Legislating (All) Morality

If it's okay with everyone, I'm going to argue with myself. I will be "K" and myself will me "M":

M: You can't legislate morality. I don't like religious people shoving their beliefs down my throat

K: I hear what you're saying. That sounds good. There are some flaws in your argument though, that you're probably not aware of. All of our laws are based on moral assumptions - in many ancient cultures, including Romans at the time of Jesus, it was clear to everyone that some people were inherently more valuable than others. The king was even seen as a God. It is a Judeo-Christian idea that America was founded on that all men are created equal - we legislate this moral belief that we all voted on and agreed to.

M: But there are some things that are just being opposed for religious reasons, not for rational or scientific reasons - like gay marriage for example. There are lots of scientific studies on my side.


K: What if I told you that gay couples are less likely to be monogamous, and more likely to be promiscuous? What if I told you that studies have shown that children raised by gay couples are more likely to be homosexual themselves? What if I cited research about the spread of disease, or the increase in social approval of legalized polygamy and incest, or the corollary reduced value of families in general, or the devaluation of gender, or the emasculation of American men?

M: I would say I don't believe you. Or, at least, I want to see the studies.

K: Why are you more willing to believe your studies than mine? I'm guessing it's because your studies make more sense to you - to your worldview, to your set of moral beliefs. What I hear you saying is, even though this is presented in a rational format, I don't believe evidence that disagrees with what I have already concluded I will believe. From the experiences of my life, I've decided that gay marriage is okay and good and not harmful, and I'm not going to change my opinion no matter what.

M: Well, you can twist things to mean whatever you want them to

K: That's the problem, isn't it? Everything can be twisted - even logic, even science. What about religion?

M: Well, religion isn't valid. It's not based on logic or reason - why should we care about religion when we're talking about politics?

K: Because that's the reason you're voting FOR gay marriage. By accepting some scientific studies and not others, you've demonstrated that your decision-making process, or the process by which you determine validity, has nothing to do with science. When you say the word "should", you're implying inherent "rightness" or "wrongness" in the universe, which, although you may call them ethics, others would call values or morals or religious beliefs - beliefs about what is real, what is good, and what is important, things that can't ultimately be proven. It doesn't have to have a Bible or Quran attached to it to be called a religion - it can be whatever you believe. And I won't disregard your beliefs just because they aren't in a specific category, or because they aren't particularly ancient, or because they're not logical, or because they contradict mine. Your beliefs are welcome, but so are mine.

K: Democracy doesn't mean keeping certain groups from legislating morality. It means allowing all groups to legislate morality - or rather, to vote on their own version of morality. That is the great misunderstanding. If we all have the opportunity to exercise our religious rights, hopefully the good that I believe is inherent in all systems of religious beliefs will rise to the occasion, and out of many good people's beliefs, a democratic society will be able to run with peace and prosperity.