Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[Tech_Esq]

PI, it would have been sufficient to say you didn't understand my post and ask for clarification rather than post a wall of text to explain in detail that you didn't understand it.

There is no way in hell I'm going to read your novel. I've skimmed the first and last of it for any intelligible bits. It appears that you decided to jump to the position that the only rights available to people are their inalienable rights and no other rights are either available or legitimate.

Is that your position?

LOL... suit yourself Tech...

I find it odd that you reject my post on the basis of its depth, after I took the time and energy to provide you with my full and complete thoughts on the issue; thus serving you a courtesy, through having taken your position seriously.

There is nothing in your post which is not fully understood... if you feel that I've misreprented your positon; Fine... state your greivance...

The only true rights are the inalienable rights which stem from life... all other civil rights; rights born of the social contract, merely serve as government protections, which defend specific circumstances where, for whatever reason, the constitution failed to do so... Suffrage is one example; protections for racial minorities another...

But none of those rights GRANT rights... the government doesn't have the authority to grant rights to anyone; as the government is comprised of human beings whose rights are precisely the same as everyone else... They're not endowed with SUPER - RIGHTS... just because they're holding a position of the public trust. The government possesses one element which establishes the potential for superiority over the individual and one only; and that is POWER.

But that power, does not provide them the means to grant valid and sustainable rights to anyone; distinct of course from government sponsored privilege, which are valid only to the extent of that government's means to project sufficient power to provide for such.

For instance, where the government might provide the privilege for a citizen to reign control over a given segment of the population, that privilege goes right along with it.

In contrast to the valid and sustainable inalienable rights which are possessed by the individual without regard to whether or not a government protects such and are sustained by the individuals defense of them.

My right to defend myself, my life and family... I don't require the government protect this right... as I will take action to do so without regard to the governments position and where the government contests my right I will take action to defend myself from that government's infringement of that right... if such results in my demise I depart this earth with my rights intact...

Now if you fail to consider this argument; that does not devalue the argument, it merely provides that you've no desire to consider it; the reasons known only to you and any contest which you make to this argument is rendered moot by your failure to consider it.

I'd like to see you explain to the court someday, that you aren't going to read the wall of text the State brought against your client... and see how that works for ya...

Let me respond directly to your charge that I did not read your response because you decided to answer in fullness and depth. I'll respond by relating a short story. When I was taking upper division management classes (Organizational Theory and Organizational Behavior) we were told that the practice at Proctor & Gamble (and the practice we would be held to), was that no memo in the company could be more than one page. The fact that it was limited to one page, did not mean it could be a summary or leave anything out. You just needed to do a better job of succinctly stating your point.

And so I say to you, you needed to do a better job of succinctly stating your points.

As to the last jab about legal pleadings, you would never find a legal pleading that looked like your post. I've seen a lot and none of them have looked like that.

If you will review the post I made to Ravi, I believe it addresses both of your concerns, now that I understand where both of you were coming from.

 

[AllieBaba]

Tell you what, I've seen much, MUCH worse.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Upon further review, Tech, I think we are on the same page. My only misgiving with your post is that it seems to put the rights of society ahead of the rights of the individual. Under our constitution I don't think you can make a case that the rights of society outweigh the rights of the individual as guaranteed by the constitution.

Otherwise we'd have a true democracy and mob rule.

I think what Blackstone, and by poor extension, I was saying is that the individual gives up rights to purchase membership in the society. What rights? Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of Blackstone, such rights as society believes is necessary to allow it to exist and thrive.

Does that place the society over the individual? As to some rights, I'm not sure how you would come to an opposite conclusion. For instance, we can look at a freedom society readily removes from the individual. The right to take whatever is available for his own use.

In the state of nature, if I came upon an apple, I could readily convert it to my usage, food. However, in civil society, if I come upon an apple, before I may convert it to my use, I must first inquire whether the apple might belong to someone else. That is to say, if someone has property rights in the apple which I am compelled by my acceptance of the social contract to respect.

So, I have sold my right to freely take what I find, for the price of others respecting my property rights in such things as I may create, grow or otherwise accumulate.

This is a fundemental right. Civil society would not long exist if property were not protected. So, society's requirement that property rights be protected supersede the individual's right to take what he finds.

Are we on the same sheet of music here?

 

[AllieBaba]

And his post actually reads easier than your own.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Tell you what, I've seen much, MUCH worse.

No, you have to go back and find the post we're talking about.

 

[AllieBaba]

Upon further review, Tech, I think we are on the same page. My only misgiving with your post is that it seems to put the rights of society ahead of the rights of the individual. Under our constitution I don't think you can make a case that the rights of society outweigh the rights of the individual as guaranteed by the constitution.

Otherwise we'd have a true democracy and mob rule.

I think what Blackstone, and by poor extension, I was saying is that the individual gives up rights to purchase membership in the society. What rights? Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of Blackstone, such rights as society believes is necessary to allow it to exist and thrive.

Does that place the society over the individual? As to some rights, I'm not sure how you would come to an opposite conclusion. For instance, we can look at a freedom society readily removes from the individual. The right to take whatever is available for his own use.

In the state of nature, if I came upon an apple, I could readily convert it to my usage, food. However, in civil society, if I come upon an apple, before I may convert it to my use, I must first inquire whether the apple might belong to someone else. That is to say, if someone has property rights in the apple which I am compelled by my acceptance of the social contract to respect.

So, I have sold my right to freely take what I find, for the price of others respecting my property rights in such things as I may create, grow or otherwise accumulate.

This is a fundemental right. Civil society would not long exist if property were not protected. So, society's requirement that property rights be protected supersede the individual's right to take what he finds.

Are we on the same sheet of music here?

"Usage"? "Convert"? "Compelled"?

Ravi, those are mighty big words for you. Are you sure you didn't forget a reference and link?

 

[AllieBaba]

And "fundamental" is misspelled...so if you are plagarizing, you're stealing from a dummy.

 

[Ravi]

Upon further review, Tech, I think we are on the same page. My only misgiving with your post is that it seems to put the rights of society ahead of the rights of the individual. Under our constitution I don't think you can make a case that the rights of society outweigh the rights of the individual as guaranteed by the constitution.

Otherwise we'd have a true democracy and mob rule.

I think what Blackstone, and by poor extension, I was saying is that the individual gives up rights to purchase membership in the society. What rights? Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of Blackstone, such rights as society believes is necessary to allow it to exist and thrive.

Does that place the society over the individual? As to some rights, I'm not sure how you would come to an opposite conclusion. For instance, we can look at a freedom society readily removes from the individual. The right to take whatever is available for his own use.

In the state of nature, if I came upon an apple, I could readily convert it to my usage, food. However, in civil society, if I come upon an apple, before I may convert it to my use, I must first inquire whether the apple might belong to someone else. That is to say, if someone has property rights in the apple which I am compelled by my acceptance of the social contract to respect.

So, I have sold my right to freely take what I find, for the price of others respecting my property rights in such things as I may create, grow or otherwise accumulate.

This is a fundemental right. Civil society would not long exist if property were not protected. So, society's requirement that property rights be protected supersede the individual's right to take what he finds.

Are we on the same sheet of music here?

I think so...rights cannot infringe on the rights of others, basically.

So Pubic must come up with a valid explanation of how allowing gays to marry infringes on anyone's rights. Otherwise, he's got no case. And squeamishness doesn't cut it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

And "fundamental" is misspelled...so if you are plagarizing, you're stealing from a dummy.

Look at post #145.

That wasn't Ravi, that was me and yes I know I'm dumb, but I'm doing the best I possibly can.

 

[Ravi]

And "fundamental" is misspelled...so if you are plagarizing, you're stealing from a dummy.

Sweetie...what are you smoking? I told you to quit having sex with your horse, the repeated kicks in the head are affecting your vision.

 

[AllieBaba]

It infringes upon my right to have English used properly by my government.

But really, ultimately, that's the best argument I've ever heard and the only one that can't be torn down.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well so it was!

I don't really think you're dumb, I just thought it was Ravi and it was way out of her usual style.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Upon further review, Tech, I think we are on the same page. My only misgiving with your post is that it seems to put the rights of society ahead of the rights of the individual. Under our constitution I don't think you can make a case that the rights of society outweigh the rights of the individual as guaranteed by the constitution.

Otherwise we'd have a true democracy and mob rule.

I think what Blackstone, and by poor extension, I was saying is that the individual gives up rights to purchase membership in the society. What rights? Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of Blackstone, such rights as society believes is necessary to allow it to exist and thrive.

Does that place the society over the individual? As to some rights, I'm not sure how you would come to an opposite conclusion. For instance, we can look at a freedom society readily removes from the individual. The right to take whatever is available for his own use.

In the state of nature, if I came upon an apple, I could readily convert it to my usage, food. However, in civil society, if I come upon an apple, before I may convert it to my use, I must first inquire whether the apple might belong to someone else. That is to say, if someone has property rights in the apple which I am compelled by my acceptance of the social contract to respect.

So, I have sold my right to freely take what I find, for the price of others respecting my property rights in such things as I may create, grow or otherwise accumulate.

This is a fundemental right. Civil society would not long exist if property were not protected. So, society's requirement that property rights be protected supersede the individual's right to take what he finds.

Are we on the same sheet of music here?

I think so...rights cannot infringe on the rights of others, basically.

So Pubic must come up with a valid explanation of how allowing gays to marry infringes on anyone's rights. Otherwise, he's got no case. And squeamishness doesn't cut it.

I think it goes further than that. I think he must show that allowing same sex marriage tends to undermine or destroy the civil society. Remember Blackstone says that only laws that, as you say:

that the law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens...increases the civil liberty of mankind

But, the flip-side must be dealt with:

that every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject...is a degree of tyranny

Thus, he must prove why the restriction preventing gay marriage is not a "wanton and causeless" restraint.

 

[Ravi]

I think what Blackstone, and by poor extension, I was saying is that the individual gives up rights to purchase membership in the society. What rights? Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of Blackstone, such rights as society believes is necessary to allow it to exist and thrive.

Does that place the society over the individual? As to some rights, I'm not sure how you would come to an opposite conclusion. For instance, we can look at a freedom society readily removes from the individual. The right to take whatever is available for his own use.

In the state of nature, if I came upon an apple, I could readily convert it to my usage, food. However, in civil society, if I come upon an apple, before I may convert it to my use, I must first inquire whether the apple might belong to someone else. That is to say, if someone has property rights in the apple which I am compelled by my acceptance of the social contract to respect.

So, I have sold my right to freely take what I find, for the price of others respecting my property rights in such things as I may create, grow or otherwise accumulate.

This is a fundemental right. Civil society would not long exist if property were not protected. So, society's requirement that property rights be protected supersede the individual's right to take what he finds.

Are we on the same sheet of music here?

I think so...rights cannot infringe on the rights of others, basically.

So Pubic must come up with a valid explanation of how allowing gays to marry infringes on anyone's rights. Otherwise, he's got no case. And squeamishness doesn't cut it.

I think it goes further than that. I think he must show that allowing same sex marriage tends to undermine or destroy the civil society. Remember Blackstone says that only laws that, as you say:

that the law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens...increases the civil liberty of mankind

But, the flip-side must be dealt with:

that every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject...is a degree of tyranny

Thus, he must prove why the restriction preventing gay marriage is not a "wanton and causeless" restraint.

Very nice!

I'm sure he'll come up with a million more questionable links that prove his point to his satisfaction though to no one else's.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm getting lazy about using quotes again. I repent.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Upon further review, Tech, I think we are on the same page. My only misgiving with your post is that it seems to put the rights of society ahead of the rights of the individual. Under our constitution I don't think you can make a case that the rights of society outweigh the rights of the individual as guaranteed by the constitution.

Otherwise we'd have a true democracy and mob rule.

I think what Blackstone, and by poor extension, I was saying is that the individual gives up rights to purchase membership in the society. What rights? Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of Blackstone, such rights as society believes is necessary to allow it to exist and thrive.

Does that place the society over the individual? As to some rights, I'm not sure how you would come to an opposite conclusion. For instance, we can look at a freedom society readily removes from the individual. The right to take whatever is available for his own use.

In the state of nature, if I came upon an apple, I could readily convert it to my usage, food. However, in civil society, if I come upon an apple, before I may convert it to my use, I must first inquire whether the apple might belong to someone else. That is to say, if someone has property rights in the apple which I am compelled by my acceptance of the social contract to respect.

So, I have sold my right to freely take what I find, for the price of others respecting my property rights in such things as I may create, grow or otherwise accumulate.

This is a fundemental right. Civil society would not long exist if property were not protected. So, society's requirement that property rights be protected supersede the individual's right to take what he finds.

Are we on the same sheet of music here?

I think so...rights cannot infringe on the rights of others, basically.

So Pubic must come up with a valid explanation of how allowing gays to marry infringes on anyone's rights. Otherwise, he's got no case. And squeamishness doesn't cut it.

ROFLMNAO... Squeamish? Moi?

HYSTERICAL! In at least TWO contexts and on several levels...


With apologies the Procter and Gamble...


Below are just a few of the posts which have answered Ravi’s ‘question’… which as these links and examples prove, is not a question as much as it is a LIE… it’s an assertion through which she hopes to project a delusion…

As proof of that, she will pretend that this post doesn’t exist, and/or that none of the thousands of words presented through these numerous SAMPLES of just a FEW of the posts which speak DIRECTLY to this point, do not address her ‘question’ and again, in so doing prove that her point is NOT to inquire, but to project a false-hood, a lie… a DELUSION…

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...er-defend-it-from-polygamy-9.html#post1224305

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...er-defend-it-from-polygamy-8.html#post1224158

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...er-defend-it-from-polygamy-8.html#post1224158

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards... Specifically wherein certain idiots use the color of science; thus the inherent authority of science, which is derived by the objective nature of true science... but in actuality is the subjective nature of pseudo-science... in particular the pseudo-science which pretends to 'study' sexuality...

Such is a machine which perpetuates myth, lies and colors such in empty platitudes, which portray the deception of reasonless conclusions of the vacuous variety, for the purposes of stripping the American culture of its VALUES…

This post states the issue, it states the grievance and the basis for the grievance… the normalization of sexual deviancy and the advocacy for Homosexuals to redefine Marriage and strip it of its cultural essence is based upon lies, myths and empty platitudes… it projects the abnormal as normal and deviant behavior as acceptable behavior…

Further it DECEITFULLY IMPLIES that the advocacy to normalize homosexuality and for homosexuals to modify the standards of Marriage is merely a minor tweaking of a cultural corner-stone and that their plea will not in any significant way alter the meaning of Marriage or the thresholds of Marriage…

When this thread ALONE, CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THAT THE ADOVOCATES OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE HAVE NO INTENTION OF MERELY ‘TWEAKING THE STANDARD OF MARRIAGE’… THAT THEIR INTENT IT SO DESTROY THE VERY IDEA THAT ANY STANDARD IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE.

The OP of this thread simply and unambiguously took this DECEITFUL IMPLICATION HEAD ON! It accepted for the sake of argument that the Federal government Redefined Marriage to include homosexuals; and it simply asked homosexuals to defend that new standard against the next most likely contest to THAT NEW STANDARD… THEIR STANDARD…

And to this point, NOT ONE ADVOCATE OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE HAS MANAGED TO OFFER ANY DEFENSE FROM SUCH A CONTEST, DESPITE THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE OP DECLARING HIS SUPPORT FOR POLYGAMY… which demonstrated the certainty that such IS the next most likely contest to the marriage standard…

What’s MORE… the MAJORITY of Homosexual marriage advocates have stated their own assent to polygamy… declaring that they ‘see no reason to oppose it…’

So this advocacy for homosexual marriage is a SCAM… it is an ideological contest to destroy the judeo-Christian value system by the ideological secular left… All the homosexual advocacy amounts to is a stalking horse, which serves as a rationalization to accomplish that goal… a temporal sacred cow, which rests as the corner-stone to their deceitful house of cards.

Below are just a few of the other posts which have answered this question, which RAVI DEMANDS has not been answered…

What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?

Homosexuals can marry anyone who they can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards... MOOT!

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the raw deception on which their demands are set.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-defend-it-from-polygamy-10.html#post1224610

No? Are you sure?

Let's see now... she asked: "What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?"

I responded by noting that homosexuals are free to marry... thus refuting the false premise she projected... I further explained that where Homosexuals demanded SPECIAL RIGHT to accomodate their SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES... that they were infringing on the right of NORMAN PEOPLE to set and sustain VALID, MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE Standards of behavior... and that such was being attempted through raw deception...

Looks like an answer to me... and of the eminantly well reasoned variety...

Perhaps that is where the point escapes you... that it is framed within sound reason.

Now if that doesn't satisfy you, then perhaps you or one of the other ladies would explain what it is you're looking for.

You have stated no rights you lose because of allowing them to get married, so again, what rights are being lost? You made the point but did nothing to back it up. Back up your argument or fail again.

No... I didn't make the point...

I stated as I always state in such cases, that there is no means for someone to 'lose' rights... At least not where one individual is operating on the same authority as the next... and since, at least the best of my knowledge, the issue is sexual deviancy and the normalization thereof... there is no issue on the table where one entity is operating on a Right taking authority... thus, you're 'mistaken'...

Now I HAVE stated, that the decay of cultural standards, due to the popular consensus; that it is somehow not FAIR to maintain standards which prevent the abnormal from being NORMALIZED, INFRINGES upon the rights of the NORMAL to maintain such standards... PARTICULARLY where that would-be consensus is founded in LIES AND MYTH and sustained through empty PLATITUDES...

For instance... I was flipping through the channels last night and there was some public authority from Leftist Mecca... somewhere near Berkeley, who declared those who adhere to, or maintain membership in the Defense of Marriage organization are members of a "HATE GROUP..."

Now considering that this ENTIRE discussion, started over the bill set to be signed by The Lord of the Idiots, which STRENGTHENS the absurdity known as 'HATE CRIME' ... what you have in THAT statement is at equity with the Anti-Semitic hysteria of 1930s Germany...

It is the SAME strain of popular consensus, born of the same LIES, the SAME MYTHS and sustained through the same EMPTY PLATITUDES... as a matter of FACT, the ONLY distinction is 'THE SUBJECT.'

The purpose of such, is to COW individuals into submission, through this popular consensus backed up by federal authority and the police power.

The bottom line, is that you people are crazier than a shit-house RAT... you're fools who lack the means to reason and you're stuck in intellectual neutral, over this ABSURD rationalization you're committed to regarding FAIRNESS...

You can't even come to understand that ABNORMALITY IS NOT NORMALITY AND THAT A VIABLE CULTURE DOES NOT SET STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR... and this is because such must inevitably DESTROY THE CULTURE.

Now, FTR, where did you see me declare that I was losing rights?

And when you fail to show such, you can apologize for misrepresenting my position... or concede by
default...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-defend-it-from-polygamy-10.html#post1225088





http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-defend-it-from-polygamy-10.html#post1224913

Fearing that some other group may get rights is not a valid reason to deny rights to a non-lawbreaking group.

In fact, it is quite un-American.

What is UN-AMERICAN, is the notion that some groups have rights and that some don't...

Ya see... an AMERICAN understands that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS... PERIOD.

An AMERICAN understands what those rights are; they FURTHER understand that with those rights COME IMMUTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES and that where the responsibility is REJECTED, THE RIGHT IS FORFEITED... as it is the RESPONSIBILITY which SUSTAINS THE RIGHT...

And no AMERICAN fears rights or rejects the inherent, sustaining responsibilities...

I'm still waiting for you to explain what immutable responsibilities come with "those rights" that give validity to denying rights to a group of law abiding citizens.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-defend-it-from-polygamy-10.html#post1224982

The Right of Sound Cultural Standards.

Which amendment is that?

In other words, Pubic believes that rights should be withheld from people that offend him.

This is a guy that claims to be an uber-Patriot...

Huh...? There's no means to 'withold' a right... There is only the means to infringe upon, or usurp the means to exercise a right.

And I've not advocated infringing upon ANYONE'S means to exercise ANY RIGHT; nor have I stated ANYTHING which could lead ANY reasonable person to reasonable conclude that I have...

This member simply comes with an obtuse projection that such is the case, as she has no other alternative but to do so...

The homosexual lobby comes to redefine the standards of Marriage... they want to insert something which is NOT marriage and turn Marriage into THAT. It is the same thing that they did when they re-named homosexuals: Gay... when they revided perversion to reflect a 'sexual orientation'... when they declared that deviation from baseline norm, no longer reflects abnormality... but 'in reality' reflects normality... and this on the grounds that it 'exists in nature', ergo... it's normal...

Marriage is a Union between TWO people who represent BOTH distinct GENDERS... THAT is what Marriage is... Homosexuals will tell you that they are being DENIED the RIGHT to BE MARRIED... when in TRUTH... IN REALITY... NO, NONE, NADA ZERO homosexuals who make application for Marrriage is, are or HAVE BEEN denied the license to marry...

What homosexuals want to to, is to REDEFINE what Marriage IS... and this is because they seek the LEGITIMACY which the DEFINING STANDARD OF MARRIAGE PROVIDES... and what DOES that standard provide? From what does this Legitimacy come? .
.
.
.
.
.
NORMALCY...

That is what this entire issue is about; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Economic privilege; it has absolutely NOTHING to do with their means to cohabitate with the person who 'they love'... to set up house, live, love and support one another... and to do so with the means to receive the Lion's share ofthe SAME economic privilege as any other member of this culture; and those prvileges or benefits which they are not PRESENTLY able to realize, can be sought through the SAME processes which they are presently using to turn Marriage into something THAT IT IS NOT/B], but with vastly less trouble and without undermining; WITHOUT INFRINGING UPON the rights of those who recognize and defend the valid scope of marriage.

And they can do that RIGHT NOW without interference, without fear of reprisal, without concern that they will be denied housing, employment, healthcare... or membership in the Book of the month...

They want to turn Marriage into something that it is NOT... a union between two individuals of the SAME GENDER; THIS IS NOT MARRIAGE; There is no right to turn something to which you've NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM, into something which you NEED IT TO BE... as a means to a deceitful end.

And THAT is the basis of my position that there is NO RIGHT which is being infringed or usurped with regard to Homosexuals, PERIOD.

Meaning that homosexuals are NOT being denied ANY RIGHTS... That the standard of Marriage is being EQUALLY APPLIED through-OUT the CULTURE... wherein NO HOMOSEXUAL IS BEING DENIED A LICENSE TO MARRY, WHERE THE APPLICANTS MEET THE EQUALLY APPLIED STANDARD.

Nor are homosexuals being denied a RIGHT TO COHABITATE as a committed couple, to establish a household, or to establish a legally binding, legally recognized singular entity wherein their ECONOMIC interests can be pursued through that DISTINCT, SINGULAR, LEGALLY BINDING, WELL ESTABLISHED, INPENETRABLE LEGAL UMBRELLA!

Thus the premise that claims that Homosexuals are being denied such, and that those who oppose such are claiming that a right is being infringed IN SO DOING is FALSE.

THUS: RAVI'S CLAIM THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE BEING DENIED A TRUE AND VALID RIGHT IS FALSE.

Further, Ravi's claim that I have failed to provide sound reason, wherein my rights are being infringed through Homosexuals 'RIGHT' to Marriage is FALSE... I have provided at least a DOZEN posts, where this has been explained... in detail which has consistently been lamented... and in each one, I have pointed out that HOMO-SEXUALS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR MARRIAGE: BECAUSE THEY DO NTO MEET THE STANDARD WHICH MARRIAGE REQUIRES; THAT HOMO-SEXUALS HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED ANY OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH ARE COMMON TO MARRIAGE, PARTICULARLY THE ECONOMIC PRIVILEGE THEREIN; but that where Homosexuals seek to REDEFINE the SCOPE OF MARRIAGE to accommodate their Deviancy, they infringe upon the rights of those who recognize that MARRIAGE IS A DISTINCT INSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES FOR A UNION BETWEEN THE TWO DISTINCT GENDERS; wherein the goal is to provide for a stable environment which rests as the nucleus of the culture: The Bi-Gender traditional FAMILY.

 

[Ravi]

All that BS and you still avoided the question I asked you. tff!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Upon further review, Tech, I think we are on the same page. My only misgiving with your post is that it seems to put the rights of society ahead of the rights of the individual. Under our constitution I don't think you can make a case that the rights of society outweigh the rights of the individual as guaranteed by the constitution.

Otherwise we'd have a true democracy and mob rule.

I think what Blackstone, and by poor extension, I was saying is that the individual gives up rights to purchase membership in the society. What rights? Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of Blackstone, such rights as society believes is necessary to allow it to exist and thrive.

Does that place the society over the individual? As to some rights, I'm not sure how you would come to an opposite conclusion. For instance, we can look at a freedom society readily removes from the individual. The right to take whatever is available for his own use.

In the state of nature, if I came upon an apple, I could readily convert it to my usage, food. However, in civil society, if I come upon an apple, before I may convert it to my use, I must first inquire whether the apple might belong to someone else. That is to say, if someone has property rights in the apple which I am compelled by my acceptance of the social contract to respect.

So, I have sold my right to freely take what I find, for the price of others respecting my property rights in such things as I may create, grow or otherwise accumulate.

This is a fundemental right. Civil society would not long exist if property were not protected. So, society's requirement that property rights be protected supersede the individual's right to take what he finds.

Are we on the same sheet of music here?

I think so...rights cannot infringe on the rights of others, basically.

So Pubic must come up with a valid explanation of how allowing gays to marry infringes on anyone's rights. Otherwise, he's got no case. And squeamishness doesn't cut it.

ROFLMNAO... Squeamish? Moi?

HYSTERICAL! In at least TWO contexts and on several levels...


With apologies the Procter and Gamble...


Below are just a few of the posts which have answered Ravi’s ‘question’… which as these links and examples prove, is not a question as much as it is a LIE… it’s an assertion through which she hopes to project a delusion…

As proof of that, she will pretend that this post doesn’t exist, and/or that none of the thousands of words presented through these numerous SAMPLES of just a FEW of the posts which speak DIRECTLY to this point, do not address her ‘question’ and again, in so doing prove that her point is NOT to inquire, but to project a false-hood, a lie… a DELUSION…

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...er-defend-it-from-polygamy-9.html#post1224305

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...er-defend-it-from-polygamy-8.html#post1224158

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...er-defend-it-from-polygamy-8.html#post1224158

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards... Specifically wherein certain idiots use the color of science; thus the inherent authority of science, which is derived by the objective nature of true science... but in actuality is the subjective nature of pseudo-science... in particular the pseudo-science which pretends to 'study' sexuality...

Such is a machine which perpetuates myth, lies and colors such in empty platitudes, which portray the deception of reasonless conclusions of the vacuous variety, for the purposes of stripping the American culture of its VALUES…

This post states the issue, it states the grievance and the basis for the grievance… the normalization of sexual deviancy and the advocacy for Homosexuals to redefine Marriage and strip it of its cultural essence is based upon lies, myths and empty platitudes… it projects the abnormal as normal and deviant behavior as acceptable behavior…

Further it DECEITFULLY IMPLIES that the advocacy to normalize homosexuality and for homosexuals to modify the standards of Marriage is merely a minor tweaking of a cultural corner-stone and that their plea will not in any significant way alter the meaning of Marriage or the thresholds of Marriage…

When this thread ALONE, CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THAT THE ADOVOCATES OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE HAVE NO INTENTION OF MERELY ‘TWEAKING THE STANDARD OF MARRIAGE’… THAT THEIR INTENT IT SO DESTROY THE VERY IDEA THAT ANY STANDARD IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE.

The OP of this thread simply and unambiguously took this DECEITFUL IMPLICATION HEAD ON! It accepted for the sake of argument that the Federal government Redefined Marriage to include homosexuals; and it simply asked homosexuals to defend that new standard against the next most likely contest to THAT NEW STANDARD… THEIR STANDARD…

And to this point, NOT ONE ADVOCATE OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE HAS MANAGED TO OFFER ANY DEFENSE FROM SUCH A CONTEST, DESPITE THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE OP DECLARING HIS SUPPORT FOR POLYGAMY… which demonstrated the certainty that such IS the next most likely contest to the marriage standard…

What’s MORE… the MAJORITY of Homosexual marriage advocates have stated their own assent to polygamy… declaring that they ‘see no reason to oppose it…’

So this advocacy for homosexual marriage is a SCAM… it is an ideological contest to destroy the judeo-Christian value system by the ideological secular left… All the homosexual advocacy amounts to is a stalking horse, which serves as a rationalization to accomplish that goal… a temporal sacred cow, which rests as the corner-stone to their deceitful house of cards.

Below are just a few of the other posts which have answered this question, which RAVI DEMANDS has not been answered…

What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?

Homosexuals can marry anyone who they can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards... MOOT!

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the raw deception on which their demands are set.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-defend-it-from-polygamy-10.html#post1224610

No? Are you sure?

Let's see now... she asked: "What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?"

I responded by noting that homosexuals are free to marry... thus refuting the false premise she projected... I further explained that where Homosexuals demanded SPECIAL RIGHT to accomodate their SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES... that they were infringing on the right of NORMAN PEOPLE to set and sustain VALID, MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE Standards of behavior... and that such was being attempted through raw deception...

Looks like an answer to me... and of the eminantly well reasoned variety...

Perhaps that is where the point escapes you... that it is framed within sound reason.

Now if that doesn't satisfy you, then perhaps you or one of the other ladies would explain what it is you're looking for.

You have stated no rights you lose because of allowing them to get married, so again, what rights are being lost? You made the point but did nothing to back it up. Back up your argument or fail again.

No... I didn't make the point...

I stated as I always state in such cases, that there is no means for someone to 'lose' rights... At least not where one individual is operating on the same authority as the next... and since, at least the best of my knowledge, the issue is sexual deviancy and the normalization thereof... there is no issue on the table where one entity is operating on a Right taking authority... thus, you're 'mistaken'...

Now I HAVE stated, that the decay of cultural standards, due to the popular consensus; that it is somehow not FAIR to maintain standards which prevent the abnormal from being NORMALIZED, INFRINGES upon the rights of the NORMAL to maintain such standards... PARTICULARLY where that would-be consensus is founded in LIES AND MYTH and sustained through empty PLATITUDES...

For instance... I was flipping through the channels last night and there was some public authority from Leftist Mecca... somewhere near Berkeley, who declared those who adhere to, or maintain membership in the Defense of Marriage organization are members of a "HATE GROUP..."

Now considering that this ENTIRE discussion, started over the bill set to be signed by The Lord of the Idiots, which STRENGTHENS the absurdity known as 'HATE CRIME' ... what you have in THAT statement is at equity with the Anti-Semitic hysteria of 1930s Germany...

It is the SAME strain of popular consensus, born of the same LIES, the SAME MYTHS and sustained through the same EMPTY PLATITUDES... as a matter of FACT, the ONLY distinction is 'THE SUBJECT.'

The purpose of such, is to COW individuals into submission, through this popular consensus backed up by federal authority and the police power.

The bottom line, is that you people are crazier than a shit-house RAT... you're fools who lack the means to reason and you're stuck in intellectual neutral, over this ABSURD rationalization you're committed to regarding FAIRNESS...

You can't even come to understand that ABNORMALITY IS NOT NORMALITY AND THAT A VIABLE CULTURE DOES NOT SET STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR... and this is because such must inevitably DESTROY THE CULTURE.

Now, FTR, where did you see me declare that I was losing rights?

And when you fail to show such, you can apologize for misrepresenting my position... or concede by
default...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-defend-it-from-polygamy-10.html#post1225088





http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-defend-it-from-polygamy-10.html#post1224913

Fearing that some other group may get rights is not a valid reason to deny rights to a non-lawbreaking group.

In fact, it is quite un-American.

What is UN-AMERICAN, is the notion that some groups have rights and that some don't...

Ya see... an AMERICAN understands that everyone has the SAME RIGHTS... PERIOD.

An AMERICAN understands what those rights are; they FURTHER understand that with those rights COME IMMUTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES and that where the responsibility is REJECTED, THE RIGHT IS FORFEITED... as it is the RESPONSIBILITY which SUSTAINS THE RIGHT...

And no AMERICAN fears rights or rejects the inherent, sustaining responsibilities...

I'm still waiting for you to explain what immutable responsibilities come with "those rights" that give validity to denying rights to a group of law abiding citizens.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-defend-it-from-polygamy-10.html#post1224982

The Right of Sound Cultural Standards.

Which amendment is that?

In other words, Pubic believes that rights should be withheld from people that offend him.

This is a guy that claims to be an uber-Patriot...

Huh...? There's no means to 'withold' a right... There is only the means to infringe upon, or usurp the means to exercise a right.

And I've not advocated infringing upon ANYONE'S means to exercise ANY RIGHT; nor have I stated ANYTHING which could lead ANY reasonable person to reasonable conclude that I have...

This member simply comes with an obtuse projection that such is the case, as she has no other alternative but to do so...

The homosexual lobby comes to redefine the standards of Marriage... they want to insert something which is NOT marriage and turn Marriage into THAT. It is the same thing that they did when they re-named homosexuals: Gay... when they revided perversion to reflect a 'sexual orientation'... when they declared that deviation from baseline norm, no longer reflects abnormality... but 'in reality' reflects normality... and this on the grounds that it 'exists in nature', ergo... it's normal...

Marriage is a Union between TWO people who represent BOTH distinct GENDERS... THAT is what Marriage is... Homosexuals will tell you that they are being DENIED the RIGHT to BE MARRIED... when in TRUTH... IN REALITY... NO, NONE, NADA ZERO homosexuals who make application for Marrriage is, are or HAVE BEEN denied the license to marry...

What homosexuals want to to, is to REDEFINE what Marriage IS... and this is because they seek the LEGITIMACY which the DEFINING STANDARD OF MARRIAGE PROVIDES... and what DOES that standard provide? From what does this Legitimacy come? .
.
.
.
.
.
NORMALCY...

That is what this entire issue is about; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Economic privilege; it has absolutely NOTHING to do with their means to cohabitate with the person who 'they love'... to set up house, live, love and support one another... and to do so with the means to receive the Lion's share ofthe SAME economic privilege as any other member of this culture; and those prvileges or benefits which they are not PRESENTLY able to realize, can be sought through the SAME processes which they are presently using to turn Marriage into something THAT IT IS NOT/B], but with vastly less trouble and without undermining; WITHOUT INFRINGING UPON the rights of those who recognize and defend the valid scope of marriage.

And they can do that RIGHT NOW without interference, without fear of reprisal, without concern that they will be denied housing, employment, healthcare... or membership in the Book of the month...

They want to turn Marriage into something that it is NOT... a union between two individuals of the SAME GENDER; THIS IS NOT MARRIAGE; There is no right to turn something to which you've NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM, into something which you NEED IT TO BE... as a means to a deceitful end.

And THAT is the basis of my position that there is NO RIGHT which is being infringed or usurped with regard to Homosexuals, PERIOD.

Meaning that homosexuals are NOT being denied ANY RIGHTS... That the standard of Marriage is being EQUALLY APPLIED through-OUT the CULTURE... wherein NO HOMOSEXUAL IS BEING DENIED A LICENSE TO MARRY, WHERE THE APPLICANTS MEET THE EQUALLY APPLIED STANDARD.

Nor are homosexuals being denied a RIGHT TO COHABITATE as a committed couple, to establish a household, or to establish a legally binding, legally recognized singular entity wherein their ECONOMIC interests can be pursued through that DISTINCT, SINGULAR, LEGALLY BINDING, WELL ESTABLISHED, INPENETRABLE LEGAL UMBRELLA!

Thus the premise that claims that Homosexuals are being denied such, and that those who oppose such are claiming that a right is being infringed IN SO DOING is FALSE.

THUS: RAVI'S CLAIM THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE BEING DENIED A TRUE AND VALID RIGHT IS FALSE.

Further, Ravi's claim that I have failed to provide sound reason, wherein my rights are being infringed through Homosexuals 'RIGHT' to Marriage is FALSE... I have provided at least a DOZEN posts, where this has been explained... in detail which has consistently been lamented... and in each one, I have pointed out that HOMO-SEXUALS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR MARRIAGE: BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MEET THE STANDARD WHICH MARRIAGE REQUIRES; THAT HOMO-SEXUALS HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED ANY OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH ARE COMMON TO MARRIAGE, PARTICULARLY THE ECONOMIC PRIVILEGE THEREIN; but that where Homosexuals seek to REDEFINE the SCOPE OF MARRIAGE to accommodate their Deviancy,
they infringe upon the rights of those who recognize that MARRIAGE IS A DISTINCT INSTITUTION, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A UNION OF TWO INDIVIDUALS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TWO DISTINCT GENDERS, TO DO SO;

... wherein the goal is to provide for a stable environment, to the extent that is possible, which rests as the nucleus of the culture: The Bi-Gender traditional FAMILY.

All that BS and you still avoided the question I asked you. tff!

And with THAT, friends... Ravi conclusively establishes herself as a breying FOOL...

Anyone who would like to contest this assertion is invited; ney CHALLENGED to post a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument wherein you can demonstrate that the cited posts did NOT answer this ethereal 'question...'

Ravi is a TROLL... An addle-minded sot who's only purpose here is to de-rail the discussion through empty denials born from an obtuse pretense... who, through her dispisacble behavior, has discredited her own argument and the full scope of the would-be struggle to which she otherwise seems so committed.

 

[Tech_Esq]

PI,

Concerning your first contention as reflected in this statement:

it states the grievance and the basis for the grievance… the normalization of sexual deviancy and the advocacy for Homosexuals to redefine Marriage and strip it of its cultural essence is based upon lies, myths and empty platitudes

I would advance, contrary to your bald contention that this is harmful of society, that in fact, its restriction is as Blackstone says of such regulations:

...{A} wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, ... , {and thus a} degree of tyranny: nay, that even laws themselves, whether made with or without our consent, if they regulate and constrain our conduct in matters of more indifference, without any good end in view, are regulations destructive of liberty...

Contrary to your assertion that the issue is about marriage and and societal values, the question presented is more basic than that and by skipping forward to marriage and values, you miss your stumbling stone.

Your position, you claim, redounds from natural law. Fine, let's look at it.

In the state of nature, man could do what he wished so long as he violated no law of nature. So, if members of the same sex wanted to engage in a relationship, there was nothing to prevent this. If further, they wished to engage in a lengthy and permanent relationship, this too would have been within his right.

Your point then is that man must have lost this right when he sign the social contract. We know from Blackstone however,

{That} every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obligos himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish.

This would seem to let you off the hook. Society does not allow same-sex marriage. However, society also did not allow women to vote, before it did. So, we must inquire further as to whether the instant prohibition is legitimate regardless of its existence. By what standard must we measure legitimacy. Blackstone tells us:

... {C}ivil liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and no farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public. Hence we may collect that the law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow-citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind

So, we know from this that civil liberty should be you liberty as it was under natural law limited on so far as is NECESSARY to keep from doing mischief to other members of society.

So, now we are back to your assertion that the mere fact of a relationship being legitimized by government causes harm to the society. For if that is not your contention is is fails prima facie as this is the standard of legitimacy.

Now we are back to your statement that same sex marriage "normalizes sexual deviancy" etc. So, by that statement we are asked to review what effect that has on society and if the assertion itself is true and what is the nature and character of the statement if true.

Let's check to see if Blackstone provides us a rule or other guideline to analyze this by:

Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws.

Ah, Blackstone does indeed have something to say. Basically, if the bad thing that is done, is done in private, then it is of no moment to society. Let's see if Mr. Blackstone will favor us with an example so we may understand more fully.

But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, (as drunkenness, or the like,) then they become, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them.

To analyze same-sex sexual relationships we will imbue them, en arguendo, with the negative influences which you claim and without modification. Thus, we will compare drunkness (which Blackstone says sets a bad example if done in public) and homosexual relations. I will agree with Blackstone that like drunkness, if homosexual relations are practiced in public, it would be bad and there ought to be a law. In fact, this goes for heterosexual relations and there is a law.

But what if it is done in private? Blackstone draws the distinction between public (relative) duties and private (absolute) duties.

Here the circumstance of publication is what alters the nature of the case. Public sobriety is a relative duty, and therefore enjoined by our laws; private sobriety is an absolute duty, which, whether it be performed or not, human tribunals can never know; and therefore they can never enforce it by any civil sanction.

So, as to the physical act of homosexual fucking (the definitive act which distinguishes the homosexual from the heterosexual), Blackstone says, human tribunals can never enforce laws by any civil sanction.

But that is only one aspect. The public aspect of a homosexual marriage must be reviewed. The marriage in public is relative. That means it is the public face of the relationship. As we have already decided above that the sexual aspect of the relationship must occur in private (the same as heterosexual relationships), we needn't deal with "sexual deviancy" aspect of PI's assertion any longer. However, he does have a point (which he didn't make) about deviancy of the relationship.

So far as society is concerned, only one type of marriage exists. That is heterosexual monogamous marriage. Therefore, anything not so described is deviant by definition. So, the question is whether the mere fact of deviancy is sufficient to make the claim that same-sex marriage is destructive to society?

I think we can safely say no. The fact of SSM does not preclude heterosexual marriage. Its existence does not disparage heterosexual marriage, it is simply an alternative to heterosexual marriage. Much as this choice exists in the state of nature which after all is what states exist to protect. See Blackstone above.

It may be advanced that if children see people engaged in the closeness assumed of people in a SSM that this observation, though it not be of a sexual nature, would none the less cause such confusion in the youth as to amount to harm. Thus, harming the youth of country by such confounding confusion would undermine society and is therefore destructive of the civil society.

If one is willing to accept that, even assuming en arguendo, that homosexual behavior is a choice, that most people will choose to be heterosexual, then the fact of having a homosexual choice marital relationship is not destructive of society. Certainly, it was shocking to see black people sitting at the lunch counter next to a white businessman in 1959 Charleston, but everyone got over it. So, would it be with gay marriage.

As to whether sexual deviance is legitimized by the government or not. I don't see your point. Government exists to -- well Blackstone says it best:

the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature, but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities.

Since as we have seen, man was able to engage in same-sex relationships in the state of nature, so it is incumbent upon government to allow and protect the same in civil society.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Before I begin, I'd like to take the time to thank Tech for their considered response... It presents a thoughtful contest and bears the signs of a measured effort; and frankly I appreciate that.

PI,

Concerning your first contention as reflected in this statement:

it states the grievance and the basis for the grievance… the normalization of sexual deviancy and the advocacy for Homosexuals to redefine Marriage and strip it of its cultural essence is based upon lies, myths and empty platitudes

I would advance, contrary to your bald contention that this is harmful of society, that in fact, its restriction is as Blackstone says of such regulations:

...{A} wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, ... , {and thus a} degree of tyranny: nay, that even laws themselves, whether made with or without our consent, if they regulate and constrain our conduct in matters of more indifference, without any good end in view, are regulations destructive of liberty...

Contrary to your assertion that the issue is about marriage and and societal values, the question presented is more basic than that and by skipping forward to marriage and values, you miss your stumbling stone.

Your position, you claim, redounds from natural law. Fine, let's look at it.

In the state of nature, man could do what he wished so long as he violated no law of nature. So, if members of the same sex wanted to engage in a relationship, there was nothing to prevent this. If further, they wished to engage in a lengthy and permanent relationship, this too would have been within his right.

But check me if I'm wrong here... Engaging in homosexual sex, is a violation of the laws of nature... Clearly this conclusion presently flies in the face of modern conventional wisdom; and this generally on the misnomer that 'it exists in nature…,' but the mere existence of a behavior, in no way demonstrates the natural lawfulness of such... Sexuality is a function of biology... the biological imperative which sustains the species; without regard to the species at issue.

So where you assume from Blackstone that in the 'state of nature,' that it's a free for all... that one is entitled to engage in whatever flitters through their minds is simply wrong.

We know from thousands of years of human history, that deviant sexual promiscuity results in the transference of disease... and for MOST of human history, such disease was often not only lethal, but exquisite in it's cruelty through the lingering agony which it produced... Producing fair evidence that such behavior is not sustainable in nature and that it sure as hell should be avoided…

This circumstance produces what? I mean are we not looking at what tends towards the establishment of a natural law? Engage in deviant, promiscuous sex and face the very real likelihood of dying a slow and agonizing death? The Moral of which is: DON’T DO IT!

And as justice requires, this is a law which is applied equitably to all classes, races, genders, ages and sexual orientations...

So what this should demonstrate is that the social mores, which preclude debauchery, promiscuity…; the standard of marriage which requires monogamy... and a joining of No more or less than TWO individuals, each representing the two DISTINCT genders... serve a long standing LAW of nature, does it not?

Now you may not feel that this natural law is fair... but nature clearly disagrees... and what's more she has MANY such unwritten rules... most of which are covered in Western jurisprudence and many of which are presently being challenged on the same specious grounds over which you're trotting this argument.

What you're arguing is that there is good cause for society, where such finds a rationalization; where that rationalization finds an advocacy; that it is incumbent upon the society to reject the law of nature and authorize that which nature has forbidden, by design... on little more than the erroneous judgment that ‘to do otherwise is simply not fair…’

Reason is served that where a society fails to discipline itself to adhere to the laws of nature, that society will succumb to the same fate which the natural individual would succumb... with natural penalty being no less certain and no less final.

Your point then is that man must have lost this right when he sign the social contract.

No Sir... this is decidedly NOT a point of mine and such a conclusion is wholly unfounded.

My contention is that there is no right to violate nature's law... and that society, as is the individual, is bound to respect those laws and rejects or ignores them at the certainty of it's own peril.

We know from Blackstone however,

{That} every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obligos himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish.

This would seem to let you off the hook.

It seems that way... except that it's not so much 'letting me off the hook' as it is that this reasoning stands as one of the many facets of my argument... Every individual gives up certain elements of unbridled freedom through being subjected to the laws of nature. I’d like to flap my arms and fly… natural law prohibits such.

Where I want to fly, I board a device created for such, where I subject myself to the certain natural risks inherent in doing so. The penalty for such is not suspended where that device fails to observe to the letter, the natural laws which govern its viability; and where the pilot of such a device fails to maintain sufficient vigilance, nature provides no pass… the consequences for this violation are no less certain then they were 10,000 years ago. Meaning that the enlightenment born of technological advances have not modified natural law, or the consequences of violating that law… such enlightenment has merely provided a means to operate at a higher technologically level, requiring a higher threshold of understanding by which we navigate our behavior to meet compliance of those laws…

But the basis for the societal rule remains constant; to discourage behavior which is prohibited by natural law...

Society does not allow same-sex marriage. However, society also did not allow women to vote, before it did.

It's here where your reasoning really begins to fragment...

Society doesn't allow same-gender marriage, because such does not, cannot and will otherwise NEVER be able to meet the reasonable, well founded, natural law; which provides that Marriage serves a biological imperative, which can never be served through the extra-natural state of homosexuality.

Society did not provide for a woman to vote, because of reasoning which erroneously concluded that women were property; or a sub-class of species... inferior and so on.

When in truth, women were, as they are... human beings who enjoy the same rights as their male counter-parts. Thus where males were prohibiting women from voting, they were infringing upon the equal right of another... a violation of the immutable responsibility to NOT do so, which is present in every right of every individual.

The two issues are not analogous... Homosexuals are free to engage in the violation of natures law, at their OWN peril... If they chose to leap from the obligatory, fabled precipice... such would be their 'right'... but a viable culture; society, if you prefer, does not normalize, legitimize, or otherwise promote as acceptable, of LEAPING FROM THE CLIFF, as a viable 'alternative lifestyle'... On the grounds that such is possible, that it exist in nature and that some choose to do so. Same with lighting one’s self on fire, or engaging in other self destructive, culturally corrosive behaviors…

Which is to say that a society may not FORBID through LAW the individual engaging in such behavior; but the absence of such a law does NOT, contrary to modern conventional wisdom, stand as a tacit authorization or authoritative encouragement that such is a wise move…

And such is the case with Homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviancy; society may very well not FORBID such; and no one has explained why not, better than Blackstone; but that does not mean that, as noted above, the absence of legislation prohibiting that behavior that society must endorse, or otherwise promote such as natural and acceptable; because such is un-natural behavior; forbidden by nature as a function of her inherent DESIGN.

As noted above, reason requires that the same calamity which befalls the individual for ignoring or rejecting natural law, will befall the society which fails to avoid the same.

SO ...

It's obvious that the arguments have sufficiently split that further response to your references and reasoning are not warranted.

Suffice it to say, that the Western Culture, in particularly the US Culture have, to our own peril, promoted sexual deviancy as something on the order of acceptable... that this failing to sustain sound cultural standards, to heed nature's law and it's natural admonishment, has resulted in this logical extension of that failure; whereupon we're now being asked to double down on that failure; to cement such as 'culturally legitimate' and establishing in finality, that abnormal, deviant behavior, prohibited by natural law is suitable and otherwise appropriate for MARRIAGE; the very nucleus of the culture.

My argument, provides that the cultural decadence which long ago established the acceptance of sexual deviancy, has now matured into the endorsement of sexual deviancy… that in doing so we committed a cultural violation of the aforementioned natural admonishment, that sexual deviancy and promiscuity are to be avoided and that the RESULT OF WHICH is the present demand for the normalization of sexual deviancy to finally rest itself upon the pinnacle of cultural legitimacy, through it's ascension to Marriage.

That where our culture comes to accept this final step, we will have abandoned entirely, any means to defend natural law; as natural law will be relegated to irrelevant, where popular consensus; “the will of the People” will have become a superior authority in the minds of that misguided ‘people.’

The attempt by the homosexual lobby to seek acceptance for Marriage is NOT an attempt to 'tweak' what is argued to be a minor inconsistency in the equitable application of the law, but to abolish as a CONCEPT, the very notion that society even NEEDS standards which regulate public behavior.

Again Sir...

This very discussion is rooted in the rhetorical acceptance of Homosexual marriage, for the sake of this argument; wherein the scenario provides that homosexuals have been provided the protections they requested; the standards of Marriage have been 'tweaked' to provide for such and sufficient time has passed that this NEW STANDARD has come to realize the next logical contest... In and by that of the Polygamist.

I simply challenged those present; those who have come to demand that Marriage be redefined to provide for Homosexual participation, to assume the above scenario and defend THE STANDARD WHICH THEY DEMANDED and SECURED... from the next contestant; who would have us change THAT NEW STANDARD to accommodate their 'special circumstance'...

Look back over this thread Sir and you'll find that not a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL of that rank has attempted to defend such on ANY LEVEL... What's more, those who come to demand that we change this critical cultural standard; a standard which defends the natural law regulating human sexuality; a standard which promotes the biological imperative; a standard which serves as the foundation of the culture itself... ; TO THE INDIVIDUAL, each one of those who presently contest the current standard, oppose maintaining their proposed NEW standard against ANY group which seeks to challenge it's newly modified threshold.

Thus the conclusion can only come to recognize that those who represent themselves as merely seeking to modify this one little item, are, in point of fact, asking the culture to abolish this one, enormous cultural crux.

And Sir…In closing… Nature provides that such is unacceptable; that the normalization of sexual deviancy comes at a very high price indeed and that there is no pass provided by nature wherein that which is prohibited to the individual, is otherwise acceptable for the culture.