I just posted an update about my brother, C coming out of the closet to my mother. I am going back to college with my mother, and we have to go to a three day orientation later this week to begin our semester. Awkward.

So, as part of our orientation, we have to write a 3 page diagnostic essay, by hand, timed, no notes. They gave us sample subjects to choose from and argue for or against, I think the one I am going to do is "Homosexuality is incompatible with the institution of marriage." I will be arguing against this statement. We'll see what mom has to say about this. ;)

I would like to discuss this topic with you, get some ideas that I can think over and write about. Here are some brainstorming thoughts I have had so far, your input would be greatly appreciated:

I would like to define what marriage means to me, which is two people who love each other and share their lives with the other. There is a commitment involved to that one other person, you will be loyal and cleave yourself to them, "forsaking all others."

Homosexual people can fit this definition easily. They are most certainly capable of love and commitment as much as any other person.

If homosexuality is incompatible with the institution of marriage, what about marriages for convenience? Or marriages where there is no love? What about people who manipulate or abuse their spouse? What about people who cheat on their spouses? Isn't that incompatible with the institution of marriage? Since when does anyone get to define what marriage means for the rest of the population? What if there was a law that if someone is abused or cheated on, their marriage was null and void? Because their relationship would be considered a insult to the institution of marriage?

Why is the institution of marriage so sacred when it comes to denying others the privilege, but not so when it comes to the protection of those victimized by their spouses? Several states still have laws which allow a husband to beat his wife once a month.

This is a matter of civil rights. It was wrong when children were segregated to separate schools. It was wrong when there was a law saying where people could sit, and which door they could enter, and which drinking fountain they could use. These laws were changed when people stood up and said, "THIS IS WRONG!" People need to stand up for gay people and say, "This is NOT wrong! Gay people can no more change their homosexuality than anyone else can change the color of their skin."

This is all I have time to write right now. Thanks for reading! :)

The biggest problem you'll have is narrowing down all of the evidence. I would make 2 points:

1. If you look at the recent trial docs from the marriage appeal in California, you'll see that the single argument against gay marriage was: "We need to keep heterosexual marriage because heterosexuals can accidently get pregnant."

Ridiculous, but true.

2. An argument that typically gets good play is the one about raising kids. Can gays be good parents? If the answer is yes, then should their children be entitled to the benefits of being raised in the environment of married parent?

The evidence is overwhelming that sexual orientation does not make one a good or bad parent.

In fact, 100% of abused, neglected, battered and abused children come from heterosexual unions.

As a foster parent, I can tell you that straight/married people are not automatically better parents.

So, there is something to start with.

Hi Piper...I have said this many times and will say it again. The whole anti-gay marriage thing comes down to this:

"We (bigoted heterosexual) people don't like gay people and we don't want them to be regarded as 'normal' or equal to us in any way."

All of the arguments eventually reduce to religion and reproduction. The same arguments were (and still are) used to argue against interracial marriage.

Marriage discrimination will eventually end because of the equal protection provisions in the Constitution.

Most younger people my age really don't care any more about a person's sex or who dates whom.



"In Europe, it doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman - we make love with anyone we find attractive."

--Marlene Dietrich

For what you are doing, I would consider making the point that the institution of marriage already allows gays to marry. Though not universal, gays have been allowed to marry for about 22 years in Denmark and 7 years in Massachusetts. Then making the case that after nearly a quarter of a century that gays have been allowed to marry, there is no evidence that the institution of marriage has been damaged in any way. The conclusion being, since gays have been getting married for so long without damage to the institution of marriage, gay getting married is compatible with the institution of marriage.

Don't forget this point. It is often neglected, and the opponents of gay marriage will scream "MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT!"

Well, yes it is. Get your facts on how often the supreme court has ruled that marriage is a right, that way you can argue that gay marriage is about civil rights more eloquently since you've established that marriage is a right first.

Topping for more input... :)

This has been going through my mind--because it was a lesbian friend of mine who said it--she said, "It shouldn't matter if you are straight, gay, transgendered, bisexual, it is about who you love--who you connect with."

Marriage should be between 2 people who want to make a commitment to each other--as long as they are 2 consenting adults, whose business is it?