Help! (Teen losing debates on gay marriage)

[little jeremiah]

Neither did unions between blacks and whites but we stopped making that illegal.

You keep comparing mixed race marriages to same sex marriages. Doesn't hold water, mixed race marriages were illegal for a relatively short period of time in some - not all - geographic locations. Marriage has meant man+woman since time immemorial, all over the globe without exception. The only variation is that some cultures have permitted polygamy, which is still man+women.

Second, your acceptance of same-sex marriage is based on the false premise that "gay" is an unchangeable identity such as "Black" or "Chinese" or "Caucasian". All those categories are morally neutral and also unchangeable. Being "gay" is based SOLEY on voluntary behavior. The many "ex-gays" are testimony to this.

Once special recognition, rights and so on are granted to a changing group indentified solely by their chosen methods of sexual gratification, where does it stop?

[little jeremiah]

The definition of discrimination has been misunderstood to mean "necessarily and arbitrarily unfair." This is because most of us first encountered the term in the context of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is actually one of the very few forms of discrimination that is "necessarily and arbitrarily unfair."

Excellent point. Used to be, a person of fine intelligence would be called a "discriminating" person, because he or she had the wits to discern the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, useful or useless, in different fields.

Someone with no discriminating powers wouldn't know what to eat and what not to eat, what to drink and what not to drink, who is a good potential spouse and who is a mass murderer, etc.

[mcg1969]

I have little doubt that younger gay males are more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, but some of the statistics quoted on this site are so huge as to be laughable--they sound more like exaggerated boasts, and they often come from interviews at AIDS clinic and therefore are totally atypical. To be fair, it could be that the statistics seem inflated because they are quoting a mean number of partners instead of a median. If you quote a mean, then a few men who are astronomically promiscuous can make every man seem so. A median, or even better a breakdown by percentage of how many men have 1 partner, <5 partners, <10 partners, <100 partners, etc. would be much more informative and honest.

[mcg1969]

As far as promiscuity is concerned, I'd say gay men are as promiscuous as straight men would be if the opportunity arose.

This is actually a very interesting point. Perhaps, because heterosexual men are pursuing women, they generally have less opportunity to be promiscuous---because women are generally less so. Thus women constitute a corrective factor against male promiscuity; and when thta corrective factor is circumvented by homosexuality, it blooms fully. (Again I mean to speak in generalities here and not characterize every gay man or straight man).

Incidentally, Darkbloom, while I am firmly in the "anti"-gay-marriage camp, I am purposefully choosing to respond only to these tangential points because I've already elaborated my position rather fully in this thread, and because sex is not part of my argument.

[little jeremiah]

I am only saying that it's reasonable for some of our laws to be motivated by moral principles that have religious origins.

Actually, as evidenced by the 10 Commandments continuing controversy, most basic laws are based originally on some kind of scriptural reference, if one looks back in time. There are only two foundations for deciding what is legal and what is illegal - i.e., what is right, and what is wrong:

1. Moral absolutes as coming from the basic religions of the world (and they pretty much agree on the basics).

2. Peoples' minds and desires - and they disgree wildly on every point, so majority rules - EXCEPT when a handful of judges rule by fiat, as in the United States of America (and many other countries).

So when moral absolutes as informed by the religions of the world are rejected by the secularists, everything gets boiled down to one edict:

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

In other words, totalitarianism. For example, Communism kicked out religion, and erected the State as the absolute instead.

[farmfriend]

You keep comparing mixed race marriages to same sex marriages.

Yes I do and I have been told how offensive this is. For any perceived offense I would apologize. Those who know me know my heart is in the right place.

Being "gay" is based SOLEY on voluntary behavior.

There is scientific evidence to contradict this assumption. Hence my comparison.

1. There are documented differences in the brain structure of gay men. They examined the structure of, I believe the hypothalamus, under the microscope. Straight men have little holes in the structure. Gay men and women do not have these holes.

2. There were studies done in Germany on rats that showed stress during gestation caused problems with the hormone release in the fetus. They ended up with gay rats.

So for now I will stay with the science.

[little jeremiah]

Regarding the use of the word "theocracy", I'd like to include Webster's definition, to straighten out some misconceptions:

"A government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials regarded as divinely guided". Another definition I've read (don't have it word for word) is government by unelected members of religious heirarchy.

A government with laws based on moral absolutes as given by the religions of the world is NOT a theocracy. This misuse of the word "theocracy" is a ploy by secularists to make people feel that any reference to moral absolutes is siding with the Taliban and primitivism.

What secularists want is to reject out-of-hand ANY reference to moral absolutes, with specific regard to anything that has the slightest scent of morality originating from religion. They are really absolute about their relativism.

In fact, they are hypocrites, because they want to impose their total lack of moral absolutism upon the rest of us by force. And their supposedly "moral relativism" is just as, if not more so, absolutist as moral absolutes stemming originally from religious codes. They are just the inverse of them.

[TalBlack]

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

It doesn't MATTER what They choose to beleive or not beleive. The Book or rather the Author of The Book IS the source of our rights, and from that our power. The people who framed our Law (and the rest who lifted America above all nations of the globe) SAID THIS IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, THEY PUT IT IN WRITING, ITS CALLED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE CONSTITUTION and THE FEDERALIST PAPERS! It is the gay marrige side that is offensive to reason.

This Nation once understood that God has designed the Earth and all life here and He has laid down what it will do and cannot do. They respected this law and understood that He built it into the very nature of the Human Being. To defy Him is to leave your own nature and doing so leaves you and your society suseptible to eventual destruction IN THIS THE PHYSICAL WORLD much less the judgment day. As I said, this was understood once by ALL.

What it comes down to is this: This argument is over is a moral fundamental of EACH side. If you give in to them you destroy yourself and your world. If you believe them when they speak of the harmlesness of gay marrige you have rejected your Faith in God.

Unfortunatly this is their society as much as yours so it MUST one day come to blows. This is sad but there is no alternative. They are ones who have supplanted God in their own calculations and their arrogance and hubris is observed in that they dismiss 5000 years of human understanding with not so much as a second thought.
They will not let you turn the other cheek or hate the sin but love the sinner because they are in their oun minds gods and gods will not be dismissed.

They are in fact the enbodiment of Evil on earth. Hitler was not Evil for his deeds, as most people seem to think, rather he was Evil because he replaced God in his own mind. (german soldiers took an oath to Hitler, NOT to God or even Germany) Hitler thought he had the right to do the things he did.
You must serve somebody. That is an edict of Gods one of the thing He has built into nature and as such none of us may opt out. If you don't serve Heaven you in fact serve Hell.

The above is not an argument but the basis of one. It will fall on deaf ears because they have rejected an authority higher than themselves. You CAN'T argue with that sort of person. Do a web serch on the subject of Gay marrige, that will provide plenty of ammo for you. Keep on sticking it to them. It will be hard but it is an act of Faith. They will eventually try to literally destroy you because gods don't-- WON'T suffer opposition but only God knows how far off that particular day is. Keep up the Good Fight! Yours Joe D.

[little jeremiah]

1. There are documented differences in the brain structure of gay men. They examined the structure of, I believe the hypothalamus, under the microscope. Straight men have little holes in the structure. Gay men and women do not have these holes.

Have you taken the time to read any of scripter's links to these studies? The articles he has compiled tear your argument to bits. The study you are referring to was on a very few number of corpses, the researcher was an avowed homosexual whose aim was to pursposely find a difference between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals, he wasn't even sure about the previous sexual behavior of all the corpses, his findings were inconclusive, no one has ever been able to duplicate his dubious "findings", and even he later admitted that there no proof in his own study.

And one study about rats - I'm sorry, it means nothing. Especially in the face of thousands of EX-homosexuals.

The truth is that homosexual behavior is just that - behavior. It may be very impelling for a lot of people, but many have changed their "orientation".

I have seen interviews with homosexuals who admit that they chose to be homosexuals, it was a decision. And even if a person feels attraction to their own sex, they can still decide whether to act on that attaction. Everyone has at one time or another felt sexual attraction to someone who was not an appropriate partner.

Why on Earth should people who choose to perform specific sex acts be accorded any kind of special legal status?

[mcg1969]

And there are physiological differences that determine a predisposition to alcoholism as well; and yet nobody is born an alcoholic. They become one by virtue of the choices they make.

[Stew Padasso]

Tell him that there are more important things to argue for instead of gay marriages.

[jwalsh07]

So for now I will stay with the science.

Then you should investigate twinning and figure out why there is not a 100% correlation between fraternal twins in their "choice" of sexuality.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Mixed race marriages were against the law because it was believed the races shouldn't mix. We do not defend the justness of that law but we can understand why it existed. Have you seen the film about the Australian blacks Rabbit-Proof Fence? Not a great film, but interesting for a historical perspective. The laws governing race were unjust, yet Kenneth Branagh's good performance portrayed as reasonable in a sense what the whites were trying to accomplish. They were trying to preserve a social fabric. They were convinced the aborigines would lose their culture through inter-marriage.

Just because the fears motivating such legislation in the past proved eventually to be unhelpful, doesn't mean our reluctance to change the definition of marriage OR to legislate equality of gay unions is wrong now.

[farmfriend]

I will check out the links. It has always been my intent to deal with this issue based on science and equality. This is not an emotional issue for me, though I feel it is for many posting on this thread.

[RobbyS]

The term "gay" originally meant the same as libertine. A rake such as John Kennedy is as likely to be unfaithful as any homosexual. But homosexual marriage? Can you think of any historical example of it? It was an important part of the Old Greek life style, but it fit into a traditional family structure. The idea of a homosexual "community" seems to be an entirely modern development.

[farmfriend]

Just because the fears motivating such legislation in the past proved eventually to be unhelpful, doesn't mean our reluctance to change the definition of marriage OR to legislate equality of gay unions is wrong now.

You could be right but I would rather err on the side of granting rights than denying them.

[jwalsh07]

Certainly it's an emotional issue. Emotions boil over when courts ignore the Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government.

I oppose any redefinition of marriage but I oppose judicial oligarchy much more than that.

The courts have given us thirty years of culture war due to Roe and now they have fueled the flames with Lawrence and Goodridge. Whatever side of the issue one comes down on, we should all be able to agree that the courts should not force policy and mores down the throats of unreceptive Americans. It is neither their charge nor their duty.

[farmfriend]

I oppose any redefinition of marriage but I oppose judicial oligarchy much more than that. The courts have given us thirty years of culture war due to Roe and now they have fueled the flames with Lawrence and Goodridge.

It's even worse when you get into the property rights issues. The way the courts legislate environmental issues to the enrichment of wealthy foundations giving money to environmental groups to eliminate domestic competition to their foreign interests is enough to make you throw up.