• 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!

Dems approve draft of same-sex marriage plank for convention platform

Good for the black pastors. I have anecdotally observed that black folk in the south are more religiously observant and faithful than the white folks, and its spurred me to be more observant of my faith rituals. All Christians should follow their example and publicly affirm traditional marriage and oppose SSM.


Sent from my homing pigeon using Crapatalk.

I'm a gay Christian, and I obviously support SSM, but religion should have nothing to do with the law.
 
It is one thing to have no law making a sinful act illegal, it is another to give a state imprimatur to such acts.

And I think the slow slouch towards SSM began with no fault divorce. If the government is going to be in the business of officially sanctioning human relationships, there ought to be well defined ground rules.


Sent from my homing pigeon using Crapatalk.

Why should Christianity provide such ground rules?
 

The study discussed in the Time article uses a mighty small sample and only used "normative, age matched" controls for comparison. Lesbian couples by definition cannot have unplanned pregnancies, and normative implies an averaged profile from all socioeconomic strata, including unplanned pregnancies and single parent homes, and other less than ideal situations.

A fairer comparison would have been with heterosexuals who also underwent in vitro fertilization, which implies that the couple was likely married, stable, wealthy and educated enough to be prepared for raising a child, all of which will significantly raise the chances for healthy and well developed kids.


Sent from my homing pigeon using Crapatalk.
 
The question posed could well be re-phrased as follows: poll respondents may well support or oppose SSM when asked, but how many are interested enough in this single issue to change who they vote for President?

The name of the game is turn out, not turn around. Getting people to the polls who ordinarily might not vote is easier and more effective than changing the minds of committed voters. My analysis of your post has nothing to do with my stance on SSM and everything to do with political strategy. The statements of the CAAP are more important than you think, or are at least trying to portray.

Better to deal with a threat than to dismiss it.


Sent from my homing pigeon using Crapatalk.
 

I'll give an overall thumbs up to this one though. There is clearly some overall generational hangover about what "man's" work is and what is "woman's" work. I clean house and cook as good or better than my wife and I don't blanch at all at even the poopiest of diapers. It is my pleasure to feed my son and rock him to sleep. However when the boy has an owwie, no amount of clinically controlled studies are going to convince him that daddy is just as good at making it better than mommy.


Sent from my homing pigeon using Crapatalk.
 
It's funny how recent studies of shown that homosexuals, stay together longer than heterosexuals. Kids are less likely to be abused with a gay couple, they are more happier. Hell, some gay-couples are better parents, than most straight couples, but I fail to see the logic in fighting SSM. You want homosexuals to be miserable and not marry, because you don't believe in it, because your "God" says, its wrong. I have news to, we weren't founded on Christanity, it was the opposite. Our founding fathers stresses FREEDOM OF RELIGION. So, last time I checked our President ran this country along with the senate and a supreme court, not any type of gods or goddess.

In this reputable and newly-released study, Sociologist Mark Regnerus reveals how children fare better across measurable indicators when they are raised in a stable intact home with their mother and their fathers, as opposed to same-sex families. The study has received notable acclaim from the New York Times, the Washington Times, Slate, Patheos and others. Some have called it “the gold standard” of research, while others might speculate the significance it has for the same-sex marriage debate
New Study Shows Children Fare Better in Traditional Mother-Father Families | | Love & Fidelity NetworkLove & Fidelity Network

ScienceDirect.com - Social Science Research - How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
 
In this reputable and newly-released study, Sociologist Mark Regnerus reveals how children fare better across measurable indicators when they are raised in a stable intact home with their mother and their fathers, as opposed to same-sex families. The study has received notable acclaim from the New York Times, the Washington Times, Slate, Patheos and others. Some have called it “the gold standard” of research, while others might speculate the significance it has for the same-sex marriage debate
New Study Shows Children Fare Better in Traditional Mother-Father Families | | Love & Fidelity NetworkLove & Fidelity Network

ScienceDirect.com - Social Science Research - How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-a...dy-severely-flawed-journal-s-audit-finds.html
 
Of course it's attacked and condemned by the establishment. That's because dissent is not tolerated by the left, in particular the gay lobby. Either the script is followed or the bullying begins.




....

Yep. Sure buddy. Of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom