Help! (Teen losing debates on gay marriage)

Lets put it this way.......

You can't put a plug into a plug.

And you can't put an outlet into an outlet.

Try putting a hole into a hole.

Or placing a rod into a rod.

Marrage is the union of male & female in order to facilitate the best upbringing of children.

Don't ever let anyone tell you that gay is what these people are.

Tell them that the word gay was subverted for use by the SODOMITES in order to make this deathstyle acceptable.

Don't fall for that. Whenever anyone says Gay......inform them that that is not the correct terminology. Call people who practice this deathstyle SODOMITES.

Dennis Prager did an hour today on his show that is, as usual, gold. Check out dennisprager.com and get a copy of the show and/or contact him. Poke around web-site too as he may have a recent write-up on it.

I was working but one of his points was if love is the only criteria for marriage then why can't a bother marry his sister if they love each other.

Marrage is the union of male & female in order to facilitate the best upbringing of children.

With this, I agree. I disagreed with everything else you said. And it was especially bad advice for what panther33 should use in classroom debates.

Homosexuals are just being used by those who have always been anti-marriage. (not unlike hitler populating the brownshirts with homosexuals to achieve his own goals)

Is it any wonder the chief judge of Mass is just a socialist.

Granted this point is a tangent to the direct issue. However the issue is a "useful idiot" to those using it to social engineer. Children then become a fashion accessory to marriage and the criteria of marriage is based on sexual acrobatics.

Morality makes judgments of right and wrong above law and to the horror of such socialist judges (and ACLU,GLSEN,PFLAG,and Democrats), binding on the law.

http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov have the marriage ammendment.

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

It can't be done. In the absence of a moral absolute and an appeal to a higher power, there is no morality. Morality becomes Darwinistic and relativistic and what the majority considers moral becomes the standard for morality.

In the absence of a moral absolute, your best argument is that the majority of americans are against it, and therefore by concensus gay marriage is wrong. But when you lose the consensus, you lose the argument.

I would suggest you take a strong moral stand based upon 6000 years of religious and moral teaching and appeal to the revealed power of God. It is wrong because God has declared it so. You should declare it so as well. Your best response in these arguments is to show that in the absense of a respect for God and an acknowledgment of a higher power, nothing is inherently immoral. It is immoral only because somebody says it is. The Golden rule has its roots in the Teachings of Christ.

Note, if you take my advice, then I'd suggest you buy some asbestos underwear.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Abolishes Capitalism!
November 27, 2003

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War

LAST WEEK, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court discovered that the state constitution – written in 1780 – requires the state to allow gay marriages. The court gave the legislature six months to rewrite the law to comply with the heretofore unnoticed gay marriage provision in a 223-year-old constitution, leaving countless gay couples a scant six months to select a silverware pattern. Out of respect for my gay male readers, I'll resist the temptation to characterize this ruling as "shoving gay marriage down our throats."

The Massachusetts Constitution was written by John Adams, who was quite religious. It is the most explicitly Christian document since the New Testament, with lots of references to "the great Legislator of the universe." Adams certainly would have been astonished to discover that the constitution he wrote provided for gay marriage – though one can see how a reference to two men marrying might get lost among the minutiae about the common good and "duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."

The main lesson from the court's discovery of the hidden gay-marriage clause is that these judges are in the wrong job. If they can find a right to gay marriage in the Massachusetts Constitution – never before detected by any human being – we need to get them looking for Osama bin Laden. These guys can find anything!

And if we don't get Massachusetts judges out of the country soon, we could start reading headlines like: Mass. Supreme Court Abolishes Capitalism; Gives Legislature 6 months to Nationalize All Industry.

The Democratic presidential candidates reacted with glee to the court's gay-marriage ruling, relieved that they could talk about gay marriage instead of their insane ideas on national defense. But then they realized this meant they would have to talk about gay marriage.

Except for the nut candidates who always forget to lie about their positions, all the Democratic presidential candidates earnestly insist that they oppose gay marriage. They are for "civil unions" with all the legal rights of marriage. But not marriage! No sir.

As governor of Vermont, Howard Dean actually signed a bill providing for these magical "civil unions." Having already been forgiven for his remarks about the Confederate flag by both of the black people currently living in Vermont, now Dean wants to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their flower shops. But even Dean emphasized that Vermont's civil union law does not legalize gay "marriage."

And even in Ben-and-Jerryville, it took a court to force the state to recognize civil unions by discovering that right in the Vermont Constitution. (WHERE'S OSAMA?)

The big argument for "civil unions" – but not marriage! – is that gays are denied ordinary civil rights here in the American Taliban. This is where gays usually bring up the argument about all the straight couples living in "sham" marriages, but I see no point in dragging the Clintons into this.

The classic formulation was given by John Kerry in the Democratic debate earlier this week: "What we're talking about is somebody's right to be able to visit a loved one in a hospital, somebody's right to be able to pass on property, somebody's right to live equally under the state laws as other people in the country." You would think there were "Straights Only" water fountains, the way Democrats carry on so (as if any gay man would drink non-bottled water).

Apparently, health care in this country is better than we've been led to believe if so few Americans have ever been to a hospital that they think there's a guest list. In case you don't know: Gays already can visit loved ones in hospitals. They can also visit neighbors, random acquaintances and total strangers in hospitals – just like everyone else.

Gays can also pass on property to whomever they would like, including their cats. Every few years you read about some daft rich widow leaving her entire estate to a cat. It's perfectly legal. You just need to write a will. Liberals have figured out how to get abortions for 13-year-old girls without their parents' permission. But we're supposed to believe that they just can't get their heads around how a gay guy could leave property to his partner.

As for "living equally under the state laws as other people in the country," unless Kerry is referring to the precise thing he claims to oppose – gay marriage – gays do live equally under the state laws as other people in the country. There are no special speed-limit laws or trespassing laws or murder laws for gays. There is, however, some evidence of gay profiling with regard to the enforcement of fashion "don'ts."

What gays can't do is get married – something all Democrats swear up and down to oppose. Instead, the Democrats demand "civil unions" and then throw out a series of red herrings to explain why. In fact, the only difference between what the Democrats claim to support (civil unions) and what they claim to oppose (gay marriage) is the word "marriage." As John Kerry explained: "I think the term 'marriage' gets in the way of what is really being talked about here."

Republicans ought to try that: We don't support "guns" – the term "gun" gets in the way of what is really being talked about here – we want choice in personal security devices. We don't want a "ban" on partial-birth abortions; we just don't want there to be any of them. We don't support "tax cuts"; we support a "union" between people and about 60 to 70 percent of their money. We don't support "war" with Iraq; we are talking about somebody's right to be able to visit a loved one in a hospital. (Huh?)

Except the difference is: All those positions are popular with voters, so Republicans don't have to lie. The Democrats' purported opposition to gay marriage is like all their other phony policy statements that are the opposite of what they really believe.

When they're running for office, all Democrats claim to support tax cuts (for the middle class), to support gun rights (for hunters) and to "personally oppose" abortion. And then they get into office and vote to raise taxes, ban guns and allow abortions if a girl can't fit into her prom dress.

The common wisdom holds that "both parties" have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do.

It comes down to “Do we want to give homosexuals SPECIAL RIGHTS, and shouldn’t society have the right to institute laws that maintains it existence?
Society cannot survive without a stable family. Scientific studies have proven that children need both a Father (man) and a Mother (female). Therefore laws were instituted to assist or hold this bond. For example a wife (spouse) cannot be forced to testify against her husband. For millennium the bond of a male and female have been recognized, and a marriage in one country is legal and held sacred in another country.
There is no reason to support gay marriage for it does the society no good to have it. Society cannot survive without a stable family, but it can survive with out gays.

Special rights. Heterosexuals cannot marry a member of the same sex, so why should homosexuals be given that right? If a homosexual wants to marry a person of the opposite sex they are allowed to. So the law is consistent. There are absolutes. Ones you stop saying that marriage is between a Man and Women what do you have left? Marriage is whatever is in vogue at the moment? Why stop at allowing the same sex to marry, what about allowing one to marry a pet, or 6 people. Could two criminals marry so that they won’t have to testify against each other? Society needs rules if it is to survive.

The real question is why do gays want to marry anyway? Statistically, they have about a 20 times higher breakup rate, than heterosexuals. Could it be just another way to destroy America by weakening its foundations?

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.

Actually, many states allow minors to marry if they have the consent of their parents. So all you have to do is give him permission. Sweet deal!

True, the state no longer forbids copulation by two individuals who are not married to each other. It does not in principle require or forbid any of the traditional trappings of marriage.

However, it does seek to support the existing respected institution. The state recognizes that institution as establishing a lifetime exclusive sexual union of one man and one woman who promise to partner together in the raising of their children, if any are produced.

The state seeks to support the existing respected institution of families organized around marriages and procreation. That there is no criminalization of deviations from norms does not mean the state is incognizant of them.

Homosexual coupling does involve consensual sex, which as we have said, states no longer criminalize regardless of marriage status. Homosexual coupling may or may not involve lifetime commitments, about which the law has no opinion. Since homosexual sex does not produce children, we still may consider whether adoption should be factored in. But at this point, we are talking about such a small percentage of the population that it is counter-productive to muddy the waters of marriage with all the new and myriad questions that will arise once the concept of marriage is unwisely extended to including gay couples.

Gay couples, like any nontraditional family unit, may adopt children, but this has nothing properly to do with marriage law.

The word "marry" has meant a man and a woman historically, traditionally, and in all cultures and religions.(lthough, it is true that some cultures have had traditions allowing more than one wife and a couple of primitive cultures where women are scarce and allowed women to have more than one husband. Not one has sanctioned same sex marriage or families.

There is no need for a so called "marriage" between two people of the same gender, other than a complete "in your face" attitude and agenda.
If corporations want to recogize "significant others" with ins. etc, they can do this without a marriage.

Marriage has always been a religious arrangement for the good of the family and in accordance (in the Christian case which historicall pertains to this country) with God's law and admonition for a man and a woman to leave their parents and become one flesh, figuratively and literally, as in the case of offspring. You can legitimately argue the Biblical version because it is what marriage in this country was based on. Some so-called churches are trying to change that but the Bible is unchanging.

Arguments that it is discriminatory to say homosexuals cannot marry is a red herring. Discrimination is nothing more than choice, and all of us practice it on a daily basis. Discrimination is one of the bogey words used to deflect legitimate argument and put the opposition on the defensive.

Then, there is the fact that homosexuality has, of itself, never contributed anything to the human condition and culture except strife,
disease, and heartbreak. Some individual homosexuals have contributed, but these contributions were not based upon theirsexual preferences All those research projects so touted by the news media several years ago were disproven because it was found that everyone of them was conducted by homosexuals and skewed to give the aimed for results--to prove homosexuality is genetic. They are still searching for the scientific proof but so far have not come up with it.

Just a few thoughts. Hope they help.

As far as the law, the legislature needs to reign in the court which has put itself above the other branches of govt., instead of equal in status.
It is presumptuous of the SC to make law from the bench that goes in the face of history, tradition, and the desires of about 80% of the country.

vaudine

~"...one cannot base a government founded on 'freedom of religion' with quotes from the Bible."~

It's been done before.

However, many would just as soon you forget that.

http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a397351b419af.htm

Gay unions have no history, no value to society or civilization.

Neither did unions between blacks and whites but we stopped making that illegal. I see no value in continuing to keep this illegal. Children are a separate issue. I think they are better off in straight married households but why should you deny gays the right to marry based on that?

I realize that the most common "pro" argument in any "gay rights" discussion is to equate what homosexuals encounter to the inhuman treatment to which blacks have been subjected by Western cultures. I always take personal offense when gays and their defenders do this, but what you have just stated has particularly offended me because you pass this untrue statement off as if it's veracity is unquestionable. In fact, unions between blacks and whites have occurred for thousands of years, the Egyptians, Cushites, Nubians, Ethiopians and other black African peoples have intermarried with Israelites, Greeks, Romans, etc. It has only been in recent history, the past 500 years or so, that blacks have been the primary group of people enslaved.

Before you make blanket statements disparaging one group in support of another, you should make sure your facts are straight. Then tell me what has happen to every single society that has ever even condoned homosexual behavior. Is that what you want for our nation?

Before you make blanket statements disparaging one group in support of another

I did not disparage one group for another. I'm sorry if my hatred of discrimination bothers you so.

Neither did unions between blacks and whites but we stopped making that illegal.

You may find this of interest:

Blacks deny link in gay, civil rights

Also, there's my Categorical Index of Links on homosexuality that contains nearly 500 links on the issues. Of particular interest are the severe health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle.

As I see it, a Compassionate Society Should Discourage Deadly Homosexual Behavior.

Also:

Homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

That's not propaganda, that's hard core facts supported by scientific studies.

There is absolutely no evidence homosexuality is genetic.

Homosexuals can change their behavior. That's just one of many links. You can find more of the same here and here.

...Individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior threaten not only their own lives, but the lives of the general population. Source

Homosexuals must be accepted as the human beings that they are. It's their behavior that we must not accept.

If a person doesn't like gay marriage then don't have one.

So what would your views have been on slavery? FYI, the states that wanted to continue slavery, or were neutral, used that argument. It didn't stop the emancipation proclamation or the civil war from happening. Slavery was immoral and so is homosexual "marriage." Just letting it "be" because it doesn't bother you is not the answer.

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.

You two are making way too much sense here. Excellent posts.

From an old thread: "The family is not created by government; government is created by individuals living in their families and entering public life to protect them."

Attack their presumption that one can debate morality without introducing religion into the mix. (See George Washington's "Farewell Address.")

You are not losing the debate, Panther.

Polling data shows (depending on the poll), that at least 65%, and maybe as many as 87% of people, are opposed to gay marriage.

You are currently in with a small group of people who do not know God and therefore cannot be privvy to the wisdom that comes from knowing God. Try first to share the good news and maybe eventually their hearts will be touched.