Friday, February 22, 2013

Latest Gay Marriage Lies from Christian Post

We haven't had a good CP article full of falsehoods about gay marriage for a while; thank goodness for this piece from Jennifer Thieme!

"True conservatives support limited government, and they understand that there are other institutions which serve to limit government power. Two of these institutions are the natural family..."
False.  The government subsidizes both straight marriage and having children with a wide range of legal and financial benefits.

"...and religion."
False.  The separation of church and state prevents religion and government from influencing each other.  Or at least, it would, if Christian activists weren't constantly pushing for special treatment under the law for their own religion.

"In order to accommodate gay couples into the institution of marriage, all gendered words are removed from the law, words such as bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father. These are replaced with gender-neutral words such as partner, party, applicant, and parent."
This is the beginning of an extended three-paragraph tautology.  The argument is basically that if we allow gay people to get married, gay people will be allowed to get married.  Well, yeah...  That's the idea.

"Some on the left will ask: "How does gay marriage harm YOUR marriage?" The answer is quite simple: traditional marriage will cease to exist as a public policy."
Does that mean the government will no longer allow straight people to get married, or no longer subsidize straight marriages?  No?  Then it still doesn't affect YOUR marriage at all.

"Does marriage exist without sex?"
Plenty do.

"Do we really believe that it will be a good thing to eliminate traditional marriage as a distinct policy?"
Why not, since that won't harm anyone's marriages?

"What will society look like after a generation has passed without traditional marriage as a distinct policy?"
Better.  More people will be allowed to get married and raise children in that environment, and the law will finally treat gay and straight couples equally.


  1. "The government subsidizes both straight marriage and having children with a wide range of legal and financial benefits." Why do you think the govt does that?

    "The separation of church and state prevents religion and government from influencing each other." As a citizen I have every right to express my religious values in seeking to influence social and govt policies. Yes? No? I don't know?

  2. Why the government subsidizes marriage and having children doesn't really matter to me.

    As a religious person, you are more than welcome to wield whatever political influence you can, up to and including trying to get your beliefs codified in law. Especially since that refutes the article's idea that religion is a limiting factor with regard to government.

  3. I won't defend the Christian Post, but I will make a few comments.

    Marriage was established by God in the beginning. So-called "gay marriage" isn't marriage any more than "gays" are gay. The real issue is about redefining words. The same is true with abortion. The positions are characterized (by some) as pro-choice vs. anti-abortion. I would characterize them as pro-murder vs. pro-life. The words that are used influence the way people think about the issue.

    Part of the reason for government subsidies (via tax breaks) for marriage and having children is that they help fund government. Married couples are less likely to be on welfare or other government assistance, and children are the future taxpayers.

    However, I believe government has no authority whatsoever in regulating, licensing, taxing, etc. anything related to marriage. If it is a matter of spousal benefits, that is something that can be addressed in employment contracts. Regarding divorce, custody, etc., again that can be taken of care through contracts. There is no reason government has to be involved at all, except possible to adjudicate the contracts.

    I believe in very limited government and reducing government spending. I am all for any and all tax breaks for families, corporations, etc., as long as they do not result in the government paying out money. The problem in the current system is that the government uses tax breaks to favor certain industries, large donors, or even individual corporations and actually ends up not simply not collecting taxes, but paying money out. This is wrong. The government should not be paying out money for anything other than legitimate operating expenses.

    The Constitution does not mention "separation of church and state". What the Constitution does say is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What that meant to the "Founding Fathers" is that the government could not impose specific requirements of religious worship on the people of the United States. It does not prohibit Biblical laws from becoming the laws of the United States or conditions such as requiring all government employees to be Christians. For verification of this, please see the discussions of the Constitutional Convention and also see the State Constitutions of that time. I've got a good list of laws that I was reading over the weekend. I'll type it in and post it here later.

    I'm sure you could guess this DVD Bach, but just for the record, the Bible identifies homosexuality as being sinful and immoral. The penalty for those who are found to engage in such behavior is death.

    Leviticus 18:22
    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    Leviticus 20:13
    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    The passages those verses are found in also condemn incest and beastiality. Where do you stand on those issues DVD Bach?

  4. I'm not able to take seriously anything that God supposedly said, since you haven't established that God exists in the first place. The same book of the Bible condemns eating shellfish and wearing two different kinds of thread. Where do you stand on those issues?

    Incest and bestiality are completely unrelated issues. Let me know if you'd like to discuss those, and I'll write up a blog post for each, so that we're not talking about them here.

    So when you say that government has no business being involved in marriage, do you mean straight marriage as well? In other words, would you be in favor of abolishing the current legal benefits given to straight couples for getting married?

    The separation of church and state is a well-established legal principle based on about 200 years of case law. It may not have been articulated in its current form at the time of drafting of Constitution, but the courts have interpreted the First Amendment to express that idea. Bear in mind that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, women couldn't vote and black people were property. Legal principles changes over time, and rightly so.

  5. I had to think about your idea that subsidizing having children is a good idea because they grow up to fund government. Would you say the same thing about other means that could be used to grow a society's population? For example, should immigration be similarly subsidized?

  6. We don't have to continue with incest and beastiality, although I do think your view of morality has problems regarding those issues. Even if our current society agrees to condemn such things, were they ever right in the past? Could they possibly be right in the future? I believe your view of morality would allow that possibility.

    Yes, I believe that government has no business being involved in marriage (except to enforce privately agreed to marriage contracts if necessary). I do favor the current tax breaks for married couples, but that is only because I am against the current form of taxation by the government (ie. the marriage tax breaks help to reduce the evil of the immoral taxation). I would much prefer if the marriage tax breaks were eliminated, but only if the current income tax system were eliminated.

    Regarding subsidizing children, I was only explaining why the government does that. I don't agree that it is right. My views on child benefits and immigration subsidies are similar to what I have stated above regarding marriage. I don't believe the government should be subsidizing *anything*. I believe the civil government should be vastly smaller in size, maybe 5-10% of its current size.

    Immigration is much more complex because of all the other issues involved, but as a general principle, I believe it should be much more open that what is currently in place. If there weren't "free" public education, "free" healthcare, and all the other "free" things the government currently steals and borrows money to pay for, most of the other immigration "problems" would go away.

    Right, the legal principles have changed since the Constitution, in most cases for the worse. The nation has been ravaged by traitors like Lincoln and just about every other president. They swore an oath which they then broke, and God will hold them accountable.

  7. Interesting perspectives on taxation, immigration and subsidies for children. I agree that those are complex and interrelated issues, so it would probably be too much to get into them here. I think that in general, I'm inclined to agree with where you're going on those, though.

    Do you really think legal principles have changed for the worse? Were we better off before women could vote and black people were citizens?

    1. Yes, legal principles have definitely changed for the worse. The Constitution was supposed to create a civil government of limited powers. The government today is anything but. When some States wanted to secede, Lincoln prevented them from doing so by war (and broke the law to do so). The government now has unjust taxes, mandatory purchases (Obamacare), crippling regulations, and too many other evils to name. We live in a fascist State.

      I believe black people are equal to white people in every way (the Bible says so) and should be afforded exactly the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities. That does not mean they should be entitled to extra benefits, although a case could be made for restitution from those who were actually responsible for their mistreatment.

      Regarding women voting, I am against that, but then again I'm against popular voting in general. Popular voting results in people voting for politicians, judges, etc. who will give them more "stuff" until eventually the whole system goes bankrupt (as we currently find ourselves in the United States).

      That is not to say that women are somehow lesser human beings. The Christian view is that woman are equally created in God's image. However, that doesn't mean that they are the same as men or that their roles and responsibilities are the same. Before women could vote, voting was done by families (the male head of the household, or single adult males). Now that women can vote, voting is done by individuals. This has resulted in the fragmentation of families.

      If we were really serious about equality in voting, then every citizen would vote on every single law/regulation/etc. But we have a representative form of government (for better or worse, mostly worse). Why is it okay to elect representative for geographical areas, but not okay for men to vote as representatives of their households?

    2. So in actuality, your problem is not with changing legal principles over time, but with the entire system of government in the United States as it is currently set up. It sounds like your objections are so fundamental that if it were your decision to make, the whole Constitution would be scrapped and re-done from the ground up.

      I have to say, I don't totally object to that idea, although I'm quite sure you and I would design the new governing system pretty differently.

    3. Yes, I would say that is a fair conclusion.

  8. I'll go ahead and do a separate blog post for bestiality and incest when I'm able to. It'll be easier to address your questions about past and future that way.

    1. Okay. I think you already know my position, although there are some Biblical issues to be discussed regarding incest.