Marriage is:

[Cerebrum123]

Individuals can and do play the moral judge and I think that they should be free to do so. But not to the extent that they enforce mandatory prohibitions on others. I can't think of one theocratic society where that has worked out well — including ancient Israel. When you start getting a government to enforce your biases solely because you think that your biases are right, society is heading down a wrong turn.

Yeah, Israel went down the tubes for being TOO moral.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Yeah, Israel went down the tubes for being TOO moral.

By the time Christ arrived on the scene, Israel had a broken theocracy; the leaders had counted out how many steps someone could take on the Sabbath but allowed poverty to run rampant in society. Religious men kept themselves pure according to the Law but would not stain this purity to pull another man out of danger and death. The guardians of the temple elevated themselves above sinners and tax collectors but regularly colluded with real estate owners to cheat others out of Jubilee distribution. Israel had become, in Christ's words, a man who strains out a gnat but swallows a camel.

And so it is here: how many threads has OtherCheek started concerning same-sex marriage? What's the ratio of these threads to issues concerning poverty or injustice towards the poor and meek? How much time did Christ spend talking about purifying the state from sexual immorality? Likewise, the RCC's bishops are organizing a two week protest primarily against the contraception mandate. When in recent history can you remember them organizing to protest the growing poverty in the country, the lack of healthcare access for the poor or the danger in balancing the federal budget with disproportionate effect on the poor? All of these things have been positions of the bishops but only one is the subject of a fortnight's political activism. And it's the one topic that Christ, when asked, didn't seem to care about.

That's how things go down the tubes: morality becomes both a mask and cudgel, hiding the true motive of power and becoming a weapon of exclusion to wield over others. And that's a behavior Christ did make a point of criticizing whenever it appeared to Him.

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

No, I would be opposed to such marketing. Presenting highly-sexualized media to children is quite a bit different than allowing same-sex partners to marry, though. What equivalency are you drawing here?

You said: What has been argued is that a civil government should not take the position of moral judge;

I just showed you an example of civil government taking position of moral judge. And you agreed that the government had an interest in taking that role.

Dude. If you can't comprehend that child pornography causes a great deal of harm to its victims and that there is no comparison between that and two adults making a consensual choice to marry, you need to sit down and give this issue a bit more of a think. That's an utterly ridiculous comparison.

Do you have "studies" to support the idea that child pornography causes a great deal of harm to its victims? (I believe it does, you are are the one that seems to need studies to prove things of a morality issue.)

Both cases you presented cause harm. It's not hard to argue the first case and the second case doesn't even deserve argument. Children are not taken out of a developmentally safe environment because same-sex couples can marry. They definitely are taken out of that environment by exposure to sexual media or becoming victims of sexual abuse themselves.

—Sam

You seem to need studies on one issue, but not on another. Why is that?

[Ansgar Seraph]

You said: What has been argued is that a civil government should not take the position of moral judge;

I just showed you an example of civil government taking position of moral judge. And you agreed that the government had an interest in taking that role.

No, because you could show harm done without that prohibition.

Do you have "studies" to support the idea that child pornography causes a great deal of harm to its victims? (I believe it does, you are are the one that seems to need studies to prove things of a morality issue.)

I'm absolutely sure that I could find many studies showing just that. But I'm not going to play a game for you. It literally makes me sick in the stomach to watch another person try to manipulate child pornography into his talking point. That's shameful behavior, OtherCheek.

You seem to need studies on one issue, but not on another. Why is that?

Hey, look at this!

Watching Sex on Television Predicts Adolescent Initiation of Sexual Behavior

"Watching Sex on Television Predicts Adolescent Initiation of Sexual Behavior." Collins, et al. PEDIATRICS Vol. 114 No. 3 September 1, 2004 pp. e280 -e289

Design and Participants. We conducted a national longitudinal survey of 1792 adolescents, 12 to 17 years of age. In baseline and 1-year follow-up interviews, participants reported their TV viewing habits and sexual experience and responded to measures of more than a dozen factors known to be associated with adolescent sexual initiation. TV viewing data were combined with the results of a scientific analysis of TV sexual content to derive measures of exposure to sexual content, depictions of sexual risks or safety, and depictions of sexual behavior (versus talk about sex but no behavior).

Outcome Measures. Initiation of intercourse and advancement in noncoital sexual activity level, during a 1-year period.

Results. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that adolescents who viewed more sexual content at baseline were more likely to initiate intercourse and progress to more advanced noncoital sexual activities during the subsequent year, controlling for respondent characteristics that might otherwise explain these relationships. The size of the adjusted intercourse effect was such that youths in the 90th percentile of TV sex viewing had a predicted probability of intercourse initiation that was approximately double that of youths in the 10th percentile, for all ages studied. Exposure to TV that included only talk about sex was associated with the same risks as exposure to TV that depicted sexual behavior. African American youths who watched more depictions of sexual risks or safety were less likely to initiate intercourse in the subsequent year.

© source where applicable

That study, among others, indicates a heightened danger to children and adolescents by exposure to sexual media. Exposure to X-rated sexual media is far less frequent but correlates with more negative behavior, as well.

The difference is that I can find evidence of harm for the activities that I think the government should regulate or prohibit. You, on the other hand, cannot — and you don't temper your opinion even when provided evidence that no harm is done. So why you think that you're justified in accusing me of hypocrisy is somewhat mystifying.

—Sam

[joel]

You're assuming that you'll be in a position to make those decisions ahead of time.

If not then you can't get married either.

Not enough people plan those sort of things ahead of time -- granted, we probably should -- but the whole purpose of having a legal next of kin is so that you don't have to.

But civil "marriage" is planning it ahead.

[OtherCheek]

No, because you could show harm done without that prohibition.



I'm absolutely sure that I could find many studies showing just that. But I'm not going to play a game for you. It literally makes me sick in the stomach to watch another person try to manipulate child pornography into his talking point. That's shameful behavior, OtherCheek.

I'm sure you could find studies that indicate differently than the study you presented.

The point is, that the government DOES have an interest in promoting a moral society. As you now have acknowledged.

Also, as I've said before, there ARE NO longitudinal studies showing the impact on a society into subsequent generations of government promotion, sanction, and endorsement of SSM. No one knows the possible harm or lack thereof on society. And if we look at Europe, Europe does not give a shining endorsement of hope for future prosperity and vitality.

So, do you believe that a few judges should overrule the voice of the people when it comes to the definition of Marriage? Or that it should be a matter that the people vote on?

[OtherCheek]

If you believe that SSAttraction is "born" or "innate", do you also believe this is the case for ALL practicing homosexuals that they are "born with it"?

This article raises the question of changing sexual preference: Can a man whose past sexual practice has been almost exclusively heterosexual change his practice to homosexual after being seduced by another man? To those who believe that homosexual preference is homosexual orientation, an innate biological predisposition, the answer is a resounding "no." Contrary to this response, the author presents three cases in which the men switch from heterosexual to homosexual relationships (exclusively in two cases) by means of a sexual encounter intiated by another man. The author credits part of the change to the gay liberation movement which rescued homosexual desire from the hidden, forbidden, and shameful. The evidence that these men experienced a genuine change in sexual preference, shows that life-long, exclusive homosexuality, as articulated by gay rhetoric, is more a statement about the culture in which it occurs than the "essence" of homosexuality. The author concludes that putting the questions of "What do I like?" before the question of "Who am I?" would allow more sexual freedom for those interested in crossing the line that divides sexual preferences.
Can Seduction Make Straight Men Gay?

Sam, do you think it is healthier for a nation to spread the practice of homosexuality, or to discourage it's spread?
Or do think it would be better for the government to encourage SSM partners to honor their SSmarriage vows to their partner in order in order to produce offspring, or healthier for them to have no offspring of their own at all rather than to break marriage vows?

Even if people ARE born with certain tendencies, are we here on earth simply to indulge those tendencies that are not good, or to overcome them? As a Christian, I hope you would at least in your religious circles, support marriage as an ideal--an ideal institution that has been trampled by many, but one that you won't also trample in person.

[Ansgar Seraph]

I'm sure you could find studies that indicate differently than the study you presented.

Then do the work and find such articles or admit that this isn't a point of contention and that it is a false equivalence that you're drawing.

The point is, that the government DOES have an interest in promoting a moral society. As you now have acknowledged.

No, I haven't accepted your premise that the government has an interest in enforcing strictures on purely moral grounds. That was made clear in the part of my post that you snipped out. "Harm done" is the metric that civil government uses, not morality.

Also, as I've said before, there ARE NO longitudinal studies showing the impact on a society into subsequent generations of government promotion, sanction, and endorsement of SSM. No one knows the possible harm or lack thereof on society. And if we look at Europe, Europe does not give a shining endorsement of hope for future prosperity and vitality.

If your defense of prohibiting same-sex marriage is that there are no multi-generational studies observing the effect of how widespread same-sex marriage would affect society, your cart is definitely before the horse. And you've been presented studies dealing with the actual developmental effects of same-sex parenting, the only metric that could give your bias a winning edge. For better or worse, the studies don't support you on this.

So, do you believe that a few judges should overrule the voice of the people when it comes to the definition of Marriage? Or that it should be a matter that the people vote on?

It's not a matter of majority vote. If it is anything, the Constitution is a document intended to protect the minority from majority rule. So unless you can show harm that would necessitate the restriction of this right, which side has the majority should not be a factor.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

If you believe that SSAttraction is "born" or "innate", do you also believe this is the case for ALL practicing homosexuals that they are "born with it"?

This article raises the question of changing sexual preference: Can a man whose past sexual practice has been almost exclusively heterosexual change his practice to homosexual after being seduced by another man? To those who believe that homosexual preference is homosexual orientation, an innate biological predisposition, the answer is a resounding "no." Contrary to this response, the author presents three cases in which the men switch from heterosexual to homosexual relationships (exclusively in two cases) by means of a sexual encounter intiated by another man. The author credits part of the change to the gay liberation movement which rescued homosexual desire from the hidden, forbidden, and shameful. The evidence that these men experienced a genuine change in sexual preference, shows that life-long, exclusive homosexuality, as articulated by gay rhetoric, is more a statement about the culture in which it occurs than the "essence" of homosexuality. The author concludes that putting the questions of "What do I like?" before the question of "Who am I?" would allow more sexual freedom for those interested in crossing the line that divides sexual preferences.
Can Seduction Make Straight Men Gay?

Sam, do you think it is healthier for a nation to spread the practice of homosexuality, or to discourage it's spread?
Or do think it would be better for the government to encourage SSM partners to honor their SSmarriage vows to their partner in order in order to produce offspring, or healthier for them to have no offspring of their own at all rather than to break marriage vows?

Even if people ARE born with certain tendencies, are we here on earth simply to indulge those tendencies that are not good, or to overcome them? As a Christian, I hope you would at least in your religious circles, support marriage as an ideal--an ideal institution that has been trampled by many, but one that you won't also trample in person.

I believe that I've answered this question already: we have not done well maintaining healthy societies that function via theocracy or enforce moral prohibition. If you want your nation to be healthy and strong, infuse it with strong moral compass, do not try and cradle it with moral shackles. If you fail to turn your society from Babylon into Zion, so be it: shake the dust from your sandals as you leave. But the harm done in making the government function as morality police is far greater than the harm done in allowing marital rights to be extended to same-sex couples. The latter has zero potential to infringe on my personal freedom while the former has an incredible likelihood of doing so.

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

I believe that I've answered this question already: we have not done well maintaining healthy societies that function via theocracy or enforce moral prohibition. If you want your nation to be healthy and strong, infuse it with strong moral compass, do not try and cradle it with moral shackles. If you fail to turn your society from Babylon into Zion, so be it: shake the dust from your sandals as you leave. But the harm done in making the government function as morality police is far greater than the harm done in allowing marital rights to be extended to same-sex couples. The latter has zero potential to infringe on my personal freedom while the former has an incredible likelihood of doing so.

—Sam

You've just made the case for the government to sanction neither side of the debate and support neither side of the issue of "marriage", or take no role in resolving the issue via any branch of government. And to allow nothing about marriage or lifestyles to be taught or presented in the public school system. Which I am fine with BTW.

Just because many trample the institution of marriage, I refuse to use this as an excuse for me to do the same or advocate a society that promotes even more trampling.

[Ansgar Seraph]

You've just made the case for the government to sanction neither side of the debate and enforce neither side of the issue of "marriage" equality. And to allow nothing about marriage or lifestyles to be taught or presented in the public school system. Which I am fine with BTW.

No, I certainly have not. Without demonstration of harm done, the government has no legitimate ability to restrict the rights of the group in question. There are no grounds by which government can legitimize its prohibition against same-sex marriage. Conversely, there is evidence of harm done against homosexual adolescents and children of same-sex parents by intolerant and bullying peers — the government does have a legitimate concern in reducing instances of such discrimination in its school environments.

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

No, I certainly have not. Without demonstration of harm done, the government has no legitimate ability to restrict the rights of the group in question.

The government has the right to advocate "immorality" but not "morality"? Are you sure that is how you want to identify your position?

There are no grounds by which government can legitimize its prohibition against same-sex marriage. Conversely, there is evidence of harm done against homosexual adolescents and children of same-sex parents by intolerant and bullying peers — the government does have a legitimate concern in reducing instances of such discrimination in its school environments.

—Sam

My vote will be one that respects marriage, and doesn't indicate that I am trampling it along with everyone else.

So, let's wait a couple of generations and do some longitudinal studies, instead of studies restricted to hand-picked children and adolescents of SS couples.

[Ansgar Seraph]

The government has the right to advocate "immorality" but not "morality"? Are you sure that is how you want to identify your position?

Boy, is this getting tedious. You are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to even correctly understand the argument. Before, you asked about regulations preventing sexual material from being displayed to children at the supermarket. Here, you are decrying the government's potential willingness to extend marital rights to same-sex couples. I agreed that the former was an example of legitimate government regulation and disagree with your desire to prohibit the latter. How, then, could I be arguing — even within your logic — that the government has the right to "advocate 'immorality' but not 'morality'"? Your assertion is non-sensible, even by your own thought process!

And if you try and understand what I'm actually arguing, you'll surely recognize that I have repeatedly been saying that the government should not factor "morality" into its decisions to restrict behavior. The government should look at harm done. Let me make that clear, again: the government should examine what harm a given behavior causes systematically and weigh that harm against the individual's freedom of activity. Whether an activity is considered moral or immoral by a given group of people should not be a factor.

My vote will be one that respects marriage, and doesn't indicate that I am trampling it along with everyone else.

So, let's wait a couple of generations and do some longitudinal studies, instead of studies restricted to hand-picked children and adolescents of SS couples.

Well, your vote is your right and I'm certainly not against you expressing your opinion, even if your bias is factually wrong.

The studies that have been done are more than sufficient to demonstrate the statistical sameness of same-sex parents compared to opposite-sex parents. We certainly don't need to wait on satisfying the wishes of those who don't even understand the studies that have already been compiled. If you can show systematic harm done with good science and sound logic, that's one thing — but arguing that your bias will be confirmed in the long term even though it's been refuted in the here and now isn't a strong position.

—Sam

[Nathan Poe]

If not then you can't get married either.

Marriage is the same as, say, getting into a car wreck? I have a few divorced friends who might be inclined to agree, but still...

But civil "marriage" is planning it ahead.

And irrelevant if that "marriage" isn't recognized.

[Vivian]

I did not see faith within Mormonism affected when the segregation and persecution of blacks was brought to an end. And do not expect to see faith within Mormonism affected when the segregation and persecution of gays is brought to an end.

I do though recall conversations beforehand indicating a belief that one could not question the stand on blacks without questioning one's faith in the Church, just as we are see with the issue of homosexuality. This idea of protecting marriage from homosexuality that is being defended will be revealed to be a shadow, unreal, just as the idea of protecting the priesthood from blacks was revealed to likewise be false.