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?

[HardStarboard]

Your prohibition vs promotion argument is worthy of being used to defend hetrosexual marriage in the Supreme Court vs the forces that defend homosexual marriage.

[HardStarboard]

I didn't get finished before hitting the "post" button: Your logic is pure and unfiltered. This issue will get to the Supremes again in one form or the other...please make sure that your fundamental premise, governmental prohibition vs promotion is considered as essential by the defense.

[mcg1969]

Well, you're very kind, HardStarbord. Who knows if that distinction is often made in the courts; I am by no means a legal scholar. But by all means, if you know of a way for me to "submit" my ideas to the court without them getting lost in the deluge, let me know.

[BamaFan]

Hey, someone else sort of thinks like I do about this. Extending benefits to people who are "married" involves a transfer of wealth and is similar to other subsidies - thus the reason to shift the burden of proof to the folks currently excluded from the subsidy (gays) as to why society should subsidize their lifestyle.

[lentulusgracchus]

Absolutely.

Oh, really?

Even when Junior begins to evince a preference for monster-truck derbies over theater? When he waxes eloquent on, say, the glories of the Boy Scouts of America, and then greets his father's witty retort about the founder of the BSA with mute incomprehension? When he, for the first time, tells his fathers to their faces that he doesn't give a damn who Bob Fosse was? And that he doesn't give a rat's ass about seeing their old rally tapes and Dolores Gray chorus-line bromides? Or that he plans to join the Marines and screw every prostitute in Twentynine Palms?

I wish I could somehow communicate to you my towering incredulity on that point.

My point again: even if he is heterosexual and has the hots for every starlet in West Hollywood, the kid will always be gay.

They are not interested in imposing their sexual preferences ....

Sure they are. Every time a gay man "skins some chicken", he is imposing his sexual preference by definition on an unwilling junior partner.

That one's in the gay dictionary.

More broadly, gays seek to impose their worldview and their morals (or countermorals, better) on society at large, to displace the traditional standards and standardkeepers, and to drive "non-reconciling" Christianity underground.

[MEGoody]

"What if there is abuse involved?"

The abusive parent (either biological or adoptive) loses custody. The other member of the 'couple' can then apply to foster the child until the matter is resolved (unless of course, he/she was involved in the abuse as well). If it is the non-parent who is abusive, he/she is kicked out of the home.

"People die, too and that opens up a whole new can of worms when it comes to inheritence and property."

Even married people need wills and/or trusts. Nothing is stopping a homo from putting together a will leaving everything to his/her 'significant other.'

See, it is easy.

[MEGoody]

"This statement implies that sex between two homosexuals does not bond them as a couple."

It doesn't. It is simply hedonism.

[Henrietta]

"requires us to point guns at the heads of men to do the right thing by their wives and children."

Yes, but why can't the relatives of the wives and children do that, instead of the government?

[Violette]

This is a very well said and concise posting and I sincerely appreciate the thought that you have put into stating your position. Your clarification between promotion and prohibition have helped me see your point of view much clearer.

I want to take some time to read it and determine where we differ because from here, it seems to be becoming much more abstract and incredibly more interesting.

[bayourod]

Just say no.

[Violette]

There are laws that are automatically in play in a marriage. They are a given. So, then let me ask you this question. Perhaps we agree more than we disagree.

Is it that you don't believe that it should be called a marriage, but that if a civil union were exactly the same thing with all the laws in play that go with marriage (tax, homestead, pensions, insurance, etc.), then you would be ok? Just as long as it is not referred to as a marriage and that the church not have to participate.

[Violette]

Hedonism isn't a crime and the government has no business getting involved.

[Violette]

I think to start with, when two people approach the court and state that they wish to be married, what is it exactly they are asking the court to do?

Let's start by addressing what the couples are requesting. To begin with, the couple is expressing a desire to make a life-time committment to one another based on their love for one another. Why do the courts need to be involved at all? Because over time, feelings change and perhaps one wishes to stray from the other; the "contract" is broken. Perhaps there is a death. Each party has made an investment in the union. All life choices are made by each party for the sake of the union. Job opportunities in another city are declined, perhaps one places their career ambitions on hold while the other pursues and wins most of the income. These committments and investments need to be protected and by protecting them, the government is actually helping the union work. If a civil union covers this issue just as a marriage, then no, a marriage is not necessary.

Now, we go to the emotional bond between these two. In spite of what one may think of homosexuality, I don't think that anyone can deny that as humans they are fully capable of love. If one is severely injured and in a hospital, and the courts don't recognize the marriage, then the guardian of the injured may change to the begrudging brother or sister of the injured. The "spouse" has no way of being sure that their loved one is being taken care properly and could not argue or intervene on their behalf. They would have no legal right to speak on behalf of this other person. If a civil union covers this, then a "marriage" is not necessary.

How does a union between two people benefit society? The government would prefer that we not be a ward of the state in our older years. We have social security and medicare, but the government's position is that it be a supplement, not the main course. So, if this union can contribute to the welfare of both in future years this helps the government. Tax breaks are there because this encourages the union to continue and now there are two people taking care of each other. Additionally, homosexuals who are faithful to one another, are most likely to be healthy and less expensive. To the government, this is a good thing. If the government recognizes this concept in a civil union, then no, "marriage" is not necessary, a civil union suffices.

And now, finally, children. Traditionally, the primary reason people married was for a family. I think that the biggest reason you see men with mistresses in other countries is because they only "marry" for the sake of having children and a family; sexual pleasure is sought elsewhere. But that isn't the case here in the U.S. Divorces over infidelity are commonplace, so, people here do not marry strictly for children. But as a court, we understand that this couple (traditionally heterosexual) may produce children. That being the case, we establish more laws that protect "the family"; laws that would not be the same if a couple were merely living together with children. As a court, we expect them to make a public record of their commitment together.

Now we get to this point with homosexual couples. Obviously, they cannot reproduce. But the court has another issue at stake. Science has progressed and made it possible for people who cannot reproduce with one another in conventional ways to bring children onto this planet. As well, adoption laws have relaxed a little. Now single people can adopt. Women can go to a sperm bank and be sired. Men can hire a surrogate mother. So, it is quite feasible that this couple (heterosexual or homosexual) seeking a union with one another may very well include children in their union. As a matter of fact the chances are probably very high if they have made such a serious committment to one another. Most people (not all) marry for the purpose of having a family. Can a civil union address this? Will the courts recognize issues such as 'Homestead laws' or Tax laws for families (regardless of sexual preferences)?

The courts are faced with a number of considerations when two people declare their committment to one another.

Why not call a union between two heterosexuals a civil union. What specifically is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? And perhaps that is the fundamental question. In the courts' eyes, not the church's, what is the difference between marriage and civil union.

[mcg1969]

You are to be commended for taking the time for such a complete reply!

Alas, I think we are still at considerable distance apart and so I will let you basically have the last word. For example, you still seem to be arguing that there is a compelling case for civil unions even without children, and I disagree; I believe the government ought to minimize its involvement in personal affairs. The justification for its involvement in marriage, as I see it, is the likelihood presence of a non-consenting member---a child! And that's why children are the focus of my argument against gay marriage, and arguments about love and commitment just don't move me. The fact that many marriages don't result in children doesn't change my belief; indeed I would even be willing to entertain a new system for marriage that withholds the full rights of marriage until a child enters the family.

And alas, we still disagree on the children issue so that's why I think it's a good time to stop... but thanks again for elaborating your position so completely. It communicates respect that you take the time to be so thorough.

[panther33]

Good.

However, I'm going to get the argument back about gay adoption. People who say that it is better for a gay couple to adopt the kid than for the child to be bounced around from foster home to foster home.

BTW, don't get me wrong, I do see the argument about heterosexual marriage providing a mother and a father, which is obviously in the best interests of the child(ren) involved. But there are counterarguments, including:

(1) Homosexual couples usually provide for one to be the male and the other to be the female (this argument is quite weak, but I have heard it before in debate);

(2) Many single mothers and divorced couples exist in hetereosexual marriages even... are the children not hurt in this situation as well? How do we sanction or improve that situation? (My response would be something along the lines of "we can't fix everything; this is just a start.")

FWD: Bryan, lentulusgracchus

[panther33]

Nice argument!

I'm going to have to use that one...

It's simply impossible for them to fill out the paperwork because they can't complete the line that says, "Wife's name."

LOL! So true!

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.

(Nodding head) FR is awesome! lol

[Bryan]

The concept of gay marriage defies history and common sense. Every study confirms that children do best when they are raised in a home that has a mother and a father. They are more likely to do well in school, interact well with other kids and with adults, stay out of trouble, go on to college, stay away from drugs and turn into adults who are responsible, productive citizens.

Gay marriage activists like to point fingers at the number of divorces and single parents among heterosexuals. But at least heterosexuals have a chance to provide a home where a child can experience both a mother and a father. This is impossible with homosexuals who adopt.

[Bryan]

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

It is morally wrong to deliberately place a child in an environment where there is absolutely no chance that he will ever experience living with both a mother and a father.

[Bryan]

</i>Oops ... I don't use HTML often enough these days. The second paragraph wasn't supposed to be italicized.