Comments on: Brownback Booed Over Gay Marriage Answer

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:12:04 +0000

If heterosexual marriage is a “foundational institution of a well-ordered society”, I fail to see what impact that has on also allowing homosexual marriage. The hypothetical has no bearing on homosexual marriage, because the existence (or not) of homosexual marriage has no bearing on the existence (or not) of heterosexual marriage.

IOW, the opposition of “other arrangements” is, absent any evidence that opposition is necessary, de facto prejudice.

Andrew Sullivan’s recent wedding has no bearing what-so-ever on my marriage.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:02:47 +0000

The purpose of the constitution is to guarantee the citizens of the United States a basic set of RIGHTS.

It was never intended to be used to take those rights away- which is EXACTLY what the religious right is trying to do here.

We tried this once with the 18th Amendment (Prohibition)- which, I suppose, seemed like a pretty good idea to the religious zealots of that era.

On top of this, the whole idea of telling people who they can and can’t marry is nasty, small-minded, homophobic and, as it turns out, highly unpopular.

By: The Puddle Pirate

The Puddle Pirate — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:20 +0000

You’re reluctant to answer my hypothetical after I answered yours. Why is that? I suspect you can’t bear to follow the logic where it leads.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:46:07 +0000

This conversation is boring me and, to quote Ari Fleischer:

“I don’t deal in hypotheticals”.

By: The Puddle Pirate

The Puddle Pirate — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:25:29 +0000

How about it, Joseph? Eric?

By: The Puddle Pirate

The Puddle Pirate — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:47:14 +0000

To answer your hypothetical …

For the sake of argument, why don�t you assume that heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with a well-ordered society.

Again, just for the sake of argument, assume that same-sex civil unions i.e. marriages have been accepted in Western societies for hundred of years.

… then there’s no reason for a secular government like ours to oppose same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriage.

Now it’s your turn to answer my hypothetical. Assume for the sake of argument that heterosexual marriage is a foundational institution of a well-ordered society. Given that assumption, why would it be wrong for government to favor heterosexual marriage and oppose other arrangements?

By: Joseph

Joseph — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:36:11 +0000

How about this:

For the sake of argument, why don’t you assume that heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with a well-ordered society.

Again, just for the sake of argument, assume that same-sex civil unions i.e. marriages have been accepted in Western societies for hundred of years.

Just for the sake of argument, of course.

By: The Puddle Pirate

The Puddle Pirate — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:29:32 +0000

Clearly I mean the first definition. Are you unwilling to answer my hypothetical question?

Assume for the sake of argument that heterosexual marriage is a foundational institution of a well-ordered society. Given that assumption, why would it be wrong for government to favor heterosexual marriage and oppose other arrangements?

By: Joseph

Joseph — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:14:26 +0000

in�sti�tu�tion : a well-established and structured pattern of behavior or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture.

also:

a public or private place for the care or confinement of inmates, esp. mental patients

By: The Puddle Pirate

The Puddle Pirate — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:06:56 +0000

I didn’t actually make that claim in my comment. I asked you a hypothetical “if/then” question: if heterosexual marriage is a foundational institution, then why is it wrong for government to favor it and oppose other arrangements?

I look forward to your answer.