Dolphin’s Dock

Well first off rights do not belong to groups, they belong to individuals; only individuals have rights.

And secondly, if the government can define “marriage” then what else about our families can they control? Will the bureaucrats, and politicians eventually try to define “love”? I should hope not.

Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. The government should have nothing to do with it and the very idea that one must ask permission to marry is a direct insult to our freedom. In fact the implication of having to attain a license to marry is that marriage is a privilege granted by the government. A privilege is the opposite of a right because rights are inherent and do not require permission. Even the Constitution recognizes our unlimited right to contract.

The best plan?
Leave the government out of it. And you’re right that the Republican Party and my fellow conservatives should adopt this philosophy. Besides, one cannot call themselves a “conservative” if they advocate big government intrusion into the personal lives of consenting adults. If the government is powerful enough to force one group of morals upon another group, then it is powerful enough to trample the rights of all individuals.

______________
DISCLAIMER:
Nothing I communicate is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization I belong to or am an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America’s Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. My opinions are my own.
Edit/Delete Message

What an ignoramous you are! Comparing the Jim Crow laws with same sex marriages….you liberal piece of trash. This also has nothing to do with Civil Rights you liberal moron…I am so sick of you panty weraing liberals saying it goes against our civil rights! Since when does the institution of marriage…which is based from Religious context become a civil rights issue if same sex couples are afforded the rights and privilages from a state and federal level under a civil union? So stop crying it s a civil rights issue…you look like fools. This has never been about a “civil rights” issue…its always been about the destruction of a Religious institution and nothing more. I hope for the sake of Religion in general, when this does go to the Supreme Court they rule to uphold marriage between one man and one woman or we well be opening Pandoras box if it isn’t already open. Next thing we know someone from Utah will want to legally marry his 5 girlfiends…You can’t say no anymore or you would also be the bigots you claim everyone else to be. What about if a man wants to marry his dog? Can’t say no to that either. The same sex marriage issue has been and will always be bogus.

To Shane:
Obviously you need to brush up or at least attempt to research the history of marriage in society. Taking a wife was part and parcel of trade in land and stock. Nice!

Look everyone,

Shane has a point- a legal one at that- whether u like the comparison or not. Fact is, whatever sick pervert thing another person is denied can be considered a violation of that one person civil rights. Moral laws and Moral fortitude or Moral conviction within our peers and puble citizens ditates the application of what gets morally accepted and what doesn’t. So, he is pointing to the other side of a very valid argument. There are many scenario’s to this, but he has a very good point, if people on here can wrap their heads or mind around this from more than just one prospective. Many things that are considered immoral and un-natural are subjected to the restraints and denial of Moral laws. He described one topic, but there are many others. Will people who want to participate in Polygamy continue to be denied this right? Will people who want to practice pediphilia, incest, child pornography get a chance to call their immoral and un-natural desires violations of their civil liberties? So, whether you like Mr. Shane argument and point or not- he is thinking outside the box in the context of some things can’t be summed up as a civil liberties and rights. His point is that if some sick immoral and un-natural perversions is allowed for some then they must be allowed for all. I would guess he doesn’t support any of the deviated stuff but is making the legal argument to what can be deemed a constitutional right. Hope everyone can used their intellectual minds and brains here and see that. Moral laws for natural and traditional copulation. sexual relations and sexual practice should not be blurred with a demand to participate in deviant desires, behavior, and immoral behavior in a society. Laws and Moral laws must be inclusive and uniformed. It is and would be unjust, unconstitutional to continue allow an immoral un-traditional, and un-natural practice of homosexuality to go on and not place restraint or denial on other unethical, immoral(public sex), and perverted desires. Now, this is thinking and looking at the big picture as I believe Shane is trying to express here. G’bye.

Dolphin,

Thanks for the intelligent rebuttal. On the point of reading and checking out your link. Most referrals to links is in different font, text color, or underlined after the reference. This was not the case with your link. Sorry I missed it; but based on your rebuttal, it would not have change Shane point and my agreement with it.

[dolphin responds: The link above is in fact a different color than the rest of the text. But given the fact that once it was explicitly pointed out to you, you still acknowledge that you refuse to read it, it makes your assertion that you "missed it" seem less credible.]

In a proportionate number of cases, polls, and surveys among many people, the practice of polygamy is considered immoral and un-natural because it is knowly sharing sexual parterships and marriage with a more than one or two women. Even thought this happens in dating, it’s frown on morally as a knowledgeable agreement. It’s passes the gender test, but doesn’t passes the morality test for acceptance. Therefore, moral convictions and conscience generates moral law against it. As for the conclusion of your argument, please understand that there are direct and indirect, seen and unseen consequences, effects, and circumstances of alternative un-natural or abnormal social behaviors and conduct. You can only see them and read about them if people were to study all avenues of them and report or write on it honestly.

But Dolphin, in your rebuttal, it seems as though you are backtracking or making excuses on the very premises you are arguing for and that is that the other un-natural, immoral, sick, preverted, and unethical examples mentioned earlier are un-natural and abnormal personal desires just like homosexuality. And if these other examples are deemed immoral personal desires and governed by moral laws; then homosexuality should be governed by moral laws also.

The key words here are “Personal Desires”. If personal desires are concluded to be a civil right for either one person; then other people can argue that their deviated un-natural or immoral personal desire is a civil and constitutional right. We don’t allow these because we set moral laws to prevent the un-natural acts- key words, “un-natural acts”. So why should homosexuality or LGBT behaviors be treated any differently. They are by all means un-natural, un-traditional, and abnormal(different)perferences for sex that you might not see any damage or hurt first-hand or upfront- but it’s happening. You just got to know what to research.

So, whether you agree with Shane or my point; we are basically saying that you can’t allow deviated, un-natural, personal desires, and immoral acts for one person or group of people and not apply it to homosexuals and gay people personal desires. Kinda long-winded, but I hope you and most of the readers get what I am saying or what point Shane was trying to make. Peace.

Dolphin,

O.K. No problem if you don’t want to debate that homosexuality is un-natural and immoral. I wasn’t trying to engage in any indepth discussion on that subject with you either. I actually hate trying to educate and employ logical reasoning and thought to people about it anyway. So not having a debate about that area of the subject was and is welcome.

However, your points and statements are continuing to make me laugh also. As in when u said, “Civil marriage is not a PERSONAL DESIRE”. what are you thinking when you say this? If people don’t desire to marry, then why would they seek, pursue, or get marry then? Are they being forced to seek same-sex or traditional style marriages?

Your thinking and counter-argument is not set in social reality or the application of law to social behaviors; so I will digress on this topic. I have expended enuff energy, time, and thought to it. So, I will finish with this statement:

People don’t understand that moral laws are already in place and used to manage social behavior so that it will not slide into choas. We don’t like the government deciding social norms or acceptable social behaviors; but just think what society or government would be if we did not have these checks and balances on what is a moral or immoral behavior in place.

People don’t see or know the social downfall of homosexuality or same-sex marriage now, mainly because it is cloaked behind sexual pleasure, but it will surface if the government continues to relax the principles of morality for its citizens and society.

So, you are entitled to you point and position and I am entitled to mine; but I hope their a greater show of moral conscienousness in the USA for more traditional things that have worked thus far in society and traditional sexual relationship and traditional marriage.

There is no better success rate in homosexual relationships or marriage than traditional marriages. I guess most these are lustful and pleasure seeking ventures that are held together by the isolation and shame for having the abnormal perference.

So you all are chasing emotional ghosts that exists because gays and homosexuals refuse to cope with the challenges of traditional relationships and the pursuit of pleasures from traditional marriages and relationships. So LGBT people cop out to homosexuality and gay identity groups. And now they,(LGBT people), want America to give their sick desires a stamp of approval. As long as I get a vote, it will always be NO !! to same-sex relationships(homosexuality)and same-sex marriage. Peace.

Yes, We are in agreement on those points? Au revoir !!