It is both arrogant and unrealistic for one to expect others to be persuaded by an argument that uses a definition of morality that he or she does not agree with. Morality is not an objective concept. I was dismayed by the letter to the editor written by Adam Stokes and Will Grimsley on the subject of gay marriage because they seem to expect everyone in the community to base their opinions on Stokes' and Grimsley's morality. Do they have proof that homosexuality is a choice? Their theory must be proven before it can support an argument, and I certainly don't consider Alan Keyes an authority on the subject.
Even if sexual orientation is a choice, there is still no reason for people in homosexual relationships to be discriminated against based on arbitrary moral standards. Trying to justify discrimination undermines the basic civil rights of all Americans. The Bible is full of contradictions at best-I see many Christians following Levitical law by condemning homosexuality, I also see them gobbling up their morning bacon at the marketplace (Leviticus 11:7-8). Although the framers may have written the Constitution with Judeo-Christianity in mind, they also set up a separation between church and state. In modern court interpretations, it is accepted that discrimination in secular activities based on religious principles is a violation of this principle. I have no desire to go back to the religious ideals of a time when the Bible was used to justify slavery and keep the vote from women.
Whether or not homosexual domestic partnership benefits make it through the courts, the current system does discriminate, and trying to justify this discrimination in the name of a God that no one can explain is a cop out. People are trying to hide their fear of change and differences behind a moral code they can't justify.
Jillian Johnson
Trinity '03
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.