[panther33]

Thanks in advance!

God bless,
panther33
Age 16

[farmfriend]

I think to deny them is discrimination. But I am one of the few who voice this on this forum.

[Bogey78O]

The states essentially have the right to legislate marriage contracts however they see fit. Marriage is not a natural right but rather a civil institution like granting the power of attorney, guardianship, or incorporating a business.

[yevgenie]

I refer you to the Focus on the Family page.
http://family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/FAQs/a0026916.cfm

[yevgenie]

Sorry, missed another one:
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0027543.cfm

[Salvation]

More where these came from:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).

---

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

- not being under constraint;

- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

---

[Spruce]

The constitution does not "grant" anybody anything. But then you knew that.

[Kay Soze]

Heres one Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex

[Chummy]

Just to further the debate, as I mentioned to my college-age daughter this weekend when she raised the topic with me, remove for a moment the Biblical position on the subject, and consider only the scientific aspects: if a species practiced homosexuality and the majority in the species accepted the practice, what would the odds be for the longterm viability of the species?

Does this not conflict with a basic rule of nature? Does this not conflict with the very law of survival?

[Cindy]

JESUS DEFINES MARRIAGE: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6

International Healing Foundation

[Hodar]

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?

Simply, you can't. If you can use the Bible to demand that society behave in a particular way; then the Koran may be used for exactly the same purpose. Please consider the following:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

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.

[Zevonismymuse]

I am consequently faced with a perplexing dilemma: to argue a moral issue without injecting religion.

Male homosexuality is defined by a pathogenic (disease producing) behavior; anal sex. Anal sex damages tissue and spreads disease.

Anal sex is a bad idea for anyone, including heterosexual couples, but it is the act which defines male homosexuals.

I do not need to quote the Bible to convince people that consumating your marriage by getting poo poo on your pee pee is a bad idea.

[Paleo Conservative]

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?

Easy find a totally different argument that does not rely on the Bible. Even better use arguments based on social sciences, medicine, etc. You should be able to find good material from solid conservative social scientists like Charles Murray.

[Kay Soze]

Massachusetts vs. Marriage by Maggie Gallagher 12/01/2003

AND

Why Defending Marriage is Social Justice Erik Nelson October 16, 2003

[NutCrackerBoy]

I recommend reading everything you can get your hands on by Robert Bork. His essays in The New Criterion were particularly penetrating.

Here is a suggestion: put the onus on the other debater to formulate a principle out of the concept you can't legislate morality. You should be able to pick apart any edifice he constructs because it is an empty concept.

Another suggestion: marriage has existed as the union of one man, one woman for thousands of years. The states passed legal statutes about an existing institition. Who has decided that the public should assert their dominance over tradition?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Better yet, argue that the government shouldn't have any involvement with marriage whatsoever. Marriage and other family arrangements are personal matters which should be left up to free citizens to handle themselves. 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?

[Kay Soze]

Read away!

[Snuffington]

Have the time to do a little research? If so try Stanley Kurtz's excellent series of articles on the topic. They began with a series debating pro-gay marriage advocates Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch at National Review online. I know of no other conservative writer who has gone as deeply into this issue.

Some helpful (but not exhaustive) links:

Who Is Goodridge Good For?
Marriage Radicals
Beyond Gay Marriage
Oh, Canada!
The Libertarian Question
Sullivan, Santorum & Me
Defending Senator Santorum
Heather Has 3 Parents

[dasboot]

Just like smoking, homosexuality is a pubic health menace.

Few are born homosexual; far more have acquired the habit: don't start, kids!

[Goodwen]

You don't have to prove anything. Those that wish to disturb the status quo must prove that it is better to do so. The argument against gay marriage can be a practical one. If you accept that society has no right to proscribe gay marriage, then where is the line drawn? Any two consenting adults, or three, or more? A man and his 18 year plus daughter(s) or a woman and her son(s)? It sounds awful to consider these arrangements, but the logic that validates gay marriage also validates all arrangements. You can use the gay marriage logic to the extreme. Who's business is it anyway if someone wishes to marry a favorite pet?

[bt_dooftlook]

A couple of thoughts -

1. Start with Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperative" - the morality of an action can be tested, even in the absence of belief in a supreme being, by universalizing it hypothetically - "Would it still be good if everyone did it?" In the case of gay marriage, it is clear that it fails this test; aside from promiscuity and disease, it would lead to the collapse of society in one generation as no one would be having children.

2. You could approach it using Darwin's theory of evolution; if they can't reproduce, they can't evolve...;)

3. From a social utility point of view, the fundamental purpose of society is to grow and prosper; it is in civil society's interest to encourage the formation of stable uclear families as they tend to be self-reliant and pass similar values on to offspring. As for the benefits conferred on married couples, they are, for the most part, intended to allow couple the option of staying at home to raise a family (for instance health care benefits) - in a relationship that cannot have natural children, arguably both should be working, obviating the need for family health care.

4. Ultimately, homosexual marriage is an attack on the family; by claiming equality with normal family structures, it elevates itself and lowers the other.

Good luck!