Rick Warren's New Clarification Video

Steven said:

>> Perhaps he really meant that they were equivalent only in the sense that none of them should be called marriage. But that's certainly not the most obvious interpretation.

--

That certainly is the most obvious meaning of what he said in the context of that interview.

Come on, Steven, did you truly think he meant to say that pedophilia and incest were lesser threats to the family than divorce?

Because that's where your thinking would take you.

* * *

Besides, when it comes to pedofillia and incest, the marriage law draws boundaries around the core meaning of marriage, which is a sexualized type of relationship. The marital presumption of paternity makes this so. And all who enter marriage must consent to this legal presumption. Also, the man-woman criterion is a legal requirement. Both of these things are vigorously enforced throughout the marriage laws.

So when related people come for a license, they are presumed to be entering a sexualized relationship type.

Likewise, the age limitations, which vary both from one jurisidction to another and within each jurisdiction, presumes sexual relations are essential to the social institution of marriage. Think about some of the various accomodations that are made which are expressed euphemistically in terms of pregnancy or the potential for pregnancy. The capacity to consent is not the capacity to love but to form a sexualized relationship with contingency for responsible procreation.

However, the boundaries against related people and regarding age are very weakened, if not invalidated, by the argumentation of the same-sex marriage advocates -- both in the courts, in the legislatures, in forums like this, and in the street protests.

When SSMers (those who advocate for same-sex marriage aka SSM) argue against the centrality of procreation in marriage, they use certain rules.

1. That if (fill-in the blank) is not lawfully mandatory, then, it is not essential to the conjugal relationship type.

2. That if (fill-in the blank) can occur or exist outside of marriage, then, it is not essential to the conjugal relationship type.

There is no requirementn for same-sex sexual relations -- anyplace that SSM has been imposed or enacted. And, of course, same sex sexual relations can, and does, occur outside of SSM. So the rules destroy the sexual aspect of the relationship type that SSMers are talking about.

Minus sexual relations, why would society prohibit equal treatment of related people? Not all related people, mind, but just some subset.

And, regarding age of consent, let's be clear about what SSMers believe that people mutually consent to when they enter SSM. It can't be sexual relations because there is no lawful requirement.

It can't be the marital presumption of paternity for that is not based on whatever sexual behavior might occur in an all-male or in an all-female arrangement.

It is not about concerns regarding equality between the sexes, since the one-sexed arrangment is definitively sex-segregative. It is not about responsible procreation, or any kind of procreation, within the arrangement since no one-sexed scenario can be procreative -- without the other sex.

So we must take the sex out of the argument.

Doing so makes the clear distinction between marriage and nonmarriage very, very, very fuzzy.

We can't point to taboos, since that has been dismissed by SSMers as bigoted and hateful. We can't point to public morality in the law, since that too has been abolished through SSM argumentation's attack on the core meaning of the conjugal relationship type. In fact, we can't point to tradition either, for the same reason.

But maybe the SSMers in this forum can explain the core meaning of marriage around which the boundaries are drawn?

You could start with the "most nefarious" types of relationships and explain what makes them so. And then explain how mutual commitment, love (what kind of love?), intimacy (what kind of intimacy), and so forth can never apply to those obvious types of nonmarital relationships.

Actually, incest is a good example to raise because once you take the sex out of marriage, then, you remove the objection to related people.

I mean, you are talking about destroying the difference between marriage and nonmarriage such that society need not consider two siblings or a mom-daugher arrangement to be sexually incestuous. In fact, today, if a brother and sister managed to get a license to marry, their relationship would be invalid without the lawful requirement to prove they had even touched each other. They could be in a nonsexual arrangement - with mutual commitment, familial love, and still be deemed nonmarital.

There is no sexual orientation test, either, so you can't complain that the incest prohibition is anti-gay. If anything, it applies because it is based on the both-sexed nature of marriage.

* * *

Steven also said:

>> [Warren] did make it clear that he doesn't believe gay relationships are the moral equivalent of incest etc.

--

Wrong.

He said they were not the same thing. He teaches the sexual ethics of Scripture and he addressed his congregation who understand what he has taught for three decades. And in the context of the Bible, incestuous behavior is morally equivalent to same-sex sexual behavior. It is categorized among other sexual transgressions such as bestiality and fornication and, yes, pedofillia.

Now, you may disagree with the sexual ethics of Scripture, but Warren is not wrong for accurately representing it.

* * *

There is more to respond to but I'll wait for awhile to continue.

Your Name,

You ask a very important question and preface it with one of the biggest misconceptions...

"Why wasn't this outrage expressed last summer when Barack Obama agreed with Rick Warren during the presidential forum at Saddleback that marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man and a women?"

I am (we are) not "outraged" when people believe what their faith has taught them. I, as a gay man, (legally married, btw) am okay with people's personal beliefs - so long as I am allowed my own personal beliefs in return. (Go read any of the Crunchy Con blogs where if you don't share the anti-gay beliefs, you're treated like a pariah or banned for speaking your mind.)

What we are - rightfully, imho - "outraged" about is the constant comparisons to incest, pedophila, being called a "cancer", comparing our relationships to "marrying a plant" (or an animal - aka beastiality), an "orange", a "rock", a "biciycle", to cannibalism, necrophilia, etc. These things are not true (aka the bearing of false witness, aka a lie, aka a sin) and are so intrinsically offensive as to cause outrage - I believe it is often done on purpose so the offenders think they can get away with saying, 'See, they won't let me have my freedom of religion.'

I call it BS because it is BS. Warren's claims are hurtful and untrue.

I'll dissect Chairm's nonsensical claims in a later post in depth, but I'll take this opportunity to remind him that procreation isn't a requirement of marriage (nor is it "lawfully mandatory" nor "essential to the conjugal relationship" - and s/he well knows it.

What Warren said is not untrue and ought not to be claimed as hurtful. If you can't stomache the truth, then, whine all you like about preferring falsehoods. But don't blame Warren for your upset stomache.

* * *

"Husband" has not returned to do as he promised to do in his last comment.

I do note that "Husband" invoked the special pro-SSM rule that I had already noted:

-> > procreation isn't a requirement of marriage (nor is it "lawfully mandatory" nor "essential to the conjugal relationship"

I note the pro-SSM rule:

-> > 1. That if (fill-in the blank) is not lawfully mandatory, then, it is not essential to the conjugal relationship type.

As I noted earlier, if you can cite the legal requirements that define the core meaning of gay union, please do so.

I don't think you will find there is a gay requirement, nor a same-sex sexual behvior requirement, nor a sexual attraction requirement, nor any requirement that makes anything mandatory that could not be satisfied by related people, previously married people, and by socially mature but sexually immature young people.

If you depend on the modern tradition of romance, then, you can't keep knocking tradition, custom, and the longstanding meaning of marriage.

If you choose to stand on some sort of social taboo, such as against some related people, then, you need to state that taboo without advocating some kind of public sexual morality. Besides, there is nothing that makes same-sex sexual behavior mandatory for gay union so don't be so purient in your objections to some related people. Or based on age. There are some very immature people, socially, well past the age of majority; and there are some very mature people, socially if not physiologically, well under the age of majority. Chronological age is thus a poor proxy. That is, if we adopt the pro-SSM arugments about the man-woman criterion being overinclusive and underinclusive.

Lots there for "Husband" to chew on and try to digest without upsetting fellow SSMers.

"Husband" is probably like most advocates of SSM. The lack of a core meaning for gay union is supposed to be the basis to urge society to gut marriage of its core meaning. So they retreat to some private notion of marriage even thought they insist on a public relationship with public licensing and public meaning.