Liberal — Marriage should avoid religion
Christopher Herrin
There are several reasons why the government should not invoke religious belief in the legal definition of marriage. First, the U.S. Constitution explicitly rejects a sectarian view of government, instead leaving individuals to pursue their own destiny as they see fit.
Social liberals like me seek to carry to its logical conclusion this tenet that government should stay out of peoples’ personal lives, unless there is some compelling public-safety reason to intervene. It is a fundamental contradiction of Reagan philosophy to say that government should get out of peoples’ way, while then saying that it should regulate personal decisions.
Another problem is deciding which set of religious criteria we would use to define marriage. Even if we accept the notion that America is a Christian nation, we are faced with incredible diversity in U.S. Protestant Christianity alone. Many Protestants also believe that religion should be a private matter.
Perhaps the greatest weakness in the use of religious criteria to define marriage is the abject absurdity that the Bible and Western civilization are built on the notion of marriage between one man and one woman.
Old Testament patriarchs such as Abraham took multiple wives and commonly fathered children by their female servants. The forcible taking of concubines by Israelite warriors after successful battles was condoned and common. Thus, the Bible seems to be nearly worthless as a model for a healthy marriage.
Just because our civil laws allow a certain right, such as gay marriage, does not mean that religious organizations have to approve it. Conservatives are lying when they say that religious groups would be forced to change their doctrines if gay marriage were tolerated. This was enunciated clearly when the Supreme Court ruled a few years back that the Boy Scouts of America are a private organization and, therefore, cannot be made to hire gay scout masters.
Opponents of gay marriage have failed to describe any kind of damage that would take place if homosexuals had marriage rights. I have heard it said that gay marriage would devalue the institution of marriage. But how? If a gay couple down the street from you gets married, how does that affect your marriage or anybody else’s? Nobody has come up with any concrete reasons.
Homosexuality has been with us throughout history. What I’m suggesting is that we bring gay men and women out of the shadows and into the light of full legal recognition.
Gays and lesbians have already been given full marriage rights in Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway and South Africa. Incredibly, the Earth hasn’t gone spiraling off its axis as a result. Gays can marry and everybody else is doing fine.
Christopher Herrin is a graduate Religious Studies major and a columnist for the Daily Forty-Niner.
Conservative — Marriage rules set by God
Brian Cuaron
There is a reason why conservatives don’t allow liberals to govern us with the silly notion that our society can logically do without religion. This article’s purpose is to explain the reason for the legal definition of marriage.
No doubt there are many on the left who have already tuned me out. However, I hope that the liberals still reading this with an open mind will let their desire for truth overcome their partisan passion.
Remember that every argument is based in some part on an assumption. What is the assumption that all sane people hold? It is namely that there exists morality — a set of universal rules, independent from man and circumstance, which define what is righteous or evil. Notice that moral law deals with righteousness and evil, both religious concepts.
What is that I hear from my liberal, truth-seeking friend? You say you do not believe in moral law?
“No, I do not believe in moral law, nor do I believe it is necessary for the governance of a civilized society,” the liberal says. “Rather, we have the law of man-made legal codes — and religion has no place in that.”
I agree that there exists such a legal law; however, I propose that your assertion about moral law and non-need is a result of ignorance on your part. Suppose, for a moment that your four-year-old daughter is attacked by a man. Is it wrong for him to molest her?
“It is wrong, yes, but that can be dealt with legally. There’s no need for morality, or the religion that fosters it,” the liberal replies.
Well, suppose that your nation’s laws fail you and, like Hitler did with the Jews, the atrocities against your daughter are not only overlooked, but are sanctioned by the state. This may be farfetched, but such things happened many times throughout the so-called civilized 20th century. Therefore, would the molestation of your daughter be wrong?
“Yes,” the liberal bleakly replies. “No matter if the state legally sanctions it, such an act is and always would be wrong.”
There you have it; an illustration of the need for moral law despite the lack of justice within legal law. Yet, who is to decide what is universally righteous or evil? As we have seen, man-made law is unstable and sometimes produces injustice.
Therefore, we see a need for a higher being to tell us what is good or bad, by which we may also govern our society. Hence, we see the need for religion in regards to the legality of marriage, for a just legal code will reflect the moral law of an all-knowing and just God.
Brian Cuaron is a junior English major and the video editor for the Daily Forty-Niner.
Hey “Jesusistruth” did God tell you to capitalize every “H”? Or was that Catholic school programming like I received when they spent years brainwashing me. DC is absolutely right that you offer nothing but pre-conjured scriptures as “proof” The Christian book wasn’t even written until centuries after Jesus died. Why wouldn’t God have written it closer to 33 B.C.? I already know your answer; you’ll cite something in the Bible that was written by William Shakespeare. Great evidence.
To DC
The universe itself is evidence that there is a God.
Psalm 19:1-4
“The heavens tell of the glory of God. The skies display His marvelous craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make Him known. “
You may not believe the Bible but God says that He has shown Himself through His creation. He has shown Himself through the Bible (if you dont believe me, just try reading it). Give it a chance. He has shown Himself through the complexity of life, and through the person of Jesus. God doesnt want you to follow blindly. It is by faith..but the proof is there. Why dont you ask God to reveal Himself to you if He is real? If you honestly want to know, He will reveal Himself.
To Jesusistruth,
Again you have given me no tangible proof.
Nature can all be explained by science. And again when ever I ask this question I get quotes for the Bible which by the way being Roman Catholic I was raised on.
The Bible was written by man not God or Jesus but Man. Once again I’m being told to follow blindly with no proof that there is a God.
There are a great many people who have changed their lives through the power of positive thinking, this has nothing to do with God.
The only thing I’ve see religion accomplish is death and destruction around the world. Every war that is taking place as we speak is based on religion.
Every human rights issue that is being protested is based on religion. There are more people killed in the name of God than for any other reason, and for what? Words written in a book hundreds of years ago by man.
Zeno,
Thank you for your comment…and proving my point. Like you say, there is a difference between murder and killing, why? Circumstance!
In both instances the action is taking a life. The author claims that we should know that taking a life is either morally good or morally bad. By having a universal law it can only be one of those two options.
So, to reiterate, the act of taking of life is either good in ALL situations or bad in ALL situations by the virtue of a universal law.
Now, by saying there is a difference between murder and killing, you have astutely observed that intent and circumstance play a role in how we perceive the taking of a life. While this is contrary to your sentiment, that I’m incorrect in my reasoning, you’ve posed the same challenge to the author that I have: ‘Why is killing acceptable and murder not?’ It is the same action but the circumstance leading up to the completion of the action is what differs.
Imagine a new scenario, the standard challenge to the concept of a universal moral law: A known murderer comes to your home with an axe and an inquiry. The murderer asks you politely where your friend lives, if the universal law of morality holds, we cannot lie in any circumstance. Therefore, it becomes our moral obligation to give away the friend’s location, even though we know the murderer, quite literally, has an axe to grind.
So again, thank you for proving my point. I hope you don’t believe yourself an ass by not giving your comment more thought. Also, So crates, I’ve always thought your philosophy, along with your comment make quite a bit of sense.
Billy,
There’s a difference between killing a man and murdering one.
BTW, whoever said that emotions should make us stray from what is right?
Gee Billy, you need to think your crap through before you make an ass out of yourself.
Another uneducated bigot (Brian) who needs to take a few more classes in Logic 101 and, in the meantime, leave important matters for educated grown-ups to deal with.
Newsflash. The EDUCATED people of society (from legal scholars to social scientists) overwhelmingly support gay marriage. That includes everyone from the American Psychological Association to the American Anthropological Association. Over 300 pediatricians and countless law professors publicly opposed Prop 8. Survey after survey keep showing the higher the education level, the more supportive they are of gay marriage. I suspect this is because highly educated people have that thing called a brain, which allows them to use reason and logic.
Clearly there is some kind of correlation here: the dumber they are, the more anti-gay they tend to be.
If these uneducated bigots/homophobes would spend just a little more time in school (where they can learn some science and logic) and less time sticking their noses into other people’s personal lives (which don’t affect them one bit), maybe they’ll earn some respect from those of us who are educated and civilized.
Thanks Brian for speaking the truth. we need more writers like you!
It’s easy to be blinded by the murk of Cuaron’s rhetoric, but it’s more poignant to appreciate Herrin’s well-argued ‘liberal’ evaluation. Herrin’s argument cuts to the marrow. Well done Christopher!!! At least one of you thinks in the upper strata.
Billy: thank you for pointing out the basic fallacies in Kantian theory and that the author must have napped in Philosophy 1. Short of destroying this piece with Thomas Aquinas and Augustine the Hippo, ad infinitum (Just War Theory), none of this clown’s rants mean squat in the grand scheme. Brian, ask yourself two basic questions: Who wrote the bible and for what audience? The third is just for kicks: Did the philosophy include ALL humans–woman and man–and ALL living species, or was it intended only for white Christian males?
As this is so horribly stupid, I thought I’d point it out for emphasis:
“Remember that every argument is based in some part on an assumption. What is the assumption that all sane people hold? It is namely that there exists morality — a set of universal rules, independent from man and circumstance, which define what is righteous or evil. Notice that moral law deals with righteousness and evil, both religious concepts.”
Yes. A set of universal rules that is independent from circumstance. So, essentially what you are saying is that actions are defined not on the circumstance but on the action itself, alright I understand what you’re saying- everything is black and white. As it’s the easiest point to make, let’s look at murder. The death penalty is generally supported by conservatives, most people, given the chance to shoot a terrorist threatening billions of people would pull the trigger, in order to protect yourself you might accidentally kill your attacker. I mean, let’s not even think about going to war and shooting the enemy. The problem is we can’t just go outside and murder whomever we see on the street, but we can understand that in some situations murder, while not pleasant, is acceptable. Unless we want to lose every war by outlawing the act of taking a life, we have to understand that murder is morally acceptable in defense of the nation.Therefore, there is no universal law- circumstance does affect how we perceive something as moral.
Another question, is it okay to lie? Because we cannot lie in every single situation the answer should be, ‘No.’ Yet everyone has told a lie to spare some feelings, a situation where we know it would only hurt the person to tell the truth. Honestly, this man says that “all sane people hold” the idea of universal truths. Yet I’ve managed to come up with two very simple examples of something morally tenuous that is clearly dependent on circumstance. Am I the only one who sees this?
Though, “As we have seen, man-made law is unstable and sometimes produces injustice. ” So clearly, men should just give up, because we can’t get it right. However, going back to a religious text that calls for death in many mundane situations seems like the best course of action. After all, there is no gray; everything is black and white.
Man, the author clearly didn’t think this through. Or he took an intro to philosophy class and said, “Wow I love Kant! Categorical Imperative? Sounds good!” and proceeded to make an idiot of himself…even better than Kant did of himself. I’ve never read anything so laughable.
Religion has no say in terms of marriage, it’s a secular institution. And why should a piece of religious item like the Bible determine who can or cannot marry? If I don’t prescribe to a Christian religion then it doesn’t matter to me what the Bible says. You can believe what you want to, but when it gets to a point where you deny rights to people, that’s when it’s wrong.
To DC:
God has given us proof of His existence in nature. Romans 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. “
He has given us His Word, the Bible, which is relevant and proves to be true. Just try reading it…and see what happens. The Bible also says that He has put His law into our hearts, what is right or wrong, and the idea of why do I exist? Its not mere coincidence that we contemplate questions like: is there a God? and what happens when I die?
God will reveal Himself to you as much as you let Him. If you are really honestly seeking Him and seeking truth I promise you that if you ask Him, He will reveal Himself.
Jesus said :You will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
PS Brian: thanks for the article!
If prop 8 holds, we need to vote on the marriage rights of prop 8 supporters in California!
Every fight against Gay Marriage is based on the Bible. Can someone please give me some tangible proof other than a book “that by the way was written by man”, that god exists .
Other than blind ignorant faith, I see no evidence that there is a god. All I see is mass hist aria and child indoctrination into a belief system that can not be proven true.
Science has proof to back up the claims that are made. All religion has is a book. One book that has been rewritten over and over to suit mans hatred and justify his fears and prejudices.
If God had any decency, He would not care what I do in bed or with regards to marriage.