• 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!

New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

Many children now live with only one parent. Guess we should take those kids away from them since it's not perfect.

Many married couples have no children at all. Guess we should force them to get divorced.
 
Many children now live with only one parent. Guess we should take those kids away from them since it's not perfect.

Many married couples have no children at all. Guess we should force them to get divorced.

You don't seem to catch on Groucho.........Of course if there is only one birth parent that is fine, but ideally it would be nice for a child to have a mother and father..............You would never admit it but I bet even you would prefer that.........
 
You don't seem to catch on Groucho.........Of course if there is only one birth parent that is fine, but ideally it would be nice for a child to have a mother and father..............You would never admit it but I bet even you would prefer that.........

I would certainly admit that. But we can't always have a perfect scenario. And two parents of the same sex is much better than being in a foster home.
 
If gay marriage benefits society why wouldn't polygamy?:confused:

Pluralistic marriages are difficult to sustain. Given that it is hard enough for two people to stay together, imagine how much hard it is for three or four? Also, it is a financial strain. Historically only the wealthy have had polygamous marriages. Third, it creates competition among spouses. Each one is vying for their children to receive the majority of attention from the father. Fourth, it causes sons to be kicked out of the family. As the father can simply remarry younger wives as he gets tired with his older ones, he has to remove the competition that might be vying for the younger females. That usually means he kicks out his own sons. That is a trend that has been observed in polygamous sects for decades. Fifth, it creates an uneven distribution of the sexes. If a man marries several wives then that leaves fewer women for other men. As gay people would only tend to marry each other anyways, the same problem doesn't exist with same sex couples.

How is that?
 
I would certainly admit that. But we can't always have a perfect scenario. And two parents of the same sex is much better than being in a foster home.

And two parents of the same sex are just as good as two parents of the opposite sex.
 
And I can defeat them without breaking a sweat. The government has no reason to sanction polygamy because it has not been shown to benefit the individual, the rearing of children, society, or the state. Gay unions have.

Gee, that was easy.

Says who? You do. You base this purely on personal hate for Polygamy. Your bigotry towards multi-member marriages is obvious.

In a three adult relationship, one could stay home to care for the children while two work. Think about it, two men, one woman. Higher pay (for the males) and the the nurture of a woman at home.

You have only your own bias, no facts, no studies, nothing.
 
I would certainly admit that. But we can't always have a perfect scenario. And two parents of the same sex is much better than being in a foster home.

That is a whole new thread my friend...we are talking about new borns that are so in demand that people are lining up by the hundreds to adopt the children in Haiti..........
 
Says who? You do. You base this purely on personal hate for Polygamy. Your bigotry towards multi-member marriages is obvious.

In a three adult relationship, one could stay home to care for the children while two work. Think about it, two men, one woman. Higher pay (for the males) and the the nurture of a woman at home.

You have only your own bias, no facts, no studies, nothing.

Polygamy would be like a pride of lions with all the mothers sisters and aunts taking care of the babies..........And the male would be around too.....That would be much better then two fathers or two mothers..........
 
Says who? You do. You base this purely on personal hate for Polygamy. Your bigotry towards multi-member marriages is obvious.

Oh, stop the overdramatic hyperbole. I have no hate nor bigotry of polygamy. I have data and information that demonstrates that polygamy is not equal to straight or gay marriage, does not yield the same benefits, and should therefore NOT be sanctioned by the government. That is the extent of my argument.

In a three adult relationship, one could stay home to care for the children while two work. Think about it, two men, one woman. Higher pay (for the males) and the the nurture of a woman at home.

You have only your own bias, no facts, no studies, nothing.

Firstly, that's not how it works in RL. Secondly, when I use those words that you just used (yes, I am aware of what you are trying to do, and you are failing at it miserably) I have proof of this, and I am correct. In your case, you do not.
 
Polygamy would be like a pride of lions with all the mothers sisters and aunts taking care of the babies..........And the male would be around too.....That would be much better then two fathers or two mothers..........

NP... are you really comparing animals to humans? Well, then I suppose you will agree that since homosexuality is quite normal in animals, then it would be normal for humans too, right?
 
NP... are you really comparing animals to humans? Well, then I suppose you will agree that since homosexuality is quite normal in animals, then it would be normal for humans too, right?

No comparison at all.....its just and example how lions do it with their young and Polygamysts could do it the same way.........
 
No comparison at all.....its just and example how lions do it with their young and Polygamysts could do it the same way.........

So, to be consistent, you are saying that human behavior and animal behavior are equivalent. If you are NOT saying this, then your point on lions and polygamy is irrelevant.
 
So, to be consistent, you are saying that human behavior and animal behavior are equivalent. If you are NOT saying this, then your point on lions and polygamy is irrelevant.

No not at all.......I am just saying how Lions do it and FOR THE SAKE OF argument I believe a man that married 2 women could leave the kids with them when he went to work and they would have to mothers to take care of them...what is wrong with that?if as yousay its beneficial for children to have to fathers then I say with polygamysts its the same thing.........

I personally don't want either class to be able to marry...I am consistent on the issue CC..You are not..........
 
No not at all.......I am just saying how Lions do it and FOR THE SAKE OF argument I believe a man that married 2 women could leave the kids with them when he went to work and they would have to mothers to take care of them...what is wrong with that?if as yousay its beneficial for children to have to fathers then I say with polygamysts its the same thing.........

NP, when I argue the benefits of children living with gay parents, I show proof. You have shown none in regards to polygamy. Now I understand that showing proof is not something that you do regularly, but unless you show some, your point is irrelevant.

I personally don't want either class to be able to marry...I am consistent on the issue CC..You are not..........

No, I am being completely consistent, it is YOU that is not. I base my beliefs on information. You base your beliefs on your personal belief system/morals. Mine has credibility. Yours is a value judgment. If you were being consistent, you would agree with me that children living with gay couples do as well as those living with straight couples. But instead you refute this information with no information of your own... just your personal belief system. That is why your position is inconsistent.
 
Oh, stop the overdramatic hyperbole. I have no hate nor bigotry of polygamy. I have data and information that demonstrates that polygamy is not equal to straight or gay marriage, does not yield the same benefits, and should therefore NOT be sanctioned by the government. That is the extent of my argument.
I have data supporting the contention that a homosexual union is detrimental to children. Your point is?

Firstly, that's not how it works in RL. Secondly, when I use those words that you just used (yes, I am aware of what you are trying to do, and you are failing at it miserably) I have proof of this, and I am correct. In your case, you do not.

Ah, so now it's I'm justing over emotional hyperbole where as you, the calm voice of reason are correct in every way.

"If polygamy were legal, there would be more stable families, fewer single mothers and less welfare, says 'Poppa,' who lives in the Pacific Northwest with 'Momma,' his wife of 34 years, and 'Mom,' a single mother who joined them in 'marriage' five years ago.

"Contrary to stereotypes, Poppa says, his family is self-sufficient and active in their community. All the adults work and share in household duties and the care of six children. 'We pool our money and our resources and whenever one [adult] has to take off, another will watch the kids,' he says.

"Momma says she welcomed Mom into the family because she felt compassion for the 37-year-old single mother and knew 'my husband could take care of both of us.'

"'He's always had more love than I could absorb,' Momma says. Good polygamous men, she adds, 'are not trying to create a collection [of wives]. They're trying to make sure this [single] woman has a support mechanism for her and her children.'"

In another quote with the same family, Wetzstein's article reported "Poppa" saying, "Polygamy is family. It's us. It's a unity and identity of a family group. ... It is the ultrafamily."

Wetzstein also cited some quotes from the second family, who similarly involve a single mom and children joining an existing family. "'The only difference between us and any other normal American family... -- it's all the same, except it's just a husband and a wife and a wife,' says the second 'Poppa'...

"'We're extremely pro-family, we're extremely pro-children,' says Momma, who is 36 and joined Poppa, 29, and 'Mamasita,' 28, at their request six years ago.

"They say that theirs is a harmonious, loving home -- 'we're sensitive to each other,' Mamasita says -- and having another adult in the house has allowed both women to share child care, go to college and get good jobs."

Clearly, those (non-Mormon) Christian "ultrafamilies" succinctly explained how their form of consenting-adult polygamous families had afforded them better opportunities and life improvements - which they would not otherwise have been able to obtain individually.
Pro-Polygamy.com ™ - A 'Conservative' Shows Her Liberalism, Opposing Polygamy Rights

YOU, are arrogantly proclaiming that Polygamy is detrimental because you know that Polygamy is the next logical step in the "evolution" of Marriage once the homosexual barrier is gone. You know it's gonna happen, but that hurts your political stance, and you are attacking full bore on me for exposing this truth.

I know your game CC, you might impress people with your arrogant tone, but I see right through you.
 
NP, when I argue the benefits of children living with gay parents, I show proof. You have shown none in regards to polygamy. Now I understand that showing proof is not something that you do regularly, but unless you show some, your point is irrelevant.



No, I am being completely consistent, it is YOU that is not. I base my beliefs on information. You base your beliefs on your personal belief system/morals. Mine has credibility. Yours is a value judgment. If you were being consistent, you would agree with me that children living with gay couples do as well as those living with straight couples. But instead you refute this information with no information of your own... just your personal belief system. That is why your position is inconsistent.


I guess we are at and impass because you won't give and neither will I..........

If you don't see the inconsistency in your stand of being against polygamysts to marry and being for gays and mine being against both there is not much to say except I believe my stand is the consistent one.........

I can never believe in my heart of hearts that all things being equal any man can take the place of a good mother or any woman can take the place of a good father....sure there are exceptions to every rule.there are bad fathers and mothers and bad gay parents but like I said all things being equal a father does not have the necessary skills to take the place of a mother and vice versa.........There are certain attributes that both bring to the table that can not be substituted......

I am not sure it has much to do with my morals either.....I don't care how many studies you cite to me its just common sense...........

Sorry my friend that is just the way I feel..........Going to bed now..Going to play 18 holes of golf tommorow if the weather holds..........

take care............

PS: You better believe that the polygamysts are watching the gay marriage issue very closely and if gay marriage ever does happen they will be at the trough too.................The bucket of worms it would open would be incredible............
 
Last edited:
I have data supporting the contention that a homosexual union is detrimental to children. Your point is?

Show it. I'll take a look at it.



Ah, so now it's I'm justing over emotional hyperbole where as you, the calm voice of reason are correct in every way.

Yeah, you are. And yeah, I'm right, Glad to see you admit that.

Pro-Polygamy.com ™ - A 'Conservative' Shows Her Liberalism, Opposing Polygamy Rights

YOU, are arrogantly proclaiming that Polygamy is detrimental because you know that Polygamy is the next logical step in the "evolution" of Marriage once the homosexual barrier is gone. You know it's gonna happen, but that hurts your political stance, and you are attacking full bore on me for exposing this truth.

I know your game CC, you might impress people with your arrogant tone, but I see right through you.

No, MrV, it won't happen, and your attempts to attack on this will easily fail. My arrogance comes from my confidence in the information that proves me correct, both evidentiary and logically.

And I know your game, MrV. You are attempting to divert things because you have a losing position. It's OK. It won't deter me in the least.
 
I found one of the two posts that I use to dispel the foolish polygamy slippery slope. Here it is:

Please show some evidence that polygamous marriage rears children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage. There is plenty of data on both of those. I do not see why the government should support something unless there is some data showing it is helpful.

Also, child-rearing is not the only reason that the government sanctions marriage, though it is the most prominent. Family stability and social stability are also important components. This is where polygamy falls short.

But, you see, this entire, "if we allow homosexual marriage, polygamy is next" argument is extraordinarily weak, considering that the similarities between the two do not exist. Allow me to explain from both an individual and a societal standpoint. And Jerry. This may be the post you have been waiting for. ;)

First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.

Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.

Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.

All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.

Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.

Note the logic, here. There's more, but I must log off for a while.
 
I guess we are at and impass because you won't give and neither will I..........

Always been this way on this issue between us, NP.

If you don't see the inconsistency in your stand of being against polygamysts to marry and being for gays and mine being against both there is not much to say except I believe my stand is the consistent one.........

You can believe that, but you'd be wrong.

I can never believe in my heart of hearts that all things being equal any man can take the place of a good mother or any woman can take the place of a good father....sure there are exceptions to every rule.there are bad fathers and mothers and bad gay parents but like I said all things being equal a father does not have the necessary skills to take the place of a mother and vice versa.........There are certain attributes that both bring to the table that can not be substituted......

I am not sure it has much to do with my morals either.....I don't care how many studies you cite to me its just common sense...........

NP, I always look for proof and logic in every argument. In this one, both are on my side.

Sorry my friend that is just the way I feel..........Going to bed now..Going to play 18 holes of golf tommorow if th weather holds..........

take care............

Enjoy your golf game... hope the weather is nice and you play well. :2wave:
 
I have data supporting the contention that a homosexual union is detrimental to children. Your point is?

I'll put down money right now that he posts single parent statistics. Any takers?
 
No not at all.......I am just saying how Lions do it and FOR THE SAKE OF argument I believe a man that married 2 women could leave the kids with them when he went to work and they would have to mothers to take care of them...what is wrong with that?if as yousay its beneficial for children to have to fathers then I say with polygamysts its the same thing.........

I personally don't want either class to be able to marry...I am consistent on the issue CC..You are not..........

Man, you know I respect you deeply. But right now, you are making it so hard for me to defend you.
 
I'll put down money right now that he posts single parent statistics. Any takers?
'
Sure, I'll take that bet.
According to the recent quantitative analysis on same-sex parenting by Lerner and Nagai, 49 American studies, which advocate homosexual parenting, have fatal flaws, rendering them statistically invalid (non-representative samples, imprecise hypotheses, confused political objectives, etc.). The researchers concluded that the studies repeatedly referred to by American, European and Canadian homosexual lobbies should not be used to influence the politics of their respective governments. This conclusion was also expressed by Professor Stephen L. Nock, Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia, who, in an affidavit submitted by the federal Attorney General in the Ontario Court of Appeal same-sex marriage case, evaluated statistics on same-sex parenting and concluded that the studies were flawed in either design or execution, which rendered them totally invalid.

According to a paper published by Professor Bradley P. Hayton, there are serious concerns about the effects of a homosexual lifestyle on children. Professor Hayton states:

Homosexuals … model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and most sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.

The reason that same-sex parenting is detrimental to the well being of children is due to several factors:

1. Higher Incidence of Violence

There is a higher rate of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships than in married, heterosexual relationships. A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. This is verified in a number of other studies. According to the homosexual authors of Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them, domestic violence affects half of all gay couples. The vast majority of violent crimes against homosexuals are committed by homosexuals, and are not considered hate crimes. According to the leading US gay magazine The Advocate, 75% of its readers admit engaging in violent sex, 20% in sadistic sex and 55% are using painful objects.

2. Higher Incidence of Mental Health Problems

There is a higher incidence of mental health problems among homosexuals and lesbians. These include problems of substance abuse, as well as a greater risk for suicide. Homophobia is often blamed for the high suicide rate of young gays but this cause is only one among many, such as prostitution, broken families, sexual assault at a young age, disappointments in love affairs, and premature homosexual labeling.

3. Reduced Life Expectancy

Male homosexuals have a significantly reduced life expectancy. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals stated as follows:

In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

4. Higher Incidence of Same-sex Orientation

Same-sex parents are inclined to influence their children's sexual orientation. A study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, stated as follows:

… there are developmentally important, statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behaviour [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behaviour.

5. Greater Risk of Sexual Involvement with Parents.

According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.

These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.

6. Greater Risk of Social or Psychological Problems.

The vast majority of the American studies widely used by homosexual activists claim that same-sex parenting is as valid as opposite-sex parenting. However, as mentioned previously, these earlier studies have been found to be seriously flawed. According to a study there were noticeable problems with children raised by same-sex parents in regard to discipline expectations, and general parent-child relationships. Other studies have also reported that boys raised by homosexual mothers may have a lower self-image, regarding masculinity. A study of children of lesbians revealed many problems, including a "defensiveness" on the part of the children of lesbian couples she studied, a pattern of denial - especially deep in the youngest child in the lesbian couples, hostility from older boys, especially directed at the mother's lesbian lover, the children expressed concern for the welfare of siblings, the children had concerns about their own sexuality, the children had concerns about the integrity of their family, concerns about their mother's homosexual activities, there was evidence that one of the lesbian mothers expressly encouraged her daughters to make lesbian sexual choices, and that the children were forced to conceal one parent's secret sexual behaviours from the other parent.

All these problems have led to the children raised by same-sex parents becoming dysfunctional and disadvantaged.

7. Higher Incidence of Child Molestation

Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.

According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.

Although pedophilia is condemned by most homosexuals, it remains condoned by many leading gay and lesbian North American activists who lobby for the lowering of the age of consent for sex. Early sex is said to be healthy for boys claims the self-proclaimed homosexual association NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Intergenerational sex (an often used euphemism for pederasty) is an undeniable fixture of gay literature, gay films, gay travel and gay prostitution. In the 70's, The Advocate repeatedly ran full page adds for a "penetrable boy doll" and in the 90's, 21% of its readers admitted having been molested before the age of 15.

Conclusion

What is behind the statement by the Canadian Psychological Association? Are its members just plain mad? Clearly, its statement on same-sex parenting has a lot to do with politics and pressure from homosexual activists. Unfortunately, the Association's conclusions have almost nothing to do with genuine social science research. The Canadian Psychological Association should be embarrassed and ashamed.
Real Women of Canada - Newsletters - SAME-SEX PARENTING IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN


See CC, anyone can play the "I have data game". My source says your sources are flawed for political reasons, and lays out why. What makes your sources more "right" then mine? Because they give the conclusions you want them too?

I am quite sure that there are WONDERFUL Gay couples of either sex that raise happy, well adjusted children. I'm not gonna say it doesn't happen, that would be arrogant of me to presume otherwise. However, for you to claim there is no difference in a gay family Vs. a straight family, that all the reasons brought up are just biased bigotry based in ignorance is wrong.


Just as it is arrogant of you to proclaim polygamist marriages are bad, and you have the studies that say otherwise. We are at an impasse again.

You think you know what I am doing, it appears you are in error here as well. What I am doing, and I'll even tell you so there is no confusion. I'm exposing your claims of having the "right answer" for the ego driven arrogance that it is. Navy Pride holds his point of view, but he doesn't debate his point with the same "logical style" that you do, so he's wrong.

I intentionally went a little over the top, just to get you to post in that highly condescending manner you tend to post in when you feel you are right beyond reproach. I personally find that particular attribute of yours to be your least endearing quality.
 
What data?

You provided an unreferenced piece of junk that compared unmarried homosexual couples in Canada to married heterosexuals in Canada. That right there made it completely methodologically unsound.

This is the same so called "evidence" that was used to fight against the initiation of same sex marriage in Canada. But notice the glorious lack of specific citations so that no one one can actually pull up the specific sources that were used to craft this crap. This isn't data, it is a piece of propaganda where they cherry picked information from studies. Furthermore, it is dated in 2003, and much of the information that CC and I provide is much more recent and actually does have full citation.

I mean, come on, its reference for child molestation is "According to American studies...". What studies in America say that? From where?

I could easily cherry pick the statistical disparities that African Americans have, such as greater mental health issues, substance abuse, domestic abuse, etc. and make an argument very similar to the one your "data" just made that they are a danger to society and children. It would be as racist as your statement above was homophobic.

What you posted above is even more pathetic than had you posted single parents stats. Why not post arguments from NARTH and the Family Research Institute while you are at it?
 
Last edited:
'
Sure, I'll take that bet.

Real Women of Canada - Newsletters - SAME-SEX PARENTING IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN


See CC, anyone can play the "I have data game". My source says your sources are flawed for political reasons, and lays out why. What makes your sources more "right" then mine? Because they give the conclusions you want them too?

I am quite sure that there are WONDERFUL Gay couples of either sex that raise happy, well adjusted children. I'm not gonna say it doesn't happen, that would be arrogant of me to presume otherwise. However, for you to claim there is no difference in a gay family Vs. a straight family, that all the reasons brought up are just biased bigotry based in ignorance is wrong.


Just as it is arrogant of you to proclaim polygamist marriages are bad, and you have the studies that say otherwise. We are at an impasse again.

You think you know what I am doing, it appears you are in error here as well. What I am doing, and I'll even tell you so there is no confusion. I'm exposing your claims of having the "right answer" for the ego driven arrogance that it is. Navy Pride holds his point of view, but he doesn't debate his point with the same "logical style" that you do, so he's wrong.

I intentionally went a little over the top, just to get you to post in that highly condescending manner you tend to post in when you feel you are right beyond reproach. I personally find that particular attribute of yours to be your least endearing quality.
I think it's because CC is a LCSW or LPC and feels he is more qualified to make conclusions on these topics than any of us. My ex is an LPC, so I understand the thinking. The trouble is they become consumed by their methods and philosophies. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean they are predictable. Whenever CC discusses these sorts of things, he sounds the same. And I've heard it all before after 25 years with the same women. The central premise to this profession is that because they study and treat the mind, they can judge your thoughts with unimpuned authority because the mind is the key to reality and therefore all of man's actions. The problems is that they are also human with flawed human minds. Furthermore the brain and the mind is so complex, that their profession (i.e., knowledge and methods) are probably the more imperfect of any. I fully expect a rebuttal, but it will be irrelevant.
 
Back
Top Bottom