Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

[morbo3000]

Sorry it's taken so long for me to get back to you. Many irons in the fire.

Thanks for a civil discussion on the topic.

I appreciate the civil conversation as well.

If same sex marriage were accepted, what would be the problem with extending this to any relationship between any number of consenting adults?

There wouldn't.

There is nothing inherently immoral, or un-spiritual with polygamy. (Insert joke: I've got enough problems with one wife on my hand... <rimshot>) I don't think it's good. Or the best. But you can't make a biblical case to enact laws requiring that the state only recognize "marriage" as between one man and one woman. It can just as well be between one man, and two women.

And also, without spending days researching the subject, and admitting my fallibility, I believe that the justification for the anti-bigamy laws were in large part religious persecution of Mormons.

I believe you are making a slippery slope argument that once (the state) lets this group (male/male, or female/female) marry, then what is to stop other combinations (male/male/female or male/female/female) or (man/dog.)

My answer to that is that the state needs to make its decisions balancing the common good, with religious freedom. It would be impossible to win a court case determining that a gay or plural marriage was bad for society based solely on the premise that gay = bad, or plural = bad. The only way to invoke that is with religion, which is then violating religious freedom. By contrast, a judgement could be brought against a specific marriage or other living arrangement on a case-by-case basis, that was harmful to any of the parties, including children. But the criteria would be the same regardless of same sex, heterosexual, or plural. Neglect. Physical or emotional harm to any of the parties, including themselves. But this is no respecter of race, creed, or sexuality. We are capable of great harm to each other. But not because of who we love.

[Tychicus]

If same sex marriage were accepted, what would be the problem with extending this to any relationship between any number of consenting adults?

There wouldn't.

Interesting answer. I wonder if most proponents of same sex marriage would answer the same way.

I believe you are making a slippery slope argument that once (the state) lets this group (male/male, or female/female) marry, then what is to stop other combinations (male/male/female or male/female/female) or (man/dog.)

Well, I never mentioned a slippery slope, nor a dog. Consenting adults, yes, I said that, and that's all I meant.

But I'm not thinking of a slippery slope; I'm taking the argument the other direction. I am asking why there should be any definition of marriage at all. After all, if you want to create the institution of marriage, you ought to have a logical reason for doing so.

Earlier I proposed that the traditional definition of marriage was logical:

I can see logic for the traditional view, from physiology and biology. I can see the logic of a society promoting the idea that biological parents raise their own children wherever possible. . . . [Anyone, religious or non-religious] can see that people come in two kinds, male and female, and that one of each forms a natural pair, a complete representation of humankind. If nothing else, they can see that a new life can come forth from that kind of relationship.

My question was: What is the logical basis for any other definition? I don't think you exactly answered the question, but here is what you said:

My answer to that is that the state needs to make its decisions balancing the common good, with religious freedom. It would be impossible to win a court case determining that a gay or plural marriage was bad for society based solely on the premise that gay = bad, or plural = bad. The only way to invoke that is with religion, which is then violating religious freedom. By contrast, a judgement could be brought against a specific marriage or other living arrangement on a case-by-case basis, that was harmful to any of the parties, including children. But the criteria would be the same regardless of same sex, heterosexual, or plural. Neglect. Physical or emotional harm to any of the parties, including themselves. But this is no respecter of race, creed, or sexuality. We are capable of great harm to each other. But not because of who we love.

This is not a positive definition; it's about court cases and someone having to prove someone else's idea of marriage is bad. As best as I can see, you are proposing that marriage should be anything anyone wants, and from there you have to start making restrictions, case by case, based on whoever can prove someone else's definition is bad.

My observation is that when you have to rely on court cases you are not going to get a lot of objectivity; you are going to get whoever can hire the best lawyers and whatever sociopolitical ideology is in vogue. I do not think this will lead to a stable society in the long run.

[Homer]

Morbo wrote:

It would be impossible to win a court case determining that a gay or plural marriage was bad for society based solely on the premise that gay = bad, or plural = bad.

But if polygamy (as commonly understood) became wide-spread there would be great tension in society because many men would be left without a mate. Unless there was also widespread polyandry, that is.......

So the state does have a legitimate interest.

[Jepne]

Simple. Talk about love. Stop talking about sex, and start talking about love. What is the biblical critique against a woman falling in love with a woman? If we grant the argument against lust.. what is the argument against love?

Love is a whole lot different from IN LOVE. If you are IN LOVE with someone you have no business with, you don't love them.

Morbo, your ideas are so like the way I was thinking after I had been promiscuous, smoking pot, and taking LSD for a number of years. My idea at that time was that we hippies were going back to the Garden of Eden, where, I thought, there was no right or wrong, no one woman to one man sort of thing, and if everyone would just be 'free' sexually and take lots of LSD, we would have a wonderful world with no problems. Nothing to get 'uptight' or 'bent out of shape' about - no one 'making waves'. Right, it was the 'love and peace generation'.

I propose that you give some good time to imagining what it would be like for you and your family if your wife one day told you that she loved another woman.
Well, of course she loves women.
No, but that she is IN LOVE with another woman.
IN LOVE with means wants to have sex with. Spend all her time with.
OK, it would be upsetting if she was in love with another man too.

Then, think about this one: say you have a close male friend and one day he says I love you.
You say, well, of course, I love you too.
No, he says 'I want to have sex with you, I am in love with you."

Would that be just all natural and normal and lovely to you, and bring peace to you and your family?

[morbo3000]

I wrote:

I believe you are making a slippery slope argument that once (the state) lets this group (male/male, or female/female) marry, then what is to stop other combinations (male/male/female or male/female/female) or (man/dog.)

Tychicus replied:

Well, I never mentioned a slippery slope, nor a dog. Consenting adults, yes, I said that, and that's all I meant.

I misunderstood. I thought you were making that argument. It is very common. It has come up at least twice in this thread.

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... =30#p57301
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... =10#p57252

You are asking two questions:

I am asking why there should be any definition of marriage at all. After all, if you want to create the institution of marriage, you ought to have a logical reason for doing so.

- and -

What is the logical basis for any other definition?

You used the word "logic" twice. I only just made the connection that these are philosophical questions you are asking. Logic. Semantics. Aesthetics. Unfortunately, I am not at all qualified to address these questions, because I am not a philosopher and haven't studied the subject. This isn't a cop-out. These are just categories I haven't studied.

This gets curiouser and curiouser when I realize I my response to your questions about logic and semantics was to make my arguments from court. I think what I was meaning there, was that the court is the only place in a democratic society where these philosophical questions are tested. We might be able to mull these questions over philosophically. Even theologically. But how it plays out in the streets, so to speak, is determined by the viability of arguments presented in court, and the decisions of juries and judges.

You said:

My observation is that when you have to rely on court cases you are not going to get a lot of objectivity; you are going to get whoever can hire the best lawyers and whatever sociopolitical ideology is in vogue. I do not think this will lead to a stable society in the long run.

You might not like how the courts make these decisions. But as my dad says "Democracy is a terrible form of government. But it's the best we've got."

[morbo3000]

Morbo wrote:

It would be impossible to win a court case determining that a gay or plural marriage was bad for society based solely on the premise that gay = bad, or plural = bad.

But if polygamy (as commonly understood) became wide-spread there would be great tension in society because many men would be left without a mate. Unless there was also widespread polyandry, that is.......

There is no way to know that. There are too many factors to be able to predict an outcome. I'm pretty sure that is not the case historically.

[morbo3000]

Morbo, your ideas are so like the way I was thinking after I had been promiscuous, smoking pot, and taking LSD for a number of years. My idea at that time was that we hippies were going back to the Garden of Eden, where, I thought, there was no right or wrong, no one woman to one man sort of thing, and if everyone would just be 'free' sexually and take lots of LSD, we would have a wonderful world with no problems. Nothing to get 'uptight' or 'bent out of shape' about - no one 'making waves'. Right, it was the 'love and peace generation'.

My ideas are 'so' not the way you were thinking. I am not all peace, love and grooviness. I am not a hippy. I have not dropped LSD. I do believe there is right and wrong. I don't believe in free-love.

As I said early in this thread.

Support for gay marriage does not constitute "compromising and giving in." It is radical. If I hold a high view of scripture and re-examine a text and belief, the conclusion I come to is risky, because I will be held accountable by God for that belief, particularly if I teach it. Don't take lightly the conviction of people who take this radical position. If they are people of integrity (and many, including me are) they are not compromising or giving in. Far from.

I don't take this view lightly. I grew up in evangelical and charismatic churches. I went to an Assembly of God bible college. I know that this road is fraught with peril. However, my approach to the Bible requires more of me than inerrancy does. I have to test my motivations when I come to the Bible so that I am not undermining Jesus' requirements of me. I have sexual sin in my own life that I believe the bible is clear about, errant or not; culturally relative or not. It would be nice if I could explain away homosexuality for the purpose of justifying my own predilections, but I can't. It would be misusing liberty. So, while my view of the bible may not be as high as you, my view of discipleship is much higher than it is assumed of liberals.

[morbo3000]

Since Tychicus has brought up logic, it's important to show that the following are fallacious arguments.
Slippery slope:
- Could bestiality be OK under certain conditions?
- What if your wife wanted be "In love" with another woman and want to have sex with her?
False Clause:
- What if there weren't enough people to have mates?
Straw man and/or Ad Hominem
- your ideas are so like the way I was thinking after I had been promiscuous, smoking pot, and taking LSD for a number of years.
Appeal to nature:
- [Anyone, religious or non-religious] can see that people come in two kinds, male and female, and that one of each forms a natural pair, a complete representation of humankind. If nothing else, they can see that a new life can come forth from that kind of relationship.
Appeal to authority:
- The Bible says that gay sex is wrong.

None of these answers the fundamental question that is being argued in US elections and court cases today:
- Is it legal for two men, or two women to be legally recognized as a married couple, and to receive the legal benefits of married couples such as shared property, and shared health insurance insurance.

The answer is a resounding yes.

[Tychicus]

This gets curiouser and curiouser when I realize I my response to your questions about logic and semantics was to make my arguments from court. I think what I was meaning there, was that the court is the only place in a democratic society where these philosophical questions are tested. We might be able to mull these questions over philosophically. Even theologically. But how it plays out in the streets, so to speak, is determined by the viability of arguments presented in court, and the decisions of juries and judges.

You said:

My observation is that when you have to rely on court cases you are not going to get a lot of objectivity; you are going to get whoever can hire the best lawyers and whatever sociopolitical ideology is in vogue. I do not think this will lead to a stable society in the long run.

You might not like how the courts make these decisions. But as my dad says "Democracy is a terrible form of government. But it's the best we've got."

I am not arguing about whether Democracy is or isn't the best system out there. But I am saying that our Court system will do a better job if they have clear and logical laws to start from.

I explained why I think the traditional definition of marriage made sense logically, and asked you to give a logical alternative. I suggested that if you leave out the male-female requirement, then I can't see how defining marriage as "any two people" makes any more sense than "any three people" or any other arrangement that anyone wants and can hire a good lawyer to defend. You may think it is a good thing to give courts and lawyers (and rich people who can afford good lawyers) all this discretion and power, but I think our society is way over litigious as is.

[Tychicus]

Since Tychicus has brought up logic, it's important to show that the following are fallacious arguments.
. . .
Appeal to nature:
- [Anyone, religious or non-religious] can see that people come in two kinds, male and female, and that one of each forms a natural pair, a complete representation of humankind. If nothing else, they can see that a new life can come forth from that kind of relationship.

What is fallacious about this "argument"? It's actually just an observation, which I think most people will agree is true. But whatever you think it is, what is the fallacy?

None of these answers the fundamental question that is being argued in US elections and court cases today:
- Is it legal for two men, or two women to be legally recognized as a married couple, and to receive the legal benefits of married couples such as shared property, and shared health insurance insurance.

The answer is a resounding yes.

The answer is different for different states. It used to be "No" in every state; some states changed to "Yes", perhaps all of them will some day. But this point of this forum is not to determine what is legal, but what is wise. These are not always the same thing.

I'd also like you to consider how you asked the question. "Is it legal for two men . . ." This sounds like it's the "nice and generous" view against the "mean and discriminatory" view. But that's not the way I would view the issue. First of all, you can give legal benefits to couples (or threesomes, or whatever) without mentioning marriage. That's the idea of a civil union.

But I think it is better if the question were phrased: "Is it a benefit for society if a marriage of a man and woman be recognized as special, for the purpose of rearing children in their biological home." I would answer "Yes" to that question, and can give you plenty of logical reasons if you wish. For people who don't want to enter a marriage of this type, and feel they need other legal protections, I'm all for defining other categories.