Speakers debate same-sex marriage
By Steve McReynolds, thebatt.com from the Web, April 4, 2005
College Station, TX, April 1 -- A debate over the positive and negative effects that legalizing same-sex marriage would have on the institution of marriage and the family was held Thursday at the J. Wayne Stark University Center.
The keynote speakers were professor John Corvino, whose articles have appeared in The Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide, and Glenn Stanton, who has been published in Focus on the Family, Christianity Today and The Dr. Laura Perspective.
Stanton, who opposed gay marriage, said it has not been tried, and therefore the consequences of legalizing gay marriage are unknown.
"No society has ever done this until recently," Stanton said. "We need to know that this experiment is going to elevate human well-being."
Corvino, a supporter of same-sex marriage, focused on the benefits that legalizing same-sex relationships could have on society.
He argued that a person has the need to belong to a relationship, and that society would be more productive if gay and lesbian marriages were allowed.
"Relationships are good for people," Corvino said. "Human beings need love and affection.
It's not just good for the individuals; it's good for the society."
The effect of same-sex marriage on heterosexual marriages was highly debated.
Corvino argued that by allowing same-sex marriage, the definition of marriage would be broadened and would not take anything away from heterosexual couples.
He also said that it would not decrease the number of heterosexual marriages.
"When these people get together, it doesn't take anything away from you," Corvino stated.
"The usual response to a gay person is not 'no fair, why does he get to be gay?'"
Stanton disagreed, saying that same-sex marriages would deprive the household of the strength provided by male and female differences.
Stanton said only a male and a female could fill the roles of father and mother.
"(Gay men) can be the most wonderful parents in the world in and of themselves, but they can never be a mother," Stanton said.
"How can we be assured that children will not be harmed by being raised in intentionally motherless and fatherless households?"
Hank Balch, a sophomore history major, said that he felt it was truly a civil debate, considering the emotion associated with the issue.
"This was one of the most balanced debates on campus," he said. "They both presented their sides well."
Zach Spencer, sophomore sociology major, also said the debate was balanced.
"I think it was a very good debate," he said. "We (usually) don't get to hear both sides in a clear manner.
Too often this issue is too emotionally charged to get anything done."
|
