• 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

The atrocity of not having a male father in the home......comes with equal risk......the error of not having a female mother in the home...comes with equal risks, yes...yes...yes.

Incorrect. The studies which you purport as proving this does not consider the sex of the parent that leaves. It only considers one of the parents leaving. The sex of the parents do not matter. This is easily proved by looking at different people. There are heterosexual families where the male is more effeminate than the female and visa versa. Yet the kids turn out just fine. This shows that the sex of the parents mean nothing when it comes to parenting.
 
There are no comparison studies and as homosexuals do not reproduce. 'Gay' parents either conceived this child in a heterosexual relationship(in most cases this is true), or are the step parent. And we need not compare, the most adjusted, the best way we now how to raise children..is within marriage where two people reproduce and care and are involved with their children. Any other situation be it step parent, single parent, gay parent, isn't the best foot forward, sorry, it's just not.

You need to go back and check all those links CC provided, as well as your own. The comparison has been made, the studies done, and it turns out, gay parents are just as effective as strait parents.



I've shown what happens when you remove the male from the home. And it's not pretty. Your arguments would like to purposefully remove the male from the home.....replace with a female...and pretend it's the same. It's not. Sorry.

No you have not. You have shown what happens in single parent homes, which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of two parent homes.



That's right and EVERYONE pay attention...this is the crux, children are raised just as well...and just as bad. The step parent higher risk as far as abuse goes.....carries to 'gay' families as well, correct? The atrocity of not having a male father in the home......comes with equal risk......the error of not having a female mother in the home...comes with equal risks, yes...yes...yes.

Exactly right....'gay' families situations are the same, the abuse, the emotional neglect, the questions as to why one's natural parents aren't still together, many go looking for a lost or abandoned parent, many purposefully avoid that parent for what may be obvious reasons, yes....all the risks involved that effect heterosexual families and lead to undue crime, withering abuse stats, sexual abuses, and emotional challenges. And all of the rules and stats I've linked to very much apply to 'gay' couples as well....right? Their raised just as stable...and just as unstable...correct.

Unless you're going to argue these relationships are somehomw 'different?' That the stats showing no male in the home don't apply. That somehow...two females can father a boy, for example. You...wouldn't be trying to argue that would you?

First, let's take a minute so you can get over your hysterics. The above section is a pure appeal to emotion, and has zero factual information. Children from two parent homes do as well, period, no matter the orientation of the parents. There are some bad strait parents, and there are some bad gay parents. This is true. However, this is true no matter the orientation. In other words, the sexual orientation of parents is entirely irrelevant to their ability to raise children. Since we know that two parent homes do better than one for a child, and we know that orientation does not matter, your whole argument falls apart.
 
Yes it is under the same umbrella.

Is it then? So, under the same umbrella in what sense? Behavior and or orientation....to what degree to they effect the totality of human sexuality.

However, to use an analogy, Geology and Oceanography are both under the earth sciences umbrella, yet they are obviously different. So just because they are under the same umbrella doesn't mean that there are not major differences.

No no no....Sir....another colossal error here, please attend to your analogies. Both are absolutely necessary to Earth Science. Critical and vital. Necessary. Earth Science doesn't exist without geology, it cannot exist without oceanography either. It relies on both and many other sciences to be complete, along with studying our atmosphere and universe. Human sexuality doesn't require homosexuality. It is wholly irrelevant. It has never created anything. It hasn't added to mankind in the slightest. It isn't relevant to geneolgy, it isn't relevant to ancestory, it isn't necessary for mankind whatsoever. In it's absence the world wouldn't change an iota, no one here is contributing to this forum as a result of ANY homosexual orientation or behavior. Everyone here is present because of heterosexual behavior and orientation, every single one of us. Your analogy isn't worth the glass it's written on.:cool:

Actually it is very much relevant. You are trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Doing something that repulses you is not a choice. Doing something that repulses you is something that you either HAVE to do or are forced to do.

'Gay' parents were 'forced' to conceive children? Is that what you're trying to tell me? And then you're going to tell me children of 'gays' aren't affected, you'd be ok if one of your parents conceived you from an act that they found repulsive? And as a 'gay' person.....is one going to consider heterosexual behavior repulsive.....the very act that created them.....is repulsive? This gets more comical as we go, who was it....CC I think...asking me if I'm frustrated. I'm absolutely amused, the arguments in there are shredded and defeated and yet....like a fish ut of water, flopping around trying to make sense while eating its own tail. Heavens to mergatroid, Kal, give me some competititon!

And yes you could still ejaculate and have an orgasm by having sex with another man.

I'm going to have to take your word for this, I;ve simply never been repulsed upon reaching orgasm. I'm sorry. Never in my life have I reached a peak where I was repulsed. Ever. Please...can someone weigh in here who has had an orgasm while being repulsed? BEcasue I think Kal is completely in error here, in fact, I defy anyone to support this joke of an argument. Who has EVER been repulsed by what they were doing while reaching orgasm?

Now...for an analogy of my own, I have heard of this.....on these shows that speak to mass murderers. Many times, demented people will hate themselves for killing, many times rapes are involved or some sexual pleasure is being taken from these sickos killing people. Now....they may be "repulsed", they may be whatever, is this perhaps what you're speaking to, I've NEVER heard anyone even tell me a story that began with I was so repulsed I orgasmed. Ever. Who do you know that's experienced this?

You are again confusing sexual behavior with a sexual orientation. You have not argued the exact same thing.

Ah yes, the retreat position so famous now. THe other arguments are entrenched in this same position, the untenable "you're confused, you don't know" arguments. Yes Sir, I do know...and you've just retreated, I know that as well.

Taking things out of context will get you no where. There is a reason that when we write we write in paragraphs. And that is to put things into context.

I'm right on context in fact, all over it. But, thanks.

Since, with the exceptions of humans (who are still instinctual) animals cannot reason it stands to reason that they only go by instincts.

Sexual instincts? Cause uh....I've heard it's a power thing with dogs and some other pack animals in fact, a female will often mount a male dog, seen that myself on National Geo's channel and the neighbor's dogs. That a "sexual instinct?" Your "stands to reason" here just another one of your colossal misunderstandings I'm afraid.

Incorrect. You are trying to say that a family must have both a male and a female couple for the child to turn out normal.

I'm not saying that at all, please quote me, Sir.

Relationship with parents: If the relationship is good with both parents this also promotes happiness and self confidence. If the relationship is bad..well guess what?

What of no relationship at all? A boy raised in a home without a male.....isn;t the best foot forward, are you arguing that?

It's not the lack of a father, its the lack of a second parental figure.

Links please.

A child raised in a household where there is no mother suffers the same as a child raised in a household without a father.

Are you saying a child must have two parents to be raised normally?
 
You need to go back and check all those links CC provided, as well as your own. The comparison has been made, the studies done, and it turns out, gay parents are just as effective as strait parents.

The comparisons and studies haven't been done, sorry.

No you have not. You have shown what happens in single parent homes, which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of two parent homes.

I most certainly have. And you seem to not like that. Why is that?

First, let's take a minute so you can get over your hysterics.

I can't help it. Santa is coming to town and I've been very good this year.

Children from two parent homes do as well, period, no matter the orientation of the parents. There are some bad strait parents, and there are some bad gay parents. This is true.

I know it's true, I just said that. You're pretending as if the stats don't apply to 'gay' parents, trying to pretend the step parent is just as solid. It;s not. Trying to argue purposefully removing one or the other gender doesn't affect the child is nonsense. Craziness in fact.

However, this is true no matter the orientation.

that's what I just said. And you must accept the higher risk step parenting and single parenting bring to the table, 'gay' or straight. And any 'gay' set of parents is auto not as solid then...on average. I'm sorry, it's true.

In other words, the sexual orientation of parents is entirely irrelevant to their ability to raise children.

Never argued otherwise.

Since we know that two parent homes do better than one for a child, and we know that orientation does not matter, your whole argument falls apart.

Wrong. We know step parents bring a higher risk, yes? We know removing the male or the female from the home isn;t necessarily solid either. Making you wrong on both counts.

Does anyone having a solid and objective argument wish to debate, I'm not getting very much competition here. The same lame arguments, the same mistakes over and over, the same colossal errors repeated time after time.

There must be a learning curve somewhere!
 
It's that time again to bring out my friend who is so appropriate for situations like this: :2brickwal
 
:smash:<Redress's argument

If you'll read some military history, you'll find Charles Martel had a nickname. Rather appropriate here!
 
Last edited:
What's with this stuff about child rearing? It has absolutely no relevance to the issue of same sex marriage.
It's only THE reason the state has any business poking it's nose in your relationships in the first place.
That's a rather narrow view. Child rearing is only one of many interests the state has in marriage. Some examples of others include an interest related to procreation (illegitamacy, incest) and familial support (including spousal support). Advocates of same-sex marriage often cite a state interest in public health - asserting that monogamous relationships reduce the transmission of disease.
 
Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. My links are relevant and appropriate and destroy the error-prone arguments being submitted in here. Some of them are downright disingenuous.

Are you really that statistically ignorant? Have you ever even taken a statistics class? Do you really not understand why you can't take statistics composed only of single parents or heterosexual couples and draw conclusions about gay couples? Do you really think that you can take statistics of single parents and draw conclusions about the effect of losing one gender in the household?
 
Last edited:
Are you really that statistically ignorant? Have you ever even taken a statistics class? Do you really not understand why you can't take statistics composed only of single parents or heterosexual couples and draw conclusions about gay couples? Do you really think that you can take statistics of single parents and draw conclusions about the effect of losing one gender in the household?

Funny you berate him by claiming he needs to take a statistics class when you have failed miserably to defend the position he is arguing against.

He has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that households without a mother and father have a negative effect on the child. Study after study proves that.

You and others like you have failed miserably to provide even one study that proved 2 people of the same gender can make up for either a mother or father absence.

Until you can do that, stop the flagrant hypocrisy and prove your argument has merit. Remember, it is your side that wants to change the law. I hope you are one of the few who understands this.
 
Funny you berate him by claiming he needs to take a statistics class when you have failed miserably to defend the position he is arguing against.

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children -- Pawelski et al. 118 (1): 349 -- Pediatrics

http://www.glhv.org.au/files/children_of_GLBT_parents.pdf

Done. Next.

He has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that households without a mother and father have a negative effect on the child. Study after study proves that.

He has proven that single parent households are at a significant disadvantage to two parent households. He made the claim, unsupported, that this is due to losing one gender or the other. What he didn't take into account was that two parent homes often have double the income as single parent households, and can often provide twice as much time looking after a child as single parent households. Those factors go much further in providing for children than the gender of a parent. Of course, it seem you are just as statistically ignorant if you couldn't gather that much.
 
Last edited:
Funny you berate him by claiming he needs to take a statistics class when you have failed miserably to defend the position he is arguing against.

He has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that households without a mother and father have a negative effect on the child. Study after study proves that.

You and others like you have failed miserably to provide even one study that proved 2 people of the same gender can make up for either a mother or father absence.

Until you can do that, stop the flagrant hypocrisy and prove your argument has merit. Remember, it is your side that wants to change the law. I hope you are one of the few who understands this.

Do you get tired of being wrong? Let's look at some sources provided in this thread, shall we?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/62106-dc-city-council-votes-legalize-gay-marriage-86.html#post1058435524

That is so much research it took 2 posts to contain it all. It points to gay couples being every bit as good of parents as strait couples.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/62106-dc-city-council-votes-legalize-gay-marriage-89.html#post1058437123

We can thank Charles Martell for this one. Let's quote from the link he provides us in the post linked:

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.

Read more: What happens to kids raised by gay parents?


Hmm, looks like, in point of fact, we have proved that 2 parent households, either male/female, male/male, or female/female are better than single parent households, and of equal quality in child rearing.
 
textmaster, Martel, or Taylor could probably find a study proving it's better for society if whites sit in the front of the bus and blacks use different drinking fountains.
 
textmaster, Martel, or Taylor could probably find a study proving it's better for society if whites sit in the front of the bus and blacks use different drinking fountains.

I actually don't expect them to be coming back to this thread. The moment the evidence comes out and is too hard to ignore, such people often go running.
 
I actually don't expect them to be coming back to this thread. The moment the evidence comes out and is too hard to ignore, such people often go running.

After your "double the income argument", you didn't expect anyone to be back. Hold on a second.....that is brilliant...:clap:

Two incomes...doubles the income of the family! Amazing! Why not commune with three, why not four parents wouldn't the argument be this would quadruple income and therefore benefit the child.

Pretend all you'd like that gender makes no difference, pretend purposely removing the mother or father is a positive or has no effect. You're all dead on wrong, you couldn't be more wrong. Searching your childhoods, your father could have been replaced? Your mother?

By this theory, a man could leave his wife but take the three year old daughter with him, never have a woman live in the home again...and it not affect the child as long as his boyfriend moves in with him?

You're all dreaming, in my opinion your arguments sound agenda driven, and you all seem to think denial is a river in Egypt.

It ain't.
 
Last edited:
textmaster, Martel, or Taylor could probably find a study proving it's better for society if whites sit in the front of the bus and blacks use different drinking fountains.
I doubt it. Why would we even want to look? If it bothers you that blacks use the same drinking fountain as you do, I suggest you do your own research.
 
Last edited:

Finally. This does have real tangible evidence.

And I will concede based the evidence presented does support the argument that children raised by stable lesbian and gay men couples do not according to these studies have an adverse effect on the child being raised.

However, I am concerned to how the data was obtained. One professor that was sourced many times over does not interview the couples or the children but instead relies on questionnaires, a very poor research tool.

. Fifty same-sex partners (25 couples) have completed questionnaires evaluating various individual, marital, parental and social aspects associated to parenthood. Variance analysis of theses aspects have shown the effects of two factors that is, the type of mother (biological/non-biological) and the procreation mode (known/unknown genitor).

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cbs/39/2/135/

One on one interviews would have provided far more reliable data because they can evaluate body language and see reactions to certain questions in real time.

Another author, again cited extensively relies only on volunteers which is not a proper sampling.

Existing research on children with lesbian parents is limited by reliance on volunteer or convenience samples.

Children with lesbian parents: a community study. [Dev Psychol. 2003] - PubMed result

Another author whose work is cited is itself citing others instead of doing the research themselves making it harder to track.

http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/cbrp98.pdf


In your second study we find this:

The study had been based on a convenience sample that had been assembled by word of mouth. It was therefore impossible to rule out the possibility that families who participated in the research
were especially well adjusted.


So we explore more into the article and once again we find the reliance on questionaires mailed to the households with no supervision when they were filled out, if the child was assisted or if another advocacy group assisted the families.

Materials were mailed to participating families, with instructions to complete them privately and return them in self-addressed stamped envelopes we provided.


This is not scientific research and it certainly does not explore the true psychological makeup of the child in these families because if this was out psychotherapy worked, no one would ever visit and therapist.

Again, I do concede if I based my findings solely on the evidence provided in the article and did not investigate the methods they use or the sampling they took, I would concede the conclusions you drew on earlier but now that I have done the research on the authors I find their sampling flawed based on volunteers no doubt eager to show how normal they are or based on questionnaires which are not sufficient to draw conclusions from since their body language and thought process cannot be explored.

He has proven that single parent households are at a significant disadvantage to two parent households. He made the claim, unsupported, that this is due to losing one gender or the other. What he didn't take into account was that two parent homes often have double the income as single parent households, and can often provide twice as much time looking after a child as single parent households. Those factors go much further in providing for children than the gender of a parent. Of course, it seem you are just as statistically ignorant if you couldn't gather that much.

I asked you to support yourself with actual evidence which you did. I'm not denying that. But you would do well to dig into the articles and find out why they have to keep citing other studies to support the very conclusions you agree with and what methods they used to gather the data to support those conclusions.

You can't be content because someone cited an article that makes the facts infallible. You have to dig to find out what methods they used to draw their conclusions.

Relying on volunteers and questionnaires for psychological evaluation is flat out lazy science and riddled with inaccuracies. Its the reason psychologists have offices and do not hand out questionnaires and base their findings on what someone wrote down.
 
Last edited:
textmaster, Martel, or Taylor could probably find a study proving it's better for society if whites sit in the front of the bus and blacks use different drinking fountains.

Ah another person laughably trying to relate race to homosexuality.

Sad. Utterly sad.
 
The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children -- Pawelski et al. 118 (1): 349 -- Pediatrics

http://www.glhv.org.au/files/children_of_GLBT_parents.pdf

Done. Next.



He has proven that single parent households are at a significant disadvantage to two parent households. He made the claim, unsupported, that this is due to losing one gender or the other. What he didn't take into account was that two parent homes often have double the income as single parent households, and can often provide twice as much time looking after a child as single parent households. Those factors go much further in providing for children than the gender of a parent. Of course, it seem you are just as statistically ignorant if you couldn't gather that much.

That makes sense, seeing what the Libbos have done to the black community in this country. They've run the father out of the black family.

Now it all makes sense why Libbos are so hyped up over gay marriage.
 
Ah another person laughably trying to relate race to homosexuality.

Sad. Utterly sad.

If Libbos couldn't scream, "racist", or, "homophobe", they wouldn't have an argument.
 
If Libbos couldn't scream, "racist", or, "homophobe", they wouldn't have an argument.

And they really should read the articles they rely on and actually research how these "scientists" arrived at their psychological conclusions before relying on that data.
 
And I'd still like my question answered.

From anyone arguing against my argument here.

Is your position that a male father nor female mother are necessary, that any two people can raise the child. Given equal everything now...equal time and involvement, a man can mother, a woman can father..correct? That IS your argument, correct?
 
And they really should read the articles they rely on and actually research how these "scientists" arrived at their psychological conclusions before relying on that data.

Well, it's all about control. That's the foundation of anything that a Libbos supports. I didn't see that in their support of gay marriage, but my eyes just opened a little wider. It's just like poor families. The more ****ed up kids that can be produced in a society, the more votes the Libbos will get out of future generations.

What's this kind of revelation called? An epiphany?
 
And I'd still like my question answered.

From anyone arguing against my argument here.

Is your position that a male father nor female mother are necessary, that any two people can raise the child. Given equal everything now...equal time and involvement, a man can mother, a woman can father..correct? That IS your argument, correct?

If you're saying that a child needs a male and female influence in it's life, then I agree 100%.

I don't give a **** if gays marry, because I believe gays should have a chance to be miserable too, but I understand your point, if that is in fact what you're getting at.
 
Back
Top Bottom