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 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 501-540 next last
To: Darkbloom
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.
301 posted on 12/02/2003 8:51:55 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Chummy; Darkbloom
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?
302 posted on 12/02/2003 8:55:29 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
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.
303 posted on 12/02/2003 8:57:50 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Violette
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?
304 posted on 12/02/2003 9:02:50 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
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.
305 posted on 12/02/2003 9:05:08 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

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

For example, which society?
306 posted on 12/02/2003 9:06:51 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Chummy; Darkbloom
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.
307 posted on 12/02/2003 9:07:41 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Violette
"...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.
308 posted on 12/02/2003 9:16:49 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: panther33
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.

309 posted on 12/02/2003 9:17:26 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chummy; Darkbloom
"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?
310 posted on 12/02/2003 9:20:02 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Chummy; Darkbloom
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.
311 posted on 12/02/2003 9:21:47 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
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.

312 posted on 12/02/2003 9:24:34 PM PST by Zevonismymuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Violette
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.
313 posted on 12/02/2003 9:27:12 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Zevonismymuse; mcg1969
"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.


314 posted on 12/02/2003 9:27:21 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Chummy; Darkbloom
"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?

315 posted on 12/02/2003 9:28:50 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: 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.


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.
316 posted on 12/02/2003 9:36:44 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Violette
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.
317 posted on 12/02/2003 9:40:16 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Chummy
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.

318 posted on 12/02/2003 9:41:48 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Chummy; Darkbloom
"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.
319 posted on 12/02/2003 9:49:57 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Violette
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."
320 posted on 12/02/2003 9:53:15 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: panther33; axel f; Mich0127; Mrs. Xtrmst; Amy4President; William Creel; cschroe; Amelia; ...
Young Conservative PING list. Let's help out a fellow young freeper.

If you'd like to join the young conservatives PING list, let me know. (yes, you can be young at heart to be on board too) ; )
321 posted on 12/02/2003 9:54:27 PM PST by King Nothing (To secure peace is to prepare for war. -- Metallica - Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Violette
Children should not be concieved for the sole purpose of bringing joy to the parents. (That is not only selfish but misguided, as any parent of a teenager knows :)) Once a baby exists, its parents are there to serve, not to be served.

The evidence is unequivocal that the best environment in which to raise a child is a stable, loving heterosexual marriage, period. Now of course I would want to show nothing but support for parents who find themselves outside of that ideal arrangement through no fault of their own (like a widowed single mother). And that is not to say that some homosexual couples couldn't do a better job raising kids than some heterosexual couples.

But to consciously choose to conceive and raise a child in an environment that is known to be fundamentally flawed (i.e., no mommy or no daddy) is flat-out selfish. That many heterosexual couples have children for selfish reasons does not justify us compounding the problem by expanding the practice.

So while I don't find it practical or reasonable to explicitly prohibit such inferior parental arrangements from occurring, I see no reason why the government should legitimize through official sanction anything but the best possible choice. What the government sanctions it encourages.

322 posted on 12/02/2003 9:54:41 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
"But to consciously choose to conceive and raise a child in an environment that is known to be fundamentally flawed (i.e., no mommy or no daddy)"

There are people who consciously choose to be single parents. Are they better equipped than a homosexual couple?
323 posted on 12/02/2003 9:59:23 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Violette
I believe that it is wrong for someone to consciously choose to be a single parent, for the same reason I believe it is wrong for a homosexual couple to choose to become parents. Ask any single parent who didn't consciously choose their station and I'll bet they'll agree with me. But like I said, if someone becomes a single parent through no fault of their own, they have my sympathy and support.
324 posted on 12/02/2003 10:04:51 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
"I believe that it is wrong for someone to consciously choose to be a single parent"

So now the question is, what do you think the court's position on this should be? Should they support it? Should they punish it?
325 posted on 12/02/2003 10:06:54 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Violette
Read my post. The last paragraph. I answered that already.
326 posted on 12/02/2003 10:07:41 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
Post #322, that is.
327 posted on 12/02/2003 10:08:07 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Chummy
"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"

Their act of lovemaking cannot produce children. Just as with an infertal couple. Again, a homosexual couple (one of the members of the couple) will find a surrogate mother. If they are two women, one will find a sperm donor and have invetro fertalization. These are the same choices a single person has if they want to have baby.

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

For the same reason we recognize the arrangement of a man marrying a woman who has had a histerectomy.

328 posted on 12/02/2003 10:12:01 PM PST by Violette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Violette
For the same reason we recognize the arrangement of a man marrying a woman who has had a histerectomy.

Not the same, for reasons I stated in #322. An infertile couple is fundamentally more qualified to provide the best possible environment for adoptive childrearing than a homosexual couple.

Certainly some homosexual couples can do better than some heterosexual couples. But the best homosexual couple will with certainty be inferior to the best heterosexual couple.

329 posted on 12/02/2003 10:17:25 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Violette
bacteria transferred from the pee pee to the mouth

Urine is sterile. Normally urine does not contain bacteria. Feces is 85% bacteria. That is why drinking urine is harmless and eating feces is deadly.

I am not telling people what to do. In order to give informed consent you should be informed. Anal sex is disease producing. You have the right to engage in behavior that spreads disease and damages tissue. I have the right to tell people anal sex is bad for your health.

330 posted on 12/02/2003 10:21:28 PM PST by Zevonismymuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Zevonismymuse
And I hear that urine applied topically can relieve a jellyfish sting, too :)
331 posted on 12/02/2003 10:23:45 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: bt_dooftlook
Wow...good post!
332 posted on 12/02/2003 10:30:11 PM PST by Indie (Orwell was only a couple dozen years ahead of his time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: georgebushrocks
Some argue that homo is "genetic" some say it is an aspect of societal influences.

If someone argues that homosexuality is genetic then they are arguing out of ignorance. The genetics argument has been destroyed. According to the experts, the major factor in determining homsexuality is environment. This is greatly re-inforced by the fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle.

As I see it, A compassionate society should discourage deadly homosexual behavior and those who encourage a deadly behavior are friends to nobody.

333 posted on 12/03/2003 1:31:32 AM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: panther33; scripter


334 posted on 12/03/2003 2:27:46 AM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: dyar_dragons
I as a Wiccan, believe that everyone has a right to love and to feel love

That is because you are young and foolish. You may indeed have a right to pursue happiness (and perhaps love as a part of that happiness), but there is no guarantee of actually obtaining the goal. If you must take something that does not belong to you in order for you to feel "love", or harm another to feel "love", then clearly any such right does not extend to such actions. And unfortunately for the sodomites, they are taking something that doesn't belong to them when they attempt to claim the sacrament of marriage.

This is America and in this wonderful country there can be no discrimination in the laws...can there?

Of course there can. Laws must discriminate; otherwise they are intrinsically unjust. Criminal laws much discriminate between the innocent and the guilty. Tort laws must discriminate between who has been unjustly injured and those who are responsible for that injury. Civil laws must discriminate based on a variety of factors if justice is to be found in the courts.

Just to remind the people of this country...there was along time ago a decision that church could no longer influence the State

No there wasn't. There was a decision made that Congress could not recognize a particular establishment of religion, or prohibit its free exercise. To suggest that religion cannot influence government is to suggest that only the amoral are suitable for roles in government, a condition that would rapidly create the worst of tyrannies.

If we as a country are to shape the world, we must learn to get over the morality of the Bible and move on with the government.

Civilization is a very fragile thing. If you were not so ignorant of history, you would know what happens when the veneer of religious morality is stripped from government. If you insist upon endeavoring toward such a path, I suggest you obtain a good winter coat; it gets very cold in the death camps.

Homosexuality is a healthy and normal feeling that we as humans have gone through for centuries

Wanting to make something true doesn't make it true. The fact is that homosexuality is not healthy; one need only look at statistics to prove that point.

Why now is it wrong to be happy? Many cultures have expressed acceptance to it,

This is true. But none of them survived such acceptance for very long and retained their civilization.

Why do you have the right to marry and not homosexuals?

Heterosexuals do not have the right to marry either. It is not a right; it is a privilege. From a religious perspective, man did not create marriage; God did. Thus, it is His intellectual property, and His to do with as He sees fit. If you deny the existence of the Deity, then the issue becomes even more clear, since it is only the whim of the state that determines what "rights" you have, and if the state denies you the privilege of marriage (or grants it, as in what may be the case soon in MA) then so be it.

It is not right and in our Constitution, does it not say the people have the right to be happy.

No, it does not say that anywhere at all in the Constitution (a document I suspect you have never read).

Whether or not you yourself believe that it is the right thing to do, does not matter in how the laws must be written. Thus, I must profess that you need to GET OVER IT!!!

If rights are endowed by the Creator, then marriage exists only as He has ordained it, between a man and a woman. If those rights do not come from the Creator, then they are an artifact of the state, and since the state is an invention of the people then the people have a retained power to establish the institution of marriage as they see fit, and may direct government to set rules and regulations to enforce their (perhaps arbitrary in your opinion) will.

335 posted on 12/03/2003 2:48:41 AM PST by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Hodar; panther33
I agree with Hodar - but, I would like to add something regarding what I think is a trojan horse to so many teens.

A debate would not have worked with me as a teen - and in fact, a debate is a kind of legitimization of the issue itself that it doesn't really merit. A Christ-based love from the heart is a love that is separate and unselfish. And very few Christians said to me then what I write below:

The "debate" is really about debating whether or not selfishness itself is legit. If you subscribe to the secular humanistic faith, then of course it is. But if you're Christian, all "debates" should be witness-based regarding the commands of Christ and our obedience to them. The "first and greatest" commandment is love God with all your heart, soul, strength. There is no room for debate as far as Christ is concerned.

First point: spending time with non-Christians "debating" a ruling in Mass. about marriage does not really serve the core of Christ's message. That core message is ""be separate" in your love, exclusive in your love to ME." Carving out that separateness requires we become unselfish. As a man who is married to a woman, I promise you, it is a great ground of practice indeed.

When I speak w/ teens today about this issue, I don't debate - I just make the following observation:

There is not a single study published by anyone reputable that shows any gay male couple that remain faithful to each other for more than a few weeks or months. On the contrary, all male gay relationships are essentially "open" relationships. Being holy is simply outside the gay mainstream experience.

The greek word for "holy" means to separate. Holy matrimony is a separate space - to practice being unselfish. Christ wants our spiritual attitudes to be married to him ONLY. It is this exclusivity clause that so infuriates secular humanists, and thus it is issues of sex that serve as the core "hot buttons" for debate to them.

If you are a gay man, knowing and understanding YOUR own desires is straightforward. Meeting them with another gay man is an extremely selfish road to take - for no effort is required to understand the base nature of the other man. I once mentioned this to a teen age liberal girl who thought I was nuts for saying this...and then I mentioned that abortion is the same thing. A selfish act, because bearing and raising a child requires distilled unselfishness.

If you are a straight man, marriage to a WOMAN is a mountain of extreme elevation. For crying out loud, how could a creature less like a man exist??

Thus, the genius of our Christ is revealed, He who created the mandate for monogamous, heterosexual marriage. We have to practice exclusivity with a creature completely unlike us - to get proficient at the giving of our unselfish love to HIM, per His commandment. And our kids get a big head start in life if they are fortunate enough to witness this.

From my point of view, gay marriage is strictly a trojan horse - there aren't that many gay people out there. The real issue is destroying "separateness", holiness, by getting polygamy legalized. Legal polygamy is the single best way to cloud the core message of the exclusive Christ.

Once that happens, institutionalization of secular humanism is permanent, that is, you drive out the SINGLE government sponsored trait of Christian faith: the accordance of legal privileges to persons who practice heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Then, we will REALLY become a nation of lawyers...

Hodar however is right: its like mandating prayer in schools. The government can't do that. But prayer itself won't happen unless individual, by individual, but within each of our marriages, we witness what Christ-based living is (and if it were easy, a lot more folks would be doing it, and doing it well - the fact gay marriage has arrived is a testimony unfortunately to poor results of so many of us in our own Christ-based living, me included).

As a teen, then your road is clear: spend time preparing yourself for that proving ground, that "holy" space. You'll need more than good debating skills to make it grow into the result Christ intended.

Then, your peers will someday not want to debate you - instead they'll ask you questions like "what is your secret to a happy marriage? You and your wife seem so close!"

That is the type of conversation Christ hopes to listen it on, and the type secular humanists most fervertently hope to prevent in your future.

336 posted on 12/03/2003 3:57:52 AM PST by gobucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard
The state has NO ability to recogonize a "contract" for an illegal activity. Are there still any states in which homosexuality is illegal? For it should be. For it has been in those 200 plus years we were a healthy and sane nation.
337 posted on 12/03/2003 4:53:43 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: panther33
That premise is wrong. That premise is foolish. That premise is imbecilic. Each and all three!

Why is it wrong? Because religious texts are constantly in use in formulating public policy! Even today, by every level of legislative, judicial and executive body I know of.

Take the current Supreme Court -- they have considered arguments from the Jewish Talmud in a recent death penality case.

Or take Thangsgiving! A Federal, a National, Holiday. As in "Holy Day". A day DECLARED by Presidents, Judges and Legislators to be put aside for a "religious" purpose.

Did your "friends" celebate that? Ask them? Ask them if they "Thanked Darwin" at the start and/or end of the meal.

Why is it foolish? It is foolish of you to waste time arguing with people whose "rules of evidence" are so narrow and restrictive some prejudicial outcome is assured before any argument starts. They kow it too! They want to make a fool of you.

In my book, such mean or vain-glorious attempts to make others the fool are the deepest indication that those who so attempt are fools themselves.

Why is it imbecilic? It is most assuredly so dumb, so empty of intellectual scrutiny, so unsustainable a premise in the face of any level of scholarship (that means reviewing existing texts and researching history) to be imbecilic.

Secularism, darwinism, scientificism and such are ALL religious belief systems. That there practitioners may refuse to be label "religious" is of no import in an absolute sense.

338 posted on 12/03/2003 5:11:22 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

Comment #339 Removed by Moderator

To: panther33
If they don't believe in the Book, how can I use it in my argument?

You can't. You'll have to find something else to support your viewpoint if you want to win.

340 posted on 12/03/2003 6:11:05 AM PST by Pedantic_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Well..
Sex has been defined down to vaginal penitration.
And marriage has been defined as a relationship between two people where such occurs.
Since men don't have vaginas, they can't have sex with each other and hence cannot be married by the term as it currenty stands defined.
341 posted on 12/03/2003 6:12:03 AM PST by Darksheare (Ignore the wombats, they're a diversion! My 3 million psychotic chinchilla army is the real threat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
Well.. Sex has been defined down to vaginal penitration. And marriage has been defined as a relationship between two people where such occurs. Since men don't have vaginas, they can't have sex with each other and hence cannot be married by the term as it currenty stands defined.

Then I guess Clinton didn't really have sexual relations with that woman....Monica Lewinsky.

342 posted on 12/03/2003 6:13:16 AM PST by Pedantic_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Pedantic_Lady
That pretty much was the definition he was angling for.
*snort*
Of course, that being true, then lesbians cannot have sex with each other in a 'true' interpretation of such thinking.
*snort*

I DID hear one unique defination of sex this way, taht it isn't sex for there to be vaginal penile penetration as liong as there's no 'ejaculate' released during the penetration.
Of course, it was said in much much cruder terms.
343 posted on 12/03/2003 6:18:04 AM PST by Darksheare (Ignore the wombats, they're a diversion! My 3 million psychotic chinchilla army is the real threat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever see this dealt with medically. At least not in my lifetime. There is no motivation to treat it because there are too many "it's just the way they are and that's ok" people out there.
344 posted on 12/03/2003 7:32:46 AM PST by CougarGA7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: panther33
bump
345 posted on 12/03/2003 7:42:04 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Actually, procreation is only one of the benefits of a marriage from a sanctified standpoint. Sexual connection and the loving benefits that connection provides is also an important element as taught by our Church (Catholic) thus encompasing even those unable to procreate.
346 posted on 12/03/2003 7:46:39 AM PST by hilaryrhymeswithrich (Al Franken is a pimple on the butt of liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Hey Kay....I'm stealing your BRILLANT thought and using that one on my brother next time he brings it up. Very clever!!!!
347 posted on 12/03/2003 8:00:49 AM PST by hilaryrhymeswithrich (Al Franken is a pimple on the butt of liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: 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.

I don't think I agree with you there. If they were asking for recognition from the church or from groups other than the government, I think you would have a point, but as it is, you are saying that anyone who chooses to live in (any kind of) a legal manner that is different from the societal norm is not entitled to any of the benefits of living in that society. I don't believe in that. Our society accomodates people with all types of beliefs and behaviors that don't match the norm.

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

Again, it depends on what those "benefits" are. I have no trouble with gays asking for those same legal "benefits" that straights have. If those "benefits of traditional society" include recognition by religions, then I would certainly affirm a religion's right to worship however they see fit.
348 posted on 12/03/2003 9:23:46 AM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: King Nothing
thank you sooooooo much!!!!
349 posted on 12/03/2003 9:27:25 AM PST by Mich0127
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: panther33
bookmarking...
350 posted on 12/03/2003 12:16:41 PM PST by Elijah27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 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