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?
True, insofar as noone who is now married is likely to be directly affected. After the institution of marriage changes, the people of future generations will be affected.
I believe you have insufficiently looked down the road. There will be lawsuit after lawsuit, and if the equal protection argument holds sway, judges will be forced to strike down any provision of marriage that applies only to heterosexuals.
It is a Pandora's box.
The US did the right thing with equal protection for race. In fact, SCOTUS did the wrong thing by not adhering to equal protection in their finding in favor of affirmative action.
We are amenable to egalitarianism. The allure of equal protection is extremely powerful, and its application even more so. The Equal Rights Amendment was sailing along toward ratification until Phyllis Schlafly was able to alert enough people to its dangers. We did the right thing there, and I hope we will do the right thing here.
No to the redefinition of marriage. No to the civil union equal-protection compromise. No to judges legislating from the bench.
All that said, I am amenable to civil union legislation that steers clear of establishing equal protection.
The inherent contradiction of this statement may, or may not, be related to your difficulty in getting people to listen to you, but you should give it some prayerful consideration.
What lawsuits will arise if equal protection of gay unions is established? What provisions of marriage will judges be forced to strike down because they apply only to heterosexuals?
These are the fairest of questions. I need to stop to refuel. Can someone help me out here? Snuffington has alluded to Stanley Kurtz' essays.
Let me give one example from the world of equal protection. Even though the ERA did not pass, Title IX has caused universities to shut down thriving athletics programs when they did not offer the same sports for women as men. Was that a just and intended consequence of the desire for equal treatment?
This whole movement is about health and pension benefits, IMO.
No, in the overall sense it is not. I like how you quote only part of my text and not the rest of it. So let me restate what I said a bit differently. If the government fully sanctions gay marriage and continues to remove disincentives to single motherhood, than far more children would be likely to be brought up in such circumstances. Thus the government would be doing these children a disservice through their action. On balance, therefore, the government will serve the greater good by sanctioning only the best possible family structure.
Secondly, what a typically liberal position to state that the government can somehow hurting someone by doing nothing to them. What we are talking about here is providing government sanction and encouragement to practices which are already legal and feasible. Gay couples have kids. Single people have kids. It happens. If you are so certain that these children are in good hands (and yes I would even agree that many of them are), why would it be "turning our backs on them" if our government simply does not let the parents get officially "married"?
Furthermore, it is not the government's fault that voluntary single mothers and homosexual couples make the selfish choice to create a child knowing it will not be raised in the best possible family structure. Would you also blame the government for doing a disservice to a child by putting his convicted felon's parent in jail? Of course not. And neither should you blame the government here. So put the blame where it is due here.
This quote is yours, but the emphasis is mine:
Children deserve to have their interests looked after no matter what situation they find themselves in. They don't choose their parents.
EXACTLY. And that is why it is selfish for voluntary single mothers and homosexual parents to choose to have kids---because they bring a new life into a knowingly disadvantaged family structure without their consent. Again, put the blame where it is due.
The fact that we've done a lot to cheapen the institution of marriage doesn't mean we should go further; rather, we should work to correct our mistakes. I believe a re-evaluation of our no-fault divorce culture would be a good first step.
IMHO, the "what if everyone did it" argument is rather weak. In fact, IMHO, any "what if" argument is rather weak. Your thoughts?
In fact, the Bible commands the death penalty for homosexuality in the Mosaic Law (Lev. 20:13). And, for a majority of the history of Western Civilization, homosexuality was punished by death.
That isn't true. Homosexual men molest boys at a much higher rate per capita than heterosexual men molest girls. I.e., gay men who molest, do so far more frequently than het men who molest.
It's true that men have strong sex drives and tend to be indiscriminate in their selection of sex objects. That would explain the frequency of inappropriate contact between pederatsts and straight boys. When John Maynard Keynes and the other gay profs at Oxbridge were tossing off their students at evening soirees, nobody stopped to ask anyone his orientation before skinning his chicken dinner.
Bandwagon fallacy.
Your trope suggests that gay couples with kids pose no problems for kids in certain locations. You leave your reader to infer much....and to get things wrong.
1. Persons desiring the State to countenance homosexual "marriage" (since the phrase is an oxymoron) propose a radical redefinition of marriage. Onus theirs to prove benefits. Likewise onus theirs to accept "no" for an answer -- which gays have refused to do, thereby displaying bad faith and bad citizenship.
2. No positive benefits have been adduced by anyone, except claims unsupported by study data, that children will thrive in households led by homosexual couples. By "thrive" I mean meeting all the indicia of a healthy childhood.
3. It will not do simply to suggest that in this or that gay Nirvana, homosexual couples raise children proficiently because of ......"regional differences". Which is an under-the-radar way of introducing a favorite gay canard, that gay would be okay if only you people were restrained by moral teachments and law (arising from what authority?) from practicing your homophobia [smear-word alert]. This is the lie codified by the gay cabal who successfully overthrew the American Psychiatric Association and redefined homosexuality as "normal", based on the discredited Hooker study, rather than as the paraphilia which it had been correctly labeled, and which it nevertheless is in fact whether or not a compromised psychiatric profession recognizes it or not.
I'll freepmail you something I think will help in putting your argument across in a pithy, logical way. Not that I can take credit for it.
See you around the threads,
"LG"
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
You err along with modern day judges who seek to compartmentalize Christian principles from government. Even if by some contortion of logic it could be shown that our government never intended restrictions on the hedonism that permeates contemporary American culture--indeed, even if the right to homosexuality had somehow been inserted into the U.S. constitution itself, it would be irrelevant: God will not tolerate any culture which openly accepts homosexuality. History attests to this fact, but Americans, in our arrogance, assume we'll be an exception.
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.