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?

[King Nothing]

Young Conservative PING list. Let's help out a fellow young freeper.

If you'd like to join the young conservatives PING list, let me know. (yes, you can be young at heart to be on board too) ; )

[mcg1969]

Children should not be concieved for the sole purpose of bringing joy to the parents. (That is not only selfish but misguided, as any parent of a teenager knows :)) Once a baby exists, its parents are there to serve, not to be served.

The evidence is unequivocal that the best environment in which to raise a child is a stable, loving heterosexual marriage, period. Now of course I would want to show nothing but support for parents who find themselves outside of that ideal arrangement through no fault of their own (like a widowed single mother). And that is not to say that some homosexual couples couldn't do a better job raising kids than some heterosexual couples.

But to consciously choose to conceive and raise a child in an environment that is known to be fundamentally flawed (i.e., no mommy or no daddy) is flat-out selfish. That many heterosexual couples have children for selfish reasons does not justify us compounding the problem by expanding the practice.

So while I don't find it practical or reasonable to explicitly prohibit such inferior parental arrangements from occurring, I see no reason why the government should legitimize through official sanction anything but the best possible choice. What the government sanctions it encourages.

[Violette]

"But to consciously choose to conceive and raise a child in an environment that is known to be fundamentally flawed (i.e., no mommy or no daddy)"

There are people who consciously choose to be single parents. Are they better equipped than a homosexual couple?

[mcg1969]

I believe that it is wrong for someone to consciously choose to be a single parent, for the same reason I believe it is wrong for a homosexual couple to choose to become parents. Ask any single parent who didn't consciously choose their station and I'll bet they'll agree with me. But like I said, if someone becomes a single parent through no fault of their own, they have my sympathy and support.

[Violette]

"I believe that it is wrong for someone to consciously choose to be a single parent"

So now the question is, what do you think the court's position on this should be? Should they support it? Should they punish it?

[mcg1969]

Read my post. The last paragraph. I answered that already.

[mcg1969]

Post #322, that is.

[Violette]

"Raise children? Not their own. Produce children?

They can't. For one, your comment hardly applies generally to homosexuals en masse. For another, their desire is in stark contrast to their ability, and in fact requires the involvement and contributions of others, ie, those who engage in an act of procreation and which act produces an offspring"

Their act of lovemaking cannot produce children. Just as with an infertal couple. Again, a homosexual couple (one of the members of the couple) will find a surrogate mother. If they are two women, one will find a sperm donor and have invetro fertalization. These are the same choices a single person has if they want to have baby.

"You still offer not a whit of a reason as to why a society should recognize this arrangement"

For the same reason we recognize the arrangement of a man marrying a woman who has had a histerectomy.

[mcg1969]

For the same reason we recognize the arrangement of a man marrying a woman who has had a histerectomy.

Not the same, for reasons I stated in #322. An infertile couple is fundamentally more qualified to provide the best possible environment for adoptive childrearing than a homosexual couple.

Certainly some homosexual couples can do better than some heterosexual couples. But the best homosexual couple will with certainty be inferior to the best heterosexual couple.

[Zevonismymuse]

bacteria transferred from the pee pee to the mouth

Urine is sterile. Normally urine does not contain bacteria. Feces is 85% bacteria. That is why drinking urine is harmless and eating feces is deadly.

I am not telling people what to do. In order to give informed consent you should be informed. Anal sex is disease producing. You have the right to engage in behavior that spreads disease and damages tissue. I have the right to tell people anal sex is bad for your health.

[mcg1969]

And I hear that urine applied topically can relieve a jellyfish sting, too :)

[Indie]

Wow...good post!

[scripter]

Some argue that homo is "genetic" some say it is an aspect of societal influences.

If someone argues that homosexuality is genetic then they are arguing out of ignorance. The genetics argument has been destroyed. According to the experts, the major factor in determining homsexuality is environment. This is greatly re-inforced by the fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle.

As I see it, A compassionate society should discourage deadly homosexual behavior and those who encourage a deadly behavior are friends to nobody.

[ppaul]

[Technogeeb]

I as a Wiccan, believe that everyone has a right to love and to feel love

That is because you are young and foolish. You may indeed have a right to pursue happiness (and perhaps love as a part of that happiness), but there is no guarantee of actually obtaining the goal. If you must take something that does not belong to you in order for you to feel "love", or harm another to feel "love", then clearly any such right does not extend to such actions. And unfortunately for the sodomites, they are taking something that doesn't belong to them when they attempt to claim the sacrament of marriage.

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

Of course there can. Laws must discriminate; otherwise they are intrinsically unjust. Criminal laws much discriminate between the innocent and the guilty. Tort laws must discriminate between who has been unjustly injured and those who are responsible for that injury. Civil laws must discriminate based on a variety of factors if justice is to be found in the courts.

Just to remind the people of this country...there was along time ago a decision that church could no longer influence the State

No there wasn't. There was a decision made that Congress could not recognize a particular establishment of religion, or prohibit its free exercise. To suggest that religion cannot influence government is to suggest that only the amoral are suitable for roles in government, a condition that would rapidly create the worst of tyrannies.

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.

Civilization is a very fragile thing. If you were not so ignorant of history, you would know what happens when the veneer of religious morality is stripped from government. If you insist upon endeavoring toward such a path, I suggest you obtain a good winter coat; it gets very cold in the death camps.

Homosexuality is a healthy and normal feeling that we as humans have gone through for centuries

Wanting to make something true doesn't make it true. The fact is that homosexuality is not healthy; one need only look at statistics to prove that point.

Why now is it wrong to be happy? Many cultures have expressed acceptance to it,

This is true. But none of them survived such acceptance for very long and retained their civilization.

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

Heterosexuals do not have the right to marry either. It is not a right; it is a privilege. From a religious perspective, man did not create marriage; God did. Thus, it is His intellectual property, and His to do with as He sees fit. If you deny the existence of the Deity, then the issue becomes even more clear, since it is only the whim of the state that determines what "rights" you have, and if the state denies you the privilege of marriage (or grants it, as in what may be the case soon in MA) then so be it.

It is not right and in our Constitution, does it not say the people have the right to be happy.

No, it does not say that anywhere at all in the Constitution (a document I suspect you have never read).

Whether or not you yourself believe that it is the right thing to do, does not matter in how the laws must be written. Thus, I must profess that you need to GET OVER IT!!!

If rights are endowed by the Creator, then marriage exists only as He has ordained it, between a man and a woman. If those rights do not come from the Creator, then they are an artifact of the state, and since the state is an invention of the people then the people have a retained power to establish the institution of marriage as they see fit, and may direct government to set rules and regulations to enforce their (perhaps arbitrary in your opinion) will.

[gobucks]

I agree with Hodar - but, I would like to add something regarding what I think is a trojan horse to so many teens.

A debate would not have worked with me as a teen - and in fact, a debate is a kind of legitimization of the issue itself that it doesn't really merit. A Christ-based love from the heart is a love that is separate and unselfish. And very few Christians said to me then what I write below:

The "debate" is really about debating whether or not selfishness itself is legit. If you subscribe to the secular humanistic faith, then of course it is. But if you're Christian, all "debates" should be witness-based regarding the commands of Christ and our obedience to them. The "first and greatest" commandment is love God with all your heart, soul, strength. There is no room for debate as far as Christ is concerned.

First point: spending time with non-Christians "debating" a ruling in Mass. about marriage does not really serve the core of Christ's message. That core message is ""be separate" in your love, exclusive in your love to ME." Carving out that separateness requires we become unselfish. As a man who is married to a woman, I promise you, it is a great ground of practice indeed.

When I speak w/ teens today about this issue, I don't debate - I just make the following observation:

There is not a single study published by anyone reputable that shows any gay male couple that remain faithful to each other for more than a few weeks or months. On the contrary, all male gay relationships are essentially "open" relationships. Being holy is simply outside the gay mainstream experience.

The greek word for "holy" means to separate. Holy matrimony is a separate space - to practice being unselfish. Christ wants our spiritual attitudes to be married to him ONLY. It is this exclusivity clause that so infuriates secular humanists, and thus it is issues of sex that serve as the core "hot buttons" for debate to them.

If you are a gay man, knowing and understanding YOUR own desires is straightforward. Meeting them with another gay man is an extremely selfish road to take - for no effort is required to understand the base nature of the other man. I once mentioned this to a teen age liberal girl who thought I was nuts for saying this...and then I mentioned that abortion is the same thing. A selfish act, because bearing and raising a child requires distilled unselfishness.

If you are a straight man, marriage to a WOMAN is a mountain of extreme elevation. For crying out loud, how could a creature less like a man exist??

Thus, the genius of our Christ is revealed, He who created the mandate for monogamous, heterosexual marriage. We have to practice exclusivity with a creature completely unlike us - to get proficient at the giving of our unselfish love to HIM, per His commandment. And our kids get a big head start in life if they are fortunate enough to witness this.

From my point of view, gay marriage is strictly a trojan horse - there aren't that many gay people out there. The real issue is destroying "separateness", holiness, by getting polygamy legalized. Legal polygamy is the single best way to cloud the core message of the exclusive Christ.

Once that happens, institutionalization of secular humanism is permanent, that is, you drive out the SINGLE government sponsored trait of Christian faith: the accordance of legal privileges to persons who practice heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Then, we will REALLY become a nation of lawyers...

Hodar however is right: its like mandating prayer in schools. The government can't do that. But prayer itself won't happen unless individual, by individual, but within each of our marriages, we witness what Christ-based living is (and if it were easy, a lot more folks would be doing it, and doing it well - the fact gay marriage has arrived is a testimony unfortunately to poor results of so many of us in our own Christ-based living, me included).

As a teen, then your road is clear: spend time preparing yourself for that proving ground, that "holy" space. You'll need more than good debating skills to make it grow into the result Christ intended.

Then, your peers will someday not want to debate you - instead they'll ask you questions like "what is your secret to a happy marriage? You and your wife seem so close!"

That is the type of conversation Christ hopes to listen it on, and the type secular humanists most fervertently hope to prevent in your future.

[bvw]

The state has NO ability to recogonize a "contract" for an illegal activity. Are there still any states in which homosexuality is illegal? For it should be. For it has been in those 200 plus years we were a healthy and sane nation.

[bvw]

That premise is wrong. That premise is foolish. That premise is imbecilic. Each and all three!

Why is it wrong? Because religious texts are constantly in use in formulating public policy! Even today, by every level of legislative, judicial and executive body I know of.

Take the current Supreme Court -- they have considered arguments from the Jewish Talmud in a recent death penality case.

Or take Thangsgiving! A Federal, a National, Holiday. As in "Holy Day". A day DECLARED by Presidents, Judges and Legislators to be put aside for a "religious" purpose.

Did your "friends" celebate that? Ask them? Ask them if they "Thanked Darwin" at the start and/or end of the meal.

Why is it foolish? It is foolish of you to waste time arguing with people whose "rules of evidence" are so narrow and restrictive some prejudicial outcome is assured before any argument starts. They kow it too! They want to make a fool of you.

In my book, such mean or vain-glorious attempts to make others the fool are the deepest indication that those who so attempt are fools themselves.

Why is it imbecilic? It is most assuredly so dumb, so empty of intellectual scrutiny, so unsustainable a premise in the face of any level of scholarship (that means reviewing existing texts and researching history) to be imbecilic.

Secularism, darwinism, scientificism and such are ALL religious belief systems. That there practitioners may refuse to be label "religious" is of no import in an absolute sense.

[Pedantic_Lady]

If they don't believe in the Book, how can I use it in my argument?

You can't. You'll have to find something else to support your viewpoint if you want to win.