Writing an op/ed on Gay Marriage

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

U2democrat

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
22,142
Location
England by way of 'Murica.
Alrighty I need y'alls help. I'm going to be writing an op/ed on Virginia taking steps to ban gay marriage, and most of y'all know i'm completely against the ban. Here are a few of my arguments:

We mustn't treat ANYONE as a second class citizen over something they cannot change.
*****Use the golden rule for that
Virginia already has rules banning same sex unions, we don't need a constitutional amendment

The Constitution is meant to PROTECT rights, not restrict them.

If the goal is to protect marriage, then do something about divorce, don't limit marriages.


Ok those are my main arguments for now. Any suggestions and/or articles you know of are much welcome. :up:
 
Well, it all depends on how far you want to go. If you want to really drill up controversy, I would talk about "religious freedom," and the fact that many religions, Christian and non-Christian, *support* gay marriage. Considering that "religious freedom" was meant to protect minority religious beliefs, it is quite offensive that the supposed "majority religious opinion" is allowed to trample all over minority religious rights.

God...I could write an op-ed and I'd let you take the credit for it. :p

Melon
 
i would check out www.andrewsullivan.com

he's a conservative (or used to be) and has been writing about gay marriage since 1989. you can find lots of archived articles he's written, as it's his big selling point these days.

if i were you, i'd focus on the denial of basic rights -- like those 1,049 tax cuts -- on the basis of an involuntary, inchangable human characteristic that does not harm anyone.
 
it just reeks of being hypocritcal. The government preaches about freedom and human rights whilst all the while restricting its own people further and further, all in the name of the gods that it criticises others for following fanatically.
The US Constitution claims that:

"all men … are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed"

By restricting gay relationships, and they are doing even if they say otherwise, they are doing away with the rights to "liberty and happiness" which, to use the cliche-esque, nationalistic phrase, 'your forefathers faught so valiantly for'.

America, supposedly a liberal society, that which the Statue Of Liberty is supposed to stand for, is undermining itself by interfereing in the personal lives of its citizens. Liberalism believes, after all, in the state playing little or no part in peoples' personal lives, habits and traits.

Finally, the practice of homosexuality is no longer classified as a disease, and so there can be no excuse for discrimination, just as discrimination against ethnicity, race, gender or hair colour would be frowned upon.

It's just sickening that this has so much support.:(
 
U2democrat said:
:hmm:

Go on.........

I'm working on another design project today, but if you want, I can try and squeeze in a rough idea of what I would say if writing an op-ed.

Melon
 
Another aspect of opposition to gay marriage is the "sanctity of marriage".Ooooh! Sanctity, my ass.
Don't half the marriages end in divorce these days?

Also, what about all the changes in society over the decades? Many moons ago, society condemned single moms, interracial relationships, divorce, invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc. There are many other examples of social changes in acceptance which we look back upon and just shake our heads over it. There are still pockets of people who don't like the above lifestyles but they are the minority today.
 
Last edited:
You could bring in the fact that historically speaking, marriage wasn't always between a man and a woman. In some parts of the world today, same-sex marriage takes place not for religious, or romantic purposes but as a way to partition or keep property within a certain kin group or clan.







(Sorry, it's the anthropologist in me)....
 
You could mention how absurd it is that anyone can marry a member of the opposite sex for absolutely any reason: I can marry a man to get him a green card. I can marry my ex-Italian boyfriend to get an Italian passport (he offered that when Bush was re-elected :wink: ). I can marry a man for money. I can marry one of my gay male friends who has HIV so he could benefit from my excellent insurance. But a same-sex couple that has been together for 20 years, who own a home together , who have possibly raised children together, cannot marry.
 
convicted felons in jail can get married.

gay people can marry straight people (liza minelli and david guest, for example).

(and please post your op-ed here when you're done).
 
I have made an argument before about "God given free will" ~ if somebody is gay and you think that it is a matter of choice then they are simply using that "God given free will".

The problem isn't logic ~ it is theology. The problem with most arguments against gay marriage is that they are grounded in religious belief ~ now there are some decent cases to be made against gay marriage (undue benefits for gays that were designed to help families) but they fail because you can make the same argument against childless couples.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I have made an argument before about "God given free will" ~ if somebody is gay and you think that it is a matter of choice then they are simply using that "God given free will".

The problem isn't logic ~ it is theology. The problem with most arguments against gay marriage is that they are grounded in religious belief ~ now there are some decent cases to be made against gay marriage (undue benefits for gays that were designed to help families) but they fail because you can make the same argument against childless couples.


and the argument fails because gay people can create families via adoption, artificial insemination, children from a previous marriage, or members of the extended family who now live with the gay couple.
 
this may not be what you are looking for

but life would be simpler if we all ended up this


To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business
By Alan M. Dershowitz

The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.
Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard University.

Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.

The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.

The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.

Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.

In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.

Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.

Although this proposal may sound radical, it does not differ fundamentally — except for labels — from the situation that exists in many states today. Throughout the United States, couples have the option of being married civilly by going to town halls or to a justice of the peace and simply signing a marriage certificate. They also have the option of going to a church, synagogue or mosque and being married in a religious ceremony. So most Americans already have the choice between a sacrament and a secular agreement ratified by the state.

All that would be different would be the name we give the secular agreement. The word "marriage" would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament.

Though some traditionalists would be certain to balk at an explicit division between marriage and civil union, a majority of Americans already agree that gay couples should be allowed to join in secular unions with the rights and responsibilities that generally accompany marriage.

So let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments.

3 December 2003

Copyright © 2003 Los Angeles Times
 
U2democrat said:


If the goal is to protect marriage, then do something about divorce, don't limit marriages.


Ok those are my main arguments for now. Any suggestions and/or articles you know of are much welcome. :up:

There have been some great arguments offered here, and I don't really have anything so special to offer. :( However, (you just knew that was coming, didn't you?) I would leave out any suggestion to restrict divorces as a way to "protect" marriage. I mean, isn't restricting divorce, similar to restricting marriages? Shouldn't people who find they are incompatible be able to divorce, without having to prove they are the "correct" kind of miserable to be allowed a divorce?

Sadly, I know of many marriages where the divorce was the best thing about the marriage.
 
Re: Re: Writing an op/ed on Gay Marriage

indra said:


There have been some great arguments offered here, and I don't really have anything so special to offer. :( However, (you just knew that was coming, didn't you?) I would leave out any suggestion to restrict divorces as a way to "protect" marriage. I mean, isn't restricting divorce, similar to restricting marriages? Shouldn't people who find they are incompatible be able to divorce, without having to prove they are the "correct" kind of miserable to be allowed a divorce?

Sadly, I know of many marriages where the divorce was the best thing about the marriage.

I can't speak for U2Democrat but I'm guessing her suggestion was to prove a point that would hit home for a lot of people, not to seriously propose restricting divorce. What's more damaging to the "sanctity" of marriage than the divorce rate in this country?
 
Re: Re: Re: Writing an op/ed on Gay Marriage

joyfulgirl said:


I can't speak for U2Democrat but I'm guessing her suggestion was to prove a point that would hit home for a lot of people, not to seriously propose restricting divorce. What's more damaging to the "sanctity" of marriage than the divorce rate in this country?

you can be my spokesperson anytime :wink:

yes that's what i was implying.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I have made an argument before about "God given free will" ~ if somebody is gay and you think that it is a matter of choice then they are simply using that "God given free will".

I HATE it when fellow Christians don't know what the shit they're talking about and give everyone else a bad name. "Free will" in the Protestant/Calvinist sense of the term doesn't apply to choices like sexual preference (and I don't personally think this is a consciouse "choice" anyway). Free will has to do with spirituality/theology and whether or not one devotes his or her life to Christ. Today I chose to wear jeans and a blue hoodie - but this is NOT an example of free will, it's just a regular old choice. Whoever is giving you some lame ass excuse of "free will" needs to first go back to theology class and learn the history and true meaning behind that concept.

/religious rant

I like what joyfulgirl said about being able to marry whoever you want for whatever reason...unless it's someone of the same sex.
 
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
I like what joyfulgirl said about being able to marry whoever you want for whatever reason...unless it's someone of the same sex.

As did I...excellent point, never considered that one before *:up: to joyfulgirl*.

There's tons of great things in here to use :yes:. Good luck on your report, U2democrat...and yes, I, too, would love to see it when you're done :).

Angela
 
Mary Kay Letourneau, the teacher who served time in prison for having sex with an underrage student, can and plans to marry that same student now that he's of age. She can marry the boy she raped when she was 34 and he was 13. But two consenting adults of the same sex who love each other cannot marry.
 
Back
Top Bottom