I think to deny them is discrimination.
|
Posted on 12/01/2003 8:29:13 PM PST by panther33
Greetings from a fellow FReeper!
I am a fervent debater, and most anybody who's ever met me in person can testify to that. One of the most controversial issues I have been debating lately has been gay marriage. Does the U.S. government have a right to ban gay marriage? Can America justify making homosexuality illegal?
As a proud Christian, I believe whole-heartedly in the Bible. There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that the Bible finds homosexuality to be a highly immoral practice. However, when I am arguing with atheists or followers of other religions, especially over a political issues, it seems to be virtually impossible to quote the Bible in any way. If they don't believe in the Book, how can I use it in my argument?
I am consequently faced with a perplexing dilemma: to argue a moral issue without injecting religion.
Bottom line, I need help--ideas, suggestions, web site links, thought-provoking comments, etc. Below I've written down a couple of random thoughts relating to the topic, and I would greatly appreciate your input.
- What about the argument that society is constantly outlawing activities it deems to be immoral and unbecoming of a United States citizen? (stealing, killing, lying) How do I respond to those who try to point out differences between, for example, stealing some gadgets from Radio Shack and marrying a member of the same sex?
- The Tenth Amendment essentially gives states any right not expressed in the Constitution. Does this mean that it is up to each individual state to decide whether or not to allow gay marriages?
This thread will not only help me improve in my debates, but also in the development of my own personal ideas as well.
This is very wise. You will be a more effective debater on this topic if the ideas come from your own reasoning and are not parrotted from your favorite Freeper... after all, no matter how much good information we may feed you, you may still have to field a curveball and think on your feet.
I think to deny them is discrimination.
|
Getting beyond definitions, point out that society scorns smoking. Why! Because it's a health hazard. The average smoker loses 5 years of lifetime from the activity. Homosexuality is a worse health hazard. The average male homosexual loses more than 25 years of lifetime from his unique activities. If every male homosexual gave up peter puffing for cigarette puffing we'd see an improvement in public health on an epidemic scale.
The bottom line is that the public endorsement of homosexual relationships may be beneficial in the long run. When lemming populations grow out of control, the lemmings run into the sea in swarms. When human populations grow out of control, humans opt not to breed, abort their progeny, and abuse their progeny. Think about it--it's liberals who are chosing these options. Natural selection in action.
As someone who does not believe the government should sanction gay unions, I will readily admit that religious belief is the underpinning.
However, I believe that God's laws were designed not to deprive us of pleasure, but to protect us from dangers, seen and unseen. Thus it to our mutual benefit for all of us to obey his teachings, even those who do not believe.
Of course, this must be balanced against the notion of freedom. Indeed, Jesus says that he will convict the world of sin because they do not believe in Me; so apparently, his priority is faith first, then behavior. And Paul informs us that we should indeed judge fellow believers more strictly on moral issues than non-believers. So there is a case to be made that the Bible does assume a certain civil freedom that we Christians should not necessary indulge in.
Nevertheless, I find it reasonable that our beliefs at least contribute to our opinions about what should be codified in law.
(1) Same-sex "marriage" would certainly not be "a massive societal leap in the dark." (2) Same-sex "marriage" would not radically alter the nature of marriage as society has known it; instead, marriage would bring "stability" to gays, "domesticate them" and bring them closer to society's mainstream.
(3) Churches, synagogues and other religious organizations would not be forced to enact or recognize same-sex civil "marriages." (4) Granting same-sex "marriage" recognition would not exacerbate the tumultuous struggle over "gay rights"; it would actually defuse the conflict.
Sullivan's assertions demand responses.
Sullivan's Assertion 1: Same-sex "marriage" would be no "leap in the dark" for society.
From all the evidence we have reviewed so far, it should be clear that same-sex "marriage" surely would be "a massive societal leap in the dark." Social critics recognize same-sex "marriage's" potential, just for starters...
... to have enormous impact on the broad range of rights and benefits associated with marriage. These range from income tax and estate tax law, communal property ownership, inheritance and probate law, divorce and child custody regulations, and insurance benefits.[68]
... to unleash avalanches of gay activist lawsuits, against employers, landlords, school authorities, insurance companies, churches, governmental authorities and more which refuse to recognize same-sex "marriages."
... to force the rewriting of business employment policies, insurance actuarial tables and government regulations at every level of society. "Mega"- businesses may be able to afford to subsidize and create benefit structures for same-sex "marriages" and "domestic partnerships" (some large companies are already providing employee benefits for partners of gay employees[69]), but small businesses will not likely be able to survive with these kinds of added burdens.
... to coerce public and private schools to rewrite curricula to include materials showing gay and lesbian lifestyles in a favorable light. As Mike Gabbard, who has led statewide opposition to same-sex "marriage" recognition in Hawaii, points out: "Compulsory education forces all children-a truly captive audience-to [be educated]. If same-sex 'marriages' become legal, children would be taught in health ed, sex education, and marriage/family courses that so-called homosexual 'marriage' is the equivalent of heterosexual marriage."[70]
... to, as numerous gay activists have predicted, begin "blowing the doors" off traditional marriage and family definitions and boundaries, to accommodate the vagaries of gay and lesbian lifestyles.
California Attorney General Dan Lundgren observes:
If you have the legal determination that there cannot be a preferred status for heterosexual marriage, you open yourself up to all sorts of other [legal] attacks... We go all the way to the question of bigamy, we go to the question of marrying between cousins and so forth and so on once you eliminate this preferred status.[71]
In raising such issues, have opponents, as columnist Stephen Chapman says in an article supporting same-sex "marriage," "passed into outright hallucination"[72]? One wonders how much "gay theory" about marriage and relationships Chapman has read. Activist Paula Ettelbrick, currently policy director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, formerly legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (formerly the Lambda Legal Defense Fund), is tactically "for" same-sex "marriage," but shares these caveats:
Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society....
As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women....In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly....We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.[73]
Both the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund are considered, not "fringe," but "mainstream" gay activist groups. Former Lambda Legal Defense Fund president Thomas Stoddard also expresses lukewarm support for same-sex "marriages":
I must confess at the outset that I am no fan of the "institution" of marriage as currently constructed and practiced....Why give it such prominence? Why devote resources to such a distant goal? Because marriage is, I believe, the political issue that most fully tests the dedication of people who are not gay to full equality for gay people, and also the issue most likely to lead ultimately to a world free of discrimination against lesbians and gay men.[74]
The New American has reported:
In his 1990 book An End to Shame: Shaping Our Next Sexual Revolution...sociologist Ira Reiss describes..."a true sexual democracy [in which] all of us can achieve a much higher level of well-being-an ability to satisfy one's sexual interests without guilt or anxiety...."
Reiss points out that extending the social privileges associated with marriage to homosexuals and unmarried couples would be a major step toward the establishment of that "sexual democracy":
We should develop some kind of religious and civic ceremony that will sanctify and recognize a non- marital love relationship between two gays, two lesbians, or two straights. The registration of domestic partners so they may claim legal rights of inheritance and health benefits is a step in this direction which some cities have taken. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation must join the list of forbidden discrimination like race, religion, and creed.
Unlike some...Reiss is refreshingly candid about the totalitarian nature of the reforms he recommends: "To build [sexual] pluralism we must firmly root out the narrow thinking about sex that exists in all of our basic institutions-family, political, economic, religious and educational. We need to change our whole basic social institutional structure...."[75]
Activist Donna Minkowitz says:
We [gay and lesbian activists] have been on the defensive too long. It's time to affirm that the Right is correct in some of its pronouncements about our movement. Pat Buchanan said there was a "cultural war" going on "for the soul of America" and that gay and lesbian rights were the principal battleground. He was right. Similarly, [homo]'phobes like Pat Robertson are right when they say that we threaten the family, male domination, and the Calvinist ethic of work and grimness that has paralyzed most Americans' search for pleasure.
Indeed, instead of proclaiming our innocuousness, we ought to advertise our potential to change straight society in radical, beneficial ways. Het[erosexual]s have much to learn from us: first and foremost, the fact that pleasure is possible (and desirable) beyond the sanction of the state. Another fact gleaned from gay experience-that gender is for all intents and purposes a fiction-also has the potential to revolutionize straight lives.[76] Writing in Out magazine, regular contributor Michelangelo Signorile (quoted supra) has described a strategy in which homosexuals "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely...to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution....The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."[77]
Sullivan's Assertion 2: Same-sex "marriage" would not radically alter the nature of marriage as society has known it; rather, marriage would bring "stability" to gays, "domesticate them" and bring them closer to society's mainstream. Do gay activists truly want gays and lesbians to benefit from "the stability of marriage"-or do they want to destabilize the very foundation of marriage in order to accommodate their own oft- demonstrated relational instability?
As we have seen, not only married couples, but also cohabiting singles in the general population overwhelmingly practice fidelity during their committed relationships. Gays enjoy the same opportunity to be "domesticated" as general-population singles, yet they do not seem to be "domesticating"-and do not, for the most part, seem to desire "domestication." In fact, gay promiscuity and its consequences are generally highest in cities that are most "gay friendly."[78]
Even "conservative" same-sex "marriage" apologist Andrew Sullivan "fudges" when it comes to the idea of pinning gays down to the same marriage relationship standards by which the general population abides. Early in Virtually Normal, Sullivan says conservatives should welcome same-sex "marriage," because it would "harness one minority [?] group-homosexuals-and enlist them in a conservative [social] structure." But, by his book's end, Sullivan coyly hints heterosexuals might learn a lot from gay open-style "marriages":
At times among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds. Some of this is unavailable to the male-female union: there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman... ...I believe strongly that marriage should be made available to everyone, in a politics of strict public neutrality. But within this model, there is plenty of scope for cultural difference. There is something baleful about the attempt of some gay conservatives to educate homosexuals and lesbians to an uncritical acceptance of a stifling model of heterosexual normality. The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.
This need not mean, as some have historically claimed, that homosexuals have no stake in the sustenance of a society, but that their role is somewhat different...they may be able to press the limits of the culture or the business infrastructure, or the boundaries of intellectual life, in a way that heterosexuals by dint of a different type of calling, cannot.[79]
To date, no such "essential and exhilarating" allowances have been made for heterosexual marriages.
On the one hand, Sullivan and other gay activists imply that gays are promiscuous because they cannot marry. On the other hand, they say, "Change the basis of marriage to suit the way we are. It's heterosexual society that needs changing, not us!" They say, "We can't develop stable relationships because we can't marry." But to other audiences they say, "We don't want to form stable relationships, so change the definition of marriage so we don't have to live in sexually faithful relationships."
Sullivan says gays should not be pressed into the "stifling mold of heterosexual normality" (though the "straight" world has also experimented with "open marriages"-with less-than-happy results). But if gays and their relationships aren't "entirely normal," why should either gays or their relationships be recognized as legal "minorities" or equals of heterosexual marriages?
In effect, Sullivan has just pulled the rug out from under his own argument: Do gay activists want to stretch marriage barriers to include all kinds of relationships and combinations of same that would not now be accepted under that "tent"? Evidently, the "ripple effects" of same- sex "marriage" will by no means be as gentle as Sullivan is purringly trying to make them seem!
If gay activists are not trying to effect a radical demolition and re- establishment of the basic foundations of marriage, just to accommodate themselves, why do they seem so unwilling to accept the same standards of sexual fidelity as heterosexuals? Do gay activists want new marriage definitions, not just so marriage can include them, but also so marriage can include the vagaries of their lifestyles?
Ironically, Sullivan finds himself willing to apply the very kind of practical, lifestyle-pattern analysis considerations we have applied to gay unions to disqualify incest and near-kin sexual attraction as bases for marriage. Would he be willing to accept our analysis of homosexual lifestyles in evaluating "gayness" as a basis for marriage? Somehow, we doubt it.
Sullivan himself also admits that no two gay men or lesbians can be parents in the way heterosexual men and women can, so in what way would same-sex "marriage" and parenthoods be comparable to heterosexuals'?
Sullivan's Assertion 3: Churches, synagogues and other religious organizations would not be forced to recognize same-sex civil "marriages."
Sullivan nimbly dodges the question of whether religious organizations will have to recognize or perform same-sex "marriages." Since all gay activists are asking for, Sullivan says, is the privilege of enjoying civil marriage, religious organizations would not be forced to recognize or perform same-sex "marriages." One senses Sullivan knows better. As public policy analyst Robert K. Knight explains:
Although the [Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation] majority report recommends that religious institutions not be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies, it offers no defense for the conscientious Christian, Jew or Muslim (or Hindu or atheist, for that matter) who will not legally recognize same-sex "marriage." Law carries the potential use of force against those who will not abide by it....
All institutions except specifically religious ones would be subjected to state enforcement [according to the Commission]. That would include [religious] bookstores, radio and TV stations, and other nondenominational businesses owned by religious people.[80]
In fact, shortly after the State of Hawaii passed S.B. No. 1181, its comprehensive "gay rights" legislation, Hawaii Attorney General Warren Price answered by letter an inquiry regarding the bill's effects on religious organizations' hiring practices as follows:
Non-sectarian employees of the church, church- sponsored activities or programs are not exempt. This would include janitors, gardeners, teachers, etc.[81]
At present, Hawaii requires clergy to obtain a State license in order to perform marriages. The legal "machinery" is already in place to compel Hawaiian clergy to recognize and perform same-sex "marriages" or forfeit licensure.[82]
Gay activists have been known in the past to renege on promises not to disturb religious organizations. When Wisconsin's former governor, Lee Sherman Dreyfus, signed that State's "gay rights" bill into law, he was assured by gay activists that the bill would have no effect on religious institutions.
Shortly after Dreyfus left office, two allegedly gay men appeared at the 40-year-old Rawhide Boys' Ranch, a Christian home for troubled youths, demanding to be hired as counselors. When refused, the gay men took legal action. Evidence later surfaced indicating that not only was this action deliberate, it was planned by the Wisconsin Governor's Council on Lesbian and Gay Issues. A copy of minutes (obtained by this writer) of the October 19, 1985, meeting of the Council, under the heading "RAWHIDE" contains the following words:
Jim Thideman [one of eight Council members present] has asked some people to apply for a job [at Rawhide] and pursue filing a discrimination report with ERD [Equal Rights Division] upon refusal of employment, assuming it will be that clear cut. Kathleen Nichols [another Council member] reported that Char McLaughlan is acquainted with a lesbian with a son at Rawhide who has been refused family counseling sessions if accompanied by her lover. Follow-up is necessary to see if this woman would be willing to file a complaint.
According to sources at the Rawhide Ranch, heading off these conspiratorial actions has cost the home in excess of $30,000. Former governor Dreyfus later wrote the "gay rights" bill's promoters, expressing his sense of betrayal at "gay rights" activists' flagrant breach of promise. Relief for Rawhide came only through passage of additional legislation that "exempted" religious institutions like it. But, for significant reasons, "religious exemptions" in "gay rights" or same-sex "marriage" legislation may only bring temporary relief from enforcement of such measures.
It is difficult to believe that Andrew Sullivan does not perceive the potential for coercion religious organizations will face in these kinds of dilemmas. Same-sex civil "marriage" recognition might well predicate these dilemmas and others. Yet while Sullivan decries as "anti-liberal" the potential coercion of "gay rights" legislation, he insists same-sex "marriage" recognition will not have the same effects.
Whether Sullivan believes so or not, same-sex "marriage" recognition would indeed "legislate private tolerance" by religious organizations, just as the acceptance of openly gay persons into America's military forces would "legislate tolerance" in that environment. Both of these eventualities would have the effect of saying to all touched by them, "Either accept gay 'marriages' or else!"
Sullivan's Assertion 4: Granting same-sex "marriage" recognition would not exacerbate the tumultuous struggle over "gay rights"; it would actually DEFUSE the conflict.
Since same-sex "marriage" recognition would render "gay rights" legislation unnecessary, moves allowing gays to marry would also defuse the rancorous national "gay rights" debate, Sullivan insists. Sullivan here writes disingenuously, if anywhere in his book. Surely he knows that many States recognize "marital status" as a "protected" (though not suspect) classification. Protected classes also possess the ability to claim discrimination-which is precisely the ability gay activists have been seeking to acquire through gaining suspect class recognition!
So long as gay activists can "claim discrimination" on some grounds, they can still use government and taxpayers' dollars to sue others and advance gay activist interests. "Marital status" will serve as well as suspect status in many states for that purpose. Furthermore, if the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that gender is a suspect class holds up, "married" gay activists will be able to claim discrimination on "gender" grounds wherever marital status is not a protected class.
In any event, same-sex "marriage" recognition will simply "grandfather" gay activists into a position where they can use government to sue resistors and opponents and advance their political and social interests, just as well as they might by wielding "gay rights" legislation. Thus the "gay rights" struggle will continue, though in a slightly different guise, every bit as fervently and rancorously as before.
If the three gay activist presuppositions we have examined cannot stand scrutiny, the rest of gay activists' apologia will not likely persuade, either. We conclude that gays do not constitute a true suspect minority; gays are not "just like everyone else" in terms of relational lifestyle stability; and gay activists do not desire the same kinds of "marriages" as "everyone else"; therefore, the changes in marriage brought about by same-sex "marriage" recognition would have cataclysmic effects for society at large. Same- sex "marriage" recognition:
* would be a "massive societal leap" into a "darkness" of radical social experimentation, endless litigation and drastic business, economic and public policy reorganization
* would radically alter the institution of marriage as we have known it
* would be highly unlikely to change gay/lesbian lifestyle patterns
* would force churches, synagogues and other religious institutions to either recognize and perform same-sex "marriage" rites or be attacked by gay activists
* would perpetuate, and probably intensify, the "gay rights" controversy, on national and local levels
In addition, gay activists themselves are sharply divided on some of the most crucial issues surrounding same-sex "marriage": Whether homosexuality is innate and immutable; whether gays are truly an "oppressed class"; whether marriage would be an advantage or a threat to gay and lesbian relationships; and much more. If gay activists themselves cannot make up their minds on these issues, they have scarcely laid a solid foundation for implementation of the major public policy decisions they are asking society-at-large to make-strictly for their benefit.
If you are married and your wife decides she has fallen in love with another women and has a lesbian affair with her would you consider that adultry?
You've been making some interesting points, but your last comments seem to be a call for a theocracy.
You can't ask folks in a free contry which does not have a state church to follow your religion because you think it's a good idea.
Marriage is not an arbitrary construct which can be redefined simply by those who lay claim to it. Broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would stretch it almost beyond recognition--and new attempts to expand the definition still farther would surely follow. On what principled ground can Andrew Sullivan exclude others who most desperately want what he wants--legal recognition and social acceptance?
Why on earth would Sullivan exclude from marriage a bisexual who wants to marry two other people? After all, exclusion would be a denial of that person's sexuality.
The same holds true of a father and daughter who want to marry. Or two sisters. Or men who want consensual polygamous arrangements. Sullivan may think some of these arrangements are unwise. But having employed sexual relativism in his own defense, he has effectively lost the capacity to draw any lines and make moral distinctions.
Forsaking all others is an essential component of marriage. Obviously it is not always honored in practice. But it is the ideal to which we rightly aspire, and in most marriages, the ideal is in fact the norm. Many advocates of same-sex marriage simply do not share this ideal; promiscuity among homosexual males is well known. Sullivan himself has written that gay male relationships are served by the 'openness of the contract' and that homosexuals should resist allowing their 'varied and complicated lives' to be flattened into a 'single moralistic model.' But that 'single moralistic model' has served society exceedingly well. The burden of proof ought to be on those who propose untested arrangements for our most important institution.
This is a large, tolerant, diverse country. In America people are free to do as they wish, within broad parameters. It is also a country in sore need of shoring up some of its most crucial institutions: marriage and the family, schools, neighborhoods, communities. But marriage and family are the greatest of these. That is why they are elevated and revered. We should keep them so.
That was a case of the state denying legal privileges to individuals on the basis of their race. Equal protection arguments are absolutely correct for instances of racial discrimination.
Just because it is possible to make an analogy doesn't mean the analogy has value. Going back once again to post # 66:
Men and women are not equal. They have biological and traditional differences. Couples of different makeups are even more not equal. -NutCrackerBoy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.