Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[MrFun]

My point is that this double talk about not hating gays while wanting to deny them their rights is nothing but a facade.

[notyoueither]

I suggest that we retire homosexuals from the post of United States Whipping Boy and appoint the S&M crowd instead. Aside from being far creepier at this stage in the game, they'd probably enjoy it.

[Ben Kenobi]

My point is that this double talk about not hating gays while wanting to deny them their rights is nothing but a facade.

Uh, what part of 'not a constitutionally guaranteed right' aren't you getting.

Rights are exercised by individuals, and last I checked it takes two to get married. You have a right to freedom of association, and by all means, any infringement on that right is a violation of your natural rights. That I am at present unmarried isn't a violation of my freedoms or my rights, even though I very much want to get married. Same with you. Now you can be upset that the government doesn't approve of your present relationship, or grant it the same status as marriage, but that's not the problem with the state, that's a problem with you. The state has the obligation to protect and preserve marriage laws, this includes laws against bigamy and polygamy and gay marriage, and consanginuity and all sorts of other things, just like the state has an obligation to defend the state and has control over immigration.

This is why this isn't a rights issue.

Feel free to call me a bigot or whatever, but that's the truth. Constitutionally the federal government has an obligation to preserve marriage. You might not like that, but what's the alternative? Are you willing to permit sharia and honour killings in order to get what you desire? This is the problem, Mr. Fun. You would tear down that which protects you.

Mr Fun, our disagreement is over certain fundamental principles, such as what constitutes a right? What is the role of the government? I believe that rights are fundamentally negative. They provide for the protection of each other by denying the state the right to infringe upon them. You see the state as the guarantor of rights, and should provide for people to ensure that they are protected.

These are irreconcilable views, and until that gets sorted out we aren't going to agree.

You label my position a facade, then that demonstrates to me that you have not actually considered what I have to say to any reasonable degree. This is a shame. I believe I have considered your position, indeed I once held your position not that long ago.

This is what you don't get, Mr. Fun. I've been on your side of the fence. I do not hate that person that I was then, which is why I do not hate you. I believed that gay marriage was ok, but my opinion on the matter has changed.

[Berzerker]

Constitutionally the federal government has an obligation to preserve marriage.

an otherwise decent post up to that point, but...

huh?

The word "marriage" doesn't appear in the Constitution, much less an actual power to "preserve" it.

[giblets]

an otherwise decent post up to that point, but...

huh?

The word "marriage" doesn't appear in the Constitution, much less an actual power to "preserve" it.

Yeah... I didn't think it made any sense either.

[MrFun]

Feel free to call me a bigot or whatever, but that's the truth. Constitutionally the federal government has an obligation to preserve marriage. You might not like that, but what's the alternative?

This does not mean that marriage is exclusively a religious sacrament. You can get married outside of religion. And this is your twisted reason for denying gays this right - on the idea that somehow, the Catholic Church and other religions will be forced to marry gay couples when in fact, gay couples, like straight couples, can get married outside of religion.

And the alternative is to recognize that marriage is a basic right. One of the ways that whites denied the humanity of blacks in nineteenth century (even for a short time after slavery was abolished) was to deny blacks any legal recognition of their marriages - yes, marriages even between one black person and another black person.

If marriage is NOT a right, then there was no reason for government to step in to legally recognize marriages between two black persons. Nor was there any reason for US Supreme Court to rule in the Loving vs Virginia case that prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional - because based on your ridiculous claim, there was no right being violated.

You and others deny that gays are your equal as humans by denying them their right to marry in which their is mutual romantic love and a desire for life-long commitment.

[MrFun]

And how the fvck would giving gays the equal right to marry, destroy marriage, and thus undo the government's responsibility to preserve marriage??

[giblets]

Ben wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to have sex with men and marry them, thus destroying his ability to marry a woman.

[MrFun]

He doesn't have abilities in a lot of areas.

[Ben Kenobi]

The word "marriage" doesn't appear in the Constitution, much less an actual power to "preserve" it.

Then why were Mormons barred from becoming a state until they stopped doing polygamy?

[Ben Kenobi]

This does not mean that marriage is exclusively a religious sacrament.

Uh, I believed I argued just the opposite.

You can get married outside of religion.

Absolutely. It's one of the powers of the federal government. I believe I was making that argument.

And this is your twisted reason for denying gays this right - on the idea that somehow, the Catholic Church and other religions will be forced to marry gay couples when in fact, gay couples, like straight couples, can get married outside of religion.

Where did I make this argument? I am arguing that if the laws were to change to benefit you, then quite a few things would also change. Such as accommodation for Sharia and for polygamy. Do you want that, Mr. Fun? Do you want Sharia law to obtain legal protection in the United States?

And the alternative is to recognize that marriage is a basic right.

There are problems with this, such as Sharia. If marriage is a basic right, how do you deal with polygamy?

One of the ways that whites denied the humanity of blacks in nineteenth century (even for a short time after slavery was abolished) was to deny blacks any legal recognition of their marriages - yes, marriages even between one black person and another black person.

So you are saying that gay people are confined to slavery? You just admitted that the comparison is entirely invalid.

If marriage is NOT a right, then there was no reason for government to step in to legally recognize marriages between two black persons.

Again, we get back to the fundamental dispute here. Rights are not guaranteed by the government. Marriage isn't a right because it is guaranteed by the government. Natural rights exist in opposition to government as a constraint on the government. This is why marriage isn't a natural right.

Same with immigration, FWIW. If Immigration were a natural right, then the current tie between immigration and marriage would make sense. But immigration isn't and neither is marriage.

Nor was there any reason for US Supreme Court to rule in the Loving vs Virginia case that prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional - because based on your ridiculous claim, there was no right being violated.

Actually, the US Supremes could rule this because marriage is in the federal jurisdiction.

You and others deny that gays are your equal as humans by denying them their right to marry in which their is mutual romantic love and a desire for life-long commitment.

Actually, you have a right to freedom of association that's got sweet diddly poo to do with marriage. This is a bull**** argument. If you are arguing that you cannot express such relationships except through marriage, then that speaks volumes. Again, the problem isn't the state, the problem is you.

If marriage is a natural right, how do you justify limitations based on age? Consanguinity? Polygamy? Explain this, Mr. Fun.

[giblets]

There is something seriously wrong with the brain that produced this:

Then why were Mormons barred from becoming a state until they stopped doing polygamy?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then why were Mormons barred from becoming a state until they stopped doing polygamy?

It's called blackmail . I don't believe any thing in the Constitution requires the federal government to grant statehood. What the government did not violate the letter of the law, but it quite likely violated the spirit of it.

[giblets]

I wonder if Ben has ever heard of the Missouri Compromise? Anyone who has studied US history knows about it. And if they're not retarded, they would infer from it that politics played a role in whether states were admitted and it wasn't simply a matter of whether the proposed state would comply with the Constitution.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's called blackmail . I don't believe any thing in the Constitution requires the federal government to grant statehood. What the government did not violate the letter of the law, but it quite likely violated the spirit of it.

The point being that constitutionally the US runs on top of English common law. Common law definition of marriage is one man and one woman. That's what the mormons ran into 150 years ago, and what the sharia folks and the gay folks are running into now.

If you want to change this, fine. But there are some pretty serious and wide ranging consequences.