Granting himself a break from his academic Iraq coverage, Juan Cole vacations on the breezy topic of gay marriage:
A law against gay marriage seems to me to fail the "secular purpose" test, and insofar as the political base for passing it is conservative churches, it would seem pretty entangled with religion, too. And that is my reply to Senator Rick Santorum and others who argue that gay marriage is equivalent to many deviant practices frowned on by society. There is a secular purpose for forbidding marriage of close relatives, since it exposes the offspring to heightened genetic danger. There is a secular purpose for forbidding pedophilia and pederasty, indeed there are many secular purposes fulfilled by such a ban (forbidding the manipulation through intimacy of the young by persons much their senior, which is unfair, and keeping the young from developing all sorts of neuroses and personality problems as a result of an inappropriate relationship for which they are unready). It is said that gay unions offend against the sanctity of marriage. Actually the secular state has no business marrying anyone if it is thereby affirming the "sanctity" of anything.Sharp and succinct. I think that the Pledge of Allegiance ought to be amended: The United States of
So where's our end of the world? Creeping it's way out of The People's Republic of Saudi Taxa-Mordorchussettsodomstan, I guess? Only a few religious radicals out there are expositing on the next step—a constitutional amendment, or, say, as John Derbyshire suggests, the eugenic extinction of homosexuality. (That smattering of compassionate conservatism courtesy of Pandagon.) But I kind of feel like nothing's happening—frankly, I don't really care that these people in Massachusetts are getting married. Except inasmuch as the State has proven itself above the fanatical clamor of religious radicalism.
Posted by Kriston at May 20, 2004 7:44 AMKriston,
In the past, when discussing similar subjects, you've requested that those with an opposing point of view provide reasoning and facts which do NOT draw from one's own personal religious beliefs. You seem to do this with the underlying assumption that the other side cannot "produce" without using religion.
What is really annoying about this is that the Left's position on such things as so-called Gay rights, abortion, and radical environmentalism (where animals' lives and health are considered as important as humans)... these positions also naturally grow out of a belief system... one which kills God (or minimalizes, by denying Him His power) and this results in a worldview which is typically rooted in neo-darwinist evolution.
But, I'd rather save that discussion for another day.
Instead, today I will take up your challenge. To do so, I've decided to let Thomas Sowell do the talking.
Sowell is an intellectual giant. You just don't get a lot of hyperbole from him (as you do from me occasionally... or periodically?). Also, Sowell is hardly a religious nut. I've read his articles for years and I don't ever recall him invoking religion or the Bible (not that this alone would make someone a religious nut). As a matter of fact, Sowell might be an atheist, for all I know.
His relevant articles are here, here, and here.
Posted by: Rob McEwen at May 21, 2004 9:19 AM