• 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 Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ahem:


I'm not sure how many more qualifiers you require before speculation is not seen as stating a claim, but I neither care nor am I willing to include more.

Here's your claim, Jerry:

It's my understanding that the reason same-sex couples can raise perfectly fine children is due to their turning to extended family for the other sex's contributions.

Can you tell me where this understanding comes from?
 
I'm not even sure why this is important. Wouldn't it be a good thing if gay couples were more reliant on their extended families than hetero families given that children raised within extended families almost always have a better outcome than those who aren't? If anything, it would be a benefit to a child to be raised by a same sex couple for this reason.
 
It's clearly not according to me.

I wasn't alive during the last few million years where everyone else decided what marriage was going to be about. I wasn't in all these different cultures all over the globe.

This is basic Sociology. The key term is "cultural universal". No matter where you go, marriage is about socializing children just like funerals are about marking the end of life.

The problem with your argument is that it does not allow for society to examine how it is doing something and why. It relies on the concept of "this is how it has always been done, everywhere". Not only is this wrong, but it also doesn't actually examine why we actually get married, when we decide to get married, or who we decide to marry.

The reason saying that "it has always been done this way, everywhere" is wrong, is because although almost, if not all, societies have only had heterosexual marriage up til the past decade or so, most societies have not limited heterosexual marriage to just be for raising children. Some cultures and/or religions might still make such limitations, but they would be very few.

Also, although there is some biologically instinctive attraction involved with picking a spouse, it is not the rule that a person will fall in love and wish to marry the person that they feel that they would make the best children with as a couple. It is also not the rule that a couple always chooses the most beneficial time for the child, to start having kids. Most procreation happens, whether planned or accidental, because the parents were thinking of themselves, not the actual welfare of their offspring (and I don't want to be taken wrong here, because I don't think that this makes most people bad parents, the most ideal time may never come if you just wait for it, so sometimes you just have to make the most of what you have).

Many people do not get married to someone because they are ready to have children with that person. Many marriages happen with little thought about when during that marriage children will be brought in, if ever. And many people who can't produce children with each other, have happy and fulfilling marriages for themselves.

Legally recognized marriage in the US is what we are discussing, and unless the US government declares why they only recognize heterosexual marriages with a sound reasoning behind their explanation and marriage laws that reflect that reasoning specifically, then the US government is discriminating against homosexual couples by not federally recognizing homosexual marriage and enforcing the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
 
Would not the supposition be that extended family provides the missing gender role?

A gender roll which is not necessarily missing because the couple are the same-sex.

:alert :attn1:
Warning: the following is speculation and can not be accurately interpreted to be a claim!!
:alert :attn1:

We find more variation within a sex than between them, so a same-sex couple could fill the rolls themselves. Is this actually occurring? Does a feminine lesbian and a 'butch' lesbian couple rely on extended family less than 2 feminine lesbians?

Alternatively, what about a feminine hetero woman who marries a so-called metro-sexual man. Both parents being generally soft, do they rely on extended family more so than the above mentioned feminine/butch lesbian couple?

I have no evidence to support this notion, but both hetero and homo families rely on extended family for a variety of reasons and that is the only one that I can think of that may require a homo family to rely moreso on their extended family.

Well, I was looking for detailed information on the roll the extended family plays with each of these dynamics. If you don't have data for it, that's fine. I don't expect you or anyone else to answer my questions and I hope you don't feel that I'm stomping my foot and sticking out my lip when I ask them.
 
Jerry, you are being civil....and it is scaring me.
 
The problem with your argument is that it does not allow for society to examine how it is doing something and why. It relies on the concept of "this is how it has always been done, everywhere".

That has never been any part of my argument, ever.

You believe that I'm making an argument from traditional authority. If that's how I'm coming across then I need to find another way to word my argument.

I'll have to give it some thought, but from where I'm standing I'm making an empirical observation based on solid science. Every variation of marriage always serves the same purpose just like every variation of a funeral always serve the same purpose. This is not because "that's the way we've always don it", it's because this is what this activity is for.
 
Last edited:
No, your statement is false. It's success in the past is irrelevant when doing comparisons.

No real comparison has been done. I have seen some of the studies. Most were not even long enough to jump to any real conclusions and are the equivalent of an educated guess.

The success of the family unit is absolutely relevant.

Comparative studies have yielded similar results: children raised in two parent households, regardless of the sex of each parents, do equally as well.

A few hundred vs a few hundred billion raised by a mother and a father.

So, your statement is inaccurate.

My comment is completly accurate.

I tell you what, Jerry made a good point. As soon as they do a study where the extended family is not a variable, you may be able to say that.
 
Blackdog, you just made a concession I don't think you intended to make by your request. You have just admitted that it is more important to a child's welfare that they have extended family involved in their life than it is that they are being raised by an opposite sex couple or same sex couple. Think about it. If the variable that is most important is the degree of extended family involvement, then you just conceded the entire issue of the parenting ability of same sex couples.
 
Here's your claim, Jerry:

Can you tell me where this understanding comes from?

See I included the "it's my understanding" so that it wouldn't sound like a claim. Oh well, I guess I need an English comp class.

That's how I understood previous studies linked to in these discussions. I accept the fact that I'm likely not recalling the data accurately which is why I'm looking for clarification.

If Blackdog's religious opinion has merit, then an appropriate study examining this interaction should shed some light on how it's accurate...assuming such a study has ever been don.
 
Last edited:
See I included the "it's my understanding" so that it wouldn't sound like a claim. Oh well, I guess I need an English comp class.

That's how I understood previous studies linked to in these discussions. I accept the fact that I'm likely not recalling the data accurately which is why I'm looking for clarification.

Virtually every study in the last 25 years of children raised by same sex couples has found that they turn out no better or worse adjusted than those by opposite sex couples. That contradicts what one would expect with gender role development and so a hypothesis is that children develop their gender roles from observing more than just their immediate family, but also what they see from extended family, teachers, mentors, peers, etc. I don't know of any study which has actually explored the degree to which these extraneous influences contribute to a child's gender role development.
 
That has never been any part of my argument, ever.

You believe that I'm making an argument from traditional authority. If that's how I'm coming across then I need to find another way to word my argument.

That is how the quoted post came across to me.

I'll have to give it some thought, but from where I'm standing I'm making an empirical observation based on solid science. Every variation of marriage always serves the same purpose just like every variation of a funeral always serve the same purpose. This is not because "that's the way we've always don it", it's because this is what this activity is for.

The problem with this statement is that it is no longer true, if it ever was fully, across-the-board true. Marriage in today's modern societies, from a legal standpoint, is about two people who wish to make each other legal family and take responsibility for each other financially and legally.

One of the activities of a modern, legal marriage is to provide a stable home for raising children, but that is not the only purpose of marriage. If our laws reflected that it was the only purpose of marriage, then you would have a good argument, but that just isn't the case when you look at how our legal marriages work.

Even before our modern societies though, marriages were used for many other things besides raising children. One of the most popular uses of marriage was for politics. Another was for gaining wealth and/or influence.
 
Blackdog, you just made a concession I don't think you intended to make by your request. You have just admitted that it is more important to a child's welfare that they have extended family involved in their life than it is that they are being raised by an opposite sex couple or same sex couple.

You did not read Jerry's comment I think?

Same sex couples when dealing with children use extended family to fill the gender gap in child rearing. Opposite sex couples do not have to do this. The extended family is not as important to child rearing as it would be or is for same sex couples.

This is part of what makes heterosexual partnership in child rearing optimal compared to anything else.

Think about it. If the variable that is most important is the degree of extended family involvement, then you just conceded the entire issue of the parenting ability of same sex couples.

Look again.
 
That is how the quoted post came across to me.



The problem with this statement is that it is no longer true, if it ever was fully, across-the-board true. Marriage in today's modern societies, from a legal standpoint, is about two people who wish to make each other legal family and take responsibility for each other financially and legally.

One of the activities of a modern, legal marriage is to provide a stable home for raising children, but that is not the only purpose of marriage. If our laws reflected that it was the only purpose of marriage, then you would have a good argument, but that just isn't the case when you look at how our legal marriages work.

Even before our modern societies though, marriages were used for many other things besides raising children. One of the most popular uses of marriage was for politics. Another was for gaining wealth and/or influence.

I don't give credence to what the law says marriage is because since we can make the law say whatever the hell we want, it doesn't have any real legitimacy in the face of how nature actually operates.

You could make a law defining the pancreas as a skeletal structure and it would be just as true. Some things we don't get to decide. A foot is for standing on not because "that's the way we've always don it" but because that's what a foot is for. If you write a law stating the contrary then it's the law that's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. He just may.

Please explain how "just may" is optimal? It's not.

A trusting relationship with one's parent can transcend the sex of that parent. If the child is not close to the parent of the same sex, they will not go to them. The relationship is key.

Not in all cases and teenagers more often than not, will not fit into that mold.

The relationship is key I agree. But your mother or mother is not going to be able to help you with certain problems or be a male role model and visa versa.

Naturalistic fallacies don't cut it.

You mite as well say facts don't cut it.

Why provide incorrect information if it is not a jab? If it was accurate, I would accept that statement, but because it is not, it leads to questions about motivation.

Just because you feel it is not accurate has nothing to do with my intentions. So far you have not shown it to be incorrect.
 
You did not read Jerry's comment I think?

Same sex couples when dealing with children use extended family to fill the gender gap in child rearing. Opposite sex couples do not have to do this. The extended family is not as important to child rearing as it would be or is for same sex couples.

Actually, you missed the point entirely. It isn't just extended family. Teachers, mentors, peers, etc. all play a part in a child's gender role development. There is no telling to what degree. There is no evidence to suggest that same sex couples are more reliant on extended family, only that they might get more out of an extended family. It is a degree of potential, not a degree of certainty. Jerry has been the first to concede that he has no evidence to support the assertion that same sex couples are more reliant on extended families than opposite sex couples would be. Furthermore, it is irrelevant. Having extended family involved is better for any child. Therefore, even if a same sex family was more reliant on extended family, it isn't to the detriment to the child, it is to the child's benefit.

This is part of what makes heterosexual partnership in child rearing optimal compared to anything else.

Wrong. All things being equal, this could be the case, but you have failed to consider an infinite number of variables. A heterosexual partnership could include the abuse, neglect, molestation, and even murder of a child. When it comes to considering the variables that are important for raising a child, the gender of the parents is so far down the list, it is almost irrelevant.
 
Same sex couples when dealing with children use extended family to fill the gender gap in child rearing. Opposite sex couples do not have to do this. The extended family is not as important to child rearing as it would be or is for same sex couples.

As soon as there's a credible study concluding such, it will be a slam dunk. The religious opinion will be supported with good science and anti-theist trolls silenced.

Until then it remains a weak spot.
 
As soon as there's a credible study concluding such, it will be a slam dunk. The religious opinion will be supported with good science and anti-theist trolls silenced.

Until then it remains a weak spot.

How is this a slam dunk? I'm not even sure why this is important. Wouldn't it be a good thing if gay couples were more reliant on their extended families than hetero families given that children raised within extended families almost always have a better outcome than those who aren't? If anything, it would be a benefit to a child to be raised by a same sex couple for this reason.

Furthermore, assuming that it was some sort of deficit to same sex couples, why does it take any sort of precedence? Children learn gender roles from more than just their extended family. And isn't the actual parenting ability of a same sex couple more important? Are you going to start arguing that abusive heterosexual parents are superior to non abusive homosexual parents simply because the children in the former have more ready access to learning gender roles?

All this would likely mean is that having an extended family would be taken into account when it comes to adoption or foster care. And guess what, it already is for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
 
Last edited:
Actually, you missed the point entirely. It isn't just extended family. Teachers, mentors, peers, etc. all play a part in a child's gender role development. There is no telling to what degree. There is no evidence to suggest that same sex couples are more reliant on extended family, only that they might get more out of an extended family.

The long history and success of the nuclear family begs to differ.

I was talking about extended family only. So the rest is irrelevant as far as my comment goes.

It is a degree of potential, not a degree of certainty. Jerry has been the first to concede that he has no evidence to support the assertion that same sex couples are more reliant on extended families than opposite sex couples would be. Furthermore, it is irrelevant. Having extended family involved is better for any child. Therefore, even if a same sex family was more reliant on extended family, it isn't to the detriment to the child, it is to the child's benefit.

You are offering nothing but speculation yourself? SO why does it give your opinion more weight than my own. It does not in reality.

Wrong. All things being equal, this could be the case, but you have failed to consider an infinite number of variables.

This does not change the fact that the nuclear family is a success and has been for a very long time. The dynamic is excellent and optimal anything else is not, period.

A heterosexual partnership could include the abuse, neglect, molestation, and even murder of a child.

These variables are completely irrelevant. We are talking optimal, not abusive. So gay couples can't be abusive? That is nothing but a red Herring fallacy.

When it comes to considering the variables that are important for raising a child, the gender of the parents is so far down the list, it is almost irrelevant.

In your opinion. History begs to differ.
 
I don't give credence to what the law says marriage is because since we can make the law say whatever the hell we want, it doesn't have any real legitimacy in the face of how nature actually operates.

You could make a law defining the pancreas as a skeletal structure and it would be just as true. Some things we don't get to decide. A foot is for standing on not because "that's the way we've always don it" but because that's what a foot is for. If you write a law stating the contrary then it's the law that's wrong.

But what we are talking about is the legal marriage, which is the law that allows people to own a piece of paper that the government gives to them that says "we are family because we are married" and the government legally recognizes that couple as "married". Technically, any gay couple who wants to right now could exchange vows, agree to take legal and financial responsibility for each other through several legal documents, and call themselves "married". It just wouldn't be a legal marriage. They wouldn't legally be "family". And that is the issue.

And a foot is always going to be foot, and be for standing on because it is a physical object that we can see and touch and know exactly what it is for, even if we change what we call a foot to calling it a skeft. Marriage is a concept, not a physical thing. Marriage can have many different uses and forms because it is not something that is tangent.
 
The long history and success of the nuclear family begs to differ.

I was talking about extended family only. So the rest is irrelevant as far as my comment goes.

You are offering nothing but speculation yourself? SO why does it give your opinion more weight than my own. It does not in reality.

This does not change the fact that the nuclear family is a success and has been for a very long time. The dynamic is excellent and optimal anything else is not, period.

These variables are completely irrelevant. We are talking optimal, not abusive. So gay couples can't be abusive? That is nothing but a red Herring fallacy.

In your opinion. History begs to differ.

You seriously think the nuclear family has been a success? With the divorce rates and serial monogamy? With the step families and single parents? You think it has been a success with the astronomical cost to society that emerged from supporting this artificial family structure over the natural tendency of humans to form tribes?

You have apparently never taken Sociology 101. The nuclear family is one of the leading decays of society.
 
As soon as there's a credible study concluding such, it will be a slam dunk. The religious opinion will be supported with good science and anti-theist trolls silenced.

Until then it remains a weak spot.

Thats the problem, it will not be done. The success of the family as it is, is self evident.

But success accounts for nothing I guess. Because a study done in the last 20 years says different. :lol:
 
A gender roll which is not necessarily missing because the couple are the same-sex.

:alert :attn1:
Warning: the following is speculation and can not be accurately interpreted to be a claim!!
:alert :attn1:

We find more variation within a sex than between them, so a same-sex couple could fill the rolls themselves. Is this actually occurring? Does a feminine lesbian and a 'butch' lesbian couple rely on extended family less than 2 feminine lesbians?

Alternatively, what about a feminine hetero woman who marries a so-called metro-sexual man. Both parents being generally soft, do they rely on extended family more so than the above mentioned feminine/butch lesbian couple?



Well, I was looking for detailed information on the roll the extended family plays with each of these dynamics. If you don't have data for it, that's fine. I don't expect you or anyone else to answer my questions and I hope you don't feel that I'm stomping my foot and sticking out my lip when I ask them.

I don't see how that would be able to be studied without being very ridiculous and discriminatory with the questioning.

I don't think it matters. I think a kid(s) will turn out fine with only one sex of parenting involved.

Lots of kids grow up primarily in single parent households and they are fine. It's where you get the majority of care that has the biggest influence. Aunt Edna or Uncle Harry that see you once a week for a half hour aren't going to provide much of anything but niceties.:cool:
 
You seriously think the nuclear family has been a success? With the divorce rates and serial monogamy?

Thanks to the break down of our moral character among other things.

Marriage has become a joke because of quickie marriages and divorces etc. After the government got involved it spelled the end.

If you look at other country's where it is still a religious institution, it is very different.

Of course you are also trying to deny the success of thousands of years for the last 50 or so in the industrialized secular world.

With the step families and single parents? You think it has been a success with the astronomical cost to society that emerged from supporting this artificial family structure over the natural tendency of humans to form tribes?

Again we have gay singles with children and step children. That means little in the context of this discussion.

As for the rest, it's a shame we have in the last 50 or so years degraded and made marriage into a joke.

You have apparently never taken Sociology 101. The nuclear family is one of the leading decays of society.

You have got to be kidding?
 
Here are the factors in child-rearing that I can think of, in order according to the importance I place on them:

  1. Parenting ability: As in, the ability to raise a child who is well adjusted. Apply your own meanings to well adjusted, it likely comes to the same thing in the end.
  2. Knowledge level: The more a parent knows about how the world works the better. Probably ties in with parenting ability.
  3. Availability of extended family: The higher this is, the better.
  4. Wealth: Face it, in the current system, the correct amount of wealth (IMO, not to much and not to little) has a definite effect on the raising of a child.
  5. Time: The availability of time to spend with your child. Directly tied to the wealth level.
  6. Several more things I haven't thought of: Stuff and things.
  7. The sex of the parents: Somewhere near the bottom of my list.
I did not include the lack of abusive/etc. tendencies because it’s obvious to me that no person worthy of the term “parent” would act in such a manner. Thus not even applicable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom