“Myself, it just seems like cognitive dissonance to uphold the value of women in the world on the one hand and deny the importance of their contribution to the family unit on the other.”—Proud Daughter of Eve

Daughter, homosexual couples include those consisting of two women as well as two men. Indeed, lesbian parents are overwhelmingly better studied than families headed by male–male couples.

Additionally: I do not wish to raise children with a woman. I wish to raise them with another man. The fact that I, a homosexual male, am not well-suited to raising children with a female partner is not a personal reflection upon your suitability as a parent, and certainly not on the qualifications of womanhood in general. I could choose, against my nature and better judgement, to marry a woman; however, I would be a poor substitute for the sort of partner she could (and should) have, as she would be for me. It would be a violence to both of us.

My mother is a wonderful woman, and so I can affirm happily that women have plenty to contribute to the family. That is why it is better that they do not marry gay men, which does a deep disservice to their talents. If a woman respects herself and her calling to parenthood, she will find herself a far better match. There is no reason to block me from my own calling to love, family and happiness, since doing so cannot materially improve your own.

http://approachingjustice.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/a-glimpse-of-public-reason-lincoln-and-rawls/

Having read your post (but not the comments yet), I really would encourage you to submit this to Square Two. This is, I think, precisely the kind of thoughtful response that I think they are hoping to get (and if not, well then, at least we will have learned something about them…).

As an aside, I think Ralph Hancock’s arguments are much better and more nuanced than Cassler’s, esp. in his comment #2 under Sherlock’s article in the same issue—so, I would personally like to see these deeper issues he raises addressed more directly (your posts indirectly addresses some but not all of the concerns he raises…).

Thanks again for your thoughtful post.

How about the notion that sex is sin based on revelation? Is that a theological reason? As long as it is intuitive to you also and you accept the same premise, my argument can then be cogent.

Um, that is a theological reason why sex is a sin. It is not a theological reason why the state should not condone or promote sex. Do you really not see the logical leap here? In fact, it is not intuitive at all because you have no theory of sin and no theory of how and why the state should related to sin. See 1 c, d, e for the problems with such a binary view of condone/not-condone as the options you present for a government.

Do you believe that the government ought to promote or condone pornography and/or adultery?

I have answered this already, besides pointing to the immense problems with your conception of what it means to “promote” and “condone” both with respect to these activities, as well as to marriages in general:
In 62 I said: “I can give lots of arguments to these that don’t involve a single reference to “sin,” but these examples are simply not on point. The fact is that the government does give tax breaks to adulterers because by definition in order to commit adultery you must be married. Unless you propose a law that says that marriages are only eligible for the tax deduction in the case where the married partners are faithful to each other, then adulterers qualify for “morally” identical tax benefits as other married people. The same is true for the pornography industry. They can write off business expenses in the exact same way as any other business. They should enjoy no more, nor no less benefits as any other business. For the same reasons, your examples only demonstrate why SSM should enjoy no more or no less than any other “moral” or “immoral” marriage.”

Theocracy is rule by a religious leader whose authority derives from God. Show me how anything I say leads to that conclusion.

When you say “the government ought not to promote sin” you are appealing to God’s authority (sin) as a principle by which the government ought to lead.

theocracy isn’t possible within a pluralistic society.

Great. Agreed. So how does your premise “the government ought not to promote sin” deal with pluralism? Unfortunately, you have not offered a theory for how your premise could possibly allow someone to “sin” with the permission of the government.

The present or past existence of the influence of “religious principles” on government does not prove that “the government ought not to promote sin.”

[Edit: the implication of your argument is that any consideration of religion or moral principals that aren’t merely secular is unacceptable because it will lead to theocracy.

I have not suggested that at all. Rather, I have suggested that YOUR formulation of the relationship between "sin" and the state leads to theocracy, and you have failed to offer anything beyond assertions to show how you would allow for me as a Mormon, or any other religious person to possibly accept a law that "condones" sin as justified.]

Finally, did you notice the irony that your argument assumes statism?
No, I missed it. Please explain.