• 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

CriticalThought said:
Start repealing state constitutional bans against civil unions. Gays and gay rights supporters did not pass them.
Click to expand...

That didn't answer the question.

True enough. Even married heterosexuals occasionally abuse and neglect children. It is just less probable.
Click to expand...

The main point I was making is that marriage itself has been more abused by heterosexuals than homosexuals.
 
Lursa said:
Actually, in prehistoric societies, the group basically raised the children, and fathers were often unknown. Esp. the biological father. Males came and went with females.

We can see that many many hetero marriages do not succeed and even when they do....the stories of child abuse are common.

TWO parents makes raising kids easier...financially and timewise (attention). Those things do add to quality of life but it's obvious as well that single parents manage to raise kids just fine.

Few studies have shown any sociological differences in the kids from straight marriages or gay. Oh wait...does it matter if the straight people are actually married? What if they are just living together?

Gay families are no different in the way they lead their lives. They eat dinner, go to soccer practice, take vacations, take out the garbage, to to PTA, join in community activities, go to church, etc etc etc. They get along...or they dont.
Click to expand...

I agree with fathers, but what about mothers in historical societies? I have nothing against gay couples at all. What I'm trying to say, and what the author of the article put forward is that every child comes from a mother...no child is born any other way, so even if that childs mother is gone, we should try to find the child the closest thing to his mother (i e another woman who meets the qualifications of the adoption agency). If there is no opposite sex couple that meets the qualifications then the next option should be same sex couples (women) then same sex couples men. This isn't discrimination, every child has a born right to a mother. This is not a gay issue.
 
phattonez said:
Most of the children in the study didn't come from such a scenario. It was exceedingly more common that the child was from a previous relationship and then moved into the household with gay parents.
Click to expand...

I guess you shouldnt be limited to an incomplete study then. Data from both would be more relevant.
 
Dezaad said:
Which is irrelevant, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up.



No it hasn't always been about children. I just explained how it is obvious that it isn't and hasn't been, and you just didn't even address those points.
Click to expand...


Just like in other issues like welfare and abortion....'think of the children!!!' always plays well in the media and in campaigns.
 
phattonez said:
The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime - Kay Hymowitz - The Atlantic


No, when I say parents, I mean parents, not parent. Both biological parents, mother and father.
Click to expand...

What do single-parent homes have to do with gay *marriage* or even gay couples with kids? Those are two parent families. You shouldnt be extending that study to gay marriage....a single gay mother or father....would their stats be any different? *That* would be a relevant study if we were discussing single-parent homes.


phattonez said:
In general biological parents are best, which is why most crime is committed by those without a father in the home or some other broken home situation.
Click to expand...

Yuh, I know but you still dont seem to understand what 'biological' means. And that's what I commented on, lolol. How often do you see single parent homes where that parent is not the biological parent of the kid? *sigh* I really did have to spell that out, didnt I?
 
Last edited:
mfriedmanrocks said:
I agree with fathers, but what about mothers in historical societies? I have nothing against gay couples at all. What I'm trying to say, and what the author of the article put forward is that every child comes from a mother...no child is born any other way, so even if that childs mother is gone, we should try to find the child the closest thing to his mother (i e another woman who meets the qualifications of the adoption agency). If there is no opposite sex couple that meets the qualifications then the next option should be same sex couples (women) then same sex couples men. This isn't discrimination, every child has a born right to a mother. This is not a gay issue.
Click to expand...

In those prehistoric groups, it was a communal type living and everyone...especially all the women was involved in raising the kid. And until there was language, it's doubtful a related female took the child of a sister that died, unless they were raised closely with her own anyway.

More to your point, there were no little individual nuclear families raising their kids outside the community.

And dont go inventing rights....'every kid has a right to a mother.' I'm sure every kid that's parent has died feels that way. I'd like to think every kid has a right to raised in a loving and secure home and not give a damn about how that was accomplished.

What are they going to do at adoption agencies: Have a line up of babies and the ones not picked by hetero couples go to the gay couples? Do single heteros get to 'pick' before the gay couples? Before single gays? Shall we start a caste system there? All adoptive parents are interviewed and qualified for fitness, period.
 
Last edited:
mfriedmanrocks said:
I agree with fathers, but what about mothers in historical societies? I have nothing against gay couples at all. What I'm trying to say, and what the author of the article put forward is that every child comes from a mother...no child is born any other way, so even if that childs mother is gone, we should try to find the child the closest thing to his mother (i e another woman who meets the qualifications of the adoption agency). If there is no opposite sex couple that meets the qualifications then the next option should be same sex couples (women) then same sex couples men. This isn't discrimination, every child has a born right to a mother. This is not a gay issue.
Click to expand...

Except that studies on attachment have shown that the mother is replaceable, and a kid who is say 10 has different needs from a newborn. If your criteria is a mother figure, then two women should take priority over opposite sex couple, so your bias is showing. Furthermore, i guess you'd be for removing kids from single parents and especially dads, even if their birth parent? Stable home, two loving parents of any gender, that is what the research has shown to matter.
 
Lursa said:
In those prehistoric groups, it was a communal type living and everyone...especially all the women was involved in raising the kid. And until there was language, it's doubtful a related female took the child of a sister that died, unless they were raised closely with her own anyway.

More to your point, there were no little individual nuclear families raising their kids outside the community.

And dont go inventing rights....'every kid has a right to a mother.' I'm sure every kid that's parent has died feels that way. I'd like to think every kid has a right to raised in a loving and secure home and not give a damn about how that was accomplished.

What are they going to do at adoption agencies: Have a line up of babies and the ones not picked by hetero couples go to the gay couples? Do single heteros get to 'pick' before the gay couples? Before single gays? Shall we start a caste system there? All adoptive parents are interviewed and qualified for fitness, period.
Click to expand...

Firstly, we don't live in prehistoric times, and there is more than ample evidence of the value of a mother. To put it simply, yes, I do believe a child has a right to a mother. I didn't make it up, unless I'm mistaken, we all come from a mother. Why should a child not have at least a chance to first be placed in a mothers care? We can't ignore biological facts to aid a political agenda. People are not thinking of the children, they are thinking of some false, phony, sense of political correctness equality...Children need a mother and a father. period. If that becomes impossible, then alternative families should be explored. I was raised by a single parent...trust me you want a whole family. I'm not saying that I wasn't raised in a loving family, but I missed a mothers touch, voice, care. Nothing can replace that. Luckily I had a grandmother who took care of me, but men and woman are different. So don;t tell me we are just interchangeable...cause were not.
 
chromium said:
Except that studies on attachment have shown that the mother is replaceable, and a kid who is say 10 has different needs from a newborn. If your criteria is a mother figure, then two women should take priority over opposite sex couple, so your bias is showing. Furthermore, i guess you'd be for removing kids from single parents and especially dads, even if their birth parent? Stable home, two loving parents of any gender, that is what the research has shown to matter.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. We over intellectualize absolutely everything. There no "right" way to raise a child. I don't care how many studies are made, their are way too many variables to take into account. All I know is that biologically a child is born out of a mother and a father. They compliment each other, and both have things to give a child. A mothers care is irreplaceable. I was raised by a single dad. And I love him, but I latched on to my grandmother as well because i needed to hear a woman s voice, and feel...Its a sad world when we can't understand the depth of humanity, the gift only a woman has to bear children because we want to run the world on political correctness, instead of inherent human natural value. We can't loose touch with nature. I'm not saying that gay people can't adopt, but priority should be given to a woman/man couple. followed by 2 women, and then 2 men. Just to give the child an environment that he was meant to have. Don't twist my words into thinking that a gay couple can't raise children properly, of course they can! especially if the alternative is foster homes and ****ty normal parents. But a child needs the balance of a mother and a father, ying and yang. Men are men. woman are woman.
 
mfriedmanrocks said:
Firstly, we don't live in prehistoric times, and there is more than ample evidence of the value of a mother. To put it simply, yes, I do believe a child has a right to a mother. I didn't make it up, unless I'm mistaken, we all come from a mother. Why should a child not have at least a chance to first be placed in a mothers care? We can't ignore biological facts to aid a political agenda. People are not thinking of the children, they are thinking of some false, phony, sense of political correctness equality...Children need a mother and a father. period. If that becomes impossible, then alternative families should be explored. I was raised by a single parent...trust me you want a whole family. I'm not saying that I wasn't raised in a loving family, but I missed a mothers touch, voice, care. Nothing can replace that. Luckily I had a grandmother who took care of me, but men and woman are different. So don;t tell me we are just interchangeable...cause were not.
Click to expand...

So when an argument doesnt work out for you, you just try to drop it? You brought it up:

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...

And perhaps you dont understand the definitions of 'entitled' and 'right?' Because of course it would be 'nice' if every child could have the ideal family and as you apparently know, that is not always possible.

Even the straight couple marriage scenario often ends in divorce, abuse, neglect, etc. Even tho differently structured families may have their challenges, it's well proven that single parents, gay couples, families with adopted children, ect...all can raise happy well-adjusted kids...it's about committment, not biology.
 
mfriedmanrocks said:
Absolutely not. We over intellectualize absolutely everything. There no "right" way to raise a child. I don't care how many studies are made, their are way too many variables to take into account. All I know is that biologically a child is born out of a mother and a father. They compliment each other, and both have things to give a child. A mothers care is irreplaceable. I was raised by a single dad. And I love him, but I latched on to my grandmother as well because i needed to hear a woman s voice, and feel...Its a sad world when we can't understand the depth of humanity, the gift only a woman has to bear children because we want to run the world on political correctness, instead of inherent human natural value. We can't loose touch with nature. I'm not saying that gay people can't adopt, but priority should be given to a woman/man couple. followed by 2 women, and then 2 men. Just to give the child an environment that he was meant to have. Don't twist my words into thinking that a gay couple can't raise children properly, of course they can! especially if the alternative is foster homes and ****ty normal parents. But a child needs the balance of a mother and a father, ying and yang. Men are men. woman are woman.
Click to expand...

Denying people the right to ever have kids or forcing them to "import" a kid from 3rd world is not only cruel but ignores a key aspect to human nature. Such policies only lead to loveless sham marriages like my uncle's (gay and had 3 kids, later divorced and moved cross country to marry a guy). If you're going to rely on utilitarian you need to consider all angles.

You were co-raised by your grandma, great. Is there some reason gay dads couldn't have their female relatives do the same with their kids? Your argument clearly boils down to prejudice no matter how you frame it. That whole "biological imperative" crap is the same thing that homophobes use time and again to deny equal rights and claim superiority. Oh wait, that's what you're trying to do here.
 
mfriedmanrocks said:
People are not thinking of the children
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. You won't even look at the studies out there, which court after court have referenced in their decisions. Some even indicate that gay couples are superior at raising kids. Why? Because they need to be in a firm standing financially to even be in a position to adopt, compared to the lousy white trash family. Until you're willing to take kids away from lousy birth parents or single dads (bet that hits home), i can't take seriously your "think of the children" arguments of depriving gay couples of adoption rights.
 
A wrong opinion is still a wrong opinion, no matter who is saying it. There are plenty of gay people with conservative opinions, just look at the Republican party.
 
spud_meister said:
I agree with OP. Divorce should be banned because it harms children.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you meant that facetiously, but, in reality, divorce is too prevalent in our society, and we really should be looking at ways to curb the divorce rate for the sake of the family.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I'm sure you meant that facetiously, but, in reality, divorce is too prevalent in our society, and we really should be looking at ways to curb the divorce rate for the sake of the family.
Click to expand...

Not entirely facetiously. Divorce represents a far larger threat to the "traditional" marriage than gays ever could, and is proven to harm both children specifically, and society as a whole. If anti-gay marriage folks were truly concerned about marriage, they would be seeking the repeal of no-fault divorce laws rather than stopping the legalisation of gay marriage.
 
chromium said:
Speak for yourself. You won't even look at the studies out there, which court after court have referenced in their decisions. Some even indicate that gay couples are superior at raising kids. Why? Because they need to be in a firm standing financially to even be in a position to adopt, compared to the lousy white trash family. Until you're willing to take kids away from lousy birth parents or single dads (bet that hits home), i can't take seriously your "think of the children" arguments of depriving gay couples of adoption rights.
Click to expand...

I can see that you've misunderstood everything I said...this is the problem with our society, we've blinded ourselves into thinking that al that is important is gay rights gay rights...adopting children has nothing to do with gay rights. And of course if you place an extreme between a gay couple who is normal and a white trash family the gay couple would adopt. Anyways there's no point in debating because youre not getting my point. You're creating a situation where it's either lousy parents or gay parents. We need to stop acting like every gay couple is the saviour to children.
 
chromium said:
Denying people the right to ever have kids or forcing them to "import" a kid from 3rd world is not only cruel but ignores a key aspect to human nature. Such policies only lead to loveless sham marriages like my uncle's (gay and had 3 kids, later divorced and moved cross country to marry a guy). If you're going to rely on utilitarian you need to consider all angles.

You were co-raised by your grandma, great. Is there some reason gay dads couldn't have their female relatives do the same with their kids? Your argument clearly boils down to prejudice no matter how you frame it. That whole "biological imperative" crap is the same thing that homophobes use time and again to deny equal rights and claim superiority. Oh wait, that's what you're trying to do here.
Click to expand...

I wonder why I keep writing responses because it's as if no one actually reads my posts...All i am trying to say is that a mother's love is important, agree? or disagree?

i've said more than several times that gay couples are more than able to adopt and raise children for Christ sake's I'm not denying them any rights, but why not give the child first the opportunity to have an adoptive mother??? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything...or causing loveless marriages???
 
Lursa said:
So when an argument doesnt work out for you, you just try to drop it? You brought it up:



And perhaps you dont understand the definitions of 'entitled' and 'right?' Because of course it would be 'nice' if every child could have the ideal family and as you apparently know, that is not always possible.

Even the straight couple marriage scenario often ends in divorce, abuse, neglect, etc. Even tho differently structured families may have their challenges, it's well proven that single parents, gay couples, families with adopted children, ect...all can raise happy well-adjusted kids...it's about committment, not biology.
Click to expand...

I never said that regular couples always succeed. I never said gay people didn't have the right to adopt. I know what right means. We are begotten from only women. If a child is born in a circumstance where his mother is missing, just because it is improbable, does not mean we shouldn't first look for a family that meets whatever requirements the adoptive agency demands (financially, responsible, etc) and give the child a mother and a father. I'm sure that a Gay couple can do just as well, I just think that its the job of the adoption agency to find the ideal place for a child...and I would say that an ideal place is having both a mother and a father. If those option are then not possible...then the next choice would be a nice gay couple.
 
zimmer said:
Finally some sanity.
Click to expand...
Just because you are gay, doesn't make you a genius. This is nothing but rubbish...proving once and for all that there are gay idiots, just like there are straight ones. A Penis or Vagina do not make one a good parent.
 
mac said:
That didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

It did. Civil unions stopped being an option when conservatives started including them in state constitutional bans. They are only an option now because SSM is making gains across the country. But I don't see any conservatives jumping to repeal bans on civil unions, only asking the odd question of why gays won't accept the very thing that conservatives went out of their way to ban. Does that not strike you as a bit weird?
 
CriticalThought said:
It did. Civil unions stopped being an option when conservatives started including them in state constitutional bans. They are only an option now because SSM is making gains across the country. But I don't see any conservatives jumping to repeal bans on civil unions, only asking the odd question of why gays won't accept the very thing that conservatives went out of their way to ban. Does that not strike you as a bit weird?
Click to expand...

I kinda se eyour point, however it doesn't address the core of my question. My question concerned why it's important for two of the same sex to have a traditional marriage if it's not important for that marriage to have the traditional participants.
 
mac said:
I kinda se eyour point, however it doesn't address the core of my question. My question concerned why it's important for two of the same sex to have a traditional marriage if it's not important for that marriage to have the traditional participants.
Click to expand...

If there were a legally recognized union that was the same as marriage in every legal respect but was referred to by a different name then I would be fine with it. Most gay people I know would not have any problem with a civil union as long as it was legally the same as marriage. We didn't make that decision. Social conservatives made that decision. And now that the decision has been made it really plays no part in the discussion except for as a last ditch effort by social conservatives to paint gay rights supporters as the unreasonable ones. Your side on this issue pushed through around 20 state bans on civil unions in this country and NOW you want to suddenly talk about civil unions.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I'm sure you meant that facetiously, but, in reality, divorce is too prevalent in our society, and we really should be looking at ways to curb the divorce rate for the sake of the family.
Click to expand...

Just IMO we should be looking at ways to convince people to wait to marry until they are more mature and ready. I dont think we should be 'encouraging' marriage for the sake of the family, period. Financially and mentally stable households...no matter how many parents or what gender are the best foundations for children.
 
mfriedmanrocks said:
I wonder why I keep writing responses because it's as if no one actually reads my posts...All i am trying to say is that a mother's love is important, agree? or disagree?

i've said more than several times that gay couples are more than able to adopt and raise children for Christ sake's I'm not denying them any rights, but why not give the child first the opportunity to have an adoptive mother??? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything...or causing loveless marriages???
Click to expand...


That doesnt matter. Because you cant invent it or force it or find one for a kid if there isnt one available.

You can, however, enable loving families by supporting adoption, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc etc etc.

You never answered my question about how to set that up...you know, someone ELSE playing God and letting the straight couples pick from the available kids first (oops, there go all the blond, blue-eyed, perfect kids), then what....who picks next? Gay couples? Gay male couples? Lesbian couples? Straight single women? Straight single men? I guess whoever some 'administrator' feels is the least perfect parent(s) gets the kids no one else chooses?

I"m sure that occurs now anyway to a certain extent but people should be judged on their ability to provide the best home for kids and while a biological mother or some other female (that seems to be your implication) is nice, it is by no means needed to raise happy and well-adjusted kids.
 
CriticalThought said:
If there were a legally recognized union that was the same as marriage in every legal respect but was referred to by a different name then I would be fine with it. Most gay people I know would not have any problem with a civil union as long as it was legally the same as marriage. We didn't make that decision. Social conservatives made that decision. And now that the decision has been made it really plays no part in the discussion except for as a last ditch effort by social conservatives to paint gay rights supporters as the unreasonable ones. Your side on this issue pushed through around 20 state bans on civil unions in this country and NOW you want to suddenly talk about civil unions.
Click to expand...

There you go overgeneralizing again. I've always been in support of civil unions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom