I've offered two arguments against recognition of same-sex marriage that aren't religious in nature. But beyond this, a vast range of laws is based on "claims that haven't been proven." That's true of intellectual property law, drug laws, gun control laws, rent controls, price controls, labor laws, immigration laws, monopolies, economic subsidies, and much, much more. You can't run double-blind experiments with most laws.
The result, of course, is a great deal of unwise legislation. As voters, we should certainly pay attention to whether there's enough evidence for a particular law in our judgment. But it is very rare that we, even as voters or legislators, can say that there is "pro[of]" of the claims on which the laws rest. And the rational basis test does not require such proof. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:53 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent Dunno about moral questions, but it seems to me that there's lots of arguments made on claims that haven't been proven; Take, for example, the claim that children are harmed by being raised by same-sex parents. Exactly *how* they are harmed is never really quantified; However, there are studies that show that children of same-sex parenting are as well adjusted as their opposite-sex parented peers. In fact, a very recent Australian study says they are *healthier* than their peers. In short, Mr. Pardee, if an argument is made, for or against, it has to be *factual*. How are facts verified? Science. And yes, that acknowledges errors of bias. But science, sir, is what gives us *facts*. As for survival of the fittest, even that hypothesis is in dispute: Nature displays a vast supply of examples of cooperation; herd beasts often protect the young, the vulnerable, from attack. So again, I ask for *one* argument against homosexuality that is not religious in nature. Anybody? On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1, 9:27 PM, "Brad Pardee" <bp51...@windstream.net<mailto:bp51...@windstream.net>> wrote: How many moral questions are based on scientific fact? Whether an argument is in support of same sex marriage/relationships or in opposition to them, it ultimately boils down to a question about what you believe is right and and what you believe is wrong, and those questions, no matter which side of the question you find yourself supporting, are rarely, if ever, supported by scientific fact. If they were, then nature's display of the law of survival of the fittest, a scientifically verified phenomena to be certain , would seem to suggest that objection to killing is irrational. Brad Pardee From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 11:00 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent Would you kindly provide one argument that isn't irrational? Understand that it will indeed be scrutinized for basis in scientific fact, and that it if fails, it will have to be deemed irrational. On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1, 6:35 PM, "Esenberg, Richard" <richard.esenb...@marquette.edu<mailto:richard.esenb...@marquette.edu>> wrote: My intended point is that the notion that opposition to same sex marriage - even if based on traditional arguments about the morality of homosexual relationships - cannot be dismissed as irrational or hateful. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
