POSTED BY on 8:48 AM under ,
Debate on gay marriage between University of Minnesota Law Professor Dale Carpenter and Glenn Stanton, Director, Social Research and Cultural Affairs, Focus on the Family. Co-sponsored by Lamba Law Students Association. Funding Assistance: University of Minnesota Events Partnership Grant.

Thursday, September 16, 2004, 6:30 p.m. to Thursday, September 16, 2004, 8:00 p.m.

AUDIO: Gay Marriage Debate

UPDATE: For those interested in the topic, there's a rather salient discussion from an adamantly secular POV over on Gideon's Blog. There, the otherwise gay-friendly author brings out several points which are not addressed by either of the advocates in the above debate -- points worth considering. Here's a snippet indicator of the level of discourse:
As with everything before, the assumption that marriage is fundamentally about love (with the corollary that if love fades, presumably so should the marriage - after all, there might still be time to actualize oneself through another, yet more thrilling love!) does not originate with the campaign for gay marriage; far from it. But again, acceptance of gay marriage entails explicitly understanding marriage in this way, and therefore bars the way back to a more realistic appraisal.
It really deserves to be read in its entirety. Please do.
8 comments so far:
    Charlotte November 12, 2007 at 9:28 AM , said...

    Check out our trailer on Gay Marriage Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the situation: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

     
    Catholic Audio November 12, 2007 at 10:33 AM , said...

    Charlotte,

    I watched the trailer and I have to say it's meant neither to educate nor defuse controversy; it's a propaganda piece. It's done very well, don't get me wrong, but it's pure propaganda for the LGBT community and it's the same rhetoric we've all heard before. Those who oppose gay marriage are bigots and need to "evolve". This is the same message sent to us every day from TV and the news papers. Got it, got the T-shirt. To be frank, there's really nothing new in your trailer.

    Have you considered that perhaps calling us bigots doesn't "defuse the controversy", even if the one telling you that you're bigoted is wearing a June Cleaver-style dress with pearls, has a pleasant tone, and ends her presentation with a crude joke?

    Have you considered that there are real, substantial arguments in opposition to so-called gay marriage which are based in reason, logic, anthropology, psychology, public policy and jurisprudence? Have you considered that we may have thought this through and come to a reasonable alternate conclusion?

    I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you personally if you e-mail me.

    God Bless,
    Ryan (Catholic Audio)
    catholicaudio(at)gmail.com

     
    Ward November 12, 2007 at 11:15 AM , said...

    "Have you considered that there are real, substantial arguments in opposition to so-called gay marriage which are based in reason, logic, anthropology, psychology, public policy and jurisprudence? Have you considered that we may have thought this through and come to a reasonable alternate conclusion?"

    Many of us have considered this possibility, but there are simply NO reasonable, logical, anthropological, psychological, public policy or legal reasons to deny equal treatment under the law to homosexual couples. NONE.

     
    Catholic Audio November 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM , said...

    Ward,

    First, what equal treatment are you talking about? Are all citizens able to marry? Yes. Apart from issues of consanguinity and consent issues, any man can marry any woman. The state doesn't ask your sexual preference -- you're simply free to marry. The law in this regard doesn't discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, so equal protection isn't really the issue.

    Second, a question. What is the original purpose of the state's interest in marriage?

    Hint: it's not about (1) protecting religious dogmas or (2) recognizing loving and intimate relationships. The state (at least in America) doesn't care about those things.

    God Bless,

     
    Anonymous November 13, 2007 at 10:08 PM , said...

    catholic audio:
    Suggesting that gays and straights are being treated equal under the law because a straight person is required to marry someone of the opposite sex and a gay person is required to do the same is like (hypothetically) having laws that require all people to attend Christian churches then telling Muslims that they are not being discriminated against because they're required to attend Christian churches - just like Christians are. Actually, it makes less sense, because unlike sexual orientation, religion is a choice. Your argument has been presented and debunked a million times. Trying to use it here shows that you just don't get it. You don't understand sexual orientation (you likely see it as mere sexual behavior) or where those of us who support marriage equality are coming from.

     
    Catholic Audio November 14, 2007 at 7:19 AM , said...

    Anon,

    I'm afraid you're right. Saying that equal treatment doesn't apply because all are allowed to marry heterosexuals is not my best. As was said by Anatole France, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.”

    However, I do believe you're mistaken about my understanding of sexual orientation. I don't believe anyone "chooses" their sexual orientation. (Who would choose a path fraught with shame, scorn, ridicule and confusion?!?) That said, I do believe we are responsible for the choices we make, just as an alcoholic is responsible for every sip of the bottle (whether genetically predisposed or not). I understand the longing, but (like the longing for extramarital affairs for a great number of married men) it's a longing which must be resisted. Given our sexual urges (whatever they are), we still must choose to protect our chastity.

    If you're truly interested in the secular arguments I see against state recognition of same sex couples (which haven't been presented so far), you can read it more fully developed here.

    Thank you for the correction, and may God bless you.

    Ryan (Catholic Audio)

     
    Karen June 21, 2008 at 11:15 PM , said...

    I love the banner. Thank you.

    Your fellow bigot,
    Karen

     
    Anonymous December 15, 2008 at 8:50 PM , said...

    That said, I do believe we are responsible for the choices we make, just as an alcoholic is responsible for every sip of the bottle (whether genetically predisposed or not).

    What does that have to do with this issue and why are you comparing it to alcoholism?

    If we were in a time when black/white marriages where illegal would you be telling a black man that he is responsible for the choices he makes and that choosing to marry a white woman instead of a black woman is akin to alcoholism?..

    I understand the longing, but (like the longing for extramarital affairs for a great number of married men) it's a longing which must be resisted.

    Again, why are you comparing it with adultery?

    Telling that to a gay person is the same as telling a straight person their heterosexual attraction must be resisted and then likening it to adultery..

    Given our sexual urges (whatever they are), we still must choose to protect our chastity.

    That's a religious or belief argument and has nothing to do with civil rights and equality regarding how civil marriages are recognized by the government.

     

Copyright Sonitus Sanctus | Using the GreenTech Theme | Bloggerized by Falcon Hive.com