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?

[Darksheare]

Well..
Sex has been defined down to vaginal penitration.
And marriage has been defined as a relationship between two people where such occurs.
Since men don't have vaginas, they can't have sex with each other and hence cannot be married by the term as it currenty stands defined.

[Pedantic_Lady]

Well.. Sex has been defined down to vaginal penitration. And marriage has been defined as a relationship between two people where such occurs. Since men don't have vaginas, they can't have sex with each other and hence cannot be married by the term as it currenty stands defined.

Then I guess Clinton didn't really have sexual relations with that woman....Monica Lewinsky.

[Darksheare]

That pretty much was the definition he was angling for.
*snort*
Of course, that being true, then lesbians cannot have sex with each other in a 'true' interpretation of such thinking.
*snort*

I DID hear one unique defination of sex this way, taht it isn't sex for there to be vaginal penile penetration as liong as there's no 'ejaculate' released during the penetration.
Of course, it was said in much much cruder terms.

[CougarGA7]

Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever see this dealt with medically. At least not in my lifetime. There is no motivation to treat it because there are too many "it's just the way they are and that's ok" people out there.

[VOA]

bump

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

Actually, procreation is only one of the benefits of a marriage from a sanctified standpoint. Sexual connection and the loving benefits that connection provides is also an important element as taught by our Church (Catholic) thus encompasing even those unable to procreate.

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

Hey Kay....I'm stealing your BRILLANT thought and using that one on my brother next time he brings it up. Very clever!!!!

[Stone Mountain]

The hypocrisy is this: an individual lives in a manner that is an alternative to tradition, but demands at the same time the traditions of the society to which the individual lives in a manner that is an alternative.

I don't think I agree with you there. If they were asking for recognition from the church or from groups other than the government, I think you would have a point, but as it is, you are saying that anyone who chooses to live in (any kind of) a legal manner that is different from the societal norm is not entitled to any of the benefits of living in that society. I don't believe in that. Our society accomodates people with all types of beliefs and behaviors that don't match the norm.

The motivation is the desire of the benefits of traditional society?

Again, it depends on what those "benefits" are. I have no trouble with gays asking for those same legal "benefits" that straights have. If those "benefits of traditional society" include recognition by religions, then I would certainly affirm a religion's right to worship however they see fit.

[Mich0127]

thank you sooooooo much!!!!

[Elijah27]

bookmarking...

[MEGoody]

"It doesn't affect me and my life."

Sure it does. Every step this nation slides down the slope of immorality affects every person in this nation - and probably an awful lot of people in the rest of the world.

The only way you could NOT be affected is to live an isolated life in a cabin on some mountain top.

[MEGoody]

"A homosexual couple is engaging in an act of love as well."

Nope. They are only engaging in an act of hedonism. If they truly loved that person, they would want the highest good for them. Same gender sex is not the highest good for anyone.

[MEGoody]

"Homosexuals want to commit their lives to one another and raise children."

As soon as the idea of homo marriage is completely accepted by society, they'll lose interest in it. Hedonism is their bag. Behaving in a 'normal' manner doesn't do it for them.

"Marriage" protects the children."

If it is about what is best for children, a stable family with a daddy and a mommy is best. Two mommies or two daddies leaves the kid missing an important role model. (And no, Uncle Fred can't really fill in - the mommies can only fool themselves into believing he can.)

[MEGoody]

"These are a few of the Native American tribes which have a socially acceptable "man-woman" category of people who wear women's clothes and engage in traditionally female activities. They may marry men but not each other: Zuni, Crow, Navaho, Mohave, Hidatsa."

They may marry men, but not each other? Huh?

[RobbyS]

What the gentleman is pointing out is that many homosexuals do prefer "open relationships." Maybe you all want "marriage" simply to give more permanence to relationships by making it harder for the partner to leave. I suggest that in a society in which one marriage in two breaks up because "love" is the only glue, that this won't happen. Maybe lesbian relationships will benefit more than gay ones. I remember a remark from my psychology professor a long time ago: women love with their whole body; men only with their penis. But my opinion, bottom line, is that gay marriage is only a mock marriage, even more so than the romantic couplings that led straight people from one marriage to another and which are no marriage at all.