Posted on 11/15/2006 10:57:01 AM PST by Seven Minute Maniac
I am a student. I personally do not support homosexuality, and I find the idea of gay marriage repulsive. However, I struggle during discussions to persuade my liberal peers and professors that it is harmful. Most liberal professors and students at my college do not view homosexuality as abnormal, and treat me like I am nuts when I suggest that marriage should not be altered to include gays and lesbians. Please help to supply me with some ammunition by posting below.
I would probably say that the issue does not revolve around the focal point of "gay" so much as it does the word and institution of"marriage".
I would probably think that with few exceptions, what consenting adults do behind closed doors is probably not important to the great mass of the public.Provided it isn't paraded around purposely to offend and shock the sensibilites (which is the way in which many, but certainly not all, homosexuals behave. It's "all" about attention and shock value), I think no one really gives a rat's behind about anyone being gay, unless they have a really strong moral and religious bias (whether that is okay is another debate altogether).
However, the proposition that the concept of marriage has merely a LEGAL status, and not coinciding religious and social ones, is where the gay marriage push falls flat. What the advocates are pushing for, really, is a) normalization of a lifestyle and behavior that "society" has decided is not conducive to the greater good, and in many cases, finds morally objectionable and physically digusting, b) the establishment of legal protections (as far as benefits, inheritance, etc) that would not normally be recognized by law and c) seeking to furher establish an-already overly-protected minority, and present them with even more rights and privledges than would be afforded the average citizen.
As far as I know, no one in this country is stoning homosexuals to death. The government is not advocating that homosexuals be hunted down and burned at the stake. The last time I looked, the 14th Amendment was still in force when it comes to individual rights and obligations under the law. No one is being denied employment because they're gay, as a matter of national policy and civil discourse. I can guarentee you that the regime in Tehran observes no such nicities. Homosexuals, if they wish to live together as "husband and wife" or as "wife and wife" or whatever permutation you can think of, are perfectly free to do so already. They just don't get a legal and/or religious sanction. It's when they seek this, in the face of social norms established over the 10,000 or so years of human civilization, and in direct contravention of the religious foundations upon which Western liberalism, and thus, American society are formed, is when they run into trouble.
At the end of the day, it's all about having themselves "validated" in the eyes of society, wihtout question, and safe behind the battlements of law, without the realization that many simply refuse to validate anything which contradicts with their personal beliefs.
Perhaps if the argument were not made in terms of a (questionable) civil right and emotion, they (the advocates) might make some headway. But unfortunately, these are the only weapons available to them, since they cannot make the same argument in terms of morality, ethics, history or religion. Besides, there is no constitutional guarentee to marriage and wedded bliss, no questions asked and free from social stigma, is there?
Right. You have to back further, to something you both agree on, and start from there. Otherwise, you're just blowing air.
I can see it now- "I have three 'wives' and I want them all to have employer-subsidized healthcare."
If you and your wife have sex, CAN you create a baby?
Here are some links with either highly relevant articles and/or comments and links down the thread. You'll have to do some reading but it will be well worth your while.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1728766/posts?page=33
Is Homosexuality a Learned Behavior?
http://www.freerepublic.com/~scripter/ - scroll down scripter's home page and find the relevant links. I don't have time to pick them out but it's easy to do so.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420619/posts
Root Causes, Homosexual Consequences
The above thread has a lot of links too.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts
Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links
The above has many, many links - scroll down until you get to "Marriage".
Hours of reading available, as much as you want. Also - do a FR search for articles by Stanley Kurtz (or a google search if not much turns up on FR, depends on what keywords people posted). He has written more than a few excellent articles that are must reading on the topic.
bttt
CULTURE & COSMOS
Proponents of gay marriage frequently argue that allowing for it would have no affect whatsoever on the institution of marriage itself. Former Harvard anthropologist Stanley Kurtz, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, reports on various European studies that challenge this argument. Kurtz reports that in those countries where full homosexual marriage rights have been granted, marriage and indeed concrete family structures have been considerably weakened.
These studies also show that the traditional function of marriage as the basis for stable family environments and parenthood is now no longer considered necessary. Rather, "same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood.instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage.gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."
Kurtz sites studies from a number of countries. In Denmark, which has allowed legal homosexual marriage since 1989, sociologists Cecilie Wehner, Mia Kambskar and Peter Abrahamson write, "the concept of a nuclear family is.changing. Marriage is no longer a precondition for settling a family-neither legally nor normatively." This transition in the definition of a family is similar in other Scandinavian countries.
Kurtz says the statistical measure of eroding family structures need not be based solely on the numbers of new heterosexual marriages, but also on increases in out-of-wedlock births and divorce rates. These factors have become more important as issues such as gay marriage and co-habitation have eroded the concept of family and the institution of marriage. Indeed, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway-all of whom have incorporated full gay marriage rights over the past ten to fifteen years-have seen jumps in out-of-wedlock births since they legalized homosexual marriage. This deterioration of the traditional family structure has ushered in an era where the majority of children are born outside of marriage.
Additional data, such as that from the most recent Statistical Yearbook of the UN Economic Commission, demonstrates the growth of this trend. In the two decades leading up to 2001, marriage rates decreased, divorce rates increased, and out-of-wedlock births increased in many countries, and the countries with the largest percentage fluctuations in these issues are also those most lenient with homosexual marriage rights.
While the data was specific to Europe, the same could be said for all developed Western nations, including the United States. Demographer Kathleen Kiernan classifies all Western countries into a three-tier system signifying incidence of cohabitation, out of wedlock births, and marriage. Kurtz notes that Kiernan's "three groupings closely track the movement for gay marriage." Only in the lowest incidence tier where societies are "most resistant to cohabitation, family dissolution, and out-of-wedlock births.has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success."
Copyright --- Culture of Life Foundation. Permission granted for unlimited. Credit required.
Culture of Life Foundation 1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington DC 20005 Phone: (202) 289-2500 Fax: (202) 289-2502 E-mail: clf@c... Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org
That statement contradicts itself, doesn't it?
Do you believe prostitution and consensual incest between a father and his 18-year old daughter should be illegal?
bump
bump
I psuedoblogged this noxious subject until I grew tired of it ( it is still updated )- plenty of info right here:
A Gay ( or not! ) Old Time- GM links
various FR links | 02-22-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083139/posts
and what if frogs had wings?
It has been stated before in the thread, but it bears repeating. For far too long we have allowed the opposing viewpoint to dictate the terms of the debate. We have allowed ourselves to be pushed into the position of arguing with someone who has never really constructed a lucid argument in the frist place!
The liberal assumes a priori that gay marriages are good and should be a right that should not be interfered with and then asks the conservative, "Why not?"
Unfortunately, the liberal has not yet ESTABLISHED his/her argument. Stating a belief and establishing an argument are not the same thing.
A tactic that is very helpful is to get the liberal talking. (I offer you Exhibit A: John Kerry's gaffe before the election.) Liberals have very poor thought processes, not because they are intellectually inferior. No matter that they frequently look like intellectual inferiors, their main problem is they engage only the heart and do not temper the heart with the mind. The Bible says that the heart is desperately wicked and no one can know it. So, it is easy to understand how someone ruled by their heart can come to embrace all kinds of desperately wicked things!
Above all, if you hope hope to pursuade any of them that your Christianity is of value, do not be goaded by their disdain for all you hold dear. They will spit on it as they spat on Christ. Nevertheless, out of concern for them, at all times remain respectful. That is why i ask thousands of questions about what they think and catch them with their own inconsistencies...which, never fear, WILL come up.
Sorry, I have n magic bullet for you, but I heard of this technique first from Francis Schaeffer....you must read his book "Escape From Reason"!!!
Technically, there can be no gay marriage. Marriage is a contract, and all parties must be of sound mind to enter into a contract. Homosexuality is a mental (and social) disease, so neither party can be held to the contract, so no gay marriage.
*whispers to self,"spell check is my friend"*
Natural marriage is the lifetime union of a man and woman for the primary purpose of begetting and raising children, for the secondary purpose of the mutual care of the spouses, and for the tertiary purpose of channeling sexuality for the good of society.
Any definition of marriage that does not include its primary purpose removes from marriage its defining characteristic, and renders the term "marriage" indistinguishable from lifetime friendship or sexual activity.
It's easy to see that homosexual "marriage" does not include the primary purpose of marriage (begetting and raising children), so it is not distinguishable from any other kind of lifetime friendship or sexual relationship.
Under the homosexual "marriage" rubric, polygamy and polyandry could be considered "marriage," as would simple friendship. We would also be "married" to all of our relatives, since we're committed to them for life and are concerned with their well being.
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.