In giving my response to the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage, I will provide for you a long explanation as well as an abridged one. I think both of them are incredibly profound in their own way and I would hope that you agree with me.
Abridged version:
IT'S ABOUT TIME, MAN.
Long Explanation:
Deeply rooted in the minds of many Americans (along with many others worldwide) is the notion that the human race is a privileged species that is given a series of reasonable rules and regulations that we must follow in order to please a higher power. As I will demonstrate in this post, I don't believe we are a species of great privilege and I don't believe that some of these moral codes pushed on us by big brother are at all reasonable or logical. In addition to this, I will demonstrate why these simple viewpoints are hugely influential to the mind of the religious and nonbeliever alike. If you read the previous post, I will reiterate some of the points that I tried to make there. I will attempt try to make this post fun by creating profiles of four different individuals and demonstrating why they believe the ideas that they do as well as adding my own commentary to their beliefs.
Profile #1: The Christian Creationist. Let's call him "Eric".
Everybody, meet Eric. Eric is part of the alarming 40% of Americans that don't believe in the legitimacy of Evolutionary theory. In denying the history of our species, Eric believes that animals such as Monkeys and Starfish belong in the same category of "soulless animals" regardless of the small difference in our D.N.A. compared to other primates, particularly chimpanzees and Bonobos. Eric goes on to believe that humans are the only creatures capable of creativity and rational thought and will view any non-human's behavior as mechanical and without legitimate thought. As a consequence of this, Eric is immune to biological-based reasoning. He can be told that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs at around a 10% frequency. Also, he can be told that Bonobos, our closest relative, have intercourse with males and females without bias. Neither of these facts would phase him. I was watching a debate on Youtube featuring physicist Laurence Krauss. In this debate, the main topic is the legitimacy of the bible and its stance on homosexual activity. One of the participants, an evangelical priest, disregarded Laurence Krauss's comment that 10% of rams will engage in homosexual long-term relationships by saying the following: "Well, that is just one confused, messed-up ram then.” People of this type are immune to reason. They subscribe to nonsensical moral obligations that are by no means intuitive to human nature. However, because we are "privileged", nature must be disregarded for blind, unalterable allegiance to a supposedly perfect entity who seems to have changed his mind over time on several issues.
Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for Eric.
Profiles #2 and #3: The Evolutionary-sympathetic christians: Let's call them Mark and Stanley.
Mark and Stanley share many of the same beliefs that Eric does. They both believe that man was created in the image of the almighty and is the chosen species to govern the planet. Additionally, Mark and Stanley can both be seen occasionally catching up with the latest issue of scientific American that talks about the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
This school of belief can be a bit iffy because of the literal versus symbolic interpretations that can come along with reading the Bible. This is where Mark and Stanley begin to differ. Before that, they accept the creation tales in the book of genesis as a mere symbolic lesson: that all creation is good because God says so. On the other hand, a schism can be discovered in later stories such as the interpretation of the Leviticus laws along with such tales as the one of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Some people like our friend Stanley will view the Leviticus laws as completely irrelevant or simply mistranslated. On the other hand, Mark believes the classical Christian stance on homosexuality and can be heard describing it as "a crime against nature","an abomination" or "just plain filthy". Stanley will later be heard proclaiming that Christianity is all about love and if two people both share a profound love for each other and want to marry, they should. Because of his thinking, he will also view same-sex relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships and thus they should be respected and protected under the law. Stanley is much more likely to have the opinion that government should stay out of marriage as well. Mark, on the other hand, thinks that the government should protect the institution of marriage and that additionally to being morally correct, the man-woman bond works best in raising children and creating a stable society. He believes he is looking out for the best of his species. Fewer people like Mark will think that the government should stay out of marriage, it sometimes depends on how libertarian they are in that manner.
Profile #3: The skeptic!
I'm dedicating this one to someone I know. I will be referring to the skeptic as "Josh".
Josh is a fellow who values the separation of church and state along with not giving a damn about what people do in their personal lives as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. In addition to these lovely qualities, Josh believes in looking to logic and reason in order for us to legitimately determine what is right and wrong. He doesn't care that religious people think he needs an unalterable moral authority to give him permission to use morals and he understands that our natural selection-acquired empathy is the legitimate source of our altruism and good will to our fellow creatures. Finally, the most interesting bit, he does not believe that there is anything special spirituality-wise about our particular primate species.
As a consequence of this belief, he is more easily able to recognize our similarities with other animals and therefore be honest about our nature and origins. Without needing to say much more, Josh values the idea of advancing our understanding of ourselves to the point where we are able to look upon those who love members of their sex without ingrained prejudice. In doing this, Josh is already doing more good than Eric could ever do on this issue. Unlike Eric, Josh doesn't want our species to be trapped in an unjust status quo just so God will look down upon his heavenly throne with a nod of appreciation for our obedience to his word. Hooray for Josh!
Now, what I have concluded by these profiles is that the people of this country should understand that theists and skeptics are making completely different allegiances. Theists act as if they desire a theocracy. They are overly concerned with our country's alleged foundation in their faith (at least, that’s what they tell themselves), and in the process, they pray to the heavens to have mercy and not judge this country. They disregard the real reasons why God would be displeased with the conduct of our nation such as modern-day racism and the behavior of many big corporations. But because we're apparently so pious and faithful, God is going to shed his eternal light upon our land, right? Well... not after gay marriage is legal he won't!
Am I the only one who thinks that he should fix his priorities?
The tragic thing is, questioning the morality of same-sex marriages is something so counter-intuitive to our neutral nature that it takes the authority of religion to say it is wrong. Moreover, you can't have an intellectually respectable debate about it because people like Eric are so convinced that the Bible is the literal truth of the almighty. In the face of any evidence, he would not change his mind.
Does this not horrify anybody?
The skeptics, on the other hand, are interested in the rational pursuit of knowledge. They want to have a good understanding of human biology and psychology without having the pressure of God's word on their backs. Without wanting to justify their faith, they are able to have a neutral goal towards understanding courtesy of the scientific method. They understand that unchangeable allegiance to a bronze-age holy book is detrimental to the legitimate pursuit of the truth. Consistent with this philosophy is the idea that they are welcome to being proved wrong.
Scientists' jobs are to prove their own ideas wrong for the sake of arriving at what is factual. This is the species of philosophy that I would like to give me biological information about such topics as sexual orientation. Science is consistent and it produces results; just take a look at such things as vaccines and other incredible medical discoveries. You would have to be mentally deficient to have faith that the Bible can give you better insight into human psychology than psychologists themselves.
Our knowledge of the universe is still expanding, and we are consistently able to overcome our prejudices with the new insight that science provides about our nature. We, therefore, can rationally draw conclusions about what should logically and justly be considered morally acceptable behavior. I long for the day that our species can look to such concepts of sexual orientation and gender with the understanding that I myself have adopted.
Our society and culture is ever-changing, and just as we have evolved physically, we need to evolve socially. We must rise out of the ashes of the tyranny of some of these superstitions and accept the contingency of these useless social constructs in order to achieve a better understanding of each other, as well as ourselves.
