Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[Zeta-Flux]

To you perhaps. But John Finnes philosophy (better term than argument here) is designed to support orthodox Catholicism which teaches that birth control is a sin. When the couple uses artificial birth control to prevent conception, sex is no longer a procreative act, its become a purely a recreational act, which is sin.

Thus using Finnes philosophy you can readily equate homosexual intimacy with prostitution, because in both instances, sexual relations are divorced from procreation and serve only as recreation. Then again you can also compare a married couple using birth control to sex with a prostitute, hence my inability to understand the point of introducing Finnes philosophy into the discussion. His argument has no persuasive value to those who don't share his archaic understanding of sexual intimacy.

While I don't necessarily agree that birth control makes sex no longer the procreative act, I'm more confused with why you'd bring this up? I never claimed that my reasons for supporting traditional marriage preservation were the reasons used by others, or are universal.

But the availability of birth control, abortion, surrogacy, and the broader social acceptance of single mothers has effectively eliminated the ability of the state to regulate the procreative act through the issuance of marriage licenses.

At this point there is no causal connection between denying gays the right to marry and this desire to have the government regulate the procreative act of heterosexuals.

Then again the broader question even if there was, is why would any one want the Government to regulate their sex lives.

I understand why you would cede control of those personal decision to your religious leaders (sort of). I don't agree. But I understand.

But, I don't understand why you would cede control of those intimate personal decisions to voters, politician, police and judges. We clearly have a different vision of an ideal society.

Wow, I think I disagreed with about everything you said, including your claim that marriage laws cede control of personal decisions. *shrug*

[Jaybear]

While I don't necessarily agree that birth control makes sex no longer the procreative act, I'm more confused with why you'd bring this up? I never claimed that my reasons for supporting traditional marriage preservation were the reasons used by others, or are universal.

As I openly admitted yesterday, I have no idea what point or purpose Finnes theories/arguments/philosophy was brought into the discussion. As you mentioned and emphasized the "procreative act", I assumed your were drawing on Finnes theories.

My apologies.

Wow, I think I disagreed with about everything you said, including your claim that marriage laws cede control of personal decisions. *shrug*

No need to shrug.

But considering that many of your early church leaders were thrown in jail for having the temerity to marry more than one wife, contrary to acceptable moral standards of society of the time, I am at a loss to understand why you disagree that marriage laws cede control of intimate personal decisions to the state.

I find polygamy to be repugnant, and would personally not choose to marry more than one women.

As a society, by criminalizing polygamy, we have taken away that choice from consenting adults who left on there own, could make such a choice.

At one time, a divorce would only be granted for cause. A couple was not able to choose to divorce without having a judge review and accept thier reasons for wishing to divorce.

In California gay couples have lost the ability to choose to marry. The voters have taken away that choice.

[Zeta-Flux]

As I openly admitted yesterday, I have no idea what point or purpose Finnes theories/arguments/philosophy was brought into the discussion. As you mentioned and emphasized the "procreative act", I assumed your were drawing on Finnes theories.

My apologies.

Thank you.

But considering that many of your early church leaders were thrown in jail for having the temerity to marry more than one wife, contrary to acceptable moral standards of society of the time, I am at a loss to understand why you disagree that marriage laws cede control of intimate personal decisions to the state.

I guess, in some sense, every choice we make in a "personal" one. And if we care enough, it becomes intimate. And so, in that sense, marriage laws do limit our intimate personal decisions.

The way I originally read you, I thought you meant personal private choices in who we associate with. In that sense, marriage laws do not cede control of those decisions. They only limit what recognition those choices are given by the state.

[Mordecai]

The first couple is effectually no better than a same sex couple.

As I said, it's not about the couple. It's about the institution. Even if there is the illusion of an opposite-sex couple, at least it doesn't represent the government adopting mere propaganda that same-sex couples are the same as opposite-sex couples.

[frankenstein]

Point is, why should we treat them the same and give them the same name, when they don't do the same things? It's like the boss's son getting the same pay and same title as you, but he does less and has different responsibilities.

As I said, it's not about the couple. It's about the institution. Even if there is the illusion of an opposite-sex couple, at least it doesn't represent the government adopting mere propaganda that same-sex couples are the same as opposite-sex couples.

but if the allusion is there that the boss's son is doing the same then its ok right, that someone else does all the work so long as the illusion is maintained. You also made statement that civilization were built by hetero couples, but a infertile couple or couple that does not children and does not have children does not build civilizations. You seem to bouncing back and forth between "institution" and the couple, which is why I brought the hetero infertile does not want children even by adoption.

But just for giggles, if a ss couple agreed that one would go in drag, in order to give the illusion of opposite sex couple, would you support ssm?

[Mordecai]

The only thing that matters is that the law says opposite-sex couples are considered married, and that the word _marriage_ and the special treatment that goes with that are reserved for actual married couples. If some transexuals and even transvestites slip through the cracks, I don't care. The important thing in the law is the principle. Anything else is just background noise and nitpicking.

[frankenstein]

Ok, I understand your point about the law. But what is the protection to the "institution" when the protection is on paper only and not enforced? From a religious philosophical standpoint it would seem a position of not caring if same sex appearance couples legally marry is "neither hot or cold"*. Texas allows same sex in appearance to marry because even with a sex change Texas is concerned about opposite genetics of the couple.

Though I can understand that from a minimalist government point of view, that one takes what one can get, and combine that view with a religious view - one will say concerning others behavior "I don't care, let that person be amenable to God for their choices, the foundation of the law is sure, let their own house fall upon them"

*For the mods and mordecia, I am not judging Mordecia or making any claims as to his(?) worthiness, I simply do not know another way to phrase the issue. If there is a better way to phrase the issue without unintentionally appearing to pass some kind of judgment I would appreciate some advice that I can make the appropriate changes.

[Mordecai]

Ok, I understand your point about the law. But what is the protection to the "institution" when the protection is on paper only and not enforced?

Because the important thing is that the idea is protected as a means to influence society for the better. Preserving the law and protecting the language protects the idea, which is the source of marriage.

From a religious philosophical standpoint it would seem a position of not caring if same sex appearance couples legally marry is "neither hot or cold"*.

No. You're talking politics, not religion. If someone wants to commit fraud and be recognized as married, that's their choice.

[california boy]

Part of a continuing trend we are seeing. Giuliani to GOP: Stay out of gay marriage

Republicans should get out of gay marriage