• 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

The other is looking at two parent homes.....without either a mother or a father...You have either a male...or a female parent absent and to pretend that hasn't been an absolute disaster on the family structure and thus children in this nation, I submit you're either pushing an agenda and purposefully blind to the facts...or you're unpurposefully unaware of the obvious facts. Either way, you're blind and wrong. Aware of it or not, you're dead wrong.

Ohhhh. Poppycock.:roll:
 
Importance of Fathers

Ahem.

According to researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, children who have fathers in their lives learn better, have higher self-esteem and show fewer signs of depression than children without fathers. In addition, children who perceive their fathers as supportive feel a greater sense of social acceptance and show fewer signs of depression. The study is among the first to examine from a child's perspective -- the role a father plays in the behavioral and mental development of his children. The findings will be presented on May 13 at the Pediatric Academic Societies and American Academy of Pediatrics Conference, in Boston, Massachusetts.

You're both dead wrong, your arguments flying in the face of reality.
 
The other is looking at two parent homes.....without either a mother or a father...You have either a male...or a female parent absent and to pretend that hasn't been an absolute disaster on the family structure and thus children in this nation, I submit you're either pushing an agenda and purposefully blind to the facts...or you're unpurposefully unaware of the obvious facts. Either way, you're blind and wrong. Aware of it or not, you're dead wrong.

Oh balderdash :roll:
 
Why? How do you enforce this?
Illegitimate children are much more likely to cost taxpayers money in direct support through social programs. Illegitimate children are also more likely to drop out of school, end up in jail, etc etc. which is also a "cost" to society.

It's not a matter of "enforcement" so much as what you want to promote. We've witnessed the harm that can be done to society when the state inadvertantly promoted illegitamacy through welfare programs. It's in the best interest of the state that procreation occur within marriage.
 
On average, children raised without fathers are more likely to show signs of psychological maladjustment, they are more likely to have difficulties at school, difficulty in getting even to underperform, or to drop out of school early, to have less school completed. They are more likely to be represented in the statistics on delinquency and unconventional social behaviour, and they seem to have difficulty establishing and maintaining intimate relationships, particularly heterosexual relationships once they move into adulthood.

Truth stings, I realize this. Like a mistletoe on your chest, truth can sometimes actually bite....you're both not even close here.

Fallen Fathers: Children Without Fathers Statistics

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes --14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

Truth...it hurts.
 
Denial ain't no river in Egypt, Boys!

The 2003 Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (n = 12,426) shows that 28% percent of White students, 39% of Hispanic students, 69% of Black students, and 36% overall live without their fathers. In bivariate comparisons, absent-father status is associated with reduced well-being: worse health, lower academic achievement, worse educational experiences, and less parental involvement in school activities. When socio-economic factors are controlled, father-absence is associated with small deficits of well-being. The findings suggest that the conventional wisdom may exaggerate the detrimental effects of father absence.

SpringerLink - Journal Article

You're both dead wrong, status equal to colossal error. Blind and naive to what amounts to a national disaster, I truthfully expected more. This isn't an arguable issue, can we move on to another?
 
So two fathers should be twice as good!

Ah....absent a mother, yes, that should work out twice as good, you're right.

In fact, I think we should just remove the mother from the home with the same %'s we do the father and look at the results. I mean...we already have a prison system where the number one common denominator they share is no father living in the home. Fathers..or lack of have a serious influence on who daughters take for husbands, mothers play an equally vital role.

Pretending like you people do strengthens my argument to the objective reader, I hope you know that.
 
So two fathers should be twice as good!

I know. He's rambling and blathering on about single parent homes and here we all thought we were talking about gay marriages.

But I guess to him sticking to the topic...well that's just ca-ca-ca-Crazy. One might even call it..."poppycock".:lol:
 
Ah....absent a mother, yes, that should work out twice as good, you're right.

In fact, I think we should just remove the mother from the home with the same %'s we do the father and look at the results. I mean...we already have a prison system where the number one common denominator they share is no father living in the home. Fathers..or lack of have a serious influence on who daughters take for husbands, mothers play an equally vital role.

Pretending like you people do strengthens my argument to the objective reader, I hope you know that.

But Charlie...if they have kids, they aren't even homos anymore, remember?:lol:
 
I know. He's rambling and blathering on about single parent homes and here we all thought we were talking about gay marriages.

But I guess to him sticking to the topic...well that's just ca-ca-ca-Crazy. One might even call it..."poppycock".:lol:

You're speaking to same sex marriage, not gay marriage, millions of 'gays' are married to opposite gender husbands or wives and have children. 'Gay' people get married everyday in this nation, same sex marriage is what the issue is, I hate to correct your every sentence but you keep making colossal errors. J.

And you're specifically speaking to removing either the male father or female mother from the home when speaking to same sex marriage and that has been proiven to be an absolute disaster and should never be seen as the equal to one father and one mother in a nuclear family. And I'm sorry about that.
 
But Charlie...if they have kids, they aren't even homos anymore, remember?:lol:

They probably never were. They merely enjoyed sexual behavior with members of the same sex. Reason I put 'gay' in quote, many people are seriously confused. But, once you engage ion fatherhood or motherhood, you are not gay. Sorry.
 
They probably never were. They merely enjoyed sexual behavior with members of the same sex. Reason I put 'gay' in quote, many people are seriously confused. But, once you engage ion fatherhood or motherhood, you are not gay. Sorry.

Yes, Charlie...that should definitely convince your "objective readers". :lol:
 
Some interesting reading: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf

Key findings

• More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.
• More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
• An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
• Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
• An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of foster children in the United States.
• A national ban on GLB foster care could cost from $87 to $130 million.
• Costs to individual states could range from $100,000 to $27 million.

Studies show that the frequency of moves between placements is associated with several harmful outcomes for children. Most of these studies cannot control for the possibility that causation runs in both directions, e.g. that the child’s behavioral or other problems caused the instability in placements. However, researchers generally believe that children’s problems are both a cause and a consequence of instability (Harden, 2004).

Conversely, stability of placements is associated with positive outcomes for children:
• A review of studies conducted from 1960-1990 showed that having fewer placements was associated with better school achievement, less criminal activity, more social support, increased life satisfaction, greater housing stability, better self-support, better caring for one’s own children (McDonald, Allen, Westerfelt, Piliavin, 1993).
• Stability of relationships is generally important for children’s development (Harden, 2004).

Looks to me like gay marriage could be highly beneficial to society.
 
And child rearing should be done without tax subsidized marriages. The focus of this debate should be to eliminate government sanctioned marriage. Once that's done, marriage will be open to all.
Marriage is already "open to all" in that sense, is it not? The government isn't "banning" gay marriage so much as ignoring it by not recognizing it.
 
Marriage is already "open to all" in that sense, is it not? The government isn't "banning" interracial marriage so much as ignoring it by not recognizing it.

I wonder if you could say it like this too.
 
Marriage is already "open to all" in that sense, is it not? The government isn't "banning" gay marriage so much as ignoring it by not recognizing it.

So marriage is open to all, as long as you don't want to be really married.
 
But how is that addressing CR's post (the one I was responding to)?

I am addressing your post. You stated that marriage is open to all. I provided an example of the same dishonest response given in another civil rights case. Marriage is clearly not open to all as far as homosexuality is concerned anymore than it was when blacks and whites were trying to get married.
 
So marriage is open to all, as long as you don't want to be really married.
If by "really married" you mean legally binding, then yes.
 
I am addressing your post. You stated that marriage is open to all. I provided an example of the same dishonest response given in another civil rights case.
My post was a response to CR's post, to interpret it correctly, you need to place it in the appropriate context.
 
Last edited:
My post was a response to CR's post, to interpret it correctly, you need to place it in the appropriate context.

Now you're starting to annoy me. Can you explain what part of CR's post my post does not address?

1. CR States that removing the government will make marriage available to all.

2. You state it is already available to all.

3. I show your response to be dishonest.

What are you having trouble comprehending?
 
Last edited:
If by "really married" you mean legally binding, then yes.

So that "open to all" marriage is pretty useless.

Now, let's look at some concepts. Tell me where I go wrong in your opinion please.

Marriage promotes stable homes.

Children do better in stable homes.

Gays are willing to adopt and foster children in need of stable homes.

Allowing gay marriage results in strengthening our society by giving more children stable homes.
 
Back
Top Bottom