Santorum in defense of his beliefs - It is impossible for a law to be intolerant

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

The state does have the right to regulate marriage, because marriage is a social institution recognised by the state.

Agreed, but as MtG has pointed out, the state does have cause to be involved with regards to inheritance, the transfer of property, etc, since these are not strictly social institutions.

Sodomy is quite different, as sex between two men.

I'm not one of these people who believes in "gay marriage" since "marriage" has, as far as I know, always been between men and women. But aside from that aspect, I see no relevant difference between heterosexual and homosexual behavior wrt government.

This right to intervene wrt marriage means that bigamy and polygamy fall outside the 'privacy' concerns with sodomy, hence Santorium's arguments fall apart.

Why? Let's deal with the issue and leave marriage out of it since that is just a social contract. Why is homosexuality and polygamy different wrt "privacy"? I think Santorum was right when he lumped homosexuality together with bygamy and polygamy, one of his mistakes was that he didn't begin his argument with heterosexual sex. If adults have a privacy right to engage in heterosexual sex (which he undoubtedly accepts), then there's no valid reason to claim adults don't have the right to engage in homosexual sex, bygamy, and polygamy. But he ignored the sex engaged in by the majority...including it would have only served to highlight that he was advocating unequal treatment under the law.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Lincoln -

Isn't it obvious? He's a catholic and believes he can use violence to force the rest of us to behave in accordance with his religious beliefs (at least when he can get away with it).



He gave up that right when he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the legal argument he supports is unconstitutional.



WTF? Are you nuts? He advocates punishing people for having sex without his approval and you accuse his victims of intolerance?



So he can express his opinion but they can't?



Is Santorum being arrested for expressing his opinion? No, but he wants them arrested.

You seem to mix up "opinions" with actions. Where have gays been denied their opinions here? And where did Santorum advocate that gays be arested for their opinions? The thought police are the gays. They are the ones trying to force him out of office because his opinions differ from theirs.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Traditional definition"? Don't you mean biblical (NT)? Face it, the reason bygamy and polygamy are illegal is because "Christians" decided to use violence to impose their religion on the rest of us, even some people who claim to be Christians - the Mormons.

Founding Fathers were Christians, hence the definition of marriage sustained by the state.

However, we have kept these traditions since the founding fathers, so what does that say about the United States?

Tradition is the correct term, what the state has chosen to abide by for the last 230 years even though the state cannot favour Christianity.

Are there not many non-Christians who get married? If marriage were a solely Christian tradition, then how does it make sense for non-Christians to be married?

Freedom. It's not about approving of traditions, it's about allowing them because people are free. I don't approve of people praying in public for the reason Jesus condemned the practice, but it should be allowed in the name of freedom.

The state has the right to regulate marriage. In 'recognising' polygamy, this would imply the approval of the state, since polygamous relationships would also received tax benefits, etc.

It is one thing to argue that the state should allow, but in the case of marriage, to allow is no difference from approval.

Secondly, there is no 'right to be married' within the context of the constitution, at least not in the case of bigamy and polygamy.

LoA:

Marriage and traditions like Channuka, should all be accepted because they are consensual and they do not infringe on the rights of others to practice their own religion.

There is a large difference between Channuka and marriage. Two seperate issues. The state cannot regulate who practices Channuka under freedom of religion, whereas, the state takes upon itself the right to recognise marriage.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

There is a large difference between Channuka and marriage. Two seperate issues. The state cannot regulate who practices Channuka under freedom of religion, whereas, the state takes upon itself the right to recognise marriage.

It has no right to recognise a marriage. The marriage is between individuals and their church. By recognising the catholic marriage, the state is leavaing the secular sector and moving onto the non secular sector.

[Berzerker]

Lincoln -

You seem to mix up "opinions" with actions. Where have gays been denied their opinions here?

Who said they were denied their opinions?

And where did Santorum advocate that gays be arested for their opinions?

Jeez, he advocates they be arrested for having sex, not for having opinions. Got any other strawmen?

The thought police are the gays. They are the ones trying to force him out of office because his opinions differ from theirs.

Being forced from office is not being arrested which he advocates for them (and they haven't said he needs to be removed from office, only that he resign his leadership position in the Senate). If anything, they are being more tolerant than he is.

Obiwan -

Founding Fathers were Christians, hence the definition of marriage sustained by the state.

Some were, some weren't. There was no federal law against bygamy or polygamy until the 1870's when "Christians" could no longer harass the Mormons because they went west. That's when they told Congress to outlaw polygamy and the SCOTUS defended the law by taking the absurd position that the religious freedom clause of the 1st Amendment only protected religious thought. Hell, even communist countries couldn't prevent religious folks from thinking about their religions.

However, we have kept these traditions since the founding fathers, so what does that say about the United States?

No we haven't, there was no tradition concerning marriage written into the Constitution.

Tradition is the correct term, what the state has chosen to abide by for the last 230 years even though the state cannot favour Christianity.

When "Christians" outlawed polygamy (Mormonism), wasn't that favoring "traditional Christianity" over Mormonism?

Are there not many non-Christians who get married?

Yes, but they can't marry outside the bounds established by "Christians" either.

If marriage were a solely Christian tradition, then how does it make sense for non-Christians to be married?

Marriage preceded Christianity.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

The state has the right to regulate marriage. In 'recognising' polygamy, this would imply the approval of the state, since polygamous relationships would also received tax benefits, etc.

The state has the power to regulate the results of a marriage, i.e., property, inheritance, etc., not decide who can or cannot marry.

It is one thing to argue that the state should allow, but in the case of marriage, to allow is no difference from approval.

So Paul actually approved of slavery when he allowed it?

Secondly, there is no 'right to be married' within the context of the constitution, at least not in the case of bigamy and polygamy.

Yes there is, the 9th Amendment and the requirement that we are treated equally under the law. You cannot argue that two people have the right to get married and not 3 or 4. That is giving the 2 people a special right denied the 3rd and 4th, etc...

[Lincoln]

Berzeker, they are trying to have him removed from his leadership position because he voiced his opinion. There is no escape from that conclusion regardless of semantics about what an "office" is. They are punishing him for expressing his views. Like I said, they are playing the part of thought police here.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


It has no right to recognise a marriage. The marriage is between individuals and their church. By recognising the catholic marriage, the state is leavaing the secular sector and moving onto the non secular sector.

Perhaps, but the reality is that the state does recognize marriage in various non-religious ways (tax treatment, rights of survivorship, etc.). You can certainly argue that these should not exist, but they've become rather entrenched in society. It seems unlikely that people would stand for the removal of these "issues".

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Perhaps, but the reality is that the state does recognize marriage in various non-religious ways (tax treatment, rights of survivorship, etc.). You can certainly argue that these should not exist, but they've become rather entrenched in society. It seems unlikely that people would stand for the removal of these "issues".

If they dont stand for these issues then I hope they dont stand for individual rights and freedoms.

[Lincoln]

Well I'm off to bed. I am sleeping alone so I don't think that Santorum can get me.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


If they dont stand for these issues then I hope they dont stand for individual rights and freedoms.

Most people don't to the same degree you do. That's why libertarians are a fringe group pretty much everywhere in the world.

And for the record, I'm not debating your position, just pointing out some major stumbling blocks.

[Straybow]

I think some of you are deliberately misconstruing Santorum's "anything." His examples were covering sexual activity, and his "anything" was just a polite way of not enumerating bestiality, necrophilia and other sexual acts he may not have felt comfy bringing up.

What about kiddie porn and other "victimless" crimes? We've already got a ruling that manipulated or generated images of children in sex acts are not covered by laws intended to ban all child pornography.

If laws can become unenforcible in sufficiently private circumstaces then the gate does open for non-sexual privacy issues as well: drugs would be the next plateau on that slippery slope.

In any case, the "anything" is limited by context, as are most uses of "any," "all," and other inclusive pronouns.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berzerker:

Thanks for giving me the date...

I'll see if I can't find out some more about the current law against polygamy. I do believe the defense is rooted in the Constitution.

So Paul actually approved of slavery when he allowed it?

We dealt with this already. How is encouraging slaves to leave their masters an endorsement of slavery?

Paul had a mission to build up the church, no sense in allowing the church to be crushed with actively freeing the slaves.

If he were to free the slaves, the slaveowners would simply get more. If he can convert the slaveowners, then slavery will end.

Yes there is, the 9th Amendment and the requirement that we are treated equally under the law. You cannot argue that two people have the right to get married and not 3 or 4. That is giving the 2 people a special right denied the 3rd and 4th, etc...

You quote the ninth amendment?

One of the defenses of monogamy is that it ensures equality for women. Most bigamous and polygamous relationships exist to the detriment of the woman.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.law.upenn.edu/alumnijournal/Spring2002/feature3/page4.html

"The government, on the other hand, focused directly on polygamy. Attorney General Charles Devens stressed the individual and social inequities he claimed were inherent in a form of marriage that sacrificed the sensibilities of women at the behest of priests."

Interesting that the argument has not changed.

[korn469]

obiwan18

Sorry, not what I meant by sexual practice. Practice implies action. You will always have lusts to deal with that you should not act upon.

while you may differentiate between practice and thought, Matthew chapter 5 really doesn't, simply by looking at a person with lust you have committed adultery in Jesus's view, this is thought not action, and throughout the chapter it centers on thoughts such as anger in Matt 5:22, lust in Matt 5:28, revenge in Matt 5:39, hating your enemies in Matt 5:44

while the state doesn't have the power to truly enforce thought crimes (at least not yet), Jesus still says that they will result in going to hell, so saying that only sin gets punished (from a religious view) when a person acts on it isn't correct, it is when a person thinks it, but this is probably fodder for another thread

Christianity helps you to deal with this, to understand why you act in the way that you do. When you learn this, you will gain greater control over your actions.

lol I could see a person praying, "Oh Lord, why do I lust after men?" with god responding
"Don't you see my child, you are gay."

i'm joking, but I have a question, do you believe that people are born gay, or is it something else? do you think that they are demon possesed or at least under the influence of satan when they engage in gay acts? i'm just curious about your stand on this issue, i personally believe that people are born gay, that it is something biological

Lincoln

Well I'm off to bed. I am sleeping alone so I don't think that Santorum can get me

actually since you don't have a wife and children (according to the gist of your post) you are tearing away at the social fabric of our society! how dare you!

as for everything else you said, i think Berzerker's responces were right on target

Kontiki

the reality is that the state does recognize marriage in various non-religious ways (tax treatment, rights of survivorship, etc.). You can certainly argue that these should not exist, but they've become rather entrenched in society.

agreed, though i think the implications of this is that the state controls which marriage rights it respects, and not the actual ceremony, i mean if a person had Captain Stubing of the love boat (who since he is an actor, has no powers vested in him, and can't legally marry a person) marry him to 4 different women simultaneously yet he only claimed one legally, would a SWAT team really have the authority to come and arrest him?

Straybow

His examples were covering sexual activity, and his "anything" was just a polite way of not enumerating bestiality, necrophilia and other sexual acts he may not have felt comfy bringing up

Actually he did bring up bestiality before the interviewer cut him off, he said man on dog, however even if bestiality, necrophilia etc. was legal, I doubt the number of people of doing it would increase. I mean it isn't the fact screwing a corpse is illegal that I don't do it, instead it is the fact that it is digusting, gross, icky, nasty, sickening, etc. If a person really gets off on giving some stiffy to a stiff, I bet that they are already doing it, and the law won't prevent this. However, homosexual acts between two consenting adults isn't anything like bestiality or necrophilia, because animals can't consent since they lack sentience and neither can corpses. Though, if we did encounter another species that was sentient why shouldn't some hot consensual interspecies action be legal?