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?

[Radioactive]

I disagreed with everything else you said. And it was especially bad advice for what panther33 should use in classroom debates.

Why?

Telling the truth is what a debate is all about.

Getting to the truth is what a debate is for.

What of what I stated is wrong?

Calling a Sodomite a sodomite is not in-correct.

That is what they are.

Making up kind sounding names in order to use the language of illusion in any debate dooms anyone speaking out against sodomy to lose.

That is what society has allowed to happen and that is why the Sodomites, who by the way are recruiting our sons & daughters into their deathstyle, are winning the hearts & minds of the children.

They have to do this in order to have sex partners that are "young & fresh".

So again, what have i said that you think is wrong?

Ps---nutcrackerboy---interesting name for a person in a thread about Sodomites---any meaning to this?

[Kay Soze]

You got it!

And its this that will stop this nonsense.

Not any morlaity from the liberals - but the starving of the beast that will put a stop to this.

[steve-b]

do you have a serious objection to my statement?

I am dead serious in objecting to your "for the childrun" statism.

[steve-b]

Oh, puh-leeze. If you can't do better than this, you might as well just give up.

Impartial judiciary
This is a state function, not a societal function. I repeat, blurring the line between the two is a definitive trait of totalitarian philosophy.

Marriage (one man, one woman)

This is a societal institution, in which the state has no legitimate business.

Churches and organized religions

This is a societal institution, in which the state not only has no legitimate business, but is specifically proscribed from supporting by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Legal profession, other professional guilds

These are also societal institutions, in which the state has no possible legitimate role other than enforcement of the contracts which define their activities and prohibition of fraudulent misrepresentation.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Telling the truth is what a debate is all about. Getting to the truth is what a debate is for. What of what I stated is wrong?

The goal is to win the debate, not to tell the truth. To win, the debater must appeal to logic and the basic assumptions of the judges.

I understand and do not object to your use of the word Sodomite. But the Biblical term does not have an applicable definition suitable for secular discourse.

Your descriptions of various sex acts in terms of outlets and plugs are very clear, but you have not stated how they are logically connected to the debate question. I doubt whether they can be connected in a way that will gain traction.

Homosexual behaviors, like others, do have risks, and I don't object to these risks being used as a debate point. The term deathstyle, though is an exaggeration.

That is what society has allowed to happen and that is why the Sodomites, who by the way are recruiting our sons & daughters into their deathstyle, are winning the hearts & minds of the children. They have to do this in order to have sex partners that are "young & fresh".

This was not brought out in your original post, so I will not address it.

Ps---nutcrackerboy---interesting name for a person in a thread about Sodomites---any meaning to this?

No.

[Waryone]

It is not your "hatred of discrimination" that bothers me. It is your equating of the inabilty to restrain urges and lascivious behavior of homosexuals to the murder, rape, kidnapping and torture of black people because of our color that bothers me. For 400 years we have fought to remove this sterotype against us, and I am not about to allow you to get away with using the 'I'm against all discrimination' platitude to defend your misguided opinion.

When you refuse to recognize the distinction between black people and gays, you "tar" us with the same depraved, degenerate behavior gays wallow in. You shame and spitefully spit on everything we have fought for. In your vain attempt at political correctness, your opinion is no better than the worse member of the KKK.

The irony is that in all your high sounding talk about hating "discrimination," you are racist. What is worse is that you don't even see it.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Blurring the line between [state functions and societal functions] is a definitive trait of totalitarian philosophy.

You are merely stating a tenet of your own libertarian philosophy. You need to do better than that if you want to persuade anyone.

[BSunday]

I would try an argument based on the fact that while the constitution protects you based on your race and religion, it makes no such protection for those of any certain sexual preference.

[Chummy]

Now that argument certainly stays on point.

Simply, homosexuality cannot propagate a species that requires the fertilization of a cell derived from two different sexes. How can it? Homosexuality is the practice of sexual acts within one's gender.

Celibacy cannot of course propagate a species, either. How many "nuns and priests", however, may one find relative to the global population, and of these, how many have accepted and practice a vow of celibacy? How many break the vow, leave their respective orders? How does this correlate to the number of individuals who engage in homosexual acts?

Let's try this again: IF a species practices homosexuality, and homosexuality cannot produce future generations, that species will become extinct. IF a species practices celibacy that species will become extinct. IF the number of individuals behaving in a manner inconsistent with the basics of survival of self or species reaches a certain threshold, that species will falter and eventually fail. IF this subject species with these requirements of reproduction practices any behavior that conflicts with the reproduction of itself, then how can that species survive?

Do you note the use of the hypothetical? It's a distinction that's important to note, as you are instead blending a "what if" with that of a given.

It's nothing more than very simple science, very simple, and it does not bring into the debate the Biblical view which is quite clear on the subject as well.

If one refuses what one finds in Scripture, and one refuses what one finds in science, then it's also very clear that one simply demands to behave in a manner that is quite selfish, giving no regard to anyone else at all, whether this be self, society or one's species.

[Chummy]

Nuns, priests, doctors, these are occupations, and each viewed in the big picture contributes positively to the society and the species. These occupations in particular are those that offer comfort, and heal both specifically and in a broader sense their fellow humans, quite contrary to an individual that engages in homosexual acts.

Homosexuality is the practice of sexual acts within one's own gender, this in and of itself contributing nothing and producing nothing more than momentary gratification to those involved in the homosexual act, and exposing those specific individuals to risks that include fatal diseases.

[farmfriend]

I made no claims about being a Boy Scout leader. I am a member of the organization. You make a lot of assumptions that are not valid. I support the boys scouts decision to exclude gays from leadership roles.

[farmfriend]

You could be right. I would not disagree with what you have suggested. I have seen studies though that have shown differences in brain structure in gays. There have also been studies that show that hormonal timing etc during gestation plays a part. I think that there will come a day when this is dealt with medically.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I understand and do not object to your use of the word Sodomite. But the Biblical term does not have an applicable definition suitable for secular discourse. -NutCrackerBoy

However, it does have an applicable non-Biblical meaning when not capitalized.

[familyofman]

"Celibacy cannot of course propagate a species, either. How many "nuns and priests", however, may one find relative to the global population, and of these, how many have accepted and practice a vow of celibacy? How many break the vow, leave their respective orders? How does this correlate to the number of individuals who engage in homosexual acts?"

I used nuns and priests as a stand-in, perhaps a better example would be the "Shakers". The Shaker Society existed less than 150 years ago (they married) and praticed celibacy. There are no Shakers, or their families, alive today. I'm not sure of their total number at the height of their movement, but it was greater than 500. Did the state have a moral obligation to deny Shakers the right/privalege to marry given that they were all sworn to and devote in their pledge of celibacy, meaning they would not propagate?
The number of Shakers in relation to the overall population in their heyday was probably less than the homosexual population today, but their devotion to celibacy did lead to the demise of their percentage of the population. What societal interest did government have in allowing or denying them the right to marry?
If the state has a vested interest in the propagation of the species - does it also have a right to require other types of behavior or the health of the species?

[NutCrackerBoy]

I would try an argument based on the fact that while the constitution protects you based on your race and religion, it makes no such protection for those of any certain sexual preference.

I disagree with using this argument because it has a loophole.

Sexual preference is an acceptable (to me) basis to ban discrimination against individuals. Courts may choose to interpret an existing equal protection clause in this way, but it still says nothing about "gay marriage." Despite equal protection for gays, marriage law can and should discriminate against gay couples.

[Chummy]

Would state-sanctioned marriage of two same gender individuals who wish to engage in homosexual acts somehow produce results that differ than what I've already noted? Will the lack of this distinction preclude or prevent certain individuals from engaging in homosexual acts?

What happened ultimately to a society that did not engage in behavior that resulted in the propagation of its individuals? Too, the Shaker analogy is specious at best. Were those outside the society who wished to practice this religion excluded from membership in the society?

Engaging in a homosexual act or acts has no equivalent or comparison to nuns and priests, Shakers, or any other individual of any other religious faith. Having faith or practicing one's religion is not a sexual act.

It's just that simple.

At its most pure, what is the purpose of marriage?

Your question, does the state "also have a right to require other types of behavior" should have given you pause: are there not crimes such as rape, murder, theft, and so forth, "other types of behavior" that the state regulates? Am I to understand you believe it should not?

The state is not unique, per se: what, after all, is "the state"? If it is not concerned with the well-being and furtherance of its members, will it continue to exist?

[BSunday]

You said my argument had a loophole but imo you never identified it. Your argument appears self-contradictory to me. You mean to say it's not okay to discriminate against one gay but it is okay to discriminate against two gays ? The constitution does not address equal protection for persons of deviant sexual behavior. If it does, please show me where.

[mcg1969]

I am dead serious in objecting to your "for the childrun" statism.

So just how much government intervention on the behalf of children do you believe in, state-b? I just want to understand. Surely you have no difficulty with the idea of letting the government remove a child from a home that is being physically neglected. (And I mean a clear-cut case here, say of starvation.) Now of course, an adult or even an older child is free to bust out of the house run down the street to the nearest shelter and get some food, or find a job and strike out on their own. No such luck for the young child.

Or how about the age of consent. Should we allow a father to rape his own daughter, as long as he convince her that it's OK before he does? I mean, as disgusting as it may be, if she's 18, should the government prosecute? Well, then what about 17? 16? 12?

There does seem to be a compelling government interest to provide specific protections to children not afforded the general populace. I'd just like to know how far you think that protection ought to go, steve-b.

[Eastbound]

"Does the U.S. government have a right to ban gay marriage?

First of all, government doesn't have rights. It has powers granted by We the People. Is it empowered to ban gay marriage? If you are talking about same-sex civil unions, I'm not sure. Apparently Vermont wasn't empowered to ban same sex unions, and even approved them. End of search for debate material on that point.

But the question might be better phrased if you were to ask, are the courts empowered to change the definition of a word that has already been legally defined and in use for centuries across all nations and cultures? Specifically, can a judge re-define the word, 'marriage' to include same-sex couples. Of course not. And as far as I know, the courts have not done that yet.

The Mass. Supreme Court or the Mass. legislature may attempt to do it, but it is not certain what word or words will be selected to designate same-sex civil unions at this point.

You second question, "Can America justify making homosexuality illegal?"

That's a multi-part question. Can the U.S. Congress pass a law making homosexuality illegal? Can a state pass a law making homosexuality illegal? If Congress passes such a law, can it be incorporated into states that already have laws permitting homosexuality? What role would the U.S. Supreme Court play in resolving the issue and on what basis would they decide a case? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But if you find the answer, it will answer many more similar questions.

Personally, I don't think you are ready to debate this yet. If you want to be 'fierce' about it, focus your research on procedure, rather than subject matter. IMO.

In passing, let me offer this example, relative to my assertion that the court cannot RE-DEFINE a word that already has been defined.

Carbolic Soda wants to market it's product under the trade name of Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola, already defined, patented and copywrited, objects. Carbolic Soda sues to use the name, Coca-Cola, arguing that Carbolic Soda is a beverage too, and on that basis alone is entitled to the same market share as Coca-Cola.

If you were the judge, how would you rule?