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?

[lentulusgracchus]

Many single mothers and divorced couples exist in hetereosexual marriages even...

This is the "so's your old man" argument and is a form of distraction. "My arm is broken" is not an argument for breaking my other arm.

[lentulusgracchus]

My views on children are fairly extreme......

That's a sad comment.......what you describe as your "extreme" view of parenting used to be called "being a good parent".

Thanks for sharing your responsible, stand-up views, citizen.

[lentulusgracchus]

The concept of gay marriage defies history and common sense.

That's the burden of the argument that Chad McClung used so effectively -- to the point of elenchus -- in arguing our POV on Salon "TableTalk" a couple of years ago. I saved Chad's tour de force to a file, and passed it along to panther33 a couple of days ago.

[lentulusgracchus]

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....then you would be ok?

I wouldn't. Separating marriage from union is a tactical gimmick thought up by the HRC as a way of de-moralizing and de-sanctifying marriage. Alan Dershowitz just wrote a column about it. The proposal basically disestablishes marriage, in order to defeat the opposition to gay unions.

The proponents of any sort of social acceptance of these gay liaisons as being even remotely approximate to marriage is hostile to the institution, and to society's interest in its own progeny.

As gay posters both here and in Salon "TableTalk" have put it, it's all about acceptance and moral equivalence.

You will never get moral hets to agree to it. It's moral suicide for them and compromises their own future both in this world and the next. Either their morality is rock, or it's just squish and you win. You must not win this contest. Period.

[lentulusgracchus]

Lapidary exposition of argument; thanks for putting the meat and potatoes on the table -- and never mind the Redi Whip!

You never did reply to my earlier question. Which seminar did you check in from?

[MEGoody]

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

Government does have business getting involved in the legal definition of marriage.

[MEGoody]

"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?"

Nope, I'm against legally recognized civil unions as well.

[mvpel]

Another suggestion: marriage has existed as the union of one man, one woman for thousands of years.

The biblical patriarchs often had multiple wives - two daughters of Laban spring immediately to mind.

[mvpel]

Government does have business getting involved in the legal definition of marriage.

Why is it imperitive that there be a "legal definition" of marriage, aside from the pile of immoral income redistribution schemes that are predicated on it?

[NutCrackerBoy]

OK then only a thousand or two. It is pretty firmly established all around the world, don't you think? I have better arguments for why it should be kept than "it's the way we've being doing it for a long, long time." But even without those arguments, shouldn't there be enormous onus on the antis to explain why it is so very important to throw the definition out.?

[mvpel]

Depends on your culture as to how long it's been "firmly established."

http://www.hesston.edu/academic/FACULTY/DWIGHTR/SOC202/powerpoints/kinship/tsld027.htm

[NutCrackerBoy]

I read a tiny bit of your link. When they say 16% of cultures are monogamous, or whatever it is, what is the sample of cultures? Is that counting a tiny African tribe as one culture, and Europe as one culture?

Our culture and most of the world's major cultures are monogamous and have been for a thousand years or more. Will you please concede the point?

[mvpel]

Now that you put it that way, okay.

But why does that mean that the government should be involved in defining the meaning of a marriage contract?

[NutCrackerBoy]

We The People, through our representatives, enact laws to curb antisocial behavior. Leaving certain behaviors unregulated can sometimes be better, but too often invites the rule of vigilantes instead of the rule of law.

Here's an example. Left untouched by law, men are apt to abandon their women and children when the notion strikes them. Since law is required to thus regulate marriage, then a definition is required for what constitutes marriage.

[Dante3]

There is a letter to the editor in today's The Washington Times (Dec. 13, 2003, p. A12) "The sociological ramifications of same-sex 'marriage'," by Robert H. Knight, Director, Culture & Family Instiute.

[MEGoody]

"Why is it imperitive that there be a "legal definition" of marriage"

Insurance

Making health decisions if you are unconscious or otherwise incapable

"Default" beneficiary of estate

Tax returns (joint filing)

That's off the top of my head. I could probably think of others if I wanted to strain my brain.

[mvpel]

Insurance is market-driven - if enough people want a given insurance company to offer benefits to their domestic partners, then the market will produce companies willing to do so.

Health decisions - that can all be handled through powers of attorney and other contractual structures.

Default beneficiary - if you don't have a will, you should, even if you're married.

Tax returns - subjecting ourselves to the raft of BS social engineering projects that our legislators have foisted off on us through Form 1040 and its adjuncts. If we had a fair tax system, it wouldn't matter whether or not you're married with respect to your taxes.

[MEGoody]

"Insurance is market-driven - if enough people want a given insurance company to offer benefits to their domestic partners, then the market will produce companies willing to do so."

Indeed, but we also know insurance companies will do whatever they legally can to save money. What if one is considered 'married' in one state, but not in another. The insurance company could legally be released from covering your 'spouse'.

"Health decisions - that can all be handled through powers of attorney and other contractual structures."

Indeed, it can. This is one of my arguments against homosexual marriage being made legal in the first place. However, as the law now stands, the spouse is generally automatically given the right to make healthcare decisions for an incapacitated spouse. If that law is going to stand, the there needs to be a nationally recognized definition of marriage.

"Default beneficiary - if you don't have a will, you should, even if you're married."

Yes, everyone should have a will. But many don't. And these kinds of 'default' laws play a role if a will is contested.

"Tax returns - subjecting ourselves to the raft of BS social engineering projects that our legislators have foisted off on us through Form 1040 and its adjuncts. If we had a fair tax system, it wouldn't matter whether or not you're married with respect to your taxes."

Again, indeed. But since that is not the way the tax law is right now, the need for a nationally recognized definition of marriage seems obvious.

[jamie736328]

wot is ur problem there is nothing wong with gay people they r the same as u and me! u cnt help who u fall in love with and if they want 2 get married let them it is nothing to do with you if there happy its all tht matters!!!!!

[Navy Patriot]

wot is ur problem there is nothing wong with gay people they r the same as u and me! u cnt help who u fall in love with and if they want 2 get married let them it is nothing to do with you if there happy its all tht matters!!!!!

Hi Jamie, welcome to FR.

Here you will find that PC speak, feel-good posts won't get much respect or consideration. Be that as it may, I will address your post.

I have no problem, my wife receives the benefits from our marriage that I earn. She earns these by doing her part in our marriage. Our marriage is one of the most basic building blocks of civilization, and it is so because both the individuals and the society benefit from marriage, it is a two way contract between the individuals as one unit and society as the other (it is also a contract between the individuals). Society benefits from marriage by the creation of stable families and the replenishment of socially oriented children, the future of the society.

Adam and Steve, on the other hand, do have a problem, they cannot provide to society the benefits that a heterosexual marriage provides. The contract becomes one-way benefiting only Adam and Steve as they demand all the benefits from society without reciprocating to that society the benefits due it from the marriage.

I short, gay marriage would be granting special privileges to gays, society would be paying the costs in entitlements to gays and they would not return stable family environments and properly trained children to perpetuate the society.

And, NO, gays are not the same as you and me.

I would point out that gays have the option of doing pretty much whatever they want in our society today without gay marriage, all the legal problems of these relationships are easily surmountable with a couple hours at a good family law attorney, with the exception of one. That one is the ability to get free financial benefits from the society (state or business entities) because they are "married" rather than domestic partners. Make no mistake, "gay marriage" is only about the ability of gays to pick the pockets of straights by force. Love has nothing to do with it, free benefits is what makes the radical gays tick, and what makes them "happy".

Lastly, I would point out that many gays have engaged in heterosexual marriage, and had children by those marriages, earning all those benefits bestowed by society on persons married. So gays are not denied the right to marry, or denied the benefits of marriage, they just want special "rights" that others don't have.