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?
Society did not get involved in protecting marriage because married people decorated their own homes, or settled in a particular community, or attended a particular church, or engaged in a particular form of foreplay, etc., etc.. The Societal involvement--the societal recognition of marriage--from first to last, relates to the mating concept; relates to the perception that it is important to enforce contractual rights in a situation, where the well being of the next generation is involved. The Societal involvement is basically a collective desire to protect the reproducing family.
The very notion of "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron. While you can call anything, anything, that does not an argument make. You could call a man purchasing a car, a "marriage," but that would not make such a "marriage" in any sense equivalent to what rational people, using language in a rational manner, mean by the term "marriage."
When you debate with others, always go back to the original premises of the subject. Always ground your argument on what is undeniable--what is real and true and basic.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I will assume that you would have no objection if the state legislature assumed it had the powers to re-define a word when creating law. Thanks for your honesty and reply.
Actually, no. I smoke; but I was trying to construct a framework for an argument that liberals could grasp.
In the case of two consenting adults of the same sex with equal ability to earn money and no prospect of childen, the state has no compelling interest to impose obligations on those people. In fact, if it does, it is an expansion of the state into relationships that don't need it.
Fair enough.
First, the word "marriage" really is important to be reserved for one man, one woman. Let's set that aside, and discuss "the right to civil unions". Is there really such a right? Or is it essentially a quid pro quo - the couple gets a few goodies, and responsibilities, and society gets benefits of stable families for child-rearing.
It is virtuous for us to be fair, both privately and publicly, to all Americans. We do have to be careful of consequences that flow from how the judiciary defines fairness. I am not condemning judges, just saying there are definitely dangers lurking in the application of a legal definition of fairness.
Is your proposal that, as a matter of legal fairness, all the apparatus of government that applies to marriage must be shared equally to license gay civil unions? (We just won't call them marriages or marriage license, et cetera).
The funds to support the registration of gay civil unions and to pay benefits to partners will cut into the funds available for those of marriages. Whatever happened to the original intent which was for the government to protect marriages that have a significant impact on child-raising?
Changes will inevitably be proposed to the marriage laws that arise to handle typical gay civil union situations. Some of these changes might be suboptimal for typical marriages.
I realize that no church will be forced to perform homosexual ceremonies. But will local newspapers be forced to list gay civil unions? No, free speech protects that. But the newspapers will be pressured by the fact that the government makes no significant distinction other than the word marriage. Soon it will be very politically incorrect to have a newspaper page of only bride-and-groom photos without also picturing two men or two women who are joining. The whole thing becomes silly and embarrassing and the newspapers will drop the photos altogether.
Is that what we intended when we embarked on this fairness thing?
Good, I'm glad you agree with me at least that the government has a right to intervene when the parent violates some as-yet-undefined parental trust. And you agree that abuse, neglect, and incest constitute violations of that trust, again things on which we agree.
But the parental trust is not only relevant to the discussion, it is central to it. From my first post I have maintained that the purpose of marriage is for reproduction. That others use it for other purposes does not change that fact, any more than sex for pleasure and not procreation doesn't change it's purpose.
The evidence is unequivocal that the best environment in which to raise a child is in a stable heterosexual marriage. Now I realize quite well that some people find themselves outside of this ideal situation through no choice of their own; for example, a single mother whose husband abandoned her, abused her and forced her to leave, or died. But to consciously choose to create and raise a child in an imperfect environment is nothing less than selfish. It would be one thing if there were mutual consent on the part of all parties, as is the case in the marriage of two people. But a child does not consent to his inclusion in the family.
Thus from my perspective, a mother living with another woman in a lesbian relationship violates that parental trust. A father taking four wives would do the same. The research is unequivocal that divorce harms children, and yet we as a country insist on removing all disincentive for it.
I would agree with your that the state's interest is not compelling enough to prohibit such arrangements. And indeed we do need to give parents wide latitude in how they raise their kids. But the government ought not to be facilitating substandard family arrangements by giving them equal legitimacy. And indeed I go further and say it is for the general health of society it is in its interest to legitimize and legalize the heterosexual family structure. To that end I would roll back no-fault divorce too, and frankly discourage anyone who has trouble with that from getting married.
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.