• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

We're "guilty?" Wow. Yea....we're guilty of knowledge Sir. We're guilty of knowin what in blue blazes we're talking about.



You are the member in here completely at a loss concerning this issue.

Sexual orientation is how someone feels about their sexuality.

Seuxal behavior is commiting a sexual act.

People can and do commit acts that they don't like. For example: Could you as a heterosexual have sex with another man? Yes you could. Would you as a heterosexual be repulsed by such an act? Yes you would be. Now apply that to male homosexuals having sex with a woman.

That sir explains the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. How one behaves does not necessarily mean that is what they are.


"Guilty" of appealing to "nature?" And "over and over" even? Wow. Imagine our shame...appealing to reality and nature. Tsk tsk.

Here is why your appeal to nature is false. As humans we are all considered mammals. As mammals we have a rather large family tree in the animal world. Indeed we are still considered as animals scientifically speaking. There are many mammals in the world that are not human and yet display homosexual tendancies. As such we can tell that such behavior is instinctual. Which shows that homosexuality is an instinct. Much like heterosexuality is displayed in the same way.

Some animals that are mammals that display homosexual tendencies are: (note that there are other animals in the animal kingdom that display homosexual tendancies also)

African Elephant
Brown Bear
Brown Rat
Buffalo
Caribou
Cat (domestic)
Cheetah
Common Dolphin
Common Marmoset
Common Raccoon
Dog (domestic)
European Bison
Prea

Wiki (as much as I hate using wiki it is a good source for a list..which can then be looked up on other sources..i'll leave that up to you)

I've sent a flock of data over you've yet to address, your assumption here is untrue, it isn't even close. You purposefully remove one of the genders from a child being raised, to pretend that has no affect is stratospherically wrong.

According to research homosexuals raise children just as good as heterosexuals. CC and jallman has provided links to this research in this very thread. Not surprising that you ignore it.

Your arguement that a childs self image being a bad reason to come to the conclusions is idiotic as ANY persons self image is a big factor in how well they will do in life. If they have a good self image then you can gauruntee that that person will lead a successful life. Kids do not get a good self image if they are living in homes that are not conducive to such.

For the part that was ignored the research conducted wasn't only about self image. It was also about how well they do in school academically.

Procreation is necessary though...for child rearing, homosexuality in fact anything homosexual whatsoever...is absolutely and clearly unnecessary. Not understanding that heterosexuality is the necessary sexual behavior and orientation to conceive children is profoudly wrong and shakes your entire theory to the ground. And your argument finally coned down here to 'benefits from the state', it appears that's all this argument is to the pro-gay movements and arguments. Marriage becomes merely a contract(absolute nonsense), the arguments coned down to what benefits are in it for us, how can we legitimize ourselves in the eyes of the 'state.'

Just because it is "unnecessary" does not mean that it doesn't exist. Or that it is bad.



Removing these wrong-headed and clearly confused arguments from yourself and jallman and others...setting them on the ground in neat order and on column...and piecemeal destroying each isn't misrepresentation. It's the utter destruction of the error prone points and arguments you and others are trying to make here. Pretending two women can raise a child, purposefully removing the father and faking like everything is just the same. What poppycock.

Going by the research two women can raise a child. As can two men. As well as heterosexuals. The research that YOU have shown is geared towards single parent homes and has nothing, nothing to do with how homosexual parents raised children. Another reason why your arguements are false. They are based on research that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Not only provided proof, reminded you of the blatant facts as well......and they clearly shoe you're wrong.

Again, the proof you showed had nothing to do with homosexuals raising children. It had to do with single parent homes. Which as anyone knows no child will do as good as those raised by two parents.

The number of colossal errors within your post certainly needs an excuse and a long day is as good as any other. I hope and pray I;ve been able to open your eyes a little more towards my side of the argument. Please read my links and explain your arguments if you can.

You are the one that made a colossal error. Several of them. From saying that if you procreate then you are not homosexual to saying that children are not raised in homosexual homes as good as heterosexual homes.
 
Last edited:
As I said, you have demonstrated that you have little or no understanding of what we are discussing. Must be frustrating for you.

I'm enjoying the debate, not frustrating at all. what we are discussing is same sex marriage. And while I didn't raise the issue, children were raised. Some of you offered a guess that purposefully removing either the male or female role model from the home was a no harm no foul on the child and I've been busy destroying that colossal error. You keep pretending I don't know what the issue is though, that is a much safer play on your part.

Tell us what the difference is.

Who is "us?"

I've already given you "a" purpose. Prove design.

What...are you talking about? You've given nothing. And I need not prove anything, I'm speaking reality and nature, remember. There are proven already.

Sad. You do not understand what a logical fallacy is. Interesting since that is how you debate.

But...how I debate.....much like how you moderate....as you've consistently reminded me...isn't the issue. I trust you being the fair warrior, I'll hear no more about my process.....and we'll remain on content. I've been careful to address your argument...not you.

And as polite as I can be, I couldn't care less what makes you 'sad' either. Nothing personal, I'm not getting sad here. Slaughtering this argument of yours is quite fun, and...mine contains no fallacy, logical or otherwise. Not that you've shown anyway.

Any data you have given has been trumped by the information and data I have provided. How does it feel to lose so colossally huge?

So, a child does not, nor is not affected by the absence of a father in the home? Is this your position? Cause, that ain't winning and I'm sorry about that.

Marriage IS about a contract and IS about what benefits the state. That is why the government sanctions it. You just put your foot in your mouth...again.

To government...it is about contract and benefits. Legality and for the common good. For example, you may not enter this contract with your sister. Regardless of gender. Many states do not permit first cousins to enter into matrimony....do we know any contracts like this?

To society, to We the People...it is clearly much more than a contract. And, as it is our right to define our institution and as our government governs at the consent of the governed, we outlaw first cousin marriage contracts. It is no longer a contract or benefit when we do not allow you to marry your brother, there is no other binding contract denied you and your brother, marriage is it.

We do not permit you to enter into this contract should you already be in a contract with another....a unique feature I should say. Know any contracts that resemble that....a patent perhaps?

My feet firmly on the ground...as grounded as my argument you still cannot deflect. Marriage is seen by our society as uch more than a contract. The government sees it as a contract with bennies...but puts unique standards and laws that are applicable and these laws are defined by society...or should be. It isn't up to a robe or suit to determine who gets married, We the People need to determine that and.....we have. :cool:

Dismantling your position was simple.

Any objective reader knows you haven't even come close.:2wave:

You have opened my eyes to your argument. And I see it for what it is: absolutely nothing.

I'm dead on here, we both know it.:)
 
Charles,

Did you have a position? I noticed only that you blatantly misused statistics. You used single parent statistics in reference to gay couples. Then you used statistics of only heterosexual couples in reference to gay couples.

If I found that children raised by wolves were better off that children raised by bears, then how would that tell me anything about children raised by dingos? The analogy is that you can't compare children who were raised by biological parents to children raised by single parents and determine how they would be compared to children raised by gay couples. Having two incomes to support a child plays a far greater role in how that child turns out than what the sexes of the parents are.

Absolutely nothing you have said has indicated that children raised by gay couples are no better or worse off than children raise by heterosexual couples.
 
Last edited:
Yours can. a simple editor and common knowledge destroys your arguments

Poor Charles. Still can wrap your brain around what's going on here. The level of your lack of knowledge on this topic is immense. You must practice. A lot.



Is that your way of saying, uncle?

No, it's my way of saying that your poor debating is really boring. Get some facts and maybe we could talk.
 
I'm enjoying the debate, not frustrating at all. what we are discussing is same sex marriage. And while I didn't raise the issue, children were raised. Some of you offered a guess that purposefully removing either the male or female role model from the home was a no harm no foul on the child and I've been busy destroying that colossal error. You keep pretending I don't know what the issue is though, that is a much safer play on your part.

You don't know what the issue is and demonstrate this fact in every ill-informed post.



Who is "us?"

Ignoring the question. I accept your concession.



What...are you talking about? You've given nothing. And I need not prove anything, I'm speaking reality and nature, remember. There are proven already.

Can't prove it? Good...I accept your concession. That's two.



But...how I debate.....much like how you moderate....as you've consistently reminded me...isn't the issue. I trust you being the fair warrior, I'll hear no more about my process.....and we'll remain on content. I've been careful to address your argument...not you.

And as polite as I can be, I couldn't care less what makes you 'sad' either. Nothing personal, I'm not getting sad here. Slaughtering this argument of yours is quite fun, and...mine contains no fallacy, logical or otherwise. Not that you've shown anyway.

You debate with nothing but non-logic. It is sad because you seem so passionate about that which you do not understand and are incorrect about. You can't even tell how badly you have been massacred. Or, you are still trying to save face. Here's a secret for you...it's not working. :lol:



So, a child does not, nor is not affected by the absence of a father in the home? Is this your position? Cause, that ain't winning and I'm sorry about that.

Please point out where I argued that. Oh...and as to your links...I'll get to them in a moment. They are quite easy to refute.



To government...it is about contract and benefits. Legality and for the common good. For example, you may not enter this contract with your sister. Regardless of gender. Many states do not permit first cousins to enter into matrimony....do we know any contracts like this?

To society, to We the People...it is clearly much more than a contract. And, as it is our right to define our institution and as our government governs at the consent of the governed, we outlaw first cousin marriage contracts. It is no longer a contract or benefit when we do not allow you to marry your brother, there is no other binding contract denied you and your brother, marriage is it.

We do not permit you to enter into this contract should you already be in a contract with another....a unique feature I should say. Know any contracts that resemble that....a patent perhaps?

My feet firmly on the ground...as grounded as my argument you still cannot deflect. Marriage is seen by our society as uch more than a contract. The government sees it as a contract with bennies...but puts unique standards and laws that are applicable and these laws are defined by society...or should be. It isn't up to a robe or suit to determine who gets married, We the People need to determine that and.....we have. :cool:

All of which is irrelevant to the argument at hand. But I'd imagine you already know that. Trying to throw in red herrings may work on others, but it is a weak debate tactic, Charles, one you seem very familiar with.



Any objective reader knows you haven't even come close.:2wave:

Every objective reader knows that I've destroyed you over and over.



I'm dead on here, we both know it.:)

You're dead wrong here and we both know it.
 
Last edited:
From my previous link:



What do the libs say?



All of you are dead wrong, obviously uneducated on this issue. Perhaps another where you're more informed and can keep up with my plethora of data.



Read more: What happens to kids raised by gay parents?

Charles, Charles, Charles, you are quoting James Dobson, a noted anti-gay evangelical Christian who has never done any valid studies on gay marraige and the children of those unions. His opinion in matters of fact, therefore are irrelevant, and his words are equally irrelevant. Beyond it being irrelevant for these reasons, it falls under the Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority) logical fallacy. Therefore...

It is irrelevant to the argument. Nothing but a red herring.

You've got nothing, Charles.
 
Last edited:
So, let's recap again. Charles has refused answer specific questions that I pointed out in post #1030, demonstrating his failed postion through diverting and refusing to address issues. Charles has not addressed the wealth of data presented that demonstrates that children reared by gay couple do as well as those reared by straight couples because a) he can't, b) the data further destroys his position, and c) hmmm...did I say he can't? :lol: And, finally, Charles presents data/information that is irrelevant to the topic, does not address the issue in context, and presents great examples of several logical fallacies that I have shown.

So, in conclusion, not only have I had fun showing how Charles has no argument, and has run scared from addressing anything posted. but I think we all now know that nothing Charles has said in this debate has any validity.

Now watch Charles present more red herrings, more logical fallacies, continue to refuse to address issues as presented, continue to misrepresent positions, and continue to get annihilated in this debate. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I don't wanna. I do a better job of arguing against gay marriage than he does. Maybe I could give him some pointers.
 
To society, to We the People...it is clearly much more than a contract. And, as it is our right to define our institution and as our government governs at the consent of the governed, we outlaw first cousin marriage contracts. It is no longer a contract or benefit when we do not allow you to marry your brother, there is no other binding contract denied you and your brother, marriage is it.

Actually marriage is controlled by two groups. One is religious in nature. The other is the government. Both those groups dictate who may get married and who may not.

A bit of history here before I get to the meat of my post. It wasn't until 1563 when marriages started to be supervised by the church, by the decree of the Council of Trent. Before then it was a state run institution where possible. Where it wasn't it was normally just two people saying that they were married.

Now to the meat of my post.

Since the government cannot make laws regarding religion it is obvious that they could not make laws when it concerns marriage if they thought that it was strictly only for religion. It is also obvious that The People think this also since they allow the government to make laws concerning marriage.

So the government bases it's laws on two things.

1: Weather or not such a law is a detriment to society as a whole. If it's a detriment it is not allowed. If such a detrimental law is passed we have avenues of getting rid of it. Mainly through the court.

2: Is it denying something to an individual something that it would give to another group.

Remember our laws are based on individual rights also..not just what the majority wants. This is proved in several ways.

1: There are several spots in the Constitution that mention individual rights.

2: Slavery.

3: Loving vs Virginia.

To name just a few.

Now to focus on my point. Which is individual rights.

Now sure I'm sure that you will state that everyone has equality in getting married. After all they can marry whoever they want just like you can....so long as it's someone of the opposite sex...as you are restricted to the same. That's equal right? No it is not. And your above quoted paragraph shows why. Marriage is more than just a contract with bennies to The People. What is that more? In today's society that "more" is Love. Marriage is about love. Marriage is about not just commiting to someone but also showing that commitment. Marriage is a pledge, a promise to that special someone. That special someone being the one that you love.

/tangent

Now some will try and spin this by bringing in pedophilia or marrying sisters/brothers/first cousins/parents et al. Thing is though is that those are a detriment to society. They will also try and spin it some more by saying that you can't just up and marry someone that you love. While this is true it is still spin. Because everyone knows that in order for there to be marriage BOTH people must agree to the marriage. Knowing this they try to play the semantic game when someone says "one that you love". So know full well that when I say "marry the one that you love" I am including BOTH people. Not just one.

/endtangent

So to get back on subject here, heterosexuals may marry the one that they love. Homosexuals cannot. That is what makes laws against GM unequal.

There goes the second point for why government should allow it.

Now in all the time that I have studied about homosexuality I have never come across anything that shows that allowing GM is a detriment to society.

People have tried using statistics about AIDS being a "gay disease" in the US. That does not work as it is behavior that regulates that. Not orientation.

People have tried to use religion (Bible) to show that it is morally wrong. Irrelevant as morals once thought that it was ok to enslave and segregate people. Even by the bible.

People have tried to say that it goes against nature. Nature has shown otherwise through around 1500 different species of animals.

People have tried to say that it would destroy marriage. No proof of that what so ever. The fact that people still get married in Michigan shows this to be false.

People have tried to say that it would hurt children mentally. This has been proven to be false by several studies.

People have tried to say that children would not do as well academically. This has been proven to be false by several studies.

Now it has been proven that families make people more happy and more productive. The same would apply to homosexual families.

So since there is no detriment that I have EVER seen of allowing GM to happen we can safely say that the government should not care if GM was allowed. Indeed they should push for it since it would make more people happier and more productive in the long run.

So to summarize here...

There is no detriment to having GM/gay families. Indeed it would be a positive to allow GM/gay families.

Based on today's standards of what a marriage is about, beyond the contractual, marriage is not equal.

Hope you enjoyed this rather long post. :2wave:
 
From my previous link:



What do the libs say?



All of you are dead wrong, obviously uneducated on this issue. Perhaps another where you're more informed and can keep up with my plethora of data.



Read more: What happens to kids raised by gay parents?

Wow...talk about cherry picking (something that is even talked about in your article). You pick out two paragraphs and totally ignore the rest.

OH and btw, from the article...

When Dr. Dobson, in his Time magazine essay criticizing Ms. Cheney, cited research from Kyle Pruett at Yale University to state that children need fathers, Dr. Pruett, author of "Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child," was furious, claiming Dr. Dobson had misrepresented his findings to suggest that children of gay parents would somehow suffer developmentally. After attempts to contact Dr. Dobson proved fruitless, he taped an interview and posted it on YouTube.com excoriating the conservative leader.

"Look, I said, if you're going to use my research to judge and implicate personal decisions people are making, you are going to hear from me about it because I consider this a destructive use of good science," Dr. Pruett said in an interview.

While "fathers make unique contributions to children, never do I say in my book that children of gay parents are at risk. Love binds parents and children together, not gender. There are plenty of boys and girls from these families with masculine and feminine role models who turn out just fine."

Mr. Spriggs remains unrepentant about his and Dr. Dobson's use of research to bolster their contention that children do best with a mother and a father.
 
Sexual orientation is how someone feels about their sexuality.

Ok...so what?

Seuxal behavior is commiting a sexual act.

And what is human sexuality? And don't both issues you're speaking to above fall under the umbrella of human sexuality? The answer is yes they do in case you're struggling. Furthermore, in the umbrella of human sexuality, orientation and behavoir don't rate but a mere fraction. I'm dead on correct about this, it's clear as day.

People can and do commit acts that they don't like.

So what?

For example: Could you as a heterosexual have sex with another man?

Of course I could!

Yes you could. Would you as a heterosexual be repulsed by such an act? Yes you would be.

Repulsed isn't the issue, it is in fact irrelevant, what in God's name are you even talking about?

Now apply that to male homosexuals having sex with a woman.

What like...the many homosexual men who have sex with women? Cause, I'm gonna perhaps sort of but not really buy the 'gay' woman being repulsed by having sex with a man argument....but do not tell me 'gay' men are repulsed by a woman if they've been married and especially if they have children. You...obviously ain't repulsed are you. Unless you're going to claim differently....I mean.....you're saying above that I'm repulsed by sex with another man and now apply that to gay people......I think you are correct about the repulsed part even though it's irrelevant but then.....I'm not going to ejaculate or reach orgasm if I'm repulsed now....am I? Or is that normal? I cannot remember one single solitary orgasm in my lifetime whereupon I;ve reached it after first being repulsed! Could you tell me more about this phenom, until then....I'll go ahead and assume no gay man who has fathered a child is "repulsed" by sex with a woman. Please.

That sir explains the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. How one behaves does not necessarily mean that is what they are.

I know that, I've argued the exact same. For example, after you father a child, you can act out anyway you'd like, you're not 'gay.' At the very most, you're bisexual however, you ain't gay. Sorry.

Here is why your appeal to nature is false. As humans we are all considered mammals.

The fact that we are all considered mammals.....ruins my appeal to nature?

Which shows that homosexuality is an instinct.

An instinct? Can you prove this? Sir, instincts are survival traits, will you please give me an analogy, what other instinct can you name like homosexuality then if this is your theory. It's not an instinct, sorry, this is another definition you don't have correct.

I mean...You tell me an appeal to nature isn't applicable and then you make one yourself? Interesting. And, can you show me where homosexual behavior in any mammal kingdom, family, or subset affects that animal community in the slightest. Do these homosexual mammals merely behave in that manner or are they repulsed by natural sexual behavior, do they not reproduce as many human 'gays' don't reproduce? Cause if they do, what you've seen is bisexuality in some animals, akin to a female dog mounting another, there could be numerous reasons for it.

According to research homosexuals raise children just as good as heterosexuals. CC and jallman has provided links to this research in this very thread. Not surprising that you ignore it.

The research shows just as good AND as bad. Meaning the lack of either a male or femal role model in the home is the EXACT same. Correct? You're claiming your relationships are all the same, it'll be the same divorce rate, same abuse rates, same domestic violence rates...correct? And you'll have the exact same "just as bads" as well. And the overwhelming evidence on the lack of a father in the home you continue to seny as if denial were a river in Egypt Sir, the lack of a father...or mother has the EXACT same affect on children. Just because there are two parents doesn't make it equal, you are purposefully removing the female or male from the home and that is NEVER or can NEVER be the equal of a nuclear family where the male father and female mother live with their offspring, it is what we all should strive to attain, it's what EVERY MAMMAL in your example strives to attain as well. Your argument here Sir, is dead wrong and utter poppycock, I've destroyed it several times over responding to other arguments as wrong as yours.

If they have a good self image then you can gauruntee that that person will lead a successful life.

What in the world? If they have a good self image, that's the guarantee of success? Why is it the lack of a father in the home then is such a drain on self image, can you explain?

For the part that was ignored the research conducted wasn't only about self image. It was also about how well they do in school academically.

Uhhh...not only how they do academically, whether they will use drugs, become involved in crime, behave irrationally, suffer from mental disease, cycle in poverty, the fatherless home is the #1 common denominator for men in prison, did you know that?

Just because it is "unnecessary" does not mean that it doesn't exist. Or that it is bad.

Means it's irrelevant. Any homosexual orientation, behavior, act of circus flying skill whatever...means absolutely nothing. It is an behavioral act, it doesn't contribute to anything save for the joy of those engaged. Irrelevant to mankind, irrelevant to the survival of ANY species. The lack of heterosexuality of course.....we aren't having this conversation...correct?

Going by the research two women can raise a child. As can two men.

What utter nonsense. And my research has shown the fallacy of your arguments. There are no studies that research gay parents to straight parents. Many gay parents become parents after one of them has come out of another marriage or relationship. Where the child is already many times grown, where the child still has a relationship to the parent who isn't gay.

The research shows that if you remove the male or female....which ssm does on purpose..it affects the child adversely. Now, I'm sorry if the facts shoot your arguments down like a world war one Spad but hey....great news...the smoldering wreckage of what remains of your argument can be found over the horizon.:2wave:
 
Charles, Charles, Charles, you are quoting James Dobson, a noted anti-gay evangelical Christian who has never done any valid studies on gay marraige and the children of those unions. His opinion in matters of fact, therefore are irrelevant, and his words are equally irrelevant. Beyond it being irrelevant for these reasons, it falls under the Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority) logical fallacy. Therefore...

It is irrelevant to the argument. Nothing but a red herring.

You've got nothing, Charles.

Actually, this is but one of my links, I've repeatedly overwhelmed the forum with links to children affected by no father in the home. I've been quioting and linking many different sources, CC, something you've failed to do.

You're wrong, I'm proving it so, you don't like that very much, thus your charge I've nothing. I'm actually dead on correct here and we both know it.:mrgreen:
 
So, let's recap again. Charles has refused answer specific questions that I pointed out in post #1030, demonstrating his failed postion through diverting and refusing to address issues. Charles has not addressed the wealth of data presented that demonstrates that children reared by gay couple do as well as those reared by straight couples because a) he can't, b) the data further destroys his position, and c) hmmm...did I say he can't? :lol: And, finally, Charles presents data/information that is irrelevant to the topic, does not address the issue in context, and presents great examples of several logical fallacies that I have shown.

So, in conclusion, not only have I had fun showing how Charles has no argument, and has run scared from addressing anything posted. but I think we all now know that nothing Charles has said in this debate has any validity.

Now watch Charles present more red herrings, more logical fallacies, continue to refuse to address issues as presented, continue to misrepresent positions, and continue to get annihilated in this debate. :lol:

I've destroyed your every argument and stand firm on mine. The purposeful removal of either gender on the nuclear family is societal suicide. And most people do not equate a relationship between two of the same gender as the equal of marriage. I've shown you why your research is flawed, why you pretend denial is a river in Egypt, why a 'gay' parent isn't possible, why homosexuality isn't necessary, in fact, irrelevant to human sexuality.

It does rate on the CDC most suicidal behaviors, in fact, is more dangerous than sharing needles but, that's an another issue, we'll remain on topic, and I'll remain grounded in my arguments.

You're losng this debate, CC.;)
 
I've destroyed your every argument and stand firm on mine. The purposeful removal of either gender on the nuclear family is societal suicide. And most people do not equate a relationship between two of the same gender as the equal of marriage. I've shown you why your research is flawed, why you pretend denial is a river in Egypt, why a 'gay' parent isn't possible, why homosexuality isn't necessary, in fact, irrelevant to human sexuality.

It does rate on the CDC most suicidal behaviors, in fact, is more dangerous than sharing needles but, that's an another issue, we'll remain on topic, and I'll remain grounded in my arguments.

You're losng this debate, CC.;)

All you're doing is demonstrating your anti-gay bias and pretending it's 'facts'.

We get the picture. See ya later.
 
Last edited:
I don't wanna. I do a better job of arguing against gay marriage than he does. Maybe I could give him some pointers.

I'm all ears....err...eyes. Your contribution and advice would be appreciated even if it was needed.

Ummm...and some advice of my own, your error is to call it gay marriage...there are many many 'gay' people who are married, no one is EVER denied a marriage license because they're 'gay', not ever. Same sex marriage is the issue, you're denied marriage as you're the same gender, not the same orientation. Mind this while you ponder in critical thought concerning ssm.
 
Actually, this is but one of my links, I've repeatedly overwhelmed the forum with links to children affected by no father in the home. I've been quioting and linking many different sources, CC, something you've failed to do.

You're wrong, I'm proving it so, you don't like that very much, thus your charge I've nothing. I'm actually dead on correct here and we both know it.:mrgreen:

You have posted irrelevant links, and links that disprove your point.
 
You have posted irrelevant links, and links that disprove your point.

Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. My links are relevant and appropriate and destroy the error-prone arguments being submitted in here. Some of them are downright disingenuous.
 
Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. My links are relevant and appropriate and destroy the error-prone arguments being submitted in here. Some of them are downright disingenuous.

No, your links would have been relevant if they compared compared children raised by same sex couples and found them less adjusted than children raised in dual sex couples. You have not shown anything of the sort. You have shown that children raised in single parent homes do less well than those raised with 2 parents, which no one is disagreeing with. You have also shown, with your own links, that children raised by gay couples do just as well as those raised by strait couples, which entirely disproves your point. Yes, that's right, you showed and quoted a source which disproved your very theory.
 
I don't see where anyone's orientation nor those we source or know is relevant here, please explain.

I'm establishing how much first hand information you have about gay people. How many gays or lesbians do you know to talk to? Are you willing to answer the question?

Facts are facts. I agree with Redress and do not dispute the claim that children are better off with two rather than one parent. The gender of the single parent or two parent family is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Ok...so what?

The fact that you say this shows that you cannot grasp the difference and why that difference is so important.

And what is human sexuality? And don't both issues you're speaking to above fall under the umbrella of human sexuality? The answer is yes they do in case you're struggling. Furthermore, in the umbrella of human sexuality, orientation and behavoir don't rate but a mere fraction. I'm dead on correct about this, it's clear as day.

Yes it is under the same umbrella. However, to use an analogy, Geology and Oceanography are both under the earth sciences umbrella, yet they are obviously different. So just because they are under the same umbrella doesn't mean that there are not major differences.


Refer to my first paragraph in this thread.

Of course I could!

Obviously.

Repulsed isn't the issue, it is in fact irrelevant, what in God's name are you even talking about?

Actually it is very much relevant. You are trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Doing something that repulses you is not a choice. Doing something that repulses you is something that you either HAVE to do or are forced to do.

What like...the many homosexual men who have sex with women? Cause, I'm gonna perhaps sort of but not really buy the 'gay' woman being repulsed by having sex with a man argument....but do not tell me 'gay' men are repulsed by a woman if they've been married and especially if they have children. You...obviously ain't repulsed are you. Unless you're going to claim differently....I mean.....you're saying above that I'm repulsed by sex with another man and now apply that to gay people......I think you are correct about the repulsed part even though it's irrelevant but then.....I'm not going to ejaculate or reach orgasm if I'm repulsed now....am I? Or is that normal? I cannot remember one single solitary orgasm in my lifetime whereupon I;ve reached it after first being repulsed! Could you tell me more about this phenom, until then....I'll go ahead and assume no gay man who has fathered a child is "repulsed" by sex with a woman. Please.

There are varying degrees of being repulsed by something. I think you know this. And yes you could still ejaculate and have an orgasm by having sex with another man. Having an orgasm and ejaculating are biological responses to physical stimuli. As such they are seperate from the kind of sexuality that we are discussing.


I know that, I've argued the exact same. For example, after you father a child, you can act out anyway you'd like, you're not 'gay.' At the very most, you're bisexual however, you ain't gay. Sorry.

You are again confusing sexual behavior with a sexual orientation. You have not argued the exact same thing.

The fact that we are all considered mammals.....ruins my appeal to nature?

Taking things out of context will get you no where. There is a reason that when we write we write in paragraphs. And that is to put things into context.

An instinct? Can you prove this? Sir, instincts are survival traits, will you please give me an analogy, what other instinct can you name like homosexuality then if this is your theory. It's not an instinct, sorry, this is another definition you don't have correct.
Know the defination and there is no need for any of that.

Main Entry: 1in·stinct
Pronunciation: \ˈin-ˌstiŋ(k)t\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin instinctus impulse, from instinguere to incite; akin to Latin instigare to instigate
Date: 15th century
1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Since, with the exceptions of humans (who are still instinctual) animals cannot reason it stands to reason that they only go by instincts.

I mean...You tell me an appeal to nature isn't applicable and then you make one yourself? Interesting. And, can you show me where homosexual behavior in any mammal kingdom, family, or subset affects that animal community in the slightest. Do these homosexual mammals merely behave in that manner or are they repulsed by natural sexual behavior, do they not reproduce as many human 'gays' don't reproduce? Cause if they do, what you've seen is bisexuality in some animals, akin to a female dog mounting another, there could be numerous reasons for it.

I was not the one that said an appeal to nature isn't applicable. I did say that your appeal to nature was false though.

Like what other reasons? Remember, animals do not reason. If they could then we would not be the only dominate race on this planet.

The research shows just as good AND as bad. Meaning the lack of either a male or femal role model in the home is the EXACT same. Correct? You're claiming your relationships are all the same, it'll be the same divorce rate, same abuse rates, same domestic violence rates...correct? And you'll have the exact same "just as bads" as well. And the overwhelming evidence on the lack of a father in the home you continue to seny as if denial were a river in Egypt Sir, the lack of a father...or mother has the EXACT same affect on children. Just because there are two parents doesn't make it equal, you are purposefully removing the female or male from the home and that is NEVER or can NEVER be the equal of a nuclear family where the male father and female mother live with their offspring, it is what we all should strive to attain, it's what EVERY MAMMAL in your example strives to attain as well. Your argument here Sir, is dead wrong and utter poppycock, I've destroyed it several times over responding to other arguments as wrong as yours.

Incorrect. You are trying to say that a family must have both a male and a female couple for the child to turn out normal. Using studies that show single parent families. This has been proven false. You keep focusing on the word "father" in your posts. Problem with this is that when raising a kid the most important factors in raising that kids is..

1: Money.
2: Stability.
3: Relationship with the parents.

Money: Obviously the more money you have the better you will be able to meet any of the needs that the child needs. The less money you have the less you will be able to meet their needs.

Stability: If the child is in a family where the parents are always fighting and subsequently get a divorce that is not stability and will suffer emotionally. Because of this they will not have as good of a self esteem. However if the parents are not fighting and are living happily together the child will be more happy and self-confident.

Relationship with parents: If the relationship is good with both parents this also promotes happiness and self confidence. If the relationship is bad..well guess what?

What in the world? If they have a good self image, that's the guarantee of success? Why is it the lack of a father in the home then is such a drain on self image, can you explain?

It's not the lack of a father, its the lack of a second parental figure. A child raised in a household where there is no mother suffers the same as a child raised in a household without a father. This shows that the sex of the parents has nothing to do with what is happening to the child. A single parent household has half the income, half the stability, and half the emotional support that a two parent household has.

Uhhh...not only how they do academically, whether they will use drugs, become involved in crime, behave irrationally, suffer from mental disease, cycle in poverty, the fatherless home is the #1 common denominator for men in prison, did you know that?

You are again associating a study with homosexuality when that study has nothing what so ever to do with homosexuality. That study has everything to do with the above list that I have just given.

Means it's irrelevant. Any homosexual orientation, behavior, act of circus flying skill whatever...means absolutely nothing. It is an behavioral act, it doesn't contribute to anything save for the joy of those engaged. Irrelevant to mankind, irrelevant to the survival of ANY species. The lack of heterosexuality of course.....we aren't having this conversation...correct?

You're right, we're not having this conversation. Because you base your whole argument on a study which has nothing to do with homosexuals. As the author of such a study basically said in an article that you yourself provided.

What utter nonsense. And my research has shown the fallacy of your arguments. There are no studies that research gay parents to straight parents. Many gay parents become parents after one of them has come out of another marriage or relationship. Where the child is already many times grown, where the child still has a relationship to the parent who isn't gay.

There may be no studies that research gay parents to straight parents but there are studies that research kids raised in homosexual homes vs heterosexual homes. The studies show no difference in how the kids turned out.

And your arguements are based off of study that had nothing to do with homosexual two parent homes. It had everything to do with single parent homes period.

Weather the parents came out when the child was older or not doesn't matter. As evidenced by one of your own articles. Which had a parent that came out while the kid was only 6 years old.

The research shows that if you remove the male or female....which ssm does on purpose..it affects the child adversely. Now, I'm sorry if the facts shoot your arguments down like a world war one Spad but hey....great news...the smoldering wreckage of what remains of your argument can be found over the horizon.:2wave:

No what the research shows is that single parent homes are not very good for children. Misrepresenting a scientific study that has nothing to do with the sex of the parents who leaves is disingenous.
 
No, your links would have been relevant if they compared compared children raised by same sex couples and found them less adjusted than children raised in dual sex couples.

There are no comparison studies and as homosexuals do not reproduce. 'Gay' parents either conceived this child in a heterosexual relationship(in most cases this is true), or are the step parent. And we need not compare, the most adjusted, the best way we now how to raise children..is within marriage where two people reproduce and care and are involved with their children. Any other situation be it step parent, single parent, gay parent, isn't the best foot forward, sorry, it's just not.

You have not shown anything of the sort. You have shown that children raised in single parent homes do less well than those raised with 2 parents, which no one is disagreeing with.

I've shown what happens when you remove the male from the home. And it's not pretty. Your arguments would like to purposefully remove the male from the home.....replace with a female...and pretend it's the same. It's not. Sorry.

You have also shown, with your own links, that children raised by gay couples do just as well as those raised by strait couples, which entirely disproves your point. Yes, that's right, you showed and quoted a source which disproved your very theory.

That's right and EVERYONE pay attention...this is the crux, children are raised just as well...and just as bad. The step parent higher risk as far as abuse goes.....carries to 'gay' families as well, correct? The atrocity of not having a male father in the home......comes with equal risk......the error of not having a female mother in the home...comes with equal risks, yes...yes...yes.

Exactly right....'gay' families situations are the same, the abuse, the emotional neglect, the questions as to why one's natural parents aren't still together, many go looking for a lost or abandoned parent, many purposefully avoid that parent for what may be obvious reasons, yes....all the risks involved that effect heterosexual families and lead to undue crime, withering abuse stats, sexual abuses, and emotional challenges. And all of the rules and stats I've linked to very much apply to 'gay' couples as well....right? Their raised just as stable...and just as unstable...correct.

Unless you're going to argue these relationships are somehomw 'different?' That the stats showing no male in the home don't apply. That somehow...two females can father a boy, for example. You...wouldn't be trying to argue that would you?
 
There are no comparison studies and as homosexuals do not reproduce. 'Gay' parents either conceived this child in a heterosexual relationship(in most cases this is true), or are the step parent. And we need not compare, the most adjusted, the best way we now how to raise children..is within marriage where two people reproduce and care and are involved with their children. Any other situation be it step parent, single parent, gay parent, isn't the best foot forward, sorry, it's just not.



I've shown what happens when you remove the male from the home. And it's not pretty. Your arguments would like to purposefully remove the male from the home.....replace with a female...and pretend it's the same. It's not. Sorry.



That's right and EVERYONE pay attention...this is the crux, children are raised just as well...and just as bad. The step parent higher risk as far as abuse goes.....carries to 'gay' families as well, correct? The atrocity of not having a male father in the home......comes with equal risk......the error of not having a female mother in the home...comes with equal risks, yes...yes...yes.

Exactly right....'gay' families situations are the same, the abuse, the emotional neglect, the questions as to why one's natural parents aren't still together, many go looking for a lost or abandoned parent, many purposefully avoid that parent for what may be obvious reasons, yes....all the risks involved that effect heterosexual families and lead to undue crime, withering abuse stats, sexual abuses, and emotional challenges. And all of the rules and stats I've linked to very much apply to 'gay' couples as well....right? Their raised just as stable...and just as unstable...correct.

Unless you're going to argue these relationships are somehomw 'different?' That the stats showing no male in the home don't apply. That somehow...two females can father a boy, for example. You...wouldn't be trying to argue that would you?

Gay parents just as often conceive of their children through AI.

You never answered my question. How many gay families do you know? How many gay parents have you talked to?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom