[Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

[Douglas]

Dear visionaries,

Okay, Ralph. This should be fun.

Thus far, we have agreed that as far as the state is concerned, marriage is 
a secular legal contract and nothing more. You persuaded me! Now, let's 
follow this out. What interest does the state have, and what basis does it 
have, for limiting said contracts to two parties? We have thought for a 
long time it should be just two, but of course, we thought *that* back in 
the day when we thought it should man and woman, one each. What benighted 
troglodytes we were back then! The forehead reddens to think of it. But 
now, if three or sixteen parties want to enter into a voluntary 
arrangement, a secular legal contract, mind you, what business is it of the 
state (which has agreed to stay out of the bedroom now) to say that they 
cannot? Why should the state restrict the formations of daisy chains?

I invite everyone else to watch this closely. I am going to be very 
illogical, which is apparently defined these days as asking Ralph to be 
consistent.

Cordially,

Douglas


At 03:17 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>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.
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ