Does The Government Have The Right To Rule On Gay Marriage?

[Winchester]

non sequitur

 

[Socrates]

Winchester already made the point succinctly, but what messages a baker chooses to put or not put on a cake is none of the government's business.

 

If a bakery were refusing to bake a regular birthday cake for Bob because Bob happened to be homosexual, there might be a problem, but that's not what this is about: it's about government forcing private businesses to provide a products with a message that goes against their moral or religious beliefs.  (Falls under free practice of religion.)

 

Should a bakery be forced to bake cakes with a blatantly racist or anti-Semitic message? 

Or should a business be forced to cater KKK or neo-Nazi meetings?

My point isn’t that a “gay marriage” is the same as Nazism, but about where does one draw the line when forcing private business owners to provide products or services that violate their sincere morals or beliefs?

Or what if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake with a satanic message?  (I'm sure that's the next big legal case.)

 

Wherever there’s a demand, supply will exist to fulfill it and profit from it . That’s the beauty of the free market.  If one baker doesn’t want to bake you a gay cake, another will be happy to bake it for you instead.

If a car dealer only deals Fords and you want a Chevy, you can go to the Chevy dealer down the street.

 

Forcing Christian bakeries and such to deliver products contrary to their Faith and morals makes as much sense as legally forcing Christian bookstores to carry pornography and copies of The Satanic Bible.  (Okay, I should shut up before I start giving the bleeding hearts too many ideas.)

 

As for the discussion of whether or not refusing to bake "gay" cakes or whatever is or isn't good business, that's for the individual business owners to decide and is irrelevant to the issue of whether private businesses should be forced by government decree.  There's no need for government coercion, heretical as that notion may be to some.

[White Knight]

The Government has a right to invest in its future existence which is through demographics and economics.  This has been the cornerstone of all societies, civilizations, kingdoms, empires etc etc, without people and the flow of currency, society falls apart. So if governments allowed polygamy or any other man and woman based relationship, it was for the survival of its future.


Polygamy was used to repopulate fast numbers of people to counteract the death toll of the societies causes. This was a logical step to do that, even though its not by sense the Church's preferred definitive use for society's survival it a least made some sense to revitalize the army, the economy, the currency flow, and gave the economy and civilization a chance to have a future.

Monogamous Unions which is God's definition and the Church's definition of marriage can work as well. while a couple can have 10 or more kids, if you get enough couples doing this the population rate will become steady or can grow, plus you can keep down family rivalries' between the patriarch and his other multiple wives and their kids. Its a safer way to continue the legacies of governments, empires, you name it.  It still will have its own intermediate family bickering and feuds however the number is a lot less than Polygamy relationships.

Homosexual relationships don't contribute to the future of the economic state or the survival of the society itself. matter of fact it is harmful to the number one fundamental reason for the governments primary interest which is Money & People, Gold, Yin, Euro, Silver, etc etc. and no replacement population stability or growth. I'm pretty sure without Money or enough People civilization falls.



So just using natural law and reasoning, the basis of allowing governments to rule on marriage, begets economic and demographic conclusions that can shape the future of its own existence.

Egypt thought they could allow this cause of homosexuality, and they fell
Greece also did the same thing they eventually fell, soon after accepting homosexuality.
Rome weakened dramatically after accepting the homosexual lifestyle.


So basically by examining the governments of the past and seeing the cause and effect of their choices, we can know, that Homosexuality is a death sentence to a culture's economic and demographic vitality.

So even on natural marriage the government shouldn't break from unions based on between man and woman relations if they want to survive.


 

[Winchester]

If homosexuality kills empires, then we can put a mark in the pro column.

[White Knight]

If homosexuality kills empires, then we can put a mark in the pro column.

The beauty of our faith is that so often our answers are not yes "or" no but sometimes its yes "AND" no.

Like in this case the Government does have the authority to manage its decision making so long as it "exists" and it doesn't throw out the prudent choice of self preservation of wise decision making toward its own governing capabilities. Yes it can make laws and manage people and influence events that seek the common sense and good of greater wealth and preservation of itself. However what it cannot do is seek authentic   authority  to destroy itself by its decision making and neglect its role to defend its own people.

The government has the right to choose self preservation of itself and its people, through civic, economic, military, and diplomatic means so long as they do not choose their own destruction willingly with knowledge and reasonable examination.
 

The beautiful reality about governments' obligations' is to the "Both/And" choice and not so much as the "either or choice"






 

[little2add]

The Government has a right to invest in its future existence which is through demographics and economics. This has been the cornerstone of all societies, civilizations, kingdoms, empires etc etc, without people and the flow of currency, society falls apart. So if governments allowed polygamy or any other man and woman based relationship, it was for the survival of its future.


Polygamy was used to repopulate fast numbers of people to counteract the death toll of the societies causes. This was a logical step to do that, even though its not by sense the Church's preferred definitive use for society's survival it a least made some sense to revitalize the army, the economy, the currency flow, and gave the economy and civilization a chance to have a future.

Monogamous Unions which is God's definition and the Church's definition of marriage can work as well. while a couple can have 10 or more kids, if you get enough couples doing this the population rate will become steady or can grow, plus you can keep down family rivalries' between the patriarch and his other multiple wives and their kids. Its a safer way to continue the legacies of governments, empires, you name it. It still will have its own intermediate family bickering and feuds however the number is a lot less than Polygamy relationships.

Homosexual relationships don't contribute to the future of the economic state or the survival of the society itself. matter of fact it is harmful to the number one fundamental reason for the governments primary interest which is Money & People, Gold, Yin, Euro, Silver, etc etc. and no replacement population stability or growth. I'm pretty sure without Money or enough People civilization falls.



So just using natural law and reasoning, the basis of allowing governments to rule on marriage, begets economic and demographic conclusions that can shape the future of its own existence.

Egypt thought they could allow this cause of homosexuality, and they fell
Greece also did the same thing they eventually fell, soon after accepting homosexuality.
Rome weakened dramatically after accepting the homosexual lifestyle.


So basically by examining the governments of the past and seeing the cause and effect of their choices, we can know, that Homosexuality is a death sentence to a culture's economic and demographic vitality.

So even on natural marriage the government shouldn't break from unions based on between man and woman relations if they want to survive.

That being said legal abortion and birth control has effectively lowered the birth rate to the lowest point in history.
Inmorality,, sexual deviants, greed, gluttony: reigns supreme

[Winchester]

The beauty of our faith is that so often our answers are not yes "or" no but sometimes its yes "AND" no.

Like in this case the Government does have the authority to manage its decision making so long as it "exists" and it doesn't throw out the prudent choice of self preservation of wise decision making toward its own governing capabilities. Yes it can make laws and manage people and influence events that seek the common sense and good of greater wealth and preservation of itself. However what it cannot do is seek authentic   authority  to destroy itself by its decision making and neglect its role to defend its own people.

The government has the right to choose self preservation of itself and its people, through civic, economic, military, and diplomatic means so long as they do not choose their own destruction willingly with knowledge and reasonable examination.
 

The beautiful reality about governments' obligations' is to the "Both/And" choice and not so much as the "either or choice"






 

I don't think we're talking about the same religion.

[little2add]

Does the government have the right to rule on gay marriage? Church and state? Should the courts and politicians butt out of what we call a sacrament?

 

Does the government have the right to rule on?

·      Abortion access

·      Drugs and alcohol use for recreation

·      Gun control

·      Child support for abandon children

·      Health care

·      Criminal prosecution / law enforcement

[Winchester]

Step one: Declare self to be "government"

Step two: ????

Step three: Profit!!!!