Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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!).

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

I'm not going to respond with a long effortpost here, simply because people take this issue way too seriously here, as if it's the most important issue in existence. But, to respond to your earlier post fairly quickly...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- I realize that couples marry out of love for each other and not just out of a desire to have children, but the state obviously incentivizes it mainly because of the procreation aspect. Even though not all of the benefits of marriage clearly benefit the child, the state still offers these benefits to attract couples to marriage, which makes it more likely that they will choose to have a child. Obviously, the state has a limited amount of money, so it only makes sense to fully incentivize the marriages that most promote its interest in procreation, and that is opposite sex couples, who unlike most gay couples, can typically reproduce and can therefore have children regardless of the availability of adopting children.

- So, then, why do I support civil unions and gay adoption? Because, ultimately, raising children in a same sex home is probably a better situation than raising them in an orphanage, and it only makes sense to provide some limited incentives to get that adoption to happen. But since it is not the type of relationship that is most beneficial to the state's interest in procreation, it should not be treated as equal to an opposite sex marriage.

- I don't support reducing benefits for say, opposite sex marriages created in poverty, because it still upholds the state's interest in procreation by being an opposite sex marriage, rather than a same sex marriage. Opposite sex marriages are always more beneficial to the state interest in procreation than same sex marriage because opposite sex marriages are much more likely to be able to reproduce on their own.

- As I've stated earlier, I don't support reducing benefits for infertile opposite sex couples because that would require providing one's full medical record to be allowed to marry, which I believe is a clear violation of privacy.

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What has marriage got to do with encouraging procreation when 41% of all new mothers in the USA are single or unmarried?

Assuming you're correct on that statistic, that still means 59% of all new mothers are married, meaning that marriage still makes procreation more likely.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Even as an SSM opponent, this argument is beyond silly.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Afleitch has already pretty much demolished the "procreation" argument here, so I'm going to go onto this little gem:

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.

Beg me French, BUT WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN!

This reminds me of all the arguments that I vaguely recall being made by a non-avatar during 2011 that the Democrats should just give up 2012 and 2016 so that the GOP could be blamed for anything that goes wrong and they can claim a veto proof supermajority in Congress!  I mean seriously bro, this makes no damn sense!  I repeat THIS MAKES NO DAMN SENSE!

I would think the fundamental objective of PRO-GAY MARRIAGE folks is to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE, not to harken back to the moderate hero Stephen A. Douglas position on every big social issue in order to avoid being associated with the consequences!  I don't think people who are as adamant about gay marriage really care at this point how it gets done, just that it gets done.  That is what happened in Loving v. Virginia and that is what is happening now.

There are just some issues that should not be trusted to state legislatures and the rule of the majority.  This issue is one of them.

If you don't like that, tough.

So much for you being a conservative.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Afleitch has already pretty much demolished the "procreation" argument here, so I'm going to go onto this little gem:

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.

Beg me French, BUT WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN!

This reminds me of all the arguments that I vaguely recall being made by a non-avatar during 2011 that the Democrats should just give up 2012 and 2016 so that the GOP could be blamed for anything that goes wrong and they can claim a veto proof supermajority in Congress!  I mean seriously bro, this makes no damn sense!  I repeat THIS MAKES NO DAMN SENSE!

I would think the fundamental objective of PRO-GAY MARRIAGE folks is to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE, not to harken back to the moderate hero Stephen A. Douglas position on every big social issue in order to avoid being associated with the consequences!  I don't think people who are as adamant about gay marriage really care at this point how it gets done, just that it gets done.  That is what happened in Loving v. Virginia and that is what is happening now.

There are just some issues that should not be trusted to state legislatures and the rule of the majority.  This issue is one of them.

If you don't like that, tough.

So much for you being a conservative.

Mecha is a lefty.

Then why does he have a republican avatar?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- 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.

- 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. 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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We could see something big tomorrow. I am convinced that the Supreme Court will make the decision national quickly. Federal rulings tend to apply to all states unless something very specific relates to one state or a few, as on voting rights.

Tomorrow is just oral arguments. Nothing will be decided until June.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

- 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.

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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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?1 

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?)2

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?3

1. Yes

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.

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. 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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Look, at the end of the day, the state doesn't have any control over how much people actually love their spouses or how well they raise their children. Yes, the latter may be somewhat determined by environmental factors, but there's also tons of personal choice on the part of the parent as well. 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).

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.
 

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, in order to get to the next level, heightened scrutiny, you have to make the case that sexual orientation is close to a suspect class (strict scrutiny applies if it is a suspect class). Let's look at the criteria to be a suspect class.

1. Does the group have a history of discrimination? - The knee-jerk answer is yes, but...

How much history is there? A liberal group might say it's almost all of time, given that gay marriage wasn't officially allowed from the beginning of human history until Massachusetts began allowing same sex marriages in 2003. But others may shorten the definition to ~1960's to present, saying that it can't really be considered discrimination until the discriminated group actively dislikes it. You could also say that the discrimination didn't really begin until the 1980/90s (not sure which), when states actually began to officially endorse the man-woman definition by officially prohibiting same sex marriages - before, such prohibitions had only been implied and were followed out of mere tradition, not law. So, is 30 years enough history? is 50 years? It really becomes up to the whims of the judge, as no official standard is set.

Also, one could argue that the discrimination isn't widespread enough, because the only state-sanctioned means of it in modern times is in the area of marriage - laws officially sanctioning discrimination based on sexual orientation in other areas were unheard of in the modern history of the country until Indiana's recent short-lived bill. Before then, states simply often failed to say whether it was okay or not - and refusal to express an opinion is not an official endorsement by the state.

So, in all fairness, I'm assigning "Maybe" as the answer to question 1. It's really up to the whims to the judge here.

2. Does the group lack political power? - Obvious No

3. Does the group have an immutable characteristic? - This seems to be a Yes, although I suppose one could argue that since one can hide their sexual orientation that it is mutable. I don't see many justices jumping on to that idea, but out of fairness I'll rule the answer to question 3 to be "Probably".

4. Is the group a distinct minority? - Obvious Yes

So, sexual orientation, depending on the whims of the judge, would meet 1 characteristic in the worst imaginable situation, and 3 in the best imaginable situation (speaking from the liberals perspective, obviously). Some judges may say "close enough" and declare it a quasi-suspect class, enabling heightened scrutiny, others may choose rational basis. We've already seen this difference in classification happen - among the various courts that have judged SSM, some have used a rational basis standard, others apply heightened scrutiny, a few have even done strict scrutiny. Since rational basis is the only standard that sexual orientation definitively and indisputably qualifies for, it is the standard that I feel that should be applied.

Under rational basis, SSM bans easily pass, as all that is needed is a reasonable reason for their existence - in this case, to promote the unions that are most beneficial to the state interest in procreation.

Under heightened scrutiny, where it must serve an important government interest and be substantially related to that interest, I would argue that SSM bans still pass, because the state endorsing opposite sex couples substantially furthers its interest in procreation - refusing to endorse the same sex couple doesn't make it an unsubstantial furthering of that interest. Only when we get to strict scrutiny, where "least restrictive" means is required, do SSM bans finally fall.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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.  

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

At the end of the day, I know that this issue admittedly doesn't have much impact on the overall welfare of the country, so I typically don't vote based on it. That's how I can support politicians such as Ann Kirkpatrick (D, AZ-01) and Mark Kirk (R, IL) in good conscience - because I look beyond their liberal positions on gay marriage and abortion and see that, on the whole, they are good politicians. But I don't see myself ever supporting the gay marriage/abortion aspects of their platform.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I listened to the oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges today. Very interesting.

The lawyer for Question 1 pretty much does Wulfric's procreation argument. Ginsberg slammed it easily by noting that it would be unconstitutional for states to revoke marriage licenses for postmenopausal women.

Question 2 is hilarious, however. Donald Whalen for the State of Tennessee completely bungles his case. He declares that there is no constitutional right for Tennessee to recognize even heterosexual marriages from other states, and that there is precedent in the court for this. The case he brings up Breyer rips up from memory as irrelevant. Even Scalia is shocked that Whalen would try to use that and ends up nudging him to talk about Article IV of the Constitution instead of attempting to draw up precedence, to which Whalen responds "I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, your honor."

For reference: I listened as well, and the case referenced is Nevada v. Hall, which was a case on people negligently injured on highways, not even remotely related to the issue of marriage: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/410/

-----

I think "same sex marriage not a right, but must be recongized if performed legally" is the most likely outcome. Even Breyer expressed concern at one point during question 1 w/ SCOTUS deciding the issue of marriage for the country, but question 2 was such a disaster for the anti-ssm side that Mr. Whalen actually ended his oral argument 10 minutes before his time would have expired.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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 really don't have a position on what interpretations of the Bible are correct or not.  However, in your last post you just unequivocally stated that you have no 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.

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.

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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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?

I do not feel it is logically sound, I just feel that there isn't a better secular argument to use instead.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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?

I do not feel it is logically sound, I just feel that there isn't a better secular argument to use instead.

So will you at least concede that your earlier statement that gays haven not faced a history of discrimination in this country is absurd?

I forgot about sodomy laws when I was typing that, so yes.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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".

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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?  It's essentially not something you think is right, since you're fine with harming them less severely.  In fact, you think it would be right to harm them 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?

Yes

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Their religion is an utter falsehood, so no. If they were to become Christians, then yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying that all of god's commandments are things I would be willing to publicly campaign on/advocate for if one asked me to do so. I don't feel god expects me to do so. But if they were to come up at the ballot box as refrendums, then I believe god expects me to vote for them out of faith. Sure, god is the eventual final arbiter on whether someone has been truly repentant and deserves forgiveness. But that doesn't mean he expects man to show a nonchalant attitude towards others' sin.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.