Help! (Teen losing debates on gay marriage)

[mcg1969]

This is America and in this wonderful country there can be no discrimination in the laws...can there?

"Equal protection" does not equate with "no discrimination."

Which seems logical that the church has no say in government and by which no opinions of the church can alter the law of Mass.

Well, we'd better roll back prohibitions on murder, theft, perjury and fraud, bestiality, and so forth, then.

If we as a country are to shape the world, we must learn to get over the morality of the Bible and move on with the government.

From where do you propose we get our morality, then? What makes bestiality "wrong", for example?

Why now is it wrong to be happy?

Say I get enjoyment by murdering people. Why is it wrong for me to be happy? (I am not equating homosexuality with murder here, only pointing out the absurdity of this statement.)

Why do you have the right to marry and not homosexuals?

Nobody is denying them that right. If a gay man wants to marry a gay woman, they are perfectly entitled to do so. There is no other type of marriage. Civil unions, perhaps, but marriage, no.

Whether or not you yourself believe that it is the right thing to do, does not matter in how the laws must be written.

Of course it matters. Laws are necessarily a reflection of society's beliefs. For better or worse I might add. I'm sure we agree on a number of things that "ought" to be against the law, that are. Well, thankfully, the folks we elected to write the laws agreed with us.

[BSunday]

I stand corrected. Good post.

[Chummy]

"...IF this subject species with these requirements of reproduction practices any behavior that conflicts with the reproduction of itself, then how can that species survive?..."

"Ah, yes. The vast majority of ants are worker ants and do not reproduce. The ants, as a species, are doomed."

That's what happens when you try to contradict science with mash like your comment: what is a 'worker ant', and what is its function in an ant colony?

Clues: it's not reproduction. And ants, like some other species, are not limited to two genders as are humans, and other mammals.

[Stone Mountain]

I do not need to quote the Bible to convince people that consumating your marriage by getting poo poo on your pee pee is a bad idea.

I don't think this is a great suggestion for a high school debate strategy...

[Chummy]

"The exact same can be said of heterosexual acts performed by anyone incapable of producing children or willfully preventing conception. Why should they get the perks of marriage as a reward for sterile and selfish sexual acts?"

What is the primary function of marriage? Is it not to form the foundation of a family, the very foundation of our society?

You extracted out-of-context a portion of what I've been writing on this subject, trying to offer a view that is based on science, ie, absent for the moment a Biblical take on the subject. There is nothing that a homosexual act contributes to the society, and there is therefore no basis for that society to recognize or encourage further homosexual acts, be they within or extramarital in setting.

[Stone Mountain]

I've been writing on this subject, trying to offer a view that is based on science, ie, absent for the moment a Biblical take on the subject. There is nothing that a homosexual act contributes to the society, and there is therefore no basis for that society to recognize or encourage further homosexual acts, be they within or extramarital in setting.

The trouble with this view is that if homosexual families are allowed to adopt, then they can contribute to society just as much as straight families who adopt can. The homosexual act doesn't contribute to society, but neither does the heterosexual act. Once you start ascribing non-sexual behaviors with these acts, you run into trouble (from a debate perspective) because most non-sexual acts are not associated solely with one sexual preference.

[RightWhale]

What is the primary function of marriage?

A very fine question. Most excellent. Is it not to maintain continuity in the family estate?

[mcg1969]

Is it not to maintain continuity in the family estate?

No. It's a consequence of marriage, a byproduct of marriage, but not the purpose of it.

[bvw]

Neither the Tenth, the Ninth, nor pre-exitant and still in force common law permit the dictionary to be rewritten, Argue marriage, what it is defined as? There is NO argument. You can NOT win it. For by taking that argument up at all -- the debate has already allowed that the dictionary may be re-written.

Do you think the world is a debate? Then be a Zoroastrian!

[RightWhale]

It's a consequence of marriage, a byproduct

But a known consequence, therefore it could be a purpose, especially when continuing the estate obviously implies coherent children.

[BlueNgold]

There are 2 issues driving the gay marriage agenda that both fall under the umbrella of legitimization of their lifestyle.
1) Health Care: most employers offer health care benefits to family members but not to those living in a state cohabitation (gay or straight).
2) Child Rearing: marriage would rights would most likely ensure custody/visitation and adoption legitimacy.

One of my own personal concerns is this: not all homosexuals are pedophiles, far from it. However, the incidence of pedophilia among the homosexual/bisexual community is much greater than among the straight community. (Studies back this up.) Is it prudent for the state to knowingly put children into a situation where their risk of molestation is 2 to 3 times higher than they would otherwise encounter? OSHA requires that we take certain safety steps because a 1 in 1000 rate of harm is more acceptable than a 1 in 200 rate ... are our children any less important?

[Chummy]

The thread is growing long, so you may have missed a post or two I wrote earlier.

Given humans are of two genders with reproduction requiring the joining of specific cells provided by each of the respective genders, a homosexual act in and of itself cannot result in reproduction. For one or more individuals who engage in homosexual acts to become a "family", therefore, they must necessarily rely upon another individual who is conceived and born of a heterosexual act by another couple of individuals of each gender.

Who does such a convoluted arrangement serve? Is it society? Is it the species? Or is it in fact a couple of individuals who quite clearly want to simultaneously be both alternative and traditional?

There is nothing natural or scientific about this; it is an artificial contrivance and is contrary to science, as well as Scripture.

It's not a "family" that's created, per se, it's a collection of individuals, none of whom are related biologically, and at least two of whom cannot reproduce not because of some defect or that they may be sterile, but because they do not engage in an act that may result in reproduction.

And marriage between same-gender individuals is and cannot be "marriage", as it is incapable of furthering and/or stabilizing the society, which is the purest function of marriage.

Here's a basic question to your point: as it is alternative to that which is traditional, if someone engages in homosexual acts, for the moment attached with the label a homosexual, what motivation has this individual to demand also the more traditional institutions of family and marriage? What purpose does this hypocrisy serve?

[mcg1969]

But a known consequence, therefore it could be a purpose

I won't deny that some people use estate preservation as a reason for getting married (or for choosing a specific mate). That may be an individual's purpose for marriage. But that is not its purpose in the general sense---the reason that it was created.

[cyborg]

:sigh: I do not care if two gay men or gay women get married, any more than I care if a man or woman gets married. It does not affect my personal moral beliefs whether there's Queer Eye for the Straight Guy or Boy Meets Boy.

[cyborg]

I would not put slavery and homosexuality in the same category. I suppose if one is coming from a christian standpoint as sin and immorality, yes they are both sinful. I know I find homosexuality to be an unhealthy practice and against mature, and so I won't be engaging in any of it. However, if two men or two women want to get a civil marriage for the purposes of sharing benefits, being able to make hopsital visits, so what??? It's a contract.

[Stone Mountain]

Here's a basic question to your point: as it is alternative to that which is traditional, if someone engages in homosexual acts, for the moment attached with the label a homosexual, what motivation has this individual to demand also the more traditional institutions of family and marriage? What purpose does this hypocrisy serve?

Well, hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder. The motivation that a gay individual has to get married (civilly, not religiously) is that our society extends all sorts of benefits and rights to a spouse that those gay individuals would want to take advantage of. I'm not sure I understood your question since this seems somewhat obvious.

[mcg1969]

I agree, cyborg. Impossible and/or contradictory concepts such as the expression 1+1=3, or the marriage of two men, don't affect my personal moral beliefs, either.

[Stone Mountain]

Trouble with that logic, is that you can extend it to deny child rearing to other couples. For instance, the incidence of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) is much higher in poor families than in rich ones. Similar statistical analysis can be used to justify denying child-rearing rights to any population that may have some elevated incidence of a disease or condition.