Prime95,

[QUOTE]I agree that gay marriage should be allowed and that most legislators use religious and other arguments that should not play a role in the government's legitimate interest in the issue.[/QUOTE]

Since this thread has jumped the track, I thought I'd ask: When do you feel that religious arguments should play a role in government? What do you feel constitutes a religious argument? For example, is the argument "Murder should be against the law because protecting it's citizens is the role of government" a religious one? Is the doctrine, "Only actions that harm others should be legistlated against" a religious one? If not, what (in your opinion) is the difference of it from a religious one?

Thanks,
ZF

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux]Since this thread has jumped the track, I thought I'd ask: When do you feel that religious arguments should play a role in government? What do you feel constitutes a religious argument? For example, is the argument "Murder should be against the law because protecting it's citizens is the role of government" a religious one?[/QUOTE]

"Murder should be against the law because protecting its citizens is the role of government" is not a religious argument. It is an argument for the law based upon rights granted in the non-religious document, the U.S. Constitution. "Murder should be against the law because the Bible says so" is a religious argument.

My point on gay marriage is that if we agree with ewmayer's assessment that it falls under the general welfare clause, then arguments as to whether gay marriage would corrupt adults or children into becoming gay, child molesters, aids-spreaders, whatever are all legitimate arguments -- you can argue that these traits are bad for propogating a healthy society and you can try and explain how gay marriage would cause an increase in these traits. IMO, the argument that gay marriage should be banned because it is against some religion is wrong because I don't see where Constitution grants lawmakers the right to make laws using that reasoning.

Of course, that's just one person's opinion.....

Tying gay marriage back to the start of this thread... I would use jury nullification in a privacy-of-their-own-home sodomy case. As I think it is pretty clear that sodomy has no negative effect on the general welfare. Laws simply have not caught up with the times.

Prime95,

Thanks. I was a little surprised that you said that the Constitution is not a religious document. It was based upon religious idealogies. It mentions God. Can you clarify how you view it as a non-religious document? Or perhaps, tell me how you differentiate between those things which come from a religious background and remain religious, vs. those things which lose their religiosity. ;)

[QUOTE]Tying gay marriage back to the start of this thread... I would use jury nullification in a privacy-of-their-own-home sodomy case. As I think it is pretty clear that sodomy has no negative effect on the general welfare.[/QUOTE]I would dispute your last claim. I don't think this is clear at all. Do you have unbiased scientific studies to back you up? If not, then I think it is a mistake to believe you know enough about this issue to over-rule the point of law. (So that you might see more of where I am coming from, I might liken your claim to the following hypothetical: Suppose we are back in 1970, and you claim that "free love" has no negative effects on the general welfare. From our current view, in 2006, we know that this claim is patently false. And yet, from the view of those in 1970, they believed it. I think the gay-pride movement is similar. It weakens the role of traditional families in our society, which were weakened by earlier movements.)

One more line of thought from me. Do you believe that the only reason that behavior should be outlawed is for negative effects on the general welfare? How do you measure a negative effect? Why do you believe this? (So, for example, while it is clear [at least to me] bestiality hurts the person involved in it, it isn't clear [at least to me] that there is any negative effect on the general welfare [modulo the fact that any negative on a part affects the whole]. So, should I use jury nullification to set free someone who commits bestiality, simply because I don't see how it will affect me [or society] as a whole in the negative? [And, just as a note, I am NOT equating bestiality with sodomy. I am merely trying to see if we can explore the idea of "only those things which hurt society in general should be legislated against."])

[QUOTE=Prime95]You could also argue that highly addictive drugs often leads to criminal acts in support of the habit. Therefore the "general welfare" clause may come into play.

This is why I personally decided that I could convict for possession of other drugs. While I may disagree that incarceration is the best treatment, I feel it is my duty as a citizen to let the legislative process decide. Since pot is not in the category of highly addictive life destroying drugs, only this passes my "when in doubt don't use jury nullification" rule.

I must also confess strong agreement with Bob's belief in *PERSONAL* responibility. If you destroy your life with drugs, society does not owe you anything. Society could leave you on "trash heap of humanity" and it would be OK with me - you *CHOSE* to go down that path. However, I do support both government and charitable drug rehab and counseling programs that society has chosen to offer simply out of kindness.[/QUOTE]

Highly addictive drugs would not lead to criminal acts if drugs were
easily available. i.e. legal. Prohibition brought crime. Statistics show
lower crime *after* it was repealed. Also, alcoholism also went down.
Think of all the violent crimes now committed not because people take
drugs, but because distributing it is illegal and leads to gang feuds,
murder etc.

If someone pickles theit brain and/or liver, offer medical help/counseling.
Otherwise, think of it as "evolution in action".

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux]I was a little surprised that you said that the Constitution is not a religious document. It was based upon religious idealogies. It mentions God. Can you clarify how you view it as a non-religious document?[/quote]

While there is no debate that the Constitution was created by religious men, it's purpose was to create a framework for government.

[quote]I would dispute your last claim. I don't think this is clear at all. Do you have unbiased scientific studies to back you up?[/quote]

No, I don't have any studies to back me up. However, I know of very few people that believe the government should have any say in what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. Even the Supreme Court struck down an anti-sodomy law just a few years ago. Even so, many such laws remain on the books although rarely enforced.

[quote]If not, then I think it is a mistake to believe you know enough about this issue to over-rule the point of law. [/quote]

That's why I think jury nullification should only be used rarely -- for fundamentally immoral or laws in areas the government has no business legislating. Merely disagreeing with the law is not enough.

[quote]I think the gay-pride movement is similar. It weakens the role of traditional families in our society[/quote]

This is where the legitimate debate lies. In theory, we elect legislators that carefully weigh the pluses and minuses and out comes a law. Reality, unfortunately, is a knee-jerk no-thought reaction with a sound bite meant to capture a few votes next election.

I cannot agree with you gay households will weaken family values. If a gay couple moved next door to you, would that negatively impact how you raise your children? I'm sure you'll agree that single-parent households have "weakened the role of traditional families in society". Does that mean a divorced mother-of-two moving in next door would also negatively impact you?

I'm interested in hearing the specifics of how you think gay marriage would negatively impact society - even if we never see eye-to-eye.

[quote]So, for example, while it is clear bestiality hurts the person involved in it, it isn't clear [at least to me] that there is any negative effect on the general welfare[/quote]

I object to bestiality only because it is cruel to the animal. Some states have laws against using sex toys. Do you think those laws are just and if so on what basis does the government care?

[quote]I am merely trying to see if we can explore the idea of "only those things which hurt society in general should be legislated against."])[/QUOTE]

There are other valid reasons generating laws. Here we have been discussing laws under the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution.

[QUOTE]That's why I think jury nullification should only be used rarely -- for fundamentally immoral or laws in areas the government has no business legislating. Merely disagreeing with the law is not enough.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree.

[QUOTE]This is where the legitimate debate lies. In theory, we elect legislators that carefully weigh the pluses and minuses and out comes a law. Reality, unfortunately, is a knee-jerk no-thought reaction with a sound bite meant to capture a few votes next election.

I cannot agree with you gay households will weaken family values. If a gay couple moved next door to you, would that negatively impact how you raise your children? I'm sure you'll agree that single-parent households have "weakened the role of traditional families in society". Does that mean a divorced mother-of-two moving in next door would also negatively impact you?

I'm interested in hearing the specifics of how you think gay marriage would negatively impact society - even if we never see eye-to-eye.
[/QUOTE]Well...since you asked, I guess I can oblige you. :D

First, I should say that you sort of made my point for me. While having a single-parent household next door doesn't negatively impact me personally (at least as far as I can tell), it is the OVERALL effect of the rise in single-parent homes that is the problem. So, while I personally know lots of gays and they don't impact me personally in a negative way, I think the whole culture (as a WHOLE) does negatively impact society.

Anyway, for a well-thought-out, articulate, somewhat societally based version of what I believe (for the most part) I recommend this article by Orson Scott Card: [url]http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html[/url]

For a non-well-thought-out, non-articulare, and non-societally based version of what I believe, here is a summary: I believe God created us male and female to be more like Him. He creates and gives life. He gave us the same ability. Further, I believe that this ability, to be like God (knowing good and evil, and creating) will continue after death if we obey Him. I believe family relationships can endure after death. Further, just like murder is the unauthorized version of taking life, I believe that sex outside of marriage (whether or not procreation will result) is the unauthorized version of this sacred act of bringing life to this world.

Some of the negative impacts I see from gay-marriage are as follows:
1) It teaches young children that their gender is meaningless (or less important).
2) It teaches us that the rearing of children is not as an important part of life and society.
3) It infiltrates our society, so that those things which (I believe) are very beneficial (such as a traditional marriage) are thought less of, due to multiple options. People feel like they need to consider the alternative (am I gay?) when in fact, they shouldn't have to think about it in the first place. (Just like the movement of mothers to the workplace brought about the 'latch-key kid' movement, when in fact the cost of childcare [and the cost to the family] is much greater than the gain [of success in the workplace].)

Of course, each of these could easily be argued against. I'm speaking from a somewhat hard-lined perspective when in reality I think it is more subtle than how I portrayed it above.

Some of the negative impacts of legistlating against gay marriage are:
1) It prevents partners from receiving some of the usual benefits that a marriage has (such as dual insurances, inheritances after death, etc...)
2) Some people will use such laws as an excuse for hatred.
3) If we legislate against some freely chosen acts by consenting adults, what rationality are we using? Our personal religion? Our biases?

I feel like it is ridiculous to just assume that if we throw away traditional marriage, without any evidence (for OR against) that such will not hurt society, we are taking a radical and dangerous step. I'm willing to wait until more evidence comes in (at least, on the non-religious side of the issue).

[QUOTE]I object to bestiality only because it is cruel to the animal. Some states have laws against using sex toys. Do you think those laws are just and if so on what basis does the government care?[/QUOTE]Good point about cruelty.

On the other issue...maybe there is a correlation with other things? I don't know. I don't really want to know actually!

Okay, time for me to get some sleep.

Zeta-Flux,
A few questions. From your religious position it seems you are against sex outside marriage as well. Can you clarify whether you support making sex outside marriage illegal since it "harms the fabric of society".
I find your list of negative impacts of gay marriage rather arbitrary. You do not have any proof of that. I also find your statement that the abundance of "latch-key kids" was negative and the cost of child-care outweighs the "gains in the workplace". I grew up as a latch-key kid so I speak from personal experience. I thought and continue to think that it was great that both my parents worked. I never thought I was deprived because my mother was not home in the afternoons after I came back from school.
You talk about gains in the work-place but what about the massive impact it has had on women? They have more freedom and are not dependent on their husbands financially to the extent they used to be. Now you may argue that has led to an increase in divorces. I agree but the cause is not financial independence for women. The cause is unfair treatment of women. Financial independence allows them to get out of relationships they may not want to stay in.
There is a case to be made that divorce rates are too high in the US and Europe. But the reason is not what you put forth. By repressing women and gays, you are not going to make society "healthier". Allowing gay marriage is not the same as "throwing away traditional marriage".

PS: I know your arguments were probably more hardline than you actual beliefs. So my post is in the response to those arguments and not your beliefs.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux]

Anyway, for a well-thought-out, articulate, somewhat societally based version of what I believe (for the most part) I recommend this article by Orson Scott Card: [url]http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html[/url]

[/QUOTE]

O.S.C. a mormon kook.

I quote George Carlin:

We need an 11'th commandment: "Keep thy religion to thyself".

You are entitled to any silly beliefs that you want. But keep them in your
home and church. Stop shoving them at the rest of us.

Social policy needs to be established on the basis of fair treatment for
all, and not upon the opinion of twits who take the bible [a book of
folk-lore full of violence, rape, and inhuman behavior] literally.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]Highly addictive drugs would not lead to criminal acts if drugs were easily available. i.e. legal.[/QUOTE]

They still might. Even easily available drugs cost something. Addicts will have a tough time holding jobs. Add to that crimes committed while under the influence.

We are debating two points here. 1) The government's right to legislate in this area. 2) The actual laws the governement has passed.

I happen to agree with you on point #2 that legalization is the better way to go. Yet since a reasonable argument can be made on point #1, I think it is my duty as a Juror to uphold the existing laws that I disagree with.

[QUOTE=Prime95] I think it is my duty as a Juror to uphold the existing laws that I disagree with.[/QUOTE]

Here, we (sort of) disagree. I think it is my duty as a CITIZEN to invoke jury
nullification on laws that I think are bad. It is part of our system of
checks and balances on our government.

"Think are bad" is not necessarily the same as "disagree". I might think
that a law is somewhat reasonable, but still disagree with it. I would not
invoke nullification with such laws.

But I will agree that I am (probably) more distrustful of our government than
most people.