SoCal had Prop 8 pass last week (~52.5%) that made a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Here are my reasons for and against gay marriage as state law
Against
1. Homosexuality is immoral. Morality does not determine law but does affect it. As in, we don't allow parents to beat their children not just because it's bad for society but because it's wrong. The trick is determining which moral to legislate.
2. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman. This has been always been the definition, so it should be the default. It seems there should be a reason to stray away from the norm.
3. I'd rather live in a moral than immoral society. This stems from homosexuality as wrong, and given a choice I'd rather society encourage morality.
4. It devalues marriage. Allowing a more liberal/inclusive view of marriage cheapens or diminishes the traditional marriage.
For
1. It's not the state's roll to regulate a traditionally church-related institution. The state should take the position of most freedom and allow individuals the freedom to determine marriage as they see fit. Also, since this is such a religious view the state should be very careful about intervening in church affairs. Separation of church and state is good.
Incidentally, I don't see this as a discrimination issue as it is often postulated but a definition of marriage issue. It would be discrimination if we were not allowing gays to practice or allow people to hire based on sexual orientation. Those are already allowed; the issue is what does marriage mean? We have already allowed so much liberty in terms of homosexuality that I feel it is established by the state that homosexuality is ok; this is a little piece at the end of a long line of homosexual liberty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Interesting Nath. Let me ask a question. Do you think that this is a "Church/State" issue? That is to say, "Should the State allow the church to regulate such an institution?" I'd like to at least ponder the question whether or not this is a church/state issue or if it transcends church/state... and AMERICA!
That is to say, I think many cultures around the globe recognize something akin to marriage. I think it shows that there is a transcendent sense that the basic until of culture is a relationship between and man and a woman... not a man and a man. I think it's the case even within cultures where polygamy is accepted... it's still heterosexual.
I think, by the way, that this is a good argument for the existence of God from morality... which I know you think isn't a good argument because you assert that it's not... none the less, you'll come around. What do you think? :)
JJR
By the way... if you disagree perhaps you can point to a human culture where males and females simply mate with whomever they choose... essentially randomly... I mean besides America.
JJR
That's an interesting question. My initial response is yes, but I haven't thought of that much - as in what does separation of church and state really look like? I've always thought of the issue as should the people (or church) allow the state to regulate this, rather than should the state allow the church to regulate this. You are right in some sense that this transcends church/state and all cultures see marriage as man and woman and this relationship is basic. I'm not sure how relevant that tradition is other than the argument that the man and woman relationship should be the default position. As in, cutlure and people have historically agreed that marriage is between a man and woman, but I'm not sure it follows that our culture should also agree and make that law. It is the best explanation or option but not necessary. Perhaps this goes to the cumulative nature of the decision - this alone does not necessitate option A but given this and others option A is best. And I'm not sure if this is what you are talking about - I may have missed your point.
Also, Moreland gave a very good argument for theism from morality this weekend so I'm coming around on this argument. It wasn't so simple as to say universal morality points to God but from the angle of you can't have an absolute morality without a God and everyone seems to have one (but not necessarily everyone and that it seems wrong if you don't have one). He pointed out where you get problems from relativism or morality as preference (equal human rights, cultural relativism, moral reformers don't exist). A different approach to the same argument has convinced me a great deal (not at first but the more I think of it the more I like it). So, you are right, I'm coming around.
What about thinking about homosexuality from the "un-natural" perspective? Watched a very interesting video during a microbiology class at BBCC about the beginnings of HIV/AIDS in USA. Interesting hearing the CDC come out with warnings of a disease that they can't figure out but that is running rampant in San Francisco area. Wish I could remember the name. Anyway, is there some sort of argument against homosexuality from the perspective of natural selection / that homosexuality cannot sustain itself?
I've heard the argument that homosexuality cannot sustain itself through procreation so it should be wrong but never the disease route. The lack of procreation argument seems bad since we can now make babies in the lab. 100 years ago this would have worked but not now. It is actually seen as positive since overpopulation is a huge problem.
The disease argument is interesting although the argument would have to assume that new dangers exist in the future. If the virus exists already what's wrong with being homo now? I don't buy the "look what homo's brought us" idea. Also, do new diseases come from a variety of areas/activities? If so it seems weird to single out homo as an instance where this affects the morality of the act.
Also, I have come to think of homosexuality more as a perversion recently. God created this great relationship and we are giving God the finger/disrespecting God by perverting such an awesome thing in this manner.
Post a Comment