• 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

Problem is your content is irrelevant both because it is and because you don't understand the process of debate. If you did, you wouldn't present the content that you have because you'd KNOW it was irrelevant.

The content that children suffer from no father in the home is relevant. the issue of step parents....is relevant. the fact that all the research..that is miniscule to date...doesn't compare parenting skills as you're trying to do, the research finds for better AND WORSE, children suffer the same fates. The increased risks of step parenting are just as real, the lack of a male father in the home having devastating effects are just as real, these are ALL relevant issues.

I have stayed right on message. Orientation has nothing to do with parenting skills whatosever. It doesn't make you a worse parent...it doesn't make you a better one either. You cannot be a female father in any home even if you'd like to be. Similarly, one cannot be a male mother in any home.

And is why the nuclear, two parent male father and female mother remaining married and in the home.....is BY FAR...the best scenario for children we know of and has had multiple effects on each and all of us. Every one of us. This is concrete and a pillar of my sound argument you cannot touch to date but rather..address process and claim to know what I understand and do not understand. This is a platform in my argument that marriage should remain 1) defined by society, we the People 2) it be realized that a one man and one woman relationship called marriage should remain unique, should remain THE primary and most sought after relationship in our society and culture, all others are secondary. Children should remain THE PRIMARY reason for marriage, the reason the woman takes the man's name, the reason the children are then given that name.

Now...want to change it all....go through proper channels and convince the rest of us you are correct. Give some actual truth and fact, rely on something other than "yer not reasonable"..."you don't understand"...you're process is all wrong." Cause, that's a huge deflection...is about as transparent as Casper the friendly ghost and is the same ol lame and tired nonsense others are trying to use in here.

Then continue to make an even better case than that as....you've got influential constituents such as myself who don't give your same sex marriage arguments much respect as they aren't founded in anything but agenda driven drivel.

Next.
 
Sigh...I refuse to discuss this issue with Charles anymore. He makes his arguments the he ignores the counterarguments and runs away. That is not the kind of person you waste your time with on a debate forum.
 
Sigh...I refuse to discuss this issue with Charles anymore. He makes his arguments the he ignores the counterarguments and runs away. That is not the kind of person you waste your time with on a debate forum.

A man's got to know his limitations, any argument must know it's fence lines as well :2wave:

My arguments too solid too good, your same ol song and tired dance will lose to lesser arguments. There is no shame in your white flag here.:surrenderNone at all.
 
A man's got to know his limitations, any argument must know it's fence lines as well :2wave:

My arguments too solid too good, your same ol song and tired dance will lose to lesser arguments. There is no shame in your white flag here.:surrenderNone at all.

You are an idiot.

I don't care if I get thread banned for saying it, it's the truth.

Here is the post.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...legalize-gay-marriage-140.html#post1058449658

Whenever you want to stop being a coward and fess up that you don't know **** about statistics then have at it. Until then, you aren't worth my time.
 
Last edited:
Actually I'm quite intelligent and the stick and stones childish comments don't offend me. You cannot address my arguments, cannot answer simple questions and...yer taking the easy way out.

Typical. Predictable. Another :surrender emblem for the fuselage.
 
Too bad I already posted the relevant Holy Grail scene some 30 (50?) pages back as a thread summary, the parallels continue.

BLACK KNIGHT (after having both arms and both legs lopped off):
Oh, oh, I see, running away then.
You yellow bastards!
Come back here and take what's coming to you.
I'll bite your legs off!
 
Last edited:
Actually I'm quite intelligent and the stick and stones childish comments don't offend me. You cannot address my arguments, cannot answer simple questions and...yer taking the easy way out.

Typical. Predictable. Another :surrender emblem for the fuselage.

You have the post that challenges your stats. I'm waiting you coward.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...legalize-gay-marriage-140.html#post1058449658

Address the arguments or shut the **** up.

You have no arguments.
 
Last edited:
Name calling doesn't impress me, my stats haven't begun to be challenged. It would be easier if you'd admit your agenda and that you consider denial a river in Egypt.
 
Name calling doesn't impress me, my stats haven't begun to be challenged. It would be easier if you'd admit your agenda and that you consider denial a river in Egypt.

What agenda? The only person who has an agenda here is you. You have some sort of anti gay agenda which is incredibly apparant by your absolute refusal to acknowledge arguments which challenge your views. I'll present the post again...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...legalize-gay-marriage-140.html#post1058449658

Have at it. Why are you afraid? You are on a debate forum but refuse to debate.

You are only here to preach and its pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Does it "challenge" these stats too? Because, stats that I could fill these pages with all day prove whose argument here is pretending denial is an Egyptian river.

"Both measures tacitly accept the father's absence from the home and
seek to ameliorate its consequences by increasing the income available
to mother and child. However, it requires an increase in family income
of approximately $50,000 to counter the father's absence," the
economists wrote in a report outlining the results of their study,
which were presented at the Western Economics Association meeting in
San Francisco on July 1.

Phillips and Comanor designed their study to account for the influence
of income, and found that in the case of boys, a minimum of $54,000 in
additional family income is necessary to counter the harmful effects
of absent fathers. For girls, the figure is much lower -- $17,000 a year.
The researchers also found that while absent mothers have a negligible
impact on male adolescent delinquency, motherless homes are 56 percent
more likely to result in teen pregnancy among girls.

"The absence of either parent has a significant effect on the kids
having one kind of pathology or another, but the absence of a father
tends to have a more significant effect, and it seems to more
seriously affect the sons,
" said Phillips, whose research also
indicates that step-fathers may in fact contribute to the problem.

"The effect of the presence or absence of moms and dads on
childbearing at a young age among girls are more equal than their
effect on delinquency by boys."

Kids twice as likely to be JDs, teen moms if father not in home

Facts are facts.
 
Among long-term prison inmates, 70 percent grew up without fathers, as did 60 percent of rapists and 75 percent of adolescents charged with murder.

Denial...ain't no river.

63 percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes — five times the average (U.S. Department of Heath Census)

- 85 percent of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes — 20 times the average (Center for Disease Control)

- 80 percent of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes — 14 times the average (Justice & Behavior)

- 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes — 9 times the average (National Principals Association Report)

- 75 percent of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes — 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)

- 70 percent of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes — 9 times the average. (U.S. Department of Justice)

- 85 percent of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes — 20 times the average. (Texas Department of Correction)

How long would you like me to continue?

Drug Use: "...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
Source: Deane Scott Berman, "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse," Adolescence 30 (1995)

Sexual abuse. A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.

Runnin out of white flags, CT? Admit your agenda and admit I'm much too educated on this matter...why not throw another tantrum and claim you're going home, call me another name or best yet, continue to ignore fact, it's just all so telling.

Yours a political argument, you're not being objective. It's ok, I figured it out many posts ago.
 
The common denominator for rapes amongst youth where the victim doesn't know her attacker......boys without a father in the home.

Women can't father, CT. Sorry. It also seems odd to me you'd want this harm to happen to children...like you don't even care or something:shock:. It's just so shocking that these stats would be so clear and you would still deny children their fathers. Your arguments here I consider a threat to the fabric of this nation at worst, misogynistic at best.
 
Denial...ain't no river.

As I said before, "Fatherless" statistics are single parent statistics. They come from single mothers, not from same sex couples.

I have an absolutely wonderful idea. Why don't you provide the actual sample from which your statistics was taken? Why not provide the actual studies?

Oh wait, you haven't read the actual studies! You only read these stats which were pulled out of the studies. You have no idea what the sample was or if same sex families were represented in it. You only assumed that because it said "fatherless" that you could apply it to same sex couples. You have absolutely no idea how to use statistics.

Now how would a genuine researcher go about determining whether children of same sex families are at a disadvantage like "fatherless" children in single parent families? Well, they would actually study same sex families. Oh wait! Such studies have been done, and they find that children raised by same sex couples are not at such a disadvantage! In fact, they turn out pretty much as they would had they been raised by a different sex couple! I guess that proves that its not the gender of the parent that matters, but the fact that there is two of them. Imagine that!

Seriously Charles. You are not smart.
 
Last edited:
As I said before, "Fatherless" statistics are single parent statistics. They come from single mothers, not from same sex couples

They are stats with no father in the home, it has a clear effect, quit pretending, your argument is in absolute shambles and you're now embarrassing yourself.

I have an absolutely wonderful idea. Why don't you provide the actual sample from which your statistics was taken? Why not provide the actual studies?

I think your idea is a deflection. I got a better idea. Why not admit the facts are correct. Children, especially boys without a male role model in the home, suffer significantly. As 'gay' parents are NO different...by your own admission, then the lack of a father in those homes suffer the same fate. And your denial is quite telling here.

The fact that you'd allow children to suffer with this argument...shameful. I must say, I have no respect for your argument here. Not that it matters, I merely find it vulgar and harmful and downright naive. i normally don't speak to process, but, yours is so terrible here, I simply must. Don't you care about the children?
 
They are stats with no father in the home, it has a clear effect, quit pretending, your argument is in absolute shambles and you're now embarrassing yourself.

Prove it. Provide the actual studies or samples. I contest that these are stats of children of single mothers. Prove me wrong.

The fact of the matter is that you read these statistics and you made the assumption that the researchers who were referring to the need for fathers in homes meant that they were arguing that both genders were needed. That is wrong. They were arguing that two parent homes were better for children. They never even considered or studied same sex homes. Your statistics are irrelevant and you just can't see it.
 
Last edited:
You made the mistake of assuming that I was arguing that same sex couples deserve the right to marriage soley because it would be beneficial. In that case, you would be right that inceustous couples could arguably deserve the same right. However, this amounted to little more than a straw man.
You're still confused, so let's review. Here's the argument we're discussing - the one I said was not much of an argument:
CriticalThought said:
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.
My judgement is that your argument is weak, generic and laughable, especially given the amount of crap you sling at other posters.

This has led you to refine your argument, based solely on some silly analogical examples I used to illustrate some gaping holes:
CriticalThought said:
My actual argument is that millions of children could benefit from same sex marriage and most of the evidence suggests that children raised by same sex couples turn out just as well as those raised by different sex couples.
:doh
It still needs A LOT of work. As it is, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that there's any logic in there. All you've really provided is a couple of premises and haven't even bothered to state why they support the conclusion.
 
This is why I hate debating at length on the internet.

Person A brings up damning source, person B refutes it with a shake of the head and allusions to (as yet) non-existent source. Rinse, wash, and repeat.

Dude, I have been fighting this guy with reason and evidence for 20 some pages. I refuted his stats time and time again but he is literally an idiot. He thinks he can apply single parent stats (aka his "fatherless" stats) to same sex couples when the researchers of those studies never even considered or measured anything of the sort. He thinks that the researchers conclusions about the need for fathers means that gender is important, when the reality is that his statistics only prove that having two parents is important. You know, having twice the income and being able to provide twice the attention, etc. He ignores the countless studies, like these....

http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/p06.pdf
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

...which actually directly study same sex couples and provide evidence that they do raise children just as well as different sex couples do. I've lost all my patience with the guy because he is adamant about not listening to reason. I just don't think he knows how to interpret statistics.
 
Last edited:
You're still confused, so let's review. Here's the argument we're discussing - the one I said was not much of an argument:

My judgement is that your argument is weak, generic and laughable, especially given the amount of crap you sling at other posters.

This has led you to refine your argument, based solely on some silly analogical examples I used to illustrate some gaping holes:

:doh
It still needs A LOT of work. As it is, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that there's any logic in there. All you've really provided is a couple of premises and haven't even bothered to state why they support the conclusion.

Okay, let's simplify it.

8 to 10 million children could benefit from same sex marriage.

Can you say the same about incestuous marriage?

Didn't think so. Case closed. I could care less that you believe it is a weak argument, because you provide no valid rational for why it is a weak argument. Maybe you just don't care about children.
 
Last edited:
Okay, let's simply it.

8 to 10 million children could benefit from same sex marriage.

Can you say the same about incestuous marriage?

Didn't think so. Case closed. I could care less that you believe it is a weak argument, because you provide no valid rational for why it is a weak argument. Maybe you just don't care about children.
You still don't get it. I'm not arguing for and have never argued for incestuous marriages. I was pointing out that the "logic" you provided to support your conclusion was so vague and generic that it could just as easily be applied for things that nobody wants or is arguing for (e.g. incestuous marriage). If you don't like that example, pick another that involves more children.

Nonetheless, you have no rationale for why we should help large groups of children but not small groups of children.

Maybe you just don't care about children. :roll:
 
Last edited:
You still don't get it. I'm not arguing for and have never argued for incestuous marriages. I was pointing out that the "logic" you provided to support your conclusion was so vague and generic that it could just as easily be applied for things that nobody wants or is arguing for (e.g. incestuous marriage).

If you are trying to argue that something is illogical, then perhaps you shouldn't use an illogical comparison to do it.

You have no rationale for why we should help large groups of children but not small groups of children.

By "small groups of children" I'm assuming you mean those raised by incestuous couples. Same sex couples are proven to be capable parents, incestuous couples are not. I'll support the marriage of couples who have a body of evidence supporting their effectiveness as parents.

Maybe you just don't care about children. :roll:

Of course I care about children. Demonstrate that there are children being raised by incestuous couples and that those couples are capable of effectively raising children, and I'll support incestuous marriage too.
 
The content that children suffer from no father in the home is relevant. the issue of step parents....is relevant. the fact that all the research..that is miniscule to date...doesn't compare parenting skills as you're trying to do, the research finds for better AND WORSE, children suffer the same fates. The increased risks of step parenting are just as real, the lack of a male father in the home having devastating effects are just as real, these are ALL relevant issues.

I have stayed right on message. Orientation has nothing to do with parenting skills whatosever. It doesn't make you a worse parent...it doesn't make you a better one either. You cannot be a female father in any home even if you'd like to be. Similarly, one cannot be a male mother in any home.

And is why the nuclear, two parent male father and female mother remaining married and in the home.....is BY FAR...the best scenario for children we know of and has had multiple effects on each and all of us. Every one of us. This is concrete and a pillar of my sound argument you cannot touch to date but rather..address process and claim to know what I understand and do not understand. This is a platform in my argument that marriage should remain 1) defined by society, we the People 2) it be realized that a one man and one woman relationship called marriage should remain unique, should remain THE primary and most sought after relationship in our society and culture, all others are secondary. Children should remain THE PRIMARY reason for marriage, the reason the woman takes the man's name, the reason the children are then given that name.

Now...want to change it all....go through proper channels and convince the rest of us you are correct. Give some actual truth and fact, rely on something other than "yer not reasonable"..."you don't understand"...you're process is all wrong." Cause, that's a huge deflection...is about as transparent as Casper the friendly ghost and is the same ol lame and tired nonsense others are trying to use in here.

Then continue to make an even better case than that as....you've got influential constituents such as myself who don't give your same sex marriage arguments much respect as they aren't founded in anything but agenda driven drivel.

Next.

You still don't get it... and probably never will. YOUR agenda prevents you from understanding how to debate. You have shown no evidence that demonstrates that gay parent household do worse than than straight parent households. Until you do, you lose. Simple as that. Further, all of what you wrote above is what YOU believe, and is your opinion. As I've told you before, that and a quarter is worth... a quarter.

I will repost something you said above:
And is why the nuclear, two parent male father and female mother remaining married and in the home.....is BY FAR...the best scenario for children we know of and has had multiple effects on each and all of us.

Prove it. With links and evidence. I already have proven that the children of gay parents do as well as those of straight parents. I want to see you provide evidence that demonstrates that children of gay parents do worse than those of straight parents. Links. If you do not and you make the claim that you have provided evidence, I will thread ban you for trolling. That's all you are doing when you claim that you have provided evidence for something that you have not. And sorry, comparing single parent households doesn't cut it. It is invalid evidence in the context we are discussing. Perhaps I cannot teach you how to debate, as it is obvious that you do not know how. But I CAN stop you from mucking up the thread with non-contextual evidence. Put up, or stop. Your choice.
 
Name calling doesn't impress me, my stats haven't begun to be challenged. It would be easier if you'd admit your agenda and that you consider denial a river in Egypt.

You have provided no stats that are relevant. Either do so, stop claiming you have, or continue to lie and troll and you will be thread banned. Your choice. Consider this an official warning.
 
If you are trying to argue that something is illogical, then perhaps you shouldn't use an illogical comparison to do it.
You're confused again. I didn't say your argument was illogical, I said it was weak.

By "small groups of children" I'm assuming you mean those raised by incestuous couples. Same sex couples are proven to be capable parents, incestuous couples are not. I'll support the marriage of couples who have a body of evidence supporting their effectiveness as parents.

Of course I care about children. Demonstrate that there are children being raised by incestuous couples and that those couples are capable of effectively raising children, and I'll support incestuous marriage too.
It sounds like you're on to another epiphany - the number of children isn't terribly relevant. That leaves us with:

P1: Same sex marriage would be good for children of gay and lesbian parents
C: Therefore, we should legalize gay marriage.

Still not much of an argument, even if we were to add in your second premise:
P2: Homosexual parents don't screw up their kids
 
You still don't get it. I'm not arguing for and have never argued for incestuous marriages. I was pointing out that the "logic" you provided to support your conclusion was so vague and generic that it could just as easily be applied for things that nobody wants or is arguing for (e.g. incestuous marriage). If you don't like that example, pick another that involves more children.

Nonetheless, you have no rationale for why we should help large groups of children but not small groups of children.

Maybe you just don't care about children. :roll:

You know what, Taylor? We've been discussing issues in this thread for quite a while, and you have altered your position more times than I can count. Let's try this: why don't you post what your position actually is on gay marriage. Be clear and be concise. I've done this as have others. Let's see where you actually stand so we both know and can hold you to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom