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?

[MEGoody]

"sex for any other purpose than reproduction of the species is hedonistic."

Actually, no. Sex between husband and wife is for purposes of bonding them as a couple.

"And a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh."

I could easily be convinced that all other sex is about hedonism.

I know that's what same gender sex is about.

[MEGoody]

"It is about what happens if there are children and this committed relationship dissolves."

That's easy. If one of the partners is a biologial parent, that person gets custody and has all parental rights/responsibilities.

Homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. If adoption is 'desired,' then one of the members of that 'couple' should adopt the child. A break up would not affect the rights and responsibilities of the single adoptive parent.

[HouTom]

I think most of the opposition is related solely to religious teaching. Therefore, religion forms the basis for objecting to homosexuals.

I think every argument against homosexuality comes down to "The bible says it is wrong." You are either going to accept that or not and I'm not sure there is an argument that is going to be persuasive to anyone on the other side. That's why as a debater I think you feel uncomfortable about the situation.

I'm a gay man and I struggle with the whole "marriage" issue. I'm not sure its something I want, since with it comes the possibility of divorce, adultery, not living up to the vows that you take before God, etc. All of which has been greatly illustrated by heterosexual couples. However, there is also something to be gained from being in a relationship that you know is right and holding on to that relationship in the face of others who say it is wrong. I'm comfortable with my relationship with God and my sexuality. There is nothing anyone can say to me to change my mind.

I also understand the wanting by "responsible" homosexual couples to have their relationships recognized. The link to the Focus on the Family page which shows the benefits of marriage shows the immense benefit of sharing your life with a loved one. The studies don't show this is specific to a union between a man and a woman. I have homosexual friends who have been together as long as my parents and are just as happy and stable. So if you want to know why non-activist, non-left-leaning wacko, non-homosexual agenda couples want to be "married", read the Focus on the Family article again. It is exactly what they are after, and I wonder if you read it again, will you really feel justified in denying it to them.

As for the legal aspects, marriage is a religious institution that has been recognized by the government. An example where the government recognizes and sanctions a religious institution, (how's that for an interesting separation of church and state topic????).

[Violette]

"Four people with robes have decided to use their power to insert their own prejudices into the social fabric"

I heard a session on NPR that stated that the state of massachussets is supporting this. It's not overwhelming support, but it's quite a abit.

[Violette]

mcg1969, I think that this post is not about gay marriages and gay people raising children. To state that both people have to be loving 'mommy' and loving 'daddy' as opposed to loving 'mommy' and loving 'mommy'in order to provide a child a good home is erroneous. I'm not trying to flame you here. I simply disagree with the idea that heterosexuals have the sole claim to genuine nurturing parental love.

Additionally, choosing to have children in outside of the traditional family is not denying a child love. I agree that it is much easier for there to be 2 people in this raising process, but only so that there is a balance of responsibilities so that there can be quality time between child and parents.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It is a fact that the people of Massachusetts did not, through a republican process, bring on this decision.

In fact, there is quite a bit of support now for a Massachusetts Constitutional amendment to make marriage between one man and one woman.

The Boston Globe ran a ridiculously skewed poll which showed 50% support for the decision. NPR is probably repeating that as fact.

Once the decision came down, because of the tremendous respect people have for the rule of law, there is respect for the decision that still is out of whack with anything the legislators of Massachusetts would have done or been able to do.

People are inclined to go along with a civil union compromise because it sounds good.

[Violette]

I still don't think that alone suffices for the government to deny them the right to marry and raise a family. Heterosexuals that take drugs have no business raising children, but well, it happens. Should we then tell heterosexuals who have a drug problem or suffer from alcoholism that they can't get married because they may possibly become bad parents? Being raised by homosexual parents that love you is a far cry better than a heterosexual pair with alcoholism.

[Violette]

"Can you tell me in good faith that liberal, out, committed gays will pass on to kids any but their own gay paradigm as a worldview?"

Absolutely. If anything, they will help them to understand the differences between people. They are not interested in imposing their sexual preferences since they didn't like having other people do it to them. They know first hand that you can't force someone else's sexual preference.

[Violette]

"because it sounds good"

Sounding good is not good enough. It needs to be right. And a civil union is not as right as marriage.

[Violette]

"Actually, no. Sex between husband and wife is for purposes of bonding them as a couple."

This statement implies that sex between two homosexuals does not bond them as a couple. I emphatically disagree with this statement. Sexual intimacy between two people who love each others, enforces the bond.

[BamaFan]

I haven't taken the time to read the hundreds of responses, so this may already be in there. Bottom line: government "sanctioning" for the purpose of extending benefits should only occur if you can prove the act your sanctioning is beneficial for the long-term good of the society and isn't violating the rights of the tax-payers who are footing the bill for said benefits. It can be easily shown (and thousands of years of experience verifies) that societies benefit when married hetero couples stay together, both early when they are raising children, and later when they are aging/dieing. The burden of proof is on the homos: show why taxpayers should shoulder the cost of extending bennies to them!

[Violette]

"That's easy"

No it isn't that easy. What if there is abuse involved? There is absolutely nothing easy about child custody when a divorce is under way.

"A break up would not affect the rights and responsibilities of the single adoptive parent"

Marriages don't dissolve simply by separation. People die, too and that opens up a whole new can of worms when it comes to inheritence and property. Marriages have laws that cover that to protect the interest of the spouse and children.

[Violette]

If you began to explore this, you would begin to discover that you would be lost in a miriad of problems by simply defining what constitutes as "unnecessary pain, discomfort or embarrassment". You would also discover there is no way to police this and that heterosexuals are just as capable of imposing this as homosexuals because pain, discomfort or embarrassment are human conditions, not a homosexual conditions.

This is absolutely no basis to determine whether or not homosexuals should be parents.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Civil union is not as right as marriage.

Both are wrong for gays. Noone has given a sufficient explanation of what the compelling interest of the state is in any form of homosexual unions. This goes triple if the word marriage is used, and double if civil union is defined to be equivalent legally to marriage.

Many valid points have been raised about folks who are not man and wife raising children. All of these points apply as well to gay couples as to any other (non-traditional) configuration of persons raising a child. We probably need to create some social contract law that brings order to the situations arising for all of these people. That should take care of all the legal issues.

Clearly there is no reason for me to object to having some sort of registry for gay couples. But equally clearly that is not what the activists want. They want legal benefits, the whole shebang.

[Henrietta]

"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."

I was waiting for someone to say that! After all, what business is it of the Governments with whom I contract marriage, or with whom I sign any other contract? Since when did marriage become a government-sanctioned event instead of a church-sanctioned event?

[mcg1969]

Violette, in this argument I am personally making a very clear distinction between prohibition and promotion. If a society is considering whether or not to prohibit something by law, then it must make a much stronger case than if it is trying to decide whether to promote something by law. The primary reason for the difference is that enforcement of a prohibition takes significantly more governmental resources, the presumption of innocence is given the offending party, and the government must make its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

But we're not discussing whether or not to throw two gays in jail just because of their desire to be "married". Rather, we are deciding whether or not the government should extend certain legal benefits to them for doing so---whether it should promote the practice. When it comes to promotion, the government has signficantly more latitude, constitutionally speaking.

I liken the legal benefits of marriage to be akin to the ability to take tax deductions for donations to qualifying charitable groups. Obviously the incentives are much larger for marriage, but the promotion concept is the same. Many of us choose to make donations (or make them larger) precisely because of this practice. And yet why should the government bother with this? Some libertarians would certainly argue it shouldn't. But I say that the government does have an interest in fostering and encouraging certain social activities or institutions that benefit society, and I consider heterosexual marriage specifically to be one such institution. Unfortunately we as a society have done many other things to cheapen that institution (no-fault divorce for example), but that is no excuse to visit wrongs with wrongs.

So back to your example. You ask me whether I would prohibit drug addicts or alcoholics from getting married. Well, no, because that would be a prohibition, and to enforce it I would have to prove that this person or that is an alcoholic or drug addict. But when two men walk into a courtroom and ask to be married, there's really nothing to prove, is there? It's simply impossible for them to fill out the paperwork because they can't complete the line that says, "Wife's name."

And again, I have never denied that some homosexual couples can do as well as some heterosexual couples at raising children. In fact I have specifically said so many times. But this is not about allowing marriage only for people who would be good parents. That's simply an impossible standard to enforce. This is simply about the government using its powers of promotion in a targeted fashion so that it promotes the ideal family structure. The government is making the simple acknowledgement that the best heterosexual parents will always be better than the best homosexual parents (at parenting), because the provide certain developmental needs that homosexual couples simply can never provide.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Since when did marriage become a government-sanctioned event instead of a church-sanctioned event?

Oh, right around the Middle Ages. Wherever there has been a secular state, it has created laws to protect young women from abandonment. Stable coupling, i.e. family units being the building blocks of civilization, requires us to point guns at the heads of men to do the right thing by their wives and children.

[Major_Risktaker]

I'm for gay marriages.

I'm not for HOMOSEXUAL marriages.

The religious wars have never ended.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Excellent post re prohibition vs. promotion. And for the following:

This is simply about the government using its powers of promotion in a targeted fashion so that it promotes the ideal family structure. -mcg1969