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?

[Chummy]

You're simply off point. You ignore the scientific argument I've posited, and respond instead with occupations, preoccupations, avocations, a nod to communism and a tenet of our nation.

But you offer nothing to refute the fact that a homosexual act contributes nothing to society. If you disagree, what positive contribution has it? Why in your opinion should society recognize or encourage further homosexual acts? Of what benefit is this to society?

The only fair and reasonable comparison if debating so-called gay marriage are comparisons between homosexual and heterosexual acts. Any other behavior, anything else has no relationship whatsoever to the debate. That noted, the hobbies and recreational pursuits you offer, some may easily argue, do in fact contribute to society, and in a number of positive ways, including exercise, relaxation, stress reduction, education, and history, to name but a few.

Engaging in a homosexual act does absolutely nothing positive. At best it may reward with but momentary pleasure its participants, and the behavior does in fact expose the participants and perhaps others to health risks that may include fatal diseases.

Your retort is a distraction, more smoke-and-mirrors, and it does nothing whatsoever to offer any reason compelling or otherwise that society should recognize in some way the coupling of individuals who wish to engage in homosexual acts -- including those who flaunt an alternative from tradition while simultaneously demanding tradition and societal acceptance of their alternative.

I am not writing of "the state", in particular the evil, ominous Red State of which you interject: I am writing of a society, of the species, within its context as the collection of individuals whose behavior affects directly and indirectly the life of that society or species.

The Pursuit of Happiness? I've neither suggested nor stated it should be denied to anyone. Nor have I drawn any distinction as to whether the marriage be that before a civil court or in a religious setting.

There is simply no benefit to society to recognize an arrangement in which the participants gather simply to perform acts of homosexuality. If you have an example, offer one.

[Violette]

Why does an act have to contribute to society? How does oral sex between a man and a woman contribute to society more than that between two homosexuals? How does an infertal couple contribute more to a society than a homosexual couple?

[Chummy]

The hypocrisy is this: an individual lives in a manner that is an alternative to tradition, but demands at the same time the traditions of the society to which the individual lives in a manner that is an alternative.

The motivation is the desire of the benefits of traditional society?

Why is the motivation instead not an alternative? Or perhaps a desire for the benefits of some alternative society?

It's about having one's cake and chompin' on it, too.

[Chummy]

You may not have read my other postings: I've tried to portray this debate from a vantage that does not consider the view of Scripture, instead focusing from a scientific view of the results of a homosexual act.

The relevant or fair comparison can only be the question if oral sex is practiced by a number of individuals in a society to the point in which reproductive sex is precluded, and then determining the result of this behavior. What impact has this on the genetic line of the individuals engaged in the behavior? What impact has this on the society in which the individuals are living participants?

[Chummy]

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

Well done.

* * * * *

And I'll second that. None of those arguing in favor of gay marriage seem to realize or accept -- hell, no surprise -- that there are others beyond themselves, including those generations yet to be.

[Chummy]

"...And yes, there are a number of societies who have incorporated homosexual marriage into their cultures without falling apart...."

For example, which society?

[Violette]

People don't marry in order to have children. A homosexual couple can reproduce, they just can't reproduce through their act of love making. An infertal couple is faced with the same dilemma.

When a couple is in love with one another and they become intimate, they want to express how they feel to one another. If she is on the pill or he wearing a condom, they are engaging in a form of expression of love, not an act of reproduction. A homosexual couple is engaging in an act of love as well.

When they are ready for offspring, then they will use whatever is available to them. Find a surrogate mother. Seek out a sperm doner and have invitro fertilization. Homosexuality among humans is not a threat to the reproduction of our species.

[Chummy]

"...A homosexual couple can reproduce...."

How?

You also obviously missed earlier posts of mine; that couple you describe cannot reproduce. It is impossible. Read a very simple book on zoology or biology if you need to, then respond.

The alternative path you describe is precisely of what I wrote earlier: it is a contrivance. It is a method that requires a heterosexual couple to produce an offspring and then offer that individual to the couple that engages in homosexual -- read nonreproductive -- acts.

A homosexual act cannot further the species. While not a threat as you use the term, it simply cannot further the species.

[xm177e2]

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?

No, morality should be irrelevant to the legal process. What should matter is whether the action in question is causing unreasonable harm to unwilling victims.

Harm is a pretty simple concept: anything negative.

I have to say "unreasonable" harm, because for some people, even just thinking about the fact that their gay neighbors are sodomizing each other harms them. Well, that's too flipping bad, that's not the kind of "harm" that should be outlawed (any more than someone could claim to be harmed by "witchcraft," or because they didn't like having black people in their neighborhood).

The question of "unwilling" victims is also important. While it might generally be wrong to hit someone in the face, if it is part of a consensual sexual act (lots of weird people out there). Of course, this doctrine holds that children are incapable of granting consent to harm, so they can't "agree" to be abused or molested. If someone put a big poster of a nekkid woman in front of their house, such that it was visible from your lawn, (and you didn't like it) you would be an "unwilling victim," and could reasonably claim to be harmed. But if they want to put that same grossly immoral poster up in their bedroom and think dirty thoughts while looking at it, there's nothing the law should be able to do to them.

This is a gross oversimplification of the libertarian position on how the law should function, but this is how non-bible thumpers think. No, of course we are not impressed by arguments that "the Bible says it's wrong, so we should make it illegal," any more than we accept the authority of the Koran or the Vedas. It is not a question of being atheists: the person who taught me this philosophy is a dedicated Christian who liked to share this fact with his class. He was in no way ashamed of his belief or an atheist. This legal philosophy has very little to do with atheism.

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

They are two very separate issues, the morality of something and the question of whether or not it should be illegal. Even if you managed to convince someone that homosexuality was immoral, it would take much, much more to convince them that it should be illegal. We allow all sorts of immorality in our society.

It should be no less legal for a man to put on a dress, apply some makeup, and go to a bar looking for a man for a one-night stand than it should be for a woman to put on a dress, apply some makeup, and go to a bar looking for a man for a one-night stand. The law has no business getting into questions of "morality."

(all of my examples are sexual, but the intersection of law and morality tends to involve sex more than anything else)

- 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?

Libertarians hold that society doesn't punish these things because they are immoral, it punishes them because they violate the libertarian principle I describe above. To a libertarian, the difference between stealing from radio shack and sodomizing a willing adult is night and day. To even think of equating the two is absurd. It would be like equating adultery and drunk driving. The two are completely unrelated. Sure, Christians might think sodomy is wrong, but Jews think we aren't supposed to eat dead pig (mmmmm.... dead pig... take that, G-d!), and according to the Koran, it's immoral to own a dog as a pet, because dogs are filthy animals.

Think of where this leads, logically: if we are going to base our laws on morality, we need to decide on ONE standard of morality. I suppose that would mean picking Christianity over other religions. Then we would have to decide on the proper interpretation of Christianity (because there are plenty of people out there who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior, etc. etc. and don't think homosexuality is immoral). What you would end up setting up is a big "Bible Court" which would interpret the Bible as if it were a legal document. That is remarkably similar to what many Muslim countries have, which is Shari'a law. To serve as a judge, a Muslim must have either legal or religious training. I don't think that sort of system will fly here in America.

So would we have some sort of compromise, whereby leaders of the major religions in America would come to some sort of general agreement about what is and is not moral, and what should be outlawed? Who would accept this compromise?

Before you say "that's preposturous, nobody would suggest such a thing," take a step back and realize that you basically are arguing for this consensus-based idea of what is and is not immoral: Adultery should be legal because most people think so; homosexuality should be made illegal because most people think it's immoral. That's your argument. "Morality" turns into "whatever the majority wants," which is vulgar democracy unchecked by Constitutional protections for individual rights.

[Violette]

"A homosexual act cannot further the species"

Neither can the act of love between a man with a vasectomy and a woman with a histerectomy, what's your point? Should they be denied the right to be married?

[Violette]

How does a homosexual couple reproduce? I just told you.

They find surrogate mothers. They find sperm doners and have invitro fertilization. The exact same way single people, who choose not to marry, have children.

[Zevonismymuse]

I actually agree with you on this :)

I just like to remind people that anal sex is pathogenic. It seems like this is the most under reported fact when people are discussing homosexuality. I was writing in response to a poster who disagreed with me and said that getting a disease from anal sex was no more likely than getting a disease from vaginal sex. This is just not true. I am glad you know this but I am disappointed that this is not obvious.

As I stated earlier, it is never a good idea to engage in behavior which gets poo-poo on your pee-pee.

[Chummy]

One need only ask the primary purpose of marriage.

Is it a license to engage in sex? Is it a means to achieve corporate insurance benefits?

Or is it in fact to offer a stable basis on which society is founded and propagated?

You continue to avoid even the most basic of questions, continue to dodge any one attempt to offer even one reason compelling or otherwise for societal recognition of contrived arrangements whose purpose is nothing more than mutual, momentary gratification without hope for a future because the very act in which the partners engage cannot produce offspring.

[Violette]

"As I stated earlier, it is never a good idea to engage in behavior which gets poo-poo on your pee-pee"

Nevertheless, there are many many men and women who engage in this practice. So perhaps, oral sex should be ruled out as well, considering the amount of bacteria transferred from the pee pee to the mouth, and vice versa.

[Violette]

"momentary gratification without hope for a future because the very act in which the partners engage cannot produce offspring."

NEITHER CAN AN INFERTAL COUPLE!!! What is your point?

[Chummy]

"'How does a homosexual couple reproduce?' I just told you.

"They find surrogate mothers. They find sperm doners and have invitro fertilization. The exact same way single people, who choose not to marry, have children.

Giving about as much respect as I may, that's about as lame of a response as I've heard.

Finding a surrogate mother is not an act of reproduction. Nor is finding a sperm doner (it's 'donor'), nor does having in vitro fertilization. (By the way, how does a homosexual man have in vitro fertilization to become pregnant?)

"The same way as single people who choose not to marry?"

Better do a check on your 'logic.'

Facts is facts: a homosexual act cannot result in offspring; it is impossible. A couple of individuals of the same gender who engage in a homosexual act cannot reproduce through such an act. It is impossible.

It's not a matter of mere semantics; it's science. One cannot take an ova and another ova, nor sperm and sperm, or the genetic makeup of these, and produce an offspring.

That couple requires the consent of a heterosexual couple. Your so-called homosexual reproduction is not an act but a process, an aritifical contrivance requiring the contributions of others, and this process is unnecessary if the reproduction of the species is the objective.

[Chummy]

I'll ask you not to shout, Violette. Chill.

If a couple enters into marriage and finds it is infertile, it will not produce offspring. I'm not saying the marriage should be dissolved.

More to point: if enough infertile couples marry, what is the longterm result?

Again, it's simple science.

[Violette]

You're basing your argument on the idea that the only reason people engage in lovemaking is to produce children and this is absolutely incorrect. If you have ever worn a condom or had sex with a woman on the pill, then you would know this. Heterosexual couples actually choose not to have children.

Homosexuals want to commit their lives to one another and raise children. "Marriage" protects the children. Homosexual men will find a surrogate mother, (women donate their eggs, too), women will find a sperm donor. They will adopt. They will use the exact same means to them that are available to infertal couples.

[Violette]

"More to point: if enough infertile couples marry, what is the longterm result"

Chummy, this is why the courts are reviewing this. You hit the nail on the head.

Marriage is NOT about sex and reproduction. Marriage is about commiting the rest of your life to someone you love. Through sickness and in health. With or without children. Have you noticed that marriage vows have absolutely no mention of children? That is because marriage is a life adventure.

If reproduction were the only basis of marriage, then the courts would not be able to recognize the marriage of a man with a vasectomy to a woman in menopause. They wouldn't be able to recognize or accept a marriage between an infertal couple. Marriage is deeper than sexual reproduction.

[Chummy]

Now, no, you're wrong. I've not based my comments on "the only reason people engage in lovemaking," but rather and emphatically my comments are based on simple science, simple biology, x and y, and all that.

You speak quite broadly, I hope you do realize, when writing, "Homosexuals want to commit their lives to one another and raise children."

Raise children? Not their own. Produce children?

They can't. For one, your comment hardly applies generally to homosexuals en masse. For another, their desire is in stark contrast to their ability, and in fact requires the involvement and contributions of others, ie, those who engage in an act of procreation and which act produces an offspring.

You still offer not a whit of a reason as to why a society should recognize this arrangement.

When Little Johnny asks, 'Mommy, where did I come from'?, all that Mommy may respond is, "Well, it wasn't from me and your other Mommy."