When structuring an argument against gay marriage, many people might turn to the religious side first. ‘God made man and woman and that is the way it should be’. However, in a recent article from the New York Times, where it is reported that gay marriage is ruled legal in the state of Connecticut, the Galloway couple argues for a different reason against gay marriage. In the article, the Galloway’s use the basis of biology and science instead of religion to justify gay marriage being wrong. “It takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family”, says Mrs. Galloway in the article. The couple argues that, biologically, it is for a man and woman to create and raise a family together. By allowing same sex marriage, we would be going against biology and diminishing the structure of the family according to the way science intended it to be, according to this argument. The couple also sights sociological studies and personal examples in which they believe the importance of both a mother and father should maintain the focus of the family structure. Also according to their line of thinking, “marriage encourages a long-term relationship between a man and a woman as a framework for caring for their children. In such a construct, in their view, the population is replenished, and children are raised responsibly and are less likely to be a social and financial burden on the state.” Their argument is rooted in nature and the preservation of the family within society.
I think the Galloway’s argument is a valid one that is often over looked or discarded by many. People make assumptions that if one is opposed to gay marriage it is solely for religious reasons. I think this is an excellent example of how religion can be removed from a political and legal issue. One might assume, in fact, that the Galloway couple is not religious since they are not basing their decision in religious argument, but they are in fact Christians, but they do not find their religious beliefs to be the justification as to why gay marriage is wrong. I personally do not think it should matter what religion they practice. I believe that a well-structured argument can be made for or against major political issues for some people without religion being brought into it. Should it matter what religion a person practices when debating major political or legal issues? Why bring religion into an issue if there is no reason to do so? The Galloway argument is a valid one, I think, and I really don’t think the article should have even addressed the fact that they were Christian or brought up any moral values. By doing so, I think it takes away from the grounds on which their argument was based, that nature has set forth reproduction between a man and a woman and that they should be the ones raising and preserving the family, that gay marriage would violate biological tendencies. They make a religion free argument, but yet outsiders find it necessary to bring up their religious affiliation, why?
Source: www.nytimes.com, "Using Biology, Not Religion, to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage" , Oct. 11, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I have a problem with this whole article. Sure, the couple makes a valid point that it does take a woman and a man to create a child but I do not believe in their argument that a woman and man are needed to raise a family. What are single parents supposed to do, especially if one parent is nonexistent. Does that not contradict their argument? I do not understand how those that are sterile or women who use a donor would fit into this claim. Does that mean that they should not be allowed to get married either. Using a biological argument raises just as many questions as the religion argument. The bottom line is that I have a huge problem with the Galloway's argument.
I agree, for the most part, with Amanda.
I would like to know what Galloway thinks about Darwin and evolution, since it is the basis of modern biology (we'll see how non-religious he is then)
Scientific theories don't include value judgments, so to say that gay marriage is 'wrong' because it 'goes against biology' simply isn't true. If that's the case than plastic surgery is wrong because it distorts Natural Selection, and hinders evolution of our species. Science doesn't 'intend' the family unit to be any particular way, this is using religious logic with scientific theory. Science doesn't make value judgments about the way things ought to be, it observes and attempts to draw reasonable patterns through posing hypotheses and disproving them, until they become scientific theory. If an observation doesn't fit with their theory they don't attempt to change what they are observing, they must account for the observation within their theory or discount it as being such.
Megan, you pose the question of, “Why bring religion into an issue if there is no reason to do so?” I may be wrong, but I believe this is the project of your post. You are reciting an example of individuals who chose to stake out their political opinions and stances without the influence of religion. I think there are two major weakness with your argument. What is the significance of people who shape their political and social views without religion to guide them? I would not argue that the Galloways don’t do this, but does this make them important? Does their vote count more than anyone else’s who does not do this? It seems you assume that political decisions are better off being made without religious motivations. If you do agree with that statement, you should assert and reinforce this claim in the post. And in closing, I would just like to say that there are some people, if not a majority, in our country who do not see politics and religion as two different spheres. Their political stances are forged by, and not in spite of or regardless to, their religious views. Is there a problem with this? Do you have a better suggestion?
Post a Comment