HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug 25, 2004 There have been multitudes of arguments made for both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. This story takes no position, and seeks only to point out how philosophical reasoning undercuts the arguments of both sides. This story can be used equally well by both sides of the argument. One of the more common positions on the side of religion is the claim that same-sex marriage defies the will of God. This is, as much, backed up by the philosophical finding that humans, in general, do not like drastic change, especially if they are in the minority in opposing that change. In humans, there is an underlying desire for the status quo. By throwing that balance off, a problem is created. Philosophically speaking, this argument is supported on the grounds that humans have, throughout their existence, sought prophets and texts to create or reinforce their beliefs. This is natural, it is not wrong or right. When these beliefs, what many hold to be an absolute truth in this case, are questioned, a culture shock and accompanying ripple effect will theoretically spread. The argument of religion's position is that, if a contradiction to a value held to be absolute - marriage - is upheld by law, they must now doubt the absoluteness of every other view hey hold and seek to reinforce with that prophet or text. The "slippery slope" argument refined by philosophical study. This culture shock, however, is only theoretical, and can not be proven or gauged for potential harm. Some fact can be shown in how denial and anger flow from both sides with their absolutism on the subject is questioned by each other or outside sources, or when new evidence is brought for discussion. However, as nothing is an absolute, the same philosophy that supports the religious side of the debate also undercuts it severely. If nothing is absolute, that means the values of religion are open to challenge and interpretation, and are flawed, as all human laws are. If this debate is to continue on to any kind of solution, the absolutism of both sides must fall away and allow a logic- and fact-based discussion of the potential gains and drawbacks of same-sex marriage. Religion must admit there are potential gains; opposition must admit there are potential drawbacks. Only then, when both sides admit their humanity on the subject, will the debate truly move outside the theoretical. ------------ About the author: Max Burns lives in Indianapolis and interns with the Indiana Democratic Party. Visit A Big Cup O' JMHX or read the fantasy-fiction novel "Alcardia". Email: MBurns_NS@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
