• 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.
OK becoming to much to respond to, so I will summarize my position and we can go from there.

I have no problem and support gay couples adopting even more so than single parent adoptions. I have stated this multiple times throughout the thread.

I agree with the experts and a proven history that a male, female home is the optimal parental arrangement for child rearing. This has nothing at all to do with gays adopting.

When you get time, can you post some of these studies? As I have read the studies it goes like this when it comes to optimal configuration...

1. Extended Family
2. Two parent family
3. Single parent family

I have yet to see any evidence that male/female is naturally more optimal than same sex. The latest 25 years of research has yielded no significant difference. The last few pages we have been discussing a supposition that there might be a gender role difference, but even that has no evidence to back it up. So while your experts may prattle about male/female being optimal, they do so without any evidence to support their position. Most people who make that argument simply misuse studies of single mothers to make an argument that it is the missing gender of one of the parents, and not the fact that it is only one parent, that is the cause of all the deficits that single mothers face. I think those are the experts you are quoting.
 
Nothing.

I was just making the point that people new what I meant, and that his comparing alcoholic abusive parents to loving good parents was nothing more than a red herring fallacy.

Your comment added nothing new to the discussion and meant nothing, since there was no context. Children do better with a mother and father is meaningless unless you quantify it. Children do better with a mother and father do better than what? Better than without a mother and a father? All things being equal, of course, but that had nothing to do with the conversation and as you said it, illogical. That is the point.

Since you were making your comment on top of digsbe's where he was saying that gay parents are not as good as heterosexual ones, children do better with a mother and father do better? Better than... look, it is obvious that you made a benign yet meaningless comment. I understood what you were trying to say, but like I said, the way that you said it was meaningless.

What is worse is seeing you try and take some superior logical position while and you are making a logical fallacy trying to defend your original comment... Appeal to Popularity. Everyone didn't understand you, a few might but others might not. I though, called you one it.

...And it wasn't a Red Herring, it was logic itself. If a point can be proven incorrect by example, then the point isn't logical. Children do no always do better with a mother and a father. It is illogical to make such a statement. I didn't attempt to divert any point you made, and that is wha ta Red Herring fallacy is, an attempt to divert.

LOL!

And to adress that as if it means anything... seriously pathetic.

In the end, you made a meaningless and illogical comment. Great. Now what? Do you want a cookie?
 
Your comment added nothing new to the discussion and meant nothing, since there was no context. Children do better with a mother and father is meaningless unless you quantify it. Children do better with a mother and father do better than what? Better than without a mother and a father? All things being equal, of course, but that had nothing to do with the conversation and as you said it, illogical. That is the point.

I did not respond to you. I responded to Cilogy, because he new what I was referring too. You assumed something that had nothing to do with my position.

Since you were making your comment on top of digsbe's where he was saying that gay parents are not as good as heterosexual ones, children do better with a mother and father do better? Better than... look, it is obvious that you made a benign yet meaningless comment. I understood what you were trying to say, but like I said, the way that you said it was meaningless.

If you had read what I had stated before, which is again why I was not responding to you it would have had meaning.

You keep saying I jumped into your conversation when it was the exact opposite and then made a bad assumption.

What is worse is seeing you try and take some superior logical position while and you are making a logical fallacy trying to defend your original comment... Appeal to Popularity. Everyone didn't understand you, a few might but others might not. I though, called you one it.

You did not call me on anything. You made a bad assumption and than tried to use what amounted to a fallacy that was completely irrelevant. Again the response was not to you, and you did not bother to read what came before.

...And it wasn't a Red Herring, it was logic itself.

Yes a logical fallacy.

If a point can be proven incorrect by example, then the point isn't logical. Children do no always do better with a mother and a father. It is illogical to make such a statement. I didn't attempt to divert any point you made, and that is wha ta Red Herring fallacy is, an attempt to divert.

LOL!

Then take this opportunity and point out how...

"comparing alcoholic abusive parents to loving good parents"

had anything even remotely to do with what I said other than a fallacy argument that was pointless and an attempt to divert from my actual argument.

.to adress that as if it means anything... seriously pathetic.

In the end, you made a meaningless and illogical comment. Great. Now what? Do you want a cookie?

Now you are baiting and making personal attacks.

Have a good evening.
 
Last edited:
If you had read what I had stated before, which is again why I was not responding to you it would have had meaning.

You keep saying I jumped into your conversation when it was the exact opposite and then made a bad assumption.



You did not call me on anything. You made a bad assumption and than tried to use what amounted to a fallacy that was completely irrelevant. Again the response was not to you, and you did not bother to read what came before.



Yes a logical fallacy.



Then take this opportunity and point out how...

"comparing alcoholic abusive parents to loving good parents"

had anything even remotely to do with what I said other than a fallacy argument that was pointless and an attempt to divert from my actual argument.



Now you are baiting and making personal attacks.

Have a good evening.

I already explained how your statement was illogical, how my response was logical, how you commited a fallacy and how I did not commit a fallacy... no need to do it again. I think that you are too sensitive to keep talking to. All this personal attack stuff is ridiculous. Was that another attack in your opinion?

Good evening to you as well, though it is just after morning here...
 
OK becoming to much to respond to, so I will summarize my position and we can go from there.

I have no problem and support gay couples adopting even more so than single parent adoptions. I have stated this multiple times throughout the thread.

I agree with the experts and a proven history that a male, female home is the optimal parental arrangement for child rearing. This has nothing at all to do with gays adopting or raising a family.

Different levels of good exist.

You people seem to think everything is all or nothing. Get over it.

Regarding the bold. What experts? These experts say the that there is no scientific evidence that backs your statement...

There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Gay and Lesbian Parents Are Any Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted.

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature.


- American Psychological Association
- California Psychological Association
- American Psychiatric Association
- National Association of Social Workers

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

The research literature on gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents includes more than two dozen empirical studies. These studies vary in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques. However, they are impressively consistent in their failure to identify deficits in the development of children raised in a lesbian or gay household. In summarizing the findings from these studies, the psychologist amici refer to several reviews of the empirical literature published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and academic books.
These include:

J. Stacey & T.J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 Am. Soc. Rev. 159 (2001)
Perrin & Committee, supra note 46
C.J. Patterson, Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men, 62 J. Marriage & Fam. 1052 (2000)
N. Anderssen et al., Outcomes for Children with Lesbian or Gay Parents, 43 Scand. J. Psychol. 335 (2002)
J. Pawelski et al., The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children, 118 Pediatrics 349, 358-60 (2006),

and recent empirical studies:

, e.g., J.L. Wainright et al., Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents, 75 Child Dev. 1886, 1895 (2004).

As a recent article summarizes, “empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents.” G.M. Herek, Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States: A Social Science Perspective, 61 Am. Psychol. 607, 614 (2006).

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
 
Please point out the fallacy? It has been a huge success for a very long time. You can ignore this as irrelevant, but it does not by any means make it a fallacy.

Saying it "has been a huge success FOR A LONG TIME" and using this as the sole basis for proving your position is the fallacy. Just because something has been done and successful for a long time, does NOT disprove the equal success of alternate options. In order to do that, you have to have comparative studies that demonstrate that one is better than the other. You have provided none of that. Until you do. your position is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.



OK you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

I am saying it has been a huge success for a long time. It has shown to be the best, period. It may not be by any huge margin, but it is still the optimal family. This includes the ability to breed and raise a successful child into adulthood.

Other variables exist, but this does not change the rate of success vs any other way in the history of mankind.

Let me show you what you did and why you are in error. First you say this:

I am saying it has been a huge success for a long time.

Not disputable. It has been a huge success for a long time. But then you say this:

It has shown to be the best, period.

This is your error. You are making a comparison, here. Unless you have some evidence of this... which you have not presented as of yet, your comment above is a meaningless statement. "It's always been successful" proves zilch when doing a comparison. All it proves is that it has been successful. It says NOTHING about better or worse. For that, you need to provide evidence.



:roll: Only in your book.

No, only in reality.



My position is based on history and fact. Yours is based on a few studies that prove a same sex couple can successfully raise a child. This does not make it the best solution. That would be like saying a single parent home is as good as a 2 parent home because single parents have raised successful children. The single parent home is not optimal.

This furthers your non-logic. I have not said that children in a single parent home are raised as well as those in a two parent home. Studies show this to be not true. I am not making a claim based on "a few successes". My claim is based on lots of successes and the percentages of those successes. Children reared by single sex parents do as well as those reared in traditional households. Evidence shows that. So far, all you have demonstrated is that your position relies on logical fallacies. Until you provide some empirical evidence that meets statistical standards, you don't have a leg to stand on.
 
OK becoming to much to respond to, so I will summarize my position and we can go from there.

I have no problem and support gay couples adopting even more so than single parent adoptions. I have stated this multiple times throughout the thread.

OK... I have seen you be consistent with this and I have no problem with it.

I agree with the experts and a proven history that a male, female home is the optimal parental arrangement for child rearing. This has nothing at all to do with gays adopting or raising a family.

Except you are incorrect. EXPERTS have demonstrated that children reared by single sex parents do as well as those in traditional families. But I'll tell you what. You keep making this claim. Please provide links to the "experts" who have made the claim that you are making.

I wait with anticipation for your links.

Different levels of good exist.

Absolutely.

You people seem to think everything is all or nothing. Get over it.

Please show where I have said anything like that. All I'm doing is demonstrating that your position is invalid. Your resistance to accepting factual information is most confusing, but I wait with anticipation for links to your experts.
 
Does the person or persons who are spamming the poll attached to this thread actually think it has ANY meaning whatsoever now that it has obviously been co-opted by idiots?

For that matter, that it had any meaning before?

Everybody and their great uncle can vote on it as many times as they wish.

So...please, stop your idiocy...if you are even reading this.
 
Does the person or persons who are spamming the poll attached to this thread actually think it has ANY meaning whatsoever now that it has obviously been co-opted by idiots?

For that matter, that it had any meaning before?

Everybody and their great uncle can vote on it as many times as they wish.

So...please, stop your idiocy...if you are even reading this.

This is one of the reasons why, if you want an accurate poll, always make public.
 
One of the cool things about being a mod is that, even if the poll is private, I can tell who voted for what. Currently, there are 59 non-legitimate "NO" votes and 122 non-legitimate "YES" votes. That means the accurate vote is...

NO....49
Yes... 8
 
One of the cool things about being a mod is that, even if the poll is private, I can tell who voted for what. Currently, there are 59 non-legitimate "NO" votes and 122 non-legitimate "YES" votes. That means the accurate vote is...

NO....49
Yes... 8
So 57 legitimate (as in, from registered members) votes, let's round to 60, so ~5/6 of the votes are NO.

That's...somewhere around 80-85% NO to the poll question.

According to my rough math...

About what the OP suggested it would be.

But that means ~20% think it would be right to actually stop gay marriages...

Which action would, IMO, be unconstitutional.

Unless they were speaking of the legal side of things, where the debate becomes quite ambiguous.
 
Originally Posted by Blackdog
I agree with the experts and a proven history that a male, female home is the optimal parental arrangement for child rearing. This has nothing at all to do with gays adopting or raising a family.

Except you are incorrect. EXPERTS have demonstrated that children reared by single sex parents do as well as those in traditional families. But I'll tell you what. You keep making this claim. Please provide links to the "experts" who have made the claim that you are making.

I wait with anticipation for your links.

And I await his response to my link showing the respected associations that have conducted studies showing that his opinion is incorrect...
 
This site is not a reflection of America, niether are the polls.

If you look at any polls between 2008 and 2010 and at things like Prop 8 in Ca, and the amendments passed in Florida. The country is saying no to gay marriage on a wide scale.

Scientific Polls...

July 17, 2008 by Quinnipiac University, with 55 percent opposed, and 36 percent in favor.

Dec 15, 2009 ABC News (58%) of Americans remained opposed to same-sex marriages, while the minority (36%) support them.

CBS Poll: Changing Views On Gay Marriage - CBS News

These polls on message boards are as reflective of Americans as Ron Paul's chances of wining a national election were reflected by the Internet.

Most of the polls are plus or minus 3 to 4 percent.

Civil unions by the way have much broader support. If the moonbats screaming all or nothing would take it slow and just play the political game correctly (not reffering to anyone here). I am certain by 2015, gay marriage mite have been a reality.
 
Last edited:
And I await his response to my link showing the respected associations that have conducted studies showing that his opinion is incorrect...

I told you I am done with you. I have nothing to prove to you and don't care.

You can rant and scream and it makes no difference. The majority of the nation is opposed to redefining marriage, period. :cool:

I have said everything I need to say. You want more, read the thread.
 
Last edited:
I told you I am done with you. I have nothing to prove to you and don't care.

You can rant and scream and it makes no difference. The majority of the nation is opposed to redefining marriage, period. :cool:

I have said everything I need to say. You want more, read the thread.

I don't think that you actually said that you were done with me, in fact, I was the one that implied that about you. Nice turnaround. In this case, I simply asked a question to you... you can falsely typecast me as ranting and screaming if you like, though that seems like a truly ridiclous conclusion, and not look a the overwhelming evidence that shows that gays can and do raise children just as well as heterosexual parents if you like. I am cool with that.
 
I don't think that you actually said that you were done with me, in fact, I was the one that implied that about you. Nice turnaround. In this case, I simply asked a question to you... you can falsely typecast me as ranting and screaming if you like, though that seems like a truly ridiclous conclusion, and not look a the overwhelming evidence that shows that gays can and do raise children just as well as heterosexual parents if you like. I am cool with that.

I guess you somehow missed this?

"Now you are baiting and making personal attacks.

Have a good evening.
"

I don't have to protray you as anything.

So again

Good evening.
 
Wow. The poll's at 54% to 45%, in favor of yes, that it is right to stop gay marriage. Is this forum shifting to the right?
 
Wow. The poll's at 54% to 45%, in favor of yes, that it is right to stop gay marriage. Is this forum shifting to the right?

No. Some jerk is voting multiple times to screw the pole.
 
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.

What would be a slam dunk is the validation of Blackdog's personal religious opinion on "marriage". Please keep in mind that Blackdog supports Domestic Partnership and full equality for gays under the law. He is not arguing that gays should be denied any civil right as any hetero. His opinion regards "marriage" and a study illuminating the roll extended families play would, in my opinion, serve to validate his opinion.

Furthermore, assuming that it was some sort of deficit to same sex couples, why does it take any sort of precedence?

Such evidence would substantiate Blackdog's opinion that 1man/1woman is "optimum". If such evidence existed it would show that nuclear families are the most efficient even while they are not the only viable possibility.

And isn't the actual parenting ability of a same sex couple more important?

In regards to deciding policy, sure, but not as it applies to personal religious opinions.

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?

If you look back at my last few posts you will note the careful use of the term "similarly situated". That term has deep legal significance to this discussion and is why I used it among other key terms. It's almost as though this is not the first time I've debated this issue ;)

An abusive hetero couple is not "similarly situated" as a non abusive gay couple, so your question is invalid.

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.

As it should be.
 
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.

What we are talking about is the total sociological institution of marriage in which the law is a sub-division of.

This conversation can apply to individuals who were never, are not and never will be subject to US laws in the slightest, because it regards human social institutions present throughout the species.
 
Here's the down and dirty of it, and no I don't care to respond to those of you who will troll me for this post.

When it comes down to it, homosexuality is seen as some kind of malfunction or error because the sex drive is incongruent with the actual functions of the physical body parts. Gay man have the sexual attraction of hetero women, and gay women of hetero men.

"Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men, Study Says

On an instinctive level, gay men are trying to impregnate other men and lesbian woman are trying to have the children of other women. This is why many traditional sources call homosexuality "confusion", as confusion doesn't always refer to your ability to reason.

It is felt by many that gay marriage, by extension, will be just as incongruent, that it will mirror the biological error compelling people to it.

Even if we went as far as to shake hands and agree that born-homosexuality were some kind of genetic error or deformity, so what? Other couples with genetic error or deformities are allowed to marry and they do just fine.

If it can be demonstrated that gays as a demographic are a high-risk-of-divorce group, just like mixed race and mixed religion couples are, then let's make it harder for anyone to marry with the same pen stroke we give gays "marriage".

The real problem is not who has what wrong with them, it's who can create relationships beneficial to society.
 
This site is not a reflection of America, niether are the polls.

If you look at any polls between 2008 and 2010 and at things like Prop 8 in Ca, and the amendments passed in Florida. The country is saying no to gay marriage on a wide scale.

Scientific Polls...

July 17, 2008 by Quinnipiac University, with 55 percent opposed, and 36 percent in favor.

Dec 15, 2009 ABC News (58%) of Americans remained opposed to same-sex marriages, while the minority (36%) support them.

CBS Poll: Changing Views On Gay Marriage - CBS News

These polls on message boards are as reflective of Americans as Ron Paul's chances of wining a national election were reflected by the Internet.

Most of the polls are plus or minus 3 to 4 percent.

This is all pretty accurate. The polls in and of themselves do not demonstrate whether gay marriage would benefit or not benefit society, but it does demonstrate that the majority of folks in the US do not support it.

Civil unions by the way have much broader support. If the moonbats screaming all or nothing would take it slow and just play the political game correctly (not reffering to anyone here). I am certain by 2015, gay marriage mite have been a reality.

I've been saying this for years.
 
Here's the down and dirty of it, and no I don't care to respond to those of you who will troll me for this post.

When it comes down to it, homosexuality is seen as some kind of malfunction or error because the sex drive is incongruent with the actual functions of the physical body parts. Gay man have the sexual attraction of hetero women, and gay women of hetero men.

"Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men, Study Says

On an instinctive level, gay men are trying to impregnate other men and lesbian woman are trying to have the children of other women. This is why many traditional sources call homosexuality "confusion", as confusion doesn't always refer to your ability to reason.

A very interesting study. I've read the Swedish study that it referenced. Interestingly enough it points that there may be a biological link to sexual orientation.

Oh, and btw, your assessment of what it means is completely absurd and the article theorizes nothing close to it.


It is felt by many that gay marriage, by extension, will be just as incongruent, that it will mirror the biological error compelling people to it.

Even if we went as far as to shake hands and agree that born-homosexuality were some kind of genetic error or deformity, so what? Other couples with genetic error or deformities are allowed to marry and they do just fine.

If it can be demonstrated that gays as a demographic are a high-risk-of-divorce group, just like mixed race and mixed religion couples are, then let's make it harder for anyone to marry with the same pen stroke we give gays "marriage".

The real problem is not who has what wrong with them, it's who can create relationships beneficial to society.

I've seen you argue this before. My position would be pretty similar.
 
Last edited:
A very interesting study. I've read the Swedish study that it referenced. Interestingly enough it points that there may be a biological link to sexual orientation.

Oh, and btw, your assessment of what it means is completely absurd and the article theorizes nothing close to it.


It is felt by many that gay marriage, by extension, will be just as incongruent, that it will mirror the biological error compelling people to it.



I've seen you argue this before. My position would be pretty similar.

Hmm...pre-edited post quoted, missing name in a quote box, my text left outside of a quote box.....had a long day?

I do the same things when I'm tired.
 
Last edited:
Hmm...pre-edited post quoted, missing name in a quote box, my text left outside of a quote box.....had a long day?

I do the same things when I'm tired.

Ummm... Jerry... my post is post-quoted perfectly, as it almost always is. I check and double check because I'm very OCD about formatting.


Ah.. never mind... I see the error. I changed my mind in the middle of quoting. Time to fix it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom