Help! (Teen losing debates on gay marriage)

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?

How long will it be before people will marry anyone just to be able to complete a business transaction without taxation?

An imaginary scenario:

Warren Buffet may want to sell to George Soros a half interest in one of his company.

Because he would make a substantial profit on the sale of his company by selling it to George, he would have to pay a significant tax bill.

However, being a savvy business man, he will quickly figure out that his best bet will be to marry George for a limited period, to transfer half of his assets in the given company in the privacy of his own home and then to divorce George in a precontracted, amicable manner.

Clearly, based on the Texas "privacy" decision, polygamy will be legal by the end of the year and so will business transactions conducted between family members in their own home.

Once it becomes evident that the new "marriage laws" can be easily manipulated, the government will be forced to revoke all "marriage benefits" including asset transfer rules, marital tax benefits and commmunity property rules that were put in place to protect the children and the spouses.

When marital rights are revoked because of abuse, it will become virtually impossible to have a stay-at-home parent, because the non-working spouse will have no assets and no retirement provisions that are not subject to massive taxation.

The family unit will be destroyed in all but a very small percentage of religious homes.

Your problem is that you don't know what and why marriage is (summoning up some memories from the anthropology of marriage courses I took).

First, it is not a contract, it is not about love and it is not a religious institution.

Marriage is a world-wide human social institution to ensure the perpetuation of stable societies. Marriage is an institution created by all societies to ensure that the pair-bond between man and women (monogamy is the norm world-wide) is reinforced with social pressure. The reason this is needed is the fact that men are less likely then women to stay around their children. (marriage protects women and children)

Marriage is all about the needs of children.
Children need a mother and a father.
A pregnant women need's to have someone provision and protect both her and offspring. The natural biological outcome of this need is that the father does it. If the father fails to provision and protect, then the child will die (and probably the woman too). If too many children die, the societiy dies. Even if the children survive, those that are reared outside of the family structure tend to be defective (anti-social, think inner city America). This is why marriage is not a private matter and why most (or all) societies invest strongly in marriage rituals.

Marriage in America is weak but not dead. With the help of the elites that rule us, marriage may be redifined out of existence and IMO therefore America will be on it's last legs.

definition of family - the marriage ritual forms the family (husband and wife) children are born into a fully formed family (the social structure they need); widows and widowers with children still raise them in a fully formed family i.e they function as if the other parent is still present

Panther,

There is a large difference between making homosexuality illegal and endorcing gay "marriage".

First, homosexual/bisexuals represent roughly 2% of the population, not the 10% lie I am sure you get told.

Second, no one can make someone being a homosexual illegal anymore than they could make being black illegal. Laws regarding homosexuality on the books are anti-sodomy laws that make certain homosexual ACTS illegal. There is a difference. One can be heterosexual and celibate, or homosexual and celibate... I know it may seem minor but it is a very distinct point.

Third, due to public health issues, the government does indeed have the right to make certain activities illegal. Few understand this, but the Surgeon General of the US actually is the single most powerful person in government, they and they alone can legally and independently SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES during a health crisis should they choose to.

Fourth, There is nothing in "marriage" from a legal perspective that 2 individuals of any gender could not accomplish through legal channels. Two people do not need to be married to have survivorship rights, they don't need to be married to be able to make life or death decisions should the other become incapacitated, or take control of finances etc etc... all of these things we have codified legally into the state sanctioned marriage, can be accomplished by simple legal contracts between the 2 individuals regardless of who they are or what gender, race or creed they are.

So the real question is why are gays pushing for their relationships to be sanctioned as "marriages" in the first place? If two homosexuals wish to "wed" one another, they certainly can stand before their peers, and God and commit themselves to one another for the rest of their lives, and I am sure they can find a preacher of some church or another willing to do a ceremony... so the law really doesn't play any part in that.

So why then do GAYS want to have their relationships be legally considered "marriages"? The religious or spiritual relationship has no legal associated with it, and all the rights legally implied by marriage recognized by the state can be accomplished through legal contract form... so if 2 homosexuals wish to live together they can with all the legal rights of a married couple under the law that they claim they want. So why, why, why this push to force "marriage" legally as their relationships? After all haven't they been saying for decades keep the government out of our bedrooms?

Simple fact is, they just want to force society at large to accept what they do as equivalent. Society as large however has no obligation to do so. There is a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance... and most rabid homosexuals at their core really want acceptance..... and frankly its just not going to happen. People can tolerate a lot of things, but they cannot be forced to accept things.. and that at the end of the day is all they are trying to do, through the courts is force acceptance, which isn't going to happen.

When you are debating things that are biblical, you simply can not always win. This is why the bible says that Christianity is foolishness to those who are perishing in 1 Cor. You are standing on a Christian principle and believe something because God says this is how it should be. Ultimately the debate is not really about whether Gays should be able to get married but it is about whether or not God is or His Word is His Word. These things we know by faith. All you can do is be a light to them and tell them the way it is but you can not make them see.

It is ok to boldly make the statement in God's defense and be laughed out of the room. You may have lost on Earth but you have won in Heaven.

In fact, the opposite is likely: positions will harden and you will be dismissed as some kind of religious nut rather than a sincere and thoughtful individual.

With the exception of a very few, 16-yr-olds are quite different than adults. There moral nets are not yet set.

Teenagers appear to have hardened opinions, but they often change completely when they marry and have children of their own.

At the time that they do become parents, they eagerly search their memories for moral guidance and the early teachings that they had ignored and rejected up to that point.

New parents particularly search their memories for lessons that they had previously been exposed to that can help them in their current parenting role.

Rather than arguing "right and wrong", I believe it would be best for Panther33 to discuss what the world should be like for his/her children, why it should be that way and what he/she is going to do to make it happen. An aggressive tone will turn them off--teens hate to be nagged--but an expression of commitment to a better world will go a long way in a future parent's memory.

If you think it is discrimination then tell me is it ok also to have sex with children? How about civil unions between animals and humans? And sense you dont see anything wrong with homosexual marriage how about polygamy? Is it an anything goes kind of nation for you or do you beilieve that our society should value decency (as determined by the majority of our citizens)? What is also surprising is that you claim to be a boyscout leader - I hope you are not imparting your anti-family values to these young boys.

My two cents - we as a society must enforce and establish laws which uphold moral and ethical values otherwise anarchy will prevail.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.