Leviticus, Galatians, and 1 Corinthians, Oh My!
A recent conversation elsewhere on the interwebs regarding the same-sex marriage debate has me thinking a lot about red herrings.
You see, the debate about same-sex marriage (specifically in the US, but I think this applies to liberal democratic republics in general) is an absolutely, purely, 100% legal one, with no connection to religion whatsoever. Yet religion gets dragged into the debate time and time again, originally by those opposed, but I'm seeing it used more and more by those in favor, which shows just how pernicious red herrings can be.
I'm referring, of course, to the worn out Leviticus 20:13, which is usually invoked alongside some vague appeal to freedom of religion to justify continuing to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. This strikes me as an odd verse to cite by people that also frequently invoke slippery slope arguments ("today gay marriage, tomorrow polygamy, man-dog, and adult-child marriage" ring any bells?) considering that verse doesn't just refer to homosexual relations as "abomination" - the basis for denying marriage rights - but it specifically commands killing those who engage in homosexual acts. "Today no marriage rights, tomorrow The Chair" anyone?
The other side has an unfortunate tendency to respond with Biblical arguments of its own ("Leviticus is Old Testament, which doesn't apply because Jesus" being the most common, but there's also selective interpretation of other passages taken to imply sanctioning of same-sex unions elsewhere) instead of pointing out the ludicrousness of invoking any religious text in a debate about secular legal practice and pointing out how no violation of freedom of religion would occur by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I can only speculate on the motives, but I suspect the moderate and liberal religious folks do so out of a desire to lead what they believe to be a misguided fellow believer back to the right path, and the irreligious folks do so out of a desire to win over the anti-marriage rights activist by "speaking their language".
Responding to a fallacy with a fallacy (a form of that same fallacy, no less) accomplishes nothing. This becomes quickly apparent when the debate devolves into back-and-forth arguments involving specific verses and disagreement on how to interpret various passages, a vortex of muddy water that just goes around and around with no conclusion in sight - which is exactly the goal with red herrings! What gets lost in all this is one very simple fact, that the same-sex marriage debate boils down to one question, and one question only: to whom should the state issue marriage licenses?
Freedom of religion is irrelevant as churches would still be free to refuse to perform the wedding ceremony or deny membership to whomever they please. Same-sex marriage does not represent an attack on religious freedom in any way.
The related "sanctity of marriage" argument is similarly hollow, as is the associated counter-proposal of civil unions and other "separate but equal" non-marriage entities for same-sex couples. Religion has no special claim on the word "marriage", as my own situation illustrates: civil wedding in the Salt Lake County Clerk's office with an Assistant County Clerk presiding. No church nor member of the clergy was involved at any time (as was fitting, considering it was two atheists getting married), yet what we had was a fully-recognized marriage, not a civil union. Marriage is a legal contract, governed by the "laws of men" and completely independent of religion.
The religious lose no rights if same-sex couples gain the right to marry, and the only special privilege they lose (which some of them don't even want) is the privilege of using the state as a tool of discrimination against a group of people they don't like. This is the argument that those in favor of same-sex marriage should be making, not engaging in the same, pointless game of Who's the Best at Cherry-Picking Bible Verses.