Mr. Beckwith:
It is hard to imagine how one can treat someone with respect and at the same time believe that such a person is not entitled to the same rights that you have.
Quite frankly, your position reminds me of those southern whites who treated blacks with "respect" while segregating them, denying them full legal rights, and turning a blind eye to their persecution. It is worth remembering that for more than 150 years Christians defended both slavery and segregation with religious and biblical arguments.
It seems to me that it is possible to consider some behavior which involves consenting adults to be immoral and still understand that you have no right to seek to deny those people legal rights. I may find it immoral for some people to try to convert others, or to denounce their faith, but I would not deny them the legal and constitutional right to do so. True tolerance is believing the other guy is dead wrong, but also believing he has right to live his life with the same legal rights that other people have. That would include the right to marry; to help your partner make end of life decisions, to visit your partner in the hospital; in inherit from your partner without undue probate or tax consequences.
-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Paul:
I don?t see it as a matter of like or dislike; in fact, I think that this mischaracterizes people?s objection to homosexuality. Clearly, some people don?t like Christians and Jews, but that doesn?t mean that one may not have arguments against the veracity of those religious points of view without disliking its members. I am, for example, friends with two gay men, one of whom has been a close friend for years. He know that I morally object to homosexuality, but we treat each other with respect. That is true tolerance: believing the other guy is dead wrong but nevertheless treating him as a moral agent entitled to all the dignity that goes with that status.
I think that the gay rights movement has corrupted our public discourse by the rhetorical trick of changing the topic from the plausibility of one?s position to whether the one who embraces that position is a virtuous person. So, for example, if a concerned parent sincerely believes that homosexuality is immoral, and has informed himself of all the relevant arguments and remains unconvinced of the other?s position, that parent is ?homophobic.? I am not convinced that is how adults ought to conduct their disagreements in public. It?s just the ?you?ve got cooties? rejoinder for grown-ups.
That?s my story and I?m sticking to it.
Frank
On 6/2/04 11:58 AM, "Paul Finkelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think Robin is clearly right here; some people just don't like the idea of gay people; end of story. It is about homophobia. So, they will oppose same sex marriage and any other thing that helps or protects gay people. I am sure there are many people who don't attend any church, synagogue, temple, or mosque and are not "religious" but are nevertheless opposed to giving rights to gay people.
Similarly, a law is not religious in nature just because thre is some biblial or religious support for it. Cultures that did not recognize (or even know about) the Bible still had laws prohibited murder or theft or perjury. Thus, even though such behavior is proscribed in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5, the laws against such behavior are not religious in any way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
