"I propose reason and nature."

I'm afraid activist Judges got us into this "debate" by blatantly breaking the law and declaring traditional marriage "irrational". With this as their loadstone many same-sex "marriage" supporters genuinely believe that their adversaries are irrational bigots driven by animosity or *at the very least) by blind religious prejudice.

If the courts had not been willing to engage in such results oriented decisions this campaign would have never gotten the traction it has and traditional marriage would be simply deeply broken and not under threat of wholesale redefinition.

Gay marriage is a quite rational idea in a god-free worldview. If all things evolved randomly and without hierarchical purpose then all things are essentially equal (all desires are legitimate).
What is odd today is NOT that those of a god-free worldview would argue that it is irreligious to oppose gay marriage; it is that the religious take such a charge seriously.

I have a question that I hope someone better versed in philosophy will help with. What kind of question is "What is marriage?" How is it answered? Is it the same kind of question as "What is classical music?" Is it the same kind of question as "What is a chair?" As I understand it, Plato thought somewhere there is a "form" of a chair, and I suppose if he had lived, he might have said there was a "form" of classical music. But (and again I need assistance here) I don't think we believe that today. I remember reading about anthropologists' attempting to define marriage—not an easy task!—and the article I was reading said anthropologists look at all marriage-like arrangements and try to come up with a definition that encompasses them all. The problem with that is deciding which marriage-like arrangements to include in the definition!

In any case, how do we apply reason to questions like "What is marriage . . . classical music . . . a chair?" Do you look at what exists and try to build a definition based on that? If so, supposing same-sex marriage becomes very common in the next few decades. Won't people look around them, see same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage, and base their definitions on that?

What I find interesting is that in the essay "What Is Marriage?" Robert George and his co-authors arrive at a definition that basically describes Catholic marriage. It does not even include polygamy, which seems insupportable. Polygamy may be a form of marriage that presents serious problems to our kind of society, but how can it be ruled excluded from the definition of marriage?

This article raises some important issues, especially the faith-reason split which seems to dominate post-modern thought. Sometimes I reflect on the current crisis of faith in our culture which goes hand-in-hand with the crisis of reason.

"I would therefore call on gay marriage proponents to give a coherent account of reason and then explain how gay marriage is rational. I suspect it will be difficult."

Actually, its not difficult, it's impossible.

Left-wing arguments are rarely rational or reasonable. That's why they confuse the ferocity of their emotions for the validity of their arguments.

Nice piece Leroy. Thank-you.

Am I right in thinking that because marriage is a first article gift and a key piece of God's created order, that it is not necessary to appeal to special revelation (the Holy Scriptures) to understand it's nature and purpose? Reason, experience, history and a scientific understanding of nature should be enough to discuss and resolve the questions of marriage. The Scriptures reveal the Gospel, which cannot be discovered in nature; but nature is enough to understand marriage, a part of the created order.

"What is marriage?" Why, a Good Thing...and only Mean People would deny a Good Thing to others who are Different.

Dr. Huizenga is right on, here. Discussion of the basic issues is quickly lost in the rush to Bulverization. Might marriage consist of disparate sex elements, as absolutely as a water molecule requires both hydrogen and oxygen? It always HAS, after all, even in polygamous and in homosexuality-friendly societies; the mix has always required at least three X chromosomes and an odd number of y's. Before we arbitrarily define it otherwise, ought we to consider whether it has a nature of its own which requires those elements?

And why must the feelings of hydrogen atoms be hurt, if conglomerations of them minus oxygen, not be called "water" - nay, no matter how strong or affectionate the bonds between them? Celebrate diversity - give things that are different, different names. That seems a rational enough alternative, certainly nothing anyone need be shot over.

Ok. Let’s comment some issues here:

1. First Things is not a Christian publication because non Christians have published on it? Oh please, and the New York Times is not liberal newspaper because it had conservatives publish columns from time to time in its pages. Let´s be real please. Not only First Things is a Christian publication, but a conservative dominated Christian publications (exceptions like Stanley Hauerwas and Peter Berger are only that, exceptions to the rule). That said, I think it is an Ad Hominem to pretend you can reject anti gay marriage position just for the religion adhered by those holding it; but please, do not pretend we are blind.

2. "The problem with making consent the sole criterion of the Good is that it’s merely a social convention. ´Consent´ is an idea forged in the wake of the widespread death of metaphysics and it thus lacks any ultimate grounding. It will disappear once a majority of the strong decides it’s no longer useful to their interests". So if the idea of consent is just a "social convention", I guess we can say the same of free will, and of reason itself. If you want to commit that intellectual suicide, be my guest, but don´t pretend it is an argument that resists any serious analysis.

3. I fail to see how the anti gay marriage is rooted in "respect for nature". Certainly is not rooted in men nature as rational being, capable of choosing their love interests without violating other people rights in the process, nor in any biological conception of nature (homosexual acts are found in hundreds of species). I agree with Huizenga’s critic of modern rationality, in the spirit of the Frankfurt School idea of it as "instrumental" reason (" the desire to conquer nature in service of human"), but then I fail to see what it has to do with the gay marriage debate. The idea of turning biological differences (between sexes) and elevating into the category of "nature" (informed by the reading of some mythological texts of an ancient middle eastern culture thousands of years ago) hardly qualifies to me as a good and philosophical understanding of the term, nor of rationality.

So in the end, is us, pro gay marriage that are expecting not only a rational argument against the idea, but even a coherent account of reason of those who will produce it.

David Nickol: Polygamy allows a man to have more than one marriage at a time, but each one is a marriage. So the definition of marriage is not different in any way from "one man and one woman."

"The problem with making consent the sole criterion of the Good is that it’s merely a social convention."

But what of the respect consent pays to the other's delusion of Good? If we're both deluded, and consider something a good, I at least respect you enough not to force your will. This respect, a child of charity, is misapplied, but still merits to be spoken of.

@Nickol,

I approach this from the other direction, not beginning with the word, but with the definition. That is, I ask the question whether a union between a man and a woman which is ordered toward the procreation of children is different-in-kind from all other unions, be they unions which by their nature cannot be ordered toward the procreation of children or union which by choice are not ordered toward the procreation of children. In other words, the question is not "what is marriage?" but, rather, what is a union between a man and a woman which is ordered toward the procreation of children if, in fact, it is agreed that such a union is different-in-kind from any other union?

And, so, I ask you that question, is such a union different-in-kind from any other union? If we agree that the former is different from either of the latter, that does not settle the case against same-sex marriage by any means, but it does offer an agreed to foundation upon which to build a discussion. If this cannot be agreed to, then I see no basis to have a discussion because the two sides cannot agree on any common foundation from which to start.

David:

Marriage is many things. But the best social comparison is not to compare it with classical music, let alone a chair, but as a "reproducer's guild"-which we will title the "Most Honorable Fellowship of Peoplesmiths".

Now a guild provides benefits for it's members including mutual protection, political lobbying, training, and to some degree advertising.

Suppose there was a "Fellowship of the swordsmiths of Wherever". It has precise standards for what it's smithies produce."
Now suppose there were a group of swordsmiths who refuse to live up to the standards and mixed a large amount of rubbish in that makes the blades brittle. The Guildmasters complained and wrote diatribes against the producers of, er, adulterated blades. But in the end didn't have the heart to expell them.

Now suddenly the tinsmiths started making tin swords. Well the guild admitted that the tinsmiths had always made tin swords and they were being a bit hard on them. After all tin swords were just toys.
But then the tinsmiths started insisting that the Aldermen should allow them to use the trade mark of the swordsmiths of whatever on their blades. Because they wanted to have the prestige of the swordsmiths without learning their craft. And they complained to the aldermen that swordsmiths had treated them bad in the past therefore they should give away their trademark. And the whole thing was ridiculous because the Swordsmith's of Wherever made only longswords, but other towns made tulwars, and others made katanas, and others made kukris all over the world and everyone called them "swords" so why shouldn't the makers of tin swords call them swords.
So the good aldermen of wherever agreed with the case of the tin smiths.
And the next time the king went on campaign half his knights had tin swords. The result of course was that the king lost.
And all the knights stopped buying swords from the town of whereever.
As the Honorable Swordsmiths of Whereever had feared all along.

Brilliant piece. Yes, a primary problem of the culture wars is a lack of a common reference point, not even reason and nature. When everything, truly everything, is up for grabs, power is all that is left (enter the use of labels like "bigot" and "hate" instead of arguments).

It is ironic, of course, that with all of the faith vs. reason rhetoric out there, it's often people of faith who have been able to retain the use of reason.

@ Gail Finke

In "What Is Marriage?" the definition given is as follows: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together."

Elsewhere in "What Is Marriage?" your point is made—that is, even if a man has many wives, each of the marriages is between one man and one woman. But the use of the word "exclusive" in the definition above clearly rules out polygamy. A man cannot make an exclusive commitment to each of several wives.

David Nickol

You raise a very important point and one that philosophers have been wrestling with, ever since Plato.

Wittgenstein took the example of the word “game” and showed that there is simply no characteristic that all games share; rather, there are a collection of characteristics (play, rules, competition &c) and all games share some of them. It is easy to miss Wittgenstein’s point. Not only do we have no unimpeachable definition of the word “game,” we do not need one: we use the word happily enough and we can even criticise some uses of it as incorrect. Similarly, we do not need a theory of causality to use sentences like, “the cat drank up the milk” or “the dog made a funny noise.”

We even use words with no meaning at all; everyone understands “it is raining,” although they might be puzzled to explain what noun the pronoun “it” replaces. In most cases, of course, we can distinguish the meaning and the use of a word; here, there is just the use.

This holds true, not only for words that refer to “things,” like chairs, but also to a “state of affairs,” like marriage.

Of course, sometimes we do propose a definition, “a triangle is a three-sided, rectilinear, plain figure.” This is fine, as Pascal pointed out, so long as, in any argument, we mentally substitute the definition for the thing defined. But, then, we cannot define all our terms, or our definitions become circular, just as we cannot prove all our propositions, without ending up in a perpetual regress. So, when someone says, “marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” we need to ask ourselves, “is this a definition, or a proposition.” After all, only a proposition can be true; a definition can only be useful.

Sergio,

Regarding your 3rd point, I think you are misrepresenting what those who use the term "nature" or "natural law" mean by that term. It is not observing animals in nature and concluding that homosexual sex must be ok because some species of monkeys do it. By that logic you can say that eating your young must be ok because some animals do it. The term is more along the lines of "common sense". For example, you can observe that a saw was designed to cut. Yes, it could be used as a hammer, but probably not very effectively and you would likely end up damaging the saw or the nail or whatever you were trying to hammer the nail into. It's because you are not respecting the nature of the saw and are using it in a way for which it was not designed or intended to be used. Same thing with human sexuality; the sexual organs were not designed for homosexual sex.

Being anti-gay-marriage has nothing to do with denying someone the right to love someone else of the same sex. There are lots of people I love, both of the same sex and of different sex. To love someone doesn't mean you must express that love through sex. Can "loving" someone in a way that does not respect their nature really even be considered an act of love, even if there's mutual consent?

According to Richard Dawkins, human beings are merely a vehicle for propagating their genes. In this view, homosexual marriage is a failure of nature, as one's genes are being denied their opportunity to reproduce themselves, and adoption is no solution. Surrogate parenting can only work for one partner. Therefore, in Dawkinsian terms homosexual marriage is a farce, and he can hardly be accused of being religious.

Ferd wrote
"Gay marriage is a quite rational idea in a god-free worldview"

Not really. As Bertrand Russell, a sound atheist pointed out, "“But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex. it is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”

The presumption that opposite-sex couples may produce children and the certainty that opposite-sex couples won't would seem reason enough

Diogenes:

You say: ". . . .what is a union between a man and a woman which is ordered toward the procreation of children if, in fact, it is agreed that such a union is different-in-kind from any other union?

And, so, I ask you that question, is such a union different-in-kind from any other union?"

It seems to me the answer to your question is that the union you describe is one of MANY relationships that fall into the category of marriage. There are, after all, marriages of convenience, "Josephite marriages," marriages of state, and so on. I always like to quote this passage from John L. McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible:

**********
Marriage in [ancient] Israel was neither a religious nor a public concern; it was a private contract, and it is this conception which leaves so little room for it in Hb law, which deals only with the exceptional cases. The contracting parties were not the bride and groom but the families, i.e., the fathers of the spouses; the brothers of the bride had the disposal of the girl if the father were dead.
**********

In this case, marriages were economic, as were marriages in, say, Pride and Prejudice.

There are marriages between people who have no intention of having children. There are marriages between people who are incapable of having children.

In any case, I am still wondering about my initial question, which I might recast as, Is there such a "thing" as marriage? It is sort of a question that is sometimes asked about mathematics. Does mathematics exist, and are mathematical truths *discovered*? Or is mathematics a human invention?

JohnE:

The problem is with your arguments are:

1. That genitallia was designed, in the same way that objects are.

2. That sex, as an appetite was only "designed" for the purposes of reproduction. But then, it is clear that sex can manifest many other things (including love) among people. And that not only applies to homosexual couples (which by nature cannot reproduce while performing a sexual act), but to heterosexual ones (including sterile ones).

3. The same happens with other appetites. That food is meant to be nurriture, people can eat just for the pleasure of taste, and still nobody will acuse you of sinning or violating nature just for participating, in say, a gastronomical festival.

By the way, there is a very good argument in the natural law tradition for Same Sex Marriage. See "Natural Law, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Politics of Virtue" in the UCLA Law review (August 2001: 1593–163) by law scholar Gary Chartier.

Can anyone answear Leahy's connection to genetics and Dawkins' views? Anyway you slice it "gay" marriage is simply not marriage. It may be lots of things but marriage it simply isn't and never will be not matter what every court or pol out there declares. It's like taking a vote on whether the color red can also be green. Its absurd.

Michael PS,

Thanks for the very direct and enlightening response to my philosophical questions.

Same-sex marriage is entirely rational to me, but I believe that is because I come to the table with a different set of beliefs about both homosexuality and marriage.

First, I do believe that homosexuality is "natural". Same-sex attraction naturally occurs amont the population. While it does not lead to procreation, I don't believe there is anything immoral about it. It is a natural expression of love and affection between two people who share a common attraction to each other - and by the way, this is not just a sexual attraction - anyone who has been in a long term relationship (like a marriage) knows that while sex is important, and romantic love is important too, it is the deeper connection that forms between two people that is really essential. I believe homosexuals are just as capable of as heterosexuals at forming this deeper bond and living out full relationships that are multi-dimensional and sincere, and not just the over-sexed stereotype of gay sexuality. Oddly enough, it is the anti-gay marriage community that seems pruriently obsessed with the homosexual sex act, as though the sexual act itself defined what it means to be in a healthy relationship. Talk to homosexuals who want to get married and they will not be much interested in talking about sex - they've already got that.

Second, I believe that marriage serves a variety of different functions in our society. While providing a healthy, stable environment for procreation is one of its functions, it is by no means the only function. Marriage bestows various rights, duties and obligations on its participants, both legal and moral. They are too numerous to enumerate here, and just about everyone has heard them before. The fact that one segment of the population doesn't engage in one aspect of marriage (like procreation) is no reason to preclude them from having access to its other aspects which may still provide great meaning and support in their lives. In other words, no-one can deny that procreation is great and that marriage provides tremendous benefits to those who procreate - but that is only one of its dimensions. I am married and have a son, and I can tell you that raising him is only one part of my life with my wife. We have friends who are married and don't plan on having a child, and they are no less married than we are, nor is their marriage any less meaningful to them or less socially valuable. Procreation is simply not an essential ingredient of marriage that must occur in order for the marriage to be meaningful and valuable to society.

When I put these two beliefs together, it seems perfectly rational to me to allow same-sex marriage. Stable, committed relationships are good for individuals and good for society. Society is better off when same-sex couples are in long-term, stable, committed relationships and can share in the same legal and moral rights, duties and obligations that come with marriage. Is society really better off if those people are denied those rights, duties, and obligations? Only, I suppose, if you consider homosexuality (lived, and not repressed) to be inherently destructive and corrosive - an abomination and a sin, in the Christian parlance. If that is the case, then it should never be allowed, respected, or legitimated.

So if same-sex marriage provides a benefit to society and to the same sex couple, how is it irrational to permit it? How is it not irrational to deny it?

And this is not a "godless view" of same-sex marriage. I don't believe that I am a "godless" person. I just disagree with the negative view of homosexuality that is propagated by some people, Christians and non-Christians alike. It's not an anti-Christian or anti-God thing. To me, it's

@TheMoz:

"It's like taking a vote on whether the color red can also be green."

@JohnE:

"For example, you can observe that a saw was designed to cut. Yes, it could be used as a hammer, but probably not very effectively and you would likely end up damaging the saw or the nail or whatever you were trying to hammer the nail into. It's because you are not respecting the nature of the saw and are using it in a way for which it was not designed or intended to be used. Same thing with human sexuality; the sexual organs were not designed for homosexual sex."

Both of these comments make a fundamental mistake, which is to suggest that there is only one shade of "red", or one type of "saw". There are, in fact, many shades of red - blood red, scarlet, ruby, etc. So too, there can be many different shades of marriage. And there are a lot of different types of saws out there. I have a table saw, a hand saw, and a coping saw in my garage. They are all different, but they are all saws. There is no reason that there can't be "types" of marriage. Some geared toward procreation and some geared towards other marital dimensions. It would be absurd to tell someone that rubies aren't red because they aren't scarlet, or a table saw is not a saw because you can't use it to cut down a tree.

These types of arguments are facile.

@David Nikol,

With all due respect, while you responded to me (which I appreciate), you didn't answer my question. Instead, you made an assertion that "It seems to me the answer to your question is that the union you describe is one of MANY relationships that fall into the category of marriage." But I didn't ask you whether the definition I gave was a marriage or whether it was one of many relationships which fall into the category of marriage, I asked whether it was different-in-kind from any other relationship. That is question calling for a yes or no answer. I would appreciate it if you answered that question, which I believe must be the beginning point of any discussion.

In your response to me you mention three types of "marriages": marriages of convenience, "Josephite marriages," marriages of state. First, I must note that each of these require a modifier. I would suggest that a union of a man and woman ordered toward the procreation of children could simply be called a "marriage" without need of a modifier. The modifier is required because these other "marriages" are not the same (or may not be the same) as marriages which do not require a modifier. As to the marriages of convenience and of state, they can, of course, be ordered toward procreation and often end up being so. In particular, marriages of state were frequently (I would hazard to suggest almost always) ordered toward procreation. It was not merely the marriage that served diplomatic purposes, but the procreation of children who would be descended from the ruling houses of the two states also served diplomatic purposes. As to Josephite marriages, I would not that our Orthodox brethern refer to Joseph as the betrothed of Mary, not her husband. See http://oca.org/questions/saints/st.-joseph. He was her betrothed and not her husband because of the Orthodox belief that Joseph and Mary never consummated their relationship and, so, were not married in the strict sense of the word. As I understand Catholic teaching, a marriage which is not intended for whatever reason to be consummated is still valid IF and ONLY IF the parties are nonetheless capable of consummation and promise each other the right to conjugal relationship. See http://jimmyakin.com/2005/07/marys_marriage.html. The inability to consummate a marriage is a bar to a marriage, even a Josephite marriage. See http://jimmyakin.com/2005/07/marys_marriage.html. That is, if a relationship CANNOT be consummated by coitus at the time entered into, then it CANNOT be a valid marriage. Also, an unconsummated marriage can be annulled for that reason. Cf. http://jimmyakin.com/2005/07/marys_marriage.html. I'm Protestant, so I welcome correction on these points by Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

You also assert in your first post that Professor George defines marriage in a way that is a Catholic definition, implying, it seems to me, that this is not a definition others use. But see the Rite of Matrimony in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer which gives three reasons for which marriage is ordained, the first being the procreation of children. Also note that today, failure to consummate is still grounds for annulment is several American states and in England and, undoubtedly other nations as well.

Though the commenters here express a wide range of opinions the tone remains in general overwhelmingly civil and respectful. This is extremely rare, and precious.

david nickol,

great question. this link might be of interest to you:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2350

Is a man and woman who join together in love with a lifetime commitment to a union of complex differences peculiar to each gender with the expectation of having children and providing them with a gestalt (nuclear family) experience of love (why the state supports this arrangement, for the child's benefits are optimized with a loving mother and father) really the same as two men or two women joining in love? That the answer is not clear to so many people clearly demonstrates how the will-to-ignorance is endemic to political correctness, for the dynamics involved in affirming gay marriage as identical to what takes place in a real state of marriage has little or nothing to do with truth, but in getting what one wants regardless how it harms children and society at large.
What it comes down to: should the state subject children not by default, but by design, to not ever have the opportunity to be raised by a mother and father? The answer should be clear. It really should. And that intelligent human beings can’t see it is another indication of the mystery of evil.

@TheMoz:

"Can anyone answear Leahy's connection to genetics and Dawkins' views?"

I think I can, or at least I'll try.

Whatever the genetic or evolutionary implications of homosexuality, we don't grant or deny access to the institution of marriage on the basis of one's evolutionary success. That would be dehumanizing and degrading. It is a form of eugenics. We've been there and tried that. And I'm not sure if Dawkins himself has drawn or would draw the conclusion from this that same-sex marriage should be prohibited.

Reproduction of the human race is essential to its survival. Reproduction of any single person's genetic code is not, and to suggest that failure to reproduce somehow lessens a person's value as a human being and ought to exclude them from an institution as meaningful to our society as marriage is silly.

Descartes is the father of modern philosophy, and when he claimed that existence resides in the thought processes ("I think, therefore I am"), Kant tried to make damn sure that we wouldn’t lose sight of God in this realm of high abstraction, and thereby argued for the existence of a God of Reason. But Dostoevsky, in "Notes from Underground", argues convincingly that the end result of this phenomenon is that every one will come up with their own reasons to defy reason itself! He could see where everything was going, the expropriation of reason with a reason governed only by the will to power. Persons like Foucault and other sex liberationists look on those imprisoned in either religious revealed truths or the truths of a logic-based reason as simply naive. At the heart of the matter they are saying "I will, therefore I am!" They claim that this and nothing else can affirm the individual existent. This is why they don’t feel foolish or embarrassed when the illogic of their arguments are stripped naked in the public square.

Definitions do change, even among natural objects. Why not so with marriage?

http://www.universetoday.com/13573/why-pluto-is-no-longer-a-planet/

You see, throughout human history there have always been the same number of really large objects floating around out there around the sun. Some of them were called planets. As we learned more about what else was out there, the definition of what is and what is not a planet had to be revised. It could be shrunk or enlarged. At some point it was decided to shrink the definition. So be it.

You see, the natural world consists of what it consists of - it comes without our distinctions. We as humans get to define and revise the boundaries of our rational categories based on changes in our knowledge and understanding.

The color spectrum is out there, and we divide it into reds and blues and greens. But there are colors on the edge between red and orange and we have to decide which color group they fit into, where there is no simple answer as to which color it REALLY is - after all, it is exactly the color that it is, and no other. WE classify it.

So why not with marriage? We look at all kinds of human relationships and decide which ones fit into our definition of marriage. When certain types of relationships (like same sex relationships) become more accepted and homosexuality becomes less stigmatized, we have to decide if those relationships fit into the category of marriage. While the need for procreation and the anatomical differences between the sexes will ensure that heterosexual marriage will always be the original example, it is reasonable to look at the "boundary cases" and make a human decision about how they should be classified, and whether or not our definitions need revision. There is no automatic answer, and some people will be left unhappy by the outcome.

Look at how angry people were when we lost a planet?

Thank you Leroy Huizinga for this article. I had never hear of Ezekiel Bulver and am pleased to hear of his tale. The observation that bulversim is alive and active I can confirm fro my experience.

David,

My recent article, Marriage, Essentially, www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/marriage_essentially
should be helpful in clarifying your confusion about the nature of marriage.

Sergio,

I will respond to your response to John E.

You have mistakenly straw-manned John E's position on marriage in your rebuttal #2, where you claim that he relies on the argument that sexual appetite is only designed for reproduction. In fact, his argument goes further than that: he claims that sexual appetite is only designed for heterosexual love and reproduction.

The place where you disagree isn't on what sex is designed for, it's on whether sex is designed at all. If you say, "Given that sex is designed, it does not seem the case that it was only designed for reproduction"...then you've missed something. Because given that sex is designed, the very first question to ask is not "what can we glean from our knowledge of anatomy and physiology what sex is for?" The first question is: WHO designed it and why.

In a worldview which rejects the existence of God, or at least rejects the possibility of divine revelation to mankind, there would be no answer to this, so naturally a person with that worldview would turn to anatomy and physiology to investigate possible purposes of that purported design. Yet those who accept divine revelation would not do so.

Unfortunately, you have not advanced any arguments on the topic of theism or the possibility of divine revelation, so your rebuttal ends up as a straw man fallacy.

Now you can see the real root of the matter. Does God exist, and does he communicate with mankind? If you can demonstrate the negative, then you have an argument. If not, your ethical claims about gay marriage hold no purchase in the face of positive arguments for theism...of which there are many. If you need one to start with, you can begin at St. Anselm's ontological argument. Go from there and get back to me.

Some commenters need to look up the distinction between a necessary and a sufficient condition.

I do not see why the morality or otherwise of homosexual relationships should have any bearing on marriage as a legal institution. France, for example, has civil unions (PACS) for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples (about 90% involve opposite-sex couples) and marriage. The latter is confined to opposite-sex couples, on the basis that its distinguishing characteristic, the thing that sets it apart from civil unions and unregulated cohabitation, is the rule that “the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father.”

That seems to me a valid distinction and the European Court of Human Rights (not a bastion of conservatism) has agreed that it is one that lies within the legislator’s margin of appreciation.

Now, France is notable for its commitment to the principle of laïcité and would never permit religious considerations to govern its legislation.

For the reasons I outlined in my reply to David Nickol, I do not think one can define “marriage” in the abstract, apart from its legal and social context.

This comes out very clearly, when citizens of one country, say Algeria, enter into a marriage there that is actually or potentially polygamous and then come to settle in France, where marriage is strictly monogamous. The courts have to ask themselves whether the relationship between a man and the ladies living under his protection is sufficiently analogous to the relationship of husband and wife described in the Code Civil to make it just to apply the same rules to them. Otherwise, there is a real danger of the courts creating obligations, rather than enforcing them.

No jurist has suggested there is an easy answer to this.

@Gil,

I cannot speak for others, but certainly don't place a different value on people based on whether or not they procreate. Certainly, Christians shouldn't do so. Jesus didn't procreate, nor, apparently did Paul. And, indeed, both declared the single life superior to the married life. They didn't say single persons were of greater value, however, but merely that the single life was better. The issue is not devaluing anyone, but recognizing that a lifelong union of a man and a woman is different-in-kind and in essence from any other type of relationship and that the distinction is vital (literally) to the continuation of human life and, so, important to society. Consequently, society should recognize and support this relationship in ways appropriate to it and its unique nature and not deny its importance and distinctiveness by treating other relationships as if they are no different.

People who cannot or choose not to marry, for whatever reason, may not be adequately served by the law in their relationships. The answer to that problem, however, is not to treat those relationships as a type of relationship it is not, but to enact laws appropriate to those relationship. Since even civil unions which convey identical rights to marriage are rejected as adequate by same-sex marriage advocates precisely because they fail to give the label of "marriage" to same-sex relationships, it is obvious that the goal is not equal legal rights, but a desire to have society deny what is unique about the man and a woman who order their union toward procreation and to pretend to things that are essentially different as if they were the same. But calling two very different things by the same name, doesn't make them the same. Same-sex relationships are not and never can be the same as a union of a man and woman ordered to procreation. Why pretend otherwise?

Mick Leahy - "According to Richard Dawkins, human beings are merely a vehicle for propagating their genes."

When you start from incorrect premises, you usually wind up with incorrect conclusions. http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html

Andrew Cuff - "If you can demonstrate the negative, then you have an argument. If not, your ethical claims about gay marriage hold no purchase in the face of positive arguments for theism...of which there are many."

Huh. Huizenga argues that faith as such isn't necessary to establish that "Marriage concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes." And now you're claiming it is. Who's right?

"Many find it inconceivable that opposition to gay marriage could be rational because they’re operating not only with a faith-reason split but also with a truncated view of reason. They see it rooted not in respect for nature but rather in the desire to conquer nature in service of human will."

As I understand it (probably wrongly) from folks wiser and better informed than I, some centuries ago Western civilization took a theological (or philosophical) wrong turn by asserting the priority of will over nature. This provoked a change in the understanding of "freedom" from "unimpaired fulfillment of one's nature" (i.e., the image of God) to "unfettered expression of one's will." Our own society has come to take the latter notion of “freedom” as the highest good. Such a society must, ultimately, deny the very existence of nature because nature would represent a constraint upon will (if there is something I am created to be or do, I cannot “freely” choose to be or do whatever I wish). Thus any act between consenting adults is inherently good because consent is an expression of the will, and any assertion that certain acts are unnatural becomes an irrational attack on freedom (irrational since the definition of freedom inherently excludes nature).

I am not sure, then, that the correspondents who “accuse” you of religious motivations are genuine Bulverites. Rather (and sadly), they may simply be identifying the source of the irrationality that has led you to a conclusion so obviously wrong as to defy correction (if a man sees an elephant at the zoo and declares that it is a toaster, one is more likely to look for the source of his malady than to lead him by careful argumentation to see the matter more clearly).

“’Consent’ is an idea forged in the wake of the widespread death of metaphysics and it thus lacks any ultimate grounding. It will disappear once a majority of the strong decides it’s no longer useful to their interests.”

As I say, “consent” appears to be grounded in our erroneous notion of freedom (a foundation of shifting sand, I agree, but one that has shown alarming durability thus far). It may soon disappear at the hands of tyrants ready to expand their own freedom by crushing that of others (we could easily list examples in current policy and legislation). Nevertheless Babylon is primarily portrayed not as a tyrant but as a harlot; and a harlot works not by thwarting the will of her victim but by corrupting and then satisfying it. The consent of the victim is her triumph and vindication, and she may be loathe to abandon it in favor of simple force.

@ Ray Ingles :

Richard Dawkins: "... bodies are best seen as machines programmed by the genes to propagate those very same genes."

This is the science, Dawkins claims to be a scientist (a failed one, but he wouldn't be the first), the majority of the rest of the article consists of either waffle on his behalf about theology, philosophy and morality, which he has no special qualifications in, or his discredited musings about the origins of life(read "God's Undertaker" by John C. Lennox).
Please explain why you consider my premises incorrect on the basis of Dawkin's above statement.

Mick Leahy - Do you think 'bodies' encompasses all of humanity? Do you think *Dawkins* thinks that, in light of what I linked to? For example, would it be possible for Dawkins to think that a human is, *among other things*, "a vehicle for propagating their genes"?

Andrew:

You are right that I haven´t advanced any argument on the theism/atheist debate. But then again, my point is that sex, and genitalia, aren´t designed. Or more precisely, there isn´t any reason to think they were designed (and thus, the question of "who designed and why" becomes irrelevant). I contend, anyways, that is up to theists to prove the existence of a God, and thus of a designer, not of the atheist to disprove it (since not all forms of atheism claims categorically its inexistence).

Now let me assume two things for the sake of argument:

1. God exists.

2. He designed sex for an specific purpose.

Regarding 1: That still leaves the theist with the problem of why will God is the basis of morality? If God decreed that X action is moral that still does not show why it is moral on its own (so we return again to the Eutrypho dilemma). I know the theistic standard answer to the dilemma is that the two horns of the dilemma are false; that God own nature is in accordance to what goodness is. But then, as I see the problem the dilemma gives us is not simply ontological, but also epistemological. It is a question of how we know that X commands are moral. To say that they are moral simply because they come from God begs the question, precisely because there are many possible forms of God that spouse many different moral commandments. If a God decries that murder is good, how will the theist be able to discern if that is or not true? She can´t. She ought to accept it, because she assumes God in essence is identified with the good. That appears to me as a counterintuitive example of the futility of theistic based morality.

Now, regarding 2, even if, for the sake of argument, I granted design of genitalia and the sexual act , it appears to me that the praxis (in this particular case, the fact that sex can be used in recreational ways or to express love and commitment) clearly show the limitations of the original intend for it, and by logic, of the designer. Is like saying X tool was designed only for Y, but then I find X tool can also be effectively used for U,W,Z. I have to conclude that the designer intended use of that tool was incomplete or wrong, and thus it can´t be a God or even if it is a God, is not worth worshiping.

This is just one example to use to answer the question, "How does same-sex marriage harm you?"

Vermont Catholic innkeepers who refused lesbian wedding reception settle with ACLU @ http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15343

The fact is that many (I assume not all) same-sex "marriage" advocates don't simply want their relationships called marriages, they expect EVERYONE to treat them as marriages, even those of us who believe that they are not marriages. I recall many years ago when one of my distant cousins who had committed adultery, divorced and married the other woman came to visit my grandparents. My grandfather, who was a Baptist preacher, told them that they would have to sleep in separate bedrooms during the visit or find somewhere else to stay. I suppose, at least for now, he could do that today with my gay second-cousin and his partner, but he couldn't if he owned a bed and breakfast with risking getting sued.

Diogenes:

"The fact is that many (I assume not all) same-sex "marriage" advocates don't simply want their relationships called marriages, they expect EVERYONE to treat them as marriages, even those of us who believe that they are not marriages."

That is strawman. What we want (and note please that not all supporters or gay marriage are gay, as is my case) is that they get treated equally before the law. If you don´t want to recognize the marriage of a gay couple, that is your prerogative. But then, that is a private issue, that should not bear public legal consequences.

Reply to Ray Ingles:

"Mick Leahy - Do you think 'bodies' encompasses all of humanity? Do you think *Dawkins* thinks that, in light of what I linked to? For example, would it be possible for Dawkins to think that a human is, *among other things*, "a vehicle for propagating their genes"? "

Dawkins uses the term 'machine', rather than vehicle, but I would perceive very little difference in meaning between both terms. If one is an atheist, I think this is a perfectly reasonable theory-in the absence of a loving God, any notion that man is anything more than a machine is, like Dawkin's view of God, a delusion. If we are but machines, all that is possibly left to even minimally care about is their effectiveness and reliability, much as one would like your car to start in the morning. And homosexuals are non-starters in Dawkins' sense, as they can't propagate their genes, which is their primary function.

@Sergio

It is not a strawman. Do you support the right of innkeepers not to rent rooms to same sex couples and for caterers not to cater same-sex weddings and for photographers not to photograph such weddings and for florists not to provide flowers for such weddings? The cases of lawsuits for refusing to serve such circumstances are already out there.

Diogenes - "Do you support the right of innkeepers not to rent rooms to same sex couples and for caterers not to cater same-sex weddings and for photographers not to photograph such weddings and for florists not to provide flowers for such weddings?"

Do you support the right of innkeepers not to rent rooms to interracial couples and for caterers not to cater interracial weddings and for photographers not to photograph such weddings and for florists not to provide flowers for such weddings?

Do you support the right of innkeepers not to rent rooms to Jewish or Muslim couples and for caterers not to cater Jewish or Muslim weddings and for photographers not to photograph such weddings and for florists not to provide flowers for such weddings?

As a society, we've decided that *if you are offering services to the public*, there exist grounds upon which you are not permitted to refuse service. Note that this does *not* apply to your backyard or your church; the church here did nothing illegal: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html

The question becomes, should same-sex marriage join those classes of grounds upon which *public accommodations* cannot discriminate? And would that represent an imposition on the rights of an innkeeper or florist?

Mick Leahy - "in the absence of a loving God, any notion that man is anything more than a machine is, like Dawkin's view of God, a delusion."

Can you quote Dawkins actually *saying* that, though? Look up the term "sphexish" sometime, in the context "digger wasp".

Diogenes:

I am a libertarian, so yes, I support the right of people in not to engage with other people, no matter how twisted their motifs are. Now, while I specifically support the right of all those cases you mentionated (which follows logically from the principle mentionated before) what you are describing goes far beyond recognization of marriage, it is a form of active discrimination. So let´s me ask you...do you support the right of white people who refuse to recognize blacks as equals not to rent interratial couples rooms, not to photograph wedings, etc etc ...? More importantly, do you think it is morally right (regardless of what the law says) to uphold such discrimination measures against interratial and same sex couples?

I have found that SSM advocates invoke certain rules of argumentation that serve their purpose of attacking the marriage law and the marriage idea. However these pro-SSM rules knock the knees out from under their pro-SSM complaint and proposed pro-SSM revision to the law. Indeed, their invocation of these rules ends-up destroying their own SSM idea which is portrayed rhetorically as a mere extension of marriage but is actually presented in argument as a rejection of the marriage idea. The proposed replacement in culture and in law is the impoverished SSM idea.

Consent is an insufficient condition. That to which consent is given is the key. Consent is given by the participants, yes,but too is insufficient. The governing authority gives or withholds consent on behalf of society. Society is a party to each formal marriage. The boundaries of eligibility and ineligibility are drawn around the core meaning of the social institution. Societal regard for that core ... for the marriage idea ... is what justifies the boundaries.

The SSM idea is an outright rejection of that core meaning.

The marriage idea is 1) a coherent whole (i.e. a foundational social institution) that combines 2) the provision for responsible precreation and 3) the integration of the sexes. Each of these points is extrinsic to SSM and to the rest of the types of relationships that populate the non-marriage category.

SSM is not foundational to civil society. SSM cannot provide for procreation within the relationship; it cannot provide for responsible procreation (which is itself a coherent set of principles and practices ... the first principle being that each of us as a procreative duo is responsible for our offspring); where procreation is a factor within SSM, it is premised on the disunity of motherhood and fatherhood. SSM is segregative by sex and by sexual attraction; it acknowledges sex difference but is oriented against (i.e. it is not neutral) societal regard and preference for sex integration and responsible procreation.

The proposed remedy to the pro-SSM complaint is not indifferent to sex difference nor indifferent to responsible procreation. Rather it is hostile. Its imposition would push the core of marriage to the sidelines but would demote the marriage idea from its preferential status to a barely tolerative status as bigoted, hateful, and unlawful.

Instead of societal regard for the special reason for the special status of marriage, the replacement is the SSM idea that is promoted with an emphasis on gay isentity. It is that emphasis which supposedly justifies special status (marital status is a special status in culture and in law). It amounts to the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics over and aboce marriage itself.

This is analogous with the supremacy of white racist identity politics that was pressed into marriage law by way of the anti-miscegenation system. That was repudiated as an unjust use of marriage law. It deeply undermined the provision for responsible procreation. It undercut the integration of the sexes for it selectively segregated the sexes via an identity filter. SSM segregates the sexes and would force the law to treat each union of husband and wife as if it lacked either husban or wife. It would use marriage for a decidely nonmarriage purpose. Indeed the pro-gay purpose is not only a nonmarriage purpose but its manifestation as the SSM idea is anti-marriage. Special status of the identity group is given greater priority than the special status of the core of marriage. It is a racist-like rejection of the very stuff that justifies societal regard and preference for the union of husband and wife.

The sexual basis for marriage is clearly expressed in the sexual basis for the presumption that the husban will father the children born of he and his wife during their marriage. That sexual basis is coherently expressed in the bride+groom requirement, the legal requirements for consummation, annulment, adultery, and so forth. It is a two-sexed sexual basis. So consent to marry means consent to this sexual basis. Consent of the participants and consent of society via governing authority.

No place that has impose SSM and no place that has entertained the pro-SSM revision to the law has made same-sex sexual attraction a legal requirement for those who'd SSM; likewise no requirements for same-sex sexual romance, same-sex sexual behavior, nor is gay identity made compulsory. Under SSM law, SSM is not a sexual type of relationship.

All told,this illustrates how the rules for SSM argumentation start with the assumption that the bride+groom requirement is wrong but never provides sound reasoining for that assumption. The SSM idea is not the marriage idea. It is a rejection of the core meaning of marriage. It is presented as a replacement. It is portrayed as a basis for revising the boundaries but it rejects that around which the boundaries are justly drawn. It rejects the stuff that makes it possible to distinguish between the marital type of relationship from the rest of the types of relationships that are not marital. To so distinguish it is necessary to acknowledge that marriage does have a reality independent of the law.

If we can say that sometimes the law gets stuff right and sometimes gets stuff wrong, as I think all sides do acknowledge, then the starting place is not the law but that which the law serves. The SSM idea does not serve marriage. It serves the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics. It would eraise the line between marriage and non-marriage. It would thus thow into legitimate dispute all boundaries for eligibility and ineligibility. But the argumentation of SSM advocates can offer only the superfiality of borrowing from marriage boundaries that are dran with societal regard for the core meaning that SSMers disparage as unjustified and which merits, they argue, a blind eye. But that core does more than provide the basis for line drawing. It is the legitimate basis for recognizing marriage as special and worthy of societal endorsement and governmental protection and preference.

SSM advocates are wrong. Even their own argumentation tells us and them so. If they assume the opposite, then,they would rely utterly on treating types of relationships the same arbitrarily. Their own rhetoric emphasizes stuff that never makes it into the law as requirements. So they offer empty words ... equality or consent ... and skip right past justification for a special statuss for their favored subset of non-marriage. That to which something is asserted as equal is not proven equal through an asserted supremacy. That to which consent is given is the key to such comparisons anyway. And when the discussion returns to that, by way of applying the SSM advocate's own rules of argumentation, we come upon the reasons the SSM complaint and remedy are wrong.

Examine the claims made by SSM advocates regarding the core or essence of marriage: test their SSM idea by applying their own stated standards that are invoked when they discuss procreation and sexual attraction, for examples. They prove themselves wrong.

Diogenes,

I don’t what principle would make it acceptable for innkeepers to refuse to rent to gay couples. Where would such license end? Could doctors refuse patients? Teachers, students? Restaurants, patrons? Could a county clerk in Massachusetts refuse to issue a marriage license? A motor vehicle clerk, an applicant? Could a muffler shop refuse a client? A Catholic bookstore, a customer?

Because I remarried without an annulment, I am not allowed to take communion at a Roman Church, and rightly, no one complains. But can a Roman innkeeper refuse to rent a room to me and my lawfully married second wife? Can a Roman caterer refuse to cater my wedding?

Businesses that serve the public must serve all of the public. Violate that basic rule of hospitality, and we can go back to the days when no Irish need apply.

I believe that sometimes the harshest thing you can do to somebody is to give them exactly what they want. Gays, a group not often characterized by life-long monogamy, now getting married? Just how many of these "marriages" would survive 5 years? This would be a boom industry for divorce lawyers everywhere.

Any children trapped in these relationships would suffer, but this aspect of divorce doesn't seem to worry straight couples, so it would be hypocritical to expect our gay brethren to lose any sleep over it.

Legalizing gay marriage would be an act of schadenfreude, at least until they started shuttering churches and businesses who refused to go along with the charade.

The people who support gay marriage amaze me! Let's take the argument to the extreme. If at a point in time the whole world becomes gay, how would our species be reproduced? Would the gay persons farm persons in heterosexual relations in factories as baby makers to supply them partners? What is the world coming to? I have been a poultry and livestock farmer. I never saw homosexual encounters by chicken, goats, sheep, cattle and pigs!

Let the the gay fraternity tell us the reasons why homosexuality is the best option of expressing sexuality.

Surely this is the beginning of the collapse of Western civilization. I will be gone by then!

@Ray and Michael,

Thanks for making my point. So, an innkeeper who believes sodomy is a grave sin would, nonetheless, be compelled, in the world you want, to rent to a couple who would use his room for that purpose. That is quite different from a doctor treating a patient or a teacher teaching students. Nor would an innkeeper not renting rooms to someone based on race, ethnicity or religious beliefs be the same as renting a room to a couple who would use the room to commit acts which the innkeeper believes sinful based on millennia of teaching of the world's great religions.

In the world you advocate, Christians who are faithful to the teachings of their faith will have to leave any businesses which would require them to facilitate directly sin or its celebration. No orthodox Christian, Muslim or Orthodox Jewish innkeepers nor those who provide services to weddings (e.g., florists, caterers, bakers, tux renters, wedding dress makers, photographers, etc.) unless they are willing to facilitate and/or celebrate sin.

Thank you for making clear to those who may not have realized it exactly the world you wish to create, a world hostile to practicing believers in the world's great faiths. Were you truly libertarians, a great many libertarians might find your advocacy for same-sex marriage compelling, but libertarians need to realize that you are not advocating based on libertarian principles. You don't want a world in which you may merely be permitted to do what you wish to do while others are permitted to do likewise. You want a world in which you can compel those who don't agree with you to serve your ends which they find gravely sinful. And your position, is not, unique. I've had similar responses again and again when this issue has been raised.

Diogenes,

“So, an innkeeper who believes sodomy is a grave sin would, nonetheless, be compelled, in the world you want, to rent to a couple who would use his room for that purpose.”

I asked you to articulate a principle that makes such discrimination acceptable, and your answer seems to be that discrimination is acceptable when it prevents a grave sin. Let me know whether I understand you correctly.

I hope that you conform to Roman teaching and agree that adultery is every bit as grave a sin as sodomy. As someone who remarried without seeking an annulment, I routinely commit adultery every time I have sex with my wife. And yet I have heard not of a single case in which an innkeeper denied a room to the remarried.

Why do Romans hold one standard for gays and another for the remarried? Why such inconsistency around grave sins?

@Michael,

I have not the slightest problem with an innkeeper refusing to rent rooms to those whom they believe would use their rooms to commit adultery, including those whom the believe do so as a result of divorce and remarriage. If you'll look earlier in this thread, you'll note that I disclosed that my grandfather refused to allow a family member who had committed adultery, divorced and married to adulteress to sleep with her in his house, the very issue you raise except for the fact that my grandfather wasn't an innkeeper.

I have also on other threads suggested that American states (and I do believe marriage is an issue for each state to decide except where federal benefits apply, in which circumstances and only to that extent, is it a federal issue) should retreat from revisions to the law which permit no-fault divorce, the decriminalization of adultery, and the statutory denial of civil actions for alienation of affection.

Diogenes,

It is one thing to deny your home to someone, but it is entirely another thing for an innkeeper to do so. The requirement that innkeepers accept all travelers is an ancient practice. Should an innkeeper inquire into the marital history of every guest?

Furthermore, why is your one example from your grandfather? The remarriage rate is far higher now than then and much more widespread than homosexuality. Where are the examples of priests asking us to reject the remarried? Where is the movement to deny the remarried hotel rooms and wedding photographs?

Why is all this energy being directed at gays? Could it be that you all have something against gays that you don’t hold against others who commit grave sins?

Not me. We are all sinners, myself included. I have nothing more against those who sin in this way than in any other, but we are not being pushed by adulterers, thieves, etc. to facilitate their sins and aid in their celebration. The difference here is that same-sex marriage advocates are demanding that those who know of their sin and disapprove nonetheless facilitate it or its celebration. I've never heard of an adulterer suing an inn which refused rooms (and it does happen, particularly with small, family-owned bed & breakfasts run by Christians). They just go down the street to find an innkeeper who is less vigilant or doesn't care. And that's the point. I really doubt that outside some very small towns that a same-sex couple wishing to marry (say in Boston or New York) will have any problem finding a place to let a room, a photographer for their "wedding", a caterer, etc. No, this is all about forcing people who object to sodomy and its celebration to facilitate it and its celebration. It is not necessary to do so since there are undoubtedly plenty of business willing to sell their services for these purposes. That's not what all these lawsuits against Christian businesses are about. You know it, I know it, and everyone reading this exchange knows it.

The sophistry in your argument fools no one.

Diogenes - Can you give me a yes or no answer to my question about interracial couples? There have been - and demonstrably still are - plenty of people who believe those who engage in such relationships are committing a grave sin.

I'm fine with an answer of "Yes, but..." or "No, but..."; I'd just like some kind of answer. Is it *just* the sin of sodomy that you're particularly down on? Or can other people have opinions about sins that differ from yours?

Diogenes,

“I've never heard of an adulterer suing an inn which refused rooms (and it does happen, particularly with small, family-owned bed & breakfasts run by Christians).”

Really? I’d like to see some evidence.

“No, this is all about forcing people who object to sodomy and its celebration to facilitate it and its celebration.”

Perhaps gays face discrimination in places other than hotels and caterers. Perhaps jobs are closed to them, housing, even safety. Perhaps we learned awhile ago that separate doesn’t make equal. Perhaps some of us look at the lesbian couple down the street as great neighbors rather than sodomizers.

Interracial marriage is not a sin and never was. That some asserted otherwise doesn't make it so. Moses himself was in an interracial marriage. So, while people may think such relationships are a grave sin, they are not.

People can have all the opinions on what is and is not a sin that want to. What I think and you think isn't what makes something a sin. The Bible and the Church are our only sources for what is a sin upon which we can rely.

Let me ask you some questions. Do you believe it is immoral for an innkeeper to deny a room to a same-sex couple? Do you you believe it is immoral for a caterer to refuse to provide services for a same-sex "wedding"? Do you believe it is immoral for a photographer to refuse to provide services for such a wedding? Is it immoral for me to oppose same-sex "marriages"?

I have no problem if a private employer makes immorality a basis for refusing to hire someone or a landlord uses it as a bases for refusing to rent to someone. It would be wrong to harm or deny safety to someone base on their immoral behavior. Separate doesn't make equal, but that's the question, isn't it? Is a same-sex union the same as a marriage? It is not. Like circumstances should be treated alike; there is no justification for treating unlike circumstances as if they were the same.

The lesbian couple down the street may be great neighbors in many ways. They are, however, creating a bad example as regards their sexual behavior. We all sin and we all love family and friends who are sinners (how could we love anyone if we didn't love sinners?). Again, this is a great bait-and-switch. The issue is not whether we tolerate and accept our sinful neighbors. The issue is whether we condone and celebrate their sin. I love my children. I love them so much that when they sin, I discipline them. I don't condone and celebrate it. That would be a sign that I hate them and don't care what bad things happen to them because of their sinful behavior. Since you seem like a very smart man, I suspect you recognize the difference but are simply engaging in sophistry and deliberately trying to conflate two very different things.

As to the innkeeper, I'm not saying that an innkeeper should be permitted not to let rooms to those with same-sex attractions. If a same-sex couple wants to rent separate rooms, the rooms should be let. What the innkeeper has a right to do is to refuse to let one room to the couple in which he has reason to believe that they will engage in what he considers an immoral act.

Diogenes,

“Do you believe it is immoral for an innkeeper to deny a room to a same-sex couple? Do you you believe it is immoral for a caterer to refuse to provide services for a same-sex "wedding"? Do you believe it is immoral for a photographer to refuse to provide services for such a wedding? Is it immoral for me to oppose same-sex "marriages"?”

Yes, I believe you are being immoral in taking all those positions.

“I have no problem if a private employer makes immorality a basis for refusing to hire someone or a landlord uses it as a bases for refusing to rent to someone.”

Do you still believe it is immoral if the private employer has different moral standards than yours? For example, I think you are immoral in opposing gay marriage. Am I within my rights then to deny you a job or housing? Can I refuse to treat you as a medical patient?

“Is a same-sex union the same as a marriage?”

Yes, it is.

“The lesbian couple down the street may be great neighbors in many ways. They are, however, creating a bad example as regards their sexual behavior.”

There are several lesbian couples in my congregation, and some of them are raising children. They are great examples of Christian love.

“I love them so much that when they sin, I discipline them.”

What kind of discipline would you apply to a lesbian daughter? Would that discipline change after she had been twenty years in a faithful relationship? Would it change if she had a son?

“That would be a sign that I hate them and don't care what bad things happen to them because of their sinful behavior.”

What kinds of bad things specifically happen to lesbians who have been faithful to each other for twenty years? I’ve never received a good answer to this question.

“Since you seem like a very smart man, I suspect you recognize the difference but are simply engaging in sophistry and deliberately trying to conflate two very different things”

So you’re saying that I’m smart but intentionally make up false arguments. Do I understand your accusation correctly? Perhaps you can explain to me why so many on this site resort to accusation when someone disagrees with them. It seems a widely shared character flaw here.

George Gilder made a nonreligious case for marriage in Men and Marriage (first published as Sexual Suicide).