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?

[Salvation]

**I don't think it does.**

Nevertheless, it is the one church that has stood (sometimes alone) against contraception, abortion, euthenasia, Planned Parenthood and many other organizations that do not respect Life.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It is important to enforce contractual rights in a situation, where the well being of the next generation is involved.

Well done.

[Bogey78O]

rabbi- quite clearly stated that it'd be a church state issue when they recognize only one religious institution as valid. Quite clearly stated that it was a state licensing issue.

You lose on that count.

interracial marriage. Up till the civil rights act it was a states rights issue. The federal gov't changed that by forcing states to not descriminate based on race.

You lose on that count.

0-2

So state the federal act that says that the state must not prohibit gays from getting married. Just state the law.

Your arguments are lame. And at the age of 23 my memory is crystal clear. Take your anger based arguments and try them on angry people.

[Bogey78O]

Well when you show me a human nymph or drone then we'll talk.

[Zevonismymuse]

Anal sex does not spread any more diseases than any other sexual act.

Take an anatomy class. We are talking about going in the out door. This ALWAYS damages the tissue. And your comparison to vaginal sex is completely wrong. For one thing, unlike the anus, the vagina was designed for sexual intercourse and normally does not sustain injury during sex. Secondly, there is not normally bacteria in the vagina. There is normally bacteria in the rectum. Lots of bacteria, no matter how good of hygeine is practiced.

[mcg1969]

The walls of the rectum are significantly thinner than the walls of the vagina. (This makes perfect sense when you consider that the latter is designed to pass a baby's head, significantly larger than anything exiting the former.) As a result, anal sex much more frequently results in the damage of surrounding tissues than vaginal sex. This damage provides a means for foreign agents to enter the bloodstream. Thus it is actually quite logical that the likelihood of AIDS transmission during a single instance of vaginal intercourse is significantly lower than during a single instance of anal intercourse.

[mcg1969]

Sorry, I didn't quite reply correctly---as you can see, I actually agree with you on this :)

[mcg1969]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1032027/posts?q=1&&page=295#293

[bvw]

Well a Gacy may "murder" some of his potential spouses in the 70's, but in 2014's OED, why murder of spouses is not. "Murder" that is. In "2014" murder means practising homophobia. And gee golly gay molly, in 2014, we hang murderers.

Such as Mr. Gacy was not.

* * * *

Ps. In 2014, the OED recoginzes the more accurate Clintonian defintion of "is" as meaning "was not".

[HardStarboard]

Marriage has a history somewhere north of 15,000 years. Seems a bit of a travesty to go against such a well founded tradition.

We need to give "gay unions" a name other than marriage.

How about...Convortation

maybe that'll keep the tail thumpers happy

[Violette]

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

Yes, you are faced with a dilemma. The reason you are faced with this dilemma is because you are of the opinion that the only way one can have a moral code is if that code stems from the bible. So, then, that leads you to the next problem. If the state is separated from the church, then how can a legal code be moral? If the state isn't using the bible as it's basis is establishing law, then where will it get the guidelines to ensure the law is moral.

Atheists are moral people, too. We don't have to believe in a God in order to know what is wrong and right. I believe it is morally wrong to tell someone who they don't have the right to love. I think it is morally wrong to tell two people who love each other how they are to express their love to one another. And if the State wants to make it illegal, that means the law has to be enforced with the point of a gun. Which leads to actually forcing two people of the same who love each other to not express that love romantically.

By the way, Christ was asked, of all the commandments, which one is the most important. He said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me and love thy neighbor as thyself". That's it.

[panther33]

If you're afraid to quote scripture in defense of your beliefs, you've been intimidated and you've already lost the battle. You need to back up and challenge THEIR position that scripture is not a basis for good law. Is it their argument that because it's scriptural it's wrong?

No, it's their premise that religious text cannot be used in forming government policy. Otherwise, we would, in all fairness, be expected to quote the Koran and other religious texts as well.

Yours,
panther33