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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-540 next last
Thanks in advance!

God bless,
panther33
Age 16

1 posted on 12/01/2003 8:29:14 PM PST by panther33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: panther33
I think to deny them is discrimination. But I am one of the few who voice this on this forum.
2 posted on 12/01/2003 8:31:15 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
The states essentially have the right to legislate marriage contracts however they see fit. Marriage is not a natural right but rather a civil institution like granting the power of attorney, guardianship, or incorporating a business.
3 posted on 12/01/2003 8:33:03 PM PST by Bogey78O (No! Don't throw me in the briar patch!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
I refer you to the Focus on the Family page.
http://family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/FAQs/a0026916.cfm
4 posted on 12/01/2003 8:33:18 PM PST by yevgenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Sorry, missed another one:
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0027543.cfm
5 posted on 12/01/2003 8:33:59 PM PST by yevgenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
More where these came from:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

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.




6 posted on 12/01/2003 8:34:43 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
The constitution does not "grant" anybody anything. But then you knew that.
7 posted on 12/01/2003 8:35:01 PM PST by Spruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Heres one Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex
8 posted on 12/01/2003 8:35:08 PM PST by Kay Soze (Liberal Homosexuals kill more people than Global Warming, SUVs’, Firearms & Terrorism combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Just to further the debate, as I mentioned to my college-age daughter this weekend when she raised the topic with me, remove for a moment the Biblical position on the subject, and consider only the scientific aspects: if a species practiced homosexuality and the majority in the species accepted the practice, what would the odds be for the longterm viability of the species?

Does this not conflict with a basic rule of nature? Does this not conflict with the very law of survival?

9 posted on 12/01/2003 8:36:00 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
You are not the only one. I could care less whether gay people get married. It doesn't affect me and my life. If a person doesn't like gay marriage then don't have one.
10 posted on 12/01/2003 8:36:37 PM PST by cyborg (mutt-american)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
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
International Healing Foundation

CLICK HERE


11 posted on 12/01/2003 8:36:50 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
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?

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:

Amendment I
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.

12 posted on 12/01/2003 8:39:03 PM PST by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
If churches want to deny them marriage, I have no problem with that. I have a hard time with Uncle Sam, federal or state, drawing distinctions.
13 posted on 12/01/2003 8:39:06 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: panther33
I am consequently faced with a perplexing dilemma: to argue a moral issue without injecting religion.

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.

14 posted on 12/01/2003 8:40:27 PM PST by Zevonismymuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
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?

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.

15 posted on 12/01/2003 8:41:22 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Massachusetts vs. Marriage by Maggie Gallagher 12/01/2003

AND

Why Defending Marriage is Social Justice Erik Nelson October 16, 2003

16 posted on 12/01/2003 8:41:54 PM PST by Kay Soze (Liberal Homosexuals kill more people than Global Warming, SUVs’, Firearms & Terrorism combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
I recommend reading everything you can get your hands on by Robert Bork. His essays in The New Criterion were particularly penetrating.

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?

17 posted on 12/01/2003 8:41:58 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
- 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?

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

18 posted on 12/01/2003 8:42:19 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Yup...if a church doesn't want to marry someone, then fine. I do make distinctions between civil marriage and religious marriage myself.
19 posted on 12/01/2003 8:42:37 PM PST by cyborg (mutt-american)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
I thrive on debate as well. I posted this on another thread which I'll link to this one. Here's the text:

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....



Oddballs....

20 posted on 12/01/2003 8:44:09 PM PST by RandallFlagg ("There are worse things than crucifixion...There are teeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Better yet, argue that the government shouldn't have any involvement with marriage whatsoever. Marriage and other family arrangements are personal matters which should be left up to free citizens to handle themselves. Why should you need a license from the government to enter into a marriage in accordance with your religious beliefs? And why should anybody need a license from the government to enter into any kind of cohabiting and/or sexual relationship in accordance with their beliefs?
21 posted on 12/01/2003 8:44:12 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Read away!
22 posted on 12/01/2003 8:45:57 PM PST by Kay Soze (Liberal Homosexuals kill more people than Global Warming, SUVs’, Firearms & Terrorism combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I said nothing about constitutionality. Did you reply to the right person?
23 posted on 12/01/2003 8:45:58 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Have the time to do a little research? If so try Stanley Kurtz's excellent series of articles on the topic. They began with a series debating pro-gay marriage advocates Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch at National Review online. I know of no other conservative writer who has gone as deeply into this issue.

Some helpful (but not exhaustive) links:

Who Is Goodridge Good For?
Marriage Radicals
Beyond Gay Marriage
Oh, Canada!
The Libertarian Question
Sullivan, Santorum & Me
Defending Senator Santorum
Heather Has 3 Parents

24 posted on 12/01/2003 8:46:21 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cindy; panther33
Sorry. Post #20 was meant for panther33.
25 posted on 12/01/2003 8:46:31 PM PST by RandallFlagg ("There are worse things than crucifixion...There are teeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Just like smoking, homosexuality is a pubic health menace.

Few are born homosexual; far more have acquired the habit: don't start, kids!

26 posted on 12/01/2003 8:46:31 PM PST by dasboot (Celebrate UNITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
You don't have to prove anything. Those that wish to disturb the status quo must prove that it is better to do so. The argument against gay marriage can be a practical one. If you accept that society has no right to proscribe gay marriage, then where is the line drawn? Any two consenting adults, or three, or more? A man and his 18 year plus daughter(s) or a woman and her son(s)? It sounds awful to consider these arrangements, but the logic that validates gay marriage also validates all arrangements. You can use the gay marriage logic to the extreme. Who's business is it anyway if someone wishes to marry a favorite pet?
27 posted on 12/01/2003 8:47:50 PM PST by Goodwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Actually there are quite a few freepers who aren't on the "save marriage by having the government regulate it" bandwagon. Personally, I just want the government totally out of the marriage business -- straight, gay, polygamous, whatever -- it's none of the government's business.
28 posted on 12/01/2003 8:48:02 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yevgenie
Great sites... thanks!
29 posted on 12/01/2003 8:48:10 PM PST by panther33 (Proud to be an American, embarrassed to be a Californian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
You were bringing up the point that it discriminates against them. And I would say yes, if it were race, creed, religion, or nationality, it would be discrimination. But here I see it as we're talking about discriminating against an act
30 posted on 12/01/2003 8:50:00 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
I agree, the Bible is quite clear when it comes to homosexuality. But as I stated before, one cannot base a government founded on "freedom of religion" with quotes from the Bible. I'm looking for other arguments against homosexuality.

Thanks for the verse, though... I'm bookmarking it in my own Bible.
31 posted on 12/01/2003 8:50:05 PM PST by panther33 (Proud to be an American, embarrassed to be a Californian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
I agree. I do draw the line when it comes to children. And incest for health reasons.
32 posted on 12/01/2003 8:51:03 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Goodwen
So what's the problem with all those arrangements if free citizens choose to enter into them? The government doesn't need to sanction those arrangements any more than it needs to sanction traditional one-man-one-woman marriages. Goofy stuff like marrying one's pet won't catch on widely, and it's hardly going to be the downfall of civilization if a few nuts and attention-seekers do it.
33 posted on 12/01/2003 8:51:13 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Dittos, Hodar.

Any non-Bible related ideas? Right now I'm just grasping at straws.
34 posted on 12/01/2003 8:51:26 PM PST by panther33 (Proud to be an American, embarrassed to be a Californian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Sorry, I must repectfully disagree.
35 posted on 12/01/2003 8:52:13 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: panther33
A couple of thoughts -

1. Start with Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperative" - the morality of an action can be tested, even in the absence of belief in a supreme being, by universalizing it hypothetically - "Would it still be good if everyone did it?" In the case of gay marriage, it is clear that it fails this test; aside from promiscuity and disease, it would lead to the collapse of society in one generation as no one would be having children.

2. You could approach it using Darwin's theory of evolution; if they can't reproduce, they can't evolve...;)

3. From a social utility point of view, the fundamental purpose of society is to grow and prosper; it is in civil society's interest to encourage the formation of stable uclear families as they tend to be self-reliant and pass similar values on to offspring. As for the benefits conferred on married couples, they are, for the most part, intended to allow couple the option of staying at home to raise a family (for instance health care benefits) - in a relationship that cannot have natural children, arguably both should be working, obviating the need for family health care.

4. Ultimately, homosexual marriage is an attack on the family; by claiming equality with normal family structures, it elevates itself and lowers the other.

Good luck!
36 posted on 12/01/2003 8:52:42 PM PST by bt_dooftlook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
I am consequently faced with a perplexing dilemma: to argue a moral issue without injecting religion.

Incidentally, the way this issue was addressed in the time of the Constitutional framers was from the perspective of Natural Law. A little research into that topic should serve you well.

37 posted on 12/01/2003 8:52:50 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
At the national level yes you are right. However at the state level, that has not always been the case, even after the signing of the Constitution

38 posted on 12/01/2003 8:52:57 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Chummy
if a species practiced homosexuality and the majority in the species accepted the practice, what would the odds be for the longterm viability of the species?

Since only about 2% of the population is homosexual, and some of them do have biological children, the effect of homosexuality on the long term population is most likely negligible

39 posted on 12/01/2003 8:52:58 PM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Panther,

It is more than a matter of morality--it is a matter of the continuation of the human race. In most areas, it is easy to see how any particular behavior can approved or disapprove: just ask how the human race would fare if everyone practiced it. What would happen if everyone stole? We would have chaos. And in the case of gay marriage, what would happen if everyone did it? The human race would cease to exist. It really is that simple. So the state should not endorse any behavior which is against the continuation of the human race. They may not see it that way, but fact is fact.
40 posted on 12/01/2003 8:52:59 PM PST by DennisR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Way I look at it is...homosexuality does nothing for the betterment or advancement of the human race in general.

Nature decided things early on.

A penis was designed, either way, to fit into a vagina for the express purpose of procreation. Nothing else. The pleasure part of it is a result of the inherent "rightness" of procreation.

If nature approved of anal intercourse we would be capable of self impregnation and gestation.

My religious view is quite vehement and strong. I think that the Lord turning all those heathens to pillars of salt was way to lenient.

Marriage should be defined by the ability to procreate thru natural means.
41 posted on 12/01/2003 8:54:35 PM PST by Stopislamnow (Islam-Founded by Evil, and thriving on death. Just like the demonrat party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Thats a tough arguement without injecting religion into it. I'd try to just mess with thier minds and show thier own bias's. "If Rush Limbaugh wants to marry Bill ORielly , would you be against them adopting 3 or 4 kids? Seriously, would you?" This should be cause for pause or a flat out "No!" in response. Will these "unions" have to be between Liberal Democrats only? If Micheal Jackson is found innocent should he and Al Frankin finally tie the knot? These may not be much help in a real debate, but the "religious Right" has been portrayed so often as humourless sheep that the lefties are unprepared to be laughed at or confused. There is plenty of hatred and bias on the left to expose and exploit so don't forget to show them the mirror. You are basing your arguments on 2000 years of teaching and tradition. They invented this 3 yrs ago.Try...... "Would you be more willing to support a Democrat, against Gay marriage, who is a shoe-in for the office, or support a sure loser who is for it?"
42 posted on 12/01/2003 8:54:37 PM PST by singletrack (..............................................................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Why should you need a license from the government to enter into a marriage in accordance with your religious beliefs? And why should anybody need a license from the government to enter into any kind of cohabiting and/or sexual relationship in accordance with their beliefs?

The legalities of marriage reinforce a traditional institution which is a cornerstone of civilization. We have not evolved beyond the need to have civilization-bearing institituions. To survive, they need to be important and held in esteem by a plurality of people.

As far as people cohabiting in the sexual relationship of their choice, I am in agreement: that is their business.

For the strength of the family in our nation, though, and for the continued health of traditional values, we should encourage one-man, one-woman marriages. It goes without saying that if we should encourage this existing traditional institution, it is a good idea for state governments to continue to take their accustomed role in doing so.

43 posted on 12/01/2003 8:55:18 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: panther33
My personal feeling is gay marriage is simply a logical contradiction. Marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman. Just like 1 + 1 will never equal 3, two men or two women can never get married.

Having said that, the issue you're dealing with is quite a bit more difficult: because your pro-gay-marriage friends can simply counter "OK, for the sake of peace we will drop the attempt to call it 'marriage' and simply call it something else. But you must extend to us the same legal rights as a married couple." Honestly that's a tougher nut to crack. Personally I think that it is wise to begin strictly with the legal issue, and then move to the moral/social issue.

The legal issue is this: the Constitution of our government in no way requires gay unions to be recognized as equal to marriage. Nor, however, does it require gay unions not to be so recognized; it is silent on this issue altogether. In particular, I do not believe the equal protection clause can be used here: after all, if a gay man and a gay woman want to marry each other, they are perfectly entitled to do so under the law. Now I know that sounds absurd; but it follows logically from my previous argument about the very definition of marriage.

The social issue is, of course, whether monogomous marriage should be given special status compared to other unions. That's where the toughest argument lies---especially with those that do not accept the moral authority of Scripture. I think a possible line of attack is to suggest that the state's interest in limiting marriage to a man and a woman is in the acknowledgement that it is the best environment in which to raise a child. Of course, many damaged marriages are clearly no place to raise a child; and there are plenty of "family" structures that do not involve marriage in which children are successfully raised. Nonetheless I believe that it is intellectually dishonest for anyone not to concede that the ideal parental structure is that of a father and mother in a stable marriage. For that reason, the state does indeed have an interest in differentiating between marriage and other unions.

And even though we as a society have greatly weakend the institution of marriage through divorce, abuse, adultery, and so forth, that does not excuse the government from weakening its resolve to protect and defend the institution; on the contrary, it should work harder to preserve, uphold, and restore it.

The slippery slope argument is another angle of attack: that is, you could argue that if gay unions are recognized, then polygamous unions, incestuous unions, and so forth must be recognized as well, if there is full mutual consent among all parties. You might ask your pro-gay "marriage" compatriots where they would draw the line? Would they accept a mother marrying her own son (or daughter)? Honestly I don't think this is a particularly strong argument in itself, but it's a useful arrow in the quiver.

One argument is that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether: that all unions should simply be enforced by contract and not by a pre-determined legal framework. This is certainly the most libertarian and/or egalatarian approach. I do not agree with this simply because I do believe the state has an interest to uphold the institution that best serves its most defenseless constituents (children). Frankly it's just as destructive an option for our government to take.

Anyway, please forgive my verbosity. I'm just trying to give you whatever I can think of in short order. I'm sure I've missed something.

44 posted on 12/01/2003 8:55:31 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tazman3
PING

45 posted on 12/01/2003 8:56:49 PM PST by Sparkles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Marriage is a religious institution first. It is only a civil institution by virtue of the fact that certain civil authorities have recognized it as a good and useful instituition that benefits society at large. It was a religious commitment first. That governments have since recognized its usefulness as a basic foundation stone to a stable society is an interesting but yet peripheral aspect of an increasingly secular society.

If the idea of "marriage" no longer has any specific meaning then it loses all meaning. If it means that anybody that views themselves as "married" then there is no reason why it couldn't mean two couples, or two women and a man, or a brother/sister couple, or a brother/brother couple for that matter.

46 posted on 12/01/2003 8:58:01 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panther33
Panther, it seems Bogey has the closest answer to the situation. The state has the power to regulate the contract portion of marriage, but it has no power to set any standards for the religeous portion.

What gays are really after is entitlements granted to marriage spouses. In short they are after free money, out of straight pockets.

Perhaps pointing this out will put the gays on the defensive. You could offer to let them stipulate that they would refuse these benefits to prove their interest is only in religeous marriage. They would refuse, squalling "it's not faaaaiiir" proving your point.

47 posted on 12/01/2003 8:58:12 PM PST by Navy Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DennisR
And in the case of gay marriage, what would happen if everyone did it? The human race would cease to exist. It really is that simple. So the state should not endorse any behavior which is against the continuation of the human race. They may not see it that way, but fact is fact.

And what do you think the odds are of everyone, or even most, or even 10% of Americans entering into gay marriage?

It just isn't going to happen that way.

Your argument that the state should not allow anything but procreative sex would also require making birth control illegal

48 posted on 12/01/2003 8:58:34 PM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Stopislamnow
Marriage should be defined by the ability to procreate thru natural means

By that definition a post menopausal woman could not get married nor could a sterile male yet both are allowed to marry.

49 posted on 12/01/2003 8:58:37 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
More widely published reports instead rely upon a figure five times that, but please keep in mind you are considering the status quo and I am offering the lad (or lass) a hypothetical: what if? What if a species practiced homosexuality? In other words, homosexuality was not an aberration but that which was its accepted norm.

What would be the result?

What happens to your 2% -- or that greater number to which I refer -- if the species is pressured, perhaps politically over many years, to accept the practice and it grows to proportions that do have an adverse affect upon the society, both in its inability to reproduce naturally and the disease that results and spreads from its practice?

By definition, a homosexual cannot have a biological child unless something other than homosexuality is practiced to result in conception.
50 posted on 12/01/2003 8:59:17 PM PST by Chummy (Billary in Baghdad was for Political Purposes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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