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:

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]

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!

 

[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]

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.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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]

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.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

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?

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.

 

[St_Francis]

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?

Precisely. Moral law exists independently, because it comes straight from God. Since it is written on the heart of every person, everyone knows it, but sometimes it gets covered up by sin and rationalization and propagandistic education.

 

[WillieWonka]

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.

 

[Drawmack]

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.

I’m not being argumentative, and I’m not intending to derail the discussion, but I was not aware of other religious groups teaching that remarriage after a civil divorce is a sin – could you provide some references please?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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?

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.

 

[SpaceNeedle]

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]

Then what is the relevance of universal morality?

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

Try again.

I didn’t say anything about universal morality.

How have constitutional attorneys attacked religion in the course of their constitutional law practice?

We can observe he gay marriage fight and see that religious groups are in the forefront of the opposition. It would be foolish for proponents to ignore the attacks from their opposition. It is quite rational to attack their opponents religious arguments. It’s also rational to portray all arguments against gay marriage as Fundamentalist ranting. That discredits the arguments among a large portion of the population.

 

[WillieWonka]

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.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I didn’t say anything about universal morality.

You claimed that we don’t need religion because every society prohibits murder (setting aside the fact that this is inaccurate, see abortion).

How have constitutional attorneys attacked religion in the course of their constitutional law practice?

The article I quoted in the OP is not a gay rights activist but a constitutional lawyer asserting that religious-based morality is unconstitutional.

We can observe he gay marriage fight and see that religious groups are in the forefront of the opposition. It would be foolish for proponents to ignore the attacks from their opposition. It is quite rational to attack their opponents religious arguments. It’s also rational to portray all arguments against gay marriage as Fundamentalist ranting. That discredits the arguments among a large portion of the population.

Indeed, but what you are missing is that it “discredits” too much. It’s a bit like noticing that men commit virtuall all rapes and solving rape by exterminating men from society.

As I said, that is what you’d expect on a playground. Not from an attorney arguing constitutional law.

 

[WillieWonka]

You claimed that we don’t need religion because every society prohibits murder (setting aside the fact that this is inaccurate, see abortion).

The article I quoted in the OP is not a gay rights activist but a constitutional lawyer asserting that religious-based morality is unconstitutional.

Indeed, but what you are missing is that it “discredits” too much. It’s a bit like noticing that men commit virtuall all rapes and solving rape by exterminating men from society.

As I said, that is what you’d expect on a playground. Not from an attorney arguing constitutional law.

I didn’t say we don’t need religion. I said religion is not necessary to develop moral views.

David Boies is far to shrewd to attack religion. But he is also smart enough to know that our constitution prohibits the establishment of religion. What he refers to as religious based views are those put forward as correct because they are consistent with religion. They would be unque to a religion and not simply wider values shared by the culture. Murder is an example of a shared moral value. As he states, there are some who believe it is sufficient for something to be inconsistent with religion to be illegal. He correctly states this is not the case. (Boies is the guy who represented Al Gore before the Supreme Court in the 2000 election.)

Perhaps some do not expect gays to mount the most effecive campaign they can for gay marriage. I expect it. It makes sense, and it’s working well.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I didn’t say we don’t need religion. I said religion is not necessary to develop moral views.

Thinking is not necesary to develop moral views. Anyone can make up their own morality.

The question is whether areligious moral views are coherent and intellectually defensible.

It’s one thing when homosexuals design moral views around their sexual preferences, another thing entirely when constitutional lawyers give them the impremature of constitutional legitimacy by throwing out anything based on religion.

David Boies is far to shrewd to attack religion. But he is also smart enough to know that our constitution prohibits the establishment of religion. What he refers to as religious based views are those put forward as correct because they are consistent with religion. They would be unque to a religion and not simply wider values shared by the culture. Murder is an example of a shared moral value. As he states, there are some who believe it is sufficient for something to be inconsistent with religion to be illegal. He correctly states this is not the case. (Boies is the guy who represented Al Gore before the Supreme Court in the 2000 election.)

It is sufficient for something to be inconsistent with my faith for me to vote according to that faith. If judges are deciding cases according to whether or not they believe that I am voting on the basis of my religion then they are “disenfranchsing” me.

And when I notice that a constitutional principle is being put forward that religion-based morality is ipso facto unconstitutional that moves me from indifference to outrage.

A I noted in the OP, I don’t have a strong opinion on legalizing homosexuality or even “gay marriage” but I do have a strong opinion on outlawing religion-based morality.

It’s interesting that you give credit to these argument when they failed in CA, one of the most liberal states, which is why this issue is being run up the flagpole in the federal courts.

Perhaps some do not expect gays to mount the most effecive campaign they can for gay marriage. I expect it. It makes sense, and it’s working well.

It certainly makes sense to encourage your opponents to take themselves out of the debate.

How many of you Catholics out there are willing to be silenced because your morality is “religon-based”?

 

[WillieWonka]

Thinking is not necesary to develop moral views. Anyone can make up their own morality.

The question is whether areligious moral views are coherent and intellectually defensible.

It’s one thing when homosexuals design moral views around their sexual preferences, another thing entirely when constitutional lawyers give them the impremature of constitutional legitimacy by throwing out anything based on religion.

It is sufficient for something to be inconsistent with my faith for me to vote according to that faith. If judges are deciding cases according to whether or not they believe that I am voting on the basis of my religion then they are “disenfranchsing” me.

And when I notice that a constitutional principle is being put forward that religion-based morality is ipso facto unconstitutional that moves me from indifference to outrage.

A I noted in the OP, I don’t have a strong opinion on legalizing homosexuality or even “gay marriage” but I do have a strong opinion on outlawing religion-based morality.

It’s interesting that you give credit to these argument when they failed in CA, one of the most liberal states, which is why this issue is being run up the flagpole in the federal courts.

It certainly makes sense to encourage your opponents to take themselves out of the debate.

How many of you Catholics out there are willing to be silenced because your morality is “religon-based”?

1. Thinking is necessary to develop any view.
2. Constitutional lawyers are not giving anyone legitimacy. Thye are not throwing out anything. They don’t have the power. The First Amendment bars establishment of religion.
3. We may vote anyway we want for any reason we want. Courts do not invalidate elections because they perceive the intent of the voters. They throw them out laws because they are not consistent with the Constitution.
4. Nobody contends a value held by a religion cannot also be held by civil law. We see hundreds of examples. Boies was refuting the notion that, for example, Leviticus’ ideas on homosexuality are sufficient to be defined as civil law.
5. If Boies takes this to court, the issue won’t be religion. It will probably be equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment. That is what has worked in other courts.
6. The issue in the Prop 8 California Supreme Court case was not religion. It was the legal requirement for a constitutional amendment as opposed to a constitutional revision.
7. I agree it makes sense to encourage opponents to drop out of the game.

 

[Drawmack]

Thinking is not necesary to develop moral views. Anyone can make up their own morality.

I just have to ask, if one is not thinking what are they using to make up their own morality?