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?

[karen999]

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

I don't think you've thought this all the way through.

Being legally married comes with a lot of baggage re: inheritance, insurance, credit ratings etc. Would you therefore, FORCE religious organizations to extend to "gay marrieds" the same insurance bennies they give to their heterosexual couples? Should the taxpayer have to pick up insurance for some gay person's "spouse?" You can't get your own blood PARENT picked up by your insurance bennies with the government..but some "lover" you met in a bathhouse two weeks ago and "married" is now supposed to be supplied with taxpayer financed heath bennies? Gee, the public is going to love that one.

And re: incest....just suppose that one of the two parties is STERILE...no chance of having "funny children" what's to prevent 60 year old dad and 40 year old daughter getting "married" if one or the other is sterile. You also forget that with parental permission, minors MAY get married. What if "Heather has two mommies" mommies both decide that 16 year old Heather should be allowed to contract "marriage" with HER 35-year-old lesbian lover? An "old style" Mormon decides he wants 18 wives? Why not...what are you doing pushing your morality on them.

It's an intellectually lazy posit that "you can't legislate morality" -- the hell you can't. We do it all the time.

[karen999]

"Michael Jackson "

Ha-ha....now there's living proof that Sammy Davis, Jr. and Liberace had an affair....

[WFTR]

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

You have a right as an American to believe whatever premises lead you to your conclusions. The fact that your premises come from the Bible does not lessen your rights in any way. Our government may not establish Christianity as a national religion and try to base policies on its interpretation of the Bible or God's leading, but individuals may base their views on whatever they please. You're wise to recognize the limits of working from premises that others don't accept, but you shouldn't back away from your premises entirely.

I no longer practice Christianity in an active way, so I'm less likely to use the Bible in this kind of argument. My position is based more on the fact that the stable, traditional family has been the basis of every strong, healthy society. The decline of the family has been a sign of the fall of those societies. I think government should recognize the value of the traditional family and avoid policies that are hostile to the family.

I don't think we should make homosexuality illegal, and I don't have a problem with some establishments making rules that help homosexuals. For instance, I don't see much benefit to anti-sodomy laws. I also don't have a problem with some hospitals extending visiting priviledges to homosexual partners. Religious hospitals shouldn't be forced to extend these same priviledges, but private hospitals should be able to set their own rules based on their patient base. Whether companies offer benefits to homosexual partners is up to each company, but they shouldn't complain when those who oppose homosexuality boycott their products.

I don't know whether any of this helps, but I wish you well in your efforts.

WFTR
Bill

[Violette]

"why would it be "turning our backs on them" if our government simply does not let the parents get officially "married"?"

The laws around marriage apply when the marriage is dissolved. That's the whole thing about marriage, it is a legal binding committment with all sorts of laws. These laws are designed to protect everyone within that union in the event the marriage is dissolved (even if it is by death as opposed to seperation). There are issues such as homeestead laws, taxes, guardianship, pensions, inheritance issues, etc.

There will be custody issues to resolve in the event of death or divorce. How is community property to be defined. What if they are forced to relocate due to a job, if the states don't recognize the marriage, how will the "family" continue to be protected? All of these laws are designed to protect the union and children involved in that union. The courts are not being asked to recognize this for the purpose of giving their union credibility in the public's eyes, they are asking for credibility in the courts' eyes so that their fiscal interests and the fiscal interests of their children will be protected.

[Violette]

"I also have issues with methods of fertilization that might be hard for the kids to have explained to them."

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

[Violette]

Bandwagon fallacy? Hmmm - haven't heard of that one.

"Your trope suggests that gay couples with kids pose no problems for kids in certain locations. You leave your reader to infer much....and to get things wrong"

My post was merely stating that children of gay marriages will be accepted in certain regions and not accepted in others. I disagree that this leaves the reader with any question about the validity of this statement. San Francisco has always been known to have a strong gay community. I doubt that the children in those school districts are going to have issue with school mates of gay children.

The schools in the suburbs of my city might have issue with it, but other schools will not. There are forward thinking open minded communities that would accept this concept. Apparently, Massachusetts is one of them.

[Violette]

"That isn't true. Homosexual men molest boys at a much higher rate per capita than heterosexual men molest girls. I.e., gay men who molest, do so far more frequently than het men who molest."

Would you mind providing your source for this claim?

[Violette]

I understand the difficulty in such questions. Heterosexuals find it difficult even if insimmination is done the conventional way. But I guess I don't understand why you would be concerned about it. How it happens doesn't change the fact that biologically that child came about the same way every other child on this planet came about.

[The Grammarian]

Just like smoking, homosexuality is a pubic health menace.

Has everyone just been ignoring this, or am I the only one to notice the odd word choice here?

[mcg1969]

You make some fair points, Violette, by bringing up about the protections provided by the government for children of heterosexual marriages.

But there is not a homosexual couple in this country who isn't painfully aware of the lack of government recognition, encouragement, and protection of their family status. So even while they deny the evidence that the homosexual family is inferior for raising children, they cannot deny the societal disadvantages of doing so, because they stare them in the face. And yet they choose to do so anyway. After all, the last time I checked, faithful homosexual couples cannot accidentally have children.

So if they really felt that those disparities were a problem---and if they were being truly unselfish and putting their future children's best interests first---then they would not have kids until such time as the disparities were rectified---that is until gay "marriage" was given legal status.

We therefore have only two possible conclusions: either they really don't have the child's best interests at heart, or they believe that they can do just fine without the government sanction. So be it.

[Violette]

"So even while they deny the evidence that the homosexual family is inferior for raising children"

Taking this section alone, I assume "they" in your argument is the government. I don't think that the governemnt is going to get involved in stating who is and who is not "inferior" to raising children. One could easily argue that teenagers are not fit to be parents i.e. children raising children.

The state removes children from environments where there is "abuse". i.e. immenent danger to the children. But for the government to state to anyone that their lifestyle is "inferior" and therefore they do not qualify to raise children, or marry even, opens the door for them to begin scrutinizing heterosexual couples as well. Jahova Witnesses have very fatal ideas when it comes to medical assistance for their children. The state gets involved and forces medical assistance, but they don't state that they are unfit parents. And they don't get involved.

[Violette]

"So if they really felt that those disparities were a problem---and if they were being truly unselfish and putting their future children's best interests first---then they would not have kids until such time as the disparities were rectified---that is until gay "marriage" was given legal status."

There is nothing selfish about taking children in (either via adoption or intentional procreation) and raising them and giving them a loving home. Pressuring children to be who you want them to be is selfish. As far as social disadvantages to permitting gays to marriage, I have no idea what those disadvantages are. My life doesn't change if the 2 men next door are permitted to marry.

[A. Pole]

Anal sex is a bad idea for anyone, including heterosexual couples, but it is the act which defines male homosexuals.

Yes, the female homosexuality involves only a mutual masturbation.

[A. Pole]

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

What about public health? Homosexuals live much shorter than heavy smokers and they are often infected.

[Violette]

"What about public health? Homosexuals live much shorter than heavy smokers and they are often infected."

That's hardly enough reason to state that they shouldn't be allowed to marry. There are heterosexuals who marry someone who they love as a dying wish. There are young heterosexual females that marry very old men. i.e. Anna Nicole Smith.

[Violette]

"No unnecessary pain, discomfort or embarrassment should be inflicted by adults. Period."

How, then, are you going to police this?

[mcg1969]

Our government may not establish Christianity as a national religion and try to base policies on its interpretation of the Bible or God's leading,

Actually, the government is perfectly free to do the latter as long as it does not do the former (and as long as their policies do not otherwise contradict the Constitution.) Although to be perfectly practical about it, it's not that likely for a government to base policies on God's leading, because it's hard to get a room full of people to agree on just what He's saying :)

[Violette]

"because it's hard to get a room full of people to agree on just what He's saying"

Or even agree that he exists.