• 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!

State to Eliminate “Bride” & “Groom” on Marriage Certificates [W:303]

re: State to Eliminate “Bride” & “Groom” on Marriage Certificates [W:303]

So you can sense what kind of underwear the gay guy next to you is wearing huh, that is fascinating. You should get a circus act.

I guess that's better than being a racist dickhead as a standard mode in life. :shrug:
 
re: State to Eliminate “Bride” & “Groom” on Marriage Certificates [W:303]

This is the kind of stuff that predicated the fall of the Roman empire. Watch for the legalization of having sex with children next.

You got it backwards. The Roman empire collapsed after converting to Christianity and creating the first law banning same sex marriage. Learn your history. And, no I'm not saying that Christianity caused it to collapse. I'm not so ignorant as to blame a single cause or group of people leading to the fall of the Roman empire.
 
re: State to Eliminate “Bride” & “Groom” on Marriage Certificates [W:303]

Moderator's Warning:
Let's stick to the topic and cease with the personal attacks, baiting and flaming before any more infractions are handed out.
 
I have a better question when were those words ADDED? :)

google marriage certificates from washington and some old ones come up, didnt see any new ones but only looked at the first 3 i found, they dont have those words on them, it says contracting parties, damn i guess those people werent husband and wife then LOL <end sarcasm>

does anybody know the answer to this yet? when it was added i wonder if people said thats "changing the definition" and "forcing" things on me (eventhough it is not).
 
So, how do you define normality.

In regards to what topic? Do more than 50% of the heterosexual public at large engage in homosexual sex persistently? This is a discussion about behavior. The average person does not have a long lasting predisposition to engage in homosexual activities. Neither do individual animals. Also, homosexual activity in the animal world can mean many different things, for example in dogs it's a form of behavior in regards to dominance.

I tend to not look at behavior as simplistically as what you would emotionally consider "normal". There are vast complexities at play. Apparently your panties are in a bunch of anyone having the opinion that Homosexual Activity is not "normal". Freud for example considered homosexuality rooted in paranoia. You going to ignore his research and call him stupid too?

There was no dodge, as you threw nothing but empty rhetoric.

You have dodged numerous times within this very thread. It is what it is /shrug

It's not my problem you suck at critical thinking.

Projection and butthurt noted

Another empty rhetoric device. Try again.

Dodge noted

It was funny until I realized you were being serious.

Dodge noted. Trying to appear arrogant and mocking people is not an argument.

Now that's what I call a Red Herring!

4 dodges so far in one post. You're on a roll. A new record. Gratz.

The bolded portions of that line are the only ones with actual facts backing them up.

Numerous studies prove that gay couples can raise children just as effectively as straight couples.

Go ahead Bronson. Try to debate that.

Gay Parents Study Suggesting Downside For Kids Draws Fire From Social Scientists

The research surveyed almost 3,000 18- to 39-year-olds. Most were raised by heterosexual parents, but 175 had mothers who at one point had same-sex relationships and another 73 of whom had dads once in same-sex relationships. The results suggested that children of these parents are more likely than kids in other family structures to be on public assistance, unemployed or in therapy as adults, among other negative outcomes.

Which in reality are outward signs of the emotional and psychological trauma unfolding within these people. Why would you deny a child their right to be raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household? There is no doubt it is the best environment to raise children in. Why deny them their birthright?

I will enjoy crushing you.

/laugh you're small potatoes
 
Gay Parents Study Suggesting Downside For Kids Draws Fire From Social Scientists



Which in reality are outward signs of the emotional and psychological trauma unfolding within these people. Why would you deny a child their right to be raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household? There is no doubt it is the best environment to raise children in. Why deny them their birthright?
Did you not you read the rest of that article you posted? It's drawing criticism because of it's slanted method of research.

Strong criticism

But other scientists say the research is deeply flawed, and does not measure the effect of same-sex parenting at all. The study defined same-sex parenting by asking participants if their parents had ever had same-sex relationships, and whether they had lived with the parent at that time. That led to a "hodgepodge" group of people who Regnerus then compared with kids in stable, married homes, said Judith Stacey, a sociologist at New York University who was not involved in the research.

"He doesn't have an actual category of gay parents in the project that you can isolate and say the most important thing in this kid's childhood is that they were raised by gay parents," Stacey told LiveScience. "These are kids whose parents, maybe they divorced, maybe they separated, maybe they had a scandalous affair, we just don't know." [5 Myths About Gay People]

In contrast, a fair comparison would have matched up children of same-sex parents with children of heterosexual parents who looked otherwise similar — no extra divorces, no extra separations, no extra time in foster care for the kids, said Gary Gates, a researcher at the Williams Institute, a sexual orientation policy think tank at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Instead, Regnerus categorized all people who said their parents were once in a same-sex relationship in the same group, even if those people had also experienced major childhood upheavals. About half of the people whose parents had ever been in gay or lesbian relationships also said their parents had once been in a heterosexual marriage, suggesting that a great many of these children were the products of a heterosexual relationship in which one parent later came out as gay or bisexual. Fifty-eight percent of those raised by moms who'd indicated a lesbian experience said their mother once left the household during their youth, and 14 percent said they'd spent time in foster care.

"All he found is that family instability is bad for children and that's hardly groundbreaking or new," Gates, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience.
It's because the instability in same-sex parent families is largely due to things outside the home. Society's perception of non-straight relationships, bullying, homophobia, and other hatefully BS definitely has an effect on family. If your family was being berated for what it was, if your parents' relationship was constantly being chastised and delegitimized, if you're being picked on and bullied at school because kids found out you have two moms or two dads, I'm sure it would have some sort of effect on you. Our civilization hasn't even given same-sex parent families the chance to actually thrive without constant hate and criticism, so it's no wonder there are adverse effects on the children.
 
Last edited:
Gay Parents Study Suggesting Downside For Kids Draws Fire From Social Scientists



Which in reality are outward signs of the emotional and psychological trauma unfolding within these people. Why would you deny a child their right to be raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household? There is no doubt it is the best environment to raise children in. Why deny them their birthright?

Did you actually read the link that you posted? Heres a quote from the link. "The study defined same-sex parenting by asking participants if their parents had ever had same-sex relationships, and whether they had lived with the parent at that time." That is not the same as a child living in a household where the two same sex parents have a stable relationship. That is the problem. He was comparing that to stable heterosexual relationships to come up with his answer.

Seriously actually read the link you posted.
 
Did you actually read the link that you posted? Heres a quote from the link. "The study defined same-sex parenting by asking participants if their parents had ever had same-sex relationships, and whether they had lived with the parent at that time." That is not the same as a child living in a household where the two same sex parents have a stable relationship. That is the problem. He was comparing that to stable heterosexual relationships to come up with his answer.

Seriously actually read the link you posted.

Bigots aren't interested in facts.
 
It would be nice if just once someone would explain how changes like this are supposed to lead to a destroy world where the liberals are able to take over and create utopia. Is it a God dooming the nation thing?

It's an attempt to redefine traditional marriage; hence the terminology changes. The pro-gay marriage folks in Washington got what they wanted, legalized gay marriage, but obviously that's not enough for them.
 
It's an attempt to redefine traditional marriage; hence the terminology changes. The pro-gay marriage folks in Washington got what they wanted, legalized gay marriage, but obviously that's not enough for them.

How does this redefine marriage? Is your marriage defined by what box you checked on a government form?
 
You got it backwards. The Roman empire collapsed after converting to Christianity and creating the first law banning same sex marriage. Learn your history. And, no I'm not saying that Christianity caused it to collapse. I'm not so ignorant as to blame a single cause or group of people leading to the fall of the Roman empire.


The collapse of the Roman Empire was a very long event. Christianity was definitely the last nail in the coffin. It signaled the end of the decadence that had engulfed Rome but I would submit it was the decadence itself that brought the civilization down.
 
The collapse of the Roman Empire was a very long event. Christianity was definitely the last nail in the coffin. It signaled the end of the decadence that had engulfed Rome but I would submit it was the decadence itself that brought the civilization down.
This is tantamount to saying, despite all evidence to the contrary Hitler was really done in by the Cubans, not the allies.

You are not only divorced from any historical perspective, but you don't even define what you mean by decadence or by what means it could in your revisionist history have had the effect you claim.

This is right up there with people who act like Cicero was a good Christian senator from Texas.
 
This is tantamount to saying, despite all evidence to the contrary Hitler was really done in by the Cubans, not the allies.

You are not only divorced from any historical perspective, but you don't even define what you mean by decadence or by what means it could in your revisionist history have had the effect you claim.

This is right up there with people who act like Cicero was a good Christian senator from Texas.

Hitler was done in by his own crazy ass self. His egomania and Messiah complex was his downfall. If the generals ran the war we may all be speaking German right now. As far as Rome is concerned, if you know anything about Rome and don't think it was the epitome of decadence then you probably should not be left alone with women or children.
 
State to Eliminate “Bride” & “Groom” on Marriage Certificates


Good.
 
State to Eliminate “Bride” & “Groom” on Marriage Certificates


Good.

You are to late Im afraid. Theyve now announced theyve changed their minds & have gone with the multiple options format instead.
 
OMFG! Legal documents use legal language?!?!?!? This is an outrage!!!!!111!!!! I'm going to go hide in my basement and cry!
 
Why wouldn't you introduce Sally and her lovely wife Danielle?

No, we'll just introduce Person A Sally and her lovely Person B Danielle.
 
Next we'll have to remove the word "man" from the English language.
 
Hitler was done in by his own crazy ass self. His egomania and Messiah complex was his downfall. If the generals ran the war we may all be speaking German right now. As far as Rome is concerned, if you know anything about Rome and don't think it was the epitome of decadence then you probably should not be left alone with women or children.

Way to dodge any meaningful comment. Again you fail to define what decadence is or how it can bring down an empire, or in relation to the op how a change on a box on a legal form In one state will lead us all to ruin.

As to the german comments I don't care I was merely pointing out how ludicrous one can be using the logic you used.

And no, I think I view wall street as the epitome of decadence, so I guess in your view because of gender I shouldn't be allowed to be along with myself. Then again you probably don't think I should have the freedom to marry who I want and not be misrepresented on a legal form either.
 
Next we'll have to remove the word "man" from the English language.

Surely no huperson would agree to such a persondatry ruling?

How could people personage without such a word?
 
In regards to what topic? Do more than 50% of the heterosexual public at large engage in homosexual sex persistently?

Why do you keep bringing up 'more than 50%', or 'the majority'? I thought you said you don't define normality by what the majority does.

And behavior does not necessarily equal orientation.[/QUOTE]

I tend to not look at behavior as simplistically as what you would emotionally consider "normal".

I simply recognize that 'normal' is an incredibly subjective term.


Freud for example considered homosexuality rooted in paranoia. You going to ignore his research and call him stupid too?

Paranoia? Sigmund Freud would ascribe biological and psychological factors in explaining the principal causes of homosexuality. He openly thought that humans were born bi-sexual, and that orientation was influenced a a large but still unkown number of factors.

In fact, he even said:

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime –and a cruelty, too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis. "


You have dodged numerous times within this very thread. It is what it is /shrug

You have failed numerous times to put of a cohesive argument. It is what it is.



Projection and butthurt noted



Dodge noted



Dodge noted. Trying to appear arrogant and mocking people is not an argument.



4 dodges so far in one post. You're on a roll. A new record. Gratz.

Once again, you drop a tremendous amount of fail in one post.

Gay Parents Study Suggesting Downside For Kids Draws Fire From Social Scientists



Which in reality are outward signs of the emotional and psychological trauma unfolding within these people. Why would you deny a child their right to be raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household? There is no doubt it is the best environment to raise children in. Why deny them their birthright?

Did you even read your own article?

"The study defined same-sex parenting by asking participants if their parents had ever had same-sex relationships, and whether they had lived with the parent at that time."

"Instead, Regnerus categorized all people who said their parents were once in a same-sex relationship in the same group, even if those people had also experienced major childhood upheavals. About half of the people whose parents had ever been in gay or lesbian relationships also said their parents had once been in a heterosexual marriage, suggesting that a great many of these children were the products of a heterosexual relationship in which one parent later came out as gay or bisexual. Fifty-eight percent of those raised by moms who'd indicated a lesbian experience said their mother once left the household during their youth, and 14 percent said they'd spent time in foster care."

The only thing Regnerus found was that instability in the family is bad.

****ing shocked, I tell you.


/laugh you're small potatoes

You're another insignificant hack who exists purely to be beaten into the ground and then laughed at when you try to rise to defend yourself.

Please, don't pretend you're actually a good debater. It's insulting to the trolls out there that actually try.
 
It's an attempt to redefine traditional marriage; hence the terminology changes. The pro-gay marriage folks in Washington got what they wanted, legalized gay marriage, but obviously that's not enough for them.

In a country where the heterosexual divorce rate is as high as it is and you are worried about a ****ing check box on a form? Yeah, you REALLY care about traditional marriage :roll:

Gay marriage isn't the problem, yet many conservatives want to point at it and say it will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Yet the heterosexual divorce rate is high, so where is the sanctity of marriage there?

Seems conservatives just want a soap box to bitch.
 
Back
Top Bottom