Gay Marriage Phobia

[Bubba Switzler]

I have to confess, ahead of time, that I'm starting this thread just to vent.

I really don't have a strong opinion on so-called "gay marriage". I think it's a joke but then there is no shortage of absurdity in modern law. (See e.g. the right to abortion.)

But for some reason every time I see an argument for gay marraige I have a strong viceral reaction. It seems almost as if there are no arguments for gay marriage that don't entail a full frontal assault on Christian morality. I wonder if I'm the only one reacting this way.

Here is the latest example:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804515860263587.html

Read it through before you reply and tell me what you think.

But here is the climax:

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

Some form of this argument seems ever present in arguments for gay marriage.

If homosexuals want do do their thing in private, go for it. If they want to pretend they are married, whatever. But when defenders of gay marraige claim that "religious-based" morality is somehow illegitimate, that raises my hackles and leads me to oppose whatever it is they are advocating without further consideration.

And I respecfully submit, you should too.

[Dtmccameron]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

But when defenders of gay marraige claim that "religious-based" morality is somehow illegitimate, that raises my hackles and leads me to oppose whatever it is they are advocating without further consideration.

And I respecfully submit, you should too.

It reminds me of how the Brits enforce the, "You can teach your morality, but you can't say that it's right..."

I mean, seriously! What the heck? What's the point of it at all if you're not gonna hold to it being right! Education for educations sake! We don't know what good is, but let's have more of it and give it to our kids!

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by Dtmccameron

It reminds me of how the Brits enforce the, "You can teach your morality, but you can't say that it's right..." I mean, seriously! What the heck? What's the point of it at all if you're not gonna hold to it being right! Education for educations sake! We don't know what good is, but let's have more of it and give it to our kids!

Both ideas flow from the same warped ideology.

The argument is subtle but very, very serious.

On the one side, you have the secularists who claim that religion is a mental disorder to be tolerated but not encouraged in serious subjects like the law. Real morality, according to this view, is derived from enlightened reason and science. Public opinion is to be suspected because it is too easily contaminated by irrational beliefs like Christianity.

And, on the other side, you have the view that morality cannot be derived solely from natural observation, that truth relies, at least in part, on faith in God. And that, absent such faith, you ultimately end up with perverse consequences.

[bpbasilphx]

It is the teaching not only of the Catholic Church but of other religious groups that remarrying after a civil divorce is a sin.

Yet nobody who believes this seems to want to enshrine this religious prohibition in a civil statute.

Think about it.

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by bpbasilphx

It is the teaching not only of the Catholic Church but of other religious groups that remarrying after a civil divorce is a sin.

Yet nobody who believes this seems to want to enshrine this religious prohibition in a civil statute.

Think about it.

You are confusing two different questions. The first question is whether, and when, those who hold particular moral views ought to seek to impose those views on others. An example of this is the prohibition of murder.

The entirely seperate question is whether moral views derived from religious beiefs are, by their very nature, suspicious.

For some reason, the advocates of "gay marriage" are not content to make an argument of the first kind but inevitably put forward the second. Why?

Think about it.

[WillieWonka]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

You are confusing two different questions. The first question is whether, and when, those who hold particular moral views ought to seek to impose those views on others. An example of this is the prohibition of murder.

The entirely seperate question is whether moral views derived from religious beiefs are, by their very nature, suspicious.

For some reason, the advocates of "gay marriage" are not content to make an argument of the first kind but inevitably put forward the second. Why?

Think about it.

I have to question if any moral views derive from religion. There were plenty of moral views prior to Christianity. The Japanese have never ascribed their moral views to religion. Religion may adopt or share moral views, but it is not necessary for their existence.

Every society prohibits murder. Nobody needed religion to do that.

There are many arguments against gay marriage that do not rest on religion.

The fact that a religion shares a moral view does not mean it derives from religion.

What would the Natrual Law folks say about this? Is Natural Law a function of religion?

I'd suggest that if a moral view cannot be supported without recourse to religion, it is bogus.

[JimG]

I'm almost tempted to say, ok, let's go with gay marriage, provided that it is coupled with an absolute prohibition on divorce and the severe civil penalties for adultery.

[SpaceNeedle]

Originally Posted by JimG

I'm almost tempted to say, ok, let's go with gay marriage, provided that it is coupled with an absolute prohibition on divorce and the severe civil penalties for adultery.

That would strike far too much fear in the hearts of 95% of American heterosexuals. After all, I can look around my office and point out people with 3 or 4 marriages under their belts, with plenty of blatant office dalliances to accompany.

[WillieWonka]

Originally Posted by SpaceNeedle

That would strike far too much fear in the hearts of 95% of American heterosexuals. After all, I can look around my office and point out people with 3 or 4 marriages under their belts, with plenty of blatant office dalliances to accompany.

It is much easier to support prohibitions that don't come too close to home. That's one reason why gays have made such strides in the last thirty years. Their campaign of coming out of the closet made it much more likely that a relative, friend, or co-worker is gay. Folks are not nearly as willing to impose restrictions agaist someone they know as they are against an unknown and demonized other.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by SpaceNeedle

That would strike far too much fear in the hearts of 95% of American heterosexuals. After all, I can look around my office and point out people with 3 or 4 marriages under their belts, with plenty of blatant office dalliances to accompany.

In other words, marriage in this country has already been 95% destroyed, diluted down to a shadow of its former self; if that were not so, homosexual partners would not want it.

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by JimG

In other words, marriage in this country has already been 95% destroyed, diluted down to a shadow of its former self; if that were not so, homosexual partners would not want it.

When you find yourself deep in a hole, stop digging!

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

When you find yourself deep in a hole, stop digging!

I agree. I think we should start filling the hole back in, not making it deeper.

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by WillieWonka

I have to question if any moral views derive from religion. There were plenty of moral views prior to Christianity.

Well, we know what camp you are in then.

All I'm doing here is exposing the line of thought that people like you promote.

Originally Posted by WillieWonka

The Japanese have never ascribed their moral views to religion. Religion may adopt or share moral views, but it is not necessary for their existence. Every society prohibits murder. Nobody needed religion to do that.

If legal morality rests on that which is unviersally agreed upon then what is the justification for "gay marraige"? Or for equality itself?

Originally Posted by WillieWonka

There are many arguments against gay marriage that do not rest on religion. The fact that a religion shares a moral view does not mean it derives from religion. What would the Natrual Law folks say about this? Is Natural Law a function of religion?

Perhaps. But what I'm pointing to is that arguments defending "gay marriage" inevitably end up attacking religious morality. That is most curious if the goal is gay marraige. Not so surprising if gay marriage is only an excuse to attack religious morality.

[WillieWonka]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

Well, we know what camp you are in then.

All I'm doing here is exposing the line of thought that people like you promote.


If legal morality rests on that which is unviersally agreed upon then what is the justification for "gay marraige"? Or for equality itself?


Perhaps. But what I'm pointing to is that arguments defending "gay marriage" inevitably end up attacking religious morality. That is most curious if the goal is gay marraige. Not so surprising if gay marriage is only an excuse to attack religious morality.

What camp am I in? What line of thought do I promote?

Legal morality does not rest on what is universally agreed upon. Gay marriage is legal in Iowa. It is not legal next door in Illinois.

The gay marriage advocates attack religion because religious folks are the most vocal opponents of gay marriage. That make sense.

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by WillieWonka

Legal morality does not rest on what is universally agreed upon. Gay marriage is legal in Iowa. It is not legal next door in Illinois.

Then what is the relevance of universal morality?

Originally Posted by WillieWonka

The gay marriage advocates attack religion because religious folks are the most vocal opponents of gay marriage. That make sense.

You might expect that sort of thinking on the playground, not from constitutional attorneys.

Try again.