Help! (Teen losing debates on gay marriage)

[panther33]

Greetings from a fellow FReeper!

I am a fervent debater, and most anybody who's ever met me in person can testify to that. One of the most controversial issues I have been debating lately has been gay marriage. Does the U.S. government have a right to ban gay marriage? Can America justify making homosexuality illegal?

As a proud Christian, I believe whole-heartedly in the Bible. There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that the Bible finds homosexuality to be a highly immoral practice. However, when I am arguing with atheists or followers of other religions, especially over a political issues, it seems to be virtually impossible to quote the Bible in any way. If they don't believe in the Book, how can I use it in my argument?

I am consequently faced with a perplexing dilemma: to argue a moral issue without injecting religion.

Bottom line, I need help--ideas, suggestions, web site links, thought-provoking comments, etc. Below I've written down a couple of random thoughts relating to the topic, and I would greatly appreciate your input.

- What about the argument that society is constantly outlawing activities it deems to be immoral and unbecoming of a United States citizen? (stealing, killing, lying) How do I respond to those who try to point out differences between, for example, stealing some gadgets from Radio Shack and marrying a member of the same sex?

- The Tenth Amendment essentially gives states any right not expressed in the Constitution. Does this mean that it is up to each individual state to decide whether or not to allow gay marriages?

[rongalap]

A Queer by any other name is still a Queer!

[Spunky]

"I am female and the answer to your question is yes."

But the law does not recognize it as adultry because the defination of Adultry is: Voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

Defination of sexual intercourse:
an intimate physical relationship, esp. between man and woman, involving use of the sexual organs.

I heard this recently in a case that was before the courts.

Would you like to change the definition of Adultry also?

[mcg1969]

I need to correct myself here. Jesus did not say that He would convict the world of sin, rather the Holy Spirit would when He arrived. In other words, the Holy Spirit would convict the world of sin because they do not believe in Jesus Christ. (John 16:8-9)

I figured some of your Scripture hounds might catch my error :)

[NutCrackerBoy]

You bring up homosexuality as behavior. I believe that distinction is important. However, I differ from some of my close ideological allies. I would be opposed to sodomy laws in my state. I would be opposed to laws that criminalize private homosexual behavior or cohabitating.

That is different from my stance on marriage. Marriage is an institution that already has a history and purpose. Homosexual couples have no standing with regard to families and raising children.

[farmfriend]

Would you like to change the definition of Adultry also?

I guess so.

[WackyKat]

Thus it to our mutual benefit for all of us to obey his teachings, even those who do not believe.

I don't see how you expect the injunctions of your religion to have any force at all for non-believers.

Of course, religious and secular ethics may agree at certain points-murder should be prohibited, etc,-but they may vary widely at other points.

Since even Christians can't agree on many points of ethics, how can your interpretation of ethics be convincing for people who aren't even Christian?

I think the solution is to have civil unions for hetero and homosexuals, and leave marriage as a religious concept to be dealt with privately with a religious organization of your choice.

[mcg1969]

breakem, you need to be fair. I said that it's reasonable for our religious views to inform our beliefs about what laws should be, but that it must be balanced by our belief in freedom as well.

I am not calling for a theocracy. I am only saying that it's reasonable for some of our laws to be motivated by moral principles that have religious origins.

[longtermmemmory]

Historically homosexuality was considered a choice. It is only in recent history that homosexuality was sold as a "born" myth.

Like any other non-married people, anyone pair (straight or homosexual or just living together) can sign cohabitation agreements, powers of attorney, heathcare surrogate, and/or living wills. Such agreements would be recongnized as PRIVATE contracts in all 50 states. (assuming no illegal agreements like slavery or polygamy).

The effort is to impose acceptance of a PRIVATE sexual act on a PUBLIC institution.

[luckydevi]

I respectfully disagree

I do not view homosexuals as criminals or a threat to the institution of marriage.

[mcg1969]

Incidientally, breakem, you should be relieved that my religious beliefs inform my opinion about law: because it is precisely because my God teaches that belief in Him is not to be coerced by man, but by some product of our free will and His leading. Freedom of religion is a natural consequence of that belief.

[longtermmemmory]

Marriage or civil unions (aka civil marriage) IS and must be a public institution. We have too much of a societal interest in probate, inheritance, taxation, and the attributes related to children to reduce marriage to a mere contract.

There should be no civil unions for homosexuals. EVERY single item that homosexual want to achieve by "marriage" can be accieved with very simple legal documents. In fact most can be purchased at your local home depot or obtained free off the internet.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It is reasonable for some of our laws to be motivated by moral principles that have religious origins.

Definitely. But I think you ran into the same problem that panther33 did when he quoted scripture in a debate. A non-religious person. who is otherwise open to being convinced to the wisdom of a particular law, will most likely tune you out when you go religious on them.

[Kay Soze]

Good Post.

My sexual orientation is to avoid paying taxes.

In the new ever changing definition of marriage I will marry my son and therefore have him avoid paying any inheritance taxes on my estate!

Try and argue that I cannot.

It’s a consensual marriage between two adults.

Ah but the liberals cannot allow the rich to get richer… now can they!

[longtermmemmory]

only as long as your son is over 18. According to Lawrence and the State of Mass. that is a perfectly legal thing to do.

In fact you could "marry" all your beneficiaries to avoid probate and taxation. (never mind the benefits of a revokable living trust) It is only faaaaair and it feeeeeels good.

[longtermmemmory]

Interesting, according to Mass the private homosexual conduct entitles people to public rights.

[Kay Soze]

I shall .

This will really piss the liberals off.

We can now pass on our inheritance without allowing the government to get a cut of it!

I'm good!

[NutCrackerBoy]

I do not view homosexuals as criminals or a threat to the institution of marriage.

I do not view homosexuals as criminals. Moreover, I believe that what folks do in their private lives is not a threat to the institituion of marriage, and is their own business.

But what the Supreme Court foists upon us in the name of "gay marriage" may well harm the institution of marriage. Invoking the principle of equal protection for homosexual couples with regard to legal marriage will unquestionably have far-reaching effects. Are you prepared to gamble on what those will be?

[mcg1969]

I don't see how you expect the injunctions of your religion to have any force at all for non-believers.

Good question, WackyKat. I am not suggesting that I should impose my religious views on others; I should convince people of them. Obviously, I can't just throw out "because God says so" when trying to convince an atheist as to why a particular behavior is harmful.

And indeed, God seems to prohibit things that society frankly has no problem with. But my faith tells me that God's laws are not to deprive but to protect. From that underpinning I can search for logical and verifiable reasons why that is so, and attempt to convince others of them.

Obviously, I would prefer to convince someone of faith in Christ; but barring that, convincing him/her to abstain from behaviors that are harmful is worthwhile. And if enough people become convinced of a particular "sin" (even if they choose not to label it in that way), then it becomes appropriate to consider codifying it as law.

It may sound like I'm walking a fine line between theocracy and freedom here. But the thing is, everyone gets their morality from somewhere. I would argue that man gets morality from God and then chooses to corrupt it. Others may feel morality can be completely reasoned out, free of theistic influence. But whatever basis they have, they must enter the arena of ideas, join with others who share their beliefs, convince others who do not, in order to form a society of laws.

[mcg1969]

A non-religious person. who is otherwise open to being convinced to the wisdom of a particular law, will most likely tune you out when you go religious on them.

So very true.

[longtermmemmory]

Consider the social engineering of "the great society of LBJ", that was conclusivly a collosal failure and a disaster to urban black families.

BTW marriage is not a bad off as the media touts, apparently there is a significant number of people who divorce and then turn around and remarry the ex. Taking those divorces out of the mix reduces the divorce rate to something under 40%, but I am only going from memmory.