Issues Pertaining to Homosexuality

Thanks to CC for your timely response. I'd also like to thank you for being so cordial and respectful, despite our differing opinions on this highly divisive issue. Now, since I titled this debate, "Issues Pertaining to Homosexuality", we are free to discuss themes outside of the gay marriage issue, which I fully intend to do in the following rebuttle. I believe my opponent misunderstood what I'd said in the beginning of my argument. I understand fully and completely why the gay marriage issue has been put on the backburner, so to speak, to the War in Iraq. Most if not all, would agree that the situation in the Middle East is a tragic one; scores of humans are dying every day for what many now consider a questionable and ultimately hopeless cause. The war hits home for me personally; my best friend's brother is currently serving in Iraq. We can only hope for the best. But that is another issue entirely. My opponent states that "I still believe that God whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim intended marriage to be between a man and a woman". I have heard this position many a time and respect those that want to believe it. But in a country that has separation of church and state, I don't believe that religious belief has a place in creating political legislation that affects peoples' day to day lives. To use Christianity as an example, since I am more familiar with it than say Judaism or Islam, the Bible has many inconsistencies and has been altered so many times over its lengthy existence, which is why I don't take it particularly seriously. For some, it provides a moral code, which is fine for those that see it as such. But what about those of us that are not of any religious affiliation? Why should say, Atheists, be subjected to dogma that supports the existence of an "omnipotent being" that they don't even believe exists? While I personally believe that something is out there, I distrust organized religion based on the way it has been used over the centuries by so many to deliberately harm others. I need not remind my opponent or those that are reading this debate of the hypocrisy that exists in so many religious institutions. Priests and rabbis will tell their congregations not to do one thing, while they practice it behind closed doors themselves. Disgraced former Evangelical preacher Ted Haggard, who once spoke so adamantly against homosexuality and basically referred to us as hell bound, second class citizens, is a perfect example. Indeed the biblical saying that my opponent quoted at the end of his argument, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," is applicable here. My opponent claims he is neutral to civil unions which more or less offer the same benefits that marriage does, without specifically being called marriage. If we were to toss the "God does not intend gays to marry" argument aside, what other reason is there to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry? Civil unions may be SIMILAR to marriage, but they are NOT in fact marriages, which to myself and many others, reeks of inequality and suggests, yet again, that gays and lesbians are second class citizens- underserved of what heterosexuals can enjoy without impediment. CC said that he often gets annoyed when people introduce themselves as gay, as if that is the only thing that defines them as human beings. It doesn't quite "annoy me" but I can somewhat understand his stance. My bisexuality is a part of me, but it is not ALL of Spencer. Now as far as "advertising" sexuality, I am not sure if my opponent is referring to general displays of affection between gays and lesbians or more "celebratory declarations" like the gay pride parades? I will wait till he clarifies to offer my two cents on this issue. As CC already stated, the United States is quite better off than a lot of countries in the way it deals with homosexual rights; but I still do not think it is quite up to par with many of the European countries. Take Spain for example, which I recently visited for three months. Gay marriage and gay adoption were legalized in 2005 and was supported by an overwhelming 66 percent of the population. Despite pressure from opponents both within the country and of course, the ever vocal Catholic Church, the Spanish government continues to refuse to change the law. As the Spanish leader, President Zapatero stated, "There is no damage to marriage or to the family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. Rather, these citizens now have the ability to organize their lives according to marital and familial norms and demands. There is no threat to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law recognizes and values marriage." I have great respect for the way the Spanish government handled this issue and the vast tolerance of the Spaniards themselves. There are other political big names that have expressed varying opinions about homosexuality, many of them quite radical. President Bush once tried to introduce a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage nationwide, which, thankfully, never came to fruition. Mitt Romney, one of the candidates for president flat out said that he "didn't want gay marriage OR civil unions," on the basis of his religious convictions alone- something that I find to be quite frightening. John Kerry also opposes gay marriage because of his Catholicism, but says the issue ought to be left at the state level. I would personally love to just see gay marriage legalized nationwide; but in the interest of democracy, and because everyone has such different opinions, its' only fair to allow the citizens of each state to decide. However, this could pose some difficulties; in the Bible belt states, where homosexuality is usually frowned upon, marriage for gays in Texas or Alabama would probably never see the light of day. Those that support gay marriage, as the minority in that part of the country, would likely never stand a chance. In an ideal world, someone's sexuality would not matter in the workplace, at school or while serving in the armed forces. But in all of these institutions lies discrimination as well. Even people that aren't actually gay get taunted and ridiculed because others suspect that they are. Abuse in all its forms takes place at the office, in schools and who could forget the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy" of the American military. While a straight man or woman raves about their wife or husband, a gay, lesbian or bisexual solider must remain silent lest they get ejected. The same is true of the Boy and Girl Scouts of America; which does not permit any of its members to be homosexual. No surprise there- it's a private corporation that can make its own rules and is rooted in religion. But religious or not, what one's sexuality has to do with their ability to be a good scout or scout leader escapes me completely. Having personal "beef" with homosexuality is one thing, but to actually have a law that intentionally prohibits gays from taking part screams discrimination. It is important that we all remember that this is a very human topic and therefore highly sensitive. Whatever our individual opinions regarding homosexuality, or any other issue, it is essential that we place ourselves in the shoes of those that may have different takes, if only for the sake of "hearing them out." Whether or not actually doing so would change our opinions would really depend on the kind of individual. I conclude this post with two questions for my opponent. One- Do you have any gay friends that are aware of your position on this issue? And two- If you were in a relationship with another man, and you both decided that you wanted to marry, would you fight to have your marriage acknowledged nationwide, or simply settle for a Civil Union, which would restrict the recognition of your matrimony to the state you married in?