Answers to Homosexual Civil Marriage or Civil Unions

Friday, August 12, 2011

From a law graduate: Allegedly, "Liberty means freedom from government oppression, regulation, or tyranny. Here, we have a discrete minority population that has been singled out and excluded from a favorable status. Because they cannot marry, they lose health care rights, visitation rights, immigration rights, tax benefits, etc. If the Constitution broadly means that you have a right to send your kids to private school, teach them German, or to marry a person of a different race than you, how do you claim it doesn't also mean that you have a right to marry someone of a similar sex? "

1 comment:

Little manAugust 12, 2011 at 12:31 PM
This is the rambling, presuppositional way people of homosexual behavior in general argue. Of course, as long as they get what they want, whether it is logical or not, they'll argue as needed. It makes sense to them, but it defies all manner of legal reasoning, at the Federal level. At the State level, Senators and Delegates are so happy to be elected and "be somebody", they'll shake hands with anyone, of any perspective, whether logical or not. At the State level, even sympathy will pass a bill. But that doesn't mean the entire country will have to pay taxes to support every type of marriage definition each State passes.

A "discrete minority"? If couples of homosexual behavior can only be differentiated by a show of hands, how can it be "discrete" (easy to separate).

"Minority"? What makes a legal minority? Is a religion a minority? "Class" is the legal term to use.

"Singled out" and excluded from favorable status? They are the ONLY "minority" excluded from favorable status? What is meant by "favorable"?

"They cannot marry" - of course they can. They can marry in one of the 5 States that allow for same-sex marriage. At the Federal level, once the government allows all those mentioned rights for couples of homosexual behavior, they have to give them to all same-sex couples. That's a lot of money, going to just about every adult in the nation.

So, if the Constitution allows us to send our kids to private school, it means it also gives a right for same-sex marriage? That's a very novel argument. No comment.

Liberty means freedom from government... regulation? That would mean there are no laws, and no government, leading to no liberty for anyone.

Read an argument from people of homosexual behavior and you will find the logic of "give me what i want, because i want it."
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

INTRODUCTION:

We wouldn't know about "homosexuals", unless they told us about it.

Couples of homosexual behavior are two individual citizens who can enjoy their right to privacy in the USA. When they decide they have a right to civil marriage they might start the discussion by saying they are "different", but then demand to be treated "equally" and allowed to enter the State or Federal institution of marriage, though that was developed to support and control opposite-sex relationships, through a long history of Congressional consideration. They don't qualify, but believe it is possible to simply add themselves. They will say, it doesn't really affect anyone else.

But wait! What we see is not the singling out of homosexual relationships, but indeed all adult same-sex relationships added to the definition of marriage in some States, at the State level. From there, they now question why they are not given Federal recognition, and the old debate regarding the Constitutional powers to the State vs. Federal government rises up again.

Whether at the State level or at the Federal level, it is not logical to add them to the definition of marriage, for it invalidates that definition. It substitutes their viewpoint, leaving the idea of natural civil marriage obsolete.

People of homosexual behavior commonly make the word "homosexual" word, an adjective, into a noun, when actually the concept refers to a certain type of behavior, thus an adjective. Whether the behavior is deviant or not is a matter of morality, and the US Constitution and all State Constitutions allows for freedom of religion (or morality).

The people of homosexual behavior also tell us we are an "heterosexual", a noun. We are? Who invented this division? How can it be ascertained? Can people change over time in these two categories? Is it caused by trauma, rather than choice, or genetics?

These questions would be limited to psychological studies, were it not that they've become political. Now, couples of homosexual persuasion require us to believe them - that there's this alleged natural separation of people into heterosexual and homosexual, as nouns. But they don't tell you there are other ways of looking at the scientific data. We are actually all capable of homosexual behavior, because it is a behavior, and there are few rules against friendship.

That theoretical separation is a paradigm, and paradigms in society change with time. This paradigm will always try to become the rule; and in this case it attempts to become the rule of law. At the State level, it has gained ideological converts, as modest people are easily confused about something which cannot be a topic of open conversation at the dinner table, and because they are naturally compassionate, or permissive. But compassion and permissiveness should not override logic.

(Continued in the Footer:)