• 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

So how bout that DC City Council legalizing gay marriage! Those guys...they're a wild bunch!
 
Well, we got us our first openly gay Mayor---so I guess the party is on now for sure. :doh
 
Taylor said:
When you post something of substance I'll be happy to respond. I'm altogether bored with your pompous "I'm right because I say I'm right and I've been saying I'm right for two years and if you disagree it's not my problem because I'm right" bloviations.
Click to expand...

Taylor, let me know when you actually have a coherent position. Perhaps then we can actually have a debate. What we have now is me refuting everything you say, and you throwing little hissy fits and changing your position.

Oh, and I noticed you avoided my question, quite convieniently. As usual:

misterman said:
Does that mean couples who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry?
Click to expand...

Taylor said:
No, the above conclusion does not logically follow.
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
If this is true, then explain why the state would not sanction gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Come on, Taylor...give it a shot. I'll bet you can't do it without either changing your position or avoiding the issue.
 
Last edited:
Ok. It's time. By popular demand, I will now demonstrate how the arguments of Charles Martel and Taylor, both who seem to believe that children raised in gay households do not do as well as those in straight households are complete and utter bunk, are invalid, and are what I and most people have been saying: based on nothing but non-logic and opinion, devoid of facts. So, here for your viewing pleasure...and some of you have seen me do this before, research that demonstrates that children reared from families with 2 gay parents do as well as those with 2 straight parents. This is NOT all the data, but it's a bulk of it:

Now, there are so many studies on this that posting them all will take up too much bandwidth. I'll post a select few.

Studies:
Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytteroy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 335-351.

Reviewed 23 empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty studies reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 yrs.) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires, or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.
Click to expand...
615 offspring from gay parents; 387 controls from straight parents. No differences in 7 types of functioning.

That's ONE.

Gottman, J. S. (1990). Children of gay and lesbian parents. In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations (pp. 177-196). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Reviews research literature on children of homosexual (HS) parents, including comparisons with children of heterosexual parents. Children of HS parents did not appear deviant in gender identity, sexual orientation, or social adjustment. Issues that emerged during their upbringing related more to society's rejection of homosexuality than to poor parent-child relationships. Most social adjustment problems occurred in both groups and were commonly related to family history of divorce. Results are supported by J. Schwartz's (unpublished manuscript) investigation of the above variables in adult-aged daughters in relation to mothers' sexual orientations, with a focus on role modeling theory.
Click to expand...
No difference between children raised by gay parents vs. straight parents on 3 scales. Only issue was society's issue with homosexuality; parenting was a non-issue.

That's TWO.

Kleber, D. J., Howell, R. J., & Tibbits-Kleber, A. L. (1986). The impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases: A review of the literature. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 14, 81-87.

Reviews the literature on the impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases. As a result of the relatively high rate of divorce in the United States and the increasing awareness that many parents (an estimated 1.5 million) are homosexual, the courts and divorce mediators have become actively involved in child custody placement decisions involving homosexual parents. While custody decisions have tended to reflect stereotyped beliefs or fears concerning the detrimental effects of homosexual parenting practices on child development, the research literature provides no evidence substantiating these fears. Several specific custody issues are discussed as well as social factors relevant to lesbian motherhood.
Click to expand...
Interesting study. No significant issues when homosexual parents obtain custody when a divorce occurs.

That's THREE.

Victor, S. B., & Fish, M. C. (1995). Lesbian mothers and their children: A review for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 24, 456-479.

Reviews 56 studies (published from 1971 to 1994) on lesbian mothers and their children. Three main family patterns and some common misconceptions about these families are addressed. Research suggests there are no differences between children of lesbians and children of heterosexuals with regard to their emotional health, interpersonal relationships, sexual orientation, or gender development. Psychological adjustment and parenting skills were not significantly different for lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Implications for school psychology practice and training are discussed.
Click to expand...
No significant difference in important emotional health issues between children raised by lesbian parents vs. straight parents.

That's FOUR.

Bigner, J. J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989b). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 173-186). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Compared the responses of 33 homosexual (HMS) fathers with those of 33 heterosexual (HTS) fathers on the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory. HMS subjects did not differ significantly from HTS subjects in their reported degree of involvement or in intimacy level with children. HMS subjects tended to be more strict and more responsive to children's needs and provided reasons for appropriate behavior to children more consistently than HTS subjects. Possible explanations for these similarities and differences in parenting styles are explored.
Click to expand...
Homosexual parenting vs. Heterosexual parenting is explored. No significant differences were found, though homosexual parents tended to be more strict, more responsive, and more consistent with their children.

That's FIVE.
 
Continued...

Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2004). Experience of parenthood, couple relationship, social support, and child-rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 755-764.

The phenomenon of planned lesbian families is relatively new. The overall aim of this research was to examine whether planned lesbian mother families differ from heterosexual families on factors that are assumed to influence the parent-child relationship, such as experience of parenthood, child-rearing goals, couple relationship, and social support. One hundred lesbian two-mother families were compared with 100 heterosexual families having naturally conceived children. A variety of measures were used to collect the data, including questionnaires and a diary of activities kept by the parents. Lesbian parents are no less competent or more burdened than heterosexual parents. Both lesbian and heterosexual parents consider it important to develop qualities of independence in their children. However, "conformity" as a childrearing goal is less important to lesbian mothers. Furthermore, lesbian social mothers feel more often than fathers in heterosexual families that they must justify the quality of their parenthood. There are few differences between lesbian couples and heterosexual couples, except that lesbian mothers appear less attuned to traditional child-rearing goals and lesbian social mothers appear more to defend their position as mother.
Click to expand...
Lesbian parents vs. Biological parents. Both are equally competent and unburdened. Styles may be different, but no other differences.

That's SIX (and a rather nice six, I might add).

Flaks, D., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 104-114.

Compared 15 lesbian couples and the 3- to 9-year-old children born to them through donor insemination with 15 matched, heterosexual-parent families. A variety of assessment measures were used to evaluate the children's cognitive functioning and behavioral adjustment as well as the parents' relationship quality and parenting skills. Results revealed no significant differences between the two groups of children, who also compared favorably with the standardization samples for the instruments used. In addition, no significant differences were found between dyadic adjustment of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Only in the area of parenting did the two groups of couples differ: Lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did heterosexual couples. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Click to expand...
Lesbian parents vs. heterosexual parents. No differences except that the lesbian parents exhibited more parenting awareness.

That's SEVEN. Your "biological" position smells real bad right now. :2razz:

McPherson, D. (1993). Gay parenting couples: Parenting arrangements, arrangement satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology.

Twenty-eight gay male parenting couples and 27 heterosexual parenting couples from across the United States participated in a study comparing gay parenting couples and heterosexual parenting couples. Gay parenting couples are already existing gay couples into which a child has been brought prior to the child's 9-month birthday and in which the child is presently being reared. Parents' division of labor and satisfaction with their division of labor was assessed using Cowan and Cowan's Who Does What? Relationship satisfaction was assessed using a single question on relationship satisfaction and Spanier's 32-item Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). Results revealed gay parenting couples demonstrate significantly more equitable arrangements of parenting tasks and roles and significantly greater satisfaction with those arrangements than the heterosexual parenting couples. A single question on relationship satisfaction revealed no significant difference between groups in reported satisfaction, while the 32-item DAS revealed the gay parenting couples to be significantly more satisfied with their relationships than the heterosexual couples, especially in the area of dyadic cohesion and affective expression. Post-hoc testing revealed a gender difference: Women reported significantly greater dissatisfaction with parenting arrangements than their husbands or gay parents. Findings are explained in terms of three factors unique to the experience and social setting of gay parenting couples.
Click to expand...
Gay male couples vs. heterosexual couples. The gay couples were happier and more equitable in their parenting tasks. Other than that, no significant differences.

That's EIGHT.

Miller, B. (1979). Gay fathers and their children. Family Coordinator, 28, 544-552.

Presents data from a 3-year study on the quality and nature of the relationships of homosexual fathers with their children. In-depth interviews were conducted with a snowball sample of 40 gay fathers and 14 of their children. Uses a cross-national sample: Interviews were conducted in large and small cities in both Canada and the United States. Excluded from the study were men who no longer saw their children. Fathers were aged from 24 to 64, and the children who were interviewed ranged from 14 to 33 years of age. Addresses the nature of the father-child relationship and the children's adjustment to their father's homosexuality. Four issues frequently raised in custody cases are discussed: Do gay fathers have children to cover their homosexuality, do they molest their children, do their children turn out to be gay in disproportionate numbers, and does having a gay father expose a child to homophobic harassment. Concludes that concerns that gay fathers will have a negative impact on their children's development are unfounded.
Click to expand...
The impact on the children of gay fathers based on 4 concerns. No negative impact.

That's NINE.

Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M. E., Gray, J., & Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.

Compared the sexual identity and social relationships of 30 daughters and 26 sons (aged 3-11 yrs.) of 50 homosexual mothers with 28 daughters and 20 sons of 40 heterosexual mothers. Mothers were currently unmarried White women aged 25-46 years. In addition to age and race, mothers were matched on length of separation from father; educational level and income; and number, age, and sex of children. Subjects were from rural and urban areas in 10 U.S. states and lived without adult males in the household for a minimum of 2 years. Data from children's tests on intelligence, core-morphologic sexual identity, gender-role preferences, family and peer group relationships, and adjustment to the single-parent family indicate that there were no significant differences between the two types of households for boys and few significant differences for girls. Data also reveal more similarities than differences in parenting experiences, marital history, and present living situations of the two groups of mothers. It is suggested that the mother's sexual orientation per se should not enter into considerations on parental fitness that are commonly asserted in child custody cases.
Click to expand...
Children's sexual identity when reared by lesbian mothers vs, heterosexual mothers was explored. No difference in boys; few in girls. Mostly, both groups were similar.

That's TEN.

Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572.

Compared the psychosexual development, emotions, behavior, and relationships of 37 children (aged 5-17 yrs.) reared in 27 lesbian households with 38 children (aged 5-27 yrs.) reared in 27 heterosexual single-parent households. Systematic standardized interviews with the mothers and with the children, together with parent and teacher questionnaires, were used to make the psychosexual and psychiatric assessments. The two groups did not differ in terms of their gender identity, sex-role behavior, or sexual orientation. Also, they did not differ on most measures of emotions, behavior, and relationships, although there was some indication of more frequent psychiatric problems in the single-parent group. It is concluded that rearing in a lesbian household per se does not lead to atypical psychosexual development or constitute a psychiatric risk factor.
Click to expand...
Children in lesbian households vs. those in single-parent heterosexual households on sexual identity. No significant difference. In fact, no difference on any emotional/behavioral scale.

That's ELEVEN.

Had enough, yet? No? OK.

Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., & Roy, R. (1981). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparative survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 545-551.

Forty 5- to 12-year-olds, divided equally into groups according to their mothers' sexual choice and within group by sex, were assessed with a developmental history, WISC scores, the Holtzman Inkblot Technique, and the Human Figure Drawing test. Subjects' gender development was not identifiably different in the two groups. Prevalence of disturbance was not found to be a function of the mother's sexual choice.
Click to expand...
Children of lesbian mothers vs. heterosexual mothers in regards to developmental, intellectual, and emotional functioning. No significant difference.

That's TWELVE.

Links used:

Lesbian & Gay Parents
Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents
Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian & Gay Parents & Their Children
Empirical Studies Generally Related to the Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents
Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children
Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children

Unfortunately, since the original thread is now housed in the Basement, I cannot link to it.

This concludes my lesson on how to debate, how to win a debate, how to prove a position both with logic (as I did previously) and with substantiation (as I did here). I'm sure Charles and Taylor will have something to say about this information; I doubt it will be relevant.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Thank you for making my point for me CC. You can't cite any study to support your claims.

All you can do is proclaim your adversaries don't understand you. Its a sad and pathetic style of argument but considering how weak your argument is, not surprising.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'd rather stay in "destroy via logic" mode. I don't need to delve into research. Your argument is simple enough to just dismiss as it is illogical.


BTW, you've been posting all this time and still can't get my name right? Hint: There are only two t's in Texmaster. Try to pay more attention to detail. It does explain how sloppy your arguments are though when you can't even get this right.
Click to expand...
Typo. I am a very fast and very inaccurate typer. Thank goodness for spell check. :mrgreen:



Pointing out your lies is just getting easier the more your post
Click to expand...
Except you took the comment out of context, as you tend to do. Please debate honestly. I know it will mean that your destruction will be more complete, but at least you'll have your integrity.



Busted. Again. Your lies are more and more transparent. Its painfully clear you made that exact claim. Poor CC, can't even keep up with his own posts.
Click to expand...
Poor texmaster. Has to post dishonestly in order to vainly attempt to salvage his position. Lying is the the last desperate hope of the defeated. I clearly stated my position, here:

CaptainCourtesy said:
Guess what? I never claimed that you are born with ANY sexual orientation. Research shows that one's sexual orientation, gay OR straight is created by a one, some, or a combination of the following factors: biology; heredity; hormonal/chemical/genetic structure; social constructs. What the actual make up IS, is unknown, but these are the components that are possible.
Click to expand...

You keep forgetting this, texmaster. I know that it prevents you from attributing to me a position I do not hold, and I know it may be a challenge, but do try to debate with some honesty.



Nice dodge to my challenge. No shocker though.
Click to expand...
No, when you make a logical fallacy...which you do quite often, and it negates your position, it is my duty to point it out. Sorry if you don't like it. Easy way to correct that. Don't do it. :lol:



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Ok this has to be the dumbest response you've made so far. By far, this is the worst argument I have ever seen on this issue.

I've already given you links explaining the function of the penis and vagina when it comes to procreation yet you continue this sad but now extremely amusing denial of basic 4th grade science.

hint: There's a reason they are called "reproductive organs" CC
Click to expand...
You've given links to A function of them. That's all you've done. You've failed to provide any evidence that this is what they were absolutely designed to do. This too, is called an appeal to nature fallacy. And it too dismisses your argument.



I've already explained it twice but I'll break out the crayons for you once more. It proves the natural connection between heterosexuality and nature. Cannibalism has also been around since the begging of time. An act does not make it natural. Your inability to prove any natural connection to homosexuality is just sad you keep clinging to it.
Click to expand...

This is not proof. This is just more of you depending on the appeal to nature logical fallacy to hang your argument on. And hanging is what your argument is...off a cliff. Your cannibalism argument has already been destroyed, so holding on to that is silly. You have still offered nothing that proves that homosexuality is not natural, and nothing that it is wrong. It is interesting though watching you spin yourself into a tizzy trying.



Actually I have supported my argument by citing the history of the species and the sexual drives and woman's sexual cycles for pregnancy that only heterosexual sex and produce a child naturally.
Click to expand...
Problem is, this proves nothing. At least nothing to do with your argument. Yet you still haven't figure this out.

Logical fallacy is a parent definition to other specific fallacies. Its painfully obvious you didn't even know that.

Now please, point to the specific fallacy you are claiming and quote what I said thats supports this laughable charge.

Hint: Googling a term you don't understand is pretty obvious. Try not to do it again.
Click to expand...
I've already pointed it out several times. Not my fault if you don't get it. Try googling the term. Perhaps when you read the definition, you'll get it.



Another lie by you.

I quote:



Please make your decesion on what false argument you are going to go with next time mmmkay?
Click to expand...
Another lie and misrepresentation by you. Here, once again, just for you:

CaptainCourtesy said:
Guess what? I never claimed that you are born with ANY sexual orientation. Research shows that one's sexual orientation, gay OR straight is created by a one, some, or a combination of the following factors: biology; heredity; hormonal/chemical/genetic structure; social constructs. What the actual make up IS, is unknown, but these are the components that are possible.
Click to expand...




From the guy who claims genetics has nothing do with it. Then says it does. Then says it doesn't
Click to expand...
Here, so you don't forget, and so you can get my argument correct:

CaptainCourtesy said:
Guess what? I never claimed that you are born with ANY sexual orientation. Research shows that one's sexual orientation, gay OR straight is created by a one, some, or a combination of the following factors: biology; heredity; hormonal/chemical/genetic structure; social constructs. What the actual make up IS, is unknown, but these are the components that are possible.
Click to expand...

Thats called a recessive gene and it can be proven

Are you going to claim now that homosexuality is a recessive gene therefore going back to your original genetics argument?

Please make up your mind as to what argument you are going to make and stick with it.
Click to expand...
Nope. That was to demonstrate your lack of understanding of genetics. Thought you'd understand that. Guess you didn't.



LOL Of course you would say that since it proves heterosexuality has a genetic basis in nature.
Click to expand...
No, it's irrelevant because of your inability to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, though it has been explained to you several times. I know it destroys your argument, but either admit that you do not understand the difference, or admit that your lack of understanding is deliberate. Choose one.



Yeah. Kinda goes to my entire point. lol
Click to expand...
No it doesn't for two reasons: 1) you have none...at least not one that is valid and; 2) you STILL don't understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Pity.



And you STILL can't prove homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...
Since you have proven that you do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, you can't even understand the concept of what you just said.



Thanks for making my point for me, again. The point being that ONLY heterosexual sex can propegate the species naturally. There is NO natural function of homosexuality and therefore no basis in considering it as natural as heterosexual orientation as you have claimed then denied you made the claim.
Click to expand...
This has to be one of the most pathetic arguments you have made. Sorry, procreation is not the only natural act. :lol:



Thats your problem. You can't dismiss procreation as a key component to heterosexual sex because it is a requirement to propegate the species unlike homosexuality which you can't even prove is as likely as heterosexual orientation even though you made that specific claim.

Hell, you wont even admit what the function of a sexual organ is :lol:
Click to expand...
And yet since procreation is not related to sexual orientation only sexual behavior, it is still irrelevant. Like I said, what are you going to do now that this is no longer part of the equation?



Actually what I was addressing if you had read carefully, was your argument that just because homosexuality has been found throughout history that somehow makes it natural.

again, your quote:



Do you even bother to read what you claim? My response to you was just because homosexuality has been found in history does not make it natural. Cannibalism, human sacrifice have both been found in the history of man but that in no way makes them natural. It is the flimsiest of arguments you use to support yourself.

And once again, without a fact or study to support your claim. :2wave:
Click to expand...
I read your claim. And dismissed it as more of a appeal to nature fallacy...as most of your claims are. Your cannibalism example has already been destroyed. You cannot distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. In short, your argument is a complete mess. If I were you, I'd start over.



Dodging again I see. I'll repeat:

Please explain how the first humans "learned" how to procreate without oral or written language.

Please list all studies you have that show homosexual orientation has a natural history beyond the act being in history.

Go right ahead....
Click to expand...
And I'll repeat, procreation is irrelevant to the argument. When you understand that, you'll understand why your argument is a complete failure.



Still can't admit the burden of proof is on the side that wants to change the law

Sad really because you know you can't prove it which is why you try to dishonestly shift the burden of proof on your opposite side.
Click to expand...
Where did I say I was trying to change the law?

If you want to send a positive public message support your claims with some hard facts from actual studies instead of staying in the world of theory.
Click to expand...
You still don't listen or read. That's OK. When you can be honest about what I said, perhaps then you will correct yourself. I doubt it, but one can hope.



Once again you prove you cannot prove anything you are claiming. You are permanently stuck in the world of theory and you refuse to get out because you can't find the evidence that supports your claims.

Its a sad sad little world you have made for yourself and your denial of even basic sexual function and the role of sexual organs in the body itself makes it all the more calamitous.
Click to expand...
And once again you demonstrate that you do not understand the concepts contained in this debate, simple definitions that would assist your understanding, and that you refuse to debate honestly by presenting my position accurately. I understand that doing all that would make your position meaningless, and you must save face some way.


But I do want to thank you for this line.



If I had room in my sig, this would be there in lights. It is by far the funniest argument I have ever seen on this issue. Makes for a great laugh.
Click to expand...
But you've yet to prove it accurate. And until you do it is another example of your failure in this debate.
 
So folks...what have we learned. We have learned that posters like texmaster, Charles Martel, and Taylor are guilty of the following:

1) Not understanding the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

2) Showing that the penis and vagina can function as sexual organs, but not being able to prove that they were designed for that.

3) Committing the logical fallacy "appeal to nature" over and over.

4) Having their position that the children of gay parents do not do as well as those of straight parents be completely disproven.

5) Not understanding that procreation is not a requirement for child rearing and is therefore irrelevant when discussing what benefits the state.

6) Misrepresenting the arguments of others.

7) Failing to prove their position on all levels.

I'm sure there is more, but it's been a long day and I'll allow others to complete the list if they'd like.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Do you REALLY want me to do this? Some folks around here have seen what happens when I'm asked this question. It isn't pretty...for the asker.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have asked if I didn't "really" want you to do that. Your colossal errors on this issue haven't been allowed to pass to date, I wouldn't know why you'd be expecting gimme putts now.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So folks...what have we learned. We have learned that posters like texmaster, Charles Martel, and Taylor are guilty of the following:
Click to expand...

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

1) Not understanding the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

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

2) Showing that the penis and vagina can function as sexual organs, but not being able to prove that they were designed for that.
Click to expand...

Who needed to show the penis and vagina "can be" used as sexual organs? And who needs to prove they're designed to be sexual organs? They're reproductive organs and thus sexual organs, you pile colossal error on top of colossal error. Your argument is becoming amusing, if not flat out ridiculous.

3) Committing the logical fallacy "appeal to nature" over and over.
Click to expand...

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

4) Having their position that the children of gay parents do not do as well as those of straight parents be completely disproven.
Click to expand...

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.

5) Not understanding that procreation is not a requirement for child rearing and is therefore irrelevant when discussing what benefits the state.
Click to expand...

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.'

6) Misrepresenting the arguments of others.
Click to expand...

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.

7) Failing to prove their position on all levels.
Click to expand...

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

I'm sure there is more, but it's been a long day and I'll allow others to complete the list if they'd like.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I will now demonstrate how the arguments of Charles Martel and Taylor, both who seem to believe that children raised in gay households do not do as well as those in straight households are complete and utter bunk, are invalid,
Click to expand...
I see you're still making stuff up CC. Is it fun to debate yourself?
 
Last edited:
it is time for a thread summary:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4"]YouTube- Monty Python-The Black Knight[/ame]



edit: ok I don't know what is wrong with the link to make it post double there, odd
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
ok I don't know what is wrong with the link to make it post double there, odd
Click to expand...

Not odd at all, nonsense needs to be repeated, that's why they call it nonsense.
 
4) Having their position that the children of gay parents do not do as well as those of straight parents be completely disproven.
Click to expand...

Launching major artillery at a clearly marked target such as CC's #4, what absolute poppycock you submit here, Sir,

Even if my mother had been a stay at home mom, he'd probably turn out the same; there are certain things that a women can not teach a man. A woman can not see from the eyes of a man (vice-versa) and therefore can not truly relate or associate with the many problems and milestones of man. Not having a father caused my brother to veer and he is still veering, he still unsure of himself, he is still lost, he still needs someone to pick him up and guide him, and this is the case for many young boys without fathers.
Click to expand...

oh look, there is more:

Fathers should make a point to play essential figures in their son's lives, young men without the supportive guidance of a father often fall into the vicious jaws of crime, more so the pattern of absentee father would most likely continue generation after generation. So it is what parents teach their children, that they carry and pass onto their own children.
Click to expand...

The Effects of an Absent Father Figure , Page 2 of 2 - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

If only he had had two Moms...that would certainly have solved all these problems.
 
Just to be precise here...in the utter destruction of CC's now clearly false arguments.

Father Absence Research | Life Coaches for Kids®

While many single parent moms do heroic work parenting their children and while some children manage to excel under the challenges of father absence, it has become clear from numerous studies that the fastest road to both economic and social poverty in this country is for a man to voluntarily leave his children, either before marriage or after.
Click to expand...

Every study except those chosen by pro-gay agenda driven people in here who want to purposefully remove the father......call it normal....and then claim there is no effect on children raised without a male in the home.

72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. 60% of America's rapists grew up the same way.
Click to expand...

One would think most would be for less adolescent murderers, less rapists.

The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father
Click to expand...

Really? Tell us more.

Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality
Click to expand...

See what a false and fake argument those that argue on the pro-gay side are engaged in? From alcohol to drug use to mental illness, to poor educational performances.....CC....your argument...Jallman's.....every other pro-gay argument being thrown up in here is dead wrong. Sorry.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
2) Showing that the penis and vagina can function as sexual organs, but not being able to prove that they were designed for that.
Click to expand...
Captain are you STILL trying to figure out what your penis is for?
 
Taylor said:
Captain are you STILL trying to figure out what your penis is for?
Click to expand...

Well for one thing I urinate alot with my penis. Sometimes I play with it sometimes I put it in my girlfriends mouth and or vagina.
 
Last edited:
Children Without Mothers Are at Special Risk - Letter - NYTimes.com

Now....say we experiment with purposefully removing the mother...thinking that equal as well.

I can tell you, based on both personal experience and interviews with hundreds of motherless American women, that losing a mother at an early age is one of the most stressful life events a person can face. It completely rips apart the fabric of a child's life.
Click to expand...

Stressful unless....your two dads in some gay relationship take over and then....the female not in your life doesn;t matter....according to some.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom