Help! (Teen losing debates on gay marriage)

[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?

[lilylangtree]

Here's a note to debate: Queers can't procreate; they recruit.

[gobucks]

Darkbloom - this is my public response (had some help from other posters, so thanks to all freepers) to your LIES charge:

66 percent of gay men report having sex with more than one partner in the first year of a "committed" relationship. Within 5 years, over 90 percent of all men have had sex with other men. SOURCE: GAY COUPLES by Joesph Harry, published 1984 p.116 Praeger Books.

A far-ranging study published in 1978 revealed that 75% of self-identified, white, gay men, admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime, with 28% claiming more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Alan P. Bell and Marin S. Weinberg, HOMOSEXUALITIES: A STUDY OF DIVERSITY AMONG MEN AND WOMEN 308, Table 7 (1978).

A study published in 1997 produced similar results: of 2,583 homosexuals, only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only; the most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having 101 to 500 lifetime sex partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older HomosexuallyActive Men, J. SEX RESEARCH 34 (1997).


The U.S. Centers for Disease Control similarly reported an upswing in promiscuity in San Francisco: from 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25. See John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., The Health Risks of Gay Sex (available at www.corporateresourcecouncil.org) (citing Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex With Men – San Francisco, California, 1994-1997, MORTALITY AND MORBIDITY WEEKLY REPORT, CDC, 48(3): 45-48, p. 45 (Jan. 29, 1999)); see also Erica Goode, With Fears Fading, More Gays Spurn Old Preventive Message, NEW YORK TIMES, August 19, 2001 (in the past seven years, while the practice of anal sex had increased, with multi-partner sex doubling, condom use had declined 20 percent).
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org - go the the white papers

A 1994 survey of 2500 homosexual men published in the August 23, 1994 issue of THE ADVOCATE revealed that in the past five years 48% of the men had engaged in “three-way sex” and 24% had engaged in “group sex (four or more). See more at:
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/issues/homosexuality/TheAgenda/InTheirOwnWords.html

A long-term monogamous relationship also has a different meaning among those who engage in homosexual conduct. “Gay magazines are . . . celebrating the bigger bang of sex with strangers or proposing ‘monogamy without fidelity’ – the latest Orwellian formulation to excuse having your cake and eating it too.” Camille Paglia, I’ll Take Religion Over Gay Culture, Salon.com online magazine, June 1998 (available at http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/paglia/gayculture.htm).

Another author praises gay male couples for realizing that sexual fidelity is not necessary to show their love for each other and advocates that gay male couples can “provide models and materials for rethinking family life and improving family law.” Richard D. Mohr, In The Case for Gay Marriage, 9 NOTRE DAME J. L. ETHICS & PUB. POL’Y 215, 233 (1995). A recent study reveals that although 46% of gay men attending “circuit parties” claimed to have a “primary partner”, 27% of those men “had multiple sex partners(oral or anal) during their most recent circuit party weekend . . . .” Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., The Circuit Party Men’s Health Survey Findings and Implications for Gay and Bisexual Men, AM. J. OF PUB. HEALTH 91(6): 953-58(June 2001).

Given these staggering statistics of sexual promiscuity, the number of diseases that are found predominantly (and in some instances, exclusively) among homosexual practitioners comes as no surprise. Although nearly 64% of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men, Basic Statistics, CDC DIVISION OF HIV/AIDS PREVENTION, June 2001 (available at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm), the list of diseases found with higher incidence among those engaged in homosexual conduct does not stop there. “Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases.” Bill Roundy, STD Rates on the Rise, NEW YORK BLADE NEWS 1, Dec. 15, 2000 (“the increased number of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness”); see also Jon Garbo, Gayand Bi Men Less Lik ely to Disclose They Have HIV, GAYHEALTH NEWS, July 18, 2000 (researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that 36% of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex p a r t n e r s ) (a v a i l a b l e a t http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/0/news?record=136).

The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal sex include: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis,cryptosporidium, giardia lablia, herpes simplex virus, HIV, HPV, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C, syphilis. John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., The Health Risks of GaySex 3 available at http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org). “Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). Another disease found almost exclusively among homosexual practitioners is “Gay Bowel Syndrome” – “sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes.” STD Treatment Guidelines: Proctitis, Procto-colitis,and Enteritis, (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1993) (available at http://www.ama-assn.org/special/std/treatmnt/guide/stdg3470.htm); see also Jack Morin, ANAL PLEASURE AND HEALTH: A GUIDE FOR MEN AND WOMEN 22 (1998) (explaining that homosexual sexual activities “provide many opportunities for tiny amounts of contaminated feces to find their way into the mouth of the sexual partner . . . the most direct route is oral-anal contact”).

ALL THIS - LIES? I suspect that all of the information listed here, and in all of these other hits in response to the one question by this teen, you view as some kind of vast conspiracy. If so, let's see your counter proofs. Let's see the data that show how the homosexual culture has benefited the United States.

[gobucks]

"Also, one earlier poster gave you a rather long piece of advice that seemed to boil down to "Don't argue with non-believers," and he presumably thinks you should join some Amish community and have no contact with the outside world. I doubt from what you have said that you are about to do that. "

Darkbloom, I suspect you mean my post where I said the gay marriage was a trojan horse for polygamy, and the destruction of the true greek meaning of the word "holy".

This is what astonished me though: your reference to the AMISH. You're on the right track there Darkbloom though I suspect you meant to insult by association. The Amish are a "holy" separate people (though not more perfect than anyone else of course).

You need to rent the DVD, "Devil's Playground". Being gay is, in effect, a life spent in rumspringer, that period where Amish teens are fully released into the world to be as "English" as they want. Its unreal what they end up doing. One of the BEST religious DVD's around...

Panther33 - in the end, you should look at the HUGE volume in response to your post and recognize one thing. People are animated most, MOST, by religion, by their "faith system" regardless of what symbols they use to represent it. Gay marriage is connected to religion. Strive to "get" that part, and the context of what the agenda behind gay marriage is striving for will begin to make sense.

Have you ever heard there is a god-shaped hole in the heart of every man and woman - and our lives are spent daily in the pursuit of trying to fill it?

Some of us get it really, really wrong in the act of trying...

[Violette]

It isn't about "stability". It is about what happens if there are children and this committed relationship dissolves. How will the children's interests be protected? How will it be decided who has custody? What about inheritance in the case of the death of both parents? Yes, part of it is having society accept them as a married couple, but more importantly are the legal protections that need to be afforded to them.

[Violette]

sex for any other purpose than reproduction of the species is hedonistic. So what is the point?

[Violette]

Yes, what you say is correct, but the courts do not have the right to interfere in this act between two consenting adults. And the thing about humans is that we learn how to do that which is dangerous "safely".

It is not safe to jump out of airplanes, but we wear parachutes to ensure a safe landing. It doesn't work 100% of the time, but it has a good record. That is why one wears a condom, to practice safe sex (homosexuals and heterosexuals)

[Violette]

Why is a heterosexual couple more qualified than a homosexual couple to raise children?

[NutCrackerBoy]

Scientific studies confirm the common sense notion that children do best with a mother and a father. Don't you think we, as a society, should encourage the conventional family as much as possible?

That is not to say that is 100% achievable, but we do what we can.

[Violette]

"66 percent of gay men report having sex with more than one partner in the first year of a "committed" relationship. Within 5 years, over 90 percent of all men have had sex with other men. SOURCE: GAY COUPLES by Joesph Harry, published 1984 p.116 Praeger Books."

These guys aren't promiscuous because they are homosexual, they are promiscuous because they are men. Men have a very strong sex drive, for the most part.

But I'm curious what the promiscuity rate is among gay women. Did your sourse say what it was? I would guess that it is much lower.

[Violette]

"Don't you think we, as a society, should encourage the conventional family as much as possible"

Sure, but more importantly I believe that we should encourage accountability, loyalty, fidelity, responsibility, compassion, a willingness to understand others, respect for bounderies and differences of opinions. I think that these things are the most important. There are a ton of single parents out there. They need to be supported and encouraged, as do homosexual couples with children.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Sure, but more importantly I believe that we should encourage accountability, loyalty, fidelity, responsibility, compassion, a willingness to understand others, respect for bounderies and differences of opinions.

Those are certainly virtues to admire and encourage in any way possible. How do we best do that? It doesn't happen naturally. It requires civilization, it requires institutions that help to pass morality from generation to generation.

Institutions change. Slowly. This push for gay marriage or unions is well-intentioned I'm sure. But the push is well-intentioned (and high-powered) political maneuvering by people who have no idea what makes civilizations tick.

Institutions must also have an ability to resist change. I do not wish anything bad for those 4% of the population who are gay. But this is not a healthy change for the institution of marriage itself. In my opinion.

[Jorge]

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.

So in other words you make no distinctions when it comes to the definition of marriage?
...other than *if you don't like it, don't do it*?

[cyborg]

I don't care. I really don't. I will get married one day and hopefully have a family. I know what I want and what God wants for me. If other people don't want to listen to God's advice that's their business.

[Jorge]

By definition, a homosexual cannot have a biological child unless something other than homosexuality is practiced to result in conception.

True. But besides the fact that homosexual parenthood is artificial, the physical sexual characteristics make male-female the only logical and biologically compatible union possible.

This isn't just a question of allowing people to be with the person of their choice, or one of religious conviction but one of demanding everybody accept that the definition of marraige include obviously biologically unnatural unions. It's warped.

[mcg1969]

There are a ton of single parents out there. They need to be supported and encouraged, as do homosexual couples with children.

First of all, don't put single parents who became that way through no fault of their own with single people who chose to become single parents, or homosexual couples who chose to become parents. Involuntary single parents deserve far more encouragement and support than these other groups, who are making selfish choices. In fact, even single parents who became that way out of a confessed mistake deserve more support; at least they're likely to be teaching their children differently.

Secondly, because of the known disadvantages of single or homosexual parenting, giving government sanction to such family structures would mean the government is doing a disservice to the many future children of these families who would not otherwise have been. Those who already are in such families might gain some limited benefit, but I think the costs outweigh the benefits.

[panther33]

I greatly appreciate your time on this thread, and the time that many others have so graciously given up to not only help me, but also the many other readers of this great forum we know as Free Republic (regardless of any of the posters' positions on the subject! ;-))

Actually, I am very good friends with two bisexuals and know a few lesbians; I've also talked with a few gay males before. Indeed, I do find that one of the best ways to think about it on a human level... speaking to the humans themselves. It's not like I know what it feels like to be gay.

One of the interesting things I have noted is that even in the above paragraph, I spoke of being gay as if it were a genetic trait ("what it feels like to be gay"). Many of the individuals I have spoken with tell me that they believe that some are homosexuals by choice, and it is genetic with others. Interesting, but not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination...

[panther33]

>>> "Why is a heterosexual couple more qualified than a homosexual couple to raise children?"

Um, I'm guessing it would be better because... there's a mother... and a father??? (just wondering out loud here, throwing that out as a possible suggestion)

Is it better to have two mothers, with one trying to be the fatherly influence? Or two fathers, with one trying to be the motherly influence?

Or is it better to have one mother, and one father?

Forgive me for choosing the latter, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[gobucks]

I think it's comman knowledge a given woman can be as promiscuous as a given man. I have seen elsewhere how women can be seen as a "check" against the "natural" promiscuity of a man. That makes no sense at all.

Promiscuity, like hunger, is the default position of the human appetite, male and female. To assuage hunger, we eat. Some of us become gluttons (that's a sin). To assuage the sex drive (men) or intamacy drive (women), some of us become sexual gluttons, promiscuous (that's also a sin).

The point of understanding a sin is that it's simply an arrow sign pointing the other WAY. Most people who sin suffer, which is why so few homosexuals are ever quoted as saying, to heterosexuals, "join us...its a happier place on this side of the fence"; ditto about the obese, for few say, to the fit, "eat more...it's great being fat".

That may sound like I'm trying to inflame. No. I'm trying to say look at the big picture of our society, and look at the changes over the last, oh, 120 years, not just since the 60's. Most of the current flood of rot (sexual mayhem, monetary debt in the extreme, no savings, crassness & rudeness sold as "cool", obsesity, drugs, etc.) can be traced back to the purpose of sin's consequences: to get our attention - b/c we have collectively drifted.

So, Violette, the interest you have regarding whether or not a female is inherently more "faithful" is healthy. It's merely a question now of whether or not you will investigate the origin of the human hard-wired need to be faithful at all.

BTW, most lesbian data I have ever read does show lower "cheat rates" overall; but only on the sexual side. It says nothing about emotional affair cheat rates - none that I have found at any rate.

For what it is worth, most of the lesbians I have known fall into two camps; miserable, eating and drugging a lot, or ardent, utterly militant, supporters of gay "rights" and the secular humanist (Marxist) agenda.

Because its a "faith system" that aligns with their morals, it's no wonder so many fall for it, given the proof that adopting any faith system will give you greater health. In other words, lesbians are often Marxists not because they really want to be, but because the have to be, in order to have half-way decent health.

It's the only reason I can think of, at any rate, why anything written by a right-wing, Christian conservative lesbian is .... absent(?) from our freerepublic dialogue.

[Violette]

"giving government sanction to such family structures would mean the government is doing a disservice to the many future children of these families who would not otherwise have been"

But turning their backs on the children of those who choose unions we do not approve of is not a disservice? Children deserve to have their interests looked after no matter what situation they find themselves in. They don't choose their parents.

[Violette]

No one's marriage changes. A marriage between 2 heterosexuals is not affected by that of 2 homosexuals. It is simply including a new type of union. And more importantly offering some solid protection to the children within those unions.

The number of divorces that take place do more damage to the allure of marriage than anything.