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?
The constitution does not address equal protection for persons of deviant sexual behavior. If it does, please show me where.
We agree (I assume) the First Amendment protects you specifically on the basis of your religion. The Fourteenth Amendment protects you on the basis of your race, but it does not mention race: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There are those who would apply the liberal interpretion of equal protection to apply it to homosexuals. The loophole in your argument is that it does not protect marriage against the liberal interpretation of equal protection.
Here's a related example: the Equal Rights Amendment failed and therefore men and women are not required to be treated equally. Yet Title IX has wrought unfair damage upon university athletic programs.
I am all for equality, but it has its dangers.
Marriage is protected by government (yes, steve-b) for the sake of the children. These protections are wasted on homosexual couples and so we must make that distinction even if in other areas we treat homosexuals as having equal rights.
Don't use it, it's futile. Work from the definition of "marriage" -- the government can declare two men to be married to each other. It can also declare someone who is dead to be alive. In neither case does the declaration change their real state. Marriage is necessarily a relationship between a man and a woman. No semantic manipulation can change that.
Some will accuse you of wanting to "legislate morality" -- agree that this is exactly what you want to do. It is also exactly what THEY want to do. ALL laws -- tax policy, littering, parking violations, the Clean Water Act, etc. -- ALL of them are based on some kind of moral judgment. The only question is, whose moral judgment will prevail? This is determined by the democratic process. The Constitution guarantees certain rights, acknowledges the existence of other unspecified rights, and leaves other matters up to Congress, legislatures & local governments to decide. Unless someone wants to make a 9th Amendment case for homosexual marriage (and nobody arguing with you will even know what the Ninth says), there's no evidence of a Constitutional right to it. Even if they did use the Ninth, it shifts the burden of proof from you to them -- i.e., not 'why should gay marriage be illegal' but 'why should it be the government's job to approve of homosexual relationships?'
In general, the question defaults to what the people as a whole are willing to accept.
You better wake up! You sound like a 16 year old, apathetic, idiot! Everything we do affects others and has an impact on society. Every action you take has an impact on your family, friends, and neighbors.
Do you think the court is empowered to do that? Thanks.
Now that is a whole different question than what you asked me before. Those who know me on this forum would tell you that I am staunchly against the judiciary making law. So in relation to the legal definition of marriage including gays, it needs to be change in the state legislature according to the wishes of the populous of the state in question. People are really hung up on the name marriage. I'm talking about denying them the right to civil unions, as opposed to religious ones, as being discriminatory. People insist on reading more into what I have said than what is there.
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.