the state. Even in ancient societies which were tolerant of homosexuals, marriage was recognized between a man and a woman, without state involvement.

Quote:
That is incorrect. Gay marriage is absolutely rooted in lex naturalis. To deny that is to deny that homosexual behavior exists. Most people do want to be left alone by the State. I completely understand that sentiment. Unfortunately the State intrudes into our lives, so the State is obligated to treat her citizens with equality.
Then you don't understand natural law. You take man back to a state of nature and there's actually very few natural rights. Sodomy isn't the basis for marriage because it doesn't forward survival of the race. Historically, children were needed for survival and it was considered wealth. Marriage was not based on love but on economic survival and furthering the race. Hence it's not part of nature aka right reasoning for survival.* It's merely a preference.

In the meantime you want the state to "treat her citizens with equality" meaning the arrangement is identical to hetersexual marriage when it isn't. You make cultural Marxist argument here which is demands equal results via special rights set by the state. Instead of just getting the state back out of it as it once was.


Quote:
I hold that opinion because it appears self evident.
If it were self-evident then millenia hasn't seen it revealed your way. It's not self-evident at all—if there is actually such a thing. If it were, then there'd be no argument.


* this does not apply to people who are unable to procreate because they have a disability or due to artificial means....it means as it exists in state of nature.
__________________
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — James Madison
Posts: 55,774
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote