[Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

[Ralph Nielsen]

RALPH NIELSEN  Mon Aug 4
	Thank you, Doug, for further illustration of not only how illogical 
you are but also how disingenuous you can be. I said nothing about 
"Christian morality," whatever that might be, but pointed out that AS 
FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED marriage is a secular legal contract.
	If Doug and other ecclesiastical poobahs wish to regulate marriage 
according to their alleged divine strictures, they are perfectly free 
to preach it to their followers. Likewise, the state also makes 
provision for divorce, whether some poobahs consider it to be moral or 
not. Some folks believe marriage is wrong, and some folks believe 
divorce is a sin, but that is of no concern to the state.
	I said nothing about sexual liberation but it seems to loom large in 
Doug's vocabulary. Neither do I promote polygamy, as Doug implies. In 
fact, many biblical heroes had more than one wife, e.g., Gideon, who 
had 70 sons "for he had many wives" (Judges 8:30).
	I think same-sex marriage is a good idea because it would place those 
couples on the same legal basis as bisexual couples. And don't forget 
that they would be under the same rules if they wanted to get divorced. 
We have laws to protect social stability and I think same-sex marriage 
will do just that.

	
> From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
> Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003  8:27:13 AM US/Pacific
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
>
> Far from this being a demonstration of how illogical I am, it is 
> actually a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists have 
> the courage of their convictions. If we reject the Christian morality 
> that marriage consists of one man, one woman, one time, and we base 
> this rejection on the fact that marriage is now only a "secular legal 
> contract," then on what basis, Ralph, do we limit secular legal 
> contract to just two parties? We were mistaken, it appears, in 
> limiting marriage to heteros. Why are we not also mistaken in limiting 
> it to couples? I urge you, Ralph, to stop trying to impede sexual 
> liberation. The last thing we need around here is atheistic 
> bluestocking wowserism.
>
> RALPH NIELSEN 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, wrote:
>>         Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the difference 
>> between church and state, so he gives us a homily about hypocrisy and 
>> sin instead of recognizing that marriage, as far as the state is 
>> concerned, is not a sacred institution, but a secular legal contract 
>> binding on the two parties concerned. He illogically equates monogamy 
>> with polygamy and, even more illogically, pretends that polygamy is a 
>> matter of how many people can physically fit into a bedroom.
>>         Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws with 
>> building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with Wilsonian 
>> "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he is.
>>         Ralph Nielsen
>>
>>>
>>> From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
>>> Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003  8:48:50 AM US/Pacific
>>> To: vision2020@moscow.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
>>>
>>> There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which our 
>>> nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it condemns 
>>> publicly, and the tragic way of removing that hypocrisy, which is to 
>>> bring yourself to approve the sin formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute 
>>> that vice pays to virtue, and we always need to remember there are 
>>> two ways to get out of a double standard. One is to repent of the 
>>> sin, and the other is to drop the pretence of virtue. We are in the 
>>> course of pursuing the latter, and it will not bring enlightenment.
>>>
>>> If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break," and 
>>> is no longer a sacred institution, then we are not just talking 
>>> about homosexual unions. We are also talking about polygamy, as long 
>>> as more than two can physically fit into the privacy of the bedroom. 
>>> What kind of sexual unions will have to be permitted as soon as the 
>>> courts learn the rudiments of logic? He who says A must say B.
>>>
>>> And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of the 
>>> bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government wanted to 
>>> tell me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be in the bedroom, 
>>> how the electric outlets had to be placed, how big the windows had 
>>> to be, and so on, ad nauseam. Government out of the bedroom, aye.