New York's highest court OK's marriages between half-uncles and half-nieces

[Cyber Liberty]

SOME churches will be willing to conduct the ceremony, and they would have every right to do so under Constitutional protection, so we will end up in the same place any way.

I fear the government may still demand churches that don't want to conduct the same ceremony to do so.  Whether this is legal or not would depend on the Judge?  It should not be the State's business if it's strictly a church's ceremony, and not entangled with the State's recognition of the contract.

[musiclady]

This Victorian portrayal omits the common practice of spiriting the pregnant young thing away, so as to take this situation out of sight. Control the optics. Be dishonest and mislead.

Hiding the "mistakes" creates the illusion that the "moral leaders" are getting positive results.

Moral standards preceded Queen Victoria, t_s.   Read the Founding Fathers.......

[Luis Gonzalez]

Ultimately, I see the word "marriage" falling into legal non-use for both hetero- and homosexual marriages.

This original story seems to be a look at the "slippery slope" argument.  A moot point if the word "marriage" goes away

(I'm still digesting Bastiat.  I'm taking my time on that!)

Can I point to the starting point in the slippery slope descent?

"Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church." - Martin Luther

Martin Luther gave birth to the notion that the State could define (or redefine) what up to that point in time belonged to God, and once that was done the institution of marriage fell under the purview of the state government, rather than the Church.

Now with God having been taken out of marriage, and it being placed in the hands of the state government, the government was then able to do with marriage whatsoever it so desired. In the hands of government marriage soon became dissoluble. No-fault divorce and remarriage became the law of the land. Then with marriage no longer being a permanent union, children became disposable objects, which opened up the door to the redefinition of the procreative act in marriage. Contraception and abortion became legal. The sexual revolution was in full swing and all of it driven primarily by heterosexuals because even with the sexual revolution in full swing homosexuality was criminalized. But once children and conjugal acts between man and woman were no longer thought as being connected to marriage, marriage was then redefined as something other than one man and one woman.

Many people like to point at homosexuals and accuse them of pushing marriage down a dangerous and immoral slippery slope. They are wrong and their arguments lack honesty. All that same sex couples want to do is jump of the marriage wagon as it slides past them on the way down the long, 500-year fall that it has been on since Martin Luther pushed it off the cliff.

[Bigun]

Everyone still ignoring the elephant in the room I see!

So be it!

[Cyber Liberty]

Can I point to the starting point in the slippery slope descent?

"Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church." - Martin Luther

Martin Luther gave birth to the notion that the State could define (or redefine) what up to that point in time belonged to God, and once that was done the institution of marriage fell under the purview of the state government, rather than the Church.

Now with God having been taken out of marriage, and it being placed in the hands of the state government, the government was then able to do with marriage whatsoever it so desired. In the hands of government marriage soon became dissoluble. No-fault divorce and remarriage became the law of the land. Then with marriage no longer being a permanent union, children became disposable objects, which opened up the door to the redefinition of the procreative act in marriage. Contraception and abortion became legal. The sexual revolution was in full swing and all of it driven primarily by heterosexuals because even with the sexual revolution in full swing homosexuality was criminalized. But once children and conjugal acts between man and woman were no longer thought as being connected to marriage, marriage was then redefined as something other than one man and one woman.

Many people like to point at homosexuals and accuse them of pushing marriage down a dangerous and immoral slippery slope. They are wrong and their arguments lack honesty. All that same sex couples want to do is jump of the marriage wagon as it slides past them on the way down the long, 500-year fall that it has been on since Martin Luther pushed it off the cliff.

I can't disagree with any of that.  There is an entanglement that has existed for a very long time, you pegged the start of it about as well as anybody.  In fact, if one substitutes the word "education" for "marriage" in your post, the result is the same (except for the Martin Luther part).

[Cyber Liberty]

Everyone still ignoring the elephant in the room I see!

So be it!

There are a lot of elephants in the room, which is why every thread on the subject ends up over 50 posts...you'll have to be more specific.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

I fear the government may still demand churches that don't want to conduct the same ceremony to do so.  Whether this is legal or not would depend on the Judge?  It should not be the State's business if it's strictly a church's ceremony, and not entangled with the State's recognition of the contract.

What's ironic about that is that if that possibility ever actually arises, all the legal arguments made by atheists against Christians and religion in general will be used to defend Churches.

You simply cannot have a government, any government at any level, forcing anyone to utter religious words and conduct religious acts under any sort of penalty. That is the textbook definition of establishment of religion.

Here's Eugene Volokh on the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel issue:

Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can’t require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)

It is worthy of note that on October 24 the township of Coeur d’Alene withdrew its demands, and confirmed that the Knapps are free to refuse to conduct same sex wedding ceremonies.

[MACVSOG68]

I don't know what world you lived in, MAC, but the idea that morality was "worse" in the 1950's and early 60's and "quietly accepted" is a remarkable stretch from the reality of American life 60 years ago.  (Sounds kinda like a Hollywood revisionist perspective to me).

Well I gave you several reasons.  If same-sex marriage is the only equivalent to your definition of morality, then you're correct we're more immoral today.  Simply because a society restricts something such as birth control, abortion, privacy, it isn't necessarily proof of a higher degree of morality.  There are areas I would agree with you, such as video games, Hollywood movies and internet sex availability among others.  And I lived through the 40's 50's and 60's, and yes, out-of-wedlock pregnancies were frowned upon, which meant forced marriages, sending her to Aunt Claire, back-alley abortions.  And everyone was aware of what went on, but ignoring it all meant they were more moral.

Cultural rejection of homosexuals didn't equate to better morality either; nor did social shunning of interracial marriages.  Pedophilia within families was kept under the rug as was abuse by others in positions of responsibility.  Drunk driving was far more of a joke than it is today.  Kids could go into the raunchiest of bars. We could go on, but yes, many things were less moral than they are today.

As much as I may regret it, I'm going to continue with another question for you....

Have you ever been to a country with either no traffic laws, or unenforced traffic laws?  (like, say, India where people drive on the wrong side of the road at full speed because they feel like it??)

Is traffic the same as, or better there than it is in, let's say, America, where traffic laws are stricter?

Not that I follow the logic, but yes I've been in many countries, none of which had better traffic laws than we do.  But we have stricter traffic laws today than we did years ago.  Does that mean we're better today than we were?

The truth is, that when society agrees upon and enforces standards, behavior overall is BETTER.  That is not to say that in America no one speeds or runs stoplights, or even drives drunk, but to say that a country with legal and societal standards makes behavior WORSE, is nearly an absurdity.

When American culture expected sexual standards to be upheld, many, many people avoided bad behavior because of the shame of a society that, as a whole, agreed on those standards.  That is not to say that adultery didn't exist, that sexual abuse of children didn't exist, that children engaging in oral sex didn't exist, that illegitimate births never happened, that rampant promiscuity in some individuals didn't exist, but to say that American sexual morality was WORSE in the 1950's than it is now, when many people think that absolutely nothing is wrong if you 'feel like it', is, frankly, ludicrous.

Well, no, some things were less moral today and some more so.  We have stronger laws today on child sex, but that doesn't seem to indicate BETTER behavior.  Back then, laws that trampled on privacy between consenting adults actually resulted in far more dangerous behavior, with some terrible outcomes.  It wasn't any more moral than Islamic countries that have restrictive laws on women today.  Restrictive sex laws don't always produce the desired result.

[Bigun]

There are a lot of elephants in the room, which is why every thread on the subject ends up over 50 posts...you'll have top be more specific.   

See this post:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,152588.msg615555.html#msg615555

[mountaineer]

Until relatively recent times in our history, birth control, interracial marriages and even privacy in the bedroom were  in many jurisdictions.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

[MACVSOG68]

Upon reflection, I think you made this statement merely to provoke, and not to stimulate rational discussion, and I'm sorry I fell for it.

On the other hand, I thank you for providing me yet another opportunity to speak some common sense in response to your provocation.

You're entirely welcome. 

[MACVSOG68]

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Hardly.  I responded to the proposition that more restrictive laws produce positive results.  Each of those was an issue involving so-called morality at one time.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well I gave you several reasons.  If same-sex marriage is the only equivalent to your definition of morality, then you're correct we're more immoral today. 

Any current society is "more immoral" than any past society simply because societal change is viewed as immoral by moralists.

What they never see is that (proportionally) the past they are comparing to the present in order to pass judgement on today's society, was every bit as decadent when compared to the society that preexisted it.

Older people in the 1950's saw Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and their fans as signs of societal moral decay, then those fans of Elvis and Jerry Lee say Grace Slick and Jim Morrison as a sign of societal moral decay, then Jim's and Grace's fans saw Devo and Boy George and say "WTF? Things are gong to Hell in a hand basket!" and so on and so forth..

And here we are.

[mountaineer]

It might be argued that any prohibition against two persons of the same sex getting married is not so much a moral issue as one of reality. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage because marriage is the union of a man and woman. You can call it marriage, but it isn't. You can call a telephone a pencil, but it isn't. The name is not the thing, as S.I. Hayakawa said.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It might be argued that any prohibition against two persons of the same sex getting married is not so much a moral issue as one of reality. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage because marriage is the union of a man and woman. You can call it marriage, but it isn't. You can call a telephone a pencil, but it isn't. The name is not the thing, as S.I. Hayakawa said.

So then, what's the problem?

[musiclady]

Well I gave you several reasons.  If same-sex marriage is the only equivalent to your definition of morality, then you're correct we're more immoral today.  Simply because a society restricts something such as birth control, abortion, privacy, it isn't necessarily proof of a higher degree of morality.  There are areas I would agree with you, such as video games, Hollywood movies and internet sex availability among others.  And I lived through the 40's 50's and 60's, and yes, out-of-wedlock pregnancies were frowned upon, which meant forced marriages, sending her to Aunt Claire, back-alley abortions.  And everyone was aware of what went on, but ignoring it all meant they were more moral.

Cultural rejection of homosexuals didn't equate to better morality either; nor did social shunning of interracial marriages.  Pedophilia within families was kept under the rug as was abuse by others in positions of responsibility.  Drunk driving was far more of a joke than it is today.  Kids could go into the raunchiest of bars. We could go on, but yes, many things were less moral than they are today.

Not that I follow the logic, but yes I've been in many countries, none of which had better traffic laws than we do.  But we have stricter traffic laws today than we did years ago.  Does that mean we're better today than we were?

Well, no, some things were less moral today and some more so.  We have stronger laws today on child sex, but that doesn't seem to indicate BETTER behavior.  Back then, laws that trampled on privacy between consenting adults actually resulted in far more dangerous behavior, with some terrible outcomes.  It wasn't any more moral than Islamic countries that have restrictive laws on women today.  Restrictive sex laws don't always produce the desired result.

I'm sorry, MAC, but I stopped reading after your first absurd statement...

Your assertion that "same-sex marriage is the only equivalent to (my) definition of morality" is a blatant attempt to completely disregard practically every statement I've made regarding morality, and the myriad of other moral problems we have now that I have discussed.

This discussion is therefore, done, as you have continued to distort what I've said beyond recognition.

You've been convinced by the left that homosexual 'marriage' is harmless and somehow akin to a civil right (a completely different animal), and that those of us who stand by marriage between a man and a woman only, and stand for the traditional definition of morality, are somehow misinformed and/or homophobic  (another absurdity).

So be it.   You have the right to think whatever you think and believe whatever you believe, as have I.

I have tried in our discussions to address the actual words you've said, but I don't believe you've given me the same courtesy.

Again, so be it.

Consider me wiser now than I was this morning regarding your methods.

Have a great evening.

[musiclady]

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Absolutely!

Diversionary tactics, albeit commonly used, designed to avoid a proper discussion of the actual issue.

[Cyber Liberty]

What's ironic about that is that if that possibility ever actually arises, all the legal arguments made by atheists against Christians and religion in general will be used to defend Churches.

A big "if."  It's good you emphasized it.  Do I think it will come to pass?  Probably not, but it's worth considering.  It probably won't happen because it's a pretty easy to demagog the issue (from either side).

You simply cannot have a government, any government at any level, forcing anyone to utter religious words and conduct religious acts under any sort of penalty. That is the textbook definition of establishment of religion.

Here's Eugene Volokh on the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel issue:

It is worthy of note that on October 24 the township of Coeur d’Alene withdrew its demands, and confirmed that the Knapps are free to refuse to conduct same sex wedding ceremonies.

I read that about Coeur d’Alene the other day.  I'm glad they dropped the issue because even winning would have destroyed that church/business.  I'm not sure the part about it being a part of their home would have flown in court.  I hadn't read the Volokh quote, I like it, but I fear a court may simply decide against that argument.  They do that a lot lately.

I call court a crap-shoot, and nothing has convinced me otherwise.  I'm cynical.

[mountaineer]

ob·tuse adjective \äb-ˈtüs, əb-, -ˈtyüs\ 

: stupid or unintelligent : not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple

[musiclady]

You're entirely welcome.

And thank you for admitting you're doing no more than playing a game here.

[Cyber Liberty]

See this post:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,152588.msg615555.html#msg615555

Thanks.  An elephant, indeed.  There is more than one in here....

[musiclady]

Everyone still ignoring the elephant in the room I see!

So be it!

I'm seeing the elephant big as life, Bigun.

The left's long time propaganda campaign to break down cultural standards has been very successful.

[Luis Gonzalez]

ob·tuse adjective \äb-ˈtüs, əb-, -ˈtyüs\ 

: stupid or unintelligent : not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple

Exactly.

So if you believe that homosexual marriage doesn't exist, then why do you object to homosexuals calling it a marriage, since you know that they are wrong and that no such thing exists?

It's like opposing the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy when you know that no such thing exists.

What's the use?

They don't exist.

[Cyber Liberty]

Any current society is "more immoral" than any past society simply because societal change is viewed as immoral by moralists.

What they never see is that (proportionally) the past they are comparing to the present in order to pass judgement on today's society, was every bit as decadent when compared to the society that preexisted it.

Older people in the 1950's saw Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and their fans as signs of societal moral decay, then those fans of Elvis and Jerry Lee say Grace Slick and Jim Morrison as a sign of societal moral decay, then Jim's and Grace's fans saw Devo and Boy George and say "WTF? Things are gong to Hell in a hand basket!" and so on and so forth..

And here we are.

Is this where I say, "Kids these days?"   

[musiclady]

See this post:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,152588.msg615555.html#msg615555

I notice that no one seems to be addressing that this legal step is being taken by one of the farthest LEFT states in the Union.

It is the LEFT who is marching us, in the words of Robert Bork, toward Gomorrah......

And it is quite deliberate.