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?

[steve-b]

Start with Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperative" - the morality of an action can be tested, even in the absence of belief in a supreme being, by universalizing it hypothetically - "Would it still be good if everyone did it?"

So you regard celibate priests as immoral?

(Strike the question mark -- you don't really have the option of a "no" answer given your premise.)

[steve-b]

I do not agree with this simply because I do believe the state has an interest to uphold the institution that best serves its most defenseless constituents (children).

YOU have a FR account?

I gotta know -- do you laugh, get angry, or just not react at all to being called "Hildebeest", "Hitlary", etc?

[BibChr]

I wrote an essay on the topic that I hope you find helpful:

http://www.cybcity.com/bibchr/gaymarriage.html

Dan

[steve-b]

entitlements granted to marriage spouses

Simple -- the guvmint needs to get out of the "entitlements" business.

[steve-b]

Your argument is unpersuasive. It's perfectly possible to pull the same scam now, using a woman as the bag lady, and yet it has never become a significant problem. In those cases where marriage is misused to get around the law (e.g. fraudulently obtaining citizenship), the matter can be, and routinely is, addressed on a case-by-case basis.

[NutCrackerBoy]

This is a societal issue, not a state issue. Failure to draw distinctions between the two makes you, by definition, a totalitarian.

Ridiculous. The founders of this and every other country on the planet pass laws with no other purpose than to support civilization-bearing institutions, for example:

Impartial judiciary
Marriage (one man, one woman)
Churches and organized religions
Legal profession, other professional guilds

[breakem]

as do mine, but I believe this is a country in which we cannot impose our religious views upon others. I was only responding to your one paragraph, not all of your comments. Best wishes!

[John O]

Scripter, Please post the link to the entire database for Panther.

Panther, Scripter's database has a huge amount of data which I don't quite have the time to linik to at the moment. Please read the appropriate categories to support the following.

The purpose of marriage is to provide for the future prosperity of society. Just as all laws are designed to protect society.

Society's future is totally dependant on raising a healthy next generation of children. Any society that does not provide for a healthy next generation ceases to exist (check out the shakers)

The healthiest environment for producing and raising children is a stable home where one man is married to and loves one woman.

Marriage is the societal encouragement of this environment. Whatever you subsidize you get more of. We subsidize marriage in our laws (both civil and religious) in order to get more of this environement so that we will have a healthy next generation.

Now for the marriage contract to be valid both partners must be mentally stable. You wouldn't expect a mentally diseased person to be able to enter into any other contract so why would we let the mentally ill enter into marriage?

Scripters database has a huge section on the health risks associated with homosexual behavior. There is also a section on the risks to society of this behavior.

For all of recorded history (and before) the union of man to woman in marriage has been the accepted 'normal' pattern. Anything else was (and is) seen as an aberation or as not quite right.

Homosexual behavior is a symptom of a mental disease known as Same-sex Attraction Disorder (SAD). It is caused by trauma (molestation, insuffiecient relationship with one's father, or relentless teasing by ones peers) and it is totally curable. Again there are links in the database documenting this. Note that no sane person would practice this behvaior knowing the damage that it causes. This is why the suicidal are locked up for observation and treatment, because no sane person would suicide. A homosexual lifestyle is just slow suicide

There is no genetic component to this behavior. Links to support this also.

So in order to have 'gay' marriage we would have to allow two mentally diseased people to enter into a binding contract. By legal definition neither of them are capable of entering into a contract.

Your opponent will likely counter that SAD was delisted from the DSM quite a few years back (the DSM is the diagnostic manual for psychiatric disorders. Unfortunately I don't remember what the acronym stands for). The answer to this is that this was a political decision more than a medical decision and that the main player pushing for the delisting at that time now admits he was wrong. (link in the DB for this too IIRC)

In short 'gay' marriage ends up promoting a behavior that is contrary to the future health of society.

[Bogey78O]

The rabbi issue would conflict with church state recognition issues. However one does need to be certified by the state to perform marriages.

as to the white/black issue. That was resolved with the Civil Rights Act. However that is essentially how it was up till the 60s.

[NutCrackerBoy]

You called totalitarian the following statement of mine:

State governments should continue their accustomed role of encouraging this existing traditional institution (marriage).

Therefore, your position is to call for the government of every state in this union to abolish legal marriage. Again, I say ridiculous.

[OXENinFLA]

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

Have you tried injecting biology?

You know the whole 1+1=2 not 1+1=0 idea.

[mcg1969]

I know you're trying to be funny, but do you have a serious objection to my statement?

Do you object to the characterization of children as the country's most defenseless constituents? I mean, yes, there are perhaps individual exceptions (a severely handicapped person), but as a class I think that's clear.

Perhaps you read too much government intrusion into my statement. If so, re-read it. I am not saying that the government should be serving children directly---I am saying that the government should uphold the institution of marriage, in which children are best served by their parents. In other words, support a social and legal framework for marriage, and then get out of the way for the actual childrearing.

So I don't see the connection here to Hillary "It Takes A Village" Clinton.

[Tribune7]

Does the U.S. government have a right to ban gay marriage?

Historically, marriage is not a federal issue. Washington is starting to become involved because some state courts are declaring this to be acceptible and actions by one state on these matters are supposed to be respected by others states i.e. a marriage made in Mass. is valid in Fla.

Secondly, the debate is not really about a "ban" on gay marriage, it's about allowing two members of the same gender to be allowed to get a marriage license.

Now, what is the purpose of a marriage license?

Historically, the primary reason society via government has gotten involved in marriage is to protect women. It is not in the interest of society for a man to impregnate a woman then leave her to raise the child without help, which has historically happened.

So this is why we have marriage license and marriage laws and why married people get certain benefits, and those who aren't married don't complain because married people are generally inclined to raise families which is a burden and without which there is no future.

Now, you can make a case that this could apply to two women, although who's the dad and who's the mom must be considered. What if both want to have babies? It certainly isn't fair for the rest of us to be forced with the burden of subsidizing them.

And there is no case to be made for marriage benefits to apply to a relationship between two men. The case against it is that it an unfair burden for the rest of us.

Steve should not be allowed access to Brad's health care plan just because they like each other.

[mcg1969]

Understood, breakem. Cheers!

[scripter]

Scripter, Please post the link to the entire database for Panther.

I freepmailed panther33 with the link yesterday:

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links

[EdReform]

BTTT for later...

[NutCrackerBoy]

The primary reason society via government has gotten involved in marriage is to protect women.

Excellent post and excellent point. In other words, the institution of marriage required the teeth of governmental enforcement to counter the prodigal tendencies of the human male. The mere disapproval of society and church were not sufficient.

[Tribune7]

Excellent post and excellent point.

Thank you. I have my moments. :-)

[familyofman]

"...if a species practiced homosexuality and the majority in the species accepted the practice, what would the odds be for the longterm viability of the species?

Does this not conflict with a basic rule of nature? Does this not conflict with the very law of survival?"

What about Nuns & Priests that abstain? Do they pose a survival threat to the species & should they be forced to procreate?