Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Help! (Teen losing debates on gay marriage)

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?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Free Republic; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: couples; debates; deviancy; deviants; gay; gaymarriage; homos; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; homosexuals; marriage; pederasty; perversion; perverts; samesex; samesexmarriage; sex; sexualdeviancy; sodomites; sodomy; teen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 521-540 next last
Thanks in advance!

God bless,
panther33
Age 16

1 posted on 12/01/2003 8:29:14 PM PST by panther33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: panther33
I think to deny them is discrimination. But I am one of the few who voice this on this forum.
2 posted on 12/01/2003 8:31:15 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
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.
3 posted on 12/01/2003 8:33:03 PM PST by Bogey78O (No! Don't throw me in the briar patch!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
I refer you to the Focus on the Family page.
http://family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/FAQs/a0026916.cfm
4 posted on 12/01/2003 8:33:18 PM PST by yevgenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Sorry, missed another one:
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0027543.cfm
5 posted on 12/01/2003 8:33:59 PM PST by yevgenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
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.




6 posted on 12/01/2003 8:34:43 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
The constitution does not "grant" anybody anything. But then you knew that.
7 posted on 12/01/2003 8:35:01 PM PST by Spruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Heres one Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex
8 posted on 12/01/2003 8:35:08 PM PST by Kay Soze (Liberal Homosexuals kill more people than Global Warming, SUVs’, Firearms & Terrorism combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
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?

9 posted on 12/01/2003 8:36:00 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
You are not the only one. I could care less whether gay people get married. It doesn't affect me and my life. If a person doesn't like gay marriage then don't have one.
10 posted on 12/01/2003 8:36:37 PM PST by cyborg (mutt-american)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
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

CLICK HERE


11 posted on 12/01/2003 8:36:50 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
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.

12 posted on 12/01/2003 8:39:03 PM PST by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
If churches want to deny them marriage, I have no problem with that. I have a hard time with Uncle Sam, federal or state, drawing distinctions.
13 posted on 12/01/2003 8:39:06 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: panther33
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.

14 posted on 12/01/2003 8:40:27 PM PST by Zevonismymuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
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.

15 posted on 12/01/2003 8:41:22 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Massachusetts vs. Marriage by Maggie Gallagher 12/01/2003

AND

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

16 posted on 12/01/2003 8:41:54 PM PST by Kay Soze (Liberal Homosexuals kill more people than Global Warming, SUVs’, Firearms & Terrorism combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
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?

17 posted on 12/01/2003 8:41:58 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
- 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?

I have to disagree with you. The Constitution is quite explicit. Any right not covered in the Constitution is guaranteed to the states. The men who wrote the document were peers of the state legislators that passed sodomy laws. And the laws were not challenged for constitutionality. They were accepted as standard and good laws

18 posted on 12/01/2003 8:42:19 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Yup...if a church doesn't want to marry someone, then fine. I do make distinctions between civil marriage and religious marriage myself.
19 posted on 12/01/2003 8:42:37 PM PST by cyborg (mutt-american)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
I thrive on debate as well. I posted this on another thread which I'll link to this one. Here's the text:

OK. Here's what I got from another board about this subject. You can tell from my wording that I'm trying to make people think over there.

Leftist - "But why is Bush so opposed to it?? That's what I wanna know. Why is so much fu**ing time, money and energy spent by the government on such ridiculous issues?? WHy do they feel the need to deny equal rights to all citizens?? There is so much more they could be doing instead of trying to take rights away from citizens."

RandallFlagg - "I have no idea. But, answer my first question: Why aren't Brothers and Sisters allowed to marry?"

Leftist - "From what I understand is this. When family members reproduce, the child they preoduce is more likely to suffer from mental retardation. I don't know how accurate that is, but that's what I understand from what i have heard. Correct me if I am wrong."

RandallFlagg - "Chromosomal defects, you are correct. Is that why it's not allowed?"

Leftist - "I suppose so. What's your point??"

RandallFlagg - "Then, let's say that Brother and Sister still want to get married and will then adopt children (seeing that they can't have their own). Would you have a problem with this?."

Leftist - "Under those circumstances I would have no problems with that at all."

RandallFlagg - "OK, same circumstances, what about Father and Daughter? Mother and Son? Brother to Brother? Sister to Sister?"

Leftist - "As long as it's two CONSENTING CAPABLE ADULTS, I have no problems with it."


Kinda makes ya wonder....



Oddballs....

20 posted on 12/01/2003 8:44:09 PM PST by RandallFlagg ("There are worse things than crucifixion...There are teeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 521-540 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson