Debating is awesome. I love it almost too much to be a part of a coherent society. Some (my parents, for instance) could say that my study of logical fallacies, winning tactics, applications of philosophy and the opposing views of a lot of different issues has probably consumed an inordinate amount of my time, but I could argue that it hasn't. See? I'm debating already and I haven't even written more than four sentences. All I'm basically saying is that debating is awesome. Why? Because it is. It's hard to quantify or describe fully, because not everyone likes it and not everyone who likes it is good at it. In fact, some people are really bad, and that's what this post is all about. Let's proceed, shall we?
Issue number one: GAY MARRIAGE
I wish I could make music play when people read the above title, because that would be awesome. However, just assume that there is a song playing: if you oppose gay marriage, it's "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" by Bach and if you support gay marriage, it's "It's Raining Men" by Pauls Jabara and Shaffer.
Propositions 8 and 102 passed, though not without controversy. This is understandable, but the extremes of the debate were not. I mean, check out this commercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
For those of you not willing to go the extra mile and click the link, it's the National Organization For Marriage's "Gathering Storm" commercial. You know, the one where those "average people" are standing in front of a green screen making vague references to storms and clouds and stuff. Well, they also make some passing mentions that legalizing gay marriage will take away "average people"s' rights and generally lead to the downfall of Western Civilization and/or Judgment Day, but you can just ignore a statement that unverifiable, right? Like heck, you can. Or at least, like heck, I can. Well, you can too, but I'm writing right now. BACK ON TOPIC. Normally, a responsible citizen/viewer of a commercial such as this would request some data that would prove beyond all doubt that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to the above. I'm sure plenty of people actually did this, so if you did, let me know how that turned out. Anyway, if you haven't done so yet, let me tell you what'll happen- nothing. NOM won't give you this data because none exists. Their debate is an entirely moral argument based mostly on speculation and- it could be argued for some, though certainly not all- personal prejudice. That's right, I said it, prejudice. OOGITY BOOGITY. Not the P-word! Yes, the P-word.
Now let's talk about the P-word. It exists. I don't discount that, and anyone who does is deluding themselves. However, it shouldn't be the go-to rebuttal every time an opponent presents a contradictory argument. Otherwise, we spend too much time looking at maybe-bigots when we could be worrying about actual-bigots. Just like it doesn't help the debate for opponents to say "You're taking away my rights!" (they aren't), it doesn't help the debate for proponents to say "You don't want gay marriage because you hate me and all I love!" (they don't). Both sides are making moral arguments, which is pretty much the only argument you can make about this kind of thing. Yes, opponents, the proponents have morals. They may not be a carbon-copy of yours, but calling them "amoral" or "godless" won't get you anywhere. They probably aren't, because only Alex Delarge is amoral and if you wanna get technical about it, no one's godless, but that's a different post altogether.
Since both arguments are moral and both sides believe that, in fact, there really is no argument because they are, in fact, right, you'd think reconciliation would be impossible or at least impossible. That's what both sides tell me, so it must be true, right? HAHAHAHAHAHA no. That's where I come in!
See, I'm Mormon. That should get gay marriage proponents excited, right? Well, it turns out the Church leadership didn't donate that money, the members did. I didn't, because I've read the Constitution and about 75% or so of the Bible. Numbers and parts of Leviticus are really boring, which probably accounts for most of the 25% I didn't read. Also, for anyone who says Isaiah's boring or confusing, you must've been sleeping in high school English class, because Shakespeare's about as hard as Isaiah and Shakespeare's not that tough. It makes sense if you think about it, since they both use the same English. However, this isn't a literature post, it's a debate post. Anyway, I have counterarguments prepared for anyone who would like to engage me concerning my justifications of the following Opinion, so feel free to leave your thoughts in the Comments section. Here goes:
The problems are that gay people want to get married, claiming marriage as a Constitutionally-recognized civil right, and most religious people think gay people caused Sodom and Gomorrah and say "no". The matter is complicated by the fact that civil unions and gay marriage aren't recognized everywhere, civil unions are kind of a cop-out and both sides think that they're right.
Constitutionally, the proponents are right; ever since the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law and made bans on mixed-race marriages unconstitutional, marriage has been a civil right. Based on this assessment, the only recourse is to legalize it everywhere. But this is a compromise, remember? There has to be a caveat in a compromise, so here it is: gay marriage would be legal, but no church would be forced to perform or authorize them against the will of their leadership. But wait! That defeats the point, right? NO, for three reasons: there are churches that want gay marriage legalized, Justices of the Peace, ship captains and Elvis impersonators will still be able to perform legally binding marriages, and the separation of church and state would dictate the government not force any church to perform a marriage it doesn't want to perform. Yeah, I said "separation of church and state", what about it? Doesn't feel too awesome when it's used against you, does it, secular humanists? Take that! Ahem... Back on topic.
"Separation of church and state" works both ways: churches don't try and enact undue influence on the government, and the government doesn't tell churches what to do. Therefore, any religious organization that objects to gay marriage doesn't have to do them, since the marriage could just be performed elsewhere and be just as legal.
Anyway, that's my Opinion. I think it's rad, but I'm biased in its favor, so what do you expect? Feel free to express your Opinions below so I may tell you how wrong they are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's interesting how you incorporate rational thought into your arguments. I think I like it.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting debate to get into, because like you said it is religiously charged on both sides. Religion often doesn't allow for multiple viewpoints on moral points. Take Elder Christofferson's recent general conference address. In response to parents who don't want to impose the gospel on their children, he said: "What they forget is that the intelligent use of agency requires knowledge of the truth," meaning that if gospel is not pounded into children's heads they will no longer have agency (their freedom will be taken away!) He goes on to say that the adversary doesn't promote objectivity, implying that we shouldn't either.
By the same token, wouldn't voting for the government to allow gay couples to marry be an instance of objectivity on a moral issue? How can they have agency if the truth - "things as they really are" in Elder Christofferson's words - is not imposed upon them? And how will their children have agency (as I think some gay couples raise children)? "Seeking to be neutral about the gospel is, in reality, to reject the existence of God and His authority." I may be taking Christofferson's statement out of context, but I think it represents well one of the major arguments I have heard from Mormons against the legalization of gay marriage. We can't be neutral, because there is one right way, and if we don't support it society will continue to collapse around us.
PS. I don't have any opinions, I just like to debate as well.
Who are you, Anonymous, and why don't more anonymous internet people use their anonymity to respond in a well-thought out manner? I think I like it.
ReplyDeleteI thought that was a good talk, and I don't think you took it out of context; it seems more like an extrapolation to me. Elder Christofferson has a good point, but we have to remember that both sides of child raising have extremes. You *can* push kids too hard, which can lead them to do exactly what they're told not to do out of spite, but you can't just decide to not teach them anything either. It's a really delicate balance.
The government should be objective in some things, like basic human rights, while other things, like murder and drug abuse, should be clearly defined as "no-no's". His talk was referring to individuals being objective, but that's just my interpretation. It's illogical to hold a person or an institution to a standard they've not accepted or have possibly even never heard of, which is part of the reason why the Church stays out of politics.
I understand the reasons for involvement on Props 8 and 102; however, moral outrage (which was the gist of commercials like the one I linked to in the post) shouldn't be allowed to trump constitutionality. After all, there was plenty of moral outrage when mixed-race marriage bans were struck down, and as I noted previously, legalizing mixed-race marriages would constitute a legal precedent for making state bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. On these grounds, the only way gay marriage could be banned is by amending the Constitution, but that's not likely.
I hope that answered the questions you'd posed, but if it didn't, I'll be glad to expound from my Internets Pulpit again.