 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
May 16, 2006- Commentary on the revocation of the California same-sex marriage ban Base-material http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html My intent is to reduce the emotional influence in this case as much as possible. There seem to be two options as I see it here regarding the long-standing American moral tradition involving the family unit and as marriage being defined as between a man and women:
1) That an absolute moral law exists, handed down by a transcendent being of some sort (Judeo-Christian God in this case); forming the
foundation and appellation of the long-standing moral tradition.
By proclaiming this long standing moral tradition "incorrect" (an absolute statement in itself mind you), either way you lose. Either
you're saying "F-you" to God and his law, or you're decrying your own paradigm by claiming that civilized humans before you got it wrong
(i.e. a moral elitist void of absolute, transcending foundation - the very thing you're condemning); and also that your current moral judgment is just as potentially "flimsy" and unsubstantiated
(in an absolute sense) as the last one - paving the way for future generations to be like "what ignorant, arcane idiots they were" on this
very ruling. By taking this path, you're in essence creating a self defeating cyclic argument that is completely subjective to the times
or majority voice. Who wants a society where moral laws change with the wind? Well if reality is in fact Option #2, you have no choice.
2) That the long standing moral tradition on marriage and the family unit was simply a product of localized human and societal stigmas and/or ignorance; merely a human construct.  Opposing Arguments The opposing argument would most likely be what about all the "long-standing" discriminatory laws of the past from a supposedly "Christian" nation such as human slavery, female civic suppression, racial inequality, etc.; all seemingly justified by divine jurisdiction at the time? Well, as with the case of the current discussion regarding gay marriage (and any moral case appealing to Christian principles), a serious and honest inspection of the foundational doctrines and orthodoxy of the Judeo-Christian faith needs to be undertaken before any critique can be objectively made. When that process is taken regarding the aforementioned topics in this paragraph, it is clear the majority rulings of that time on human slavery, female civic suppression, and racial inequality for instance were woefully incompatible with the very religious foundation in which they were supposedly based! The same cannot be said for the current issue. Though an appeal to hypocrisy and moral instability would seem valid in rejecting what Option #1 suggests concerning gay marriage, this particular case is markedly different from the proposed anecdotal evidence like slavery, etc. Perhaps the next objection would be that my interpretation of Scripture and what is objective and orthodox could be flawed, but then you go down a spiral of redundancy and relativism that I already explained in response to Option #2. Lose-lose Maybe I was a little hard on my assessment of Option #1 being true yet still rejecting it. Perhaps, but whether people cognitively reject the established Judeo-Christian doctrine regarding marriage or not, if it is indeed true, then by invoking Pascal's Wager (not salvation related, but pertinent nonetheless) it's not a good position to be in. Option #2 doesn't fair much better. By the California Supreme Court calling the homosexual marriage ban Is this the biggest social or economic issue plaguing America? No, but it's still important and worth thinking about I think. |
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
