• 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!

'Gay' columnist blasts same-sex marriage

Jetboogieman said:
Thanks for all the good wishes guys :2wave:

Well... bet this thread didn't go as well as Zimmer thought it would.

I bet he was genuinely excited and thought he'd finally beaten those godless liberals.
Click to expand...

Woah! Congrats to the Jetsons!!! You look too young to be a daddy, but as just about THE most reasonable person on DP, I reckon you'll do great. I'm genuinely chuffed for you....Daddy!
 
Jetboogieman said:
Just because he's gay this somehow gives this tired old argument credence?

The argument is bull****.

I became a father a week and a half ago when my beautiful wife gave birth to a baby boy.

We're trying our best, but we're by no means perfect parents and from what I've experienced so far, all a child really needs is loving, supporting parents who give a crap about it...

This world is far from perfect, there's ALOT of bad parents out there and again, good parents are good parents, they'll never be perfect but if those good parents happen to be both of the same sex... so be it.
Click to expand...

He's simply advancing the notion that a family is not created by society and therefore should not be controlled by it. The fact that he's gay does not give credence to his argument but rather protects him from attacks that he's not being sensitive. We live in a whatever goes goes society, he's saying that there are inherent values in the things we do and that they can effect us. That marriage grew out of the man/woman/child natural model. I think what he means is that, yes, the unconditional love experienced in a union is all around the same, but raising and creating a family is different. Not to say that a gay couple wouldn't be able to raise a child properly, or that single parents can't, (having been the child of a single parent), but the obvious ideal circumstance would be a mother and a father.

Please do not respond in any way that suggest I am against gays in any sense, I am not! I'm simply advancing my opinion. This isn't to say AT ALL that gay people are not allowed the same life, but we can't ignore nature in this discourse for the sake of being sensitive.
 
Why is the word "gay" in quotes in the headline?
 
ToastyOats said:
Why is the word "gay" in quotes in the headline?
Click to expand...

Social conservative writers argue that there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation, only homosexual behavior, and so they refuse to acknowledge the identity label of "gay" which is why they put it in quotes.
 
ToastyOats said:
Why is the word "gay" in quotes in the headline?
Click to expand...

Who knows? I'd also like to know why they have a picture of the wrong PaddyManning with the article. The guy in the pic is an Australian journalist. Not gay, not Irish and definitely never wrote an op-ed in the Irish Daily Mirror. The real "gay" Paddy Manning is some Irish libertarian blogger/gay activist and definitely not a columnist.
 
CriticalThought said:
Did it though? I don't think the history of marriage was ever that clear cut. Can we question that assumption?
Click to expand...

We can. However, the nature of the family unit comes from human beings procreating and the social consequences of that. We can intellectualize it all we want but fundamentally, that it what it is. I'm coming from the basic view of nature. A child is created from a mother and a father. I believe we have to come away from that fact to understand the challenges of raising a child under other circumstances. The debate today is to overheated and personal, we should look at it from outside the box and not how it will effect gay people, but children.
 
CriticalThought said:
Social conservative writers argue that there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation, only homosexual behavior, and so they refuse to acknowledge the identity label of "gay" which is why they put it in quotes.
Click to expand...

That's brand new to me. I only just encountered it for the first time in that homosexuality/pedophilia thread I started. In a way it's nice in that it provides a clearer sign that the article is bull****.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Thanks for all the good wishes guys :2wave:

Well... bet this thread didn't go as well as Zimmer thought it would.

I bet he was genuinely excited and thought he'd finally beaten those godless liberals.
Click to expand...

Congrats on the newbie, Jet.
 
"Gay" is right, because what a traitor.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Just because he's gay this somehow gives this tired old argument credence?

The argument is bull****.

I became a father a week and a half ago when my beautiful wife gave birth to a baby boy.

We're trying our best, but we're by no means perfect parents and from what I've experienced so far, all a child really needs is loving, supporting parents who give a crap about it...

This world is far from perfect, there's ALOT of bad parents out there and again, good parents are good parents, they'll never be perfect but if those good parents happen to be both of the same sex... so be it.
Click to expand...

Congrats... that is, unless your kid turns out to be gay.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Just because he's gay this somehow gives this tired old argument credence?
Click to expand...

Yup - this is no better than the "Look - a rich guy wants to raise taxes!" argument. We get it, a guy believes something enough to propose it against his own self interest. That doesn't necessarily lend credence to the argument, it lends credence to him.


I became a father a week and a half ago when my beautiful wife gave birth to a baby boy.
Click to expand...

:D A thousand congratulations. :D Babies are wonderful :D.
 
mfriedmanrocks said:
We can. However, the nature of the family unit comes from human beings procreating and the social consequences of that. We can intellectualize it all we want but fundamentally, that it what it is. I'm coming from the basic view of nature. A child is created from a mother and a father. I believe we have to come away from that fact to understand the challenges of raising a child under other circumstances. The debate today is to overheated and personal, we should look at it from outside the box and not how it will effect gay people, but children.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Gay people raise children. Why should those children not enjoy having married parents? And why does out society allow heterosexual people who cannot have children or who choose not to have children to get married and to remain married? Why don't we mandate marriage for parents who have children out of wedlock?

The problem I have with this "marriage is about children" standard is it only seems to apply to same sex couples and it completely ignores the millions of children in this country who are raised by same sex couples. It also ignores the reality of how marriage is actually practiced by the heterosexual population.
 
Last edited:
mfriedmanrocks said:
He's simply advancing the notion that a family is not created by society and therefore should not be controlled by it. The fact that he's gay does not give credence to his argument but rather protects him from attacks that he's not being sensitive. We live in a whatever goes goes society, he's saying that there are inherent values in the things we do and that they can effect us. That marriage grew out of the man/woman/child natural model. I think what he means is that, yes, the unconditional love experienced in a union is all around the same, but raising and creating a family is different. Not to say that a gay couple wouldn't be able to raise a child properly, or that single parents can't, (having been the child of a single parent), but the obvious ideal circumstance would be a mother and a father.

Please do not respond in any way that suggest I am against gays in any sense, I am not! I'm simply advancing my opinion. This isn't to say AT ALL that gay people are not allowed the same life, but we can't ignore nature in this discourse for the sake of being sensitive.
Click to expand...

Uh, the kids gay couples usually end up with were being "cared for" in rotating foster homes and other decidedly not ideal situations. Marriage rights for them doesn't lead to *increase* in those undesirable arrangements.
 
Cardinal said:
That's brand new to me. I only just encountered it for the first time in that homosexuality/pedophilia thread I started. In a way it's nice in that it provides a clearer sign that the article is bull****.
Click to expand...

Yeah, here's another: An open letter to ‘gay’ teens

The fundamentalists tend to do that. Notice the 'You are not "gay" = it doesn't exist.
 
CriticalThought said:
Fair enough. Gay people raise children. Why should those children not enjoy having married parents? And why does out society allow heterosexual people who cannot have children or who choose not to have children to get married and to remain married? Why don't we mandate marriage for parents who have children out of wedlock?

The problem I have with this "marriage is about children" standard is it only seems to apply to same sex couples and it completely ignores the millions of children in this country who are raised by same sex couples. It also ignores the reality of how marriage is actually practiced by the heterosexual population.
Click to expand...

It also ignores how many children are raised by opposite sex couples or parents who aren't married.

Has any child, ever, asked to see his/her parents' marriage license?
 
Redress said:
Why would it make him untouchable?
Click to expand...

Gays and minorities have always been untouchable, as far as the Libbos are concerned. Disagreeibg with a gay dude makes one a homophobe...yes?
 
apdst said:
Gays and minorities have always been untouchable, as far as the Libbos are concerned. Disagreeibg with a gay dude makes one a homophobe...yes?
Click to expand...

Uh ... no ...

Andrew Sullivan, who is as gay as the day is long, was more than happy to beat the war drums in the lead-up to Iraq. I disagreed with him. In apdstland, I suppose that makes me a homophobe. :roll:
 
This 'researcher' in question is actually a discredited researcher.

"Regnerus is the conservative sociologist behind the New Family Structures Study, a junk-science hit piece that falsely claims that children of same-sex couples do worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples. The study was financed by far-right anti-gay groups in an attempt to derail the marriage equality movement."

Read more at Regnerus Testifying Against Marriage Equality in Michigan | The Bilerico Project
 
CriticalThought said:
Fair enough. Gay people raise children. Why should those children not enjoy having married parents? And why does out society allow heterosexual people who cannot have children or who choose not to have children to get married and to remain married? Why don't we mandate marriage for parents who have children out of wedlock?

The problem I have with this "marriage is about children" standard is it only seems to apply to same sex couples and it completely ignores the millions of children in this country who are raised by same sex couples. It also ignores the reality of how marriage is actually practiced by the heterosexual population.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess, I mean Im neither here nor there on the issue. Obviously if there is a kid going from foster home to foster home and an honest gay couple want to adopt I don't see a problem. I just think that ideal circumstances for a kid are to have a mother and a father. But as i said, doesn't mean a child can't be raised properly in any other environment
 
apdst said:
Gays and minorities have always been untouchable, as far as the Libbos are concerned. Disagreeibg with a gay dude makes one a homophobe...yes?
Click to expand...

No. See, you do not understand liberals at all. Saying some one should be treated the same as every one else does not mean they are above criticism.
 
All of this begs the question of why the state cares about marriage at all. It shouldn't. It should remain a religious institution. But, if the state demands to be involved, it should let gay people marry, too.

Seems pretty simple. The only people against it are jihading cultural conservatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom