• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

Taylor said:
But how is that addressing CR's post (the one I was responding to)?
Click to expand...

It is addressing my post and Hatuey hit the nail on the head. Prohibiting same sex marriage is discrimination pure and simple.
 
Taylor said:
To some people they are:
Alligators as pets


I'm not saying that gays are predators, but was just pointing out that your observations/premises don't necessarily lead us to your conclusion.

Hey! You asked me, "Tell me where I go wrong in your opinion please" - that's all I was doing.
Click to expand...

From your source :

Now that we know what alligators and caimans are we will discuss attitude in both the animal and the owner. Can these reptiles be tamed? The real question is: do you have the wherewithal to try? Let’s get something straight as pet owners, sightseers, and concerned citizens. Alligators are not loving, tender, or particularly good-natured when it comes to humans. We are mammals, we are weaker, we are usually smaller, and we aren’t nearly as fast, and any one of those conditions puts us in the “food” category. But don’t abandon all hope yet. Through diligent effort, in theory, any alligator owner can tame (or at least mildly calm) their pets. This entails lengthy physical contact on a daily basis for years on end. You will more than likely reduce its fear of you as a predator, thereby reducing stress for the animal in the long run. These activities should be engaged from the outset when the animal is as young as possible. Even after all that effort you still have to be careful. Your pet will always have the feeding instinct lingering.
Click to expand...

Remember biology class lectures about the “reptilian” portion of the brain being the most primal? They weren’t lying. In terms of mood you may be used to buying dogs or cats that are, worst case scenario, anywhere from bratty to bully. In a crocodilian this could translate into, over time or immediately, horrid to murderous. This is not something to get into if you have the savior syndrome. If you want a fixer-upper buy an old house. Having said all of that, it is true that alligators and caimans are considered the most docile of crocodilians and many owners have long and productive relationships with them. You just need to know what you are getting into in advance. These are not lap pets!
Click to expand...

Do you not understand the difference between what we're discussing and the example you brought up?

1. Gays have been shown to be as competent in child rearing as straights.

2. Gay couples have been shown to be no different than straight couples as far as social dynamics with the rest of society are concerned.

-------

1. Alligators have not been shown to be as 'great' 'pets' as say a dog or a cat.

2. The author of your article states himself that these are NOT domesticated animals and should not be treated as such.
 
Redress said:
Yes, yes, and yes, though not in all cases in any of those examples.
Click to expand...
Precisely. An animal can be, but need not be "domesticated" in order to be a pet. Many aquarium fish are caught in the wild and shipped directly to pet stores. Same goes for many birds (e.g. finches). I can walk outside and catch a turtle, put it in a tank, and make it my pet.
 
Hatuey said:
1. Alligators have not been shown to be as 'great' 'pets' as say a dog or a cat.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to be obtuse? That's why I selected it as an example.
 
Taylor said:
Are you trying to be obtuse? That's why I selected it as an example.
Click to expand...

And I explained why your example is a failure. Alligators have not been shown to be good pets. Gays have been shown to be competent parents.
 
Hatuey said:
And I explained why your example is a failure. Alligators have not been shown to be good pets. Gays have been shown to be competent parents.
Click to expand...
Show me in that argument where it says "gays have been shown to be competent parents"
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
It is addressing my post and Hatuey hit the nail on the head. Prohibiting same sex marriage is discrimination pure and simple.
Click to expand...
Please put in bold the portion of your post he is addressing:
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
And child rearing should be done without tax subsidized marriages. The focus of this debate should be to eliminate government sanctioned marriage. Once that's done, marriage will be open to all.
Click to expand...
 
Taylor said:
Show me in that argument where it says "gays have been shown to be competent parents"
Click to expand...

What Can We Learn From Lesbian and Gay Parents? | Cherry Grrl

Note that I rarely use blogs as a source, but since this is the authors blog, I think it's ok.

The results will come as no shock to some people, but may surprise others. For example, the research is consistent in suggesting that the relationships of committed same-sex couples are no less healthy and satisfying than those of committed heterosexual couples. There is even some research that suggests that lesbian couples show higher relationship satisfaction compared to other types of couples. Likewise, lesbian and gay parents themselves are just as warm and nurturing as heterosexual parents. They also show similar levels of skill with respect to parenting and child care tasks. Finally, the children of lesbian and gay parents are as well-adjusted and socially competent as children of heterosexual parents.
Click to expand...
 
Taylor said:
Show me in that argument where it says "gays have been shown to be competent parents"
Click to expand...

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."
Click to expand...

What happens to kids raised by gay parents?

But most studies have found that outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents are no better -- and no worse -- than for other children, whether the measures involve peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic achievement, or warmth and quality of family relationships.

No one knows precisely how many children in the United States have at least one parent who is lesbian or gay. Estimates range all the way from 1 million to 9 million.

For many of these young people, though, growing up in what census researchers call a "same-sex parent household" doesn't have to be a big deal -- except that, these days, it is.
Click to expand...

USATODAY.com - Looking straight at gay parents

In one small British study, the analysis found children raised by lesbians were no more likely to identify themselves as homosexual than those brought up in heterosexual households.

The analysis touches on the third rail of gay parenting research: sexual behavior. The British study said young girls raised by lesbians were more apt to be sexually adventurous than those raised by heterosexual parents and more likely to have had intimacy with a same-sex partner. Boys raised by lesbians, however, were less sexually adventurous than those raised in straight households.

New research on gay families is underway, Stacey says. The most one can say so far is "we need more data."

Musheno, Alston, Zaborsky and Price are not waiting for more data. "We were not sure how well this would work out when we started," Musheno says. "You gamble whenever you have a child. But we are all very close, very much involved, one big happy family."
Click to expand...
:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Please put in bold the portion of your post he is addressing:
Click to expand...

And child rearing should be done without tax subsidized marriages. The focus of this debate should be to eliminate government sanctioned marriage. Once that's done, marriage will be open to all.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
And child rearing should be done without tax subsidized marriages. The focus of this debate should be to eliminate government sanctioned marriage. Once that's done, marriage will be open to all.
Click to expand...
Marriage is already "open to all" in that sense. We don't need to eliminate government sanctioned marriage for that to occur. The people lobbying for gay marriage want the benefits that come with public marriage, not the pot of empty that comes with your "marriage open for all."
 
Taylor said:
Marriage is already "open to all" in that sense. "
Click to expand...

It is most certainly not. Marriage as we know it today is a state recognized contract between two individuals. For this contract to be recognized the parties must meet the traditionalist standard. It is clearly not open to all. And any attempt to say it is falls in the same illogical lineage of the example that I gave. What do you not understand yet? A man can say he is privately married to another man but as far as society is concerned, he is not. You do not receive any of the same guarantees, benefits etc. as people who are legally married and recognized by the state.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Marriage is already "open to all" in that sense. We don't need to eliminate government sanctioned marriage for that to occur. The people lobbying for gay marriage want the benefits that come with public marriage, not the pot of empty that comes with your "marriage open for all."
Click to expand...

Huh?

Is marriage open to all or not?
 
jallman said:
I know, I was just commenting to you on Taylor's position...whatever that may be.

I'm so glad I will be somewhere without internet by tonight. That was 5 pages of you trying the wrangle Taylor into committing to a position, Taylor just mindlessly bickering with everyone who entered the thread, and texmaster ocassionally cheerleading Taylor's mindless bickering.

*sigh*

:kitty:
Click to expand...

I'm pretty patient. I haven't read the thread since noon, but as of then, she was still squirming. No matter. At some point either she will understand this debate or she won't.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
And child rearing should be done without tax subsidized marriages. The focus of this debate should be to eliminate government sanctioned marriage. Once that's done, marriage will be open to all.
Click to expand...

And though I disagree with you, this is the only viable, logical counter to my position.
 
Taylor said:
How about addressing what I wrote. "Nope" doesn't do much for the debate.
Click to expand...

I did. Not my problem if you don't agree and keep throwing your hands up saying the same thing...inaccurate as it is.
 
Taylor said:
Wrong. It's in the best interest of the state that procreation occurs within marriage.
Click to expand...

Absolutely NOT. But since you said it...prove it.
 
Taylor said:
You seem to missing what's being said. CR stated that if we get government out of marriage (i.e. no public marriage), then it will be available to all (i.e. private marriage). My point is that marriage is already "available to all" in that sense - if CR wants private marriage, we've already got it.

1. If we abolish public marriage, then private marriages will be available to all (CR)

2. Private marriages are already available to all (Me)

3: Interracial marriage was once not recognized as a public marriage (You)

Can you see now that your point really didn't address the issue?
Click to expand...

You're the one who has it wrong. I said government sanctioned marriage. Understand what that entails and how it violates the 14th Amendment.

Hatuey's point exactly addresses this issue.
 
Charles Martel said:
Where does research show this?
Click to expand...

Do you REALLY want me to do this? Some folks around here have seen what happens when I'm asked this question. It isn't pretty...for the asker.
 
Hatuey said:
Wow. Here. I'll highlight how you just repeated exactly what I said. I'll even color code it :



CR is talking about marriage also being available to gays. Not your definition of marriage being available to them.



Your inability to actually comprehend what is being said is really not surprising. I provided an example of your response being a dishonest addressing of the issue. Marriage is available to gay couples much in the way it was to interracial couples 70 years ago. In the sense that it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Exactly; and well said.
 
Taylor said:
Illegitimate children are much more likely to cost taxpayers money in direct support through social programs. Illegitimate children are also more likely to drop out of school, end up in jail, etc etc. which is also a "cost" to society.

It's not a matter of "enforcement" so much as what you want to promote. We've witnessed the harm that can be done to society when the state inadvertantly promoted illegitamacy through welfare programs. It's in the best interest of the state that procreation occur within marriage.
Click to expand...

You are discussing apples and oranges, here. Irrelevant...as from what I have come to expect from you in this debate. Children born out of wedlock are not in the realm of what I am discussing. Single parent families do NOT do as well as two parent families, nor do the children. I think I have made that clear. Procreation is NOT the determinant of a successful two parent family. Please tell us when you come up with a point that is valid.
 
texmaster said:
Just remember you are debating a guy by his own admission doesn't believe the reproductive organs on men and women are actually designed for procreation.
Click to expand...

I have to remember that you are the guy who has been unable to comprehend the context of this debate right from the beginning. That's what I like about you textmaster. You don't get it at all, but you actually believe your inaccuracies. Makes debating you so simple.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Absolutely NOT. But since you said it...prove it.
Click to expand...
I did. Not my problem if you don't agree and keep throwing your hands up saying the same thing...inaccurate as it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom