• 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!

New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

CaptainCourtesy said:
Better? No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that in a two parent household two males or two females produce children as well adjusted as a two opposite sex household. If the emotional/social support is there in a two parent household, the sex of the two parents does not matter. The is demonstrated to me both through research and through personal observation.
Click to expand...

So a gay guy would make a better mother then the birth mother all things equal...........
 
Navy Pride said:
All things being equal my friend they just can't..........sure there might be a gay couple raising a child well and a straight couple screwing up royally but like I said all things equal the child is better of with a mother and a father.............
Click to expand...

Sorry NP, but I think we've hit a block. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. One thing, though: we do agree that civil unions is the way to go.
 
Navy Pride said:
So a gay guy would make a better mother then the birth mother all things equal...........
Click to expand...

I know I am going to get thread banned or something but...

Are you that ****ing stupid? Are you really that big of an idiot?

You have got to be pulling our legs or something.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
So a gay guy would make a better mother then the birth mother all things equal...........
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that. I said all things being equal, the sex of the parent doesn't matter as long as it is a stable, loving two parent household. I never said BETTER.
 
Blackdog said:
I know I am going to get thread banned or something but...

Are you that ****ing stupid? Are you really that big of an idiot?

You have got to be pulling our legs or something.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Can't do that.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Are you going to play THIS game, again? No, I asked you for clarification. I read the study and have before. I want to know what you think it means. You said it conflicts with my earlier assertion. Please clarify this. Without that information, there is no argument.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one playing games here. If you were as "logical" as you believe yourself to be, you would know that my interpretation is irrelevant to the argument I made -- which is that you were wrong in claiming there is "no valid research...disput[ing]" your assertion that there's no correlation between children of same sex couple being more likely to become gay.

**To be exceedingly blunt, my reading comprehension has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not such research exists.**

I know your debate tactics and have no interest in getting sucked into thirteen pages of debate on what the meaning of "is" is so that in some twisted, alternate-universe, 3-d glasses viewpoint it might could be construed that you were right.

I will leave the link for the interested reader to decide for themselves (granted, this is just ONE example):
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF readings/Stacey.pdf
 
I apologies to Navy Pride and Taylor for the other over the top comment. I knew the hammer would come down on me.

The good Captain keeping us ornery critters in line.
 
Taylor said:
I'm not the one playing games here. If you were as "logical" as you believe yourself to be, you would know that my interpretation is irrelevant to the argument I made -- which is that you were wrong in claiming there is "no valid research...disput[ing]" your assertion that there's no correlation between children of same sex couple being more likely to become gay.

**To be exceedingly blunt, my reading comprehension has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not such research exists.**

I know your debate tactics and have no interest in getting sucked into thirteen pages of debate on what the meaning of "is" is so that in some twisted, alternate-universe, 3-d glasses viewpoint it might could be construed that you were right.

I will leave the link for the interested reader to decide for themselves (granted, this is just ONE example):
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF readings/Stacey.pdf
Click to expand...

And I am quite aware of YOUR debate tactics of avoidance. I did not comment on your reading comprehenion so don't play the victim, here. There is no victim. You have made a claim that the research demonstrated that my assertion that "there's no correlation between children of same sex couple being more likely to become gay" is not accurate. You then proceed to post a link... and nothing else. You claimed that my assertion is false. It is YOUR responsibility to back that. I would like to know where in that research you discovered that I am incorrect. The study is quite a few pages long. Clarify. Now, you can either do so or you can go into YOUR little avoidance universe. Your choice.
 
Blackdog said:
Not concerning the Constitution no. There was no Bible for the first 350 years of Christianity!
Click to expand...
The books in the Old Testament are much older.
 
Taylor said:
The books in the Old Testament are much older.
Click to expand...

You ignored most of the post. That's OK though, I understand you have nothing to debate.

Just for the recorde...

The Torah had even less (if anything at all) to do with the Constitution, than the finished Bible.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Wrong:

I'm seriously tired of these games.
Click to expand...

Then stop playing them. I asked for clarification. If you cannot/will not provide that, say so, and we'll move on.
 
Blackdog said:
I apologies to Navy Pride and Taylor for the other over the top comment. I knew the hammer would come down on me.

The good Captain keeping us ornery critters in line.
Click to expand...
No apology necessary for me - I can take a punch! ;)

(but understand that mods need to apply the rules consistently - which can be more difficult than it seems)
 
Taylor said:
(but understand that mods need to apply the rules consistently - which can be more difficult than it seems)
Click to expand...

:shock:

10 characters

Hey I bit my lip so hard I drew blood, lol!
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
(but understand that mods need to apply the rules consistently - which can be more difficult than it seems)
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
So, being consistent, I will tell you that this borders on violating Rule 6A. Do not comment on moderation like this, publicly.
 
Taylor said:
The books in the Old Testament are much older.
Click to expand...

On that note, I'd like to purpose a ballot measure in California that people who eat shellfish can't get married. Because that's an abomination, too.

We also need to get the following Old Testament rules back on the books:

  • Heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19)
  • Harvesting the corners of a field (19:9) Time saver. I like it.
  • Eating fruit from a young tree (19:23) Put it back, kid!!
  • Cross-breeding livestock (19:19) Hear that, Labradoodles!!
  • Sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19) Humboldt County??
  • Shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27) Damn Stylists!
  • Tattoos (19:28) Oops! No more tramp stamps for the ladies.
  • Even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18) Huh?
  • Charging of interest on a loan (25:37) Ouch!
  • Collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing -- Seriously?
  • Wearing of clothes made from a blend of textile materials; today this might be cotton and polyester. Call the fashionista, we got an abomination.
 
For interested and open-minded readers I'll leave this before moving on... I've pasted the abstract for the article I mentioned earlier. Some points of interest, the authors:

1) Challenge "no-difference" claims in the literature (claiming the differences are positive, you may or may not agree).
2) Claim that recent research indicates higher proportions of children with gay parents are apt to engage in homosexual activity themselves.

They expressly point out that children of gay parents seem to express significantly more homosexual desires but nonetheless self-identify as "heterosexual." (There are many ways in which this could be explained, the take home message being that there is still much research to do before we understand this.)

Abstract
Opponents of lesbian and gay parental rights claim that children with lesbigay parents are at higher risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Yet most research in psychology concludes that there are no differences in developmental outcomes between children raised by lesbigay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents. This analysis challenges this defensive conceptual framework and analyzes how heterosexism has hampered intellectual progress in the field. The authors discuss limitations in the definitions, samples, and analyses of the studies to date. Next they explore findings from 21 studies and demonstrate that researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior that could stimulate important theoretical questions. A less defensive, more sociologically informed analytic framework is proposed for investigating these issues. The framework focuses on (1) whether selection effects produced by homophobia account for associations between parental sexual orientations and child outcomes; (2) the role of parental gender vis-a-vis sexual orientation in influencing children's gender development; and (3) the relationship between parental sexual orientations and children's sexual preferences and behaviors.
Click to expand...
 
hazlnut said:
On that note, I'd like to purpose a ballot measure in California that people who eat shellfish can't get married. Because that's an abomination, too.

We also need to get the following Old Testament rules back on the books:

  • Heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19)
  • Harvesting the corners of a field (19:9) Time saver. I like it.
  • Eating fruit from a young tree (19:23) Put it back, kid!!
  • Cross-breeding livestock (19:19) Hear that, Labradoodles!!
  • Sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19) Humboldt County??
  • Shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27) Damn Stylists!
  • Tattoos (19:28) Oops! No more tramp stamps for the ladies.
  • Even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18) Huh?
  • Charging of interest on a loan (25:37) Ouch!
  • Collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing -- Seriously?
  • Wearing of clothes made from a blend of textile materials; today this might be cotton and polyester. Call the fashionista, we got an abomination.
Click to expand...

Your objections to scripture are as erroneous as Taylor's argument.

However, at least Taylor is on topic.
 
Taylor said:
(but understand that mods need to apply the rules consistently - which can be more difficult than it seems)
Click to expand...
Just to clear the air - my comment above may sound like sarcasm, but I was being genuine. Moderating is a thankless job, kudos to all those who donate their time to keep this board going.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
For interested and open-minded readers I'll leave this before moving on... I've pasted the abstract for the article I mentioned earlier. Some points of interest, the authors:

1) Challenge "no-difference" claims in the literature (claiming the differences are positive, you may or may not agree).
Click to expand...

If you read the entire article, you would notice that the authors consistently make statements assertaining that research demonstrates that children reared from same sex couples do as well as those from opposite sex couples. This particular study has been taken out of context so many times that Judith Stacey herself has had to denounce the critics and state, clearly what I just said above:

Stacey reiterated for the assembled families and news media the basic conclusion of her research: “The sexual orientation or gender combination of the parents raising children does not have much impact on children’s development; the quality of the parents’ relationship and the quality of their parenting does.” Stacey concluded that although there can be slight variations, even advantages, to the development of children of same-sex parents, these were “differences, not deficiencies.”
Stacey contradicted the argument most often made in denying same-sex couples the equal rights and responsibilities of marriage: that children do better in families headed by heterosexual couples. “Whenever you hear Focus on the Family, legislators or lawyers say, ‘studies prove that children do better in families with a mother and a father,’ they are referring to studies which compare two-parent heterosexual households to single-parent households. The studies they are talking about do not cite research on families headed by gay and lesbian couples.” Stacey said the tragedy of this inaccurate quoting of legitimate research is that it has real negative effects on same-sex couples and their children. She cited the recent New York state superior court decision that used this unproven argument to deny same-sex couples and their children the rights and benefits of marriage.
“The bottom line is there is no research-based reason to deny rights to same-sex couples and their children. We should be passing laws and making policies that make life easier for all families -- not harder.”



NYU Sociologist Denounces Focus on the Family’s Misuse of her Research on Development of Children of Same-Sex Couples
Click to expand...

2) Claim that recent research indicates higher proportions of children with gay parents are apt to engage in homosexual activity themselves.

They expressly point out that children of gay parents seem to express significantly more homosexual desires but nonetheless self-identify as "heterosexual." (There are many ways in which this could be explained, the take home message being that there is still much research to do before we understand this.)
Click to expand...

One of the studies that I often quote... and I have to find the one I am referring, explains this quite well. Same sex families, because of their very nature, tend to be more open about sexuality issues. This is a response to explaining the parental structure to the children, since it is not the average family structure. What researchers have found is that this does NOT create an increase in gay sexual orientation. What it DOES do, is it creates a more open-minded perception of sexuality in these children. Since all teens will have varying thoughts of sexuality, the kids in these families may believe that it is more acceptable to act on these thoughts, rather than subdue them. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It has to do with sexual behavior. As Stacey herself said, there are differences in same sex families. These are not necessarily deficiencies or benefits; just differences. Is it better for kids to feel more able to be accepted if they act on homosexual feelings? Maybe yes, maybe no, but since sexual behavior and sexual orientation are two different things and there is no connection between same sex parents and gay sexual orientation of their children, the point that I stated is still accurate: there's no correlation between children of same sex couples being more likely to become gay
 
Taylor said:
Just to clear the air - my comment above may sound like sarcasm, but I was being genuine. Moderating is a thankless job, kudos to all those who donate their time to keep this board going.
Click to expand...

I can accept that... and I appreciate you clarifying and the sentiments.

I officially retract my warning.
 
Blackdog said:
I know I am going to get thread banned or something but...

Are you that ****ing stupid? Are you really that big of an idiot?

You have got to be pulling our legs or something.
Click to expand...

Well answer the ****ing question instead of making stupid remarks.......You won't be banned I won't report you..I just consider the source...........
 
disneydude said:
You can take your second rate "civil unions" and shove it. Gay people should not have to take the scraps that you or anyone else wants to throw to them.
Why is it that people like you feel that you are entitled to more than any other person has the right to...and Why do you think that you have the right to say that anyone should be happy with an inferior classification just because you don't feel that you are willing to share your word.
Gays shouldn't ever sink to the level where they will accept their "massa's" crumbs and be grateful because of the "generosity"....puh....lease!
Click to expand...

They are not my second rate civil unions, they are what most gays want and "rabble rousing feel good liberals like you and black dog" stir the pot pot.........we saw he same **** after the Vietnam war when rabble rousers like you spit and cussed out the returning troops..........
 
Navy Pride said:
Well answer the ****ing question instead of making stupid remarks.......You won't be banned I won't report you..I just consider the source...........
Click to expand...

Calm down NP. All is well. :)

Blackdog said:
I apologies to Navy Pride and Taylor for the other over the top comment. I knew the hammer would come down on me.

The good Captain keeping us ornery critters in line.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom