Debate

[remmy]

Hello there. We are having intra-university debate at ABAC. "Topic is Homosexual couples should be allowed to marry" Please contribute your view in favour and against this topic because I dont know whether my team would be on Govt or opposition side, which will be declared only 30 minutes before debate.

Ideas regarding morality, freedom and equality of men, civil liberty, religious point of view and any other important point as you might think are very welcome.

Thanks

[Scott]

Good luck on your debate. I and my partner have differing views on gay marriages. I tend to be for them and he tends to be against them. We've had a few heated discussions and now leave the topic alone all together. Here's some points on both sides.

First of all, the idea of "marriage" as used in the past is probably antiquated. There are so many factors (such as sex changes) that make it hard to use. I prefer to think of "marriage" more as a religious ceremony--an oath before God etc. Instead, the term civil union is probably more practical. Here's a synopsis of points for both sides.

For Marriage:

1. Equal rights to all members of a society.

2. Equal benefits--including inheritance, decision making, loans, tax benefits, health insurance etc.

3. The right to adopt children and have a family.

4. Equal protection in the eyes of the law.

Against marriage:

1. Religious grounds -- Man and woman for the purpose of having children.

2. Moral --I won't elaborate, but some people believe it's just wrong.

3. Protects children from being in gay homes.

4. For those who respect the rights of gays, but don't believe in marriages, then a recognized civil union can replace an actual marriage.

Recently a problem developed in the state of Vermont (USA) over this issue. In Vermont marriage is defined by law as a union between a man and a woman. Recently a husband decided to have a sex change. His wife has decided against divorce. They have been married for quite a number of years. Now the State is in a quandry because the sex change violates the law, but there is no provision for dissolving a marriage between two legally married people who don't wish to have it dissolved. This is the reason why the concept of "marriage" for both gay and straight people may be antiquated or at least in need of redefining given modern medicine.

[ProThaiExpat]

Your post is not clear as to the form the debate will take! Pro and Con on an issue is the usual format, what side is the "govt" position supposed to be?

If your lucky enough to have the "pro" or "in favor of" position on gay marriage, you will have all of the rational arguements on your side. This issue has been hotly debated in the U.S. and elsewhere for some years now and in the final analysis, the only "arguement" against it is "it is just not right" or the "bible says it bad" or the "Pope says its evil". All the studies show that the effect of same sex parents on children is minimal to non-existent.

The most rational discussion on why gay marriage is a fundamental and legal right is the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which you can easily find on the internet by a google search with those key words. Any problem, I will be happy to forward it to you by PM or e-mail.

Is your debate limited to what should be done in Thailand.? If so, as a Buddhist country, there is no religious reason against it, according to recent Buddhist Monk written articles in the Bangkok Post.

As to the people deciding by a national election vs. the government enacting a law permitting it, as the Canadian PM said in a speech to their parliament, the majority, a tyranny, should not be consulted when funadamental rights of minorities are involved, as the outcome is always against the rights of the minorities, when the majority is deciding.

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided the issue of inter-racial marriage on the pro side, over 80% of Americans were against inter-racial marriage and that was in 1964, 40 short years ago. Yet today it is a non-issue, even in the religious venues.

A key issue of terminology should be decided before the debate and that is what is meant by "civil unions", "civil partnerships" or "co-habitation agreements".

Since I believe your debate will be on what the government should do about gay marriage, one must debate what governments role in civil society should be. In western countries, the regulation of marriage by the government is justified by the exercise of "police power" or the regulaton of society for the "good of the people"

In regulating society, most feel the government should treat all of its citizens equally. No differentation between genders. Thus, there is no "rational reason" to discriminate between genders when it comes to government controlled marriage rights. See the Mass. Supreme Court decision on this concept.

Since the word marriage has been adopted by many Christian religions who's "faith" dictates marriage as to be between a man and a woman, most agree that the most practical way of acomplishing equal gay marriage rights is to allow religions to have the exclusive right to the word "marriage" and dictate what they will require for a "marriage ceremony" to take place and have the government call the union of two people under its laws, regardless of gender, by a different name.

"Civil Union" has been advanced as the best name in the future for the licensing and governmental ceremony, now called marriage, ie the joining of two people, regardless of gender, in a legal contractual "union" under the law. If they later choose a church wedding, up to them. Some churches or religions forbid same sex ceremonies and some do not. Thailand is a secular government, unlike Iran, which is a theocracy, a government run by a religion. Thus Thailand's govenment should inact laws based on non-religous principles.

As you know, one of the biggest difficulties the government of Iraq is now having in drawing up a constitution is whether it shall rule under Muslim priciples or laws which deny women equal righs, or laws of a secular government that treats all of its citizens equally, regardless of gender, as the case is in Thailand, I believe.

The critical issue is that the government require all persons, regardless of gender, to undergo the same regulatory process, without distiction between them., in the marriage arena. Thus a "marriage law" for opposite gender people and another "partnership law" for same gender people is inherently discriminatory, as it sets up a "special class" of people of the same gender, when it comes to marriage.

It makes no difference if the "partnership" law for same gender people gives them all the governmental rights and protections of the law as opposite gender "marrieds" have, since separate is not equal, by definition.

Many view "civil partnerships" for same sex people as merely a first step in granting acceptance to gays in the marriage arena, knowing full well that the courts will ultimately strike down these laws as inherently discriminatory, as they did racial segregation's "separate but equal" laws years ago.

Please PM me or e-mail me under same screen name at Yahoo if you would like further imput.

Good luck. The issue will be history in 20 years!

[remmy]

The Govt will support legalizing homosexual marriage. It's the govt sides role to naturally support the proposition is nt it?.

I think that interracial marriage was a good point. It might have been considered morally wrong as well at that time.

Also, marriage in Thailand is not a religious ceremony right? They just need to go to registration office and get registered and the monk does not play roles right?

So if the opposition says its wrong from religious point of view, govt can say it did not break any religious rules in thailand since marriage is not religious ceremony.

Many thanks for the valuable replies, I think I have enough points from the pro side but from the con side, I will look at some christian family websites.

Yes I think if we are on govt side it will be better to narrow down the topic to Thailand with examples from western countries. because this is not practical for countries like Iran, saudi arabia etc.

Another topic is " This house would ban Paedophilia in Literature"

does literature include internet and digital images or is it only written works? From the pro side, we can say it influnce people who read these kind of literature to commit crime , immoral to publish books which glorify paedophilia etc. But from the opposition side, we can say it is infringement of fundamental rights, people should decide what they want to read or see etc. Well if you can make more important points please add.

Edited August 25, 2005 by remmy

[Ijustwannateach]

Hmmmm... I, for one, think that the issue of paedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality and there is no particular reason to discuss it in this forum.

Most (more than 90%) sexual abuse of children takes place between girl children and older male adults in their families. I would assume that obscene literature is produced mainly according to this trend.

"Steven"

[Ijustwannateach]

P.S. As a Thai- and you ARE Thai, right?- why would you be using *Christian* values to make your arguments against gay marriage?

[remmy]

P.S.  As a Thai- and you ARE Thai, right?- why would you be using *Christian* values to make your arguments against gay marriage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I'm not thai. The reason why i mentioned christian family website was they offer not only religious point of view but also other points which can be used against promoting gay marriage, like claims made by them that it is detrimental for a child to grow up in a samesex family, it can cause conflict in a childs mind, a child needs a loving mother to lookafter them, etc. I know all of these claims can be rebutted easily for govt side but for opposition , morality, society and religion has always been the strongest points.

[PeaceBlondie]

P.S.  As a Thai- and you ARE Thai, right?- why would you be using *Christian* values to make your arguments against gay marriage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I'm not thai. The reason why i mentioned christian family website was they offer not only religious point of view but also other points which can be used against promoting gay marriage, like claims made by them that it is detrimental for a child to grow up in a samesex family, it can cause conflict in a childs mind, a child needs a loving mother to lookafter them, etc. I know all of these claims can be rebutted easily for govt side but for opposition , morality, society and religion has always been the strongest points.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep in mind that 99% of what you'll find on 'Christian family value websites' is neither Christian nor Biblical, and it resembles animal manure. Regarding homosexuality, those guys, regardless of how many seminary degrees they earned, closely resemble ignorant morons. They don't know what their own Bible says about straight sex, and they don't have a beginning of a clue about gay sex. For the record, I'm a gay Christian.

Pedophilia, as IJWT and I repeatedly point out, has only 10% to do with homosexuality, but it has 90% to do with heterosexuality.

[ProThaiExpat]

As a Buddhist courntry, anyone arguing for the pro-side of this issue should have excluded any discussion of "christian values" as they should exclude any discussion of other religions as they are not relevant.

As I pointed out, the con side of the arguement should have a difficult time coming up with any rationale for their side. There are absolutely no factual studies to support the concept that same sex parents are bad for child rearing or for the child's mental health.

On the contrary, the sex of the parents have little to do with a child's mental or emotion health, suffice to say a warm, loving and nurturing enviroment is what matters most for children. As for "taunts" of classmates, they must be dealt with by many children with opposite sex parents.

The whole issue of pedophilia is not germaine or relevant to same sex marriage debates but as a separate issue, there are many studies that have shown that pornography, regarless of type, while applealing to "purient interests" does not necessarily promote the behaviour depicted. In fact, there are studies that show that pornography satisfies those with such proclivities and reduces the inclination to act out.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the laws against pre-pubescent pornography are almost universaly based on the premise that an unlawful act must be engaged in inorder for the photograph to be taken. Protecting children from sexual exploitaton in the production of child porn is properly the role of government in its mandate to excercise its "police power" for the good of its citizens. We don't even have to get to the issue of whether pornography incites or glorifies illegal activity or not under this analysis.

[remmy]

Thanks for the replies everyone, we won the debate qtr final and semi final but lost in the final. It was fun and a great experience, give me confidence in myself particularly public speaking.

ciaooo