Gay Republicans! Noooooooo!

[Guest]

Howsabout the argument that it's illegal for the Fed to redefine marriage:

Which is founded on nothing.
The state has NOT previously defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, current innitiatives are trying to change this.

Or how about arguing the absurdity of your position of no rules on marriage:
 ...

Outstanding!  I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands.  Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers?  I'm overdue for a checkup.

I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.

A) This debate isnt about polygamy last time I checked.

B) Why is a man claiming spousal insurance support any more absurd than a woman claiming the same? Husbands are often covered under their wive's insurance coverage, why is it more absurd for a man to be on his husbands insurance coverage?

C) Not even on point because we are talking about state-authorized gay marriage, not about wether private companies choose to cover "domestic partners" (although many already do).

Or maybe debunking the argument that homosexuals have no choice about their lifestyle, therefore it should be justification for social engineering:

Let me just answer by quoting your own words:

That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.

Moving along to the argument that homosexual marriage is already perfectly legal, that all laws apply equally to gays as to straights, which refutes the notion that we need to alter our laws to make them "fair":

Here's another interesting thought:  The traditional rules do not discriminate against or exclude gays from marriage.  Gays are as free to marry as straights, under the exact same rules and restrictions.  Any man, gay or straight, is free to marry a woman.  Any woman, gay or straight, is free to marry a man.

Which is also completely off point because this discussion is about same-sex marriages.

I guess I was wrong, I was giving you too much credit. Your stance isnt based on the idea that homosexuality is wrong. It is based on off-point non-arguments and rhetoric. Thats a big shame because I actually had some respect for the idea that homosexuality is wrong because i happen to partially agree with it, I just dont think the state has any stake in right or wrong when noone is victized by that imoral act.

[Guest]

And this can be distilled into you sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, "I'm not listening!"  It could also be distilled into you giving up any defense of your irrational position.

I'm listening, I just havent heard anything that makes any sense yet. I hardly think that the stance that the government shouldnt be legislating victimless immoral behavior is irrational, in fact arguing otherwise strikes me as the near definition of irrational behavior for a person that pretends to love the "land of the free". If we were having this discussion in a mosque in Bagdad, then maybe my side would be irrational.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Your position is crumbling, and I think you realize it.  You really had to stretch to try to make some of these points:

Quote
Howsabout the argument that it's illegal for the Fed to redefine marriage:

Which is founded on nothing.
The state has NOT previously defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, current innitiatives are trying to change this.

It is founded upon the very real premises of limited, constitutionally restrained Federal government.  It simply isn't the Fed's job to force new social institutions, such as gay marriage, down the throats of the people.  You're flat out wrong when you say this position is "founded on nothing."

Quote
Or how about arguing the absurdity of your position of no rules on marriage:
 ...

Outstanding!  I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands.  Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers?  I'm overdue for a checkup.

I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.

A) This debate isnt about polygamy last time I checked.

B) Who is a man claiming spousal insurance support any more absurd than a woman claiming the same? Husbands are often covered under their wive's insurance coverage, why is it more absurd for a man to be on his husbands insurance coverage?

C) Not even on point because we are talking about state-authorized gay marriage, not about wether private companies choose to cover "domestic partners" (although many already do).

A) The debate is about redefining marriage.  If one side can change it to serve their own personal interests (as in gay marriage), then so can I.  Of course, I wouldn't bother, 'cause I'm not into wielding the courts and the law against those from whom I want to extort some benefit.  But that certainly doesn't mean that others won't.
B)  A man claiming insurance support because he thinks he's married to another man whose coverage extends to a spouse is absurd.  A woman claiming benefits extended to her husband's spouse is not absurd.  The obvious distinction is that the man and the woman are actually married, whereas the man and the man are not.  Now if two men wish to negotiate for joint health coverage on the basis of rational self interest with the provider (as opposed to forcing the provided to provide because of some activist court ruling on gay marriage) then that would be another matter entirely.
C)Perfectly on point, because many, possibly even most, employers are contractually obligated to provide certain benefits to the spouses of their employees.  By creating an entire new class of "spouses" which the employers must now provide for, a class which couldn't have been contemplated at the time the contracts were entered into, you've created a situation in which the Fed is basically rewriting private contracts.  That isn't just absurd, that's illegal.  Totalitarianism ain't cool, and avoiding totalitarianism is darned relevant to me.

Quote
Or maybe debunking the argument that homosexuals have no choice about their lifestyle, therefore it should be justification for social engineering:

Let me just answer by quoting your own words:

Quote
That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.

You haven't articulated any sort of coherent thought here.  To say that this is a refutation of my argument is a bit of a stretch.

Let me just reiterate that one common argument in favor of gay marriage is that it isn't the choice of the homosexual to be gay, there fore it should be illegal.  Pointing out the absurdity of this notion is perfectly reasonable.

Quote
Moving along to the argument that homosexual marriage is already perfectly legal, that all laws apply equally to gays as to straights, which refutes the notion that we need to alter our laws to make them "fair":

Which is also completely off point because this discussion is about same-sex marriages.

Here's where you really start to dig deep looking for a valid point, and come up short. 

In this point I discuss the fairness of the existing system with regards to who can and who can't marry.  If one of the arguments in favor of a position is that the current system is  not fair, and if it is demonstrated that it is in fact fair (i.e that they're wrong) then this is a very relevant point to bring up.  It eliminates one supposed impetus for needing to make a change.

I guess I was wrong, I was giving you too much credit. Your stance isnt based on the idea that homosexuality is wrong. It is based on off-point non-arguments and rhetoric. Thats a bid shame because I actually had some respect for the idea that homosexuality is wrong because i happen to agree with it, I just dont think the state has any stake in right or wrong when noone is victized by that imoral act.

Nope, I'm not basing my position and arguments on the notion that homosexuality is wrong.  My position is based upon the notion that allowing activists to redefine marriage to include homosexuals is:
A)  Illegal
B)  Unconstitutional
C)  Absurd
D)  Unnecessary
E)  And yes, "bad for society" - (but per your request, I didn't quote any of those particular arguments)

We'll leave it as an exercise for the readers (if there are still any left) to decide who's been given too much credit and who hasn't.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And with that, I'm outa here.   I'll check back tomorrow to see if you've made any points worth discussing.

Toodles, y'all. 

[Perd Hapley]

I'm listening, I just havent heard anything that makes any sense yet.

Well, see my sig line - the first part.  But "making sense" of our arguments is one thing.  Falsely claiming that they are based on "Gays are icky" despite reams of argument with an entirely different basis is another. 

I hardly think that the stance that the government shouldnt be legislating victimless immoral behavior is irrational

  Did you mean "legislating against victimless..."?   That has nothing to do with the homosexual marriage issue.  Homosexuals are perfectly free to carry on their "victimless immoral behavior" with or without HM.  And I think I've already made one or two short posts to explain to you that there is no effort to legislate against HM.  All we seek to do is keep HM from being smuggled into existing marriage laws. 

[Perd Hapley]

Can you quote for me where you or myself posted an argument that fell outside that statement?

Unlike HTG, I'm not going to assume a burden of proof which is yours.  Can you demonstrate where I, HTG, Rabbi or others have used "Gays are icky" as a basis for our position on HM?  We might have made such a comment, but please demonstrate how we have used it as an argument as you claim.

I'm gonna go smack HTG in the head for taking the bait, now.  If he doesn't shoot me first.   

[Perd Hapley]

I just dont think the state has any stake in right or wrong when noone is victized by that imoral act.

  Hey, there's another statement from c_y that knocks the struts out from under homosexual marriage.  There is no reason for govt. to recognize private sexual behavior that doesn't affect the rest of us. 

[The Rabbi]

Howsabout the argument that it's illegal for the Fed to redefine marriage:

Which is founded on nothing.
The state has NOT previously defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, current innitiatives are trying to change this.

This is simply incorrect.  I half-remembered a case from Mr.Allison, my 7th grade history teacher on the Mormons and looked it up.  Indeed, Reynolds vs U.S. from 1878, Congress defined marriage for the territories.

[roo_ster]

... but if a free State cannot ban homosexual acts, then that doesn't sound like free government, it sounds like a State that is under the thumb of some libertarian monarch.

Well, many libertarians do seek a scrapping of the COTUS and their various state constitutions.  Oh, many libertarian arguments call on the language of the COTUS, but they are more than willing to deep-six it in order to argue for their positions.  HM is just one case.

[Hugh Damright]

Well, many libertarians do seek a scrapping of the COTUS and their various state constitutions.

And that's why I think "libertarian" is just a five syllable word for "yankee".

[BrokenPaw]

I've tried to stay out of this thread.  I really have.  Because it's going down the same path that every other thread on this subject has gone down.  But I'm not good at sitting by and allowing nonsense to go unchallenged.

First of all, I would like to dispense with semantic nonsense like "civil union" versus "marriage".  For the purposes of this debate, we are discussing the legally-recognized union of two consenting adults.  Quibbling over whether one term or another should be used is a canard, and detracts from the actual argument.  If you prefer, you may pronounce "marriage" as "siv-ill yoon-yun"; perhaps that will help.

The primary arguments I have heard in favor of banning gay marriage (on this thread as well as others) are:

• Marriage is defined in the Bible (or other scripture) as the joining of one man and one woman.
• The purpose for marriage is for the creation and care of children.
• The benefits bestowed by the government to married couples are there to assist in the care and raising of children.
• Gay marriage will place an undue burden on the insurance industry by forcing the carrier to give benefits to a gay partner.
• Gay marriage is different from the societally-accepted norm, and allowing it would be forcing society to accept something different from what it accepts now.

Now.  The scriptural basis for the definition of marriage is not one that can be supported in a debate about governmental control over the activities of free individuals.  The reason for that is because to do so would be an all-or-nothing step; either the government enforces every tenet of the Bible (or the Koran, or the Talmud) or it cannot legitimately enforce any of them with scripture being the basis of that enforcement.

We cannot define marriage as something that exists solely for the purposes of creating and caring for children, because to do so would invalidate the marriage of sterile people, post-menopause women, and even people who simply choose not to have children.

The idea that government benefits to married couples exist to help encourage the care and raising of children is specious, because it fails to account for the fact that plenty of childless couples are reaping those benefits right this very second. 

The insurance industry would not have to provide spousal benefits if it were not required to do so by the government.  So suggesting that the government must step in to protect the industry from the consequences of a policy that the government forced into place is ludicrous, circular logic.  It is the same logic that says that the state has a right to mandate motorcycle-helmet laws because the state has already mandated that hospitals care for people who have been turned into vegetables through the lack of wearing helmets.  If the state were not a nanny-state, guaranteeing that everyone would have care no matter what, then suddenly there's no burden on anyone else if a fool suffers severe brain trauma as a consequence of his foolishness.  Likewise, if the government did not mandate spousal coverage from insurance companies, no company would be burdened by "having" to cover a gay partner.  But some would, and they would do great business by having more customers.

Just because something is different from how it's been done, doesn't mean it is wrong.  As others have pointed out, one-man, one-woman marriage has not been the norm, the world over, since time began.  Polygamy has been in fashion at times.  Homosexual activity was perfectly acceptable in some well-known and well-respected historical societies.  Judeo-Christian monogamy is a relative newcomer to the "that's the way it's always been, so that's the way it always shall be" game.

A gauntlet:
I would like someone (anyone) to explain how it is that a man marrying a man (or a woman marrying a woman) impinges on the rights of anyone else.  Here is the difficult part:  You're not allowed to use things like government-mandated spousal benefits or any other government-mandated regulations that affect you in order to support your argument.  Because government regulations that adversely affect you as a consequence of another person's free exercise of will is a problem that needs to be corrected by repealing such inimical legislation, not by passing further legislation to prevent that free exercise of will.

Because the opposite infringement is already occurring.  A gay man, who is the dearest person in the world to another gay man, can be barred from visiting his partner in the hospital room, if the patient is unconscious and the patient's parents (or other next of kin) does not approve of the relationship.  If the two men were allowed to be married under law, the partners would be considered next of kin, and would be allowed to see one another regardless of the wishes of the family.  So under current circumstance, the will of two free adults to exercise their right to free association can be abrogated by the whim of a single other adult, for any (or no) reason at all.  And that is a travesty.

The current system allows the rights of free men and women to be infringed upon by others.
But I defy anyone here to tell me that a man being married to a man somehow infringes on anyone else's rights.

And that is what the government is for; to protect the right to free exercise of will, so long as that exercise does not interfere with another's rights.  All other government controls on people's lives are counter to the very premise of the Constitution.

So.  Can anyone tell me how the marriage of a gay couple violates someone else's rights?  Anyone?

-BP

[edited because my grammar was on vacation]

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You make some very good points, BrokenPaw.  I happen to disagree with you (see below), but I respect the fact that you've made a very strong argument in support of your position.

The primary arguments I have heard in favor of banning gay marriage (on this thread as well as others) are:

• Marriage is defined in the Bible (or other scripture) as the joining of one man and one woman.
• The purpose for marriage is for the creation and care of children.
• The benefits bestowed by the government to married couples are there to assist in the care and raising of children.
• Gay marriage will place an undue burden on the insurance industry by forcing the carrier to give benefits to a gay partner.
• Gay marriage is different from the societally-accepted norm, and allowing it would be forcing society to accept something different from what it accepts now.

You've completely ignored the fact that the Fed isn't empowered to redefine marriage for the country and then force that new definition down the throats of a people against their will.

A gauntlet:
I would like someone (anyone) to explain how it is that a man marrying a man (or a woman marrying a woman) impinges on the rights of anyone else.  Here is the difficult part:  You're not allowed to use things like government-mandated spousal benefits or any other government-mandated regulations that affect you in order to support your argument.  Because government regulations that adversely affect you as a consequence of another person's free exercise of will is a problem that needs to be corrected by repealing such inimical legislation, not by passing further legislation to prevent that free exercise of will.

Again, you ignore the obvious violation of rights that occurs when the Fed oversteps its authority.  Unless and until the Fed is delegated the appropriate power, they simply cannot institute gay marriage without violating everyone's rights.  Totalitarianism ain't cool.

Because the opposite infringement is already occurring.  A gay man, who is the dearest person in the world to another gay man, can be barred from visiting his partner in the hospital room, if the patient is unconscious and the patient's parents (or other next of kin) does not approve of the relationship.  If the two men were allowed to be married under law, the partners would be considered next of kin, and would be allowed to see one another regardless of the wishes of the family.  So under current circumstance, the will of two free adults to exercise their right to free association can be abrogated by the whim of a single other adult, for any (or no) reason at all.  And that is a travesty.

Not true.  Marriage is as available to gay men and women as it is to straight men and women, and under the exact same conditions.  The fact is that marriage means one man and one woman.  That's neither discriminatory nor a violation of rights, it's simply a fact of life.  It's akin to saying that the grass is green - a simple statement of fact, with no moral judgement implied and no negative connotations imposed.  If someone were to come along and claim his rights were violated because grass isn't red and he must live in a world where grass is red in order to be happy, well such is simply too bad for him.  Such is the consequence of pinning his happiness upon an unreality.  Grass is green, and marriage is man and woman.

There's nothing that says a gay couple can't live out there lives in perfect happiness together.  They can have whatever religious ceremony they want.  They can live together under whatever arrangement they like.  If they have problems with next of kin rights, a quick trip to an attorney's office can fix that.  In fact, an attorney can quickly and easily draw up documents that confer EVERY right married couples have to a gay couple.  Nothing about the current arrangement prevents gay man and man or gay woman and woman from pursuing whatever happiness they wish in this life.

[Nightfall]

You've completely ignored the fact that the Fed isn't empowered to redefine marriage for the country and then force that new definition down the throats of a people against their will.

Unless and until the Fed is delegated the appropriate power, they simply cannot institute gay marriage without violating everyone's rights.  Totalitarianism ain't cool.

Yet it doesn't occur to you that shoving one definition of marriage down the throats of various people with differing religious beliefs as to the appropriate nature of that union is totalitarianism? That allowing only traditional Judeo-Christian marriages violates the rights of various people, such as under the 1st Amendment?

[The Rabbi]

No one is shoving anything down anyone's throat (except the homosexuals).  Marriage as one man one woman has been the law here forever, as it was in common law before that.
Go review the Reynolds case I cited above.

[BrokenPaw]

Thank you, HTG; I'm quite used to being railed against for my position.  I enjoy debating with people I can politely disagree with. 

You've completely ignored the fact that the Fed isn't empowered to redefine marriage for the country and then force that new definition down the throats of a people against their will.

You say that the FedGov isn't empowered to redefine marriage.  My point is that FedGov has no business defining marriage at all.

You mention that gay couples can go to a lawyer and draw up documents to accomplish the same benefits that a straight couple can accomplish through marriage.  It stands to reason, then, that a straight couple could go to the same lawyer and have the same docs drawn up.  If that's the case, then what we have is this:

FedGov recognizes special privileges for these two adults because they applied for and received a $25 marriage license.  FedGov recognizes special privileges for these two adults, but in order to obtain that recognition, the couple had to spend several hundred dollars in lawyer's fees.  And the only difference between the two is that in one case, both partners were the same sex. 

If the government wants to regulate who can be legally united with whom, then that regulation cannot be sex-based, or it is discriminatory.  The argument that "Gay men can marry, as long as it's a woman, so there's no discrimination" is flawed; it's not about marrying a woman.  It's about marrying the person you love enough to make a lifelong commitment to.

If you define "marriage" as "one man, one woman", then you are implicitly applying a particular faith's definition to that term.  There are other belief systems that make no such distinction.  As such, to require that FedGov's definition conform to the definition used by those of a particular faith, you have to require the government to endorse a particular faith over another; something that it cannot do.

So remove the word "Marriage" from the governmental lexicon completely:  let consenting adults who wish to have next-of-kin and inheritance rights (and what-have-you) as a symbol of their commitment to one another do so by getting the appropriate legal documents drawn up.  If they want to be married in the eyes of their faith, let them go find a church that's willing to marry them and a reception hall that's willing to bill them thousands.

There.  No one's rights are violated. 

HTG, I understand what you're saying, but (with all respect) you haven't demonstrated that putting gay unions on equal legal footing with straight unions has the effect of infringing upon anyone else's rights.  The closest you went to that particular argument was:

Unless and until the Fed is delegated the appropriate power, they simply cannot institute gay marriage without violating everyone's rights.  Totalitarianism ain't cool.

And I respond by saying: The Constitution grants no power to the Federal Government to define marriage in the first place.  As such, for there to be a federal recognition of "one man, one woman" as the definition would be the overstepping of bounds.  The less invasive FedGov stance would be to have no stance at all, thus leaving that to the individual states.

How is it more totalitarian to grant more freedom to more adults?

Respectfully,
-BP

[The Rabbi]

Go review the Reynolds case.
I think I'll have to state this several dozen more times before someone notices.

[BrokenPaw]

From the Reynolds case:

Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.

Wow.  So something that is odious to northern- and western-Europeans, but which was a feature of the obviously far-less civilized Asiatic and African people's cultures, is something that is obviously in need of outright suppression.

Further insight from Reynolds (emphasis mine):

Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in
most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal.

If it's a civil contract, it should be governed by contract law, not by faith-based (and therefore discriminatory) definition.

Further:

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

So practices must be demonstrably harmful.  That is, malum in se.  That is, damaging to the rights of another.

A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does.

So unless two men wishing to marry do so with criminal intent (again, malum in se must apply; none of that "it's criminal because it's banned" nonsense), then there is no reason to prevent it.

Finally:

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Precisely.  To make professed doctrines of religious belief ("Gay marriage is wrong") superior to the law of the land ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people") would be to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself, and to define that things he does not agree with should be banned.  Totalitarian, indeed.

Or was I supposed to get something different from the Reynolds case?

-BP

[The Rabbi]

I am totally unsurprised that someone fully committed to his own point of view would dismiss all evidence to the contrary.
Sorry, but Reynolds is not some internet post.  It is the decision of the USC on the matter and is binding law.  Whether you disagree with it or not is sort of immaterial.  But there is no way to argue, in light of Reynolds, that the state does not have the power to regulate marriage.  It is clear from Reynolds that this is the case.
As for your "faith-based" comment: it is totally off the mark.  A person can get married by whatever faith he wants, indeed by no faith at all, and be considered married, as long as the marriage does not violate the law.

[BrokenPaw]

Rabbi,

I am totally unsurprised that someone fully committed to his own point of view would dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

If you are ever in the Northern Virginia area, please let me know.  There's a kettle I'd like to introduce you to.  You teeter perilously close to ad hominem, sir.  You do not know my mind.  You do not know whether I am fully committed, or merely unconvinced by your unconvincing arguments.  Perhaps I agree with you and simply wish you would explain your point with more clarity.  Until you know my mind, I will thank you to make no further assumptions and cast no more imprecations about it.

I think you mistake the purpose of my last post.  I was agreeing that the Reynolds decision says that the government can regulate action that is born of religious belief.  I was further stating that the reason for a government to regulate action is to protect the rights of its citizens.

The Reynolds decision calls out specific reasons, related to polygamy, why the government felt the need to ban it.  Those reasons, by and large, dealt with the presumed harmfulness that a polygamous household would have on children.  While the correctness of that point might be open to debate, it's also completely irrelevant to whether two men or two women should be able to marry.  Because absent some rather impressive gymnastics, a gay couple is not going to have a child that would then be damaged by the alleged perfidy of their lifestyle.

You still have not demonstrated how government recognition of the legal union between a man and another man violates, in any way, the rights of another (any other) person.

Until you do, you have nothing more of value to add to this debate.  If you find that you cannot, then your premise is flawed and you should concede the point.

For your convenience, I'll restate the challenge:
I defy you, or anyone else, to demonstrate that a gay marriage has a malum in se effect upon the rights of any other person.

Or you could avoid the question.  Again.

I'll wait while you pick.

Before you pick, consider that right now, certain types of guns are banned in the United States.  Many people believe, with a depth of conviction equal to that of any religious fanatic, that to lift such a ban would somehow adversely affect their supposed "right" to feel safe.  Yet would you argue that a repeal of such a ban, in and of itself, infringes upon anyone's rights?  Would you argue that, once the ban was lifted, the fact that I (or someone else) purchased a now-legal item from the previously-banned list somehow interfered with anyone else's rights?

This is about grownups.  Doing what they wish.  Consensually.  Harming no one else.  And being prohibited from doing so because: some people don't like it.  You have yet to demonstrate that this assertion is materially incorrect.

-BP

[Nightfall]

No one is shoving anything down anyone's throat (except the homosexuals).

 
Except for those who wish for everyone to accept a Judeo-Christian definition of marriage, even if that is in direct contradiction to their religious or other beliefs, right?

Marriage as one man one woman has been the law here forever, as it was in common law before that.

Yeah, that fact and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee... er, if you have a time machine too. Interracial marriage bans had been the law 'forever' too. I take it you find that an acceptable reason to prevent two adults from marrying because their skin color is different?

[The Rabbi]

I take issue with your characterization of "Judeo-Christian" beliefs.  You have no idea what you are talking about.
Further, if the country's system of laws and society is not based on "Judeo Christian" beliefs (whatever those are supposed to be) and Western culture, then what is it based on?
Further, please cite a common law precedent for banning miscegenation.
BrokenPaw: I do not know the mind of the man holding a gun to my head either.  But what I do know about the situation is enough to make reasonable guesses.  Your post revealed enough of your thought to confirm it for me.

[Nightfall]

I take issue with your characterization of "Judeo-Christian" beliefs.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

I was under the impression that both Christianity and Judaism held that a marriage was a union of one man, and one woman. Hence my referring to it as Judeo-Christian. Am I wrong?

Further, if the country's system of laws and society is not based on "Judeo Christian" beliefs (whatever those are supposed to be) and Western culture, then what is it based on?

Well, since everybody talks about this being the land of the free, how much they love freedom, how our troops defend freedom, etc. while they wave their little American flags, I figured, ya know, freedom.

Further, please cite a common law precedent for banning miscegenation.

Dunno where I'd look, not much of a lawyer. At any rate, I'd be surprised to find it.

[The Rabbi]

I take issue with your characterization of "Judeo-Christian" beliefs.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

I was under the impression that both Christianity and Judaism held that a marriage was a union of one man, and one woman. Hence my referring to it as Judeo-Christian. Am I wrong?

Yes.
Monogomy seems to come from the Romans more than anything else..

Further, if the country's system of laws and society is not based on "Judeo Christian" beliefs (whatever those are supposed to be) and Western culture, then what is it based on?

Well, since everybody talks about this being the land of the free, how much they love freedom, how our troops defend freedom, etc. while they wave their little American flags, I figured, ya know, freedom.

Then you have an odd view of freedom.  I think you're confusing it with anarchy.

Further, please cite a common law precedent for banning miscegenation.

Dunno where I'd look, not much of a lawyer. At any rate, I'd be surprised to find it.

...

[Preacherman]

Folks, I think that we all know one anothers' opinions by now, and I guess it's clear that we're not about to change them.  Unfortunately, this discussion is now generating rather more heat than light.  I don't want to have to start banning people, and Oleg and I have already received complaints about this thread from other forum members.

I'm closing this one down.  Please read (or re-read) the 'stickied' threads at the top of the Roundtable home page, and observe their strictures on politeness and mutual respect.