• 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!

'Gay' columnist blasts same-sex marriage

Children do not have a right to any particular familial arrangement. If they did, divorce would be illegal. So would getting pregnant out of wedlock. So would adoption by single parents. So on and so forth. This right spoken of by this idiot is a complete fabrication.

Nearly all children of LGBT folks are wanted children. They are almost never accidents that happened on a careless dalliance.

Except that most children of LGBT relationships are from previous marriages, so there's that. The myth of the gay couple that adopts children and raise them to adulthood is pretty much a myth. It's exceedingly rare.

And, if marriage was about children, all couples would be required to give birth to, or otherwise acquire children in order to complete the marriage process. It really wouldn't be that hard to make it so. We don't do it because that isn't what marriage is.

Marriage has always been about children, which is one reason why I hate that the state gives out marriage licenses. The whole concept of marriage has been bastardized through the state through marriage licensing and no-fault divorce.
 
Kids should have no impact on the discussion about gay marriage for another reason (besides the fact that having kids is not and has never been a requirement for getting married, as already pointed out here)

Gay people have kids anyway...married or not. Yes, they reproduce, all the time. The men father kids and the women have babies. Just like any other people, they do it within and outside of committed relationships. The kids are there, one way or another. Seems like a committed relationship, like marriage, would be better in general.

In general biological parents are best, which is why most crime is committed by those without a father in the home or some other broken home situation.
 
Marriage has always been about children,

Do you support the dissolution of marriages for the infertile? Elderly, sterile, etc?
 
In general biological parents are best, which is why most crime is committed by those without a father in the home or some other broken home situation.

And in magical unicorn land where this was always possible, is this a solid legal, libertarian argument for banning same-sex marriage?

How about in the real world?
 
In general biological parents are best, which is why most crime is committed by those without a father in the home or some other broken home situation.

What does that have to do with biological parents? My kids are adopted. Say what you want about gays, but leave adopted kids out of it.
 
Do you support the dissolution of marriages for the infertile? Elderly, sterile, etc?

Politically or what? Because I support freedom of association and people calling themselves whatever they want.
 
And in magical unicorn land where this was always possible, is this a solid legal, libertarian argument for banning same-sex marriage?

How about in the real world?

For banning it? No. For getting the state out of licensing it and marriage altogether? Sure, I think that there is a strong case to make.
 
What does that have to do with biological parents? My kids are adopted. Say what you want about gays, but leave adopted kids out of it.

In general children tend to be better off with both biological parents. Specifically I'm thinking of homes with only a mother, which is where most of our criminals come from.
 
For banning it? No. For getting the state out of licensing it and marriage altogether? Sure, I think that there is a strong case to make.

It's funny how nobody ever made the argument that "the state should just get out of marriage entirely" before the gay marriage issue existed.
 
It's funny how nobody ever made the argument that "the state should just get out of marriage entirely" before the gay marriage issue existed.

This speculative argument is irrelevant.
 
Finally some sanity.

"Manning explains same-sex unions will render marriage “irrelevant” because “for the first time, children and parenthood [will have] no place in marriage.”"

REALLY, just exactly HOW is it that my homosexual neighbors damage MY heterosexual marriage?

"Marriage" is and always has been a CONTRACT between two individuals & enforced by the state.
its really NOT about "love" & family or anything of the sort, its about the rights & privileges of
the people who have entered into said CONTRACT.

I would prefer that the state call it CIVIL UNION and make it available to any two
legally empowered sentient beings, and have done with it and the religious fanatics
can KVETH all they want and that will not change the legality.

Have a nice day

: )
 
Why don't you tell me what the libertarian position on children is then, since you apparently know it so well.

Gay Rights: A Libertarian Approach | Libertarianism.org

Elimination of laws specifying homosexuality as grounds for denying the right of adoption.

Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elimination of laws specifying homosexuality as grounds for denying the right of adoption.

A Libertarian's View of Gay Marriage | Fox News

Again, so what? I don’t care if there are three fathers and six mothers. If it’s a stable relationship and the kids are connected with their parents, that’s great.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul Both Get it Wrong On Gay Marriage, Especially as Libertarians - PolicyMic

In the meantime, libertarians — especially Ron and Rand Paul — need to advocate for the rights of homosexuals. Both have predicated their positions on gay marriage with the view that homosexuality is a sin, and marriage should subsequently be between heterosexual couples. Whatever their moral predilections, as libertarians they should know better than to rely on such a flimsy justification. Liberty requires not only tolerance for those who choose to live in ways you don't approve, but — so long as they do not violate they rights of another man — the steadfast insistence that others have the ability to make decisions for themselves.

Libertarians say marriage equality only one step toward ending legal discrimination | Libertarian Party

It is disgraceful that we grant government officials the power to even examine such things, let alone criminalize any peaceful conduct between consenting adults or punish them with unequal marriage, adoption, tax, or immigration laws."
 
Except that most children of LGBT relationships are from previous marriages, so there's that. The myth of the gay couple that adopts children and raise them to adulthood is pretty much a myth. It's exceedingly rare.

.

Care to back that up with some data? It's gotten pretty common. My cousin did it with his partner back in 2001. And they adopted within the US. Many also adopt internationally. It's only gotten more common.

(Not sure why it matters how the couple comes across it's kids tho...lots of mixed hetero families too, with stepkids,etc)
 
In general biological parents are best, which is why most crime is committed by those without a father in the home or some other broken home situation.

Do you have any links to studies that support that? And I dont mean studies from religious or 'Family First!' sites that are against gay marriage. I mean from actual scientific, peer-reviewed research.

BTW, the second part of your sentence makes no sense with the first part, as children of single parent homes are almost always with a BIOLOGICAL parent.

FAIL.
 
Do you have any links to studies that support that? And I dont mean studies from religious or 'Family First!' sites that are against gay marriage. I mean from actual scientific, peer-reviewed research.

The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime - Kay Hymowitz - The Atlantic

BTW, the second part of your sentence makes no sense with the first part, as children of single parent homes are almost always with a BIOLOGICAL parent.

FAIL.
No, when I say parents, I mean parents, not parent. Both biological parents, mother and father.
 
Care to back that up with some data? It's gotten pretty common. My cousin did it with his partner back in 2001. And they adopted within the US. Many also adopt internationally. It's only gotten more common.

(Not sure why it matters how the couple comes across it's kids tho...lots of mixed hetero families too, with stepkids,etc)

Most of the children in the study didn't come from such a scenario. It was exceedingly more common that the child was from a previous relationship and then moved into the household with gay parents.
 
Care to elaborate?

In the study, he only considers "children" who still live at home between the ages of 17-22. This does not take into consideration children who may be living independently or children living at college. There is no data for children of gay or straight parents NOT living at home. Further, how long were the children living in the family situation in which the study coded them? If a child, at 18, lived with gay parents... but lived with straight parents or a single parent for 17 years, they'd be coded as the child of gay parents. This causes significant problems with the results.
 
The studies posted suffer from major problems of convenience sampling

No. When conducting these kinds of studies, randomization is nearly impossible.

asking questions about children during childhood and not adulthood

This is the absolute most appropriate way to garner the information needed. This is not a confound but a strength.

not asking the children themselves

Several of the studies use objective testing to attain the results. This is more accurate.

not controlling for lurking variables

When conducting studies like these, this kind of total control is pretty much impossible. The studies quoted do as well as possible.

being conducted by biased researchers

Nope.

and comparing to single heterosexual parents and not just married heterosexual and biological parents.

That's funny. You weren't paying attention. ONE study did that. All the others compared gay parents to heterosexual parents.

Here I will quote from a far more recent (2012) and comprehensive study:


How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
The article is behind a paywall, so either get yourself to a library or ask me if you have a specific question.

There is much more, but I'd rather not get into copyright issues. I will just highlight the fields where children from gay couples tend to have statistically significant higher rates:
Marijuana use
Frequency of smoking
Frequency of watching tv
Frequency of having been arrested
Frequency of female sex partners (among women)
Frequency of male sex partners (among women)
CES-D Depression index
Current relationship in trouble

And fields where children of gay couples tend to have statistically significant lower rates:
Education attainment
Family of origin safety/security
Self-reported physical health (only for lesbian mothers)
Level of household income

As soon as I saw the link, I knew it was the study by Mark Regnerus. That study has been completely discredited as "junk" by the ASA for poor methodology and partiality. There are so many problems with the study, it's hard to know where to begin. ONE of the major methodological flaws is that Regnerus coded a parent as a single sex parent if they had EVER had a single sex relationship, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with parenting. Next, the study did not consider whether the child had actually LIVED with the parent who had the single sex relationship... at the time of the relationship or ever. Further, the study considers the CHILD'S perception of whether or not the parent had a same-sex relationship, not the parent's. This is different than every other study performed and is based on a possible incomplete recollection. Finally, the study tends to focus on adult outcomes which may have been caused by other factors. THIS is why, in contrast to what you said, asking question about children during CHILDHOOD is the appropriate and accurate way to measure success, as this measure limits potential confounds. Regnerus himself admitted in later interviews that this coding may not have had anything to do with whether or not those parents were gay. So, your conclusions based on Regnerus's study are as irrelevant as his study is. VERY poor research on this issue, phattonez.

For more information, here are two links that discuss the discrediting:

Mark Regnerus Admits His 'Family Structures' Study Wasn't About Gay Parenting | ThinkProgress

And here is the ASA brief that shows how the study is junk. Scroll to page 16:

http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

Nice try, but once again, you posted a study that has no credibility because of major methodological flaws.

Oh, and btw... when talking about biased researchers, Regnerus is a conservative evangelical Christian who received $700,000 to fund his study from the Witherspoon Institute... a conservative think tank opposed to SSM.
 
Last edited:
No, I pointed out major flaws in the studies, and then offered a better study that doesn't have these faults.

Actually, you didn't. What you did was failed to point out flaws in the studies, actually MADE up one flaw that isn't accurate, and posted a study that is so flawed that the governing body (The ASA) that the researcher is part of, condemned the study as "junk". EVEN THE RESEARCHER admitted that his study didn't measure what he claimed.


Isn't it funny how you can post studies that come to opposite conclusions and that's great evidence for why gays should get married, yet when I post a study that comes to the opposite conclusion it is suddenly irrelevant.

I've said nothing about letting gays get married. Having kids, however, seems to be a much thornier issue than gay activists are willing to admit.

What's funny is that you didn't do anything that you attempted. You didn't point out major flaws in the studies that I posted... and btw... those were the studies that I have posted here at DP for years... and the study that YOU posted was one that was completely discredited. Now, my guess is that you are going to google other studies that you believe prove your position, but have already been discredited, too. There are a couple of famous ones. Let's see if you hit them.
 
So now Fox News, and even more hilarious, the Libertarian Party, decides what is libertarian? I guess then because I don't support abortion or medical savings accounts that I'm not a real libertarian. :roll:

You're taking it rather personal. I never stated you weren't a real libertarian. I implied your view on this is not libertarian. It isn't. Abortion and MSAs don't even compare as both are advocated against/for on a societal wide scale. You seem to want to bar adoption/child bearing for gays and gays alone. Ignoring the fact that a) they make up only 3% of the population and it has been proven over and over again that they pose no threat to children and b) the standards you want to us use to bar child bearing or adoption for gays could easily be applied to some racial minorities (blacks & natives), junkies, musicians, and basically anyone between the ages of 19-25 in a metropolitan area. Would you support barring any of those groups from bearing children? Obviously not. You're a libertarian.
 
Last edited:
Except that most children of LGBT relationships are from previous marriages, so there's that. The myth of the gay couple that adopts children and raise them to adulthood is pretty much a myth. It's exceedingly rare.
Which is irrelevant, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up.

Marriage has always been about children, which is one reason why I hate that the state gives out marriage licenses. The whole concept of marriage has been bastardized through the state through marriage licensing and no-fault divorce.

No it hasn't always been about children. I just explained how it is obvious that it isn't and hasn't been, and you just didn't even address those points.
 
If it doesn't matter that they are not traditional parents (opposite gender), why would it matter if they are traditionally married (as opposed to common law, domestic partners, etc)?

Start repealing state constitutional bans against civil unions. Gays and gay rights supporters did not pass them.



or the horrors imposed on many children by opposite sex parents. While I agree that there is a traditional model of a family that can be superior to any other modern interpretation of marriage and family...it's certainly been far more abused and battered by heterosexuals than it has been by homosexuals.

True enough. Even married heterosexuals occasionally abuse and neglect children. It is just less probable.
 
So now Fox News, and even more hilarious, the Libertarian Party, decides what is libertarian? I guess then because I don't support abortion or medical savings accounts that I'm not a real libertarian. :roll:

The purist libertarian view on marriage is the government needs to get out of it entirely because the institution discriminates against single people.
 
Back
Top Bottom