Great post! No person, nation or culture can survive for long if doesn't care about its own perpetuation. Over time, only those who really want to live will keep on living.

A very interesting post.

A comment (of course).

I agree that the greatest sin (or I would use the world 'dangerous' instead) is to strive to redefine sin as neutral or as virtue. The problem comes in where you assert that is 'us' who are redefining sin . That it is those of us who doubt or struggle with the definition of homosexuality as immoral "just because" who are redefining sin. I think it is equally possible that it is the evangelicals who are clinging to that definition "just because" that may be trying to redefine sin (obviously a different sin) as virtuous.

In any case, it felt as if your post was attempting to analogize those who are against the war with those who support the acceptance of homosexuality. I think that's rather simplistic.

I support the war but I acknowledge that there were and still are legitimate reasons to have concerns. This was the first time this country preemptively attacked another country. To even imply that to doubt the war was to doubt the intent or hatred of Islamic extremists against the West is not accurate. Yes, there are examples of extreme anti-war activists that fit into your view of 'liberalism' but there are many more people who have the, in your view, 'contradictory' view of supporting to war yet ... well you know. (Tony Blair being example #1)

With regard to an intelligent and open discussion, most fair minded people (on both sides of BOTH issues) want the same thing. But you seem to fail to acknowledge what is really in debate here - on both issues. Here's howt I look at it:

- War in Iraq: Whether the threat to the world of the Saddam Hussein regime justified a pre-emptive attack - without the unified support of the United Nations.

- Homosexual behavior: Whether it is immoral and dangerous - and, if so, does it justify legal discouragement ? There are many activities in the Bible that are defined as sin yet treated morally neutral by law

Mark,

While the war in Iraq and same-sex marriage are clearly implied in this post, I mention neither. I mention the War on Terror; I mention treating human life as a commodity (à la cloning). But you're bringing issues I've raised elsewhere into this specific statement.

That's fine, as far as it goes, and the ideas expressed herein would have to be reconciled with those issues, as considered, but it jumps the gun a bit to accuse me of being "simplistic" for appying a broad statement to narrow debates when I didn't, in fact, do so.

Justin,

So the fact that you didn't expressly mention those issues (as opposed to "clearly implied") mitigates any argument or debate thereof.

Fair enough. I jumped the gun.

"This was the first time this country preemptively attacked another country."

This is not true. Kosovo, Granada, and Panama are obvious examples. I know there are others further back in our history, but I'm too lazy to look them up right now.

"- War in Iraq: Whether the threat to the world of the Saddam Hussein regime justified a pre-emptive attack - without the unified support of the United Nations."

I fail to see how the second part of the sentence has any effect on the first. Either the threat posed by Iraq justified military action or it didn't. Whether the security council of the UN concurred or not has zero moral ramifications on the question, and only minor political ramifications.

"- Homosexual behavior: Whether it is immoral and dangerous - and, if so, does it justify legal discouragement ? There are many activities in the Bible that are defined as sin yet treated morally neutral by law".

That's partially correct, but somewhat disingenuous, since what is being debated right now is not sodomy laws (which would fit into your characterization), but public recognition of same-sex marriages. I suppose one could make the argument that not publicly recognizing them is tantamount to legally discouraging them, but that unfairly shifts the terms of the debate to the presumption that SSM should be treated equally to OSM, which is the very point at issue.

"Kosovo, Granada, and Panama are obvious examples."

First, let me say that I still support the attack on Iraq. But if you truly beleive that the examples you referred to are in the same realm as what we are doing in Iraq (and for that matter - *why* we are in Iraq) ... then I don't know what more to say.

"I fail to see how the second part of the sentence has any effect on the first. Either the threat posed by Iraq justified military action or it didn't. Whether the security council of the UN concurred or not has zero moral ramifications on the question, and only minor political ramifications."

I *almost* agree with you here. But the reality is that there is a United Nations and there was and still is significant value to having as much broad support as possible. That is not to say that the UN has any moral or even legal authority on whether it was justified or not. But that fact that it did not concur is not absolutely irrelevant.

"I suppose one could make the argument that not publicly recognizing them is tantamount to legally discouraging them, but that unfairly shifts the terms of the debate to the presumption that SSM should be treated equally to OSM, which is the very point at issue."

I don't understand why that argument *unfairly* shifts the terms of the debate. As you said, the very point of issue is whether same sex relationships should have any legal acknowledgment.

Mark: "Homosexual behavior: Whether it is immoral and dangerous - and, if so, does it justify legal discouragement ? There are many activities in the Bible that are defined as sin yet treated morally neutral by law."

The point of the SSM movement is to force acceptance of homosexuality, that is, to pressure people to stop viewing it as a moral wrong. This is why, for instance, many city councils have denied funding to the Boy Scouts simply for maintaining that it’s wrong. This is why criticism of homosexuality is a crime in Canada and on most college campuses, and why they keep pushing for hate-crime laws in the US. This is why educators push pro-gay programs in public schools over the objections of parents.

SSM supporters have not been content with the repeal or non-enforcement of laws against their activities. It isn’t enough for their pleasure to be tolerated but discouraged, like smokers, drinkers of alcohol, gamblers, or users of pornography. SSM supporters demand the redefinition of public morality.

That’s what SSM is all about. That’s why, for instance, the Goodridge court rejected a plan to give gays every legal benefit of marriage, but not the title. The plaintiffs didn’t just want the legal rights of marriage; they wanted a declaration that there is no important whatsoever between a SS couple and an OS couple. That’s why gays want nondiscrimination laws equivalent to those based on race or sex. They want to deny others the freedom to treat them differently because of their behavior.

The broader goal is to destroy morality by reducing it to law. The SSM supporters say: You’re free to believe that homosexuality is a sin, but 1) you can’t criticize it publicly if we get our way, 2) you can’t can choose not to do business with or hire people who engage in that sin, and 3) your legislative representatives can’t enact laws that reflect your views. You can think your silly little moral thoughts privately, but keep your mouth shut and stay in line while we tell you what the law will be.

Moral truths must be timeless, or they don’t exist. The current mania is to declare that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality. This means either 1) homosexuality was always moral, and the moral giants of our age have just now realized it, or 2) morality changes from generation to generation, according to who has the political power. The latter option is the equivalent of denying any absolute standards of right or wrong. It is the destruction of morality.

We need another layer in the taxonomy of sin. It’s bad to sin. It’s worse to convince others that your favorite sin isn’t a sin. But the worst of all is to convince others that sin doesn’t exist, that true morality is impossible, and that right and wrong are just a matter of opinion.

"But if you truly beleive that the examples you referred to are in the same realm as what we are doing in Iraq"

Well, what is the 'realm'? You said that it was the first pre-emptive attack, not the first pre-emptive attack with the goal of overthrowing a dangerous dictator and setting up a representative government afterwards.

"I don't understand why that argument *unfairly* shifts the terms of the debate. As you said, the very point of issue is whether same sex relationships should have any legal acknowledgment."

Your first post said "legally discouraged". Thus you are equating opposition to a positive recognition of SSM to support for legally discouraging homosexual behavior. As Justin says in his later post on Andrew Sullivan, many conservatives draw the line in between banning sodomy and recognizing SSM. The former is legally discouraging homosexual behavior, the latter is legally *encouraging* it. Your formulation only offers two choices: either homosexual behavior is immoral and dangerous, or one must support SSM. That is a false choice, and it unfairly puts the onus on opponents of SSM, since many people don't think homosexual behavior is immoral or dangerous, or don't think it is a serious enough transgression to prohibit legally, but think that marriage is reserved for a man and a women exclusively.

Also, what Ben said - the SSM movement is not just a movement to do away with or diminish legal discouragement, it is part of a larger movement by gays and their supporters to make homosexuality accepted as a positive trait.

P.S. Legal recognition of SSM is not treating homosexual behavior as 'morally neutral by law' - it is treating it as morally good by law.

Ben:

"The point of the SSM movement is to force acceptance of homosexuality, that is, to pressure people to stop viewing it as a moral wrong."

There is some truth to that. But what I think they are really looking for is treating homosexuality as 'neutral' - rather than as a distinct positive or negative behavior. That would be akin to how law treats heterosexual behavior.

"They want to deny others the freedom to treat them differently because of their behavior."

No, they want the law to protect them from discrimination based solely on their behavior. I think the onus is on your side to justify why their behavior is dangerous enough to justify discrimination. This is America. You don't have to like them, respect them or associate with them. Just like any other group of people. You want to treat them like criminals based on their behavior and I'll concede that in some countries and cultures, that is accepted. But that doesn't mean that is just by the standards set in our constitution.

"Moral truths must be timeless, or they don’t exist."

I actually agree with your statement but we disagree on whether the evil of homosexuality is a moral truth. There are numerous examples of things that had been thought to be moral truths that are no longer accepted as that. Actually, to me, that is what this debate is all about.

"But the worst of all is to convince others that sin doesn’t exist, that true morality is impossible, and that right and wrong are just a matter of opinion."

Again, I agree with the statement as is. The disagreement is whose opinion should we define right and wrong as based on. Yours or mine ?

Mike S:

"Well, what is the 'realm'?"

I'm not going to spend time outlining the differences between our attacks on Kosovo and Panama to the war on Iraq. The reality is that the purpose and scope of this war is far different than anything this country has ever done. That doesn't mean it is wrong (I think it is right) - but come on, if you are not willing to acknowledge that then I don't think you want to have a serious debate.

"Also, what Ben said - the SSM movement is not just a movement to do away with or diminish legal discouragement, it is part of a larger movement by gays and their supporters to make homosexuality accepted as a positive trait."

I agree that the line between legalizing sodomy yet against SSM is a legitimate line. I'll even admit that I struggle with supporting SSM though I do believe that the law should somehow give legal acknowledgment to same sex couples in some way.

But I'll say again that while there are some extremists who want to do all sorts of things (on both sides) I think that the primary movement by gays and their supporters is to make homosexuality accepted as not a positive trait - but not an immoral or dangerous trait. To you, that may be hair splitting but I see it as a significant difference.

"Legal recognition of SSM is not treating homosexual behavior as 'morally neutral by law' - it is treating it as morally good by law."

I don't believe that is true. There are many marriage scenarios involving incarcerated persons, people who marry for financial or residential status, etc. - that are legally allowed yet not celebrated as 'morally good' by all. There are many legal options that are not 'morally good' (i.e.: divorce). This debate is about whether there is a legitimate state interest in not acknowledging same-sex relationships.

Mark (on SSM supporters): “What I think they are really looking for is treating homosexuality as 'neutral' - rather than as a distinct positive or negative behavior. That would be akin to how law treats heterosexual behavior.”

The law doesn’t treat OS couples as being morally neutral. If they commit to each other financially and sexually (i.e. marry), then the law recognizes that they’ve done something morally good and important, and rewards them accordingly. Other pairings of people do not have the same potential for responsible reproduction. So the law traditionally elevates those who are doing something morally important above those who are not.

SSM represents the destruction of that moral distinction by demanding that those who clearly cannot reproduce be equated with those who probably can. SSM is really about denying the moral importance of reproduction.

Mark (on SSM supporters): “They want the law to protect them from discrimination based solely on their behavior.”

You’re right. That’s exactly what they want. They want to forbid people from reacting to their behavior.

Mark (continuing): “I think the onus is on your side to justify why their behavior is dangerous enough to justify discrimination.”

That would be a novel and bizarre legal standard. I discriminate against people who pick their noses in public. Is there an onus on me to justify that discrimination? Do I have to justify the dangerousness of nose-picking? I don’t think so. I discriminate against nose-pickers just because I think it’s gross. I should be free to do that.

“This is America. You don't have to like them, respect them or associate with them. Just like any other group of people.”

This sentence seems to directly contradict the previous one. If I don’t want to associate with a group of people, 1) is there an onus on me to justify the discrimination, or 2) am I free to choose not to associate with them?

Your last sentence there is a quaint statement of the idea of freedom of association. But that’s been dead for decades. If I want to do anything economic—hire an employee, sell to customers, rent apartments, etc.—then I’m required to give up most of my freedom to choose with whom I’ll do business. By law, I’m not allowed to distinguish between people based on their race, sex, disability, etc. The list and the categories on it seem to grow every few years. (If alcoholism and obesity aren’t considered disabilities yet, they certainly will be eventually.)

At least most of the older non-discrimination laws used involuntary criteria. People don’t choose their race, sex, or disability. But, as you say, homosexuality is a behavior. And we have to be free to discriminate on behavior, don’t we? Otherwise, how could we distinguish anyone from anyone else? This job applicant went to school and got good grades; that one dropped out of junior high. This job applicant worked hard at his previous job; that one just got out of jail. How can I choose between them except on the basis of their behavior?

Surely you don’t mean that there is some burden of proof on anyone who wants to discriminate on the basis of any behavior. That would be silly, wouldn’t it? I think that what you mean is that people shouldn’t discriminate against someone based on his homosexual behavior. To you, there’s something special about homosexual behavior that makes it morally superior to nose-picking, cigarette smoking, pornography use, or gambling. There are lots of pleasures that people can indulge in, but to SSM supporters, homosexuality is special somehow. Why?

Ben: "Moral truths must be timeless, or they don’t exist."
Mark: “I actually agree with your statement but we disagree on whether the evil of homosexuality is a moral truth.”

So is your view that homosexuality has always been morally indistinguishable from procreative sex? All those people in the past got it wrong, while the MSJC got it right? Please explain how these four lawyers have eclipsed the great moral thinkers of the past.

Mike S.: “Legal recognition of SSM is not treating homosexual behavior as 'morally neutral by law' - it is treating it as morally good by law."
Mark: “I don't believe that is true.”

It doesn’t make sense to talk about something being morally neutral or good in the abstract. The question is how it compares with something else. The point of SSM is to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. You can call it elevating homosexuality or dragging down tradition marriage to some ‘neutral’ point; the result is the same.

Mark: “This debate is about whether there is a legitimate state interest in not acknowledging same-sex relationships.”

That’s only part of the debate, and not really the part we’re debating in this thread. The question here is mostly one of morality and cultural stability: As Justin said in the starting post, “post-Christian ideologies are unstable and weak.” That includes the ideology behind the SSM movement, which claims that we are forbidden from encouraging the responsible production of children. A related movement says that we may not encourage immigrants to assimilate into our culture. Together, these movements say that our culture must be neutral about its own survival. As a practical matter, this means that it ought to die. As I said earlier in this thread, you can’t really be neutral about your own survival. Either you want to live, or you don’t. And the pro-SSM view effectively says that we shouldn’t.

They don’t intend it to destroy us. They just want their pleasure put on a pedestal, and they think that our culture is strong enough to handle it. It’s a parasitic ideology. It can’t survive on its own. If everybody believed in it, then they’d vanish within a generation or two.

Is homosexuality such a great idea that everybody should do it? If 90% of the population were homosexual, would the Constitution still forbid us from encouraging procreation? The people who support SSM don’t ask such questions. They assume that our culture will go on forever. They don’t see themselves as having any obligation to help support it. They just want to have their fun.

"I'm not going to spend time outlining the differences between our attacks on Kosovo and Panama to the war on Iraq."

Mark, I wasn't really interested in that debate, either, and I never said that Iraq wasn't different in many respects. I was simply refuting the commonly asserted canard that we've never acted preemptorily with military force in the past.

Mark,

First, I'd like to clarify something. You wrote:

So the fact that you didn't expressly mention those issues (as opposed to "clearly implied") mitigates any argument or debate thereof.

Not really; in fact, I think links between opposition to the war and support for SSM represent an interesting area of thought. Personally, I think there's some general principle there to unravel, even if significant portions of the population don't realize the connection. (N.B., if one supports the war but opposes SSM, as I do, then it's entirely plausible that the opposite combination is consistent, while those who mix them are inconsistent. If that's the case, then finding the link would be an effective rhetorical approach.) That said, I do believe one can start to make the connections with specific groups, like the media.

Other than that, I don't want to pile on, because I've been the lone voice for a particular position before, and at some point, it can begin to affect one's desire to discuss the matter. I agree with much of what's been said about rights of association, et cetera, but I'd like to add a response to this statement of yours:

I think that the primary movement by gays and their supporters is to make homosexuality accepted as not a positive trait - but not an immoral or dangerous trait.

Whether or not it's a "dangerous trait," it seems to me, is up to homosexuals themselves, but a movement for acceptance of SSM is for more than just a neutral characterization. For marriage to have any meaning and any effect (and thus any justification), it must remain an acknowledgement over and above mere citizenship. Therefore, you've reversed the question when you refer to "a legitimate state interest in not acknowledging same-sex relationships." We extend marital recognition to heterosexuals on the basis of there being a legitimate state interest in doing so. (That's a net value, so to speak, adding benefits and subtracting complications.)

And the same would have to be true of SSM. A legitimate state interest is something that the state wants, that benefits the society — not, as liberals would have it, a measure of what the state can do, but what it should do. Therefore, one can't suggest that "the law should somehow give legal acknowledgment to same sex couples in some way" while treating homosexuality as merely a neutral quality.

One can, however, center on another quality (e.g., fidelity, if homosexuality is inevitable), but that's not the tack that's being taken, overall. It also isn't a factor that can be teased out from the mud in our current society.

Incidentally, Ben:

If alcoholism and obesity aren’t considered disabilities yet, they certainly will be eventually.

I don't recall whether or not she won, but not long ago a woman who was healthy but heavy-set sued a health club because they wouldn't hire her to teach aerobics. Since she could do and teach the workouts, the idea was that it was only her size that made the difference. Out the window are business considerations about image and catering to customer expectations.

Ben,

"The law doesn’t treat OS couples as being morally neutral. If they commit to each other financially and sexually (i.e. marry), then the law recognizes that they’ve done something morally good and important, and rewards them accordingly."

How does the law reward OS couples who commit to each other financially or sexually ? By the legal benefits of marriage ? The law rewards all OS couples who marry regardless of the financial or sexual commitments made by them. In other words, married OS couples can be doing things that ARE NOT morally good and still be rewarded by law.

"SSM represents the destruction of that moral distinction by demanding that those who clearly cannot reproduce be equated with those who probably can. SSM is really about denying the moral importance of reproduction."

I've been through the reproduction argument too many times (and I think with you too on the Galois site). If reproduction is so morally important, then why not reward out-of-wedlock reproduction in the same way ?

"They want to forbid people from reacting to their behavior."

Only partially true. It depends on HOW they react.

"That would be a novel and bizarre legal standard. I discriminate against people who pick their noses in public. Is there an onus on me to justify that discrimination? Do I have to justify the dangerousness of nose-picking? I don’t think so. I discriminate against nose-pickers just because I think it’s gross. I should be free to do that."

Speaking of bizarre - the analogy between public nose picking and homosexuality. But I can go with it. Can you fire someone solely because they pick their nose in public ? Should the law prevent two people from marrying because one or both of them pick their nose in public ? The difference in your analogy is about what you can do privately versus publicly based on the law. The difference is significant.

"If I don’t want to associate with a group of people, 1) is there an onus on me to justify the discrimination, or 2) am I free to choose not to associate with them?"

Again - the difference in your analogy is about what you can do privately versus publicly based on the law. The difference is significant.

"But, as you say, homosexuality is a behavior. And we have to be free to discriminate on behavior, don’t we? Otherwise, how could we distinguish anyone from anyone else? This job applicant went to school and got good grades; that one dropped out of junior high. This job applicant worked hard at his previous job; that one just got out of jail. How can I choose between them except on the basis of their behavior?"

Homosexuality is NOT a behavior - but there is such thing as homosexual behavior. Your analogy is incorrect on all levels. Grades are public information. Sexual preference is not. Also, the theory is that ones grades or work ethic at a previous job is directly related to how they perform the function to which they are applying. Ones sexual preference has no relation to job performance (in theory). Regarding the jail analogy, it would only apply if homosexuality was criminalized. If you're looking for an appropriate analogy, use gambling. If you are personally against and offended by gambling, are you allowed to discriminate based on that ? I don't know the answer to that.

"I think that what you mean is that people shouldn’t discriminate against someone based on his homosexual behavior. To you, there’s something special about homosexual behavior that makes it morally superior to nose-picking, cigarette smoking, pornography use, or gambling. There are lots of pleasures that people can indulge in, but to SSM supporters, homosexuality is special somehow. Why?"

I never said it is special or morally superior. Is heterosexual behavior special ? The last time I checked, nose pickers, smokers, pornographers and gamblers can all get married regardless of engaging in those special and morally superior behaviors. What are your trying to say here ?

"So is your view that homosexuality has always been morally indistinguishable from procreative sex?"

You cannot use 'homosexuality' and 'procreative sex' as the opposing views here. Heterosexual behavior can result in non-procreative sex. Should that be outlawed in your view ? The question is whether homosexuality is morally indistinguishable from heterosexuality. I believe the answer is yes - but more importantly I believe the laws regarding each 'behavior' should be the same. (except maybe that gay relationships need not be 'marriage')

"...that includes the ideology behind the SSM movement, which claims that we are forbidden from encouraging the responsible production of children."

The SSM movement does not claim that in any way.

"A related movement says that we may not encourage immigrants to assimilate into our culture."

The movements are not related (except both may be based in some type of liberalism). I happen to feel that we should encourage, if not require, immigrants to assimilate into our culture and yet support legitimizing gay relationships

"Is homosexuality such a great idea that everybody should do it? If 90% of the population were homosexual, would the Constitution still forbid us from encouraging procreation?"

What if 90% of the population were Jewish ? Would the Constitution forbid belief in Christ ? Your question is ridiculous. Homosexuality is not an idea - it's a reality. The question is how we are going to deal with the reality that some people are homosexual and are raising children.

"They assume that our culture will go on forever. They don’t see themselves as having any obligation to help support it. They just want to have their fun."

I do not agree with your view that supporting gay rights is equivalent to not caring about the future of our culture and see no evidence of it. They do want to have their fun - just as heterosexuals are legally allowed to have theirs.

Justin,

I agree with most of what you wrote.

Where we differ is that I believe that legitimizing gay relationships results in the same 'net value' to the state as does marriage.

I also feel that there are current marital arrangements that are legally acknowledged that do not benefit society (i.e.: marriage between older couples, incarcerated persons) so I think this IS a matter of what the state CAN do - based on equal rights - rather than simply what is a 'net' benefit for the state. So as long as you are willing to apply the standards of 'benefit to the state' equally to all arrangements ....

"One can, however, center on another quality (e.g., fidelity, if homosexuality is inevitable), but that's not the tack that's being taken, overall. It also isn't a factor that can be teased out from the mud in our current society."

I do think that tack has been taken by some but there is no real defense against it so it isn't heard as loud as the points of opposition. But I agree that it can't be easily teased out from the other 'mud' (as you put it) on this issue.

Mark,

... there are current marital arrangements that are legally acknowledged that do not benefit society (i.e.: marriage between older couples, incarcerated persons)

You don't see any benefit to society for your examples? Older couples committing to each other and sharing the responsibility for each other and pledging to care for each other would seem to me quite clearly to benefit society in all kinds of ways — financially, to be crass, but also in all the intangible ways that having sick and lonely old people wandering the streets would entail. As for incarcerated people, marriage would seem to have a significant reformative power, not the least because it sets up a committed relationship beyond the prison walls, creating not only emotional difficulties, but also a stark image of what it means to be incarcerated.

And in neither of these cases is our society's fundamental definition of marriage changed, increasing the net benefit.

Mark,

I think it should be reiterated that most opponents of SSM recognize that it would benefit some of the couples (and children) involved - we don't claim there would be zero benefit to SSM. We just claim that the costs would far outweigh the benefits. It's like Justin said in a later post - recognition of SSM would only benefit ~3% of the population. But it would have negative effects on the other 97% - specifically, on how they view the institution and meaning of marriage.

Justin,

I agree that there is a benefit to society for all the reasons you mentioned.

There are ways with providing those benefits to same sex couples without changing society's fundamental definition of marriage. But I'll admit that many SSM advocates would not accept less than 'marriage' and that most SSM foes, such as yourself, would still be unhappy about giving any legal recognition to same sex couples.

Suffice to say that our disagreement is about whether the societal costs of legal recognition to gay couples is outweighed by the benefits to society and those couples by based on that legal recognition.

From Mike S.: "It's like Justin said in a later post - recognition of SSM would only benefit ~3% of the population. But it would have negative effects on the other 97% - specifically, on how they view the institution and meaning of marriage."

I am one of those 97% and it would not negatively affect the institution and meaning of marriage to me - and there are many others I know of (among that 97%) who share my view. But I acknowledge that there are many who share your view that it would irreparably harm the institution. All I am saying is your view does not represent all 97% of heterosexuals. And, in my humble opinion, the net gain goes above the 3% of direct gain-ees across and into the 97% - but that's a different debate.

"I am one of those 97% and it would not negatively affect the institution and meaning of marriage to me - and there are many others I know of (among that 97%) who share my view."

And that is a large part of the problem - our society's view of marriage has already changed drastically. Even many people who are intinctively against SSM don't understand why it would be harmful, or what changes it would bring about.

I've mentioned a book called "Icarus Fallen" in a previous post. I just read a review of it by Mark Gauvreau Judge on Breakpoint here (registration req'd), which I recommend to everyone (the book and the review). An excerpt is below...

-------
One more thing. Icarus Fallen was written before the gay “marriage” madness, yet Delsol has words of wisdom that apply to this dark development worth sharing:

The exponential accumulation of rights comes partially from the way in which we confuse non-prohibition with legitimization – in other words, the way in which we suppose that anything that is tolerated should be facilitated or even encouraged. A type of behavior, however, can very well be permitted – in the name of individual liberty – without actually being legitimized or facilitated by law or material aid, for the reason that it has negative consequences that can be objectively identified. But our contemporary believes that any tolerated behavior should be legitimized, and consequently supported by the provision of the means necessary for its practice. This way of thought comes from thinking in terms of rights and entitlements….This way of seeing things also results from the disappearance of an objective good and the general refusal to establish a hierarchy of acts. And in conjunction with all this is the movement from essential tolerance, based on an idea of the equal dignity of persons, toward a procedural tolerance or relativism, based on the idea that all lifestyles are of equal value.

Sounds like a certain gay “rights” movement I know.

"And that is a large part of the problem - our society's view of marriage has already changed drastically. Even many people who are intinctively against SSM don't understand why it would be harmful, or what changes it would bring about."
----- You are correct in that I and others doubt the harm or dramatic changes that may be brought about by legal acknowledgment of gay relationships.

Regarding the book you recommended, I agree with what it says in that we have gone too far with regard to either facilitating or, in my mind, criminalizing certain behaviors. For example, although I am a non-smoker and find it almost disgusting, I am not comfortable with the current pursuit of criminalizing it even under the guise of public health. To me, on the other side are behaviors such as polygamy that can be permitted (there is no law against having an intimate relationship with more than one other person at a time) but should be stopped short of legitimizing.

So, my issue is not with that theory but of where homosexuality fits into it. I do not see where homosexual behavior has negative consequences that are worthy of denying legitimacy. I have yet to see the logic in any arguments for that. The only legitimate arguments I have heard or read are that it is theologically objected to - which is certainly true. But I guess where we differ is that I do not think that in and of itself is reason to legally (and civilly) deny legitimacy or equal protection.

Mark,

Sorry for the delay, but I want to comment on a couple of things you wrote in response to Ben.

If reproduction is so morally important, then why not reward out-of-wedlock reproduction in the same way?

In the previous paragraph, Ben had used the phrase "responsible reproduction." The moral importance of a thing doesn't mean that there aren't better ways of doing it; this is true even to the extent that ways of doing it can make the whole endeavor immoral. Being charitable is morally important, but that doesn't make it moral to be charitable with somebody else's property.

Grades are public information. Sexual preference is not. Also, the theory is that ones grades or work ethic at a previous job is directly related to how they perform the function to which they are applying. Ones sexual preference has no relation to job performance (in theory).

Are grades public information? Can I walk into your alma mater and demand to be shown your transcript? I don't think so. A job applicant must hand over the transcript himself, just as a homosexual must divulge his orientation himself. Moreover, for whom is it to decide what affects one's job performance? You or the person with a stake in the decision?

I don't agree with this, as a theological matter, but suppose a small-business owner believes that employing a homosexual is immoral and will put his business outside of God's favor. Are you, here, declaring that it is impossible that this is true and that the government has the right to force your view?

You cannot use 'homosexuality' and 'procreative sex' as the opposing views here. Heterosexual behavior can result in non-procreative sex. Should that be outlawed in your view ?

This answer is irrelevant to Ben's question. He asked whether it has always been so, with the implication that it has not always been thought to be so. Therefore: how has the Mass. SJC transcended the moral thinking of the ages?

I believe the answer is yes - but more importantly I believe the laws regarding each 'behavior' should be the same.

You've stipulated that homosexuality, as an orientation, is not a behavior, so which behavior do you mean? Same-sex and opposite-sex oral stimulation? Same-sex and opposite-sex anal penetration? Perhaps we agree. I'll concede that the case might also be conceivable that all instances of the "behavior" in which a penis penetrates a vagina should be treated the same — especially when procreation might result.

What if 90% of the population were Jewish ? Would the Constitution forbid belief in Christ ? Your question is ridiculous.

Actually, I'd say your response is pretty ridiculous. The Constitution explicitly protects religious "behavior." Sexuality is not mentioned. Are you joining Andrew Sullivan in raising sex to the stature of sacrament?

"The moral importance of a thing doesn't mean that there aren't better ways of doing it; this is true even to the extent that ways of doing it can make the whole endeavor immoral. Being charitable is morally important, but that doesn't make it moral to be charitable with somebody else's property."
—-—-- That is all very true - but not what I thought we were discussing. To me, Ben seemed to imply that relationships which were inherently non-procreative (such as same-sex relationships) are morally inferior to those which have potential for procreation and that laws should reflect that difference. I, of course, do not agree with that. And going further, I'd suggest that the 'procreation' argument is arbitrarily and unfairly applied only to homosexual couples. But before I elaborate - is my interpretation correct ?

"Can I walk into your alma mater and demand to be shown your transcript? I don't think so. A job applicant must hand over the transcript himself, just as a homosexual must divulge his orientation himself.
—-- I see your point here. What I mean to say is that ones grades are officially documented and available - where as ones orientation is not in that category.

"Moreover, for whom is it to decide what affects one's job performance? You or the person with a stake in the decision? .... suppose a small-business owner believes that employing a homosexual is immoral and will put his business outside of God's favor. Are you, here, declaring that it is impossible that this is true and that the government has the right to force your view?"
—--- Let me give an example. Suppose that same small-business owner is strongly against abortion. He hires a single woman and she becomes pregnant and has an abortion. Should he be allowed to fire her for having an abortion ? I don't know the legal answer. I would agree that he should have the right not to hire someone who he knows has had an abortion or if she is living with someone outside of marriage. But after the hire, I think the question of his rights to terminate based solely on his moral beliefs become a little muddier. Regarding the governments right to force views - that is what anti-discrimination laws are. Ones view may be that women should not work outside the home. Does that mean someone who owns a business can fire all the female workers ?

"This answer is irrelevant to Ben's question. He asked whether it has always been so, with the implication that it has not always been thought to be so. Therefore: how has the Mass. SJC transcended the moral thinking of the ages?
—---- I don't believe that is what he asked. In any case, while I may not expressly agree with the Mass. SJC decision, you are asserting the immorality of homosexuality as 'the moral thinking of the ages'. I don't agree. I think the question has been mostly ignored. The inferiority of the black man or few rights given to women - those could be examples of 'moral thinking of the ages'.

"Same-sex and opposite-sex oral stimulation? Same-sex and opposite-sex anal penetration? Perhaps we agree. I'll concede that the case might also be conceivable that all instances of the "behavior" in which a penis penetrates a vagina should be treated the same — especially when procreation might result."
—--- What I meant was the difference between the urge of same-sex attraction versus the acting on that urge. I have no desire to get into the sexual specifics.

Actually, I'd say your response is pretty ridiculous. The Constitution explicitly protects religious "behavior." Sexuality is not mentioned.
—--- You referred to the Constitution as a defense ? The same Constitution you wish to amend to forbid recognition of same-sex relationships ?

Are you joining Andrew Sullivan in raising sex to the stature of sacrament?
—--- I didn't know he was doing that. I don't follow him as much as think. The answer is no - sex should not be raised to the level of sacrament. But I do think that ones sexual orientation should be neutral - legally speaking - not theologically speaking. That is what we are debating.

"But I do think that ones sexual orientation should be neutral - legally speaking - not theologically speaking."

Mark, you keep eliding the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. I think that's probably because you've absorbed the modern view that one cannot help but act on one's sexual urges (of course there are varying degrees of "as long as you're not hurting anyone else" usually added as a coda - but see Justin's post on pedophilia above). That is, to you, proscribing homosexual behavior (or, to be more precise, not fully equating homosexual behavior with heterosexual behavior) is tantamount to proscribing homosexual orientation, if not equivalent to it. What criteria do you use for distinguishing between homosexual relationships and other kinds of relationships? You think the law should be 'neutral' with respect to homosexual relationships - how do you respond to those who say it should be 'neutral' with respect to incestual ones, for example?

Mark,

To me, Ben seemed to imply that relationships which were inherently non-procreative (such as same-sex relationships) are morally inferior to those which have potential for procreation and that laws should reflect that difference.

I think the difference is in the way we're approaching the question. Ben's putting the emphasis on the importance of a certain family type; you're putting the emphasis on the implied inferiority of a different relationship. In any case, my point was meant to address your suggestion that Ben placed moral importance on reproduction under any circumstances, which wasn't the case.

I would agree that he should have the right not to hire someone who he knows has had an abortion or if she is living with someone outside of marriage. But after the hire, I think the question of his rights to terminate based solely on his moral beliefs become a little muddier.

Fine, but that's not what you were saying. (An employer — your analogue — doesn't find out an employee's grades after the hire).

Regarding the governments right to force views - that is what anti-discrimination laws are. Ones view may be that women should not work outside the home. Does that mean someone who owns a business can fire all the female workers ?

Well, I oppose most anti-discrimination laws. I think there's a very narrow window in which they are justified — almost in terms of their acting as a monopoly. If cultural, social, and historical factors have conspired such that exclusion of a group effectively consigns them to inescapable poverty, then yes. But the practice has gotten to the point almost of being preemptive; a single business owner might, somewhere and someday, discriminate, so let's write into law that he may not do so. That seems to me patently unconstitutional.

...you are asserting the immorality of homosexuality as 'the moral thinking of the ages'. I don't agree. I think the question has been mostly ignored.

Are you saying that homosexuals never, until recently, existed, or existed but never wanted to be open about their orientation? If not, then there must have been something not "ignoring" them. I think you're rewriting history, here.

You referred to the Constitution as a defense ? The same Constitution you wish to amend to forbid recognition of same-sex relationships ?

Well, if you amend it to remove the specific protections for religion to which I referred, then your argument will be valid. Until that point, you'll have to concede that my distinction is correct; sexuality is not mentioned in the Constitution.

I do think that ones sexual orientation should be neutral - legally speaking - not theologically speaking.

But orientation is treated neutrally. It is only when the orientation translates into acts and behavior, whether sexual or marital, that public judgments come into play.

Sorry, Mike. I didn't mean to restate your point.