Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Feb 10, 2004, 02:23 pm

You can't say that an action against Physical intentions is not a mental issue. Something upstairs says you were given this for a specific reason, however due to a malfunction, you are unable to do that as directed. Because it was removed from a book, probably because someone paid a good price or political connection to do so. When you say consenting adults, you say to misguided sick perverts looking to put their PPs in anything, maybe they also feel it is ok in a little kid, they just haven't come out of that closet yet.
The explanation of justifying fags as a human, in my opinion, is a waste of time, just like a pedophile, they are sick individual freaks, screwed up in their heads and minds of where things belong, and when their disease spreading anal acts spread, you can pay more taxes to support them.

Feb 10, 2004, 02:48 pm

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate a regular fag, or is that American gay man, whatever it turns into. I am afraid of the world we are becoming excepting perverted actions and sick freaks from being allowed to do their things out in the open.. it seems anything we allow to start grows uncontrollably because no one knows when to much is enough.. We all have issues, their issue is a perverted mental one, and many suffer that way as well.. do we go all the way out and just say forget all laws, all ways of life, because we are all different and should be allowed to do whatever we want? Look at countries that do that.. disease is rampant, unemployment high, poverty high, and now, we'll have to let our kids see fags marching in the streets, they don't just march looking like every other person, they march around like freaks in their outrageous rags with smiles on their faces, look at me, I get to dress like this and it isn't even holloween.. look at the rest stops closed on highways because of fags, public restrooms closed because of fags.. tell me they aren't freaks? Pets for prisoners in any case.

Plaything48 · Feb 10, 2004, 03:12 pm

There's an interesting aspect to this particular debate that I've detected, one that will interest people everywhere whose countries must cope with the tension between conservative ideology and the expansion of tolerance and liberty. As I've listened to the combatants, I've noticed that they're not really conversing with each other—it's more like they're talking at each other. It's as if they're speaking two different and mutually incomprehensible languages.

We are truly dealing with a clash of worldviews here. But ultimately, what it all boils down to is a debate between those who are homophobic—whether they care to admit it to themselves or not—and those who are tolerant and inclusive in regards to the gay lifestyle.

Not surprisingly, as church groups and social conservatives rail against the proposed legislation, and as the debate deepens, the real issues are forced to the surface, the anti-gay bias emerges and the authoritarian religious imposition reveals itself.

As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure as far as most liberals are concerned, it's all good. The more the religious groups and conservatives talk, the more they embarrass themselves and reveal their true ignorance and irrationality. It's pretty hard, after all, to defend hate, prejudice and intolerance while not looking utterly ridiculous and just plain mean-spirited.

Feb 10, 2004, 03:15 pm

It's not only hate it's defense from fear of what we and our children will have to experience.. do we not hate many types for good reasons.. liek the guy at the car wash in Florida.. if you don't hate, you are not human.

jamiec3po · Feb 10, 2004, 03:21 pm

Gays are not freaks. Their actions are justifiable by their social repression. If heterosexuals were barred from the public life of acceptance and openess then they would resort to the same type of behavior. Gay marriage isn't an issue of allowing perverted actions to take place, it's a freedom. The government shouldn't have to right to tell two fully mature and independent individuals what they can and cannot do when both are consenting. That's like saying, only married couples -heterosexual- can only have sex this way, this time, etc. The government should never be granted this kind of power nor be allowed to excersie it. Gay marriage should be legal because there is no reason for it to be illegal other than a few conservatives, that seem to be more numerous than anyone thought.
gay marriage is a step for the gay couple to become a functioning member of society, for them to settle down, raise a family, and live the American Dream. Damn anyone who denies them that.

Feb 10, 2004, 03:29 pm

Gays are freaks, look up the word in the dictionary. They aren't safe to the public and to condone their actions and desires will encourage their spread. Freaks like them need to control their sexual desires and act like the rest of the people, just like the pedophiles.. we can't fix them and we can live with them, as long as they keep their sickness on a leash. The moment they can't we need to lock them up as sexual predators and keep them locked up for lack of control. There is no other real solution then to keep them on a leash. They aren't people when they do things that are immoral and dangerous. Consenting adults can't be used, because adults to me are men and woman, they are neither they are queers, freaks, of neither sexual gender as they fail to properly make use of which they were delt, like a white male saying he is black or black as being white. Age doesn't make you an adult.

Sasha · Feb 10, 2004, 03:47 pm

This raises an interesting question. Can homosexual couples play the same role in society as heterosexual couples? If their roles are different this would provide a reason for them not to be treated the same, hence not marriable.

Perversion is an abnormal act, it is not bad by virtue of being perverse. To argue that it is bad requires a seperate independant line of reasoning.

I dont think we as a society can get into the habit of saying an act is justifyable because of social represion. It may be influenced by social repression but that does not justify it. To claim otherwise would absolve individuals of responsibility for their actions and would have the implication of making society responsible for phycopaths, paticularity thost who probably raised the individual. I think this is an unreasonable shift of responsibility.

Finally, and this point isn't nessecarily compatible with my previous views. It isn't nessecarily enough to say allowing them to marry is in the pursuit of equallity. What benifit does that have for society? Why should entrance to all instituions be granted to different types of people, simply because they're people? should universities be forced to accept lower scoring student on the basis of equality, should entrance into the police force simple be based on a first come first serve basis so as to not discriminate against those who were born with different physical abilities? I think not. There are many cases in society were we accept discrimination, why should marriage be different? If we must treat all relationships equally then it follows that polygomy between willing partneres should also be legal, after all we should not discriminate on the basis of how many people can love each other. I dont think society is ready to go that far, so I think there is an onus on the same-sex marriage case to show how it fits into the existing instituion.

Impenitent · Feb 10, 2004, 03:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
except marriage is not a right<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

One of the most important rights in the Constitution is our right to pursue happiness. This right has led to America being called "the land of opportunity". Telling a group of people that they are not entitled to their right to pursue happiness simply because one of them is not the correct classification of citizen is both immoral and unconstitutional.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

marriage is NOT the pursuit of happiness...

but what if I get my happiness by taking scalps?

oh no, can't have that happiness...

Feb 10, 2004, 04:02 pm

Some good points, we can't except everything thrown into our laps, and freaks of nature are not one I'd choose to except.

Sasha · Feb 10, 2004, 04:18 pm

How are they freaks..because they're different..

Leopard · Feb 10, 2004, 05:06 pm

being gay is in no way comparable to being a pediophile - stop with that stupid remark already, really hurts your credibility...

once again, impenitent, a 'right' is one which does not infringe on other rights:

you do not have a 'right' to other peoples scalps because they have a right to their own person and lives...

you have the 'right' to pursue happiness, as long as you do not infringe on other peoples rights

you have the right to own property, as long as you do not infringe on other peoples rights

you have the right to life, as long as you do not infringe on other peoples rights

michael

FreedomFirst · Feb 10, 2004, 06:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

marriage is NOT the pursuit of happiness...

but what if I get my happiness by taking scalps?

oh no, can't have that happiness...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You can't because your happiness would violate somebody else's right to life. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). These are the rights that our government was created to protect. If you're not violating one of them, than what you do should not be illegal. Needless to say our current tyranny has evolved well beyond this staging point.

FreedomFirst · Feb 10, 2004, 06:05 pm

This sort of ignorance is why it's impossible to talk to some members of the anti-gay movement. What qualifies as a "freak of nature" to you?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CitizenCOP,)
Some good points, we can't except everything thrown into our laps, and freaks of nature are not one I'd choose to except.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Feb 10, 2004, 06:41 pm

What part of freaks of nature was not comprehended?
Something out of character, weird, strange acts..

Definition: [n] someone who is so ardently devoted to something that it resembles an addiction; "a golf addict"; "a car nut"; "a control freak"

[n] a person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed

[v] lose one's nerve; "When he saw the accident, he freaked out"

Synonyms: addict, freak out, gross out, lusus naturae, monster, monstrosity, nut

See Also: enthusiast, leviathan, mutant, mutation, panic, partisan, partizan, sport, variation

Leopard · Feb 10, 2004, 07:44 pm

and so anything that composes, say, less than 20% of the population is considered 'a freak'? whats your definitive limit in regards to the 'normal' range of things?

Leopard · Feb 10, 2004, 07:47 pm

and, could you tell me exactly how a homosexual couple getting married(in the eyes of the law, not necessarily 'church' sanctioned) affects or influences you at all? Are your 'rights' lessened?

Feb 10, 2004, 07:51 pm

What part of freaks of nature was not comprehended?
Something out of character, weird, strange acts..

Definition: [n] someone who is so ardently devoted to something that it resembles an addiction; "a golf addict"; "a car nut"; "a control freak"

[n] a person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed

[v] lose one's nerve; "When he saw the accident, he freaked out"

Synonyms: addict, freak out, gross out, lusus naturae, monster, monstrosity, nut

See Also: enthusiast, leviathan, mutant, mutation, panic, partisan, partizan, sport, variation

A FREAK is a freak.. no matter how many there are. Are people really this stupid? That placing body parts where they don't belong is a perverted act, and wanting to marry someone and enable continuous action of such would make you a freak. Being markedly unusual = out of character and being deformed, a creature in the wrong body is why gays are freaks..

Impenitent · Feb 11, 2004, 01:14 am

if I can't have the right to infringe on others happiness, then the reverse is true as well... no one has the right to infringe on my happiness...

and who enforces these rights?

the police? he had a right to his life... but he was murdered... so much for his right to life...

right to property? tell that to the thief...

right to the pursuit of happiness... not the right to happiness, the right to pursue... big difference...

Leopard · Feb 11, 2004, 01:48 am

impenitent,
what point are you making here?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
the police? he had a right to his life... but he was murdered... so much for his right to life...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

beng murdered has nothing to do with it - rights are the 'norm' infringements are the 'fringe'.

People enforce their rights, and they can enlist others legitimately in such an endeavor: ie: vagrant trespasses on my property: I hae a 'right' to evict him and I am justified in enlisting the aid of friends, neighbors, or the state to do so. example #2: I new car would make me 'happy' but I have no money, I do NOT have the right to 'steal' someone elses car to fulfill my quest for happiness, and I therefore cannot legitimately enlist the aid of others or the state for this purpose.

If you are making some sort of statement regarding 'rights' being an abstract human construct and not found in nature - I agree, there is no 'universal' rights. 'Rights' are just agreements between folks for the purposes of bettering their chances of survival etc.

But if you are goin to get into 'rights theory' than tis is not the thread, as that is a long and deep discussion...

michael

jofis · Feb 11, 2004, 02:12 am

I would agree that there is no relation to the rights of your person or property (i.e. murder, theft, rape) to the right engage in an activity that causes no actual harm to another's person or property (gay marriage). Marriage, however, is a public institution, and we do limit public activity based upon the level of offense it causes to a particular community. I believe this is to a degree necessary. Imagine the lewd and offensive behavior we would have to encounter each day if this were not so.

Feb 10, 2004, 03:12 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	There's an interesting aspect to this particular debate that I've detected, one that will interest people everywhere whose countries must cope with the tension between conservative ideology and the expansion of tolerance and liberty. As I've listened to the combatants, I've noticed that they're not really conversing with each other—it's more like they're talking at each other. It's as if they're speaking two different and mutually incomprehensible languages. We are truly dealing with a clash of worldviews here. But ultimately, what it all boils down to is a debate between those who are homophobic—whether they care to admit it to themselves or not—and those who are tolerant and inclusive in regards to the gay lifestyle. Not surprisingly, as church groups and social conservatives rail against the proposed legislation, and as the debate deepens, the real issues are forced to the surface, the anti-gay bias emerges and the authoritarian religious imposition reveals itself. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure as far as most liberals are concerned, it's all good. The more the religious groups and conservatives talk, the more they embarrass themselves and reveal their true ignorance and irrationality. It's pretty hard, after all, to defend hate, prejudice and intolerance while not looking utterly ridiculous and just plain mean-spirited. A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Feb 10, 2004, 03:48 pm	#68 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) except marriage is not a right<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> One of the most important rights in the Constitution is our right to pursue happiness. This right has led to America being called "the land of opportunity". Telling a group of people that they are not entitled to their right to pursue happiness simply because one of them is not the correct classification of citizen is both immoral and unconstitutional.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> marriage is NOT the pursuit of happiness... but what if I get my happiness by taking scalps? oh no, can't have that happiness... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 10, 2004, 05:06 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	being gay is in no way comparable to being a pediophile - stop with that stupid remark already, really hurts your credibility... once again, impenitent, a 'right' is one which does not infringe on other rights: you do not have a 'right' to other peoples scalps because they have a right to their own person and lives... you have the 'right' to pursue happiness, as long as you do not infringe on other peoples rights you have the right to own property, as long as you do not infringe on other peoples rights you have the right to life, as long as you do not infringe on other peoples rights michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 10, 2004, 06:03 pm	#72 (permalink) (top)
FreedomFirst Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) marriage is NOT the pursuit of happiness... but what if I get my happiness by taking scalps? oh no, can't have that happiness...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You can't because your happiness would violate somebody else's right to life. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). These are the rights that our government was created to protect. If you're not violating one of them, than what you do should not be illegal. Needless to say our current tyranny has evolved well beyond this staging point. "You have to question when a person says, 'I have a great idea, let's make everyone __________.' If it's such a great idea, why do you have to make people do it?" www.freestateproject.org

Feb 10, 2004, 06:05 pm	#73 (permalink) (top)
FreedomFirst Molten Ash Posts: 67	This sort of ignorance is why it's impossible to talk to some members of the anti-gay movement. What qualifies as a "freak of nature" to you? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CitizenCOP,) Some good points, we can't except everything thrown into our laps, and freaks of nature are not one I'd choose to except.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "You have to question when a person says, 'I have a great idea, let's make everyone __________.' If it's such a great idea, why do you have to make people do it?" www.freestateproject.org

Feb 10, 2004, 02:23 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
CitizenCOP Guest Posts: n/a	You can't say that an action against Physical intentions is not a mental issue. Something upstairs says you were given this for a specific reason, however due to a malfunction, you are unable to do that as directed. Because it was removed from a book, probably because someone paid a good price or political connection to do so. When you say consenting adults, you say to misguided sick perverts looking to put their PPs in anything, maybe they also feel it is ok in a little kid, they just haven't come out of that closet yet. The explanation of justifying fags as a human, in my opinion, is a waste of time, just like a pedophile, they are sick individual freaks, screwed up in their heads and minds of where things belong, and when their disease spreading anal acts spread, you can pay more taxes to support them.

Feb 10, 2004, 02:48 pm	#62 (permalink) (top)
CitizenCOP Guest Posts: n/a	Don't get me wrong, I don't hate a regular fag, or is that American gay man, whatever it turns into. I am afraid of the world we are becoming excepting perverted actions and sick freaks from being allowed to do their things out in the open.. it seems anything we allow to start grows uncontrollably because no one knows when to much is enough.. We all have issues, their issue is a perverted mental one, and many suffer that way as well.. do we go all the way out and just say forget all laws, all ways of life, because we are all different and should be allowed to do whatever we want? Look at countries that do that.. disease is rampant, unemployment high, poverty high, and now, we'll have to let our kids see fags marching in the streets, they don't just march looking like every other person, they march around like freaks in their outrageous rags with smiles on their faces, look at me, I get to dress like this and it isn't even holloween.. look at the rest stops closed on highways because of fags, public restrooms closed because of fags.. tell me they aren't freaks? Pets for prisoners in any case.

Feb 10, 2004, 03:15 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
CitizenCOP Guest Posts: n/a	It's not only hate it's defense from fear of what we and our children will have to experience.. do we not hate many types for good reasons.. liek the guy at the car wash in Florida.. if you don't hate, you are not human.

Feb 10, 2004, 03:21 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
jamiec3po Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	Gays are not freaks. Their actions are justifiable by their social repression. If heterosexuals were barred from the public life of acceptance and openess then they would resort to the same type of behavior. Gay marriage isn't an issue of allowing perverted actions to take place, it's a freedom. The government shouldn't have to right to tell two fully mature and independent individuals what they can and cannot do when both are consenting. That's like saying, only married couples -heterosexual- can only have sex this way, this time, etc. The government should never be granted this kind of power nor be allowed to excersie it. Gay marriage should be legal because there is no reason for it to be illegal other than a few conservatives, that seem to be more numerous than anyone thought. gay marriage is a step for the gay couple to become a functioning member of society, for them to settle down, raise a family, and live the American Dream. Damn anyone who denies them that.

Feb 10, 2004, 03:29 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
CitizenCOP Guest Posts: n/a	Gays are freaks, look up the word in the dictionary. They aren't safe to the public and to condone their actions and desires will encourage their spread. Freaks like them need to control their sexual desires and act like the rest of the people, just like the pedophiles.. we can't fix them and we can live with them, as long as they keep their sickness on a leash. The moment they can't we need to lock them up as sexual predators and keep them locked up for lack of control. There is no other real solution then to keep them on a leash. They aren't people when they do things that are immoral and dangerous. Consenting adults can't be used, because adults to me are men and woman, they are neither they are queers, freaks, of neither sexual gender as they fail to properly make use of which they were delt, like a white male saying he is black or black as being white. Age doesn't make you an adult.

Feb 10, 2004, 03:47 pm	#67 (permalink) (top)
Sasha Molten Ash Posts: 47	This raises an interesting question. Can homosexual couples play the same role in society as heterosexual couples? If their roles are different this would provide a reason for them not to be treated the same, hence not marriable. Perversion is an abnormal act, it is not bad by virtue of being perverse. To argue that it is bad requires a seperate independant line of reasoning. I dont think we as a society can get into the habit of saying an act is justifyable because of social represion. It may be influenced by social repression but that does not justify it. To claim otherwise would absolve individuals of responsibility for their actions and would have the implication of making society responsible for phycopaths, paticularity thost who probably raised the individual. I think this is an unreasonable shift of responsibility. Finally, and this point isn't nessecarily compatible with my previous views. It isn't nessecarily enough to say allowing them to marry is in the pursuit of equallity. What benifit does that have for society? Why should entrance to all instituions be granted to different types of people, simply because they're people? should universities be forced to accept lower scoring student on the basis of equality, should entrance into the police force simple be based on a first come first serve basis so as to not discriminate against those who were born with different physical abilities? I think not. There are many cases in society were we accept discrimination, why should marriage be different? If we must treat all relationships equally then it follows that polygomy between willing partneres should also be legal, after all we should not discriminate on the basis of how many people can love each other. I dont think society is ready to go that far, so I think there is an onus on the same-sex marriage case to show how it fits into the existing instituion.

Feb 10, 2004, 04:02 pm	#69 (permalink) (top)
CitizenCOP Guest Posts: n/a	Some good points, we can't except everything thrown into our laps, and freaks of nature are not one I'd choose to except.

Feb 10, 2004, 04:18 pm	#70 (permalink) (top)
Sasha Molten Ash Posts: 47	How are they freaks..because they're different..

Feb 10, 2004, 06:41 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
CitizenCOP Guest Posts: n/a	What part of freaks of nature was not comprehended? Something out of character, weird, strange acts.. Definition: [n] someone who is so ardently devoted to something that it resembles an addiction; "a golf addict"; "a car nut"; "a control freak" [n] a person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed [v] lose one's nerve; "When he saw the accident, he freaked out" Synonyms: addict, freak out, gross out, lusus naturae, monster, monstrosity, nut See Also: enthusiast, leviathan, mutant, mutation, panic, partisan, partizan, sport, variation

Feb 10, 2004, 07:44 pm	#75 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	and so anything that composes, say, less than 20% of the population is considered 'a freak'? whats your definitive limit in regards to the 'normal' range of things? Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 10, 2004, 07:47 pm	#76 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	and, could you tell me exactly how a homosexual couple getting married(in the eyes of the law, not necessarily 'church' sanctioned) affects or influences you at all? Are your 'rights' lessened? Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 10, 2004, 07:51 pm	#77 (permalink) (top)
CitizenCOP Guest Posts: n/a	What part of freaks of nature was not comprehended? Something out of character, weird, strange acts.. Definition: [n] someone who is so ardently devoted to something that it resembles an addiction; "a golf addict"; "a car nut"; "a control freak" [n] a person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed [v] lose one's nerve; "When he saw the accident, he freaked out" Synonyms: addict, freak out, gross out, lusus naturae, monster, monstrosity, nut See Also: enthusiast, leviathan, mutant, mutation, panic, partisan, partizan, sport, variation A FREAK is a freak.. no matter how many there are. Are people really this stupid? That placing body parts where they don't belong is a perverted act, and wanting to marry someone and enable continuous action of such would make you a freak. Being markedly unusual = out of character and being deformed, a creature in the wrong body is why gays are freaks..

Feb 11, 2004, 01:14 am	#78 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	if I can't have the right to infringe on others happiness, then the reverse is true as well... no one has the right to infringe on my happiness... and who enforces these rights? the police? he had a right to his life... but he was murdered... so much for his right to life... right to property? tell that to the thief... right to the pursuit of happiness... not the right to happiness, the right to pursue... big difference... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 11, 2004, 01:48 am	#79 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	impenitent, what point are you making here? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by the police? he had a right to his life... but he was murdered... so much for his right to life...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> beng murdered has nothing to do with it - rights are the 'norm' infringements are the 'fringe'. People enforce their rights, and they can enlist others legitimately in such an endeavor: ie: vagrant trespasses on my property: I hae a 'right' to evict him and I am justified in enlisting the aid of friends, neighbors, or the state to do so. example #2: I new car would make me 'happy' but I have no money, I do NOT have the right to 'steal' someone elses car to fulfill my quest for happiness, and I therefore cannot legitimately enlist the aid of others or the state for this purpose. If you are making some sort of statement regarding 'rights' being an abstract human construct and not found in nature - I agree, there is no 'universal' rights. 'Rights' are just agreements between folks for the purposes of bettering their chances of survival etc. But if you are goin to get into 'rights theory' than tis is not the thread, as that is a long and deep discussion... michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 11, 2004, 02:12 am	#80 (permalink) (top)
jofis Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	I would agree that there is no relation to the rights of your person or property (i.e. murder, theft, rape) to the right engage in an activity that causes no actual harm to another's person or property (gay marriage). Marriage, however, is a public institution, and we do limit public activity based upon the level of offense it causes to a particular community. I believe this is to a degree necessary. Imagine the lewd and offensive behavior we would have to encounter each day if this were not so.