As a graduate student studying mathematics, I was deeply saddened after reading the recent letter to the editor written by my fellow mathematics graduate students in Tolerance needed for those who don’t support same-sex marriage (SN 11/18).
If only they were to employ some of the basic axiomatic reasoning skills that our science is built upon, they would realize their entire argument relies on one premise: The laws are means of enforcing morality.
Laws are tools to regulate social life in order to protect rights and avoid harm, not the other way around. Specifically, they are not means to restrict people’s financial rights (tax benefits for same-sex couples, for example) through the moral views of the majority of the registered eligible voters who choose to vote.
Mathematicians, of all people, should know this is not the appropriate alternative to universal tolerance. After all, the negation of the statement “one has to tolerate every morality view” is “one does not need to tolerate every morality view,” and not “one can impose their morality on others.”
Onur Agirseven
mathematics graduate student
Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
