Sharia Law vs. Bans on Gay Marriage

[micatala]

Here is an exchange from the Problem with Islam thread.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=150

Then you disagree with the American system of government.

I do, in certain aspects, such as the legalisation of brothels, legalisation of alcohol, legalisation of intoxicants, gambling etc... (You call it "Freedom", i dont).

I disagree with some of those things just as much as you do. The huge difference is I believe in a separation of church and state, and leave it up to God to judge people at the final judgement, as Jesus commanded. Islam does not.

Questions for debate:

1) Are bans on gay marriage just as counter to separation of church and state as bans on alcohol, gambling, brothels, etc.? Feel free to make distinctions among the particular behaviors.

2) Are such bans similar to what one might find under Sharia law in Muslim countries?

In debating 2), it might be good to clarify exactly what Sharia law says, and what different versions of Sharia law there are. I freely confess my knowledge of Sharia is scant, and my guess is that many people, at least in the U.S., share my ignorance.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1) Are bans on gay marriage just as counter to separation of church and state as bans on alcohol, gambling, brothels, etc.? Feel free to make distinctions among the particular behaviors.

What happens here is we find so many theists opposed to gay marriage and other laws, but who use other than strictly religious arguments in opposition. We simply can't know how much of one's religious views inform such arguments - but we can note there's a whole lot of religious folks in opposition.

2) Are such bans similar to what one might find under Sharia law in Muslim countries?

I can't really say for sure. My perception, and my argument, is that there are too many ways to oppress people under the guise of religion. Theocracy should be left to history.

[micatala]

From the OP:

1) Are bans on gay marriage just as counter to separation of church and state as bans on alcohol, gambling, brothels, etc.? Feel free to make distinctions among the particular behaviors.

What happens here is we find so many theists opposed to gay marriage and other laws, but who use other than strictly religious arguments in opposition. We simply can't know how much of one's religious views inform such arguments - but we can note there's a whole lot of religious folks in opposition.

I agree, the opposition to gay marriage, although fairly widespread among a variety of denominations, is largely promoted by "religious folks."

I also agree they have moved from using largely religious arguments to other types of arguments. The problem, as I see it, is that it is pretty hard to find any such argument used against gay marriage that could not also be applied to lots of other groups or individuals to deny those groups or individuals the right to marry. Based on a lot of the arguments currently being made, you would also need to prohibit people who are sterile or infertile, divorced, promiscuous or belong to a group that is more promiscuous on average than the general population, etc.

If the purpose or effect is largely to promote a religious view, then the action should be, in my view, considered unconstitutional.

2) Are such bans similar to what one might find under Sharia law in Muslim countries?

I can't really say for sure. My perception, and my argument, is that there are too many ways to oppress people under the guise of religion. Theocracy should be left to history.

I would largely agree. Whatever Sharia law does say, I would say it is fine for Muslims individually or in subgroups to voluntarily follow that law, just like it is fine for Christians or Jews to follow their own religious laws (Mosaic Law, etc.).

I would say it is OK for civil law to be consistent with religious laws of various sorts, as long as the primary purpose or effect of the law is not to promote religion or a particular religious view.

[McCulloch]

From where I sit, the ban on gay marriage, now lifted in my country, is worse than the ban on gambling, or variously abused substances. The one has no secular support whatsoever. For the others, a non-religious could conceivably be made.

I believe in freedom of religion, that there should be no compulsion in matters of faith or religion. Thus the power and authority of the state should not be used to enforce any faith. While laws may at times agree with the stated principles of certain religions (murder and theft are bad), such agreements should never be because any of the laws were established to uphold religious values.

[Lux]

Bans on gay marriage are quite contrary to the separation of church and state, unless I have missed something important. Every argument against gay marriage that I have ever heard (and I was an activist for this cause) relied on morality which 9 times out of 10 was religious morality, or personal opinion often containing the words "traditional family" or "traditional values".

Just like my personal opinion on cigarettes should not alter the fact that others can smoke, people's moral ideas about homosexuality shouldn't be a reason to ban gay marriage.

I'm not a savant regarding Sharia either. From what I have read, the ban of gay marriage in America is comparable only in principle, and just hardly. Under Sharia law, homosexual activity is an offense. In some relatively secular countries like Jordan and Turkey, homosexual acts are not penalized. However, in others like Iran and Saudi Arabia, the death penalty may be issued. So the extent to which that part of Sharia is applied varies a lot.

Banning gay marriage has the same idea behind it than banning homosexual activity (religious morality imposed on the general population), but clearly the extent to which it is applied under Sharia is far more invasive. Gay rights are more advanced in the USA than in most Muslim countries.