Same-Sex Marriage and the Sacred Right to Refuse Service

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel…”

–Patrick Henry

A bill currently pending in the New Hampshire State legislature would allow business owners to turn away customers on the basis of “conscience or religious faith.” Introduced by Rep. Frank Sapareto, HB1264 aims to protect Christian wedding vendors from being forced to provide services for homosexual couples.

The fear that conscience rights may be violated in the Granite State is hardly far-fetched: many U.S. small-business owners have already faced lawsuits for refusing to host or perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. In January, a New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling that the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Last November, Christian cake-baker Victoria Childress of Des Moines was threatened with legal action by a lesbian couple that had hoped to commission her to design their wedding cake. In September, a gay couple filed suit against two Illinois institutions that refused to host their civil union. Christian “Bed and Breakfast” establishments, which are often family-owned businesses, are especially targeted by homosexual rights activists for this type of harassment.

The new bill, which was scheduled to come up for a vote last month but has been pushed back to February, would prevent such suits from coming before New Hampshire courts by ensuring that individuals will be legally permitted to “choose not to provide accommodations, goods, or services for a marriage if doing so would violate his or her conscience or religious faith.” Needless to say, the bill has been roundly attacked by homosexual rights activists and mainstream media networks. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has promised to veto it.

So, just what’s so repugnant about the idea of allowing business owners to make their own decisions about who they want to work with? Probably this aversion to freedom in the marketplace is due in large part to a common misconception about the nature of the business world. There is a popular myth that permitting private vendors to express opposition to aspects of their society by refusing service to customers will somehow foster attitudes of intolerance and cultivate so-called “haters.”

Proponents of this view, however, have put forward a proposition based on laughably fallacious reasoning. Passing laws that force businesses to perform actions which are prohibited by their convictions doesn’t alter the mindsets of business owners and certainly doesn’t make for a content citizenry.  On the contrary, it is counterproductive and wrong to attempt to change the thought patterns of a culture by forcing its people to engage in and endorse activities they believe to be immoral. Additionally, such legislation promotes division and stifles individuality in a population. Unless businesses are engaging in activities that directly harm others, these heavy-handed methods to coerce them are totalitarian and must not be endured by a free and thoughtful people.

Let us illustrate this premise with a simple example: suppose a white business owner in a southern state in the 1920’s decides to refuse service to Ku Klux Klan members. The business owner finds the KKK’s racist beliefs despicable and doesn’t want to associate with its members. Surely most modern people would agree that the business owner has every right to make this decision. After all, his business is his property, and a transaction made with a customer is a form of contract. Can there be a truly free society that forces people to enter into contracts against their will?

What many homosexual rights activists do not seem to understand is that opposition to their lifestyle is, in many cases, at least as strong as any southern business owner’s opposition to the KKK might have been a century ago. While they try to paint their opposition as an insignificant minority, 2011 polls showed that 46% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, while only 45% favored it. The Bible teaches that homosexual acts are not only a sin but an abomination. In a nation that identifies itself as predominantly Christian, is it any wonder that a significant portion of the population is horrified by the idea of being involved in a same-sex wedding?  Is it really fair for government to take sides on an issue that has the nation split into a cultural divide? Does an individual’s right to be served by a private business overrule the property rights of the business owner?

When government doesn’t interfere in the workplace, the free market tends to right itself.  If a business begins to annoy potential customers as a result of its discriminatory practices, the boycott system comes into play and the owner begins to lose money. If the convictions held by the business owner are strong enough, he or she will be willing to take the loss. If not, monetary distress will force the owner to alter his or her policies. If no consensus can be established between two opposing camps of ideas, the nation can at least agree to disagree. It’s called free trade, and it’s how civilized adults handle their differences. When government gets involved in such a conflict, it only short-circuits the efficiency and precision of a perfectly functional natural process. It also serves to warn a people that they are not free; that they are, in fact, considered unfit to rule themselves and to do business in the way that seems best to them. Rather, they must do their business in the way that seems best to their leaders.

Lovers of freedom in the great state of New Hampshire: might you take just a few minutes out of your day to give your senators and representatives a call.  You are the only ones who can defend liberty in the Granite State.

Live free or die.

Find your New Hampshire state representative

Find your New Hampshire state senator

Bryana Johnson :: Texas A&M University :: Dallas, Texas :: @HighTideJournal

Related News

84 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Ophidimancer
    Jul 03, 2012 - 10:29 PM

    I believe the stronger Constitutional argument for marriage equality would be based on sex discrimination. The Constitution says that the law has to treat people equally, regardless of their sex. A woman could enter into the domestic contract called marriage with my husband, but since I am a man I cannot. This is discriminating against me solely because of my sex, which is prohibited by the Constitution.

    Arguments based on marriage as a religious institution or based on tradition don’t hold up because 1) Congress shall make no law respecting the institution of relgion and 2) tradition for tradition’s sake don’t hold up to even rational review.

    And to address the original topic: The 1st Amendment guarantees American citizens the freedom of religion in the only way it can, by guaranteeing us freedom FROM religion. Religiously based repugnance cannot be backed by law because any such legislation is automatically discriminating against any religion that differs from the majority. America is NOT a Christian country. Last I knew, it’s still legal to practice other religions. I bet if a town somehow had a Hindu majority and tried to outlaw the sale of beef or tried to ban non-vegetarians from public places, the Christians would be SCREAMING about the separation of church and state.

    Reply
  2. Michelle
    Feb 15, 2012 - 01:40 AM

    Straight people have AIDs too. You know they test the blood right?

    Reply
  3. JohnB
    Feb 13, 2012 - 10:21 PM

    Gay activist are already pushing to have the ban on gay men donating blood removed. It’s the same line, it’s discrimination. Where is this going to stop? Gay activist want to trample over peoples faith. They’re already throwing out the will of the people in Calif. We voted TWICE and gay marriage and said “NO”, both times. In time they will force the end of the ban on gay men donating blood…your health doesn’t matter to them…it’s all about what they want.

    Reply
  4. Michelle
    Feb 08, 2012 - 02:56 PM

    Seems my original comment was eaten – no matter, polls in all states where same sex is legal shows that the public supports it. (With the exception of Iowa and NY, which is 50/50.)

    We live in a country were we elect people to represent us in making laws. Saying the public doesn’t want same sex marriage because the government passed the law is pointless – the government has passed many laws that we haven’t voted on. That’s their job – that’s why we elect/”hire” them.

    Inter-racial marriage was legal until the Supreme Court made it so country wide. And no, being gay is not a “choice” – no one would choose to be a minority to the point that it drives some to suicide.

    I’m sorry that some people want the government to support their bigoted beliefs. That’s not what its there for, epsically if these beliefs are based on religion.

    Also, this article indirectly points out why gay marriage should be legal – if people don’t want to interact with it, they’re not forced to.

    Reply
  5. Karen Grube
    Feb 07, 2012 - 12:01 PM

    Michelle, I’m referring to every state in which the voters have been allowed to vote on this issue at the ballot box and have their voices heard. They have ALWAYS rejected ssm, wherever they have been allowed to make that choice. The only states where ssm is allowed are where it was imposed on them by judicial or legislative fiat, effectively silencing the voices of the voters. These are simple facts.

    Reply
  6. Michelle
    Feb 07, 2012 - 11:08 AM

    “Sorry, you guys, if you don’t like it that the voters of this country reject same-sex “marriage” for their own reasons, not all of which are religious, every time they are allowed to vote on this issue.”

    Except they don’t – same sex marriage is legal is various states.

    And yes, its still awful and terrible writing to compare refusing service to gay people as the same thing as refusing service to KKK members. Using the proper comparison of gays = blacks would point out how completely wrong this all is though.

    Reply
  7. Keith Totherow
    Feb 06, 2012 - 10:37 AM

    Outwardly go along
    With the flow,
    While inwardly keeping
    Your true nature.
    Then your eyes and ears
    Will not be dazzled,
    Your thoughts will not
    Be confused,
    While the spirit within you
    Will expand greatly to roam
    In the realm of absolute purity.

    – Huai-nan-tzu

    Reply
  8. Keith Totherow
    Feb 06, 2012 - 10:33 AM

    “Sorry, you guys, if you don’t like it that the voters of this country reject same-sex “marriage” for their own reasons, not all of which are religious, every time they are allowed to vote on this issue.”
    What is your problem? Are you so blinded by me saying your assertion that gays aren’t born that way was wrong that you now can’t see the rest of my contribution to this 50+ comments section of this topic? I don’t appreciate it. You were wrong, and as far as I am concerned, your carrying this topic into history as the most commented topic on TCC hasn’t done it any justice. You are no farther along now than you were when you started, and you obviously can’t see past your blind rage that nothing you say will change Jared’s mind. Give it up. You’re not helping our cause.

    Reply
  9. Jared Cowan
    Feb 06, 2012 - 03:45 AM

    Yeah, it’s easy to be confident when you’re in the majority. Populism is the opposite of the what the constitution advocated. Just because most citizens want to be discriminatory against a class of people like this doesn’t make it just or even democratic. It makes it rule by the mob and it could just as easily turn against you. That’s where impartiality starts. Not favoritism.

    Reply
  10. Karen Grube
    Feb 06, 2012 - 02:20 AM

    And what I have been saying consistently is that the union of one man and one woman is the only union that will produce a child NATURALLY WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE! What part of this was unclear? This will not change. And no, it does absolutely NOT matter if science can create children out of cells. It is still NOT human reproduction.

    Sorry, you guys, if you don’t like it that the voters of this country reject same-sex “marriage” for their own reasons, not all of which are religious, every time they are allowed to vote on this issue. They just do. And, yes, that absolutely SHOULD make it clear to our legislators that we do not want them imposing it on us by legislative or judicial fiat. We will make it clear to them with our votes that this is unacceptable, and we will remove those from office who do not listen. Along the way, we’ll elect a President who has pledged to promote and support a marriage definition amendment to the U.S. Constition. In the meantime, the Supreme Court will reject any attempts to prevent states from passing their own gay “marriage” bans. Two more will go into place at the end of the year (Minnesota and North Carolina.) The vote in New Hampshire on their gay “marriage” repeal should be taking place in their legislature in the next week or so. We’ll all just have to wait and see how things go. Voters in Maine may be allowed to vote on this issue, though they’ve already rejected it once. New Jersey’s Governor Christie will not be signing into law their gay “marriage” law and there isn’t enough votes in the legislature to override his veto. There is a court challenge to the corrupt way gay “marriage” was imposed on New York that I believe is still pending. If the Washington State House approves their gay “marraige” bill, it will wind up being a referrendum on the November ballot, which the voters will likely reject. A lot of this is going on now because everyone knows how dramatically things will change after the next election, when we have a Republican House, Senate, and President. We certainly do live in interesting times.

    Reply
    • Real Conservative
      Aug 24, 2012 - 09:37 PM

      Wow, you sure do have a jones on for the gay people Karen, surpressing anything latent in nature?

      Reply
    • Jessica
      Dec 28, 2013 - 05:32 AM

      Karen is one of those certified haters of NoM who feel their own marriages are threatened if they let those horrible gay people have a family too. Just shows what a sad life she really has.

      Guess what, Karen? You were WRONG on all your predictions. Three states REJECTED your marriage amendments, Maine and Washington votes allowed gay marriage and the Supreme Court voted for gay marriage. States are coming on board faster than we can keep count. And Utah now has gay marriage! Bet your having panic attacks by now.

      The fact is your train has left the station. Gay marriage is now inevitable in all 50 states. The promises in the Declaration of Independence will finally be extended to another group that has been demonized by you crazy fundamentalist Christians. Get used to it. You lost.

      As for Bryana Johnson, another sad case of early fundamentalism. Once you let people refuse service based on some “conscience or religious faith”, you open the door to a theocracy. If someone opened a business and refused service to Jews or Catholics, you would be all over them as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic. Anti-discrimination laws are in place to allow all our citizens to enjoy the fruits of our nation. Now that’s a “conservative” idea!

      Reply
  11. Jared Cowan
    Feb 06, 2012 - 01:31 AM

    I didn’t resort to it, you demonstrated it fairly obviously. You are opposed to this primarily on religious grounds. Any secular arguments are faulty, fallacious or otherwise oversimplifying the issue to fit in your little tiny myopic perspective to make you feel comfortable.

    The courts have no obligation to cave into populism and ochlocracy. Democracy and such are by the people as a whole, not just the majority. You keep insisting the majority has all the power, they don’t. They have power only until they infringe on the rights of others and if marriage is a fundamental right as we both would agree, then you are being discriminatory and unfair to deny that fundamental right to a group of people that would be imperceptible in terms of statistics for marriage, especially in the formal sense. Common law marriage is a whole other thing, and honestly, I’d personally prefer it to all the pomp and circumstance associated with straight marriage, which is what I will have, even if I have some bisexuality that I don’t really act on or contemplate. If you want to represent people fairly, you aren’t doing it by denying this right to marriage because this group of people is different.

    Separate but equal my eye. That’s what you’d pull on them. Civil union, domestic partnerships. How about we just call it marriage when you get bonded in holy matrimony in a place of worship? And then we can just call all the secular ones domestic partnerships or civil unions. Would that make you feel better? You get the religious feeling of marriage and you don’t have to feel all persecuted, which you’re not, just because gay people can get the exact same status as straight people in this country when they want to be a couple who shares things, who are committed to each other and can raise children, biologically theirs or not.

    You really are pushing it when you put words in my mouth. I never said it was a natural process, it is science, just like IVF or the like. That doesn’t make it wrong. If it happens, so be it. It can be used for other purposes as Keith observed with the medical articles he posted.

    Reply
  12. Keith Totherow
    Feb 06, 2012 - 01:04 AM

    The science for this, Karen, is fairly old, and you can read the stories from this website:
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/?s=human+egg+sperm+cells&this_exact_wording_or_phrase=&these_words_0=&these_words_1=&these_words_2=&date=anytime&any_of_these_unwanted_words=&v=a

    [ News ] Stem Cells Changed Into Precursors For Sperm, Eggs
    October 29, 2009
    .ScienceDailly — Oct 29, 2009 | Stanford University School of Medicine. researchers have devised a way to efficiently coax human embryonic stem cells to become human germ cells — the precursors of egg and sperm cells — in the laboratory.
    Unlike previous research, which yielded primarily immature germ cells, the cells in…
    Read original article
    Topics: Biotech

    There are more stories, each one older than the last.

    Reply
  13. Keith Totherow
    Feb 06, 2012 - 01:00 AM

    The science for this, Karen, is fairly old, and is getting more refined all the time.
    You can read the full stories from this website:
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/?s=human+egg+sperm+cells&this_exact_wording_or_phrase=&these_words_0=&these_words_1=&these_words_2=&date=anytime&any_of_these_unwanted_words=&v=a
    [ News ] Stem Cells Changed Into Precursors For Sperm, Eggs
    October 29, 2009
    .ScienceDailly — Oct 29, 2009 | Stanford University School of Medicine. researchers have devised a way to efficiently coax human embryonic stem cells to become human germ cells — the precursors of egg and sperm cells — in the laboratory.
    Unlike previous research, which yielded primarily immature germ cells, the cells in…
    Read original article
    Topics: Biotech

    ..[ News ] The Future of Babies: Artificial Wombs and Pregnant Grandmas
    July 28, 2008
    .LiveScience — Jul 16, 2008 | In a special Nature report, “Making Babies: The Next 30 Years,” scientists predict that artificial wombs and experiments on human embryos grown in the lab will be commonplace (and no big deal ethically) in 30 years, human embryos will be made from sperm and egg cells derived…
    Read original article
    Topics: Biomed/Longevity | Singularity/Futures | Social/Ethical/Legal

    ..[ News ] ‘Virgin birth’ stem cells bypass ethical objections
    July 4, 2006
    .NewScientist.com news service — Jul 2, 2006 | “Virgin-birth” embryos have given rise to human embryonic stem cells capable of differentiating into neurons.
    The embryos were produced by parthenogenesis, a form of asexual reproduction in which eggs can develop into embryos without being fertilised by sperm. The technique could lead to a…
    Read original article
    Topics: Biotech

    ..[ News ] Further steps towards artificial eggs and sperm
    June 20, 2005
    .Mercury News — Jun 20, 2005 | Human embryonic stem cells have been coaxed in the lab to develop into the early forms of cells which eventually become eggs or sperm, UK researchers reveal.
    It might one day be to allow people who cannot produce eggs or sperm to have children, by…
    Read original article
    Topics: Biotech | Internet/Telecom

    ..[ News ] Human eggs divide without sperm
    December 3, 2004
    .New Scientist — Dec 1, 2004 | Researchers have developed a method to make human eggs divide as if they have been fertilized, creating a potential source of embryonic stem cells that sidesteps ethical objections to existing techniques.
    The University of Wales researchers made the eggs devide by injecting phospholipase C-zeta (PLC-zeta),…
    Read original article
    Topics: Biomed/Longevity

    ..[ News ] ‘Virgin birth’ mammal rewrites rules of biology
    April 22, 2004
    .NewScientist.com News — Apr 21, 2004 | A mammal that is the daughter of two female parents has been created for the first time.
    It was created by combining the genetic material of two egg cells, circumventing the “imprinting” barrier in mammals (certain genes necessary for embryo development are shut down in…
    Read original article
    Topics: Biotech

    There’s more at the site.

    Reply
  14. Karen Grube
    Feb 06, 2012 - 12:49 AM

    Oh, terrific. Resort to calling people who disagree with you “narrow minded” or “bigoted,” and “you fundmentalist types.” Quit making this about religion. It’s about the Constitution. You are absolutly correct; the Constitution makes no mention of marriage whatsoever. This is one of those items left to the states. The Supreme Court did, however, label marriage as a fundamental right. But they didn’t specify any particular kind of “marriage.” That was unfortunate. What the law actually says does matter. Who would have thought defining marriage was EVER going to be necessary in the U.S. Constitution? Certainly not the framers of the Consitution. Well, apparently it is now, which is why we’re going to ask Congress and the states and our new President to pass an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to put a stop to this nonsense.

    Really, Jared? Do you really believe there will EVER be a time when two men can create a baby or two women on their own, naturally? I’m sorry, but that’s just not going to happen.

    Reply
  15. Jared Cowan
    Feb 05, 2012 - 11:44 PM

    First off, don’t patronize me and try to speak for what I believe in. I don’t blame your God, I blame humanity, but I don’t blame what has no evidence to support the claims of. There is no evidence that gay people just spontaneously appeared because of so called hormonal imbalances. You have no evidence for this.

    I’m speaking in terms of reducing your claims to absurdity. If your God did this and your God is sovereign, your God is the one to blame ultimately, even if humans have any shred of free will, which I am terribly skeptical of with the qualities you assign to your God, most particularly omniscience.

    People have far more responsibility when they’re the ones that have primary moral agency. If you don’t answer to a mysterious god who mandates ethics based on fear and reverence to its power, then you answer to a conscience you have before you even think of the God concept. Don’t you dare start claiming I’m advocating that you protect pedophiles in abusing children. And don’t you even start to intimate that gay people are anything like pedophiles. They are abusing no one. There is consent, there are adults involved, there are not children involved. Pedophilia is considered a paraphilia because it causes distress to multiple parties that we can explicitly prove. Homosexuality creates an ick factor amongst you fundamentalist types, but it does not hurt anyone if people have responsible sex, same as straight people with HIV or AIDS (because it is not a gay disease).

    The government doesn’t always respect your narrowminded or bigoted values. They only respect your right to affirm them to the extent you do not infringe upon other people’s rights. You cannot take away what is a basic right to marriage in general. If there is a right to marriage under the principle of a right to the pursuit of happiness, then there is a right to same sex marriage with regulations and specific restrictions just as one would have with straight marriage. If you are abusing your spouse or children, you should not continue to be married or be a parent until you can prove you are not someone who does that anymore. Is it unconstitutional? Perhaps, but sometimes it is not what the law says that matters, but what the law meant.

    Reply
  16. Jared Cowan
    Feb 05, 2012 - 11:31 PM

    If you think it burdens the government to pay marriage benefits, why do it at all? If it’s about the government being inconvenienced, then why don’t we just cut off all government benefits to people that are just in a bad situation and can leech off other people like the church? They’re so willing to help them, so why not make them contribute in a situation where the government is being so affected by one extra segment of people asking for marriage benefits?

    Even if it takes one man and one woman now, it may not in the future. There’s already research, from what I understand, to derive a sperm cell from a woman’s egg and fertilize her partner’s egg to make a child without any male involvement. One could do something similar for males.

    All of this must make you uncomfortable, but how is it any worse than two people who happen to be the same sex who are also biologically wired to a certain extent to be attracted to the same sex being affectionate in public? If you don’t like it, don’t watch. Such a common thing for conservatives to do with government endorsement of religion, but when it comes to the family, it’s just so horrible you have to censor everything for maintaining the status quo. Reprehensible.

    If there is no right to same sex marriage, by all means tell me where there is a right to straight marriage specifically in the constitution. You repeat it as if it’s a fact, but you’ve presented no evidence, so forgive me if I’m skeptical of these incredulous claims.

    No one is forcing adoption agencies to adopt these children, though technically adoption is primarily a matter of the state, not the church, so religious sensibilities have no place in such an issue. If you’re privately funded, that’s another thing, but adoption is a secular matter, so the government gets involved understandably in regulating it. If you don’t want gays to adopt, why don’t you? Is it that hard to take on a responsibility plenty of gay parents want to, but can’t? More hypocrisy, it makes me almost physically ill to think of this kind of disgusting bigotry against people who have had no evidence presented against them to suggest they choose to be this way, including my own friend.

    But it’s also illegal. Civil Rights Act of 74 extended protection based on gender, it is not unreasonable to extend that by association to sexual orientation based on masculinity as a gender quality consisting of attraction to females. Thus lesbians have a gender quality of masculinity that is protected by the federal government.

    You can define things in your narrowminded sense all you want, but it doesn’t make it right and it never should. Impartiality is part of the law, is it not? Apply it to yourself, and get over this dependence on government favoritism.

    Reply
  17. Karen Grube
    Feb 05, 2012 - 11:23 PM

    Right, Jared. Instead of taking responsibility for your own behavior and your actions, blame them on God. Brilliant! No one has any responsibility then! How about “God made me attracted to 9-year old little boys, so he must have wanted me to abuse them.” Give me a break!

    God gave us free will, Jared. WE decide what we do with our lives. The main thing about that is that people can and do change. That is what being Conservative is all about! Part of that is taking on the responsibility we have in a Representative Democracy, to vote and to tell our legislators that we expect them NOT to trash our values and NOT to impose on us decisions we should make for ourselves.

    Reply
  18. Jared Cowan
    Feb 05, 2012 - 11:14 PM

    If God creates all things, good and evil, at least in some sense of good and evil, peace and calamity, then God is at least responsible in some sense. The most obvious sense in which God has any significance in this situation if God exists is that God willingly created a flawed creation with the foreknowledge that it would mess up, so it is vicariously held in contempt as a negligent deity.

    Amphibians are hardly comparable to humans in changing biological sex. That’s part of their physiology, somewhat like snails being hermaphrodites, for instance.

    Even if God is not directly responsible, God willfully declares such things to be evil and punishes people for something they cannot change themselves, being attracted to the same sex.

    Reply
  19. Karen Grube
    Feb 05, 2012 - 10:42 PM

    What are you rambling on about, Jared? I DID cite at least one example of financial consequences: increased costs of benefits to states and companies.

    I DID cite government misconduct in that elected officials are being either bullied or influenced by power and money into going against the wishes of the voters to the extent that they even break their own legislative regulations to pass gay “marriage” legislation they KNOW their constituents would NEVER vote for. Bloomberg promised all kinds of money to support the Republican candidates who supported gay “marriage” in New York. In New Hampshire, they violated their own rules by removing the only Republican committee member so he couldn’t vote against it.

    I DID cite social consequences like religious social service agencies being forced to stop foster or adoptive placements because they believe children should have both a mom and a dad. Men and women parent differently. , and like it or not, children need both in their lives. Every child deserves a mom and dad. At the very least, our laws shouldn’t intentnionally deprive a child of that relationship, which is precisely what ssm does. It is simply not true that “any two will do.” No, parents aren’t our only role models, just the first and most significant in our lives, for well or ill.

    The simple truth that you seem to dismiss so readily is that we are born male and female, with an extremely tiny number of genetic abnormalities. The other simple truth that you seem to dismiss is that it still takes at least one man and one woman to create a child naturally. These are not debatable, Jared.

    Again, there is absolutely no right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution. It doesn’t exist, and the Constitution truly cannot be twisted so unrecognizably to make it say there is. The Supreme Court will get this right, I have absolutely no doubt. Or Congress and the President, and eventually the states, will define marriage within the Constitution as the union of one man and one woman.

    Reply
  20. Jared Cowan
    Feb 05, 2012 - 09:35 PM

    On the biology argument: Some people are created by your God as intersexed or hermaphrodite. What does that say about the master plan of your so called perfect deity? Biology is not that simple and especially so in terms of gender, not that biological sex is always simple as I already brought up. Not that I believe we were created, but even granting that ludicrous claim, it’s still suspect

    What traditional family? There are plenty of societies that didn’t value the traditional family absolutely and they survived. No society’s perfect, not even the U.S., so you can’t claim some form of exceptionalism when we’ve gone through a depression and are in a recession at the moment. Society can accept other forms of commitment and relationship without necessarily spitting in the face of the majority of monogamous opposite sex couples. This argument is one of the most simplistic ones. History is far more complex than either of us could discover in various societies across time.

    Freedom is not always free. Sometimes we must surrender certain freedoms to protect those more important. How important is it for faith based groups to get their way all the time? Not nearly as important as things like a free market of ideas or a free market economy, both of which I’d imagine you’d appreciate even if you don’t like some of the information you get through that free market or the results of socioeconomic status due to a free market economy that might exist in some part, even if there are also corporatist undertones to our economy as well. People don’t have a right to be offended, they will be offended by gay marriage and either do something about it or get over it. The former is somewhat wasteful of time when marriage is not so disrespected by gay people getting the same title, considering people evidently don’t take marriage seriously enough anyway with straight marriages as I’ve already pointed out.

    I already confronted your argument of alleged government misconduct with the obvious example of the government declaring slavery illegal back in the 19th century, eventually negating separate but equal racial segregation almost 100 years after that amendment. Discriminating against gay people by not giving them a title that is not explicitly religious in nature, but has a secular aspect as well and doesn’t even require the church to be involved is unconstitutional by the 14th amendment.

    You’ve failed to present the alleged financial negatives of gay people getting married. Wouldn’t it give the state more money in giving out marriage licenses? Bring forth your evidence before dismissing any counter claims without any support from your side.

    Masculine and feminine gender roles and role models by association don’t have to be the father and mother of the child in question. Some fathers who give their sperm choose not to be involved with their children. Does that somehow contribute to the breakdown of the family as well? If a child has good role models, male and female, related or not, that should suffice, should it not? Parents contribute a role of nurturing, but they should not be the only masculine and feminine role models the child has in their life. Males are not strictly masculine and females are not strictly feminine.

    Biological sex does not absolutely determine gendered behavior. I’ve been observed to act somewhat female, particularly when doing my crossplay (cross dressing cosplay) recently, but clearly I’m not perfect. I still have masculine aspects to my personality even as many people would find me effeminate in other aspects of my behavior. And the idea that children raised in a same sex couple environment will absolutely never see an opposite sex couple interact like their same sex parents is ridiculous when you yourself would bring up that most couples are heterosexual couples anyway. It’s just basic probability.

    All of these arguments are far too simplistic and don’t bring up detailed accounts of how there are negative consequences for accepting gay marriage, which is such a minority it would only be recognized by people who are seemingly insecure about their own marriages, what with the divorce rate being about 50% allegedly in the U.S.

    Reply
    • Keith Totherow
      Feb 05, 2012 - 10:08 PM

      You can’t claim God created the misfits. The chemicals in our environment did. Anyone who is familiar with the studies of amphibians changing sex would agree. The overuse of soybean oil also makes female characteristics in males prevalent. God can’t be blamed for the environmental damage we have done with the tens of thousands of man-made chemicals we’ve introduced into our environment, that have shown up in the blood of infants and others as well. This is why so many hormones are screwed up, it’s nothing God has done. He created the drawing board, and we have nearly destroyed it.

      Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Churches Changing Bylaws After Gay Marriage Ruling - The e-Vangelist
  2. How Will the EU Court of Human Rights Define Religious Freedom? - TheCollegeConservative

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2014 THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE.

Facebook

Twitter