Well, a lot of people who are anti-gay marriage say they know homosexuality is morally wrong because the Bible is against it. But then their opponents always say "well, the bible also says shellfish is an abomination," and pulls out all these examples of how you just can't randomly start taking the Bible literally. The real religious authority on morally acceptable behavior is the church. Especially the Catholic Church, but even in Protestantism, there have been people interpreting the Bible and telling people which parts to take literally and which not to. And in Catholicism, the Church really is the authority - and they're saying gay marriage is a no, and opponents can't say "pssht, the Church also says shellfish is an abomination or that you can't wear synthetic fabrics" cos it doesn't. I think.
It doesn't at all change the real point - they have to accept that the Church is not a secular authority and that marriage IS a secular institution, with government-granted rights. People get distracted with the Bible thing and whether they believe in God or not, but the real point is that what the Bible or the Church says should not have any effect on who the government does or does not give rights to.
However, what I would say that should be based on is a basic understanding of human rights - which may not actually be universal and may be based on a Christian morality in the US. Even then, though, I would say it's just a base and that it's been tempered by logic and modernity in the case of people who aren't committed to traditional religious interpretations (which is not all religious people).
My theory on the warm-weather states is that in hot places people get grumpy and don't like to extend civil rights?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: hey- i'm not sure I'm understanding your "political" section of this post
Date: 2009-04-23 01:54 am (UTC)It doesn't at all change the real point - they have to accept that the Church is not a secular authority and that marriage IS a secular institution, with government-granted rights. People get distracted with the Bible thing and whether they believe in God or not, but the real point is that what the Bible or the Church says should not have any effect on who the government does or does not give rights to.
However, what I would say that should be based on is a basic understanding of human rights - which may not actually be universal and may be based on a Christian morality in the US. Even then, though, I would say it's just a base and that it's been tempered by logic and modernity in the case of people who aren't committed to traditional religious interpretations (which is not all religious people).
My theory on the warm-weather states is that in hot places people get grumpy and don't like to extend civil rights?