Replies

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?

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.

New European Studies Show Homosexual Marriage Harms Marriage in General

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."

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

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"!!!

It's all about terms, not propositions or arguments. The issue is, what is "marriage"?

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.

My opinion, and my opinion only, is that "gay marriage" is nothing but a straw man argument to force general social acceptance by that particular community.

There's no mainstream religion that recognizes marriage as anything else but between a single man and a single woman. Religiously, gay marriage proponents haven't a leg to stand upon.

So...logically, proponents of gay marriage must look at marriage as a legal contract - which, technically it is. If that's the case, then there are no rights that marriage legally bestows upon you, that can't be obtained through other means (Powers of attorney, wills, etc). So long as both parties are of age, and of sound mind, any two people can set up exactly the same rights, legally, that any husband and wife have through marriage.

My point? I guess that gay marriage has no point. It's not a part of any organized religion, and the same ends can be obtained through other legal means. So, it can't be anything other than a way to force common acceptance of a gay social agenda.

"However, I struggle during discussions to persuade my liberal peers and professors that it is harmful."

Nothing wring with talking rabbits, unbirthday parties, leprechauns, and a search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, if that's "your thing." However, when one sets social policy to comport with fantasy, while, at the same time, rejecting thousands of years of the tradition upon which successful societies have based themselves - all due to various fancies about "modernity" - the result is a society headed for self-destruction.

At all events, don't concern yourself overmuch about persuading liberal peers and professors; they're not interested in rational argument, but simply in stroking their own delusions and they won't listen.

Hey Mr. Student. Try this:

Gay people ALREADY ARE free to marry, as long as they can find a minister or proper official to conduct the ceremony.

The problem arises when gay homo's demand that the government and the straight majority APPROVE OF and sanctify their homo lifestyle by bestowing on them the exact same tax laws, inheritance, estate, visitation, rights that man-woman marriages have enjoyed for thousands of years.

A same sex couple is free to create documents that in effect give them such monetary benefits, but for them to demand that everyone accept their smarminess is simply a bridge too far.

Besides, in survey after survey, poll after poll, the majority of American society clearly stated they do NOT accept same-sex marriage as being equal to man-woman marriage.

There's something smarmy about two men swapping spit and saying "I do". It's something most families would rather not show their kids.

What is wrong with homosexual marriage? Marriage is a 5,000 year old religious ceremony as prescribed by the Old Testament. (Torah) Both the Old and New Testaments forbid homosexuality. Radical gay activists are not seeking marriage so much as they are seeking validation for their "lifestyle". Gay activists have failed to succeed using the democratic process so they have turned to activist judges to legislate from the bench. This will be the very undoing of our constitution. Ultimately it is a church vs. state issue. The gays cannot find self acceptance and HATE anyone who refuses to accept their twisted behavior. Their goal is this: "Since we fail every time in the democratic process, we will use civil rights laws and godless activist judges to affirm our "so called" human right to marriage." If they succeed they will be able to FORCE any clergy of conscience who refused to perform the gruesome ceremony in his or her church to do so or lose their tax exempt status due to perceived discrimination. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CHURCH IS THEIR NUMBER ONE GOAL. Marriage is a canard. They want to destroy the lone dissenter by any means necessary. The proof of this is that wherever so called, "civil unions" are legal, less than ONE PERCENT of the gay populace there take advantage of it. The gays know as well as nature knows, same sex persons do not get married. They are hateful and dangerous. The legacy of Sodom continues to destroy the family and the faithful.

The Prager link in VOA's post 20 is excellent and covers the moral/cultural arguments.

More practical arguments that liberals will be harder pressed to refute: Our laws on taxes, insurance, inheritance, immigration, even criminal (testifying against a spouse not allowed) etc ALL give advantages to married heterosexual couples because society prizes children as they are any society's future.

Of course there are abuses but those are tolerable in light of the broader benefits to society.

Can you imagine the nightmare and the costs (legal and illegal) of extending all those benefits to gays first, and later to polygamists?

I want my 4 wives on my insurance? I'll later marry my neighbor to add him on my insurance cuz he's a nice uninsured guy?

Trying to get a criminal to testify against his accomplice? He can marry the accomplice for a while.

Are you now a citizen? You can marry 5 foreign guys (one after the other, or at the same time when marriage is extended to more than 2) and bring them over legally, then divorce them and start over...

If liberals want to give gays visitation rights (they already have) we can have legal guaranties for that, without gay marriage. We don't need to destroy civilization and our institutions for that.

Whats wrong with gay marriage? Nothing.

...and I vote republican in every election, which is pretty difficult to do in inner city New Orleans.

What does it matter to me if the two gay guys that own a house across the street from me are legally married or not? It doesn't.

I suppose it matters to them that the person they committed their life to is recognized as such as far as insurance, wills, estates, property rights etc.

I'd also like to point out that there are some gay couples that are more monogomously committed to each other than some married ones I know.

I guess some people think that the concept of gay marriage desecrates the institution. I'd argue that drive through marriage chapels and the rapid ease one can get divorced and the screwing over men get in a divorce settlement all do a far more damaging job than a couple homos ever could. Not to mention that cohabitation and premarital sex being so widely accepted makes marriage pointless. No, its the homos that will bring immorality to the sacrement.

Some will argue that the only reason to get married is to procreate and have children. Do any of these people argue that a straight person who cannot have children should be denied the ability to get married. My wife of 15yrs and I made the decision to not have children, I'd like to see someone tell her that they have a problem with us being married....

Any straight man or woman that feels like they are being sucked into the whole gay marriage debate are so only because they willingly let it. If you're straight and you don't let it bother you, guess what, it doesn't in any way shape or form.

It is simple to answer, although you will still be categorized with this new answer.... You ready? (caution, adult subject matter, turn kids away)

Naturally, Male and Female animals have sex to reproduce. The female of some species have genitalia to produce orgasm thus making it desirable to potentially reproduce. There is no purpose what so ever for humans to engage in same sex intercourse from the stance of natural behavior. So, it is abnormal. I choose to stay normal and reproduce. Marriage is a societal agreement for the establishment of family. Since the homos don't reproduce to create a family, then we should brain storm and come up with a title that more suitably fits them because same sex adoption in my opinion is fraud understanding the laws of nature...

I happen to have a few here with me I'll throw in as a freebee...

Fur Traders;

Pillow Biters;

Carpet Munchers;

Sphincter Boys;

How's that?

Our Government did not invent Marriage. Marriage at the time of the founding was between one man and one woman. It was defined by Western Civilization and Christian thought. The Constitution has nothing to do with marriage. The governmet involvement in marriage ie licence, family law, divorce law, tax breaks etc. do not change fundamentally what marriage is and was as the government do not define marriage. Now the ACLU and liberal lawyers and Judges have decided that since the government does recognize marriage and does bestow benefits and legal protection (which could all be stopped legally tomorrow and Marriage would still be what it was before these governmental intrusions) that they can twist the law to demand that they can change what marriage is and ought to be under color or their twisted law ie. Equal Protection. It is twisted law and will always be twisted law. No Judge or Law on this Earth can really change the defination of Marriage as tradionally understood.