Help! (Teen losing debates on gay marriage)

[Sockdologer]

Congress need not ban gay marriage, it is already by definition, impossible.

They may, if they so choose, decide to enter into legal
contracts of their own. But even the dictionary defines
marriage as something that exists between a man and a
woman. They can and do not fit the roles of both.

If Bill Gates were to die, Congress would not need not ban me from inheriting Bill Gate's money if I am not his heir.

I've no right to it. I am no relation. I don't fit the role.
I cannot demand the right to his money, just because other people have it and I think it unfair that I do not have the rights they are given.

Bill Gates may choose to grant that right, as the church
may choose to grant some the right to marry, but neither right is a natural right and we are not entitled to have
everything we desire.

[pacpam]

When it comes to adapting the term marriage to a gay 'union', you need to look for the hidden agenda. Those who push the issue want to be seen as normal. Usurping the word for their own, moves them in their minds from the abnormal to normal. A civil union accomplishes what most gay people are after and if that is not enough for them then you have the hidden agenda.
Remember, when the missionaries tried to convert so called heathens, they took their celebrations and replaced them with missionary celebrations. Holloween comes to mind lo those many years ago.

[Kay Soze]

Great Post!

Thank you for it!

[WackyKat]

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.

A real Old Testament-style Christian!

I take it, given your concern that sex be only procreative and that judgement be harsh against offenders, that you support the death penalty for those who practice coitus interruptus or birth control generally. My scriptural support? Genesis Chapter 38 in which the Lord smites Onan for this behavior.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Words mean things, especially in law. If a word is as malleable as your opponents claim, hammer it back to its definition. If they persist, find an absurd change of definition to inflict upon them.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Word definitions change with time.

But do they change at the whim of political movements?

My comment that it is discrimination still stands.

The state takes a proactive stance towards (heterosexual) marriage and says nothing about gay unions. You are asserting that the principle of equal protection under the law forbids this proactive stance. But are they equal? Men and women are not equal. They have biological and traditional differences. Couples of different makeups are even more not equal. The institution of marriage has a 3000 year old track record as a civilizing influence allowing children to grow up in stable homes.

Gay unions have no history, no value to society or civilization. They surely do have value to the individuals involved, but the institution's purpose is not simply to gratify adults in their choices.

[mcg1969]

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

But this line of yours is logically unsound. (The latter half, that is.) There is nothing physically unhealthy about a brother and a sister, mother and son, etc. getting married. The health issues come up only if they reproduce. That could be separately legislated: people who are too closely related can be forbidden from having children together (naturally). And lets face it, many people marry without any intention of having kids.

So if you're going to argue on a strict libertarian basis, you can't justifiably forbid incestuous marriage. (I do not agree with your position myself---I'm just pointing out the arbitrariness of where you draw the line.)

[Desert88]

This link has pages of stuff...

Here's a good example... The case for preserving the definition of marriage

[Desert88]

This link has pages of stuff...

Here's a good example... The case for preserving the definition of marriage

[farmfriend]

The institution of marriage has a 3000 year old track record

So does slavery. Care to defend that?

[farmfriend]

You have a point. I still draw the line at incest though. While they may not intend to procreat and may take steps to prevent it, accidents happen.

[NutCrackerBoy]

So does slavery. Care to defend that?

Silly. The phrase "track record" means a positive result.

[breakem]

Just to muck up the discussion a little. Two women friends of ours in SoCal got married, to each other. Their minister performed the ceremony.

The constitution provides them the freedom of religious belief. In their religion they are married. The law in California does not recognize gay marraige. This would seem to be in conflict with their religion.

Are they married or not?

[Eva]

THIS should help.

[mcg1969]

What if they both get sterlizied? She gets her tubes tied, he gets a vasectomy.

Besides, even if you prevent them from getting married, you're not going to prevent them from reproducing. I mean, let's face it, if two close relatives are contemplating incest they're likely not going to be towing the line on sexual morality.

So preventing them from getting married is not doing anything to accomplish the "health benefits" you wish to protect.

[Goodwen]

A good faith case can be made for this liberterian approach, but not by me. The ultimate victims of these loose arrangements will be the children condemned to lives of poverty as the institution of marriage breaks down into informal going steady arrangements. As George Will once said, "The liberterian philosophy is too good to be true."

[farmfriend]

The phrase "track record" means a positive result.

Bull hockey. Track record refers to history and does not denote positive or negative results.

[mcg1969]

Yep, you're right on that one. "Track record" can be positive, negative, or neither.

[farmfriend]

She gets her tubes tied, he gets a vasectomy.

I've seen this be ineffective too many times. And your argument could be used for any number of crimes. Making murder illegal did not stop it but it should still be illegal.