Ok, perhaps a poor choice of words. I refer, however, to the morality that any philosopher can understand, without reference to any specific religion. Surely, people who live their lives without religious belief structures can lead moral lives, at least in relation to the way they treat their fellow human beings. I was trying to distinguish between universal standards of right and wrong (Golden Rule, charity, mercy, avoidance of harm of others, etc.) that do get some disagreement on the fringes, and laws that clearly reflect the mere influence of a religious practice. My example of beer sales on Sunday seemed perfect as an example, if beer is wrong, it should be wrong all of the time, if beer is OK, then it should be as right to buy it on Sunday as it is on any other day of the week.
Are the common teachings of ancient religions a perfect guide to moral people of today? In most nearly everything, surely they have great value as showing us how to treat each other, but collectively, they have been wrong, as well. All of the major religious texts have countenanced slavery, all sanction war in ways that are easily misinterpreted by individuals who seek power through militarism, and all have regarded women as lesser beings.
Every religion that survived to be practiced today has facets that enabled its adherents to overcome hardships of everyday life. Surely, one of those hardships was producing enough people to fill the needs of an agricultural society. Yes, each new child is another mouth to feed, but generally, that mouth comes with a pair of hands to plant and to reap. Any religion that said, "Replace yourselves, but no more," would have died out what with famines, wars, disease, and accidents, on top of those who were infertile, and we would not have heard about that religion. Clearly, our Western society has re-evaluated its position on slavery, on equality of the races, and of the sexes, and it is currently considering its stance on a form of non-procreative sexual behavior. Were the Biblical (and other faiths) injuctions against homosexuality designed to foster procreative uses of sex, and thus aid the spread of the society with that set of beliefs, or are they universal truths, never to be tampered with? Many here would argue the latter, many in the world outside of Free Republic would agree with the former. Those are going to be the fellow Americans who will need to be convinced that gay marriage is wrong for reasons that do not revolve around ancient religious beliefs, tradition (which is just doing something a certain way because its always been done that way), or procreation. I just haven't seen any reasons that would convince anybody in the middle, who hears the other side talk about fairness, lack of harm to existing and future heterosexual marriages, and tolerance.
We will wind up similar to a large pack of snarling dogs, and the big dog will set the rules.
Well, I suspect there will be a lot of snarling in about five months or so, when gay people will either flock to MA for ceremonies and marriage certificates to take back to the courts at home. That's only if the MA legislature fails to adopt a civil unions plan that peels away one judge from the 4-3 majority, to approve the compromise. Those people who think that some form of civil disobedience or divine intervention will occur to prevent any official recognition of some form of gay commitment by the state of Massachusetts will be quite disappointed. I expect there to be lots of unhappy people posting here on May 17th (or soon thereafter, if the legislature fails to enact something the court -the big dog here- can live with) when CNN shows pictures of gay couples in wedding regalia on TV. By that time, middle America will have come to grips with it, and if the answer is gay marriage that they don't like, they can always vote for the guy who believes that marriage should always be between a man and a woman.
Apparently you see religion based morality as antiquated, imperfect, and needing updating. The problem with that view is where does the metamorphosis of moral standards stop? It only stops when the big dog says it stops. Gay marriage seems to be ok with a lot of people now (although the figures I've read are about 60% against); but if there are no moral absolutes, what about polygamy? Already there may be a case about that. Polyandry? Or sets of three or more people? Or incest? There's nothing inherently "more" wrong about those types of sexual relationships.
And what about pedophilia? There are currently professors and psychologists who are propagandizing adult child sex - in the name of childrens' rights of sexual expression. Gay activists initially wanted to eliminate the age of consent; now it has been softened to lowering it bit by bit so as not to outrage the natives. (In the Netherlands, they have lowered it for boys to 12, due to the pressure from gay activists.) You may say, well, adults having sex with children is wrong because the majority of people say it's wrong. Majority is an amorphous thing, changes with whoever's voice is the loudest and most insistent.
I agree that mere quoting of the Bible (or Manu Samhita, or Talmud) is not enough to convince everyone of the evils or harm caused by normalization of same sex acts or marriage. But eliminating moral absolutes from legitimate discussion means that eventually the debate boils down to: "It's right!" "No, it's wrong!" "No, it's right!" etc. and those with the most access to media and courts, wins.
Scripter's links contain article after article of the dangers of same sex acts in the form of disease, pedophilia and so on. But people who want to normalize homosexuality avoid these topics like the plague. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own set of facts. If someone wants to make the claim that same sex acts are not unhealthy or physiologically unnatural, let's see some articles. The facts about homosexuality are driven from the debate by gay activists and their handmaidens, with cries of "bigot!" and "hater!", threats of lawsuits, or - as in Canada, the UK and other countries, fines and jail sentences.
True, but a slavery that more resembles today's 30-year mortgage than the slavery of the U.S. south. No religion santions treating people as property. That was the huge jump that made slavery immoral. There is nothing inherently immoral in a business transaction that binds one man in service to another for long periods of time, or for life, as long as the bound is treated as a human being.
all sanction war in ways that are easily misinterpreted by individuals who seek power through militarism, and all have regarded women as lesser beings.
So you blame the religious truths for those who misapply them?
Shalom.