I'm not trying to frustrate you with excessive language, but it is important for me to point out that the statement you made contains no argument, so there is nothing for me to address here. You like using the word "right", but given your context, I doubt you really understand what the word means.
Right (noun): a just claim or title, whether legal or moral.
Given the definition, there are only a couple interpretations for your statement "Nobody has a right to be married"...
1. You could be saying, "Nobody has the legal right to be married." I'm willing to assume that this is not what you were trying to say, as this would be absurd.
2. You could be saying, "Gays do not have the legal right to be married." If this is your argument, then I guess we have found a point of agreement given the ridiculous obviousness of the statement.
3. Lastly, you could be saying, "Gays do not have the MORAL right to be married." If this is what you meant, then it is important for you to know that you cannot prove a proposition just by stating the proposition itself. You must actually prove the legitimacy of your proposition using the logically consistent application of ethical principles proving WHY gays do not have this moral right.
All you have done is say, "Marriage is not a right." Again, this is not an argument without first proving that the government gives us our rights, which it does not since that would mean in the event of a government collapse, we would no longer have rights. This fails on the grounds of logic and consistency.
The only way for a contract to be valid in our society is if it has a legally binding effect. Otherwise, it's just make believe scribble on a piece of paper. Saying, "there is no force being used to stop gays from marrying" is incorrect because gays cannot legally get married! It's like living in 1919 and saying, "there's no force preventing a woman from voting." There was force... it was illegal!
Yes, not endorsing something and preventing something are two very different things. I am racking my brain trying to understand how you think the government is not preventing gays from getting married seeing as there are active laws PREVENTING gays from marrying each other.
I can see how on the surface you could think there is no force, but you really need to remove your blinders here. The government IS using its force to enact laws preventing gays from legally marrying. However, there is no reason for the government to use direct force to prevent gay marriage since there is literally NO WAY for a gay couple to skirt the law and still be married.
IF there was a way to skirt the law (which there is not), these gays would be charged with breaking the law and either arrested or fined after their marriage was nullified. The only reason the government doesn't use direct force to stop gay marriage is because they dont have to. Instead, they simply refuse to grant a license which is much easier than using a gun.
So they won't be arrested if they play make believe, pretend they are married and throw a wedding party? I sure hope not.
The federal government interfering with two individual's moral right to enter into a voluntary contract that has NOTHING to do with anyone else is a use of force.
Other than a gay person putting a gun to your head and demanding that you accept his/her lifestyle, please demonstrate how ONE gay person has ever forced you accept their lifestyle. People have the moral and legal right to make decisions that you may personally disagree with. This does not mean that they are FORCING you to accept their choices.
(As a matter of clarity, it might help for you to define what you mean by "accept")
The reason I say this is because you will make a statement, I will make a rebuttal, then you will dismiss my rebuttal without pointing out the holes in my logic. You may have responded to some of my points, but only a few of them relative to everything I have put out. I take the time to address each and every one of your points line by line. If you will not afford me this same respect, then this is not a real debate and we are both wasting a lot of time. This is either an examination of ideas or it's not.
See, this is what I'm talking about. Every statement you posted above is false and I will explain why.
By "rights" I mean legal rights as should be obvious. Your legal rights are spelled out in the Constitution. For example, freedom of speech is a right. There is no such right with regard to marriage. Now one could make arguments based on other rights such as freedom of association or anti-discrimination laws. This would then become an issue for the Court to decide. But as it stands, marriage isn't a right. Perhaps if you should learn a little about our legal system before posting nonsense.
As far as the morality of the situation. I have made no effort to make such an argument. The only concern I would have in this area is that I believe there would be negative ramifications in the form of how people view marriage. Think of marriage as a product. There are things that make a product more attractive and things that make it less attractive. In particular there is a concept known as dilution. This is when a knock off product is introduced that is of inferior quality. In this case one can argue that their product image has been tarnished in the minds of the consumers by an inferior product. I fear that if traditional marriage is redefined to include unions that many people feel are unholy or unhealthy (regardless of whether or not they in fact are) it will have the effect of diluting the significance of marriage. Now, does Gay marriage actually change traditional marriage in a way that can be measured in a lab, of course not. Are people wrong in seeing marriage as less legitimate if it includes Gays, probably. But when dealing with people and public perception, logic isn't necessarily the determining factor.
As far as contracts, this is a silly argument for a few reasons. 1) The key terms of a marriage are not enforced by the Court in the first place. No Court enforces the commitment to love each other or even to be faithful. 2) The only things the Court does enforce deal with property and child custody - neither of these are specific to marriage. 3) Gays certainly can enter into legally binding contracts independently of marriage. About the only thing they would have trouble doing is being on the same health care policy and that is because the health care laws are unfair.
As far as your comments on the Government using force to prevent Gays from living as spouses, your comments are simply nonsense. Are you saying that if the next time a Gay marriage initiative is on the ballot, everyone who sits home instead of voting is using force against Gays to prevent them from living as they wish?
Really, I think you are quite confused on the question of what constitutes force. Right now gay marriage is legal in some States. Others, say they will not recognize these marriages. Now how exactly does a State's refusal to recognize something translate into that State using force to prevent it? In fact, our state had a ballot initiative to amend the Constitution to outlaw both gay marriage and civil unions. I voted AGAINST this initiative. But even if it would have passed, I don't see any actual police action to stop them from doing as they wish. However, I welcome examples if you have any.
"Saying, "there is no force being used to stop gays from marrying" is incorrect because gays cannot legally get married!"
This is circular reasoning and it is false. Marriage is nothing more than a recognition from the state. If a college refuses to recognize you as an expert in a given field is that college using force to prohibit you from being an expert? To refuse to recognize something is not the same as to prohibit it.
"IF there was a way to skirt the law (which there is not), these gays would be charged with breaking the law and either arrested or fined after their marriage was nullified. The only reason the government doesn't use direct force to stop gay marriage is because they dont have to."
Absolute rubbish. Can you give recent examples of the State using the power of law enforcement to stop any Gays from living as spouses or calling themselves married?
If you want examples of Gays wanting to force their lifestyle on others here you go.
A collection of 'gay' organizations has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a Massachusetts lawsuit, claiming they have every right to teach their doctrine to grade-school
students.
Parental rights, according to the brief filed this week, "have never meant that a parent can demand prior notice and the right to opt a child out of mere exposure to ideas in the public that a parent disapproves of."
That includes, according to the brief, religious or any other ideas.
The new brief was filed in a Massachusetts District Court lawsuit by Lexington parent
David Parker, whose civil rights case is pending, by the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, Massachusetts Teachers Association, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and others.
"The amici organizations urge this court to grant the
school defendants' motion to dismiss because the scope of the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children, as asserted by the plaintiffs, would undermine
teaching and learning in the Lexington public
schools," the brief alleges.
"Why are all these groups – especially the national groups – so interested in a parent's right to decide what moral issues are taught to his children by adults in
elementary, especially regarding homosexuality," asked Brian Camenker, president of
MassResistance.
That group said it is a "pro-family action center for Massachusetts" which equips citizens to fight attacks on freedoms, constitutional government, children and parental rights.
"This is outrageous and very frightening. They must see David Parker's case as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children," he said.
He said the "true agenda" of the sponsors of the brief is apparent in the demands that the state has a legal obligation to teach homosexual issues to young children in the public schools – and parents do not even have the right to remove their kids or be notified.
Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his request – and the school's refusal – to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his 6-year-old kindergartner. That despite a state law requiring such notification.
The incident made news around the nation and even Gov. Mitt Romney agreed with Parker.
However, in April 2006 the same school presented the book "King and King," about homosexual romances and marriage, to second-graders and again refused to provide notification.
Parker and other parents followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit, alleging school officials and the town were refusing to follow state law.
Just days later, David Parker's now-first-grade son, Jacob, was beaten up at Estabrook Elementary in Lexington, officials said. MassResistance said a group of 8-10 kids surrounded him and took him out of sight of "patrolling aides," then pummeled and beat him.
Joining David and Tonia Parker in the lawsuit were Joseph and Robin Wirthlin. They allege district officials and staff at
Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about an immoral lifestyle, circumventing parental responsibilities.
The school is claiming a state law permitting parents to pull their children applies only to classes in which such sensitive topics are the main focus, and the books promoting homosexuality were not the main focus.
In Massachusetts, the 'gay' groups said: "If a parent chooses to have his or her child attend the public schools, that child has a right to a broad and high quality public
education, not one constrained by individual parental beliefs."
The Massachusetts arguments were remarkably similar to a recent European court's conclusion.
The European Human Rights Court just a few weeks ago concluded in a case involving similar objections that parents do not have an "exclusive" right to lead their children's
education and any parental "wish" to have their children grow up without adverse influences "could not take priority over compulsory school attendance."
That
court said a German family had no right to provide homeschooling for their children.
In the case that originated in Germany, homeschooling parents Fritz and Marianna Konrad argued for that right because they said Germany's compulsory school attendance endangered their children's religious upbringing and promotes teaching inconsistent with the family's Christian faith.
But the court conclude, "The parents' right to
education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience." "The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society," the European ruling said.
Or this
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public
school, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for
schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…"
David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of
school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at
Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.
"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of
schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group
Mass Resistance.
It also
is making available background information about the lengthy dispute.
David Parker in handcuffs
"In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is 'reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.' According to Wolf, this means teaching 'diversity' which includes 'differences in sexual orientation.'
"In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers' only options are (1) send their kids to a private schools, (2) home-
school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the
school Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing – that if they can't be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the U.S. Constitution?" the organization said.
Lawyers for the families said they already had planned an appeal of the judge's opinion.
But Wolf's claims followed very closely the reasoning submitted earlier in a brief by Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, Massachusetts Teachers Association, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and other advocates for the "gay" agenda.
Earlier, Mass Resistance President Brian Camenker had wondered why such national groups were "so interested in a parent's right to decide what moral issues are taught to his children by adults in
elementary, especially regarding homosexuality."
"They must see David Parker's case as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children," he had said. His organization
has posted information about the judge's ruling on the Internet for readers to review.
But the judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where the religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.
"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.
"Under the Constitution public
schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."
And, he said, since history "includes instances of … official discrimination against gays and lesbians … it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students … different sexual orientations."
If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school …[or] may also educate their children at home," the judge said.
Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his request – and the school's refusal – to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his 6-year-old kindergartner. That despite a state law requiring such notification.
The incident made news around the nation and even Gov. Mitt Romney agreed with Parker.
However, in April 2006 the same school presented the book "King and King," about homosexual romances and marriage, to second-graders and again refused to provide notification.
Parker and other parents followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit, alleging school officials were refusing to follow state law.
David Parker's son brought home the book 'Who's in a Family?' in school's 'Diversity Book Bag' (Image: Article 8 Alliance)
Just days later, David Parker's son, Jacob, was beaten up at Estabrook Elementary, officials said. MassResistance said a group of 8-10 kids surrounded him and took him out of sight of "patrolling aides," then pummeled and beat him.
"The state must fight 'discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation' in ways that 'do not perpetuate stereotypes,'" the lawyers for the school district had argued at an earlier motions hearing. They also explained to the judge that, in their opinion, parents have no right to control what ideas the school presents to elementary schoolchildren.
"David Parker's dilemma … threatens the parental rights and religious freedom of every Massachusetts parent, and indirectly every parent in America," said John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition.
"As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state's right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people's children
arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney's nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal." Haskins said when the Massachusetts state Supreme Court demanded homosexual marriages in the state, it didn't have the constitutional or legal authority to order the governor to act or to order the Legislature to make any changes, and the creation of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts actually was accomplished by executive order from Romney.
