Adysav,
Quote:
|
Arguments were made in defence of homosexuality. These arguments are also valid as a defence of incest, which is also apparently not a 'natural' state of companionship in the eyes of the law.
|
I don’t believe that the argument of homosexual immorality is valid in this debate.
The claim is made, that homosexuality is immoral and thus if we accept homosexuality then that would allow other immoral practices to be accepted as well and this perpetuate until America is the new incarnation of Sodom and Gomorrah.
This argument is very powerful and often used in homophobic circles. Yet one would notice that it is never used at face value in debates against same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general. This is because the argument holds no logical value what so ever. It is an argument that is derived from the Old Testament, which is a questionable source for anything.
The government cannot base its laws on religious morals. This is because churches are often not the bastions of morality they claim to be. The Catholic Church condoned many un-constitutional law in the past, including slavery and the ban on interracial marriage. Further more when it comes to dispensing morality the Catholic Church is not the sole provider. There are many religions out there many of which have morals that are based on nothing greater then “because it’s written in our scriptures”. Therefore the government cannot use religious scriptures, personal opinions or traditions to determine the legality of homosexuality and same-sex marriage or any other issue, it must use logic.
Quote:
|
These arguments are also valid as a defense of incest, which is also apparently not a 'natural' state of companionship in the eyes of the law. If the argument turns out to be invalid for incest then it should also be invalid for homosexuality.
|
Thus the above statement is false. The logical arguments questioning the validity of laws against incest and homosexuality are completely different (this must be apparent by now). Making one legal would not make the other legal because that is not how laws are not made nor unmade.
It should please you that that same holds true for morals and traditions. The past and enduring conflicts concerning race, homosexuality, abortion, contraception, and divorce should show you that people hold on tightly to the past and many of them do not let it go even if laws are changed. The scaffolding of morality and tradition is very strong and this (as everything else) has an upside and a downside. Our strong inclination towards morals and traditions insures that we live in a cohesive society. As society changes and evolves (becomes multi-cultural/religious and educated) morals and traditions can become harmful to individuals. This is where our strong grasp on morality and tradition causes unnecessary and prolonged grief when simple logic would have resolved the problem right away.