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?

[Stopislamnow]

Way I look at it is...homosexuality does nothing for the betterment or advancement of the human race in general.

Nature decided things early on.

A penis was designed, either way, to fit into a vagina for the express purpose of procreation. Nothing else. The pleasure part of it is a result of the inherent "rightness" of procreation.

If nature approved of anal intercourse we would be capable of self impregnation and gestation.

My religious view is quite vehement and strong. I think that the Lord turning all those heathens to pillars of salt was way to lenient.

Marriage should be defined by the ability to procreate thru natural means.

[singletrack]

Thats a tough arguement without injecting religion into it. I'd try to just mess with thier minds and show thier own bias's. "If Rush Limbaugh wants to marry Bill ORielly , would you be against them adopting 3 or 4 kids? Seriously, would you?" This should be cause for pause or a flat out "No!" in response. Will these "unions" have to be between Liberal Democrats only? If Micheal Jackson is found innocent should he and Al Frankin finally tie the knot? These may not be much help in a real debate, but the "religious Right" has been portrayed so often as humourless sheep that the lefties are unprepared to be laughed at or confused. There is plenty of hatred and bias on the left to expose and exploit so don't forget to show them the mirror. You are basing your arguments on 2000 years of teaching and tradition. They invented this 3 yrs ago.Try...... "Would you be more willing to support a Democrat, against Gay marriage, who is a shoe-in for the office, or support a sure loser who is for it?"

[NutCrackerBoy]

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?

The legalities of marriage reinforce a traditional institution which is a cornerstone of civilization. We have not evolved beyond the need to have civilization-bearing institituions. To survive, they need to be important and held in esteem by a plurality of people.

As far as people cohabiting in the sexual relationship of their choice, I am in agreement: that is their business.

For the strength of the family in our nation, though, and for the continued health of traditional values, we should encourage one-man, one-woman marriages. It goes without saying that if we should encourage this existing traditional institution, it is a good idea for state governments to continue to take their accustomed role in doing so.

[mcg1969]

My personal feeling is gay marriage is simply a logical contradiction. Marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman. Just like 1 + 1 will never equal 3, two men or two women can never get married.

Having said that, the issue you're dealing with is quite a bit more difficult: because your pro-gay-marriage friends can simply counter "OK, for the sake of peace we will drop the attempt to call it 'marriage' and simply call it something else. But you must extend to us the same legal rights as a married couple." Honestly that's a tougher nut to crack. Personally I think that it is wise to begin strictly with the legal issue, and then move to the moral/social issue.

The legal issue is this: the Constitution of our government in no way requires gay unions to be recognized as equal to marriage. Nor, however, does it require gay unions not to be so recognized; it is silent on this issue altogether. In particular, I do not believe the equal protection clause can be used here: after all, if a gay man and a gay woman want to marry each other, they are perfectly entitled to do so under the law. Now I know that sounds absurd; but it follows logically from my previous argument about the very definition of marriage.

The social issue is, of course, whether monogomous marriage should be given special status compared to other unions. That's where the toughest argument lies---especially with those that do not accept the moral authority of Scripture. I think a possible line of attack is to suggest that the state's interest in limiting marriage to a man and a woman is in the acknowledgement that it is the best environment in which to raise a child. Of course, many damaged marriages are clearly no place to raise a child; and there are plenty of "family" structures that do not involve marriage in which children are successfully raised. Nonetheless I believe that it is intellectually dishonest for anyone not to concede that the ideal parental structure is that of a father and mother in a stable marriage. For that reason, the state does indeed have an interest in differentiating between marriage and other unions.

And even though we as a society have greatly weakend the institution of marriage through divorce, abuse, adultery, and so forth, that does not excuse the government from weakening its resolve to protect and defend the institution; on the contrary, it should work harder to preserve, uphold, and restore it.

The slippery slope argument is another angle of attack: that is, you could argue that if gay unions are recognized, then polygamous unions, incestuous unions, and so forth must be recognized as well, if there is full mutual consent among all parties. You might ask your pro-gay "marriage" compatriots where they would draw the line? Would they accept a mother marrying her own son (or daughter)? Honestly I don't think this is a particularly strong argument in itself, but it's a useful arrow in the quiver.

One argument is that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether: that all unions should simply be enforced by contract and not by a pre-determined legal framework. This is certainly the most libertarian and/or egalatarian approach. I do not agree with this simply because I do believe the state has an interest to uphold the institution that best serves its most defenseless constituents (children). Frankly it's just as destructive an option for our government to take.

Anyway, please forgive my verbosity. I'm just trying to give you whatever I can think of in short order. I'm sure I've missed something.

[Sparkles]

PING

[Ramius]

Marriage is a religious institution first. It is only a civil institution by virtue of the fact that certain civil authorities have recognized it as a good and useful instituition that benefits society at large. It was a religious commitment first. That governments have since recognized its usefulness as a basic foundation stone to a stable society is an interesting but yet peripheral aspect of an increasingly secular society.

If the idea of "marriage" no longer has any specific meaning then it loses all meaning. If it means that anybody that views themselves as "married" then there is no reason why it couldn't mean two couples, or two women and a man, or a brother/sister couple, or a brother/brother couple for that matter.

[Navy Patriot]

Panther, it seems Bogey has the closest answer to the situation. The state has the power to regulate the contract portion of marriage, but it has no power to set any standards for the religeous portion.

What gays are really after is entitlements granted to marriage spouses. In short they are after free money, out of straight pockets.

Perhaps pointing this out will put the gays on the defensive. You could offer to let them stipulate that they would refuse these benefits to prove their interest is only in religeous marriage. They would refuse, squalling "it's not faaaaiiir" proving your point.

[WackyKat]

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.

And what do you think the odds are of everyone, or even most, or even 10% of Americans entering into gay marriage?

It just isn't going to happen that way.

Your argument that the state should not allow anything but procreative sex would also require making birth control illegal

[Paleo Conservative]

Marriage should be defined by the ability to procreate thru natural means

By that definition a post menopausal woman could not get married nor could a sterile male yet both are allowed to marry.

[Chummy]

More widely published reports instead rely upon a figure five times that, but please keep in mind you are considering the status quo and I am offering the lad (or lass) a hypothetical: what if? What if a species practiced homosexuality? In other words, homosexuality was not an aberration but that which was its accepted norm.

What would be the result?

What happens to your 2% -- or that greater number to which I refer -- if the species is pressured, perhaps politically over many years, to accept the practice and it grows to proportions that do have an adverse affect upon the society, both in its inability to reproduce naturally and the disease that results and spreads from its practice?

By definition, a homosexual cannot have a biological child unless something other than homosexuality is practiced to result in conception.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Only a moron can lose a debate on so-called homosexual marriage. By definition, marriage is a union between a man and a woman--it is strictly a heterosexual affair. One has to change the very definition of marriage to even begin to argue for homosexual marriage--a losing position right out of the gate. Don't let your opponents rape the English language and you can't lose.

[Humidston]

>>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?<<

IMHO, it's futile to even try unless they understand the concept of "OUR RIGHTS ARE DERIVED FROM GOD" - Not any mortal man.

God says it's wrong. God says marriage is a holy bond between a man and a woman. And I heartily agree.

[luckydevi]

you are not alone

[Swiss]

My suggestion would be research states like Virginia to see what marriage laws they had before Indepencence from England and retained and also find out what English Common Law before 1776 stated about marriage.

There is no such thing as a culture that doesn't impose restrictions on personal behavior in the long run in history. My personal opinion is all moral arguements and laws should be kept as close to the people as possible in local and state laws, not federal.

[NutCrackerBoy]

By definition, marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

I agree. Then the other side says "words are malleable." What then?

[RLK]

Does the U.S. government have a right to ban gay marriage?

---------------------------------

Stop right there. The legal system in this nation recognizes certain relationships and encodes them into law. It does so using the dictionary definition of those relationships. The law recognizes the institution of marriage. The intention of the law is to be based upon the definition existent at the time the law was passed. The definition of marriage was based on the held definition of a union between a man and a woman. The law does not recognize or apply to a union between two same sexed human beings, a union between a human and a farm animal, or whatever. Hence, gay marriages are no banned, but are not recognized.

If gays want to establish unions of some kind, it is not the definition of marriage. They can call it something else and work toward recognition.

Personally, I believe the homosexual subculture is crazy as hell and should not be accorded conference of normality. That conference is what the subculture is attempting to establish. One of the attempts at establishment is through changing the definition of marriage.

[farmfriend]

Word definitions change with time. As an example if you look up gay in the dictionary you will not get the current usage of bogus or absurd things being gay. My comment that it is discrimination still stands.

[farmfriend]

Just from the relpies on this thread, there are more out there than I thought. I have avoided posting this opinion because I figured the flames weren't worth it. Glad I was wrong.

[Spiff]

Here's one that will momentarily stun your opponents:

The argument is ridiculous! There are no laws prohibiting gay marriage. None! Gays CAN get married. Gays can even marry other gays. There are no laws to stop that. However, some states simply disallow people of the same sex from marrying each other. There's no discrimination against gays, blacks, or martians. As long as they are of the opposite sex and of the appropriate age they are free to marry each other.