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?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Better yet, argue that the government shouldn't have any involvement with marriage whatsoever. Marriage and other family arrangements are personal matters which should be left up to free citizens to handle themselves. Why should you need a license from the government to enter into a marriage in accordance with your religious beliefs? And why should anybody need a license from the government to enter into any kind of cohabiting and/or sexual relationship in accordance with their beliefs?

[Kay Soze]

Read away!

[farmfriend]

I said nothing about constitutionality. Did you reply to the right person?

[Snuffington]

Have the time to do a little research? If so try Stanley Kurtz's excellent series of articles on the topic. They began with a series debating pro-gay marriage advocates Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch at National Review online. I know of no other conservative writer who has gone as deeply into this issue.

Some helpful (but not exhaustive) links:

Who Is Goodridge Good For?
Marriage Radicals
Beyond Gay Marriage
Oh, Canada!
The Libertarian Question
Sullivan, Santorum & Me
Defending Senator Santorum
Heather Has 3 Parents

[RandallFlagg]

Sorry. Post #20 was meant for panther33.

[dasboot]

Just like smoking, homosexuality is a pubic health menace.

Few are born homosexual; far more have acquired the habit: don't start, kids!

[Goodwen]

You don't have to prove anything. Those that wish to disturb the status quo must prove that it is better to do so. The argument against gay marriage can be a practical one. If you accept that society has no right to proscribe gay marriage, then where is the line drawn? Any two consenting adults, or three, or more? A man and his 18 year plus daughter(s) or a woman and her son(s)? It sounds awful to consider these arrangements, but the logic that validates gay marriage also validates all arrangements. You can use the gay marriage logic to the extreme. Who's business is it anyway if someone wishes to marry a favorite pet?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Actually there are quite a few freepers who aren't on the "save marriage by having the government regulate it" bandwagon. Personally, I just want the government totally out of the marriage business -- straight, gay, polygamous, whatever -- it's none of the government's business.

[panther33]

Great sites... thanks!

[billbears]

You were bringing up the point that it discriminates against them. And I would say yes, if it were race, creed, religion, or nationality, it would be discrimination. But here I see it as we're talking about discriminating against an act

[panther33]

I agree, the Bible is quite clear when it comes to homosexuality. But as I stated before, one cannot base a government founded on "freedom of religion" with quotes from the Bible. I'm looking for other arguments against homosexuality.

Thanks for the verse, though... I'm bookmarking it in my own Bible.

[farmfriend]

I agree. I do draw the line when it comes to children. And incest for health reasons.

[GovernmentShrinker]

So what's the problem with all those arrangements if free citizens choose to enter into them? The government doesn't need to sanction those arrangements any more than it needs to sanction traditional one-man-one-woman marriages. Goofy stuff like marrying one's pet won't catch on widely, and it's hardly going to be the downfall of civilization if a few nuts and attention-seekers do it.

[panther33]

Dittos, Hodar.

Any non-Bible related ideas? Right now I'm just grasping at straws.

[farmfriend]

Sorry, I must repectfully disagree.

[bt_dooftlook]

A couple of thoughts -

1. 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?" In the case of gay marriage, it is clear that it fails this test; aside from promiscuity and disease, it would lead to the collapse of society in one generation as no one would be having children.

2. You could approach it using Darwin's theory of evolution; if they can't reproduce, they can't evolve...;)

3. From a social utility point of view, the fundamental purpose of society is to grow and prosper; it is in civil society's interest to encourage the formation of stable uclear families as they tend to be self-reliant and pass similar values on to offspring. As for the benefits conferred on married couples, they are, for the most part, intended to allow couple the option of staying at home to raise a family (for instance health care benefits) - in a relationship that cannot have natural children, arguably both should be working, obviating the need for family health care.

4. Ultimately, homosexual marriage is an attack on the family; by claiming equality with normal family structures, it elevates itself and lowers the other.

Good luck!

[Snuffington]

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

Incidentally, the way this issue was addressed in the time of the Constitutional framers was from the perspective of Natural Law. A little research into that topic should serve you well.

[billbears]

At the national level yes you are right. However at the state level, that has not always been the case, even after the signing of the Constitution

[WackyKat]

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?

Since only about 2% of the population is homosexual, and some of them do have biological children, the effect of homosexuality on the long term population is most likely negligible

[DennisR]

Panther,

It is more than a matter of morality--it is a matter of the continuation of the human race. In most areas, it is easy to see how any particular behavior can approved or disapprove: just ask how the human race would fare if everyone practiced it. What would happen if everyone stole? We would have chaos. And in the case of gay marriage, what would happen if everyone did it? The human race would cease to exist. It really is that simple. So the state should not endorse any behavior which is against the continuation of the human race. They may not see it that way, but fact is fact.