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?

[NutCrackerBoy]

OK then marriage has a very good track record. Slavery has a very bad track record.

Here was my original statement:

The institution of marriage has a 3000 year old track record as a civilizing influence allowing children to grow up in stable homes. -NutCrackerBoy

What is your point about slavery, anyway?

[farmfriend]

Feminist idiot. Calling names now? I am not a feminist, I am a masculinist, as those on this forum who know me can attest.

[farmfriend]

The institution of marriage has a 3000 year old track record as a civilizing influence allowing children to grow up in stable homes.

Ok, why would you want to deny this great benifit to a community based on your prejudices.

[longtermmemmory]

What issues come up and what points is "the enemy" making?

It is more than just states rights it is a society structure. Do we want to support the mother and father core of the family unit.

Homosexual unions are also only about sexual relations. Love, as a matter of law, has nothing to do with marriage. Love has nothing to do with divorce.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Wow! There's a powerful argument that can't be refuted!! (By the way, that's sarcasm.)

Marriage is a word defined in law. I don't think the definition has changed. If you think it's common usage has changed, please provide the supposed new definition.

[farmfriend]

Marriage is a word defined in law.

Right or wrong the court is changing that. Laws change as easily as common definitions.

[mcg1969]

There is no doubt whatsoever that making murder illegal curtailed its occurrence. That's what matters, not whether it completely eliminates it.

Besides, I thought you were taking the libertarian approach? That would seem to suggest that your laws should produce the smallest posssible restriction on behavior in order to accomplish their protective or regulatory goals. If the issue is incestuous reproduction, that should be banned. Indeed that might make it somewhat impractical to get married, but again you're the one drawing the line there, not me.

Handling it this way would allow other supposedly "benign," but strictly speaking incestuous, unions to be allowed. For example, maybe a heterosexual single mother "marries" her own mother, not for sexual purposes at all, but only so that they can gain the legal benefits of marriage and the ability to assist each other mutually in the raising of the child. Where is the state's interest in preventing such a union?

I know these are off-the-wall cases, but basically you're saying that mutual consent is all that matters---except for a marginal health argument. And yet the case for limiting marriage to strictly one man and one woman has socioligical, health, and child development arguments that are far less marginal than that.

[Hodar]

Yours is a tough case. However, I favor gay marriage for far different reasons. Consider the pleasures of alimony. Heterosexuals get the privilege of paying a percentage of their income to an ex-spouse, until that spouse remarries. Why is that legal extortion reserved only for heterosexuals? If you want equality, they can get the good with the bad.

Now, if people have an issue with a legally binding relationship being called 'marriage'; that's ok. Let's call it 'Bonding'. Marriage contains religous and parentage issues that would simply not be applicable to a gay 'Bonding', 'union' or whatever.

Basically, what I have heard from the gay community is that they want equal legal footing with the hetero majority. For example:

A couple is 'bonded', and one of them is in the hospital from a car accident. The 'spouse' would wish the legal authority to be able to grant permission for a life-saving proceedure at the hospital. At this point in time, this is reserved ONLY to heterosexual couples. Why?

Now, let's say that the injured party survives. The 'bonded' mate may be kept from the room because he is neither related or married to the sick person. Yet, to the injured partner, the one kept from his bedside is the one that would do the most good.

Now, let's consider that the injured mate passes on. In a marriage, the surviving spouse immediately inherits all property, money and possessions of the deceased. However, with a gay couple the surviving mate may have to fight his partner's family for the house, car, retirement and everything that the couple built up together over the years. The family, who may have contributed absolutely nothing would gain half of what a gay couple had built. Why?

These are 'real world' issues; and without a legal recourse, the Gay community is being denied 'Equal Protection' under the law. Regardless of how we may feel about the homosexual acts, how do you justify that?

I would move that to preserve the dignity of marriage, an alternative legally binding relationship be created, called "union", "bonding" or "sheep-diddle" as far as I am concerned. But, grant the gay community the same LEGAL (and only legal) privileges that the rest of the population enjoys, and the problems will go away. As it is not a 'marriage', churches need not recognize it. As the Gay community will soon learn, divorces are unpleasant, expensive and are a consequence of getting legally joined.

[panther33]

Excellent! You wrote a very articulate and productive post, arguably one of my favorites yet. Thanks and God bless!

[John Valentine]

Marraige is essentially a religious undertaking, bound up with faith.

Basically, what the state does is to provide a reliable and accessible method of registering marraiges, similar to the way it registers deeds, births, deaths, etc.

In providing this service, the state ought to follow the generally accepted definitions relating to it's service.

Dead means dead, deviod of life. Incapable of cognition, motion, reproduction, and so on. Now is the Massachussets State Supreme Court free to decide that such a definition disadvantages living peiople in some way and order death certificates to be issued to anyone asking for one?

Or Birth certificates on demand?

It would be a simple matter if it is the Massachussetts Supreme Court is the body to define the meanings of words in Massachussetts. Thgat's just what they did in the case of marriage. they simple re-defined it to include male-male and female-female unions as included in the definition of marraige.

It is one thing for people to form private relationships with other people, of whatever kind. That's not the issue. It is quite something else when two men want to be recognized in their community as a married couple.

That is no different that a dead person wanting to be considered living, or a living person wanting to be considered dead. Just have the Massachussetts Supreme Court change the definition, as they have shown themselves apt to do, and you have it made.

[mcg1969]

I hope you don't consider my disagreement with you (and, therefore, my challenges) to be flames. I want to engage here in the spirit of honest debate.

[CMAC51]

>> Simply stated, the bible holds no more, nor any less authority in the case of law than Wiccan, Buddist, Islamic, Satanic or any other religous practice. None, nada, zero, zip.

While the bible is God's word; and Christianity is the true way to salvation, we each are put on earth to make choices. Some of us will chose wisely and be rewarded for our decisions. Others will chose poorly and have eternity to consider the consequences of thier decisions. But, we all have these choices to make for ourselves <<

While faith is necessary to accept the contents of the Bible as the word of God, its history and longevity is factual. Taken for its content on a non-religious basis, it is a collection of moralistic renditions that have survived as a basis for behavior and morality over a great period of time. Just as in nature where time is the anvil that natural selection uses to forge a stronger species, texts that survive the test of time gain validity on that basis alone.

[farmfriend]

Hey, I said you had a point. I'm not denying that my line may be outside a strictly libertarian approach. I lean heavily that way but I'm not libertarian.

[panther33]

Thank you so much to everyone; I knew I could count on FReepers to lend a hand!

This thread will not only help me improve in my debates, but also in the development of my own personal ideas as well. Thanks again and keep 'em coming!

I have to go work on my homework, but I promise to return later to read the posts I haven't gotten to yet!

Keep writing, I appreciate the responses!

Sincerely yours,
panther33

[NutCrackerBoy]

Why would you want to deny this great benefit to a community based on your prejudices?

The next sentence in the original post (#66) was:

Gay unions have no history, no value to society or civilization. -NutCrackerBoy

The number of children who will grow up in a home where the parents are gay is miniscule (hopefully). Gay unions would not be providing any of the significant benefit I alluded to in my 3000-year civilizing influence statement.

[Eastbound]

Check here for more ideas.

[MrFreedom]

gay marriage because of a sex act

[Semi Civil Servant]

1. Get them to define marriage and describe the purpose of marriage. Based on their response ask "So by your definition, a marriage between a father and daughter would be OK, right?"

2. Find out where their "line" is.

Is marriage between two rocks OK?
Between a person and a rock?
A person and an animal?
Multiple husbands OR wives?
Multiple husbands AND wives?
Two cousins?
Brother and sister?
Son and mother?
Daughter and father?

3. Get them to define marriage again and get them to explain their exclusions of a valid marriage in light of that defination. Keep asking why, why, why they can exclude say brother and sister. On what basis?

4. You should now have enough information to expose their poor and innacurate definition of marriage OR their completely lack of rational morality. (You will find a few people who will not exclude any kind of marriage, which makes the concept of marriage useless.)

5. Ask them what is different from a gay "marriage" and a business partnership.

You probably won't change any minds, but you might get a few people to start questioning their unthinking spport for gay "marriage".

[farmfriend]

Gay unions have no history, no value to society or civilization.

Neither did unions between blacks and whites but we stopped making that illegal. I see no value in continuing to keep this illegal. Children are a separate issue. I think they are better off in straight married households but why should you deny gays the right to marry based on that?