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 previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 501-540 next last
To: panther33
The word "marry" has meant a man and a woman historically, traditionally, and in all cultures and religions.(lthough, it is true that some cultures have had traditions allowing more than one wife and a couple of primitive cultures where women are scarce and allowed women to have more than one husband. Not one has sanctioned same sex marriage or families.

There is no need for a so called "marriage" between two people of the same gender, other than a complete "in your face" attitude and agenda.
If corporations want to recogize "significant others" with ins. etc, they can do this without a marriage.

Marriage has always been a religious arrangement for the good of the family and in accordance (in the Christian case which historicall pertains to this country) with God's law and admonition for a man and a woman to leave their parents and become one flesh, figuratively and literally, as in the case of offspring. You can legitimately argue the Biblical version because it is what marriage in this country was based on. Some so-called churches are trying to change that but the Bible is unchanging.

Arguments that it is discriminatory to say homosexuals cannot marry is a red herring. Discrimination is nothing more than choice, and all of us practice it on a daily basis. Discrimination is one of the bogey words used to deflect legitimate argument and put the opposition on the defensive.

Then, there is the fact that homosexuality has, of itself, never contributed anything to the human condition and culture except strife,
disease, and heartbreak. Some individual homosexuals have contributed, but these contributions were not based upon theirsexual preferences All those research projects so touted by the news media several years ago were disproven because it was found that everyone of them was conducted by homosexuals and skewed to give the aimed for results--to prove homosexuality is genetic. They are still searching for the scientific proof but so far have not come up with it.

Just a few thoughts. Hope they help.

As far as the law, the legislature needs to reign in the court which has put itself above the other branches of govt., instead of equal in status.
It is presumptuous of the SC to make law from the bench that goes in the face of history, tradition, and the desires of about 80% of the country.

vaudine


151 posted on 12/02/2003 12:28:53 AM PST by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33; OrthodoxPresbyterian; RnMomof7
~"...one cannot base a government founded on 'freedom of religion' with quotes from the Bible."~

It's been done before.

However, many would just as soon you forget that.

http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a397351b419af.htm
152 posted on 12/02/2003 12:47:36 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 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?

I realize that the most common "pro" argument in any "gay rights" discussion is to equate what homosexuals encounter to the inhuman treatment to which blacks have been subjected by Western cultures. I always take personal offense when gays and their defenders do this, but what you have just stated has particularly offended me because you pass this untrue statement off as if it's veracity is unquestionable. In fact, unions between blacks and whites have occurred for thousands of years, the Egyptians, Cushites, Nubians, Ethiopians and other black African peoples have intermarried with Israelites, Greeks, Romans, etc. It has only been in recent history, the past 500 years or so, that blacks have been the primary group of people enslaved.

Before you make blanket statements disparaging one group in support of another, you should make sure your facts are straight. Then tell me what has happen to every single society that has ever even condoned homosexual behavior. Is that what you want for our nation?

153 posted on 12/02/2003 12:48:50 AM PST by Waryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
Before you make blanket statements disparaging one group in support of another

I did not disparage one group for another. I'm sorry if my hatred of discrimination bothers you so.

154 posted on 12/02/2003 12:55:08 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Waryone; farmfriend
Neither did unions between blacks and whites but we stopped making that illegal.

You may find this of interest:

Blacks deny link in gay, civil rights
Also, there's my Categorical Index of Links on homosexuality that contains nearly 500 links on the issues. Of particular interest are the severe health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle.

As I see it, a Compassionate Society Should Discourage Deadly Homosexual Behavior.

Also:

Homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

That's not propaganda, that's hard core facts supported by scientific studies.

There is absolutely no evidence homosexuality is genetic.

Homosexuals can change their behavior. That's just one of many links. You can find more of the same here and here.

...Individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior threaten not only their own lives, but the lives of the general population. Source

Homosexuals must be accepted as the human beings that they are. It's their behavior that we must not accept.

155 posted on 12/02/2003 1:38:15 AM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
If a person doesn't like gay marriage then don't have one.

So what would your views have been on slavery? FYI, the states that wanted to continue slavery, or were neutral, used that argument. It didn't stop the emancipation proclamation or the civil war from happening. Slavery was immoral and so is homosexual "marriage." Just letting it "be" because it doesn't bother you is not the answer.

156 posted on 12/02/2003 1:43:59 AM PST by IrishRainy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; Kay Soze
In fact you could "marry" all your beneficiaries to avoid probate and taxation. (never mind the benefits of a revokable living trust) It is only faaaaair and it feeeeeels good.

You two are making way too much sense here. Excellent posts.

157 posted on 12/02/2003 1:44:17 AM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: panther33
From an old thread: "The family is not created by government; government is created by individuals living in their families and entering public life to protect them."
158 posted on 12/02/2003 1:45:31 AM PST by Mortimer Snavely (Comitas, Humanitas, Gravitas, Firmitas, Industria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Attack their presumption that one can debate morality without introducing religion into the mix. (See George Washington's "Farewell Address.")
159 posted on 12/02/2003 3:25:11 AM PST by TPartyType
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
You are not losing the debate, Panther.

Polling data shows (depending on the poll), that at least 65%, and maybe as many as 87% of people, are opposed to gay marriage.

You are currently in with a small group of people who do not know God and therefore cannot be privvy to the wisdom that comes from knowing God. Try first to share the good news and maybe eventually their hearts will be touched.
160 posted on 12/02/2003 4:11:38 AM PST by TaxRelief (Welcome to the only web site dedicated to the preservation of a free republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #161 Removed by Moderator

To: panther33
- 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?

IMO,

Purely a States' rights issue.
162 posted on 12/02/2003 5:04:54 AM PST by WhiteGuy (I oppose big government. - Paul / Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter; panther33
How long will it be before people will marry anyone just to be able to complete a business transaction without taxation?

An imaginary scenario:

Warren Buffet may want to sell to George Soros a half interest in one of his company.

Because he would make a substantial profit on the sale of his company by selling it to George, he would have to pay a significant tax bill.

However, being a savvy business man, he will quickly figure out that his best bet will be to marry George for a limited period, to transfer half of his assets in the given company in the privacy of his own home and then to divorce George in a precontracted, amicable manner.

Clearly, based on the Texas "privacy" decision, polygamy will be legal by the end of the year and so will business transactions conducted between family members in their own home.

Once it becomes evident that the new "marriage laws" can be easily manipulated, the government will be forced to revoke all "marriage benefits" including asset transfer rules, marital tax benefits and commmunity property rules that were put in place to protect the children and the spouses.

When marital rights are revoked because of abuse, it will become virtually impossible to have a stay-at-home parent, because the non-working spouse will have no assets and no retirement provisions that are not subject to massive taxation.

The family unit will be destroyed in all but a very small percentage of religious homes.

163 posted on 12/02/2003 5:26:29 AM PST by TaxRelief (Welcome to the only web site dedicated to the preservation of a free republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Your problem is that you don't know what and why marriage is (summoning up some memories from the anthropology of marriage courses I took).

First, it is not a contract, it is not about love and it is not a religious institution.

Marriage is a world-wide human social institution to ensure the perpetuation of stable societies. Marriage is an institution created by all societies to ensure that the pair-bond between man and women (monogamy is the norm world-wide) is reinforced with social pressure. The reason this is needed is the fact that men are less likely then women to stay around their children. (marriage protects women and children)

Marriage is all about the needs of children.
Children need a mother and a father.
A pregnant women need's to have someone provision and protect both her and offspring. The natural biological outcome of this need is that the father does it. If the father fails to provision and protect, then the child will die (and probably the woman too). If too many children die, the societiy dies. Even if the children survive, those that are reared outside of the family structure tend to be defective (anti-social, think inner city America). This is why marriage is not a private matter and why most (or all) societies invest strongly in marriage rituals.

Marriage in America is weak but not dead. With the help of the elites that rule us, marriage may be redifined out of existence and IMO therefore America will be on it's last legs.

definition of family - the marriage ritual forms the family (husband and wife) children are born into a fully formed family (the social structure they need); widows and widowers with children still raise them in a fully formed family i.e they function as if the other parent is still present
164 posted on 12/02/2003 5:47:29 AM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Panther,

There is a large difference between making homosexuality illegal and endorcing gay "marriage".

First, homosexual/bisexuals represent roughly 2% of the population, not the 10% lie I am sure you get told.

Second, no one can make someone being a homosexual illegal anymore than they could make being black illegal. Laws regarding homosexuality on the books are anti-sodomy laws that make certain homosexual ACTS illegal. There is a difference. One can be heterosexual and celibate, or homosexual and celibate... I know it may seem minor but it is a very distinct point.

Third, due to public health issues, the government does indeed have the right to make certain activities illegal. Few understand this, but the Surgeon General of the US actually is the single most powerful person in government, they and they alone can legally and independently SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES during a health crisis should they choose to.

Fourth, There is nothing in "marriage" from a legal perspective that 2 individuals of any gender could not accomplish through legal channels. Two people do not need to be married to have survivorship rights, they don't need to be married to be able to make life or death decisions should the other become incapacitated, or take control of finances etc etc... all of these things we have codified legally into the state sanctioned marriage, can be accomplished by simple legal contracts between the 2 individuals regardless of who they are or what gender, race or creed they are.

So the real question is why are gays pushing for their relationships to be sanctioned as "marriages" in the first place? If two homosexuals wish to "wed" one another, they certainly can stand before their peers, and God and commit themselves to one another for the rest of their lives, and I am sure they can find a preacher of some church or another willing to do a ceremony... so the law really doesn't play any part in that.

So why then do GAYS want to have their relationships be legally considered "marriages"? The religious or spiritual relationship has no legal associated with it, and all the rights legally implied by marriage recognized by the state can be accomplished through legal contract form... so if 2 homosexuals wish to live together they can with all the legal rights of a married couple under the law that they claim they want. So why, why, why this push to force "marriage" legally as their relationships? After all haven't they been saying for decades keep the government out of our bedrooms?

Simple fact is, they just want to force society at large to accept what they do as equivalent. Society as large however has no obligation to do so. There is a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance... and most rabid homosexuals at their core really want acceptance..... and frankly its just not going to happen. People can tolerate a lot of things, but they cannot be forced to accept things.. and that at the end of the day is all they are trying to do, through the courts is force acceptance, which isn't going to happen.
165 posted on 12/02/2003 6:02:58 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
When you are debating things that are biblical, you simply can not always win. This is why the bible says that Christianity is foolishness to those who are perishing in 1 Cor. You are standing on a Christian principle and believe something because God says this is how it should be. Ultimately the debate is not really about whether Gays should be able to get married but it is about whether or not God is or His Word is His Word. These things we know by faith. All you can do is be a light to them and tell them the way it is but you can not make them see.

It is ok to boldly make the statement in God's defense and be laughed out of the room. You may have lost on Earth but you have won in Heaven.

166 posted on 12/02/2003 6:06:59 AM PST by biblewonk (I must answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: civil discourse; panther33
In fact, the opposite is likely: positions will harden and you will be dismissed as some kind of religious nut rather than a sincere and thoughtful individual.

With the exception of a very few, 16-yr-olds are quite different than adults. There moral nets are not yet set.

Teenagers appear to have hardened opinions, but they often change completely when they marry and have children of their own.

At the time that they do become parents, they eagerly search their memories for moral guidance and the early teachings that they had ignored and rejected up to that point.

New parents particularly search their memories for lessons that they had previously been exposed to that can help them in their current parenting role.

Rather than arguing "right and wrong", I believe it would be best for Panther33 to discuss what the world should be like for his/her children, why it should be that way and what he/she is going to do to make it happen. An aggressive tone will turn them off--teens hate to be nagged--but an expression of commitment to a better world will go a long way in a future parent's memory.

167 posted on 12/02/2003 6:09:47 AM PST by TaxRelief (Welcome to the only web site dedicated to the preservation of a free republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

Comment #168 Removed by Moderator

To: farmfriend
If you think it is discrimination then tell me is it ok also to have sex with children? How about civil unions between animals and humans? And sense you dont see anything wrong with homosexual marriage how about polygamy? Is it an anything goes kind of nation for you or do you beilieve that our society should value decency (as determined by the majority of our citizens)? What is also surprising is that you claim to be a boyscout leader - I hope you are not imparting your anti-family values to these young boys.

My two cents - we as a society must enforce and establish laws which uphold moral and ethical values otherwise anarchy will prevail.
169 posted on 12/02/2003 6:59:00 AM PST by sasafras (sasafras (The road to hell is paved with good intentions))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #170 Removed by Moderator

Comment #171 Removed by Moderator

Comment #172 Removed by Moderator

Comment #173 Removed by Moderator

To: Varda
"(summoning up some memories from the anthropology of marriage courses I took)."

Thank you for your lesson. It is very enlightening.

174 posted on 12/02/2003 7:35:21 AM PST by Spunky (This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

Comment #175 Removed by Moderator

To: HamiltonJay
What about tax breaks, etc.? Doesn't that benefit "married" couples? I get that argument enough... people saying that there's no reason to discriminate against someone because they are gay. I know, I read the early argument about why discrimination is a farce in and of itself, and entirely misleading, but I am just wondering exactly what rights/privileges do gays gain by being married?
176 posted on 12/02/2003 7:39:08 AM PST by panther33 (Proud to be an American, embarrassed to be a Californian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

Comment #177 Removed by Moderator

Comment #178 Removed by Moderator

To: NutCrackerBoy
It goes without saying that if we should encourage this existing traditional institution, it is a good idea for state governments to continue to take their accustomed role in doing so.

Nope. This is a societal issue, not a state issue. Failure to draw distinctions between the two makes you, by definition, a totalitarian.

179 posted on 12/02/2003 7:45:29 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
I wouldn't categorize it as discrimination. But that's because I think homosexuality is a mental disease, no different from someone who has bipolar disorder or manic depression. The difference is, there are these people out there that have decided that it is a socially acceptible mental illness and therefore there is no research into medications that can help correct this chemical imbalance in the brain.

But that's just my opinion.
180 posted on 12/02/2003 7:45:42 AM PST by CougarGA7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bt_dooftlook
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?"

So you regard celibate priests as immoral?

(Strike the question mark -- you don't really have the option of a "no" answer given your premise.)

181 posted on 12/02/2003 7:47:41 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #182 Removed by Moderator

To: mcg1969
I do not agree with this simply because I do believe the state has an interest to uphold the institution that best serves its most defenseless constituents (children).

YOU have a FR account?

I gotta know -- do you laugh, get angry, or just not react at all to being called "Hildebeest", "Hitlary", etc?

183 posted on 12/02/2003 7:51:02 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: panther33
I wrote an essay on the topic that I hope you find helpful:

http://www.cybcity.com/bibchr/gaymarriage.html

Dan
184 posted on 12/02/2003 7:52:55 AM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
entitlements granted to marriage spouses

Simple -- the guvmint needs to get out of the "entitlements" business.

185 posted on 12/02/2003 7:52:56 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
Your argument is unpersuasive. It's perfectly possible to pull the same scam now, using a woman as the bag lady, and yet it has never become a significant problem. In those cases where marriage is misused to get around the law (e.g. fraudulently obtaining citizenship), the matter can be, and routinely is, addressed on a case-by-case basis.
186 posted on 12/02/2003 7:58:02 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
This is a societal issue, not a state issue. Failure to draw distinctions between the two makes you, by definition, a totalitarian.

Ridiculous. The founders of this and every other country on the planet pass laws with no other purpose than to support civilization-bearing institutions, for example:

Impartial judiciary
Marriage (one man, one woman)
Churches and organized religions
Legal profession, other professional guilds

187 posted on 12/02/2003 8:14:45 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
as do mine, but I believe this is a country in which we cannot impose our religious views upon others. I was only responding to your one paragraph, not all of your comments. Best wishes!
188 posted on 12/02/2003 8:15:34 AM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: scripter; panther33
Scripter, Please post the link to the entire database for Panther.

Panther, Scripter's database has a huge amount of data which I don't quite have the time to linik to at the moment. Please read the appropriate categories to support the following.

The purpose of marriage is to provide for the future prosperity of society. Just as all laws are designed to protect society.

Society's future is totally dependant on raising a healthy next generation of children. Any society that does not provide for a healthy next generation ceases to exist (check out the shakers)

The healthiest environment for producing and raising children is a stable home where one man is married to and loves one woman.

Marriage is the societal encouragement of this environment. Whatever you subsidize you get more of. We subsidize marriage in our laws (both civil and religious) in order to get more of this environement so that we will have a healthy next generation.

Now for the marriage contract to be valid both partners must be mentally stable. You wouldn't expect a mentally diseased person to be able to enter into any other contract so why would we let the mentally ill enter into marriage?

Scripters database has a huge section on the health risks associated with homosexual behavior. There is also a section on the risks to society of this behavior.

For all of recorded history (and before) the union of man to woman in marriage has been the accepted 'normal' pattern. Anything else was (and is) seen as an aberation or as not quite right.

Homosexual behavior is a symptom of a mental disease known as Same-sex Attraction Disorder (SAD). It is caused by trauma (molestation, insuffiecient relationship with one's father, or relentless teasing by ones peers) and it is totally curable. Again there are links in the database documenting this. Note that no sane person would practice this behvaior knowing the damage that it causes. This is why the suicidal are locked up for observation and treatment, because no sane person would suicide. A homosexual lifestyle is just slow suicide

There is no genetic component to this behavior. Links to support this also.

So in order to have 'gay' marriage we would have to allow two mentally diseased people to enter into a binding contract. By legal definition neither of them are capable of entering into a contract.

Your opponent will likely counter that SAD was delisted from the DSM quite a few years back (the DSM is the diagnostic manual for psychiatric disorders. Unfortunately I don't remember what the acronym stands for). The answer to this is that this was a political decision more than a medical decision and that the main player pushing for the delisting at that time now admits he was wrong. (link in the DB for this too IIRC)

In short 'gay' marriage ends up promoting a behavior that is contrary to the future health of society.

189 posted on 12/02/2003 8:29:54 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Darkbloom
The rabbi issue would conflict with church state recognition issues. However one does need to be certified by the state to perform marriages.

as to the white/black issue. That was resolved with the Civil Rights Act. However that is essentially how it was up till the 60s.
190 posted on 12/02/2003 8:31:13 AM PST by Bogey78O (No! Don't throw me in the briar patch!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
You called totalitarian the following statement of mine:

State governments should continue their accustomed role of encouraging this existing traditional institution (marriage).

Therefore, your position is to call for the government of every state in this union to abolish legal marriage. Again, I say ridiculous.

191 posted on 12/02/2003 8:32:19 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: panther33
I am consequently faced with a perplexing dilemma: to argue a moral issue without injecting religion.

Have you tried injecting biology?

You know the whole 1+1=2 not 1+1=0 idea.

192 posted on 12/02/2003 8:36:03 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
I know you're trying to be funny, but do you have a serious objection to my statement?

Do you object to the characterization of children as the country's most defenseless constituents? I mean, yes, there are perhaps individual exceptions (a severely handicapped person), but as a class I think that's clear.

Perhaps you read too much government intrusion into my statement. If so, re-read it. I am not saying that the government should be serving children directly---I am saying that the government should uphold the institution of marriage, in which children are best served by their parents. In other words, support a social and legal framework for marriage, and then get out of the way for the actual childrearing.

So I don't see the connection here to Hillary "It Takes A Village" Clinton.

193 posted on 12/02/2003 8:55:52 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Does the U.S. government have a right to ban gay marriage?

Historically, marriage is not a federal issue. Washington is starting to become involved because some state courts are declaring this to be acceptible and actions by one state on these matters are supposed to be respected by others states i.e. a marriage made in Mass. is valid in Fla.

Secondly, the debate is not really about a "ban" on gay marriage, it's about allowing two members of the same gender to be allowed to get a marriage license.

Now, what is the purpose of a marriage license?

Historically, the primary reason society via government has gotten involved in marriage is to protect women. It is not in the interest of society for a man to impregnate a woman then leave her to raise the child without help, which has historically happened.

So this is why we have marriage license and marriage laws and why married people get certain benefits, and those who aren't married don't complain because married people are generally inclined to raise families which is a burden and without which there is no future.

Now, you can make a case that this could apply to two women, although who's the dad and who's the mom must be considered. What if both want to have babies? It certainly isn't fair for the rest of us to be forced with the burden of subsidizing them.

And there is no case to be made for marriage benefits to apply to a relationship between two men. The case against it is that it an unfair burden for the rest of us.

Steve should not be allowed access to Brad's health care plan just because they like each other.

194 posted on 12/02/2003 8:57:59 AM PST by Tribune7 (It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Understood, breakem. Cheers!
195 posted on 12/02/2003 8:58:52 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: John O
Scripter, Please post the link to the entire database for Panther.

I freepmailed panther33 with the link yesterday:

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links

196 posted on 12/02/2003 8:58:52 AM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
BTTT for later...
197 posted on 12/02/2003 9:03:18 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
The primary reason society via government has gotten involved in marriage is to protect women.

Excellent post and excellent point. In other words, the institution of marriage required the teeth of governmental enforcement to counter the prodigal tendencies of the human male. The mere disapproval of society and church were not sufficient.

198 posted on 12/02/2003 9:07:08 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Excellent post and excellent point.

Thank you. I have my moments. :-)

199 posted on 12/02/2003 9:12:07 AM PST by Tribune7 (It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Chummy
"...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?"

What about Nuns & Priests that abstain? Do they pose a survival threat to the species & should they be forced to procreate?
200 posted on 12/02/2003 9:14:31 AM PST by familyofman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 501-540 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