Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[Alcon]

As much as I usually hate cliches, the "if you don't like same sex marriage, don't have one" line is concise and gets right at the heart of the matter and why the opponents of SSM are losing. SSM opponents can...not get married to a same-sex spouse. You could even call it a boycott!

By that logic, we should also legalize polygamy (because you can...not have a polygamous marriage!) and public nudity (because you can...wear clothes!).

Why are you now replying to threads on gay marriage, after refusing to respond to rebuttals of your position on the issue?  Weak, dude.

[Alcon]

Maybe spend less time worrying about why people choose the avatars they have and more time focusing on your flawed arguments on this topic...?

I happen to believe that avatars should mean something. At least to the point where they don't indicate the complete opposite of your actual political positions. Enough said.

Dude, you just complained that people were taking gay marriage too seriously, so you stopped defending your (really bad) arguments against gay marriage, in favor of complaining about misleading Atlas Forum avatars?

Your reply to me basically just reiterated your argument without responding to any of my critiques.  I already pointed out this flaw in your argument in the last thread, but bedstudy's rebuttal reiterates it.  You're basically adopting procreation as the only goal that matters in recognizing marriages (because apparently we don't have reason to incentivize adoption??), ignoring all other positive social effects of marriage.  Are you going to respond to that rebuttal?  What about the problem of using this logic to exclude other groups with lesser outcomes from the marital incentive?  Isn't the point of good policy supposed to be that it provides a net-positive, not that it provides more of a positive than any other given policy?

This argument has a lot of really glaring holes in it.  I'm really not trying to be mean -- but this has "completely rationalized" written all over it.

[Alcon]

- Again, we cannot use this logic to exclude straight poor people or straight short people from full benefits of traditional marriage because they still can, unlike (most) same sex couples, procreate on their own. That simple fact - self-procreation being possible - means that no reduction in benefits is justifiable, because they still benefit the state's interest in procreation by an amount very close to that of the average straight couple, and way more than any sex same couple does.

Could you rephrase the bolded part?  It doesn't make any sense to me as it reads.

- Yes, I know there are benefits to marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation such as joint tax filing, inheriting the estate of your spouse, health insurance benefits, hospital visitation and what not. But the state interest that most convinces the state to incentivize marriage is generally its interest in procreation, not its interest in insuring people or making tax filing easier. The state should be able to say that it is only going to fully incentivize those relationships that are most beneficial to its interest in procreation, which is obviously the opposite sex marriage over the same sex marriage. Yes, we should incentivize adoption, and that's why I support civil unions for same sex couples, but we should not treat it like a marriage nor incenvtize it as much as (traditional) marriage, because it is not as beneficial to the state's interest in procreation.

...

As said upthread, lack of wealth doesn't really persuade people against procreating, meaning that middle class opposite sex couples and poor opposite sex couples are roughly equally beneficial to the state's interest in procreation, and tons more beneficial than a same sex couple. So, therefore, no reduction of benefits is needed for disadvantaged opposite sex couples.

Bottom Line: The state should always make the decision that is most beneficial to its interests, in this case the interest in procreation, and that means only giving full incentives to opposite sex couples.

You seem to be arguing that, even if sanctioning gay relationships is a net social positive, marriage should be retained to incentivize only the most ideal relationships -- heterosexuals reproducing.  As far as I can tell, that means you must be arguing one of three things:

1. Recognizing gay relationships has no net social benefit.  [Considering what you said about civil unions, I doubt you're arguing this.]

2. Recognizing gay relationships has net social benefit, but procreation is the only social benefit relevant to recognizing marriages.

3. Recognizing gay relationships has net social benefit, but we should only use marriage to incentivize the most socially beneficial unions.  Gay unions are not the most socially beneficial unions because, even if they provide other net-positives, they are inferior in terms of procreation.  The government should not incentivize unions that have sub-optimal social benefit.

As far as I can tell, no other argument is consistent with what you've written.  I can't quite tell if you're arguing #2 or #3, though.  I want to make sure I understand your argument very precisely before we go any further.

Thanks.

[Alcon]

For the bolded: Basically, any opposite sex couple, poor or rich, short or tall, is more beneficial to the state interest in procreation than the same sex couple, because the opposite sex couple can typically self-procreate and the same sex couple typically cannot. No one decides to not have a child based on how tall they or their spouse is, and lack of wealth isn't great at stopping people either. This means that all opposite sex couples are roughly equally beneficial to the state interest in procreation, and therefore no reduction of recognition for disadvantaged opposite sex couples can be justified.

I'm arguing #3 from your list.

So you're arguing that the state's only interest in marriage is in incentivizing procreation, and even if marital recognition would be a net-positive for other reasons, that's insufficient to justify granting marital rights to those who can't procreate?  

You're also arguing that the incentive should exist to encourage procreation, even if procreation results in sub-optimal results for the child?  (That is, you want to increase the quantity of procreation, irrespective of the quality?)

Finally, if it were administratively possible, would you support excluding infertile couples, and those who elect to not have children, from marrying?  For instance, if two 70-year-old widowerer grandparents wanted to get married, you'd be against issuing them a license?

[Alcon]

1. Yes

You're admitting that you're willing to forgo other positive outcomes, simply because you've arbitrarily chosen one sort of outcome (reproduction quantity) to focus on.  Why?  It's not even like gay marriage would harm that outcome.  If anything, it would help it, since some gay parents choose to have children by surrogates.

You're arbitrarily choosing one positive outcome to incentivize, and then arbitrarily choosing a threshold at which to incentivize it.  (1) Why the hell is procreation quantity the only outcome you care about in recognizing marriages?  (2) And, since apparently a net increase of procreation (which surely happens with gay marriages) isn't sufficient, how do you know the threshold that is sufficient to justify the incentive?

2. Reducing benefits for short couples, poor couples, etc. is not just completely throwing quantity out the door for the purpose of quality, it also ignores the possibility that the child will end up doing well in life despite a disadvantaging environment. Furthermore, this gets into endless, unresolvable debates about "how short is short?", "how poor is poor?". The best and simplest policy here is to respect tradition and not reduce benefits for disadvantaged opposite sex couples.

That wasn't the point of the question.  Let me explain:

As I demonstrated above, you do not think that a net-benefit is sufficient to incentivize something.  Your argument is hazy about what is sufficient to incentivize something.  Earlier, you kind of implied that gay marriage shouldn't be incentivized even if it increases procreation, because gay unions have an "inferior" outcome (less procreation).  I took that to mean you opposed gay marriage because of this "inferior" outcome.

At the time, I didn't realize that procreation was the only outcome you cared about.  That's why I applied your argument to an outcome I assumed you cared about -- the child's well-being -- to demonstrate why it's ridiculous to only incentivize something if the expected outcome is maximally "superior."  Understand what I mean?  If you did care about the child's well-being, and only support marital recognition when the child's well-being outcome was maximal, you'd be forced to oppose marital recognition in situations where the child's expected well-being isn't maximal.  That would include situations where the child's parents were short or non-white or poor.

But, since I now know that procreation quantity is the only outcome you're considering, that analogy isn't on-point anymore.  I could construct a similar analogy that involved maximal reproduction (no marriage licenses for non-Catholics? ), but before I do that, I think you should answer question #2 above.  It will clear up whether your standard is "maximal reproduction" or some lower threshold.

3. In a fictional world where we could know whether someone is infertile or unwilling to have children through records that the government has prior to one requesting a marriage license, then I would be O.K. with denying them a license. But, that's not the world we live in. Unless they are infertile due to age, it is impossible to tell whether they are infertile or unwilling to have children without forcing them to release those private decisions and medical conditions to state government, which I believe would violate privacy rights if made a requirement for marriage. So, we cannot avoid giving marriage licenses to most infertile opposite sex couples.

This isn't correct, considering that blood tests are still a requirement for marriage in several states.  Also, this is a thought exercise.  I'm not asking if you think it's Constitutional; I'm asking if you think it would be reasonable.

In the special case of a couple being infertile due to age, it is acceptable to deny them a license. But it's not something I really care about, and I would be fine with either option - allowing or denying marriage licenses to old, infertile couples. It's not unconstitutional to give infertile people licenses but not gay couples, as rational basis review, which is what SSM prohibition should be judged under, allows for an imperfect fit as long as the policy still has a rational reason for existing, which in this case is to promote the government's interest in procreation.

Again, this is not a Constitutional question; this is an ethical question.  There are plenty of things that have been ruled Constitutional that are bad, stupid policies.  The question is why you think this "imperfect fit" is acceptable, but including same-sex couples is not.  If it boils down to "I support excluding infertile couples, but I wouldn't bother advocating for it," well, OK, that's consistent.  

However, consistency doesn't matter much when your fundamental premise doesn't make sense -- which, again, brings us back to questions 1 & 2 above.

[Alcon]

At the end of the day, the only thing the state can really do is incentivize people to enter into the unity of marriage. And again, the clear dominating benefit to the state - and the one that it is most likely to get - is procreation. Gay marriage shouldn't be fully incentivized even if it increases procreation, because gay unions have an inferior outcome (less procreation than an opposite sex couple essentially all of the time).

OK, cool, this is getting us a lot closer.

Your argument is that the "clear dominating benefit to the state" is procreation.  Maybe this is so (although why is the state's interest in procreation so "dominant"?) but you seem to be forgoing any other possible benefits simply to focus on the "dominating" benefit.  Why?  Isn't it a question of net-benefits, not maximal benefits?  In other words, why is it insufficient to provide benefits greater than the cost of the incentive -- why does it have to be the maximal benefit?

If you're going to argue that incentives should only apply to situations that maximize the "dominant" benefit, and no others, no matter how large the net-benefit of the incentive, you should be aware that your own premise is going to lead you to some incredibly ridiculous places.  Do I misunderstand your argument?

2. I'm not applying a threshold here. I'm simply advocating for what governments often do - give (full) support what most advances its interest, and not give (full) support to what doesn't advance its interest anywhere near as much.

And opposite sex couples are obviously far more beneficial to the government's interest in procreation than same sex couples are.

I was counting "most" as a threshold, even if it's a relative one.  

So, I gather that you're arguing that, in cases where there is a net-benefit, but it's not a maximal benefit, you should automatically give some lesser incentive, correct?  If so...why?  I see no logical argument for that.

I'm really not trying to beat up on you, but are you sure this isn't an argument you decided sounded reasonable enough, and then never intensely scrutinized?

[Alcon]

But wait. I'll grant you that gay couples procreate less than straight couples. But they can procreate and will likely procreate more if incentivized to enter marriages, and so if procreation is the only state interest at play, then granting marriage benefits to gay couples doesn't harm the state interest (and at least marginally furthers that interest). But gay couples are harmed by the stigma of discrimination when marriage benefits are withheld. So if extending marriage benefits to gay couples isn't detrimental to the state's interest in procreation, then why shouldn't the state have to provide marriage benefits in a non-discriminatory manner? The state gets what it wants, increased procreation, without the societal detriment of a subset of the population being marked as inferior.

You will of course answer that rational basis review doesn't require the state to undertake the type of analysis I just did, but that brings me to the real point of my question, which you didn't answer last time I asked it: why do you believe rational basis review is the appropriate level of scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

^^

Wulfric, this is basically where my questions are leading.  Except never mind court review standards...you personally oppose same-sex marriage, too, and that's why the issues with this argument are probably fatal to your position.

I'm going slowly here because I'm trying not to be presumptive.  So far, though, you haven't given me anything that's even an arguably good defense against the issues in your argument.  As presented, your argument would require you to reach conclusions I think you'd agree are obviously absurd.

That's why I'm sincerely asking you to spend 15 minutes thinking hard about this, because either I'm missing something, or you're smarter than this untenable argument.

[Alcon]

It's not even like the law needs to make much of a distinction to avoid the slippery slope issue.  Besides the fact that it's less traditional, how is same-sex marriage any closer to polygamous marriage than heterosexual marriage?  It isn't.  And there's no serious person who thinks that "it's traditional" is an argument worth hanging your hat on.

[Alcon]

I'm not saying that this 'give full incentive to only the maximal benefit' principle is appropriate to use for every single issue. But there are other issues aside from marriage where it is appropriate. Look outside the issue of marriage for a moment and notice that the government is providing the most help to the 'maximal benefit' group in other areas already - for instance, one could note that medicare is only avaliable to the oldest americans and make the argument that it should be avaliable for all - but the government doesn't do that because it's interest in good health of the population is most effectively served when the least healthy age group of americans - the elderly - are given the most help from government. Its full support wouldn't achieve as much in other age groups. With the issue of marriage, the same basic principle applies - the government applies the most support to the group that most furthers its interest in procreation, which is the opposite sex couple over the same sex couple essentially 100% of the time.

Do you seriously -- seriously -- think that Medicaid is limited to seniors because, although the government could easily pass a net-beneficial, Medicaid-like program that applies to another group, it elects not to do so?  I do not think that's the case.  If it is the case, it would be insane.  It's almost certainly because there is some other, unique concern (either political or moral) that makes other programs either not net-beneficial, or not-feasible.  Because no decent human being would deny cost-effective, responsible services to a group of people just because some other group needed it marginally more.

Let's be really clear about what you're arguing.  You're arguing that, if we can do net-good for people, we should abstain from doing so, because doing net-good isn't sufficient in some cases -- only doing the maximal good is sufficient.  You're backing up this argument by giving cases where you claim this is "appropriate," like your Medicaid example.  You're not explaining why it's appropriate -- just that we do it, so it must be.  That's probably the best you can hope for, because there's no way you actually believe that it is appropriate to forgo good just because it isn't maximal good.  At least I hope not, because...
 

Do I think my secular argument is fatally flawed? No, but...

It really is a fatally flawed argument.  I'm being sincere.  You can read my post history; I am very, very rarely this unequivocally dismissive of an argument.  You are literally making an argument that boils down to "good has no value unless it's the best good."  Can you understand why that's, in essence, pretty much an evil argument?

I simply do not think you buy your own argument intellectually.  I think you have the position you want to rationalize (same-sex marriage opposition), and now you're trying to find examples to defend your position -- like the Medicaid example -- even though you don't seem to know why that example justifies your position.  You just threw it out there, without identifying how that example saves your argument.  It smacks of the sort of rationalization people do when they've found a position they want to prove is reasonable, and try to reverse-engineer a justification.

And I think this is why you're doing that:

I'm going to be brutally honest here - what keeps me most firm on my opposition to same sex marriage is not the argument I'm presenting here, or a belief that such prohibitions are constitutional, no, it is my sincerely held religious belief that full marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I like to back up my religious beliefs with secular arguments where possible, but even if you got me to a point where I gave up on having any secular arguments on prohibiting SSM, I would still vote against it in a legislative or referendum setting and personally oppose it based on my sincerely held religious belief. That's my personal choice, and not something any of you will ever change.  

Thank you.  I appreciate that honesty, because it's entirely consistent with the reverse-engineered nonsense argument you've been giving.

I understand that you feel obligated to find a secular rationale.  I understand how tempting it must be to find a reasonable-sounding argument and then grapple to justify it.  But your argument is not reasonable or sound.  It falls apart when you seriously analyze it.

Now, if I may be brutally honest: I really don't think the argument you're giving is anything but an ex post justification.  It sounds like something you thought up because your actual position -- "this is my religious belief, I'm never going to change it, and I don't care about the secular moral implications" -- is at tension with how you present your ideology.  It's not moderate.  It's not "reasonable."  It's not live-and-let-live.  It's you, taking an idea of moral good that you directly admit you will never consider questioning or changing, and imposing it on public policy, no matter the apparent harm it causes (or good it forgoes) from the lens of secular policymaking.  It's a philosophically extreme position.

But if that's what it is, fine.  If that's the case, just say so, dude.  That position isn't uncommon.  I do think it's dangerous, but it's at least logically tenable.  I'm not going to rake it over the coals like the totally nonsense argument you've giving now.  However, if you still think your position is actually a reasonable secular ethical argument, I'm going to continue to tear it apart because -- in case this wasn't already clear --

Your.

Argument.

Doesn't.

Make.

Any.

Sense.

At.

All.

[Alcon]

I impose it on public policy because not doing so would make me an accomplice to sin, which also isn't tolerated by god. The only way I'd change this is if one could prove to me through scripture that god has given up on imposing man-woman marriage. I know there are christians who personally support gay marriage (not just endorse it to separate church and state, but endorse it because they truly support it), but their argument, as I understand it, is simply "Well, that was a long time ago, and surely god doesn't endorse 'unreasonable political positions'". That's not an argument that's (to my knowledge, correct if wrong) supported by the bible, it's just a rationalization.

I'm an atheist, so I don't really have a position on what interpretations of the Bible are 'correct' or not.  However, in your last post you just unequivocally stated that you refuse to change your mind, so I'm not sure why you're asking anyway.  You seem to have decided that you have a religiously-formed conceptualization of what's good and bad, and that you will support public policies based on that, even if -- in more secular terms of "good" and "bad," the ones we've been discussing -- those policies do net-harm.

If you'd like me to explain why I think that position is a problem, I can.  But, again, that's not my issue.  My issue is that you've defended this position, up until now, with a secular argument.  I'm not sure why you have, since I gather it's not your primary argument, and it honestly seems reverse-engineered.  My issue here is that I want you to understand the secular argument you've levied just does not hold up logically at all.

[Alcon]

I used a secular argument because, those, when used effectively, are more convincing in society. I have not found an infallible secular argument for SSM prohibition, but the argument I presented here is one I feel is closer to infallible than "wait and see" or "SS couples are bad at raising children", which are the other main secular arguments for SSM prohibition, outside of downright crazy arguments like the 900,000 abortions thing.

Do you, or do you not, still believe the argument you've been forwarding?  I've now spent like five long posts systematically explaining why the argument totally fails, and now you're describing it as "closer to infallible" than other (admittedly terrible) arguments.  Is this actually an argument you're going to continue to defend (how?!), or is it just a well-intentioned rationalization you put forth to avoid admitting your real argument was religious?

I misspoke above when I said I would never change my position - but again, the only way I would (consider) endorse(ing) SSM is if I were to be convinced that prohibiting it is not in fact endorsed by scripture.

I get that your argument is that secular evaluations of good and harm don't matter to you, because you allow your personal religious views to override them when deciding public policy.   Why are you open to an argument that you're wrong on scripture, but not an argument that this approach to public policy is a problem?

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, you've made me legitimately curious here. If you have an argument beyond "church and state separation is good" on why my approach to public policy is a problem, go ahead and explain it. Not saying it will change my mind, but I'm curious enough to hear you out.

I'm happy to do that, but first, can you tell me whether or not you still endorse your secular argument here?  You just called it "closer to infallible" (?!) than other arguments...it certainly sounds less ridiculous than those arguments, but do you actually still believe it's logically sound?  If so, dude, how?

[Alcon]

I don't know, you could try not being disingenuous instead?  It's one thing to present a sound argument based on a premise you don't share with the person who's listening.  It's another to present an argument that you know is just plain logically unsound.

I'll write up an explanation of my concerns about your religious rationale as soon as I can.  Sorry if there's some delay on that.

[Alcon]

Actually, Wulfric, let me start by posing you the question.  Do you believe there are any situations where it is inappropriate to enforce your conceptualization of "good" and "bad" -- versus a secular conceptualization -- when making public policy?  If so, why is it inappropriate there, but appropriate when it comes to your position on same-sex marriage?

This isn't a trap.  I'd just like to hear your logic first.

[Alcon]

Actually, Wulfric, let me start by posing you the question.  Do you believe there are any situations where it is inappropriate to enforce your conceptualization of "good" and "bad" -- versus a secular conceptualization -- when making public policy?  If so, why is it inappropriate there, but appropriate when it comes to your position on same-sex marriage?

This isn't a trap.  I'd just like to hear your logic first.

I'm not aware of any scripture inconsistencies in my platform. But if I were to go against scripture on anything, it would be because I believe that denying a certain benefit to society is awfully inhumane. Denying SS couples some of the rights of marriage is not something I feel is "awfully inhumane".

I appreciate the response, but you haven't really answered my question very clearly.  You're saying that you believe that government policy should be formed based on your interpretation of Christian scripture unless the results are "awfully inhumane"?

If so, why would it matter to you if the results are "awfully inhumane"?  That's a serious question.  Why are you willing to do (from a secular analysis) net-harm from your beliefs, but not anything so net-harmful it's "awfully inhumane"?  Your belief about religious truth is what it is; I do not understand why any level of harm would trump that for you.  After all, you claim you're not at all bothered by the idea of theologizing public policy.

[Alcon]

Wulfric clearly needs to move to a different part of Minnesota and become a hipster Christian instead.

go away, dad is trying to have his grown-up business conversation

()

[Alcon]

Because I have a conscience as well, and I simply cannot bring myself to follow a commandment that I vehemently disagree with. Sure, maybe the perfect christian would be willing to enact every level of harm on society. But it's not something I can in good conscience bring myself to do.

So you consider your inability to gravely harm others in accordance of your religious beliefs to be a personal moral failure?  That inability is not something you think is right, since you're fine with harming people less severely.  In fact, you think it would be right to harm them (even gravely) through public policy, if that was consistent with scripture.  It's just that, if the harm was grave enough, you'd be unable to support it, because it would be too emotionally upsetting for you -- not because you think it's wrong to theologize public policy, or wrong to harm people (even gravely) if it's compatible with scripture, but because it would be emotionally upsetting for you if the harm was great enough.  Correct?

If that's the case, it's at least consistent, and I'll move on to explaining why I'd encourage you to reconsider your support of theologizing public policy.

[Alcon]

All right, I think you can understand why that's a pretty terrifying position already -- but to show why, let me poke around a little more.

From the perspective of propriety of state activity, do you have no problem with Islamist states that enforce extreme religious views?  You wouldn't have any problem with a state, say, enforcing female genital mutilation to encourage purity (besides that your personal religious views don't demand that)?

You think that's a totally acceptable role for the state, though, if 50%+1 of voters in that state say it is, and that they have no moral obligation to consider a secular harm test before enforcing their will through public policy?

[Alcon]

All right, I think you can understand why that's a pretty terrifying position already -- but to show why, let me poke around a little more.

From the perspective of propriety of state activity, do you have no problem with Islamist states that enforce extreme religious views?  You wouldn't have any problem with a state, say, enforcing female genital mutilation to encourage purity (besides that your personal religious views don't demand that)?

You think that's a totally acceptable role for the state, though, if 50%+1 of voters in that state say it is, and that they have no moral obligation to consider a secular harm test before enforcing their will through public policy?

I don't endorse the Islamic state ideology. As far as I'm concerned, their religion, and the Islam religion in general, is an utter falsehood that no one should follow. Genital mutilation is wrong for obvious reasons, and if scripture commanded it, it would be a commandment that I could not in good conscience follow.

You didn't really answer my question.

Do you think the people who have those religious beliefs don't sincerely hold them?  Do you think they don't care about harm, and are just bad people who don't care about doing the wrong thing, unlike you?  That's obviously not the case, dude.  Your argument basically comes down to "oh, of course I wouldn't do that!  I'm a good person, so even if I believed that was true and moral, I'd feel too uncomfortable to do it!"  Either you think that vast swaths of the world somehow just don't care about their neighbors or daughters, and don't care about being good people, or you know damn well that those people think they're doing the right thing for their religion, just like you do.

So, with that in mind, do you think it's appropriate for them to be crafting public policy based entirely on their personal religious ideology, or do you think they have some obligation to do use a secular harm test when applying personal views to political ideology?  

If so, when?  You just stated that you think it's a personal failure that you're unwilling to implement your religious views, even in cases where they cause grave harm.  Either you genuinely don't think there's any moral limit on theologizing public policy, which is a scary extreme political belief, or you do, and you just don't want to concede it, maybe because it makes your position on same-sex marriage look problematic?

[Alcon]

So, basically, you think it's totally acceptable to enforce any of your religious beliefs through public policy, and the only thing stopping you is a vague sense of guilt?  And you think there is nothing wrong with theologizing public opinion, and no moral reason to limit it -- you just disagree with some theologies?  And you have no qualms with this argument?

Just nailing this down before I explain why I think it's a problem.

[Alcon]

So, basically, you think it's totally acceptable to enforce any of your religious beliefs through public policy, and the only thing stopping you is a vague sense of guilt?  And you think there is nothing wrong with theologizing public opinion, and no moral reason to limit it -- you just disagree with some theologies?  And you have no qualms with this argument?

Well, it's not something I'm fully comfortable with, but that's just the devil trying to dissuade me from following god. God expects me to get past the temptation to give into the devil and considers the times that I don't as moral failures on my part. Forgivable through Christ's sacrifice, sure. But, they're still moral failures.

I'm trying to get at what situations you think it's inappropriate to theologize public policy, and as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) your answer appears to be "it's totally fine unless I disagree with the theology"...

Why do you oppose mandating Christianity and every aspect of Christian morality?  Or do you?

Sorry for fixating on this, but you're a lot more extreme on this issue than I assumed.

[Alcon]

These are faithful Christians entering into the sacrament of marriage before God in His church, and no one can ever say otherwise.

Because he believes that God says that's wrong, "and no one can ever say otherwise."  You just ended a sentence with "and no one can ever say otherwise" and you're asking how he can have a rigid, faith-based view?

[Alcon]

Because he believes that God says that's wrong, "and no one can ever say otherwise."  You just ended a sentence with "and no one can ever say otherwise" and you're asking how he can have a rigid, faith-based view?

Not up on your Update memes, I see?

God dude, no

Understand now, though

[Alcon]

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

I really did not expect you to be so authoritarian and radical on this issue.  You are one of the very few people I've ever met who apparently thinks it's just fine to superimpose any and all personal beliefs on public policymaking, and that personal religious beliefs trump a secular harm test in all instances of policymaking.  That just seems so damn perilous to me, but not to you?

Yikes.  That's internally consistent, but it might be the most extreme position I've ever seen on this forum.

[Alcon]

^ BRTD's questions are pretty close to the ones I intended to ask, so I'll defer to them, Wulfric.