Comments on: The Slippery Slope http://goodboysnation.com/2006/11/28/the-slippery-slope/ A heady and eclectic mix of of the mundane, golf, religion, and politics Sat, 19 May 2012 05:39:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: The Great White Shank http://goodboysnation.com/2006/11/28/the-slippery-slope/comment-page-1/#comment-9344 The Great White Shank Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:36:43 +0000 http://goodboysnation.com/2006/11/27/the-slippery-slope/#comment-9344 Actually, marriage is both, in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the "state". We can quibble over the cross-over between the two - me, I've long held the belief that civil unions - in whatever form, as long as they are between two people - should fall under the auspicies of "state" and the sacrament of Holy Matrimony should fall under "church", and never the twain should meet. I'm uncomfortable with the "moral relativism" argument that only God knows what's morally right and, as flawed humans, we are in no place to morally judge anything. Quite the contrary - there ARE ways in which people live their lives that are, and should be, subject to moral judgment. Morals are nothing more than what we inherently, as human beings, know to be "wrong" and "right". And there is a difference. One of the reasons why marriage (or, I would add, "unions") have been legislated by "state" the way they have been is the Judeo-Christian traditions upon which our society - and indeed, Western civilization, has been founded upon. I'm no sociologist, but my guess is that the reason why these traditions have hung on for so long is that civil societies have found they remain intact longer with a framework of laws that promote civil order, and societal health in general. You simply can't have everyone doing whatever they damned please because someone's afraid to make moral judgments on what's right and what's not. When societies "work", everyone benefits, when they don't, everyone loses. While I would never argue for a government that sticks its nose into everything everyone does as some kind of omnipotent moral judge, government does have it's necessary place as a basic means of protection for laws that help keep our society healthy and in order. Actually, marriage is both, in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the “state”. We can quibble over the cross-over between the two - me, I’ve long held the belief that civil unions - in whatever form, as long as they are between two people - should fall under the auspicies of “state” and the sacrament of Holy Matrimony should fall under “church”, and never the twain should meet.

I’m uncomfortable with the “moral relativism” argument that only God knows what’s morally right and, as flawed humans, we are in no place to morally judge anything. Quite the contrary - there ARE ways in which people live their lives that are, and should be, subject to moral judgment. Morals are nothing more than what we inherently, as human beings, know to be “wrong” and “right”. And there is a difference.

One of the reasons why marriage (or, I would add, “unions”) have been legislated by “state” the way they have been is the Judeo-Christian traditions upon which our society - and indeed, Western civilization, has been founded upon.
I’m no sociologist, but my guess is that the reason why these traditions have hung on for so long is that civil societies have found they remain intact longer with a framework of laws that promote civil order, and societal health in general.

You simply can’t have everyone doing whatever they damned please because someone’s afraid to make moral judgments on what’s right and what’s not. When societies “work”, everyone benefits, when they don’t, everyone loses. While I would never argue for a government that sticks its nose into everything everyone does as some kind of omnipotent moral judge, government does have it’s necessary place as a basic means of protection for laws that help keep our society healthy and in order.

]]> By: Dave Richard http://goodboysnation.com/2006/11/28/the-slippery-slope/comment-page-1/#comment-9340 Dave Richard Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:47:11 +0000 http://goodboysnation.com/2006/11/27/the-slippery-slope/#comment-9340 I'm going to go down a different limb on this one, and ask a question. Why does it take an act of government to make a spiritual union? Isn't marriage, first and foremost, in the eyes of God? If so, then why is there some kind of legalistic requirement for a marriage "license", issued by a government, to make marriage legal? The obvious answer in these modern times is due to benefits sharing and in the division of assets in the case of divorce or death. But all that gets us is more government regulation over our lives and more money for the lawyers of the world. So much for a civilized world. All this nonsense about what is moral or legal has no bearing on our final disposition after we die. It is not for those of us on earth to judge each other, but rather how God judges us after we are finished with the mortal part of our lives. I, for one, am not worthy of judging whether someone is moral or not. Nor have I ever met another human who is. I’m going to go down a different limb on this one, and ask a question.

Why does it take an act of government to make a spiritual union?

Isn’t marriage, first and foremost, in the eyes of God? If so, then why is there some kind of legalistic requirement for a marriage “license”, issued by a government, to make marriage legal? The obvious answer in these modern times is due to benefits sharing and in the division of assets in the case of divorce or death. But all that gets us is more government regulation over our lives and more money for the lawyers of the world. So much for a civilized world.

All this nonsense about what is moral or legal has no bearing on our final disposition after we die. It is not for those of us on earth to judge each other, but rather how God judges us after we are finished with the mortal part of our lives. I, for one, am not worthy of judging whether someone is moral or not.

Nor have I ever met another human who is.

]]>