Sometimes I get a kick out of the google search terms that people use to find my site.
Today’s winner:
“left testicle motivational”
True story.
Sounds like a Sean Connery-Celebrity Jeopardy category mixup.
To the right is the picture that turned up The Irishman.
….and Massachusetts, and Vermont.
I’ve been flittin’ about on different discussion boards and listening to all the brou-ha-ha on SSM in the media, and I’ve noticed a common narrative that, frankly, is contradictory.
Many claim that there are no secular arguments against SSM. Yet, these pundits/commenters often turn back around and critique secular arguments. “These arguments have no merit” they say, giving reasons why these arguments are bogus.
If there are no secular arguments, then there are no secular arguments. You can’t say that and then turn right back around and critique a secular argument.
It is inconsistent to critique something you think doesn’t exist. Either there are no secular arguments, or there are secular arguments that have no merit. Can’t have it both ways.
The same pundits often qualify their statements by saying, “It is only a religious issue in the sense that opponents to SSM are motivated by religious beliefs.”
This is a totally different claim than what is first set out. There is a difference between a religious motivation for a political stance and there being “no secular arguments” (i.e. all arguments are religious in nature) for a political stance.
To see this, consider a key plank in the Republican platform: limited government. Some, Christians, gravitate towards this view because they hold certain biblical beliefs about human nature. There are many atheists and agnostics, though, that gravitate towards limited government for economic or other reasons. The same goes for big government–people from all sorts of theological backgrounds hold to that view. Are we then supposed to fault limited government and/or big government policies because some are religiously motivated in their commitment to them?
What you are advancing is tantamount to viewpoint discrimination…in our country, all viewpoints can argue their case, including those motivated by religious concerns, as long as they use non sectarian arguments that are accessible to a wide swath of the public. As Meacham said in the recent Newsweek article on the Decline of Christian America, “Let the religious take their stand in the arena of politics and ideas on their own, and fight for their views on equal footing with all other interests.”
If you disagree, remember, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…atheistic and agnostic viewpoints would then be subject to exclusion as well, for they are just as concerned with theology as a theistic worldview is.
Most arguments against SSM that I’ve heard center around certain views of gender difference, tradition, the common good, and what’s the best for children. These views are held by Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, JW’s, Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Heck, even atheists and agnostics, can, in principle, hold to all those things (though, I admit, these concerns are more at home in a theistic worldview). The point is that since they are common to many religions, the arguments don’t establish a particular religion.
One more comment regarding the “religious” issue: if arguments against SSM are out of bounds for being religiously motivated, what about the countless number of folks who argued for SSM based on their religious convictions? Several churches put forth pro-SSM arguments based on their theological views, yet I haven’t heard a single person object to that. It is special pleading at best…really, it sounds just plain disingenuous.
Check out the following related posts:
Tagged Christianity, homosexuality, politics, religion, Same-sex Marriage
