Marriage isn't a human right

So it all comes down to a govt agent's stamp of approval. And what does this govt agent base his/her decision on? If one looks at the many govt agents issuing marriage licenses to gays, one can find this question at the heart of their decisions.

 

Semantics take a back seat to the actual effect of law. People are concerned primarily about how the laws really affect them. In essence, it is legal for two men or two women to marry in America. And that's what matters.

BTW, we disagree; but I'm no 'lawyer'... so you may have a point.

 

No, sorry. It is you who are grasping. You do not have to earn the right to marry, you do not have to qualify for it by passing a test, only meet certain criteria. That's an important difference. Once married, it cannot be revoked by the state even if you screw it up real bad and break all of the rules. Not so with driving. Only the spouse can sue for divorce. In addition, the courts would disagree with you. You might want to read some of my other posts on this. But let's say for arguments sake that it is a privilege. Are you saying that it should be reserved for some and not others.....based on some arbitrary criteria?? That's where you're going with this right?

 

How can I have lost the argument when no one can give me an example of a Natural Right for which someone needs government permission to exercise...?

 

Fishing and Hunting

 

I think people are your premise to be absurd overall. They aren't going to take you anymore seriously than they already have.

Are YOU for gay marriage, or not? If you ARE against it, all I can tell you from where I sit, is that you are losing. That is reality.

- - - Updated - - -

True and brilliant.

 

On your own land, where? In what State?

 

Is it a privilege to labor to provide for oneself and his or her family? Govt licenses are required in many professions. Is it a privilege to speak against a President's policies, or about politics in general, or is it a right? Because govt restricts speech, and licenses are required for various forms of it.

Name another govt license that requires the govt agent issuing it to make an observation on the sexes of applicants, combine those sex determinations in order to form a sexual orientation determination, then use that to approve or deny the license.

 

Your question proves my point. "Gay Marriage" is not "marriage." If you tell a stranger two people you know are getting "married" they would most likely assume you are talking about a male and female. Therefore "gay marriage" is different than "marriage." Homosexual people can live together, go through a "ceremony" of their choosing and contract with each-other for legal benefits now without the government sanctioning the relationship. The "gay marriage" movement seeks FORCED acceptance and recognition from society, as the movement seeks special PRIVLDIGES for homosexuals. It really is that simply. No, I am not for a group demanding FORCED recognition and EXTRA privileges for themselves...

 

LOL!! That isn't anywhere near true.

 

Ah huh... As I pointed out, government only restricts free speech when literally the person does not own the "mic," or the venue. You can say whatever you like in your own home, or on property you own as long as your speech does not directly put someone else in harm (can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowed theater if there is no fire regardless if you own the theater, or not). Now I am against "licensing" for professions as I am a free market capitalist. Still I would prefer the government "certify" people instead of issuing them licensees. That way a doctor can be "certified" that he has in fact graduated from medical school and is proficient in medicine. If he then did something for which his licenses could be suspended, then perhaps he should go to jail instead… In any case, a "license" is government permission. As I stated, I would prefer government certifications. Then I could chose of my own free will if I want to hire a particular doctor, or not regardless of any government permission that person has to freely exercise their skill set.

 

For most, you have to use the term "gay marriage" for them to understand what you are talking about which proves my point. If you ask most on the street if they think "marriage should be legal?" the general response would be "isn't it already?"

 

As you know, either you or the spouse can file for a marriage revocation, if either of you so choose. And in the end, it is the state that will revoke your license. So contrary to what you say, the state can revoke your license when you screw up.

To your other question, all qualified privileges are reserved for some and not others ... based on some form of criteria. Is that not true? For example, for thousands of years marriage has been commonly known as the union between a man and woman. So whatever homosexuality is, it is not equivalent to the institution of marriage, as known throughout history; and therefore, it is an aberration of government to espouse that the two are equivalent in nature, and to treat them as such.

 

Local Church of Christ here in conservative central Texas, frequently preforms same sex wedding ceremonies without any license. You only need a license if you want the tax breaks and governmental entitlements. Your freedom and right to marry doesn't require government permission. Only qualification to the tax breaks and governmental entitlements requires government permission.

 

"Marriage" is a legal "franchise" for lack of a better word. If two people are not "legally married" they are not married as far as the government is concerned. People can say anything they like, but that doesn't make it so. The "gay marriage" debate is not whether two homosexual people should be allowed to have some sort of ceremony and live together. The debate is whether the government should call such a union "legal marriage."

 

same was true of inter-racial marriage....

 

Except marriage is a basic civil right

 

But "marriage" has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman...

 

There is no such thing as natural rights. Only legal rights

- - - Updated - - -

Every state. You can legally use a "land owner permit" but it is still regulated.

 

"A basic civil right" that NEEDS a "license" or permission of government!

 

Yep. You can lobby to abolish governmental marriage if you want, but in the meantime marriage remains a basic civil right. Loving V Virginia.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. It's been between one man and many women, one woman and many men, one man and one man, one woman and one woman etc..........

 

The debate between "Legal Rights" and "Natural Rights" is one of philosophy for those that don't understand. All "Legal Rights" must stem form "Natural Rights" to be successful, otherwise the "Legal Right" violates "Natural Law" and is therefore doomed to fail. We see that truth playing out right before our eyes with Obamacare. Obamacare violates Natural Law in many ways as it violates Human Nature and therefore will NEVER succeeded no matter what.

As fare as hunting permits to hunt on one's own land is concerned, that is a violations of one's rights. No such government permission was needed when this country was founded, and therefore any such permission REQURIED later is a usurpation of individual rights. Look into the history of such needed permission. You will probably find a Progressive!

 

There is no such thing as natural rights or natural law. Only legal rights and constitutional law(speaking of just the US)

 

Okay. I suppose as people get to know more and more gay people... they'll be more aware that "marriage" might pertain to two people who are homosexual, not only heterosexuals. I'm gay, and even I have to make adjustments for that. But it's no big deal whatsoever.

 

You mean as society is FORCED to accept special privileges for homosexuals they might reconsider as they are FORCED to redefine the word "marriage?"