Senate President Codey has postponed the vote on the "Marriage Equality" bill at the request of its sponsors, Senators Ray Lesniak and Loretta Weinberg. Lesniak and Weinberg don't have the votes to pass the bill. They say they want the Assembly Judiciary Committee to debate the bill before the Senate votes.
In the comments here at MMM, and elsewhere, "social conservatives" have been making the argument that procreation, or even the possibility of procreation is the fundamental reason for marriage to be legally between one man and one woman. What does that say about marriages between one man and one woman wherein procreation is medically impossible? What about marriages between one man and one woman who are beyond their child bearing years? Should birth control be illegal in marriages?
One reader sent me an article that argues that cohabitation is detrimental to society, a sin against social justice. What about cohabitating widows and widowers who cannot afford to get married due to the loss of pension or social security benefits if they did? I have an uncle in his 80's who got remarried within two years of being widowed. He could afford to. I have another uncle cohabitating. He can't afford to get married and was never very good at it anyway.
Is Tiger Woods in such trouble because he was caught catting around or because he is married? On Sunday I was watching the football games at one of Highlands' finest establishments. One of the sociological experts on the other side of the bar was arguing that Woods' problems were due to being married and invoked the names of single sport stars to make his point. The stars he mentioned haven't procreated, as far as we know.
Let Me Count the Ways
1 day ago
Posts
10 comments:
As a "cohabitating" boyfriend of a divorced, and annulled, mother with a teenage child (consider the hypocrisy there - the woman has a child with her husband - married in a Roman Catholic Church - and the church grants an annulment after the couple had a child together, essentially making the child a "bastard child" but that's another issue..) I'll gladly own up to being the "smarty" referenced in that linked article, which is the biggest load of crap ever written behind only articles about global warming.
I've said it before and I'll continue to say it over and over again, the problem is that the government got into the marriage BUSINESS. The solution is for the government to get out of the marriage BUSINESS and leave the sacrament/institution/celebration to the church(es). The government's choice of the word "marriage" to mean a legal civil union conflicts with the church's definition of the word and causes confusion and arguments.
In fairness, the gays aren't helping the situation any by asking for legal "marriage" when what they really want is the benefits of a legal civil union. For that matter, my girlfriend and I would gladly accept the benefits of a legal civil union, but I pay more than enough taxes to this broke state as it is, we won't pay the luxury tax to obtain a "marriage license" to have the government put their stamp of approval on a consenting relationship between me and my girlfriend and any conservative should be outraged that the government is so powerful that it can determine which adults can, or can't, be in a legal relationship.
So because some Hetros can not have kids that means marriage should be between gays as well? Talk about empty argument. Hey may neighbor loves her cat, she should be able to marry the cat and the cat get survivior beneies. The sad thing is we are wasting any time on this issue. Feed the hungry, cure the sick, end corruption in government then we can worry about if gay people want to pretend they are married just like a husband and wife. I'm mad at myself for even wasting the time typing this post.
Talk about empty argument
What argument?
With all do respect to two fine gentleman, here is the fallacy that both James and Art fail to recognize.
They believe that private morality does not impact society. As the linked article shows and as many other studies as well as a good dose of logic show that belief is false.
The second trap they have fallen into is a classical liberal mistake. If we can turn up a couple of people that turned out all right like a kid who was raised by a single parent and against all odds turned out ok we can ignore the statistical evidence that shows lack of a moral structure is harmful. We need to look at broad social implications to measure the impact of certain policies or behaviours not the impact on individuals. I have found this to be a key difference between liberal and conservative thought. (not that James and Art are Liberals, they are clearly Libertarians)
I few posts ago Art asked if Adultry should be illegal.
Here is my answer Adultry harms your family ,your wife and children just as much as if you slapped them around. That is why it is worse then "catting around" and yes it should be illegal.
They believe that private morality does not impact society. As the linked article shows and as many other studies as well as a good dose of logic show that belief is false.
ML, I can't speak for James, but you are out in right field as far as my beliefs are concerned.
Our differences, ML's and mine, have to do with the role of government and civil law, vs the role of religions or moral law. I believe that in a free society that they must be distinct.
I completely respect the beliefs of my friends who believe that eating pork is immoral, so long as they don't interfere with my bacon egg and cheese sandwiches. It is probably true that bacon, egg and cheese is not good for me, even if it is not a sin to eat it but you can GFY if you're going to legislate my diet.
Same goes for where I poke my pecker.
Show me the statistics to "prove" that adultery is as damaging as physical abuse and I'll show you statistics that "prove" the earth is warming due to human activity.
You're out of your righteous mind.
What about sodomy? If my wife or I go down on each other or have some back door play, will that have a negative impact on society? Should we be partially buried and stoned?
I completely respect your freedom to live as you choose, ML. I respect your choices to not use birth control and refrain from masterbating. I might even choose to live the same way, but it is none of your business if I do or don't and certainly none of the government's business.
Relgions, and relgious people need to start sharing how magnificent their lives are and leading people to choose to follow their creeds, rather than getting the government to legislate their morality into law complete with punishments for those who don't follow. That is just another government program that won't work any way.
What's the difference between your moral civics and sharia law?
WHOA there big fella. Where in my post did I say anything about religion? I'll tell you where. NOWHERE. I am talking about behaviour that many in society consider a matter of private morality but which I contend has an effect that extends beyond the individuals engaged in the conduct. Just because religion says its bad doesn't mean I accept that without using the brain God gave me to analyze it. On the other hand just because religion thinks its bad doesn't mean it isn't.
Even without the nmerous studies if you can't see the detrimental effects of the "sexual revolution" then you are either kidding yourself or blind.
So I am not talking about religous morality I am talking about regulation of behaviour that is demonstratably harmfull to third parties.
So whatever disgusting acts Art wants to engage in with his wife probably does not effect any one else. In addition regulating those acts is as a practical matter be difficult . If he wanted to 'Poke his Pecker" somewher while in the middle of Times Square, that would be a different issue.
Premarital sex and co-habitating ? making them illegal is not really an option even I understand that. However society should frown on it rather then condone it and I think government is right to favor marriage. It has proven to be a benefit to society.
We mess with it at our own risk.
Adultry? All right stoning to death is extreme but should it really get the free pass it does?
You really think cheating on your wife is not as harmful to your family as slapping your wife across the face would be. The physical damage from the strike is slight the emotional damage from either act is the same. Yeah yeah I know nobody is perfect but we do not use that as an excuse to let thieves and other criminals off the hook. Adultry is a truly odious act that causes great harm to other people and should be punished.
Sharia law? hardly. Just a recognition of the damage we are doing to ourselves.
BTW, how comforting that the dear lib SENJEN has had a "revelation", and suddenly isn't supporting gay marriage!!..ps:who's up for a primary run, next go-around?-hmmm?.. am SICK to death of these lib R's, that got us into most of the mess we're in!!!
ML said...
WHOA there big fella. Where in my post did I say anything about religion? I'll tell you where. NOWHERE.
You referenced an article in a Catholic publication with the word "sin" in the headline. You can deny it if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that your arguments come from religious morality.
I am talking about behaviour that many in society consider a matter of private morality but which I contend has an effect that extends beyond the individuals engaged in the conduct.
Welcome to a free society with indiviual rights.
If I were to commit adultery (you keep missing those ifs ML) it is true that it would have an impact beyond the lives of my wife and I and the other person involved. Spitzer's and McGreevey's antics are good examples. As governors the impact of their "sins" were far reaching. Even private citizens sinful actions have impact beyond the people involved.
Yet the punishments for the sinful acts are not and should not be a matter of criminal law (assuming prostitution, a crime, is not invovled..the Spitzer example breaks down there) and civil law only in divorce court. The punishments are unavoidable results of the damage caused to the primary and extended relationships...embarassment, shame, etc when the sinner is caught, and the break down of authentic communication and relatedness when "they get away with it." There really is no getting away with anything. That doesn't mean government should be involved. It shouldn't.
Just because religion says its bad doesn't mean I accept that without using the brain God gave me to analyze it. On the other hand just because religion thinks its bad doesn't mean it isn't.
Even without the nmerous studies if you can't see the detrimental effects of the "sexual revolution" then you are either kidding yourself or blind.
Agreed. There are also positive effects of the sexual revolution, which was a result of the birth control pill and other advances in contraception. Should contraception be illegal?
So I am not talking about religous morality
Yes, you are.
I am talking about regulation of behaviour that is demonstratably harmfull to third parties.
You're talking about totalitarianism and draconian invasion by the government into individual choices.
So whatever disgusting acts Art wants to engage in with his wife probably does not effect any one else.
Again, keep an eye on those ifs...and don't knock it till you've tried it.
In addition regulating those acts is as a practical matter be difficult . If he wanted to 'Poke his Pecker" somewher while in the middle of Times Square, that would be a different issue.
Indoors or outdoors? Outdoors you have a point.
Premarital sex and co-habitating ? making them illegal is not really an option even I understand that.
Progress. Same goes for any other consensual adult behavior.
However society should frown on it rather then condone it
That does not require criminal law enforcement.
and I think government is right to favor marriage. It has proven to be a benefit to society.
We mess with it at our own risk.
Agreed.
Adultry? All right stoning to death is extreme but should it really get the free pass it does?
There is no free pass. See above.
You really think cheating on your wife is not as harmful to your family as slapping your wife across the face would be.
You said "slapping around." And yes, I think slapping someone across the face should be punishable with jail time. Maybe if "you" (the generic you, not accusing ML of anything) got a little more "you" would be so angry or unable to control your urges.
The physical damage from the strike is slight the emotional damage from either act is the same.
You need to think that one through.
Yeah yeah I know nobody is perfect but we do not use that as an excuse to let thieves and other criminals off the hook.
As a matter of fact, we do in some cases, but I'm not arguing that we should. How far are you willing to go to regulate and punish imperfect human behavior? Fines for foul language and/or for dressing inappropriately or just in bad taste?
Adultry is a truly odious act that causes great harm to other people and should be punished.
By the government? Yes, that is Sharia law.
Sharia law? hardly. Just a recognition of the damage we are doing to ourselves.
We don't need the government for that. Religions and social mores are better equipped to handle these damages.
Casagrande for SENATE!!
Post a Comment