• 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

CriticalThought said:
That's not much of a counter argument.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it's amusing to see you go on page after page about fallacies and logic and arguments... only to hear you give a "it's good for the kids" argument.

:lamo
 
Taylor said:
That's not much of an argument.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? You're the one who agreed with me pages ago around family and children as being a most important aspect of government sanctioning marriage. Now it's not much of an argument? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
 
Taylor said:
Sorry, but it's amusing to see you go on page after page about fallacies and logic and arguments... only to hear you give a "it's good for the kids" argument.

:lamo
Click to expand...

He can do that since there has been a wealth of evidence, with links, provided proving this position in this thread.
 
CriticalThought said:
Charles, that was a rather pathetic dodge of my question. It seems clear to me that your entire position falls under the 2nd of the 5 positions I earlier presented.
Click to expand...

Seems clear to me that very little is clear to you concerning this issue.

You have assumed, without evidence, that allowing same sex couples to marry would somehow be detrimental to the standards or status of marriage.
Click to expand...

It reduces it to a contract, lowers standards, changes the definition.

You have provided no basis for this rational and ignore evidence to the contrary. It is therefore clear that your position is illogical since it requires you ignore all evidence which does not agree with it.
Click to expand...

What evidence?

If you have some alternative rational, then I would love to hear it, otherwise it is clear to anyone reading this thread that the debate is over. You have no rational basis for your position.
Click to expand...

Your opinion that I have no rationale when in fact I've destroyed your arguments and left you with nothing...isn't lost on anyone.:)

As far as my position, I have argued time and time again, with evidence, that same sex marriage would be good for the 8 to 10 million children of gay and lesbian parents in this country.
Click to expand...

Why would it be "good", I've seen no evidence of this. Where? Making stuff up now, CT?

Unlike you, I actually care about having evidence and reason on my side.
Click to expand...

I've seen NONE! You're been critical of my position, not defending your own. Please provide your "evidence."

Apparently those families don't fall within your "standards".
Click to expand...

They don't fall within the standard of the relationship they were created from...sorry. There is no standard equal to the one that they were conceived under if their parents were in fact married.

It disgusts me that there are people like you out there who would deny children the chance at having a home headed by a married couple simply because the parents share the same sex.
Click to expand...

You pretending to be disgusted doesn't even phase me. Why would you think it does? I couldn't care less if you're disgusted, it's irrelevant to our discussion. Be disgusted all you want, it's pretend and meant to score points...an attempt at the moral high ground. IT didn't work, be disgusted as you respond to me, I really don't care.:2razz:

It further disgusts me that you apparently have no rational basis by which to deny those families that right. You should be ashamed of yourself going out of your way to hurt children.
Click to expand...

Pretending children can be raised on the same standards minus either a mother or father in the home proves who has little concern for children. Your agenda stomps all over children, the purposeful removal of either the male or female from the home and calling it normal isn;t correct and you'll be taken to account for it. I cannot believe you'd be this ignorant or evil for that matter. Not giving children all they deserve is a mortal sin in my religion and flat out unethical in my opinion. How do you sleep at night?:(
 
Taylor said:
Sorry, but it's amusing to see you go on page after page about fallacies and logic and arguments... only to hear you give a "it's good for the kids" argument.

:lamo
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure I get the joke. Did you even read the link?

Same sex marriage provides a context for legal, financial, and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public acknowledgment and respect for personal bonds. It's also beneficial the children's emotional and social development. Logic dictates that it is a reasonable argument because it is supported with evidence.
 
Taylor said:
Sorry, but it's amusing to see you go on page after page about fallacies and logic and arguments... only to hear you give a "it's good for the kids" argument.

:lamo
Click to expand...

Exactly!!!!!!:rofl
 
Charles Martel said:
The rationale is that marriage is a unique relationship. Both for the purposes of defining our culture, but in raising children, and in defining families. Women change their names, children take the last name of the father, we don't define any other relationship as important or critical.
Click to expand...

:lol: "Marriage" is simply a contract revolving around an exchange of property. Originally, the woman was the property being exchanged (hence the giving away part of the ceremony) - nowdays it is a union of property.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You're kidding, right? You're the one who agreed with me pages ago around family and children as being a most important aspect of government sanctioning marriage. Now it's not much of an argument? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...
I said it was one of several or many factors.
 
Warspite said:
:lol: "Marriage" is simply a contract revolving around an exchange of property.
Click to expand...

Guess that's why we deny it to first cousins, sisters and brothers, mothers and sons. Guess that's why we change our names and aren't permitted to enter into this "property contract" with more than one person. AS if I cannot 'exchange' my vacation home while I'm negotiating the 'exchange' of my apartment.

You're wrong, Warspite.
 
Charles Martel said:
Pretending children can be raised on the same standards minus either a mother or father in the home proves who has little concern for children. Your agenda stomps all over children, the purposeful removal of either the male or female from the home and calling it normal isn;t correct and you'll be taken to account for it. I cannot believe you'd be this ignorant or evil for that matter. Not giving children all they deserve is a mortal sin in my religion and flat out unethical in my opinion. How do you sleep at night?:(
Click to expand...

It may be, but this is a secular republic so frankly we shouldn't really give a hoot what your religion says on the matter. There is no significant evidence to demonstrate same sex couples are any less capable of raising children "properly" (whatever is meant by the word) - as a matter of fact, the only real evidence is that single parents are less capable of raising children.

If you are really concerned about marriage being "for the children blah blah", then riddle me this; why do we allow couples incapable of breeding such as elderly or infertile to marry?
 
Taylor said:
I said it was one of several or many factors.
Click to expand...

No, it was a specific point that we agreed upon as a main factor. But even if you are backing off on that now, as it seems to suit you, if it is one of several factors, how can it also not be much of an argument?
 
Charles Martel said:
Guess that's why we deny it to first cousins, sisters and brothers, mothers and sons. Guess that's why we change our names and aren't permitted to enter into this "property contract" with more than one person. AS if I cannot 'exchange' my vacation home while I'm negotiating the 'exchange' of my apartment.

You're wrong, Warspite.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm entirely right. Marriage is an inherently sexist and archaic institution from the days when women were chattel - why do you think there is a dowry, a giving away ceremony, etc etc.?

And quite frankly, both polygamy and incestuous marriages have been permitted throughou varying points in history (Mormons anyone?), it is only quite recently this "nuclear family" crap has been the focus of the institution.

I see no reason why incestuous and polygamous relationships should not be allowed - barring the genetic defects that can arise from any children born from the former.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
He can do that since there has been a wealth of evidence, with links, provided proving this position in this thread.
Click to expand...
You mean the "wealth of evidence" that you claim shows no differences whatsoever in child upbringing between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples -- even without same-sex marriage? THAT wealth of evidence?

Seems to weaken the argument that gay marriage is needed to benefit children - I thought you were claiming there were no differences?
 
Warspite said:
It may be, but this is a secular republic so frankly we shouldn't really give a hoot what your religion says on the matter.
Click to expand...

No one has even brought up religion, what are you talking about?

There is no significant evidence to demonstrate same sex couples are any less capable of raising children "properly" (whatever is meant by the word) - as a matter of fact, the only real evidence is that single parents are less capable of raising children.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are some far reaching issues concerning no male in the home and issues concerning the increased risk of step parents. In either case, same sex marriage includes both increased risks and therefore, you're wrong.

If you are really concerned about marriage being "for the children blah blah", then riddle me this; why do we allow couples incapable of breeding such as elderly or infertile to marry?
Click to expand...

We don't ask about age. We don;t ask about children. We don't ask about orientation. We ask about gender and if you're already married and about relations...If you're first cousins, no go. If I walk in with you my spone as straight as it gets, you're a lesbian....they allow us to marry. An unmarried gay man wants to marry an unwed lesbian woman......go for it.

Wanna marry your first cousin...sorry. Want to marry yer brother...real sorry. Want to marry if you;re already married....sorry...unlike EVERY OTHER contract, you may not. Want to marry within gender....real sorry.

Easy rules and if you don;t like them......change them. Behind a legislative or referendum endeavor.
 
Charles Martel said:
Gays marry all the time! Are you asking why we don't allow same sex couples to marry?
Click to expand...

Where have I heard this argument before...oh yeah, on the issue of miscegenation. Exactly the ame arguments used against it are being used against same sex marriage now; the conservative camp isn't exactly creative now is it?
 
Charles Martel said:
It reduces it to a contract, lowers standards, changes the definition.
Click to expand...

How? There are religions which sanctify same sex marriage.

What evidence?
Click to expand...

The link to the journal from the American Academy of Pediatrics which you chose to ignore for some reason.

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children -- Pawelski et al. 118 (1): 349 -- Pediatrics

Can you read? Are you blind?

You pretending to be disgusted doesn't even phase me. Why would you think it does? I couldn't care less if you're disgusted, it's irrelevant to our discussion. Be disgusted all you want, it's pretend and meant to score points...an attempt at the moral high ground. IT didn't work, be disgusted as you respond to me, I really don't care.:2razz:
Click to expand...

I am disgusted. You want to hurt children for Christ sakes!

Pretending children can be raised on the same standards minus either a mother or father in the home proves who has little concern for children. Your agenda stomps all over children, the purposeful removal of either the male or female from the home and calling it normal isn;t correct and you'll be taken to account for it. I cannot believe you'd be this ignorant or evil for that matter. Not giving children all they deserve is a mortal sin in my religion and flat out unethical in my opinion. How do you sleep at night?:(
Click to expand...

My agenda is looking out for the children in this country. That includes the 8 to 10 million children raised by gay parents. Your agenda is deny those children a family headed by a married couple simply because the parents are of the same sex. You have no rational basis for this, nor any evidence to indicate that same sex families are in any way inferior to different sex families. The best you can do is make arguments that since single parent families lack male or female parent, that proves that same sex couples are similarly disadvantaged, and that argument makes you look incredibly irrational. All the credible evidence that actually looks at the parenting of same sex couples indicates that children raised by them are no better or worse adjusted than those of different sex couples. The evidence indicates that they would be all the better adjusted if their same sex parents could marry. The fact that you ignore all this and choose to selectively interpret information, sometimes even irrationally, in order to support your position, is evidence of how weak your position truly is. The fact that every post you have to tell yourself how "right" you are and how "wrong" everyone else is, without any real evidence or reason to back it up, is evidence of how disillusioned you are.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it was a specific point that we agreed upon as a main factor. But even if you are backing off on that now, as it seems to suit you, if it is one of several factors, how can it also not be much of an argument?
Click to expand...
I'm not backing off of anything - you did agree with me on that. It's not much of an argument because he didn't really formulate one.
 
Warspite said:
Nope, I'm entirely right. Marriage is an inherently sexist and archaic institution from the days when women were chattel - why do you think there is a dowry, a giving away ceremony, etc etc.?
Click to expand...

That's the way those societies defined marriage, we have our own. And inherently sexist is true, roles are accepted and lived, it's sexist against the male as well. We've defined it that way.

A
nd quite frankly, both polygamy and incestuous marriages have been permitted throughou varying points in history (Mormons anyone?), it is only quite recently this "nuclear family" crap has been the focus of the institution.
Click to expand...

True. And if you'd prefer to have polygamy become the social norm...do so! Through either referendum or legislative endeavor, change the laws.

I see no reason why incestuous and polygamous relationships should not be allowed - barring the genetic defects that can arise from any children born from the former.
Click to expand...

You may see no reason...but...you're not the only decider for society now...are you. I happen to think polygamy normally follows the multiple wives and only one husband scenario that I personally even find more sexist than the "inherently sexist" traditional marriage you speak to above. I think it dehumanizes women and therefore as a citizen, it isn't haow I would define marriage.

And we...all together now....take all these considerations into....consideration..and then define our society's institutions. And in referendum...where same sex marriage is now 0-31, we've done that.

I'm so glad we finally agree.
 
Warspite said:
Nope, I'm entirely right. Marriage is an inherently sexist and archaic institution from the days when women were chattel - why do you think there is a dowry, a giving away ceremony, etc etc.?

And quite frankly, both polygamy and incestuous marriages have been permitted throughou varying points in history (Mormons anyone?), it is only quite recently this "nuclear family" crap has been the focus of the institution.

I see no reason why incestuous and polygamous relationships should not be allowed - barring the genetic defects that can arise from any children born from the former.
Click to expand...
:shock: no reason?? your kidding
 
Taylor said:
I'm not backing off of anything - you did agree with me on that. It's not much of an argument because he didn't really formulate one.
Click to expand...

Explain. I provided a link to a journal which supports my position.
 
Charles Martel said:
No one has even brought up religion, what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

"In my religion". Please, read what you type.

Actually, there are some far reaching issues concerning no male in the home and issues concerning the increased risk of step parents. In either case, same sex marriage includes both increased risks and therefore, you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I've gone through the science and medical journals and there is no statistically significant evidence; furthermore, the vast majority of studies on both sides are barely scientific due to external factors, just like how most studies concerning marijuana are barely scientific.

Besides, gay marriage does not necessarily entail gay adoption of children - do not get the two issues confused. We are talking about the marriage contract here.

We don't ask about age. We don;t ask about children. We don't ask about orientation. We ask about gender and if you're already married and about relations...If you're first cousins, no go. If I walk in with you my spone as straight as it gets, you're a lesbian....they allow us to marry. An unmarried gay man wants to marry an unwed lesbian woman......go for it.
Click to expand...

So marriage in your opinion is this almighty social instititution bound in with the very fabric of society and the answer you give me is: "We don't ask".:rofl

Again, the anti-miscegenation arguments have been defeated before, what makes you think they will work this time around?

Easy rules and if you don;t like them......change them. Behind a legislative or referendum endeavor.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the judiciary is all we need at this point. Sic semper tyrannis to the majority.
 
Last edited:
randel said:
:shock: no reason?? your kidding
Click to expand...

Nope - all involved parties are consenting adults with legal standing and are of age. I don't give a crap who you choose to file joint property taxes with or whatever.
 
Charles Martel said:
That's the way those societies defined marriage, we have our own. And inherently sexist is true, roles are accepted and lived, it's sexist against the male as well. We've defined it that way.
Click to expand...

:rofl "Those societies"? What society do you think I'm talking about? America, the kingdom of the white christian heterosexual male.

True. And if you'd prefer to have polygamy become the social norm...do so! Through either referendum or legislative endeavor, change the laws.
Click to expand...

In time, in time. I have more proximate fish to fry at the moment, like this gay marriage issue.

You may see no reason...but...you're not the only decider for society now...are you. I happen to think polygamy normally follows the multiple wives and only one husband scenario that I personally even find more sexist than the "inherently sexist" traditional marriage you speak to above. I think it dehumanizes women and therefore as a citizen, it isn't haow I would define marriage.
Click to expand...

Who says only one husband? You're the one who came to that conclusion, not I - Paraprax maybe? :lol:

And we...all together now....take all these considerations into....consideration..and then define our society's institutions. And in referendum...where same sex marriage is now 0-31, we've done that.
Click to expand...

Sic Semper Tyrannis to the majority. We will have our victory.

I'm so glad we finally agree.
Click to expand...

Oh bugger off churchy, I wouldn't agree with you if you held me at gunpoint. :lol:
 
Warspite said:
"In my religion". Please, read what you type.
Click to expand...

Not giving children all they deserve is a mortal sin in my religion is what I wrote, please read carefully.

Sorry, I've gone through the science and medical journals and there is no statistically significant evidence; furthermore, the vast majority of studies on both sides are barely scientific due to external factors, just like how most studies concerning marijuana are barely scientific.
Click to expand...

They don't compare children of gay parents to children of straight parents. And extgernal factors do make a huge difference like....not having a male in your home as a male child, we know that ain't a good thing.

Besides, gay marriage does not necessarily entail gay adoption of children - do not get the two issues confused. We are talking about the marriage contract here.
Click to expand...

You're talking about that, marriage isn't a contract in my opinion. I've said why many times.

So marriage in your opinion is this almighty social instititution bound in with the very fabric of society and the answer you give me is:
Click to expand...

We don't ask. Again...we ask about gender, family relationship, and if you;re already married.....because we do consider marriage that important, many realities concerning normal contracts(like gender and whether you're currently under contract) do apply. Get it now?

Again, the anti-miscegenation arguments have been defeated before, what makes you think they will work this time around?
Click to expand...

Cause I'm right.

Sorry, the judiciary is all we need at this point. Sic semper tyrannis to the majority.
Click to expand...

Ask your 'gay' Californians trying to get a marriage license, I'm afraid the judiciary isn;t all you need.
 
So you are going to ignore my post now Charles?

Don't you feel kind of pathetic when you have to rely on statistics of single parent families to make your arguments against same sex couples raising children?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom