• 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!

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?


  • Total voters
    62
Yet I have shown the reseach IS repeatable, one of the most important components to research validity. I understand that you must ignore this because it does not fit with your personal biases, but that does not make it any less true.

Gee capt curious just when did you do that? Would that be that list of studies that seemed to arrive at the same eerily similar findings, gay parents, all gay parents raise children superior in every way to the children raised in two parent homes? Repeatable results in a petrie dish is one thing but just when did any study of human behavior provides such splendidly pristine results?



Several of us already destroyed Schumm's study in another thread about two weeks ago. His study is not credible.

Pardon me, you destroyed schumm's study......really? Ok, you approve of those studies that support your bias and "destroy" those that don't support them. I suppose it would just be plain bad form to simply disagree with your assertion you have "destroyed" schumm's study. I'll simply have to take your word schumm's study is.........not credible.

Actually, what I've noticed is that conservatives like you tend to make ridiculous claims that are just opinions and try to pass them off as facts. Which is precisely what you have been doing in this thread... whereas the liberals have been producing research. Now... how about dispensing with the ridiculous partisan hackery and discuss the topic, honestly. Oh... and btw... Zyphlin is no liberal. Further fail for you.

You mean unlike telling me you've destroyed schumm's study and it isn't credible because.........you said so? I'm sorry capt curious but your hypocracy is showing. I am well aware shumm's study isn't popular but I hardly think your opinion qualifies as fact in this case. I have some rather serious doubts about those studies you've provided. That amounts to my opinion, not fact. I believe you to be in the same boat as I, mearly providing an opinion based on research data neither of us actually posses. I told you to expect this.
 
Last edited:
Not that it matters one bit or that is a good argument to stop marriage but say that was true, I got 2 things.

1. wouldn't it be possible that marriage would help extend relationships
2. I don't see them being dramatically shorter than hetero relationships and marriage itself already ends in divorce what? 51% of the time?

With that said, length of relationship is meaningless and with 1 & 2 above it makes that weak argument even more meaningless.

As I've already stated "many times" in this thread if you don't see the institution of marriage as requiring monogamy and the new york times article supports this assertion you will not change a culture of promiscuity. In point of fact this article in the family research council makes the same assertion as the new york times article. In regards to hetero v homosexual relationship lengths this article indicates;source

· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]

· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8].......

No, you will not approve of the source but it's a very complete article and they do reference studies and provide references. If you would like I can provide articles referencing studies indicating heterosexual relationships last considerably longer.
 
Is same sex marriage a special right or equal protection?


God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and STEVE!!!


There is only straight marriage, so called same sex "marriage" is Sin against God!

BTW purpose of every marriage is producing of children, so called same sex "marriage" can produce nothing except "pride parades" and political scandals.

rubens_-_adam_et_eve.jpg
 
Last edited:

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and STEVE!!!

Yeah but the Bible says nothing about him making Bob and Tom. Or are all those Bob's and Tom's out there non-existant? Or are Christians now saying that God did not create every single one of us? (our spirits/souls whatever)

There is only straight marriage, so called same sex "marriage" is Sin against God!

According to a book which was put together by the Council of Trent which while they were talking about what to put in it the main rule that they had was that no one could be prosecuted for heresy while they were putting together the Bible. Hmm....

BTW purpose of every marriage is producing of children, so called same sex "marriage" can produce nothing except "pride parades" and political scandals.

The only time that marriage has actually had the purpose of producing children was when royalty wanted to secure someones alliegence or make thier claim on royalty as great as possible. Other than that it was about property for countless centuries long before the Church ever got involved. It wasn't even until 1563AD that the Council of Trent (yep, them again) declared that all marriages should be done in the presence of a priest. A mere 448 years ago. And even then it was just about "not living in sin".
 

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and STEVE!!!


There is only straight marriage, so called same sex "marriage" is Sin against God!

Who the hell cares? Keep your god in your church and out of the government. No one is arguing in favor of religious same sex marriage. Secular marriage is the subject of discussion here.
 
You made me watch rachel maddow. Now I hate you. Just what the hell does that video have to do with the primary function of marriage? What does it have to do with gay marriage? Just what does that have to do with capt curious destroying shrumm's study?

Jump to where CC starts talking about the study, it shouldn't be hard, it takes up several pages.
 
Actually, it's quite consistent, when you think about it. Also, it shows repeatablity, one of the key factors that identifies validity in research. I find it interesting that you don't see this, But, of course, you are not anti-gay. :roll:

Consistancy is one thing but virtually identical results is something else. here, contrast the results of your studies with these concerning the length of homosexual relationships. These are very similar findings from different studies, but there are variances among them. That is exactly what one expects from different studies from different researchers in differents countries. One would expect to see variations in studies especially those concerning human behavior. I'm not getting that from many of your studies or the ones I'm familiar with. Just why is that and just why aren't you concerned about that too?

source

· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]

· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years


Most but not all.

I'd say the vast majority. You understand that point too. Yet for some reason you don't see a problem. and this after making the same point in an earlier article I offered concerning gays in large cities.


That's true. The samples are overly representative of whites. However, further research, and I believe it is in the link that I provided, has demonstrated similar findings amongst other ethnicities. This, however, does need to be looked at further.

Once again, I don't as yet have those links. I agree further research is seriously needed but some of these issues already constitute red flags for sceptics such as myself.


This is not accurate. Control groups for the studies tend to be based on either biological, intact families, or adoptive intact families, depending on the study.

Gosh, not according to this article from slate.

source

....The problems don't stop there. A chunk of the gay-parenting literature dates to the 1980s, when researchers drew mostly on children born in heterosexual marriages that dissolved before or after a parent came out. (It was a decade during which studies of divorced- and single-parent families in general multiplied.) With this "transitional generation," it's impossible to disentangle the effects of parents' sexual orientation from those of divorce, of the revelation of homosexuality, and of re-partnering. And whatever impact social stigma had then, it's surely changed somewhat now that same-sex parenthood is more visible.

Finding suitable control groups is tricky, too. In the past, children of divorced single mothers have often served as the point of comparison, even though once-married lesbian mothers are more likely than their heterosexual peers to be living with new partners. Only in the 1990s have some (small) studies matched up children of homosexual and heterosexual donor-insemination couples. Given the limitations of such shaky cross-sectional research, longitudinal studies would be very useful—especially since there's so much interest in developmental issues, including the evolution of kids' gender identities and sexual orientations when they grow up with gay parents. Almost nobody, however, has tracked gay and lesbian families over time......


Because most of the research around homosexuality was faulty, especially that of homosexuality and child molestation. As that information has been found to be non-credible, the amount of gays who rear children have gone up. If I recall correctly, there is at least one, if not two longitudinal studies that I did list.

Well, is this "fact" or "opinion" on your part. If it is a "fact" shouldn't you provide something to support your position or am I to simply accept it as fact......because you say it's so. By the way one or two studies don't constitute "a lot." (that would be an opinion)


Mostly, but the key factor in their reliability is the repeatability of the studies.

Yes, about all those findings that indicate lesbian couples raise children who are better adjusted than those raised in homes with a mother and a father. This article suggests the "repeatability" of many of these studies exist for a reason....bias on the part of the researchers themselves. Of course we both know that could never happen. (that sarcasm on my part not fact)

source
.....But Stacey's boldest move is to challenge not just the methodology but the fundamental assumption that has informed the bulk of gay parenting studies: the idea that it would be damning to discover that kids of gay parents deviated in any way from kids growing up with moms and dads. As other critics have pointed out, the defensive goal of proving sameness is almost a guarantee of weak science. (The hypothesis that both groups of kids are alike is hard to rule out, but that doesn't mean you've established that there are no differences.) That "heterosexist" bias, Stacey argues, has also encouraged researchers to fudge results, anxiously claiming homogeneity where there's actually some variety. Why, she asks, buy into the view that "differences indicate deficits"?.....





This is not accurate. I would say that the samples are mostly NOT from urban areas.

Mostly not?? Is that "fact" or your "opinion?" Could you quantify the term "mostly?" Is there any way we can determine the exact figures? Are there large populations of child rearing lesbians out here in the rural areas of the country?


Not at all. It demonstrates the repeatability of this hypothesis, a cornerstone of research validity. If you do a test and your hypothesis is proven each time, you can say that your hypothesis is valid. I find it interesting that you would question repeatability.

No, I do agree with you on the subject of repeatability. What I do question is that these findings "lesbians raise better behaved children, better adjusted children" without men. This alone puts to question all of those studies over the last 100 years or so that indicated children from homes with a mother and father raised better adjusted and better adapted children. This article references a study by norma radin that supports the idea of the positive influences of males in raising children and suggests one mom is just fine, a second mom could be redundant. Just which set of studies is more valid? They would seem to contradict each other. (that would be me pointing out something you already understand)

source
......Can the "second mommy" compensate for the absence of a father? There is substantial evidence that children benefit from having a second sex represented in the home -- not just a second person. Developmental psychologist Norma Radin and her colleagues studied the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren born to adolescent unwed mothers living with their parents. The young children who had positively involved grandfathers displayed more competence than those with an absent or uninvolved grandfather. The presence of the grandmother, on the other hand, did not have a clear-cut impact, suggesting a redundancy between the two forms of maternal influence.(11) Children, especially boys with involved grandfathers, showed less fear, anger, and distress.(12)......

There are four factors and I believe they were listed at the beginning of my first post.

Well, I don't know about your four factors but this article referenced a study that suggested some researchers have their own ideas about what constitutes "well adjusted."

source

.....There were differences: children raised by parents with SSA showed empathy for "social diversity", were less confined by gender stereotypes (so far so good that's my opinion btw).....and......more likely to have confusion about gender identity, more likely to engage in sexual experimentation and promiscuity, and more likely to explore homosexual behaviour. Stacey and Biblarz characterized these as positive differences, suggesting that same-sex parenting may in fact be superior........(yikes :shock:)

No, it doesn't show that at all. What it shows is that two parents, of any gender or sexual orientation, will rear children equally as well.

So......according to your statement fathers aren't needed in rearing children. I disagree (my opinion, not fact) This article references another article that make this point;

source

In an article entitled, "A Boy and Two Mothers", Toni Heineman reports that in spite of the pretence that two "mothers" were the same as a mother and father, families had to cope with the reality of an absent father.(13)

Men and women grow up with certain natural expectations about what it means to be a man or a woman. Although activists may claim that these feelings are mere social constructions which they can overcome, in practice nature will always have its way.

I agree with this one. I believe children need both men and women in order to develop properly. But that's just me, and my opinion.


So, where are your sources?

Provided. :mrgreen:
 
Jump to where CC starts talking about the study, it shouldn't be hard, it takes up several pages.

I would go look but you're already made me watch rachel maddow. I suppose I'll just havta' "take your word capt crunch "destroyed" the shrumm study. I'm beginning to see a pattern around here, unsupported opinions by liberals around here constitute facts. Good idea, yours perhaps?

Dubious-Man.jpg
 
I would go look but you're already made me watch rachel maddow. I suppose I'll just havta' "take your word capt crunch "destroyed" the shrumm study. I'm beginning to see a pattern around here, unsupported opinions by liberals around here constitute facts. Good idea, yours perhaps?

CC has consistently given many links to studies on homosexuality and homosexuals raising kids through out the time that I have been around DP. If you don't want to look for the ones in the previously provided link just because you wish to throw a hissy fit about watching Maddow then it is your fault.

BTW, why did you even watch Maddow? Did you seriously think that CC would use her as a frame of reference for this topic? CC might be a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.
 
You can believe what you want, but it is nothing but your opinion. Research does not suppor this opinion. And since this is the case, why do YOU insist on keeping the bar low?

I never suggested it was anything but my opinion. BTW just for grins and giggles you could supply some of that good old fashioned research you keep telling me about. Or am I simply required to accept your word such research is in point of fact firmly on your side of the argument and is incontravertable.




Produce the study


This isn't a study but is an article that supports my contention fathers and mothers are important in the developement of children. I know, call me crazy to actually put forth the idea that boys and girls need positive role models from both genders in order to develop and become well adjusted adults.




Really? Lets see some research that proves those numbers.

Those numbers were from the new york times article so many of you objected to. So, I'll give you some wholly new figures to complain about. :mrgreen: (you won't like them or the source either but the article refrences all the needed studies)
source

MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:

Married couples

· A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]

· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]

· A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]

Male Homosexuals

Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]

"Commitment" in Male Homosexual Couples

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."[16]

· The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]

· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]
 
Last edited:
CC has consistently given many links to studies on homosexuality and homosexuals raising kids through out the time that I have been around DP. If you don't want to look for the ones in the previously provided link just because you wish to throw a hissy fit about watching Maddow then it is your fault.

In point of fact tonight he has provided old links that do not function. I believe he will, eventually provide such but not as yet.

BTW, why did you even watch Maddow? Did you seriously think that CC would use her as a frame of reference for this topic? CC might be a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.

Your star linked me to it. The link that was supposed to provide evidence of capn crunch "destroying" the shumm study went directly to a youtube post of a rachel maddow show. Silly me I simply watched the damn video. I never claimed capn crunch is stupid, arrogant maybe, intolerant of others that do not share his views, perhaps even a touch high-handed but not stupid. ;) (I mean that in the very best of ways.)
 
Other... equal penalty.. If straight people have a right to get married and the issues involved with that (good and bad) then gay should have the same right.
 
I believe children need both men and women in order to develop properly. But that's just me, and my opinion.

Evidence and reality prove your opinion wrong.

I wonder what you call it when you hold to an erroneous belief in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Oh that's right! It's called a delusion!
 
Those numbers were from the new york times article so many of you objected to. So, I'll give you some wholly new figures to complain about. :mrgreen: (you won't like them or the source either but the article refrences all the needed studies)[/FONT][/SIZE]
source

So once again you don't compare unmarried homosexual couples to unmarried heterosexual couples, you compare unmarried homosexual couples to married heterosexual couples. You really don't see the obvious flaw in doing that?
 
Provided. :mrgreen:

Can you provide some unbiased, scientific studies please? I was interested in reading what I thought was going to be accredited research supporting your side. I clicked on one link, and it took me to the Family Research Council, and another took me to Mercatornet. I'm not interested in reading opinions, but facts, and these two sources are about as unscientific and biased as you can get (and wasn't the Family Research Council actually listed as a hate group this year?) The Slate article was a good start, but it's 6 years old, and with all the new unbiased scientific and psychiatric evidence coming out over the last few years that shows support for same sex couples and child rearing, I am looking for something reputable that supports the other side's arguments.
 
...(and wasn't the Family Research Council actually listed as a hate group this year?)

Yup. For spreading myths and disinformation about gays and lesbians.

Dutch must be getting desparate. Maybe next he will start posting info from the KKK on blacks and from the Neo Nazis on Jews.
 
Dutch, you have 3 big problems with your posts.

1) You are now using FRC. They have zero credibility. What you are doing would be akin to me using the Democratic National Committee Website to prove republicans are wrong.

2) You are still comparing married strait people to unmarried gay people. It's not a valid comparison for what you are trying to do.

3) You still have not countered the argument that gays being allowed to marry would promote stability, a better environment for children, reduced promiscuity and lower STD rates.
 
again I dont think it would bother me either but I bet it would bother people because we would all know that it was changed because of gays and that could easily be argued as discrimination.

If you dont think so just apply it to race or gender. Heres a funny example I like to use.

Congrats Mr. Obama/ Mrs Clinton! you won! uhm listen, see the thing is we aren’t going to call you the President, see well, uhm , you are half black/a woman and we just cant call you THE PRESIDENT, that’s a “sacred" word based on MY opinion, even though we have used it for all others we are going to change it NOW, we are going to call you aaaaaah . . . . uhm . . . The CEO if the United States of America, yeah thats it.

Now mind you, you'll still have the same "full rights/privileges" and powers and decisions to make has the president we just cant call you that or use that word anymore because of you.


Like I said I dont think it would bother me but if someone wanted to argue discrimination based on the example above id have a tough time arguing against them.

Just saying

I think you're missing something Centrist.

What you are suggesting above is not what I'm proposing, but what we have now in some states. Separate but equal type of thing.

I'm saying remove "marriage" COMPLETELY as a legal term, for ANYONE, and simply make civil union between two people the only government sponsored coupling. Two same sex people? Civil union. Two opposite sex people? Civil Union.

So if people want they could be "Married" in their church, but not form a civil union under the government to have it legally recognized and be given the extra privileged associated. Conversely, two people could choose to forgo a religious "marriage" but simply go and get a civil union. Or they could be married by a church and sign the documents needed to form a civil union.

What it essentially does is allow you to have two COMPLETELY separate things...legally, the civil union, privately, the marriage.

There can be no legitimate claims of discrimination because it would be the status applied to all individuals.
 
Evidence and reality prove your opinion wrong.

I wonder what you call it when you hold to an erroneous belief in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Oh that's right! It's called a delusion!

Believing men and women to be equally important in raising both boys and girls makes me "delusional?" If that's what you wish to believe, go ahead. I simply disagree with you. I have already linked one article that referenced one study that refutes your assertion. Would you like for me to point it out, again? Would you?source

.....Can the "second mommy" compensate for the absence of a father? There is substantial evidence that children benefit from having a second sex represented in the home -- not just a second person. Developmental psychologist Norma Radin and her colleagues studied the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren born to adolescent unwed mothers living with their parents. The young children who had positively involved grandfathers displayed more competence than those with an absent or uninvolved grandfather. The presence of the grandmother, on the other hand, did not have a clear-cut impact, suggesting a redundancy between the two forms of maternal influence.(11) Children, especially boys with involved grandfathers, showed less fear, anger, and distress.(12)

Even gay-affirming therapists are noting the problem. In an article entitled, "A Boy and Two Mothers", Toni Heineman reports that in spite of the pretence that two "mothers" were the same as a mother and father, families had to cope with the reality of an absent father.(13)

Men and women grow up with certain natural expectations about what it means to be a man or a woman. Although activists may claim that these feelings are mere social constructions which they can overcome, in practice nature will always have its way....


The very idea, the very concept that children actually develop, grow, mature better in environments that include both their fathers and mothers was actually, once, a very commonly held belief. Honest. Naturally, you can disagree with the article. You can object to the premis of the study. You can even continue to call me "delusional" for my long held beliefs. Better yet why don't you reference some more studies that support your contention that both male and females are not really needed in order to raise competent adults of both sexes. Please, feel free to, or you can just sit there and make silly claims or send me some more snotty pm's. The choice is yours.
 
And now you are using a blog as a source. Keep up the good work Dutch.
 
Dutch, you have 3 big problems with your posts.

1) You are now using FRC. They have zero credibility. What you are doing would be akin to me using the Democratic National Committee Website to prove republicans are wrong.

.......and the studies contained therein? Naturally, you don't approve of the sources but that's how this works. You provide a source I provide an alternative one. We both know that. If I am only limited to sources that you approve then you should only use those I approve of. Otherwise this doesn't work. Debate is impossible.

2) You are still comparing married strait people to unmarried gay people. It's not a valid comparison for what you are trying to do.

I've provided articles suggesting gays presently view marriage from a different perspective than I do. I view it as an insitution that requires monogamy as essention in order to be effective. I have provided articles that suggest "many" in the gay community do not believe marriage requires monogamy, at all. This is a cultural difference. It's to be expected. It's at the heart of my argument. It's your culture that determines the institution, not the institution that determines your culture.



3) You still have not countered the argument that gays being allowed to marry would promote stability, a better environment for children, reduced promiscuity and lower STD rates.

I believe I have. I have already provided two articles that suggest indicate homosexual relationships tend to be less stable than heterosexual ones now. I have also linked an article in the new york times (many disagree with) that suggests many gays don't view monogamy important for a marriage.

Unless monogamy becomes a priority in gay relationships, unless the nature of gay relationships change for the majority of the community they will continue to remain shortlived, and unstable by definition.

In some ways we are at an impass. You are suggesting the institution of marriage will change the gay community. I am suggesting the gay community will have to change in order for the institution of marriage to work for them. What comes first the chicken or the egg.

At any rate the very best environments for children are those that are stable, and longterm. Feel free to call me "delusional" for thinking this way as critical thinking has already branded me as such.

I tell ya' what why don't you references support for your contention that the gay community will change their cultural mores and their views of marriage.........just because. You see the problem, don't ya?

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom