Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

[Guest]

All Americans are equal, however, heterosexuals are more equal than others. Others being those who want Gay Marriage. That fits perfectly.

This is not true.

All Americans are equal - they can only marry one person of the opposite gender who are not their parent or sibling or uncle/aunt or first cousin.

Just because I want to marry my son does not make me lose equal rights when the law says I can't.

[carlimac]

Right there!! That is where our lines cross!! Meaning this is the point at which we totally AGREE with each other.

I don't care what you do so long as you don't infringe upon my rights.

I agree to my bones that you can do almost anything so long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights. I have a very wide spectrum but I'm sure there could be some outlying situations that this may not apply, but I think its ~98% correct.

Now lets see if YOU 'really' agree with this belief and I'll bring it back on topic. Yes....this is a test and remember: I don't care what you do so long as you don't infringe upon my rights.

1. Gay Marriage: Gay Marriage does not infringe upon my rights. Gay Marriage has no impact on me, my relationship w/ my wife, my family, or any property I own. Therefore Gay Marriage is a Liberty and a freedom that every American should have.

Agree / Disagree?

2. Racial Discrimination by businesses: Racial discrimination by businesses DOES infringe upon my rights as an American. If I need to buy supplies from a supplier and they will not sell to me based on my skin color, that infringes upon my rights as an American. It is my right as an American to be about to by products from any business regardless of how I was born. I did not choose my skin color, therefore this violates my rights.

Agree / Disagree?

Gay marriage affects my rights because it affects what public schools will be teaching my children. Schools in CA and MA at least are teaching that gay relations are healthy and normal with no option to back out of the curriculum unless you pull your children out of public school ( that are paid for by public taxation).

Gay marriage as sanctioned by the states affects the rights of children who have NO say in what gender their parents will be.

Gay marriage should never be compared to the human rights of all races. Gays may or may not be able to choose their orientation. The jury is still out. ( I'm reading a book that shows without a doubt that it can be a variable situation depending on ones faith, desire and support system to overcome it. Many with same sex attraction tendencies are happily married to the opposite gender. They can most definitely choose how they will respond to their attractions. ) But race can never be "chosen" by the individual.

[Escher462]

Gay marriage affects my rights because it affects what public schools will be teaching my children. Schools in CA and MA at least are teaching that gay relations are healthy and normal with no option to back out of the curriculum unless you pull your children out of public school ( that are paid for by public taxation).

Gay marriage as sanctioned by the states affects the rights of children who have NO say in what gender their parents will be.

Gay marriage should never be compared to the human rights of all races. Gays may or may not be able to choose their orientation. The jury is still out. ( I'm reading a book that shows without a doubt that it can be a variable situation depending on ones faith, desire and support system to overcome it. Many with same sex attraction tendencies are happily married to the opposite gender. They can most definitely choose how they will respond to their attractions. ) But race can never be "chosen" by the individual.

1. Being Gay is NOT a lifestyle choice, they are born that way. Jury has come back on that one. Are there bi-sex people yes, but we aren't talking about that.

2. You can not pray the Gay away. That form has been completely dismissed by all major mental health associations. The largest pray gay away group was Exodus Global Alliance and its founder Alan Chambers closed practice and apologized for damage he caused.

Lastly, did you choose your sexuality? Nope....neither did I and homosexuals don't either. Imagine being heterosexual and trying to pray away your sexuality. Doesn't work.

You can't choice your sexuality

You can't choose your skin color

You can't choose your disability

You can't choose your gender.

That is why this is a human rights issue. Just like the Civil Rights, Disability Rights, and Women's Rights.

[Escher462]

This is not true.

All Americans are equal - they can only marry one person of the opposite gender who are not their parent or sibling or uncle/aunt or first cousin.

Just because I want to marry my son does not make me lose equal rights when the law says I can't.

We aren't talking incest for pete sake. That isn't even comparable.

We are talking marriage. You know one of the happiest moments in your life.

[Escher462]

I'll chime in because I hear this over and over and over and I wish people would realize how breaking the foundation of society damages everybody.

No it does not and that was recently proven in the court of law in California.

Remember GW Bush v Gore at Supreme Court over the Presidential Election. Well both those lawyers teamed up and took on Prop 8 in California. Yes, that is right a Republican and Democrat teamed up.

They utterly destroyed all the arguments posed by the Defendants that claimed Gay Marriage harms society. They got your side, the ones opposed to Gay Marriage, to admit on the record that Gay Marriage does not cause harm to straight couples.

Watch the trial:

It's read word for word based on the courts transcript of the trial.

[Guest]

Feelings are not a choice; acting on them is.

[Escher462]

Insisting that the taxpayers fund something that doesn't have a substantial public benefit isn't very Libertarian, either.

How are tax payers funding marriage straight or gay? Are we paying for their wedding??? LOL!!

I believe the Iraq war didn't have a substantial public benefit AND I still had to pay for it.

[carlimac]

1. Being Gay is NOT a lifestyle choice, they are born that way. Jury has come back on that one. Are there bi-sex people yes, but we aren't talking about that.

2. You can not pray the Gay away. That form has been completely dismissed by all major mental health associations. The largest pray gay away group was Exodus Global Alliance and its founder Alan Chambers closed practice and apologized for damage he caused.

Lastly, did you choose your sexuality? Nope....neither did I and homosexuals don't either. Imagine being heterosexual and trying to pray away your sexuality. Doesn't work.

You can't choice your sexuality

You can't choose your skin color

You can't choose your disability

You can't choose your gender.

That is why this is a human rights issue. Just like the Civil Rights, Disability Rights, and Women's Rights.

Absolutely and 100% wrong!

Being gay IS a lifestyle choice. Have you not been listening in General Conference or read anything on the church's website about it? Same sex attraction may not be a choice, but gay intimacy absolutely IS a choice. It is not necessary for life. It is not necessary to marry or even have a partner if you have same gender attraction.

From reading honest, raw descriptions in this book and many other true life stories, it more often than not is related to some loss or insufficiency of human connection, male or female. Many times the authors described situations where, when those connections were made in a healthy and non-sexual way, the SSA faded almost completely. Sometimes not. But in many cases, people were able to minimize the affect SSA had in their lives to almost nil.

Here is the link to the website that goes along with the book. I highly recommend you read and study it. voice(s) of hope

The LDS approach to these issues is very unique- I'd say even more so than other Christian support groups. Many LDS agree with you that, No you can't pray it away, but by putting your faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ that this weakness can be managed and praying and earnestly working so that your focus will be not on yourself and following your lusts, it CAN be overcome.

The mental health associations were coerced and fooled into taking Gay and Lesbianism off of their lists of illnesses. It was done by vote and not by anything scientific.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Former president of APA says organization controlled by ‘gay rights’ movement

http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

I suggest you do some reading about the reality of those who have overcome it and what it really is rather than just spouting pro-gay rhetoric.

[carlimac]

No it does not and that was recently proven in the court of law in California.

Remember GW Bush v Gore at Supreme Court over the Presidential Election. Well both those lawyers teamed up and took on Prop 8 in California. Yes, that is right a Republican and Democrat teamed up.

They utterly destroyed all the arguments posed by the Defendants that claimed Gay Marriage harms society. They got your side, the ones opposed to Gay Marriage, to admit on the record that Gay Marriage does not cause harm to straight couples.

Watch the trial:

It's read word for word based on the courts transcript of the trial.

A court of law proves NOTHING! Just because a judge says it's so doesn't mean that is absolute truth.

Just wondering, are you LDS? If so, your parroting all this garbage really surprises me. You sound like you're coming straight off the comment pages of Deseret News. You can't talk common sense with any of the pro-gay marriage crowd there. They don't have any sense of how changes can reap huge problems a generation later. It's all about focusing on getting what they want right now, immediately, with absolutely no vision of how their lives affect anyone else. They even refuse to admit it's not good for kids. Just because a group of pediatricians can't see the truth before their very eyes doesn't make this all OK for kids either. Those who can't see the potential damage to kids, I think are either being threatened or being paid off by the activists to say the PC thing. Seriously, you'd have to have your head in the sand to not see what kids without fathers or mothers have to go through and admit it is very tough on them. Some turn out great like Elder Oaks and Ben Carson. They had remarkable mothers. But to say there is no difference between kids raised by L/Gs vs kids raised by a loving mother and committed, interested father ( who love each other by the way) are completely out. to. lunch!

[Just_A_Guy]

How are tax payers funding marriage straight or gay? Are we paying for their wedding??? LOL!!

Wait--whatever happened to those one thousand-odd government benefits associated with marriage that we kept hearing about back when DOMA was being evaluated?

We pay directly through marriage tax breaks (in certain brackets), marital deductions to the estate tax, Social Security and government worker survivorship benefits, ad infinitum; as well as indirectly through--for example--private-sector employers being forced to provide health insurance to complete strangers to their business, merely because those strangers happen to be in a sexual relationship with an employee.

From a libertarian standpoint, this notion of society being expected to subsidize someone else's sex life is really quite silly.

I believe the Iraq war didn't have a substantial public benefit AND I still had to pay for it.

Last time I looked, most libertarians were opposing the Iraq war.

They utterly destroyed all the arguments posed by the Defendants that claimed Gay Marriage harms society. They got your side, the ones opposed to Gay Marriage, to admit on the record that Gay Marriage does not cause harm to straight couples.

My goodness, the intellectual foundations underlying your position continue to shift. Does a right derive from the fact that something's in the constitution? From the fact that it's codified in statute? From the fact that SCOTUS--the entity with the might in our country--has held a certain way?

Or do notions of "right" and "wrong" really boil down--as you now suggest--to which side had the best lawyers? Because the one thing everyone agreed on after hearing those orals was that the Prop 8 proponents' lawyering stunk. (Of course, knowing that you're arguing in front of a judge who happens to be gay, is probably going to make you pull a few punches too.)

We aren't talking incest for pete sake. That isn't even comparable.

What's the problem, if they're consenting adults? (By the way, first-cousin marriage is legal in twenty-odd states, I believe.)

2. You can not pray the Gay away.

A growing corpus of research is telling us that you cannot pray the pedophilia away, either. But you can manage it by admitting that the actions to which the impulses lead you are morally unacceptable, and then committing to a life of self-control. And I doubt even you would argue that pedophiles deserve protected status under the Equal Rights and/or Due Process clauses.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

Right there!! That is where our lines cross!! Meaning this is the point at which we totally AGREE with each other.

A lot of different things and I'll do my best to respond, but considering I spent most of the afternoon working on a dead furnace who's water line froze . . .

1. I believe marriage is ordained by God not by man, therefore it is not in the purview of the state to do anything with marriage. Marriage resides within the realm of religion not within the realm of the state.

I reject the notion that the state should regulate marriages; if the state has the power to regulate marriages it has the power to declare who can or cannot get married. The State should not be in the business of marriage, it should be in the business of ensuring free and voluntary associations and that social contracts are upheld.

From a philosophical standpoint: what is the definition of marriage?

Marriage developed out of religion. If one goes back 200-300 years and looks for a "marriage license" one will find that they are held in the records of Churches. When the state first started recording marriage licenses, it was explicitly for the purpose of denying certain individuals the ability to marry (inter-racial marriages).

Marriage without religion is form without substance, without religion it is simply a social contract. A social contract that says 2 or more people commit to share things in common and provide in different ways for the other. As individuals have the right to voluntarily associate with whomever they please and make commitments to whomever they please this is fine by me.

However, I believe marriage is more than a social contract between 2 people. Marriage is a religious function between God and those individuals being married. One does not need the State to declare one married, one only needs a religion and a willing participant(s).

Therefore, there is no State "right to marry". Rights are granted by God or Nature and as such there is only a right to freely associate and make social contracts with whomever I please. In fact, for the State to regulate marriage means that the State is impugning on a religious freedom.

This is very obvious when one looks at Utah and polygamy. The State was impugning on the religious freedom of the Church.

What Gay Marriage is really about is benefits and legitimacy. They have an agenda that they want to force everyone else to legitimize and make it "moral" because in today's vapid intellectually bankrupt society, what is legal is "moral" and what isn't legal is "immoral".

And they want benefits. The State has it's gruby little hands in so many areas taking from one and giving to another that they want a part of the pie too. The big one is adoption; I don't believe the State should be involved in adoption, but because it is homosexuals want the ability to play family and to do that they need the state to legitimize their behavior.

As I said before, I have no problem is homosexuals want to form their own religion and get "married", but marriage has no business being a State regulated activity.

And this gets back to an issue I brought up earlier: the more State involvement, the more problems it creates than fixes. By being involved in marriages it has to make decisions about marriages; if it were not involved in marriages this wouldn't be an issue.

2. No racial discrimination by a business does not infring on your rights. How can you have a right to buy products from any business?

I'll break this down very simply with playground examples of 6-7 year olds. Johnny is playing on the playground and brought from his home a Spiderman toy. Billy brought his Dr. Octopus toy. Billy would like to trade with Johnny and play, but Johnny doesn't want to. Does Billy have the moral right to start pounding Johnny because he doesn't want to trade? Does Billy have the moral right to get 5 of his friends to coerce Johnny to trade? The answer is an obvious no.

But what if Johnny trades with Mike's Dr. Octopus toy but he won't trade with Billy? Does Billy have the moral right to pound Johnny into the ground? No, he doesn't. If Johnny doesn't want to trade, he doesn't want to trade. Now someone can talk to Johnny and tell him it would be really nice if he shared so Billy will in the future share with him.

Now what happens if someone comes in and takes Johnny's toy away from him for not sharing? You'll find right away that Johnny will throw a fit and start saying that isn't fair. And it's not, children instinctively know this. By taking away a toy for not sharing you are violating that individuals God-given right to not share. What you are really telling the child if you take away a toy for not sharing, is that the toy really isn't his and he doesn't own it.

And that is the same thing you are telling a business owner if he refuses a transaction with some individual-for whatever reason. The State is telling the business owner, "you don't really own your business, The State does" and you are violating that businesses right to not do business.

Edited January 8, 2014 by yjacket
clarification and grammer

[Vort]

1. I believe marriage is ordained by God not by man, therefore it is not in the purview of the state to do anything with marriage. Marriage resides within the realm of religion not within the realm of the state.

Life is created by God, not by the state. Your logic would suggest the law should have nothing to say about preserving or enhancing life.

I reject the notion that the state should regulate marriages; if the state has the power to regulate marriages it has the power to declare who can or cannot get married. The State should not be in the business of marriage, it should be in the business of ensuring free and voluntary associations and that social contracts are upheld.

So a woman should be allowed to marry her son. Anyone should be allowed to marry an infant. I should be allowed to marry you, regardless of whether you want to marry me.

Right?

From a philosophical standpoint: what is the definition of marriage?

Marriage developed out of religion.

I would love to see you back this statement up with anything like convincing evidence.

Government exists to regulate society. Marriage forms the very basis of human society.

[Finrock]

Good Morning Vort. I hope you've been well!:)

Government exists to regulate society. Marriage forms the very basis of human society.

Government exist to allow individuals to pursue happiness by protecting the individual's God given inalienable rights. The people provide the government the resources and tools so that the government is able to perform their function of protecting the rights of individuals. Governments derive their authority from the people. They can legitimately only exercise authority that can be and has been delegated to them by the individual. If an individual does not possess the right, this "right" cannot be delegated to the government or legitimately enforced by the government.

Marriage is within God's domain, not within the individual's and therefore not within the government's domain either. Governments have subsidized marriages because heterosexual principles are the only principles that can guarantee the survival of the species and thus the health and well-being of society. No inalienable right exist for homosexual marriage because marriage is ordained of God and He defined marriage as a union between man and woman. The Father discriminated against homosexual principles when He instituted marriage because He did not sanction homosexual marriages. God the Father only sanctioned marriages between a man and a woman. No earthly government is required for marriage to exist. No earthly government can legitimately define or regulate marriage because no individual can legitimately define or regulate marriage. Marriage preceded earthly governments and it will continue to exist long after earthly governments are done away with.

However, an inalienable right does exist for individuals to have life therefore the people can delegate to the government the ability to protect the life of individuals. Individuals also have an inalienable right to liberty and thus the people can delegate a government to protect the individual's liberty.

-Finrock

Edited January 8, 2014 by Finrock
Clarification

[applepansy]

Good Morning Vort. I hope you've been well!:)

Government exist to allow individuals to pursue happiness by protecting the individual's God given inalienable rights. The people provide the government the resources and tools so that the government is able to perform their function of protecting the rights of individuals. Governments derive their authority from the people. They can legitimately only exercise authority that can be and has been delegated to them by the individual. If an individual does not possess the right, this "right" cannot be delegated to the government or legitimately enforced by the government.

Marriage is within God's domain, not within the individual's and therefore not within the government's domain either. Governments have subsidized marriages because heterosexual principles are the only principles that can guarantee the survival of the species and thus the health and well-being of society. No inalienable right exist for homosexual marriage because marriage is ordained of God and He defined marriage as a union between man and woman. The Father discriminated against homosexual principles when He instituted marriage because He did not sanction homosexual marriages. God the Father only sanctioned marriages between a man and a woman. No earthly government is required for marriage to exist. No earthly government can legitimately define or regulate marriage because no individual can legitimately define or regulate marriage. Marriage preceded earthly governments and it will continue to exist long after earthly governments are done away with.

However, an inalienable right does exist for individuals to have life therefore the people can delegate to the government the ability to protect the life of individuals. Individuals also have an inalienable right to liberty and thus the people can delegate a government to protect the individual's liberty.

-Finrock

Good morning Finrock. I hope you're having a great day.

I agree with your first paragraph except to say that only a republic form of government is of the people and by the people as you describe.

Then the bolded. Since a republic form of government is of the people and for the people then marriage is within the domain of a republic form of government. And the government will follow God's laws as long as the people follow God's laws. God's laws trump any form of government, which has caused all sorts of persecution throughout the history of man, which is what you say in the rest of your post and I agree.

We're seeing a form of persecution now in America where the people have turned from God to the point where our government has turned from God too.

[Guest]

We aren't talking incest for pete sake. That isn't even comparable.

We are talking marriage. You know one of the happiest moments in your life.

Of course we are talking marriage - one of the happiest moments in MY life (although with the divorce rate in the USA, it looks like it is not for many others). BUT who are you to tell me that I can't marry my son?

Why is incest wrong but homosex right? There is nothing greater than the love of a mother to her own son! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY ANYBODY I WANT!

You get it now?

[Guest]

No it does not and that was recently proven in the court of law in California.

Remember GW Bush v Gore at Supreme Court over the Presidential Election. Well both those lawyers teamed up and took on Prop 8 in California. Yes, that is right a Republican and Democrat teamed up.

They utterly destroyed all the arguments posed by the Defendants that claimed Gay Marriage harms society. They got your side, the ones opposed to Gay Marriage, to admit on the record that Gay Marriage does not cause harm to straight couples.

Watch the trial:

I am talking about the harmful effects of society that is has been shown by Divorce that became law in Europe in the 1800's. You can read the short history of it here: The wife who changed history - by asking for the first divorce | Mail Online The Divorce battle in Britain went through the same path that gay marriage is going through now. With debaters for each side espousing their own views of the effect/non-effect of divorce on society.

100 years later - Yes, it takes that long for society to see how future generations are impacted by this because it isn't until you have a BIG statistical sample before you can show patterns - now you can show statistical effects of divorce on society. By then, it's too late to take the law back even if the societal cost of divorce becomes greater than the good of a battered spouse. Imagine it - there are a thousand and one statistical proof out there on the cost of divorce to society yet nobody talks about reversing divorce law... because it is entrenched in society and it has become a culture. The GOOD people now need it instead of finding every possible alternative solution that the Church teaches.

It will not be until 100 years from now before you will see the effects of gay marriage. By then it is entrenched in American culture and it will be impossible to take it back unless you go through a revolution.

THIS is the kind of thing I am fighting for. Not the short-sighted, selfish talk of today.

[Backroads]

With current courts saying what they are, I'm feeling a little for those couples who have been married... now that Utah is apparently not recognizing the marriages. If I understood the radio correctly.

[jerome1232]

With current courts saying what they are, I'm feeling a little for those couples who have been married... now that Utah is apparently not recognizing the marriages. If I understood the radio correctly.

Why? They knew they were taking advantage of a window and that their marriages might be invalidated when the state could react to the ruling. One of those couples happens to be a very old good friend of mine, I've talked to him and he knew all of that quite well.

[Just_A_Guy]

With current courts saying what they are, I'm feeling a little for those couples who have been married... now that Utah is apparently not recognizing the marriages. If I understood the radio correctly.

AFAIK, the state isn't commenting on the status of those legal marriages directly. They're just saying that where someone comes to the state asking for services or benefits on the basis of their gay marriage, the state's not going to grant the bennies until the courts speak on the issue.

Besides--we've been told, in this very thread, that gay marriage isn't supposed to cost the taxpayer anything. So gay marriage supporters should be tickled pink about this.

[yjacket]

Life is created by God, not by the state. Your logic would suggest the law should have nothing to say about preserving or enhancing life.

Glad you could join the conversation Vort.

This might seem a little pedantic, but everyone who is alive lives, but not everyone who is alive marries. One doesn't need the state's permission to create a life or to live, but one needs the state's permission to marry?

One of those things is not like the other. In one case the state is protecting something that is inherent in everyone and in the other the state is restricting something that is not inherent in everyone.

So a woman should be allowed to marry her son. Anyone should be allowed to marry an infant. I should be allowed to marry you, regardless of whether you want to marry me.

Right?

I'm flattered and you certainly have the right to ask, but no thank you I already have one. One of the defining characteristics of liberty (that is lost to many), is the right to not engage in a transaction. In order for a social contract to be in effect, all parties must enter into the contract freely and voluntarily without coercion.

You can't enter into a social contract with me simply because I refuse, but you can certainly ask. This ties back into my earlier conversation about businesses and their right to not enter into a transaction.

As far as incest goes, morally speaking it is abhorrent and I highly doubt that anyone can make a claim that a 30 year-old mother marrying a 14 year-old boy is done freely, voluntarily, and without coercion. This is due to the fact that the 14 year old has lived with his mother all his life, who has feed, clothed, disciplined, etc. I think a claim that that relationship is free, voluntary and without coercion is invalid. Now a 30 year old having a relationship with a 50 year-old is more likely to be free and voluntary, but I still wonder how free and voluntary it could really be.

Ultimately in this case, I think laws against incest are protecting the ultimate validity of social contracts and individuals liberty since they are attempting to ensure that the relationship is free from coercion.

Government exists to regulate society. Marriage forms the very basis of human society.

Wrong.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, period.

For a brief history of marriage please see

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You will see that the earliest recorded marriage:

Math of Marriage › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science)

Was a Jewish contract.

You'll find this interesting in the history of marriage:

"In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage – only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly"

And this is how it was in this country for many years. Boy & girl get together and commit to each other in a barn, done married no need for the State to provide a "license".

I'll say it again, what state licensing of Marriage is really about is benefits. It's about taking from someone and giving to another.

Edited January 9, 2014 by yjacket

[Vort]

This might seem a little pedantic, but everyone who is alive lives, but not everyone who is alive marries. One doesn't need the state's permission to create a life or to live, but one needs the state's permission to marry?

Of course. Marriage is not merely a social contract, it is a formal state. It is the foundation of all civilization. The governing body has a vested interest in its continuation.

I'm flattered and you certainly have the right to ask, but no thank you I already have one.

I'm not asking. I'm demanding. You have no right to keep me from my desired state of wedded bliss with you.

One of the defining characteristics of liberty (that is lost to many), is the right to not engage in a transaction. In order for a social contract to be in effect, all parties must enter into the contract freely and voluntarily without coercion.

What social contract? You do whatever you want, but I demand to be married to you.

What's that, you say? You think I'm redefining the very idea of marriage to suit my weird fantasy?

Exactly.

As far as incest goes, morally speaking it is abhorrent and I highly doubt that anyone can make a claim that a 30 year-old mother marrying a 14 year-old boy is done freely, voluntarily, and without coercion.

Absolutely specious. But fine, let's go your way. I'm not talking about a 14-year-old boy. I'm talking about a 16-year-old, legally empowered to decide his sexual congresses. Or, if you insist, I'm talking about an 18-year-old, legally fully adult, girl marrying her 37-year-old father and producing children with him (or the mother-son equivalent).

Ultimately in this case, I think laws against incest are protecting the ultimate validity of social contracts and individuals liberty since they are attempting to ensure that the relationship is free from coercion.

Does the state, or does the state not, have the power to enforce or prohibit marriage? Reasoning as above is utterly beside the point. You can't cherry-pick justifications for selective bans you find appropriate while simuntaneously deriding the very idea of such bans. I mean, you can, but the argument becomes pretty weak.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, period.

Why? Why protect life, liberty, and property?

Oh, that's right. To regulate society, to allow its very existence.

When you think about it, the whole concept of property ownership is highly artificial, non-intuitive, and in many ways completely one-sided. Why should I "own" this piece of land and you not be allowed on it just because my great-grandparents drove your great-grandparents off of it a hundred years ago? The role of government is to regulate exactly that sort of artificial, sometimes arbitrary, social arrangement.

You will see that the earliest recorded marriage:

Math of Marriage › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science)

Was a Jewish contract.

Yet marriage is far older than that. And in all cases, marriage was a contract between one man and one woman. I am aware of no exceptions to this rule throughout human history, until 20th-century western cultures undertook to redefine its meaning.

You'll find this interesting in the history of marriage:

"In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage – only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly"

And this is how it was in this country for many years. Boy & girl get together and commit to each other in a barn, done married no need for the State to provide a "license".

Interesting, yes. But also irrelevant. The point is not whether there was a ceremony. The point is that the government recognized and encouraged marriage. That first link you provided claimed the Sumerians were requiring marriage five thousand years ago.

I'll say it again, what state licensing of Marriage is really about is benefits. It's about taking from someone and giving to another.

I don't believe that is the purpose of licensing marriage. But whether it is or not is beside the point.

[Escher462]

A lot of different things and I'll do my best to respond, but considering I spent most of the afternoon working on a dead furnace who's water line froze . . .

1. I believe marriage is ordained by God not by man, therefore it is not in the purview of the state to do anything with marriage. Marriage resides within the realm of religion not within the realm of the state.

I reject the notion that the state should regulate marriages; if the state has the power to regulate marriages it has the power to declare who can or cannot get married. The State should not be in the business of marriage, it should be in the business of ensuring free and voluntary associations and that social contracts are upheld.

You can reject notion that the state should regulate marriages all day long, but that doesn't stop it from happening in the real World. That isn't reality! So let's debate reality.

Religion and State (Govt) and two different entities. The are separate.....you know separation of Church and State. That is what I am talking about:

- 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

- 14th Amendment: Equal Protection clause

From a religious perspective any organization, any group, any congregation may preach, believe, and enforce any marriage tradition they choose. You believe marriage is ordained by God, perfect, you are totally within your right to believe that. If a church believes Gay Marriage is a sin and refuses to marry anyone of that kind, totally fine, that is within that organizations right to do so. That is your morality and your beliefs. Go forth and be happy.

Now we go over to the Govt side of the house. In the America today, marriage is sanctioned by State and Federal Govt. There are a couple of thousand laws that protect married couples. No if's and's or but's. Fact. You may feel the govt should not be in the marriage business, fine, but doesn't change the fact that they are! It's a fact the govt is in the marriage business and your disagreements with that fact are actually irrelevant.

The debate at hand is what the Govt should do w/ respect to Gay Marriage, NOT religion. - 1st and 14th Amendments

- Laws that say govt can't discriminate based on race, gender, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

- Plus your Libertarian point of view

Without religion, I totally agree with you that marriage is a social contract. It's a social contract established by the Govt w/ laws and protections. Those laws and protections must be equally applied for all Americans, straight or gay, which is a right dictated by the 14th Amendment.

The problem I think you are having is your are mixing your religious views w/ the rights granted to us under the Constitution. They are separate. Keep them separate.

From a philosophical standpoint: what is the definition of marriage?

Marriage developed out of religion.

True, but irrelevant. In eyes of the Govt is a social contract that is separate from religious tradition.

What Gay Marriage is really about is benefits and legitimacy. They have an agenda that they want to force everyone else to legitimize and make it "moral" because in today's vapid intellectually bankrupt society, what is legal is "moral" and what isn't legal is "immoral".

No, they aren't forcing you or anyone else to legitimize it. This is about forcing our govt to apply our laws equally. You can believe Gay Marriage is completely illegitimate and immoral all day long. Nothing is forcing you to believe in anything else.

2. No racial discrimination by a business does not infring on your rights. How can you have a right to buy products from any business?

I'll break this down very simply with playground examples of 6-7 year olds. Johnny is playing on the playground and brought from his home a Spiderman toy. Billy brought his Dr. Octopus toy. Billy would like to trade with Johnny and play, but Johnny doesn't want to. Does Billy have the moral right to start pounding Johnny because he doesn't want to trade? Does Billy have the moral right to get 5 of his friends to coerce Johnny to trade? The answer is an obvious no.

It's difficult example because we don't know the value of the toys. Let's us simple real World examples.

I go into Home Depot and want to buy a snow blower for $15 when it costs $450, then Home Depot can refuse to sell it to me at that price.

If I go into Home Depot to buy a snow blower and white Johnny bought one and white Billy bought one for $450. Then black Steve tries to buy one for $450 and Home Depot refuses to sell it to because he is black.....that is a violation of HIS RIGHTS.

That is settled law. This is reality. That is America. You may think it is wrong and a violation of the business owners rights based on some fringe libertarian view....fine....your right to 'believe it'. In the real World that is deemed WRONG, illegal, and Unconstitutional. Thank God for it.....

[Just_A_Guy]

You may think it is wrong and a violation of the business owners rights based on some fringe libertarian view....fine....your right to 'believe it'. In the real World that is deemed WRONG, illegal, and Unconstitutional. Thank God for it.....

It is not unconstitutional. This has been explained to you repeatedly. It is becoming difficult to conclude other than that your persistent misrepresentations are willful.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Just_A_Guy
Spelling error.

[Dravin]

And in all cases, marriage was a contract between one man and one woman. I am aware of no exceptions to this rule throughout human history, until 20th-century western cultures undertook to redefine its meaning.

I take it you are considering polygyny to be parallel one man and one woman contracts as oppose to a one man and multiple women contract?

[Vort]

I take it you are considering polygyny to be parallel one man and one woman contracts as oppose to a one man and multiple women contract?

As far as I know (always that disclaimer), there has never been a marriage that consisted of one man and many women or of one woman and many men. Those are separate marriages. For example, when one of Brigham Young's wives divorced him, that did not dissolve all his marriages.