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?
|1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).
|1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:
- not being under constraint;
- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.
JESUS DEFINES MARRIAGE: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6
Simply, you can't. If you can use the Bible to demand that society behave in a particular way; then the Koran may be used for exactly the same purpose. Please consider the following:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Simply stated, the bible holds no more, nor any less authority in the case of law than Wiccan, Buddist, Islamic, Satanic or any other religous practice. None, nada, zero, zip.
While the bible is God's word; and Christianity is the true way to salvation, we each are put on earth to make choices. Some of us will chose wisely and be rewarded for our decisions. Others will chose poorly and have eternity to consider the consequences of thier decisions. But, we all have these choices to make for ourselves.
Male homosexuality is defined by a pathogenic (disease producing) behavior; anal sex. Anal sex damages tissue and spreads disease.
Anal sex is a bad idea for anyone, including heterosexual couples, but it is the act which defines male homosexuals.
I do not need to quote the Bible to convince people that consumating your marriage by getting poo poo on your pee pee is a bad idea.
Easy find a totally different argument that does not rely on the Bible. Even better use arguments based on social sciences, medicine, etc. You should be able to find good material from solid conservative social scientists like Charles Murray.
Why Defending Marriage is Social Justice Erik Nelson October 16, 2003
Here is a suggestion: put the onus on the other debater to formulate a principle out of the concept you can't legislate morality. You should be able to pick apart any edifice he constructs because it is an empty concept.
Another suggestion: marriage has existed as the union of one man, one woman for thousands of years. The states passed legal statutes about an existing institition. Who has decided that the public should assert their dominance over tradition?
I have to disagree with you. The Constitution is quite explicit. Any right not covered in the Constitution is guaranteed to the states. The men who wrote the document were peers of the state legislators that passed sodomy laws. And the laws were not challenged for constitutionality. They were accepted as standard and good laws
OK. Here's what I got from another board about this subject. You can tell from my wording that I'm trying to make people think over there.
Leftist - "But why is Bush so opposed to it?? That's what I wanna know. Why is so much fu**ing time, money and energy spent by the government on such ridiculous issues?? WHy do they feel the need to deny equal rights to all citizens?? There is so much more they could be doing instead of trying to take rights away from citizens."
RandallFlagg - "I have no idea. But, answer my first question: Why aren't Brothers and Sisters allowed to marry?"
Leftist - "From what I understand is this. When family members reproduce, the child they preoduce is more likely to suffer from mental retardation. I don't know how accurate that is, but that's what I understand from what i have heard. Correct me if I am wrong."
RandallFlagg - "Chromosomal defects, you are correct. Is that why it's not allowed?"
Leftist - "I suppose so. What's your point??"
RandallFlagg - "Then, let's say that Brother and Sister still want to get married and will then adopt children (seeing that they can't have their own). Would you have a problem with this?."
Leftist - "Under those circumstances I would have no problems with that at all."
RandallFlagg - "OK, same circumstances, what about Father and Daughter? Mother and Son? Brother to Brother? Sister to Sister?"
Leftist - "As long as it's two CONSENTING CAPABLE ADULTS, I have no problems with it."
Kinda makes ya wonder....