• 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 Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn't saying that what you said was right, I was just saying that you said it.

I know. I did not say you agreed, only that you understood what I said.

Huge difference.

:roll:

I take back what I said, your assumption about one mother/one father is better is a wild one.

:confused:

I guess it it more important to play partisan on this issue?

"Everyone including Cilogy, whom I replied to initially knows exactly what I was saying. You are the only one having an issue." - Blackdog

I did not know "knows exactly what I was saying" translates into "what you said was right."
 
Last edited:
I guess...

"Everyone including Cilogy, whom I replied to initially knows exactly what I was saying. You are the only one having an issue." - Blackdog

I did not know "knows exactly what I was saying" translates into "what you said was right."

Okay, now we all understand each other.

Now what ...
 
Okay, now we all understand each other.

Now what ...

Nothing.

I was just making the point that people new what I meant, and that his comparing alcoholic abusive parents to loving good parents was nothing more than a red herring fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Ok cool.

So ... how 'bout them Bears? :)
 
I said a child is better off with a mother and a father.

As I've read the thread, seems to me that the entire issue, of late, is with this statement. Your statement above is incorrect and has been proven so. I have posted links to about a dozen sites, about 6-12 times during my time at DP, debunking this position. A child is better off with two parents, regardless of sex.
 
wow.. a lot of people have voted on this issue
 
As I've read the thread, seems to me that the entire issue, of late, is with this statement. Your statement above is incorrect and has been proven so.

I have posted links to about a dozen sites, about 6-12 times during my time at DP, debunking this position. A child is better off with two parents, regardless of sex.

My statement is absolutely correct. It has been successful in the development of the human family since the beginning. No study done can take this into account or prove that record wrong. There is almost no social science research to support my claim because the science involved was vs single parent homes. Due to the success of the traditional family no research was really needed. Not without an agenda anyway.

I agree a child is better off with 2 parents. This does not in any way change the fact it is optimal to have both a mother and father.

My statement stands as true.
 
So then opinions.

Well, I guess I don't know anything productive to say when someone calls an attempt to reduce the divorce rate oppressive. If you think you have a better way to address the divorce rate, great, let's hear it.

And fascist...well, it's already a state issued license, not a private contract, so unless the state owns a private asset of yours then it's not fascism...so you aren't making any sense at all with that click of the Random Insult Generator.
 
My statement is absolutely correct. It has been successful in the development of the human family since the beginning. No study done can take this into account or prove that record wrong. There is almost no social science research to support my claim because the science involved was vs single parent homes. Due to the success of the traditional family no research was really needed. Not without an agenda anyway.

I agree a child is better off with 2 parents. This does not in any way change the fact it is optimal to have both a mother and father.

My statement stands as true.

It's my understanding that the reason same-sex couples can raise perfectly fine children is due to their turning to extended family for the other sex's contributions.

Studies Capt'n has posted in the past do not account for the extended family variable...at least I haven't seen how those studies do if they have, anyway.
 
It's my understanding that the reason same-sex couples can raise perfectly fine children is due to their turning to extended family for the other sex's contributions.

That is smart parenting. I mean if a male child has questions about sexuality, he is not going to go to mom or mom.

Studies Capt'n has posted in the past do not account for the extended family variable...at least I haven't seen how those studies do if they have, anyway.

The dynamic of the nuclear family is the optimal child raising engine as intended by nature and human history.

The problem is people think this is some kind of jab at same sex marriage, it's not. It is however the best solution for child rearing.
 
That is smart parenting. I mean if a male child has questions about sexuality, he is not going to go to mom or mom.



The dynamic of the nuclear family is the optimal child raising engine as intended by nature and human history.

The problem is people think this is some kind of jab at same sex marriage, it's not. It is however the best solution for child rearing.

If nothing else it's just as much a jab at polygamy as it is same-sex marriage. The fact that you don't hear these self-proclaimed champions of equality stand up for polygamists in the same breath they claim to seek equality only exposes them as hypocrites.

I for one don't give a **** about identity groups and I don't look at political issues through those rose colored glasses. marriage has a specific purpose, and if you aren't about serving that purpose then I would see you denied regardless of what identity group/s you belong to.
 
If nothing else it's just as much a jab at polygamy as it is same-sex marriage. The fact that you don't hear these self-proclaimed champions of equality stand up for polygamists in the same breath they claim to seek equality only exposes them as hypocrites.

I for one don't give a **** about identity groups and I don't look at political issues through those rose colored glasses. marriage has a specific purpose, and if you aren't about serving that purpose then I would see you denied regardless of what identity group/s you belong to.

To you, marriage has the specific purpose of raising children.

Our government, however, has never specifically put that out, nor does it actually support that position in the current way that it issues marriage licenses.

Today, if you go by the laws concerning marriage in the US, the federal government recognizes heterosexual marriages in the US as a contract between two people of different genders who wish to make each other legal family, and who are agreeing to take legal and financial responsibility for each other. The marriage of a heterosexual couple legally has nothing to do with actually having/adopting children or the couple's ability/lack of ability to do so. I believe that this is how a legal marriage should be. Marriage in and of itself should not be legally tied in any way to a requirement that those who get married should have to sometime in their life raise children together as a couple. And since legal marriage now has to do with making a legal contract that makes two people legal family, then there is no reason to deny legal marriage to homosexual couples.

In fact, I am for legalizing polygamy, but I do not think that a normal marriage contract would cover such a relationship, so a separate set of laws and documents would need to be made before this could happen without major problems.

Also, I think that the legal age a person can get married should be changed to 18, and parents should have no legal say in their children's marriages.
 
My statement is absolutely correct. It has been successful in the development of the human family since the beginning. No study done can take this into account or prove that record wrong. There is almost no social science research to support my claim because the science involved was vs single parent homes. Due to the success of the traditional family no research was really needed. Not without an agenda anyway.

I agree a child is better off with 2 parents. This does not in any way change the fact it is optimal to have both a mother and father.

My statement stands as true.

No, your statement is false. It's success in the past is irrelevant when doing comparisons. Comparative studies have yielded similar results: children raised in two parent households, regardless of the sex of each parents, do equally as well.

So, your statement is inaccurate.
 
To you, [blah blah blah etc etc no point in reading the rest of this post because you're deliberately characterizing me with this tired out lame dismissal tactic easily shot down with entry level science].

It's clearly not according to me.

I wasn't alive during the last few million years where everyone else decided what marriage was going to be about. I wasn't in all these different cultures all over the globe.

This is basic Sociology. The key term is "cultural universal". No matter where you go, marriage is about socializing children just like funerals are about marking the end of life.
 
Last edited:
It's my understanding that the reason same-sex couples can raise perfectly fine children is due to their turning to extended family for the other sex's contributions.

Studies Capt'n has posted in the past do not account for the extended family variable...at least I haven't seen how those studies do if they have, anyway.

You are bringing a confounding variable into things that can affect children in families, REGARDLESS of the sex of the parents. The impact of extended families can have a positive impact on the traditional family, also... in fact, I would theorize that family success in the past was directly related to the involvement of the extended family.

This variable can affect any family and, because of which, is not pertinent.
 
You are bringing a confounding variable into things that can affect children in families, REGARDLESS of the sex of the parents. The impact of extended families can have a positive impact on the traditional family, also... in fact, I would theorize that family success in the past was directly related to the involvement of the extended family.

This variable can affect any family and, because of which, is not pertinent.

It's in fact critical if gays rely on extended family more so than hetero couples. How do studies address this?
 
That is smart parenting. I mean if a male child has questions about sexuality, he is not going to go to mom or mom.

Wrong. He just may. A trusting relationship with one's parent can transcend the sex of that parent. If the child is not close to the parent of the same sex, they will not go to them. The relationship is key.



The dynamic of the nuclear family is the optimal child raising engine as intended by nature and human history.

Naturalistic fallacies don't cut it.

The problem is people think this is some kind of jab at same sex marriage, it's not. It is however the best solution for child rearing.

Why provide incorrect information if it is not a jab? If it was accurate, I would accept that statement, but because it is not, it leads to questions about motivation.
 
It's in fact critical if gays rely on extended family more so than hetero couples. How do studies address this?

Again, I would state that an extended family can be critical in a variety of circumstances, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. You are presenting a position that extended family is critical to the success of same sex parenting. I do believe that it then falls on you to provide studies that support this.
 
Again, I would state that an extended family can be critical in a variety of circumstances, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. You are presenting a position that extended family is critical to the success of same sex parenting. I do believe that it then falls on you to provide studies that support this.

Why would I have to provide sources I asked for?

Doesn't my act of asking for them demonstrate that I don't have them?

God forbid someone should ask a question on this forum :roll:
 
It's in fact critical if gays rely on extended family more so than hetero couples. How do studies address this?

Rely? The benefits of extended families extend to both heterosexual families and homosexual families. Haven't you ever heard the saying, "It takes a village to raise a child"? There is no evidence that anyone is anymore reliant on extended families than anyone else, only that having an extended family improves things for just about anyone.
 
Rely? The benefits of extended families extend to both heterosexual families and homosexual families. Haven't you ever heard the saying, "It takes a village to raise a child"? There is no evidence that anyone is anymore reliant on extended families than anyone else, only that having an extended family improves things for just about anyone.

Ok, pull your panties out of a bunch and know that I have, several times on this thread alone, to say nothing of the content of my posts on this forum over the last 5 years, expressed my support for gays raising children to have access to "marriage".

If you value silly anecdotes like "it takes a village to raise a child", then you'll love to learn how heavily I rely on my extended family to raise my boys. I hope you can understand why your post rings shallow and fake when I compare your silly questions to my life experiences.

This is not a case of "if gays need extended families then AH-HAHA!!! no rights for you LMAO kthxby".

I want to explore how gays might need the extended family differently than a similarly situated hetero couple.
 
Last edited:
Why would I have to provide sources I asked for?

Doesn't my act of asking for them demonstrate that I don't have them?

God forbid someone should ask a question on this forum :roll:

You made a claim, Jerry. My position is that the variable effects all types of child-rearing, and would benefit the child regardless. Now, if you would like to see studies on THAT, I'll do a little research and find them. However, it seems to be that your position is that extended family will more positively affect same-sex couple child rearing than traditional couple child rearing. That is not my position, so I would not have information surrounding it. If you have some, that would be helpful.
 
I want to explore how gays might need the extended family differently than a similarly situated hetero couple.

Would not the supposition be that extended family provides the missing gender role? If a boy is raised by two lesbians, would not his grandfathers or uncles provide him the model of "male" than he might otherwise not develop?

I have no evidence to support this notion, but both hetero and homo families rely on extended family for a variety of reasons and that is the only one that I can think of that may require a homo family to rely moreso on their extended family.
 
You made a claim, Jerry. My position is that the variable effects all types of child-rearing, and would benefit the child regardless. Now, if you would like to see studies on THAT, I'll do a little research and find them. However, it seems to be that your position is that extended family will more positively affect same-sex couple child rearing than traditional couple child rearing. That is not my position, so I would not have information surrounding it. If you have some, that would be helpful.

Ahem:
It's my understanding that the reason same-sex couples can raise perfectly fine children is due to their turning to extended family for the other sex's contributions.

Studies Capt'n has posted in the past do not account for the extended family variable...at least I haven't seen how those studies do if they have, anyway.

I'm not sure how many more qualifiers you require before speculation is not seen as stating a claim, but I neither care nor am I willing to include more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom