Marriage & religion mutually exclusive
I'm writing about Rudy Gagliardi's Feb. 5 letter “Gays can change ways,” in which he spews religious dogma against homosexuality. The views of his religion should have no bearing on what the government's position on homosexuality is.
While Mr. Gagliardi and his religious compatriots may restrict matrimony to what their religion believes, the government can do no such thing. From the government's perspective, a marriage is simply a contract between consenting individuals.
The government's role is solely to recognize the terms of the contract, not stipulate that the parties have complementary genitalia. Moreover, marriage is not about some secondary purpose such as procreation. While religions infuse marriages with a divine purpose, there is absolutely no justification for it.
As Shannon Britton writes in her letter, “Gays' right to marry” (Jan. 15), the theocratic aims of those who view homosexuality as a sin against God are explicitly leading to the creation of a second tier of individuals who have their civil rights curtailed based on religion. This is similar to what occurs in some Islamic countries with non-Muslims.
As history has proven, the difference between theocrats of the Christian and Muslim varieties is only superficial, as both forms of supernaturalism, if given political power, spawn similar tyrannies.
Amesh A. Adalja
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Good riddance
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Don’t blame bus drivers I
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- No ground troops
- Youth & work ethic
- Beware this Wolf I
- Valid complaints
- Unite on this