Since you mentioned the possibility of refining your arguments, here is a critique of your answers and how they might be improved. Given that we generally don't agree, I'm not sure how useful they'll be to you, but hopefully a little at least.
1. Are same-sex relationships consistent with natural law? Explain.
Natural law is derived from human nature.
As presented, this is a False Statement. As usually defined, Natural Law is derived from nature in general, not human nature in specific. Natural Law should apply to non-human aliens, for example. Immanuel Kant used a “God’s Eye View” to illustrate this point: human culture and indeed human nature are largely irrelevant to Natural Law.
It was been well proven in science that same-sex attraction is a natural, biological phenomenon.
Citation or reference is needed. A stronger statement would be along the lines of “It has been well established by Dawkin et. al. that…” Faust’s examples might lead you to a good source to cite.
Some critics assert that homosexuals produce deleterious effects in cultures. These arguments are inflated symptoms of “moral panic,” as psychological studies have revealed no behavioral frailties beyond those of heterosexuals.
Citation or reference needed. What psychological studies? If you state a fact, be ready to provide a reference.
Homosexuals feel and have claim on all the facets of human nature that heterosexuals do, including love and a desire to bonded in matrimony. It so follows that they should be entitled to the rights and privileges extended to heterosexuals.
Hasty assumption/false dilemma. Assuming your above arguments are sound, you’ve merely shown that homosexuals and heterosexuals are deserving of the same rights and privileges, not that those are the rights and privileges both groups deserve are the ones that heterosexuals now enjoy. A better argument might be to illustrate why homosexuals are deserving
in their own right to be allowed to engage in same-sex relationships and marriages. Imagine a world in which there are no heterosexuals to tied the freedoms of homosexuality to.
If you are going to bring up marriage under natural law, you should also address if marriage itself is a result of natural law. If it is not, then you might want to move arguments pertaining to it to a different section.
Also, you would do well to address the Naturalistic Fallacy (just because something is natural doesn’t make it good or right). This would cut off counter arguments along the following lines: if attraction is natural, and being natural justifies that attraction, then by that logic any attraction that is natural is right, including being attracted to animals and children.
However, the Naturalistic Fallacy cuts both ways. Thus it might also be worth while bringing up the possibility of the reverse of the Naturalistic Fallacy (just because something is natural does not make it bad or wrong), which would point out the problem of the argument that “homosexuality is not natural.” This would provide a tension between Natural Law and Positive Law that you could build on if necessary.
To note, that which is natural may not agree with Natural Law. Thus the Naturalistic Fallacy is still relevant.
2. Do employees have a natural right to benefits? What are the moral implications of receiving benefits that are excluded from taxable income?
Employees probably do not have a natural right to benefits, but they do have a conventional right to them.
“Probably” is not a good way to start an argument. If you don’t want to address the possibility of “natural right to benefits,” simply point out that the question is a red herring as they have conventional rights to them which supersede natural rights, or something to that effect.
What you have here is a clever tactic and will shift the debate to grounds that others might not be prepared for, but don’t hedge yourself.
3. Would you support your benefits manager's recommendation? Explain your reasoning?
I would support his reasoning because of higher moral principles.
That statement is a little bit of an Appeal to Emotion, an Appeal to Motive, and an Appeal to Wealth (in this case, a wealth of principles, rather than a wealth of money) all rolled into one. Your entire case is stronger if you cut out this line.
I believe that homosexuals are humans just like heterosexuals, and should not be denied the economic advantages of partnership and love simply because of their sexual orientation. While it is possible for the manager to wait until the government legalizes same-sex marriage, I recognize that business—often more than government—is a driver of social policy. To extend benefits to domestic partners would be a bold, moral step in the right direction. It would also pressure moral change at other levels.
You should explain why a “bold, moral step in the right direction” is one that the company should take. Do businesses have an obligation to be altruistic, for example. Are there any selfish reasons that a company might take this approach (good PR in a target population, increased employee satisfaction, etc)?
4. If society opposes same-sex marriages, should the tax policy continue to oppose it?
…
The government should also extend them via recognition of freedom of religion which, for homosexuals, would include freedom from the religion of others, who seek to limit their rights.
False assumption: the First Amendment cannot reasonably apply here. We’ve already discussed this, but to be pertinent to this specific instance: did proposition 8 contain any wording that could not have conceivably come from an atheist? If it could have been penned by an atheist, freedom from religion cannot apply to the law itself, and trying to restrict voting rights never goes over well.
Given that homosexual marriage is illegal in China and was so in the USSR, it seems improper to identify it as a religious-only artifact. Indeed, given that it appears that children are naturally bigoted (
http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989), it seems more likely that religion is being used as an excuse, rather than a motivator. Even if you want to primarily blame religion, you need to have a larger scope to address possible non-religious arguments as well.
It might be more prudent to take a “conservative” approach to government. Should governments make laws that unnecessarily restrict the freedoms of the individual? If not, then in order to restrict the freedom of marriage, the government would first need to establish that doing so would promote justice, the general welfare, etc. One could well argue that any law that is not needed is a bad law, and that governments are supposed to be as unobtrusive as good and proper, and thus same-sex marriage should not be prohibited unless a legitimate reason is given. You’ll have, hopefully, already established that the common objections to it are false under your response to section 1. This way, even if someone were to try to argue that homosexuality is wrong, they’d still have to show that it is detrimental to society in general for laws against its free practice to be legitimate.
