Posted on 12/01/2003 8:29:13 PM PST by 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?
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.
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.
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.)
Here's a good example... The case for preserving the definition of marriage
Here's a good example... The case for preserving the definition of marriage
So does slavery. Care to defend that?
Silly. The phrase "track record" means a positive result.
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?
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.
Bull hockey. Track record refers to history and does not denote positive or negative results.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.