Liberty and traditional marriage

It has come to my attention that some liberty minded thinkers have assumed to the idea of traditional marriage and/or the idea of constitutional traditional marriage amendment to be discriminatory against gays. While this idea is definitely antagonistic to gay activist; the reality is that amendment is not meant have the government step in against homosexual groups but instead make the government recognize the primitive and original building block of society, the family. So I would like the time to make that case.



A. An imposition of religion?
Some argue that this is a religious values being imposed upon people through the government. However, this is not strictly speaking, a religious debate. It is a debate over family ethics and morality and what role the government plays. While religion takes sides on this issue, it is not simply the idea birthed from one particular religious establishment. Protestants, Catholics, Jews, muslims, hindus, and even Buddhists have in the past denounced homosexuality and supported traditional marriage So it is not based on a particular world view. The issue barely involves a religious establishment. But it does have to do with how the government behaves itself around such matters.

B. the main opposition of the homosexual movement regards a presupposed bias in the tax code.
First of all the reason for this supposed bias is that traditional married couples are more likely to raise children.
Secondly this is an issue that can be easily resolved through limited government. The most pro-traditional marriage candidate Mike Huckabee argued for a fair Tax which would eliminate all bias in the tax code by doing away with the income tax system. Replacing this system with a sales tax. Other systems doing away with the IRS would accomplish the same goal.



C.Arguments about insurance and hospitals is mainly privatized.
Discrimination in insurance is strictly and economic matter. It has been repeatedly statistically proven that the gay lifestyle leads to more health risk, less sanity, and more violent relational situations. This will lead to insurance companies stamping a higher price for the lifestyle.
No major social conservative I know has argued that gays should not have hospital visitation rights. This is strictly a problem with the hospitals themselves.
However these are independent businesses and the private sector should be allotted such freedom whether right or wrong.



D. The homosexual movement has been a source of socialism in this fight.
The homo-sexual movement has been consistently tied to socialist strategies. Besides the obvious notice of the gay influence on democrats; Pro-gay legislation has been put in unconstitutional mean of judicial activism. Whenever put to a vote among the people traditional marriage has won even among the more liberal states.

E. The idea of an Amendment is defensive, not offensive.
The traditional marriage position has been one of defense and not offense. There are no new laws and legislation by traditional marriage advocates besides preserving the definition of marriage.
It is the homosexual lobbyists who demand extra protections, even though many homosexuals are financially well off in upper-class segments of society.
Traditional marriage advocates would like Homosexuality to not be inculcated in public schools and they would like an environment where their underage children are proselytized into a perverse lifestyle which leaves their families barren. Yet the government has stepped in and has already been introducing several methods of teaching our children fornication so that this battle would be easier.
Just so long as we have to pay for these social experiments on our children with our tax dollars.

F. There is no major enforcement of this amendment.

Gay rights groups argue this to be like “prohibition”. They see it as a misuse of the constitution to restrict freedoms that will be impossible to enforce upon gays.
This argument is utterly preposterous. Because it does not restrict they gays from moving together or calling themselves married. It only restricts the government from recognizing it. There is hardly any tax dollar price to use in enforcement.
Also homo-sexuals may not be aware that marriage is asking to give up liberties. First it is saying that the government encourages homosexuals to practices homosexuality all their life with a moral imperative to stay that way at the risk of health(in sickness and in health(even with STD). The government also then gets the right to divide up the gays property upon divorce. (we see this already Massachusetts and California) So this takes gay rights away.




G. the gay concept of Marriage is ludicrous
Gays are not truly asking for basic rights, but to destroy the governments understanding of marriage and family.
If we are discriminating against homosexuals in recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman; then we are obvious discriminating against other perverts.
Polygamists are a major minority group that will have the right to redefine next. Then we have beastility and child molestors and incest couples. There is already a group (N.A.M.B.L.A. North American Man-boy love association) advocating in Canada for rights to have sex with minors.There was already a film festival award for a movie “ZOO” advocating beastility between a man and a horse. You can not say you are not discriminating against these groups while supporting homosexuality.

H. This will lead to a breakdown of sexual ethics within our legal code
The end result of all this is an elimination of all sexual law. Once all these restrictions are annihilated, there will be rape and gang bangs and eventually all forms of violent crime will be accepted. Human sexuality must have controls. If there is no control then we will end in anarchy.
I. The God Factor
This argument may at first seem contradictory to the first argument brought up. However this is a point of probability. Just as many environment laws have been formed because of probable threat (even though global warming has been shown a haux).
The fact is we must deal with probabilities. The majority of the world and especially the united states acknowledges the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is oppose to the practices and will curse a people who blatant accept it. Even when California judges accepted gay marriage the state went up in flames with Forrest fires.(don’t miss the irony that the derogative british term “faggot” originally meant firewood)If God is real and America promotes the homosexual lifestyle then it would be like that the country will be cursed.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
18:28 that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 18:29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 18:22,298

3:6 Shall the trumpet be blown in a city, and the people not be afraid? shall evil befall a city, and Jehovah hath not done it?
Amos 3:6



Considering these factors support for traditional marriage is not a government attack upon gays, instead it is a defense of traditional American Values, which reiterates our stability and liberties.

Thanks, Matt Singleton