• 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

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.

Sorry no man can take the place of the birth mother and do a good of a job as she can.......its just not possible.................
 
Sorry no man can take the place of the birth mother and do a good of a job as she can.......its just not possible.................

From an emotional/social standpoint? I don't agree, NP. It may not be the same, but it can be as good. All the data shows this.
 
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..........

Nice stretch....not even slightly related (and by the way...you spit on the troops every day more than I ever would by willy-nilly giving up the freedoms that they are fighting and dying for).
 
Nice stretch....not even slightly related (and by the way...you spit on the troops every day more than I ever would by willy-nilly giving up the freedoms that they are fighting and dying for).

That's stretching it calling that, freedom.
 
If you think I am a neocon so be it.......again I am so very proud of my neo conservatism...............

If being a neo con means your for small government, less taxes, anti abortion, anti gay marraige, etc....... then I proudly plead guilty................

Being 'neo' doesn't really mean that. Neoconservatives are for productive government, small or somewhat big. The social issues are vague as well, depending upon who you ask. If it were not for the defense of modernity's welfare liberalism, there would have been little reason to identify it as a 'neo' prefix.
 
Last edited:
Being 'neo' doesn't really mean that. Neoconservatives are for productive government, small or somewhat big. The social issues are vague as well, depending upon who you ask. If it were not for the defense of modernity's welfare liberalism, there would have been little reason to identify it as a 'neo' prefix.

He wants to put a label on m well I don't really care because I know what I am better then he ever will............
 
He wants to put a label on m well I don't really care because I know what I am better then he ever will............

No not that? You mean like the label you try and put on everyone else? :mrgreen:

Hypocrite much?
 
Last edited:
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:
My summary is entirely consistent with what she says:
Taylor said:
[The authors] challenge "no-difference" claims in the literature (claiming the differences are positive, you may or may not agree).
Stacey said:
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.”
My point was that while many researchers claim there is "no difference" - other researchers rexamining the data may disagree. In this instance, the authors detail several differences that they interpret in a positive light.

People can read the article for themselves to determine whether or not they agree that the differences are positive.

As Stacey herself said, there are differences in same sex families. These are not necessarily deficiencies or benefits; just difference.
I left the interpretation up to the reader, who can read about the differences themselves and interpret as they wish (positive/negative/neutral). In the article it's true that Stacey interprets many of these as benefits, not mere differences.
 
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.
I acknowledged that there were many potential interpretations, and this is certainly one of those.

the point that I stated is still accurate: there's no correlation between children of same sex couples being more likely to become gay
The point I took issue with was that there was no research disputing this finding, which was false. The Stacey article does just that. They looked at two studies, one specifically examining "sexual orientation," the other assessing whether the child has had one or more same-sex relationships (not encounters).

Thus far, research in this area has been "rudimentary" - it's premature to claim that no correlation exists.
 
Last edited:
I acknowledged that there were many potential interpretations, and this is certainly one of those.

Just out of curiosity, specifically what alternative interpretations can you make that are supported by the data?
 
Sorry I don't read the left wing rag Newsweek............

The article is written entirely by a Theodore Olson, a major figure in the Conservative legal movement, and the man who represented your hero, George W., when he was up against Gore for the presidency.

Of course, admitting that you engage in confirmation bias really explains a lot about you.
 
Last edited:
Huh? Did we read the same article? One of the major arguments he made was family, and as I recall, that is your bread and butter.

Not "family" in a vague sense, but couples raising children specifically. If the couple does not reproduce, they are not a sociological organism and should not be elevated as such.

Did you also notice how the author cited the "Creator" mentioned in the DoI while omitting the fact that that same "Creator" specifically forbids same-sex sex?

Hypocrisy indeed.

This classical liberalism argument can also be made...

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: A Short Essay|News/Opinion

Do you not see the "strictly legal contract" argument when you see it?

These are simply the same old tired out liberal arguments repackaged for a new gullible voting block.
 
Look, make gay marriage about raising children and I'm all for it.

That's what hetero 'marriage was always about, so if gay 'marriage can be a force in refocusing society's use of marriage from just whatever feels good, and back to raising children, I would be one of gay 'marriage's strongest supporters.

Run-on sentences FTW :mrgreen:
 
This is the part where you accuse me of just rejecting everything out my alleged hatred of gays.....
 
Not "family" in a vague sense, but couples raising children specifically. If the couple does not reproduce, they are not a sociological organism and should not be elevated as such.

That is a matter of your personal opinion. There are more societal advantages to marriage than simply procreation or child rearing.

Did you also notice how the author cited the "Creator" mentioned in the DoI while omitting the fact that that same "Creator" specifically forbids same-sex sex?

The DOI was written largely by Desists who did not necessarily believe in a Biblical God. Second, the debate of whether or not the Biblcial God condemns monogamous homosexuality is an entirely different issue. He condemned hedonistic homosexuality, as occurring between priests (Levitcus) or outside of marriage (Paul). Furthermore, given that homosexual behavior occurs rampantly in nature, it can no longer be argued to be an "unnatural" act (Paul). Same sex marriage kind of closes the door on the adultery argument. As such, there is not much reasoning to support the idea that the Biblical god condemned monogamous homosexuality.

Hypocrisy indeed.

Only if you have no grasp of history.

Do you not see the "strictly legal contract" argument when you see it?

These are simply the same old tired out liberal arguments repackaged for a new gullible voting block.

How is it not a classical liberal argument?
 
Last edited:
This is the part where you accuse me of just rejecting everything out my alleged hatred of gays.....

No, this is where I accuse you of trying to put words in people's mouths instead of listening to their arguments.
 
That is a matter of your personal opinion.

Your dismissal tactic is noted and, ironically, dismissed.


There are more societal advantages to marriage than simply procreation or child rearing.

Non of them matter without children. No children, no marriage.

The DOI was written largely by Desists.....

It was written by Christians, with perhaps one or two exceptions, both of whom admitted that even if we don't know God exists it is better to assume that God does.

Only if you have no grasp of history.

Yeah because insulting me like that is the best way to convince me of you're point of view.

How is it not a classical liberal argument?

Oh a re-direct...very nice...and I might add that I love how you're trying to paint Conservatives with a 'liberal brush now.

Conservatives don't self-identify as Classic Liberals...otherwise we would call ourselves "Classic Liberals". But it seems you have a fair grasp of the 3 steps to politicizing an issue: 1. re-name, 2. intimidate/guilt, 3. label, demonize and dismiss.

You're trying to re-name Conservatives so as to encourage Conservatives to sympathize with Liberals by blurring the lines.

Let me tell you now that our sense of identity is such that if we were a drop of water, we would retain our shape and original molecules if put in the ocean.

***
It's not a Conservative argument because marriage is not a sterile legal contract. The legalities are the accessory to the union, they are not the core of the union to which the relationship is an accessory.
 
Back
Top Bottom