Gay Marriage :D

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crusading_Canuk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crusading_Canuk

Guest
Hi, I am heavily involved in the different debating venues at school and around town. For the next few days I will be attending the Model UN at Mun and represnting the Holy See. The room I have been assigned is that on international gay rights. The resolutions move towards ending the (name removed by moderator)risonment, execution and killings of homosexuals and making EVERY country to have gay marriage. It also says it will respect religious opinions BUT gay marriage will be an unquestionable civil right . Please help me with some arguments to crush this. Also I need to avoid the topic of religion for most of it.
😃
 
How exactly are they planning on going about “making EVERY country to have gay marriage”?

Good luck telling China, Russia, or Iran what they must do, or even some democracies, thought the gay marriage crowd is never really about democracy so I guess that doesn’t matter, China or France, same thing, just tell them what they MUST do.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
Hi, I am heavily involved in the different debating venues at school and around town. For the next few days I will be attending the Model UN at Mun and represnting the Holy See. The room I have been assigned is that on international gay rights. The resolutions move towards ending the (name removed by moderator)risonment, execution and killings of homosexuals and making EVERY country to have gay marriage. It also says it will respect religious opinions BUT gay marriage will be an unquestionable civil right . Please help me with some arguments to crush this. Also I need to avoid the topic of religion for most of it.
😃
Click to expand...
Why would you want to “crush” these resolutions?

These resolutions apply to secular laws – they even specifically say that they respect religious opinions – and they’re all good things: they prevent governments from punishing or denying rights to people simply because those people have a different sexual preference than the majority of the population.

You can personally or religiously dislike something but also acknowledge that it shouldn’t be punished by secular law.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
Hi, I am heavily involved in the different debating venues at school and around town. For the next few days I will be attending the Model UN at Mun and represnting the Holy See. The room I have been assigned is that on international gay rights. The resolutions move towards ending the (name removed by moderator)risonment, execution and killings of homosexuals and making EVERY country to have gay marriage. It also says it will respect religious opinions BUT gay marriage will be an unquestionable civil right . Please help me with some arguments to crush this. Also I need to avoid the topic of religion for most of it.
😃
Click to expand...
This can be addressed in a number of ways. First I would ask how gays are entitled to rights not granted to others. The very mention of “gay rights” suggest that gays are entitled to rights others dont have otherwise theres no need to differentiate betwen “gay” rights and anyone elses. That violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. We already have “hate crimes” which punish the perpetrators more harshly if the victim is from a “protected class” in this case meaning that when a gay is assaulted its more injureous to them then to other people. REALLY???

As for gay “marriage” I would challenge its proponents to cite just one example of a gay person being denied a license to marry someone of the opposite sex because of their sexual orientation. If the law says a marriage is between a man an a woman and it is applied to EVERYONE regardless of their sexual orientation then by definition it cant be discriminatory. The ONLY way for the law to be discriminatory is with an example as I suggested above.

But people will say gays dont WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex. My response is “So”? The state which is the one that issues the license never asks if you WANT to marry the person and is therefore not a condition of being granted a marriage license renderingthat argument irrelveant
 
I doubt it is possible to prove that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed through mere secular arguments. I suppose you could state that the definition of marriage is a legal and spiritual union of two people of opposite sexes. But if you look up marriage in MW Dictionary it has one definition that allows for same sex marriage. Don’t you just love how because one group of people start using a term a certain way, it then becomes an acceptable meaning of the word? But outside of that group of people marriage only means a marriage of two people of the opposite sex. The latter group can’t recognize gay marriage because it doesn’t fit their definition. Why should they be forced to? Even if gay marriage was legal that wouldn’t force anyone to believe that it was an actual marriage.
 
ADouglass said:
I doubt it is possible to prove that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed through mere secular arguments. I suppose you could state that the definition of marriage is a legal and spiritual union of two people of opposite sexes. But if you look up marriage in MW Dictionary it has one definition that allows for same sex marriage. Don’t you just love how because one group of people start using a term a certain way, it then becomes an acceptable meaning of the word? But outside of that group of people marriage only means a marriage of two people of the opposite sex. The latter group can’t recognize gay marriage because it doesn’t fit their definition. Why should they be forced to? Even if gay marriage was legal that wouldn’t force anyone to believe that it was an actual marriage.
Click to expand...
I believe there is a way to argue against it from a secular position. The state has an interest in self preservation to which mixed gender marraige contributes and makes it wholely appropriate for the govt to sanction. I could epand or you could read a bit more below in another one of my posts.
 
AntiTheist said:
Why would you want to “crush” these resolutions?

These resolutions apply to secular laws – they even specifically say that they respect religious opinions – and they’re all good things: they prevent governments from punishing or denying rights to people simply because those people have a different sexual preference than the majority of the population.

You can personally or religiously dislike something but also acknowledge that it shouldn’t be punished by secular law.
Click to expand...
Who is being punished by defining marriage as between one man and one woman? If mariage is a right then so is driving a car and having a job.
 
ignatius777 said:
No offense but I am not signing up for anything to read a reference and certainly not to a non catholic site.
Click to expand...
none taken. The site is indeed Christian, and the writer a prominent Christian philosopher who is perfectly orthodox and experienced in debating heathens and skeptics. I suspect you would find it interesting and useful if you would read it.
 
AntiTheist said:
These resolutions apply to secular laws – they even specifically say that they respect religious opinions – and they’re all good things: they prevent governments from punishing or denying rights to people simply because those people have a different sexual preference than the majority of the population.
Click to expand...
I would go with this line, but interpreted differently. First, no one is being “denied rights” just because his or her state does not recognize some newly invented social category (in this case, “gay marriage”) which he or she would like to apply to him- or herself. On the contrary, people are in fact being denied their right to self-government if they are pressured by the UN to accept the imposition of these newly invented social categories into their own sovereign systems of law. Further, such an imposition has no justifiable or even remotely reasonable basis within the basic mandate of the UN (and please remember: that is the context for your question - UN officials are not there to just do whatever they feel like).
 
Betterave said:
First, no one is being “denied rights” just because there is no state recognition of some newly invented social category (in this case, “gay marriage”) which he or she would like to apply to him- or herself.
Click to expand...
:yup:
 
**On the specific topic of gay “marriage” in EVERY country.

I think perhaps the best argument here is simply this.**
It violates the sovereignty of a country to impose a marriage law, and the UN cannot impose such a law on any particular country. Each country under international law is sovereign and according to its sovereign rights no foreign force can impose a law. Thus making the whole proposition that EVERY country can be made to impose this preposterous law simply that, preposterous, borderign on illegal. The best they could legally come up with is a voluntary resolution on the topic.

This also brings up a secondary argument that not all countries hold to western secular sociological values. For example islamic countries and many countries in the developing world hold to a mucch more conservative moral standard than much of the west. Likewise they are culturally different. Combining this with the issue of national sovereigty seeking to impose gay marriage universally despite the cultural and societal differences throughout the world in addition to violating the principle of sovereignty is cultural imperialism and an imposition on anothers society by a foreign force to further enforce a colonialistic western mindset.

To finish up only to conclude should you add a religious element to the debate by mentioning that many countries, societies such as those of islamic states and many christian states would be averse to accepting such a law, making such a forced imposition not only legally shoddy due to violations of sovereignty, but also culturally imperialistic and unenforcable.
Hope this helps smash that particular godless agenda:D
 
Jehoshua said:
**On the specific topic of gay “marriage” in EVERY country.

I think perhaps the best argument here is simply this.**
It violates the sovereignty of a country to impose a marriage law, and the UN cannot impose such a law on any particular country. Each country under international law is sovereign and according to its sovereign rights no foreign force can impose a law. Thus making the whole proposition that EVERY country can be made to impose this preposterous law simply that, preposterous, borderign on illegal. The best they could legally come up with is a voluntary resolution on the topic.

This also brings up a secondary argument that not all countries hold to western secular sociological values. For example islamic countries and many countries in the developing world hold to a mucch more conservative moral standard than much of the west. Likewise they are culturally different. Combining this with the issue of national sovereigty seeking to impose gay marriage universally despite the cultural and societal differences throughout the world in addition to violating the principle of sovereignty is cultural imperialism and an imposition on anothers society by a foreign force to further enforce a colonialistic western mindset.

To finish up only to conclude should you add a religious element to the debate by mentioning that many countries, societies such as those of islamic states and many christian states would be averse to accepting such a law, making such a forced imposition not only legally shoddy due to violations of sovereignty, but also culturally imperialistic and unenforcable.
Hope this helps smash that particular godless agenda:D
Click to expand...
👍👍👍

Quite agree that he should conclude with a religious element to his arguments. Afterall, he is representing the Holy See.
 
Sorry for the double post but how does the UN expect to force the Holy See to adopt gay marriage. Last i checked religion was synonymous with this sovereign entity and I would hedge my entire life savings that it would never adopt a policy for gay marriage.

Especially since its only a UN observer by choice and not a full voting member. The UN cant force anything on anyone who’s not a part of the UN. (although reality may be distorted for your model UN’s purpese). Either way though the UN has no authority to impose a domestic law on any nation. If it ever wanted to go up this particular route the only thing it could legally do would put forth a voluntary resolution on the topic (which would only get the people who already have gay marriage on board)
 
Jehoshua said:
Sorry for the double post but how does the UN expect to force the Holy See to adopt gay marriage. Last i checked religion was synonymous with this sovereign entity and I would hedge my entire life savings that it would never adopt a policy for gay marriage.

Especially since its only a UN observer by choice and not a full voting member. The UN cant force anything on anyone who’s not a part of the UN. (although reality may be distorted for your model UN’s purpese). Either way though the UN has no authority to impose a domestic law on any nation. If it ever wanted to go up this particular route the only thing it could legally do would put forth a voluntary resolution on the topic (which would only get the people who already have gay marriage on board)
Click to expand...
You did grasp that this is a make-believe scenario, right? The UN isn’t actually talking about doing this, this is a school-age debating group…
 
Of course i got that its a school age model UN. If you read my post you would find I even said that in the post. 🙂

It is simply easier considering the style of a model UN to talk in such a manner as is used at such events.
 
danserr said:
none taken. The site is indeed Christian, and the writer a prominent Christian philosopher who is perfectly orthodox and experienced in debating heathens and skeptics. I suspect you would find it interesting and useful if you would read it.
Click to expand...
Then I shall indeed check it out
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
Hi, I am heavily involved in the different debating venues at school and around town. For the next few days I will be attending the Model UN at Mun and represnting the Holy See. The room I have been assigned is that on international gay rights. The resolutions move towards ending the (name removed by moderator)risonment, execution and killings of homosexuals and making EVERY country to have gay marriage. It also says it will respect religious opinions BUT gay marriage will be an unquestionable civil right . Please help me with some arguments to crush this. Also I need to avoid the topic of religion for most of it.
😃
Click to expand...
CC:

Betterave is right: the auspices of the UN is to provide for the peace by being a mediator between peoples or countries who have internal or inter-nation squabbles. It may do this in several ways including but not limited to forces on the ground. Further, its purpose is to coordinate the distribution of aid where needed. Go read its charter. It has no mandate, purpose, or permission to strong-arm any country that wishes to not have a law that allows gay marriage, although it most likely has a duty to try to persuade countries that kill or inter gays not to continue doing so.

Doing anything more would be a violation of their charter, their mandate, and their up-front promises to each and every country that signed on.

God bless,
jd
 
For Catholics, gay and married is oxymoronic. Period.

So, the Catholic Church is not going to recognize a civil ceremony describing itself as a marriage, if the union is two or more of the same sex.

Sadly, some other Christian organizations will recognize [or even participate in] homosexual unions, as marriages.

The New Testament is replete with admonishment of homosexual behavior.

God speaks of homosexuality as a behavioral issue, not a genetically natural occurrence.

But, should it ever be determined as being genetically sourced, the biological anomaly will not alter the opposition of God and His Church to it.

Homosexuals need to remain actively celibate, should homosexual inclination remain as their only sexual expression.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top