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?

[lentulusgracchus]

Bandwagon fallacy? Hmmm - haven't heard of that one.

Appeal to popularity. "Ten million Frenchmen can't be wrong." Amazing that, arguing for an intensely minoritarian position, you would make this appeal. Chutzpah to the max.

Are you a seminar poster? You here from GLSEN or GLAAD, or from Poppy Dixon's collection of pen-pals?

My post was merely stating that children of gay marriages will be accepted in certain regions and not accepted in others. I disagree that this leaves the reader with any question about the validity of this statement.....There are forward thinking open minded communities that would accept this concept.

Not "merely" at all. You are leading your readers and respondents to a conclusion based on the stated fallacy, and asserting that acceptance of homosexuality-based social clusters as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual monogamous marriage is "forward thinking". That is a statement of a bias for homosexuality, and a prejudiced assumption of progressivity for homosexual mores -- or lack of them.

You're a seminar poster, aren't you?

[Violette]

"You are leading your readers and respondents to a conclusion based on the stated fallacy, "

What is the stated fallacy.

Are you stating that children of homosexual couples will be rejected by all children across the nation?

[Violette]

"That is a statement of a bias for homosexuality"

I am not FOR or AGAINST homosexuality, it is what it is. I am, however, for allowing homosexuals to marry.

[panther33]

But, like smokers, isn't that their own personal choice?

Although it would be a public health danger to have millions of men walking around with STDs, the potential for contamination would be ridiculously high...

[NutCrackerBoy]

There are forward thinking open minded communities that would accept this concept. Apparently, Massachusetts is one of them.

I think the topic was how accepting other kids, parents, and teachers would be if a schoolchild's two parents are a "married" gay couple.

In this day and age, there are all kinds of special circumstances. In many casual instances like open house, probably just one parent will be there anyway. It will only be uncomfortable if the couple go out of their way to draw attention to themselves. Some will, and it will be uncomfortable.

Regardless of the marriage/union issues, I don't think being "out" - openly gay - should be commonplace.

Also, Violette, Massachusetts is pretty cool and all, but your reference seems to imply that the state of Massachusetts has "decided" to have gay marriage. No. Four people with robes have decided to use their power to insert their own prejudices into the social fabric.

[mcg1969]

There is nothing selfish about taking children in (either via adoption or intentional procreation) and raising them and giving them a loving home.

It is if you are willfully denying them a loving father and a loving mother.

As far as social disadvantages to permitting gays to marriage, I have no idea what those disadvantages are. My life doesn't change if the 2 men next door are permitted to marry.

I agree, your life in particular will probably not be affected at all. But society as a whole suffers from the erosion of the traditional nuclear family. Divorce, illegitimacy, and the substitution of day care for parenting (when it is financially unnecessary) have contributed to this erosion as well. And yet, the fact that many kids make it out of these suboptimal situations without too much damage doesn't excuse the practices at all.

[mcg1969]

Or even agree that he exists.

Agreed.

[mcg1969]

Taking this section alone, I assume "they" in your argument is the government.

No. I was talking about homosexual couples denying the body of evidence that states the best family structure for the raising of a child is a stable heterosexual marriage.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Society as a whole suffers from the erosion of the traditional nuclear family. Divorce, illegitimacy, and the substitution of day care for parenting (when it is financially unnecessary) have contributed to this erosion.

Well said. The PC police have been writing up violations for years for saying out loud such things as a child is best off with a stay-at-home Mom, with his or her real Mom and Dad legally married and living together.

On divorce, the conventional "wisdom" is Mom and Dad shouldn't stay together if they cannot get along. Kids are worse off with all that fighting.

We as a society should be focussed like a laser beam on the problem of getting the fractured American family back together again. How in God's name did we get distracted off onto spending all our energy on problems of the 4% in our society who are homosexual, and the small fraction of those who want to be the two "married" parents with a child.

[panther33]

LOL! I just finished my first real debate after reading this stuff from FR. I was arguing with a Canadian friend. I argued point for point, blow for blow, and I dare say I handily won the debate. She still doesn't agree with me, but I silenced her numerous times and got her so frustrated that she hung up on me! (And hung up again when I called her back!)

LOL Thanks a bunch, FReepers, you're all so awesome! Keep the great info flowing in!

[Qout]

Start with a challenge to the current concept of marriage. Marriage isn't really about love. Marriage is about sex and children. Marriage establishes consent for the sexual act and provides for the children that may result from that act.

Countless studies have shown that children from single-parent homes are at a disadvantage in the world. They are more likely to grow up in poverty, less healthy both physically and mentally, more likely to join gangs, commit crimes, drop out of school, etc. The marriage contract sets up the two parent household in advance.

When marriage is skipped and children are produced as a result of an unmarried sex act, then the courts have to step in after the fact in a messy process to establish paternity, child support, visitation, etc. in a method that seldom leaves the child in as much of a loving, stable enivironment that a good marriage affords. In the worst situations, the state becomes responsible for the care and support of the children.

The State has an interest in supporting the method that leads to the most stable, productive, healthy citizenry, and the method that works best (and has for centuries) is an exclusive marriage between one man and one woman. Married partners are much more likely to raise healthy, productive and responsible children and less likely to require welfare or other forms of state aid.

With homosexuals practicing non-procreative activity, the possibility of producing children doesn't exist and the state doesn't have to do anything to protect and provide for their offspring. The state does not have a compelling reason to encourge or sanction homosexual unions.

[lentulusgracchus]

Would you mind providing your source for this claim?

Oh, the homework ploy. You are a seminar poster, aren't you?

Next up: I post source, you reply, oh, sorry, Person X is discredited. Or I post a cite, and you reply, Oh, sorry, do you have that online? Could you post/link to the document? Oh, that's a NARTH link -- they're biased and illegitimate, and I'm so very sorry, but I'm afraid I'll just have to rule all your sources biased, lying, untruthful sources of heterosexist "homophobia" that out you as a TOTAL PHOBE.......

Wanna save us all the trouble and just tell us which GLBT advocacy group you're posting for?

And for references for data supporting my statement, try these sources:

Mohr JW, Turner RE, Jerry MB. Pedophilia and exhibitionism.: University of Toronto Press, 1964.

Gebhard P, Gagnon J, Pomeroy W, et al. Sex offenders: an analysis of types. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.

Freund K, Heasman G, Racansky IG, et al. Pedophilia and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. J Sex Marital Ther 1984;10:193-200.

Freund K, Watson RJ. The Proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: An exploratory study. J Sex Marital Ther 1992;18(1):34-43.

Freund K, Watson R, Rienzo D. A comparison of sex offenders against female and male minors. J Sex Marital Ther 1987;13(4):260-4.

You can see them digested at this site:

Useful Link on Pedophilia/Pederasty/Ephebophilia (Hebephilia)

There is further commentary with a table taken from Marshall, Barbaree, and Eccles, "Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters", Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1991, pp323-336 at this page:

Commentary on Pedophilia, Etc.

[lentulusgracchus]

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

The children need to be supported. The homosexual couples don't.

Gays raising kids is bogus, and agencies that let gays adopt are letting their wards down. Individual gays may be capable of raising a kid properly, but will they want to? Can you tell me in good faith that liberal, out, committed gays will pass on to kids any but their own gay paradigm as a worldview? They couldn't, without being total hypocrites, and I doubt that any of them would bother to try. So how do gay parents raise straight kids to be straight? Or do the straight kids raised by gays wind up having a much, much higher rate of homosexual accommodation and bisexuality than straight kids raised straight in straight families that impart traditional mores?

I think you know the answers to those questions. Gay parents can't, they wouldn't, and they won't raise kids to be traditional straights, but gay-friendly "reconcilers" instead, imparting the countercultural gay Weltanschauung to kids who would otherwise have a straight one.

Result: queer kids who merely "prefer" the opposite sex.

[Qout]

To make it simple, the State doesn't care if you love your spouse; the State only wants you to take care of your children.

[A. Pole]

That's hardly enough reason to state that they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

After "marriage" they will likely take (through DSS) children from the regular couples to adopt. Then children will have higher chance of infection.

[mcg1969]

Careful, now, you want them to be convinced of your position---not convinced that you're a jerk :)

[DannyTN]

Oh and don't forget man and his animal or man and his computer and man and his inanimate object.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Do you participate in debate at your school? You can benefit from debate coaching regardless of the ideology of the coach. In a real debate, winning the debate does not involve convincing your opponent, but in winning logical points in the judgement of the referee.