Tom writes (#112): Jim could say, “maybe there’s a true meaning of ‘marriage’ out there that’s knowable, maybe there isn’t. I don’t know. If there were, we certainly wouldn’t want our legal terms to materially distort that meaning.”Is that what you’ve been trying to communicate, RR?

To make the point clearer, we should rather characterized Jim as saying this:

Maybe there’s a true meaning of ‘marriage’ out there, maybe there isn’t. If it’s out there, maybe it’s even known by some people. Whatever the case, I don’t myself know what that true meaning would be. Though I believe it is a good aspiration to craft legal terms that wouldn’t ‘material distort’ this ‘true meaning’ (if it exists), maintaining that aspiration is consistent with legislation that defines ‘marriage’ in terms that actually conflict with the ‘true meaning’ of ‘marriage’ (supposing that there is such a ‘true meaning’)—especially if its acceptance as the ‘true meaning’ depends upon the acceptance of some particular comprehensive doctrine which we cannot reasonably expect others to accept.

In this way, Jim accepts ~G2.3b, without denying either ~G1 or ~G1b. As such, we have a person who promotes SSM legislation without denying any of the supposedly “very important Christian beliefs” that Tom has specified. Would Jim be unable to justify his support for SSM legislation in terms that he could reasonably expect Christians to accept? I don’t see any reason to think so. Tom thought that he could identify certain “very important Christian beliefs” that Jim’s justification would necessarily deny. So far, Tom hasn’t been able to do so.

This means that Tom hasn’t been able to explain why proponents of SSM legislation necessarily violate the liberal ideal of civility.

Or, why not argue for the state to prefer your view of Christianity?

Actually, we often do argue for the state to endorse a Christian view of things — e.g. a Christian view of women’s rights, as opposed to a Muslim view, or a Christian view of human worth, as opposed to a view informed by naturalistic evolutionism (which, as an extra-scientific, philosophical viewpoint, should not be confused with the scientific study of evolution).

As an aside, you (Bret) seem to be saying that, in order for the state to avoid taking a position on the essence of marriage, it should accept and legitimize every type of marriage. But wouldn’t it make more sense for you to argue thusly: “in order for the state to avoid taking a position on the essence of marriage, the state should extricate itself entirely from marriage, and should erase the word “marriage” from all laws? This scenario is definitely not my first choice, but I do think it would be preferable to SSM legislation, and it is also much more consistent with your stated arguments than flat-out SSM.

Thanks for your comments. I think it’s important for all of us to discuss these issues rationally, and you have certainly done that, thank you.

You have a definition of marriage, that necessitates that it consist of a man and a woman. Those on the gay rights side, believe that this definition can be expanded to include those of the same sex. There does not seem to be a way around this impasse, frankly.

Those who are Muslim, have a particular metaphysical view of reality. Those who are Evangelical Christians, have a different metaphysical view of reality. There doesn’t seem to be a way around this impasse, either.

So what’s a state to do? Our Democratic Republic has come up with a reasonable, pragmatic solution: allow both groups to exist, and flourish. However, the state should not take sides, as to who’s right.

Now, if I understand your first criticism correctly, you seem to be saying that, by the state not taking a position on which view of marriage is correct (the opposite sex marriages or the same sex marriages), and allowing both, it really is taking a position, namely that, marriage is not defined as the traditional view states that it is, that marriage is really just between a man and a woman. Is this what you’re saying? If so, it would seem that a similar criticism could be applied to the state’s “neutral” view of religion. That is, by allowing all religions to exist, they end up arguing, implicitly that, none of them are true, or all are true, which cannot be the case, obviously, with the latter.

the analogy isn’t perfect, but in both cases, one could say that, the state is not favoring their particular view of reality. But if you’ve made peace with the state not preferring your own view, then why not extend your peace with the same sex marriage view? Or, why not argue for the state to prefer your view of Christianity?

Has the state neutrality, with respect to religion resulted in religious beliefs, specifically Christianity, diminishing? Just the opposite. Whether same sex marriage would somehow adversely affect opposite sex marriages, is unknown, but there’s no a priori reason to believe that it would.

If I’ve misunderstood your point, please let me know.

But let’s not forget, we are not at that stage today. I am by no means willing to capitulate to “let’s just give up fighting over it.” I think that would be morally wrong, a violation of truth and integrity, and socially disastrous. If someone disagrees with that opinion, I can get along with him or her as a person as far as he or she is willing to get along with me. Still I will continue to hold my position, and I will continue to advance it to the best of my ability and resources.

The state should not prefer one type of marriage over another, just as it should not prefer Catholicism over Calvinism, for example.

Fine. I think you’re exactly right. The state should not prefer however-you-like-it marriage over male-female marriage. We agree! No changes in marriage law required (except in NY etc.). Let’s all be happy now. That gives me a more hopeful view by far than this that you wrote:

What I think is being advocated, by myself, and others, as the basis for public policy, is for consenting adults to choose who they will marry.

That, my friend, is the state preferring one view of marriage (however-you-like-it) over another. I know you’re advocating for that state preference, but thankfully, since you don’t think the state should prefer one type of marriage over another, I’m sure you don’t really believe in it after all. It must seem a little confusing to you, though, to be advocating for something you don’t believe in.

Can’t you see that this “let’s just get along” approach isn’t going to work? Can’t you see how it biases everything toward one set of opinions? Haven’t you seen how people who disagree with SSM have lost their jobs, been imprisoned and fined, lost their rights to place children for adoption, lost their freedom of assembly?

Meanwhile, what about that tyranny question you haven’t been answering? You say that SSM wouldn’t make religions change their beliefs; they could continue to hold their views. So stinking what?!? If you think groups should be satisfied that the law hasn’t taken away the right to believe what they believe, then apply that to the homosexual insurgency. I’m fine if they believe what they believe. Doesn’t bother me a bit—as long as they don’t let their beliefs interfere with public policy. Which is exactly the principle you seem to be satisfied to confine the churches inside of.

Think it through, Bret. You’re not doing that yet. You have to think through what you’re saying.

Of course, this would be unfair. The fact is, we cannot settle, to all rational individuals satisfaction, who has the truth; this, in addition to the need to keep the peace, and respecting the freedom of adults to believe whatever they deem correct, has caused our society to allow all religions (with the exception of those that cause harm to others. although this gets a little problematic: maybe evangelicals think Muslims are causing “harm”, and Muslims are thinking that evangelicals are causing “harm”, by virtue of their wrong teachings? We, rightly, choose to ignore this “problem”, since it’s insoluble, due to our inability to decipher which is the true religion) to exist, without the state preferring one over the other.

Analogously, the state should allow consenting adults to marry, whether of the same sex, or of different sexes, because we cannot resolve who’s right, to all rational individuals satisfaction. The state should not prefer one type of marriage over another, just as it should not prefer Catholicism over Calvinism, for example.

I’m a little unclear what you mean by “the basis of public policy.” You would have a point, and my full support, if it was being argued that same sex marriages should be favored over heterosexual ones, or that people should be forced to marry only those of their own sex. Of course, no one is arguing that. But if some are, they’re completely wrong.

The only thing being argued is that, SSM’s should be allowed. It’s not as if there’s only a plate that’s so big, that only opposite sex marriages can fit, and if SSM’s are placed there, the OSM’s will necessarily be crowded off. People are not going to become gay because of SSM’s, so theres no fear of more people becoming gay/lesbian as a result of SSM’s being legalized. (I know you’re not arguing that, but it’s worth pointing out, for others who may be reading this, and do think this way).

What I think is being advocated, by myself, and others, as the basis for public policy, is for consenting adults to choose who they will marry. This would manifest itself in the state not favoring one type of marriage over another, (just as it doesn’t favor Mormonism over Catholicism).

This seems fair. It allows religions that oppose gay marriage the right to not marry gay people (just as it allows Catholics to refuse to allow Mormons to have Mormon ceremonies in their Catholic Church, and vice versa, but won’t allow either religion to pass a law banning the other), but allows free people to have gay marriages in other places that consent to it. This seems to me to be fundamental to a free society.

They are still able to hold their views.

See #82 again, please.

It’s about allowing choice. If two gay people decide to marry, this says nothing about others,for religious, or other reasons, believe differently. They still are able to hold their views. analogously, if a Catholic, is allowed to hold a Mass, (and, thankfully, he is!) this says nothing about the person who believes that the Catholic Church is wrong. The person, say, a different type of Christian than a Catholic, still is able to advocate that the Mass is wrong, he just cannot ban the Mass’s practice, but the priest cannot ban the non catholic from advocating that the mass is wrong.

But gays do force religious people to drop the view that marriage is procreative.

Gays do force religious people to drop all ability to distinguish between things that religious people need to distinguish between.

Your argument is like saying that as long as you do not force a vegetarian to eat meat, it is perfectly okay to create a situation that makes it hostile to practice vegetarianism through laws that criminalize the act of distinguishing vegetarian products from non-vegetarian ones, and punish vegetarians who “discriminate”.

Thanks for your well thought comments. I certainly understand where you’re coming from. But I think that it’s fair to say that, on both sides of this issue, we have people who seem intolerant. There are, as you state, certainly those on the pro same sex marriage side, who are disrespectful of those who disagree, and will not be satisfied, unless everyone agrees that, not only should SSM’s be allowed, but gay/lesbian behavior should be completely accepted. And, there are those on the anti SSM side (or pro heterosexual marriage only side) who seem intolerent. Not you, Tom, or others on this site. But there are some, who do seem to hate homosexuals, or at least seem to want to restrict their freedoms, to some degree, anyway.

You and RR have clearly had an interesting, and intelligent conversation, on this matter. But I seriously doubt that either you, or RR, will come up with a convincing “slam dunk argument, that settles this issue, once and for all, and provides metaphysical closure to it, despite the obvious high intelligence that both you, Tom, and RR bring to it. And I doubt anyone else will either.

Sure, some will be convinced, just as the Pope is convinced of the metaphysical superiority of Catholicism, Mormons are convinced of the metaphysical superiority of Mormonism, Evangelicals are convinced of the metaphysical superiority of Evangelicalism, and so forth. But they won’t convince anyone else.

But we’re able to live together in peace, despite the inability of anyone to provide a slamdunk argument that her religion is the true one, to all rational individuals satisfaction. Certainly, when Democratic Republics were emerging, with their corresponding constitutions, or laws, allowing freedom of religion, people could be forgiven for concluding that such systems were too idealistic to work. each side, could, perhaps, plausibly accuse the other, of bigotry, or an unwillingness to compromise on issues. But, eventually, we were able to do it. We still have problems, to be sure, but we have, in general, been able to make freedom of religion work.

Similarly, we can make gay marriages work, as well. Just as we still have people who refuse to hire Catholics, if they’re an Evangelical organization (and vice versa), since these religions don’t see eye to eye on different things, we will have certain Christians who refuse to hire gay people for the same reason, or gay people who refuse to hire Christians. We can find a way to allow this, and maintain the peace. It won’t be perfect, but it can work.

It seems to be that, no one has a right to tell you, Tom, that you have to be a Catholic. As a free, autonomous person, you have every right to choose whatever religion, you deen to be correct, even if it upsets every person in america! As long as you don’t try to force others to believe as you do, you have every right to believe.

Analogously, two consenting adults, have the right to marry. You have every right to disagree, just as you have every right to disagree with Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, and atheists. But you have no right to force them to accept your metaphysical notion that marraige is ordainded of God, and only btween a man and a woman. Of course, they also have no right to force you to accept their marraige as legitimate, (you’re free to refuse to associate with them, if you wish, take pictures, etc.), or to force you to do anything else.

I know that some gay activists do want to forcew this issue, but they’re wrong. They have no right to force anyone to agree with them. But just as, as free citizens, they have a right to be Catholic, agnostic, or whatever (and even though we have militant atheists out there, who seem to want to force their views, they’re wrong to do this, but do have the freedon to be atheists), they have a right to be married, by the state, or any religion that agrees to perform the marraige.

What does it mean for adherents of various religions when they encounter gay “married” couples? Can they decline to photograph their “weddings”? Can they continue to work for secular employers while disagreeing with gay “marriage”? Can they refuse to assign children for adoption to gay couples? Will they receive the protection of law for expressing their opinions on the job or on college campuses? Will they have job protection for expressing anti-gay “marriage” beliefs while off the job? Will they be constitutionally protected from having to hire gays to jobs where the person’s moral character and/or sexuality is relevant according to their own religious tenets?

If you could devise a world like that, it would provide a whale of a lot more freedom of religion than the one the homosexual insurgents are trying to build. A whale of a lot more than the one we currently live in, actually. Your idealism is endearing but disconnected from the news I have encouraged you to watch more closely.

My central point is that, considering the fact that we cannot conclude with metaphysical certitude, which religion is true, (if any), a reasonable pragmatic solution, in order to keep the peace, is to allow people to go their own ways, in these matters.

I doubt that tyranny is a likely outcome of allowing gay people to marry. How would this possibility come about? Considering the fact that, at least in the United States, we have an explicit portion of our constitution (i.e., the First Amendment) that protects freedom of religion, we would have to have an amendment to change this, as you know.

But considering that there would be no, and I mean no, political pressure (since most americans are religious) to amend this, it’s not going to happen.

I would have no problem with a constitutional amendment that made religions exempt from being required to accept gay marriages. This would be a reasonable compromise, in our pluralistic system. Allow gay marriages, but don’t force religions to accept them. I think that this could work.