• 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.
Blackdog said:
Thanks to the break down of our moral character among other things.

Marriage has become a joke because of quickie marriages and divorces etc. After the government got involved it spelled the end.

If you look at other country's where it is still a religious institution, it is very different.

Of course you are also trying to deny the success of thousands of years for the last 50 or so in the industrialized secular world.
Click to expand...

The extended family has always been superior to the nuclear family, simply because the nuclear family breaks apart half the time. The nuclear family can only exist because the government is involved and has provided the incentives of marriage. Anywhere that marriage is purely a religious institution, people live in extended families, not nuclear families. Nuclear families are artificial and are supported by the government.

Think about it. For countless millennium, a person's parents would look after them until they reached adulthood, then they would help look after the grand kids, then as they got old, their children and grandchildren would look after them. That was the successful model. And what did we replace it with? Social Security and nursing homes!

The reality is that the nuclear family is a product of the industrial revolution. People moved away from their family farms into smaller units that were easier to support with factory work. Marriage was incentized by the government to increase production by supporting this family structure.

Again we have gay singles with children and step children. That means little in the context of this discussion.
Click to expand...

You are failing to acknowledge that nuclear families tend to have a half life. They fall apart often and reconfigure into less optimal situations. This may result from anything from a death in the family to a financial necessity. It may have absolutely nothing to do with the moral character of the individuals involved.

As for the rest, it's a shame we have in the last 50 or so years degraded and made marriage into a joke.
Click to expand...

Marriage has decayed because we are no longer in the industrial era. We are in the information age and marriage is going to have to change, just like it has several time before, in order to be beneficial again.

You have got to be kidding?
Click to expand...

You are clearly ignorant of the demographics and history of marriage. I'm sorry, but the facts are a lot more relevant than your opinoin and assumptions on the issue. It would do you good to educate yourself more on this before you jump in.
 
The Mark said:
Here are the factors in child-rearing that I can think of, in order according to the importance I place on them:

  1. Parenting ability: As in, the ability to raise a child who is well adjusted. Apply your own meanings to well adjusted, it likely comes to the same thing in the end.
  2. Knowledge level: The more a parent knows about how the world works the better. Probably ties in with parenting ability.
  3. Availability of extended family: The higher this is, the better.
  4. Wealth: Face it, in the current system, the correct amount of wealth (IMO, not to much and not to little) has a definite effect on the raising of a child.
  5. Time: The availability of time to spend with your child. Directly tied to the wealth level.
  6. Several more things I haven't thought of: Stuff and things.
  7. The sex of the parents: Somewhere near the bottom of my list.
I did not include the lack of abusive/etc. tendencies because it’s obvious to me that no person worthy of the term “parent” would act in such a manner. Thus not even applicable.
Click to expand...

Demographically speaking. Same sex couples are at a small advantage over heterosexual couples when it comes to the first 5, simply because most homosexual couples choose when they have kids, and a good share of heterosexual couples do not. This allows homosexual couples to get more established and prepared for raising children.
 
CriticalThought said:
The extended family has always been superior to the nuclear family, simply because the nuclear family breaks apart half the time. The nuclear family can only exist because the government is involved and has provided the incentives of marriage. Anywhere that marriage is purely a religious institution, people live in extended families, not nuclear families. Nuclear families are artificial and are supported by the government.

Think about it. For countless millennium, a person's parents would look after them until they reached adulthood, then they would help look after the grand kids, then as they got old, their children and grandchildren would look after them. That was the successful model. And what did we replace it with? Social Security and nursing homes!

The reality is that the nuclear family is a product of the industrial revolution. People moved away from their family farms into smaller units that were easier to support with factory work. Marriage was incentized by the government to increase production by supporting this family structure.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I guess I should have defined "nuclear family" as I was using it. It means for me immediate family. Parents, children, grand parents etc.

CriticalThought said:
are failing to acknowledge that nuclear families tend to have a half life. They fall apart often and reconfigure into less optimal situations. This may result from anything from a death in the family to a financial necessity. It may have absolutely nothing to do with the moral character of the individuals involved.
Click to expand...

Already clarified this.

CriticalThought said:
Marriage has decayed because we are no longer in the industrial era. We are in the information age and marriage is going to have to change, just like it has several time before, in order to be beneficial again.
Click to expand...

It has not changed in the last 5000 years. The change from industrial to information has little to do with it.

CriticalThought said:
You are clearly ignorant of the demographics and history of marriage.
Click to expand...

I think you are clearly ignorant of the history as well. Or in the least are willfully blind.

CriticalThought said:
I'm sorry, but the facts are a lot more relevant than your opinoin and assumptions on the issue. It would do you good to educate yourself more on this before you jump in.
Click to expand...

You jumped in and I am correct. As I said history bears me out, not you.
 
CriticalThought said:
Demographically speaking. Same sex couples are at a small advantage over heterosexual couples when it comes to the first 5, simply because most homosexual couples choose when they have kids, and a good share of heterosexual couples do not. This allows homosexual couples to get more established and prepared for raising children.
Click to expand...
Your statement is misleading.

Part of the "Parenting Ability" I spoke of includes knowing when you shouldn't be having another kid...
 
Blackdog said:
I agree with this. I guess I should have defined "nuclear family" as I was using it. It means for me immediate family. Parents, children, grand parents etc.
Click to expand...

That is an extended family. The moment you include grandparents, it is not a nuclear family. If you wish to redefine it arbitrarily then have at it, but it makes your argument irrelevant.


It has not changed in the last 5000 years. The change from industrial to information has little to do with it.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really have no clue. People lived with their extended families on farms for generations before the industrial revolution. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. The nuclear family: mom, dad, and 2.5 kids, emerged only within the last hundred years or so. The family structure that existed for thousands of years before that was tribes and villages, which were composed of mostly extended families. In fact marriage was originally a means by which one family could establish better relations with another. Father's treated their daughters as property purely for this purpose. Marriage has always been defined by the economics. That is why it changed during the industrial revolution when people left their agricultural villages to work in factories and had to have smaller families in order to get by. The government incentivized it to increase productivity.

I think you are clearly ignorant of the history as well. Or in the least are willfully blind.
Click to expand...

Feel free to provide any facts to support this argument. Or at least challenge mine.

You jumped in and I am correct. As I said history bears me out, not you.
Click to expand...

Correct about what? You changed the definition of nuclear family to extended family. You clearly had no clue that the nuclear family was artificially created by the government to support industry. You had no clue that the structure was inferior to the extended family. You had no clue that much of the decay society faces now due to marriage is because of your resistance to changing it to fit the economics of our current era so it is still beneficial. You just pretended that the good ol' Bible was talking about a Simpsons style home instead of the tribes and villages that actually were the reality at that time.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
That is an extended family. The moment you include grandparents, it is not a nuclear family. If you wish to redefine it arbitrarily then have at it, but it makes your argument irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Thanks for being disingenuous. It comes off well.

Grandparents are not extended family as far as most people are concerned.

I am not trying to redefine anything, it is a simple term...

CriticalThought said:
Wow, you really have no clue.
Click to expand...

And now you resort to personal attacks after I already admitted I used the term incorrectly. Nice.

We are done here.
 
Blackdog said:
Thanks for being disingenuous. It comes off well.

Grandparents are not extended family as far as most people are concerned.

I am not trying to redefine anything, it is a simple term...

And now you resort to personal attacks after I already admitted I used the term incorrectly. Nice.

We are done here.
Click to expand...

Sigh...it's a debate forum. You made an incorrect assertion and stood by it without any evidence to substantiate your arguments. I apologize if I came across as crass, but the purpose of this forum is to destroy such flimsy arguments. Don't pretend like you wouldn't have done the same to me had you had the chance.
 
CriticalThought said:
Sigh...it's a debate forum. You made an incorrect assertion and stood by it without any evidence to substantiate your arguments. I apologize if I came across as crass, but the purpose of this forum is to destroy such flimsy arguments. Don't pretend like you wouldn't have done the same to me had you had the chance.
Click to expand...

Apology accepted. I did not realize I was using the term wrong. The whole time I was talking about the "extended family" and did not realize it.

Well in such a manor, no. Although I would have went into the basement. :mrgreen:

I have never thought of grand parents as being extended.

Ok I guess I was wrong then.
 
Blackdog said:
No real comparison has been done. I have seen some of the studies. Most were not even long enough to jump to any real conclusions and are the equivalent of an educated guess.

The success of the family unit is absolutely relevant.
Click to expand...

As long as you understand that that fact has zero bearing on the fact that the success of a same-sex family unit has been shown to be equivalent, we have no argument.



A few hundred vs a few hundred billion raised by a mother and a father.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Just because there are far fewer incidents does not equate to the success of the types of families.



My comment is completly accurate.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

I tell you what, Jerry made a good point. As soon as they do a study where the extended family is not a variable, you may be able to say that.
Click to expand...

Firstly, since the extended family will effect both scenarios, this would prove nothing. And, once they eliminate as a variable, YOU might be able to make your claim, but until then, you have no evidence. Time period is irrelevant.
 
Jerry said:
See I included the "it's my understanding" so that it wouldn't sound like a claim. Oh well, I guess I need an English comp class.

That's how I understood previous studies linked to in these discussions. I accept the fact that I'm likely not recalling the data accurately which is why I'm looking for clarification.

If Blackdog's religious opinion has merit, then an appropriate study examining this interaction should shed some light on how it's accurate...assuming such a study has ever been don.
Click to expand...

Here's what I've read. Jerry. Children from any kind of family structure can get role modeling either inside or outside the family. From what I've read, regardless of the sex of the parents, positive involvement by extended family adds to the success of the child. I don't have studies handy to show this, but if I looked, I'd be that's what I'd find... across the board. The saying, "it takes a village" isn't so far from the truth. The more positive role models that a child has in their life, the more options they have if issues present themselves.

I do not think that any study has been done that separates out extended family, when looking at child success in same-sex vs. traditional families. My guess would be that there would be little or no difference based on the importance of the extended family in general, but that's just a guess.
 
Blackdog said:
You did not read Jerry's comment I think?

Same sex couples when dealing with children use extended family to fill the gender gap in child rearing. Opposite sex couples do not have to do this. The extended family is not as important to child rearing as it would be or is for same sex couples.

This is part of what makes heterosexual partnership in child rearing optimal compared to anything else.



Look again.
Click to expand...

I do not think this is what Jerry was saying at all, and since there is no empirical evidence to prove this, unless you have some, I reject this. It is not what evidence in child-rearing studies have shown.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
As long as you understand that that fact has zero bearing on the fact that the success of a same-sex family unit has been shown to be equivalent, we have no argument.
Click to expand...

Has absolutly nothing to do with it.

It does not make the male female family unit less than optimal.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Irrelevant. Just because there are far fewer incidents does not equate to the success of the types of families.
Click to expand...

In this case the success rate is indisputable by centuries.

CaptainCourtesy said:
No it's not.
Click to expand...

Well according to history I think it is.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, since the extended family will effect both scenarios, this would prove nothing. And, once they eliminate as a variable, YOU might be able to make your claim, but until then, you have no evidence. Time period is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Again it boils down to a lot of "ifs" on your part. I will stick with what is tried and true.
 
Blackdog said:
Please explain how "just may" is optimal? It's not.
Click to expand...

If the trusting relationship exists, it would be optimal.



Not in all cases and teenagers more often than not, will not fit into that mold.

The relationship is key I agree. But your mother or mother is not going to be able to help you with certain problems or be a male role model and visa versa.
Click to expand...

You are not correct. The relationship is more important that the sex of the parent. Again, in studies done, children who had same sex parents reported having no issues discussing things with them.



You mite as well say facts don't cut it.
Click to expand...

Except your naturalistic fallacies are not facts.



Just because you feel it is not accurate has nothing to do with my intentions. So far you have not shown it to be incorrect.
Click to expand...

You have proven nothing accurate. All of your claims go to the traditional or naturalistic logical fallacy, neither of which proves anything.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I do not think this is what Jerry was saying at all, and since there is no empirical evidence to prove this, unless you have some, I reject this. It is not what evidence in child-rearing studies have shown.
Click to expand...

I reject the studies as to short and to many educated guesses. Maybe in the next 50 years it will be different, but I doubt it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If the trusting relationship exists, it would be optimal.
Click to expand...

Many experts disagree. So who it correct?

CaptainCourtesy said:
You are not correct. The relationship is more important that the sex of the parent. Again, in studies done, children who had same sex parents reported having no issues discussing things with them.
Click to expand...

What studies over what period of time? Or where they just questions sent to random couples etc? How was it done?

CaptainCourtesy said:
Except your naturalistic fallacies are not facts.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

CaptainCourtesy said:
You have proven nothing accurate. All of your claims go to the traditional or naturalistic logical fallacy, neither of which proves anything.
Click to expand...

No fallacy, it is a fact.
 
Blackdog said:
Has absolutly nothing to do with it.

It does not make the male female family unit less than optimal.
Click to expand...

Just to reiterate. It is extended families that are optimal, not nuclear families. It could be argued, all things being equal, and if extended family is denied on both counts, that an opposite sex couple might have a slight advantage over a same sex couple when it comes to gender role development, but that is supposition. There is no telling whether other extraneous variables, such as mentors, teachers, and peers, would provide equivalent gender role development. Furthermore, it is so low on the list of things that lead to an optimal environment for raising children, that it is almost irrelevant. In other words, only if an opposite sex family and same sex family had equal parenting ability, money, time, etc. would the sex of the parents even come into play. Otherwise, those much more important aspects would decide between the couples who could provide the optimal environment for a child. To assume that an opposite sex family is optimal just because it has two of each parent would be both naive and dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Has absolutly nothing to do with it.

It does not make the male female family unit less than optimal.
Click to expand...

If you want to ignore facts, that's fine. As far as optimal goes, what is optimal has already been demonstrated: a two-parent caring family, regardless of the sex of the parents. You have no evidence to prove this wrong other than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.


In this case the success rate is indisputable by centuries.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Appeal to tradition logical fallacy. This could also be the appeal to numbers logical fallacy. You are NOT talking about rate, you are talking about numbers. Here's an example of what you are doing. If 80,000 out of 100,000 traditional families are successful, and 8,000 out of 10,000 single sex families are successful, which has the better success rate? NEITHER. They would be identical. You would disagree and that would be your error.



Well according to history I think it is.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

Again it boils down to a lot of "ifs" on your part. I will stick with what is tried and true.
Click to expand...

No "ifs". Evidence. Your position is based on logical fallacies. I'll go with evidence over that.
 
CriticalThought said:
Just to reiterate. It is extended families that are optimal, not nuclear families. It could be argued, all things being equal, and if extended family is denied on both counts, that a opposite sex couple might have a slight advantage over a same sex couple when it comes to gender role development, but that is supposition. There is no telling whether other extraneous variables, such as mentors, teachers, and peers, would provide equivalent gender role development. Furthermore, it is so low on the list of things that lead to an optimal environment for raising children, that it is almost irrelevant. In other words, only if an opposite sex family and same sex family had equal parenting ability, money, time, etc. would the sex of the parents even come into play. Otherwise, those much more important aspects would decide between the couples who could provide the optimal environment for a child.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is so low on the list as to be irrelevant, but the rest I agree with, yes.
 
Blackdog said:
I reject the studies as to short and to many educated guesses. Maybe in the next 50 years it will be different, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Reject all you like. Doesn't change that quite a few are longitudinal and that they have been peer reviewed and repeated, demonstrating validity. You have shown nothing to dispute them other than logical fallacies. And your last statement demonstrates your bias, Blackdog.
 
Blackdog said:
Many experts disagree. So who it correct?
Click to expand...

And empirical evidence disagrees with your position.



What studies over what period of time? Or where they just questions sent to random couples etc? How was it done?
Click to expand...

If you really want, I'll repost them all, again. I will have to be later when I have more time.



I disagree.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change that it's true.



No fallacy, it is a fact.
Click to expand...

No, it's a fallacy that you cannot prove other than stating the fallacy.
 
Last edited:
And as an aside, when I speak of extended families, I define that as anything outside the nuclear family (parents, children). This is how most define it.
 
Blackdog said:
I don't think it is so low on the list as to be irrelevant, but the rest I agree with, yes.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how would it still be relevant after considering the factors of parenting ability, parent knowledge level, income of the parents, available time of the parents, and the availability of extended family? All of that would have to be equal between an opposite sex couple and same sex couple for the sex of the parents to be a relevant factor. Or do you think any of those factors I mentioned are less important than the sex of parents?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If you want to ignore facts, that's fine. As far as optimal goes, what is optimal has already been demonstrated: a two-parent caring family, regardless of the sex of the parents. You have no evidence to prove this wrong other than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Please point out the fallacy? It has been a huge success for a very long time. You can ignore this as irrelevant, but it does not by any means make it a fallacy.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Irrelevant. Appeal to tradition logical fallacy. This could also be the appeal to numbers logical fallacy. You are NOT talking about rate, you are talking about numbers. Here's an example of what you are doing. If 80,000 out of 100,000 traditional families are successful, and 8,000 out of 10,000 single sex families are successful, which has the better success rate? NEITHER. They would be identical. You would disagree and that would be your error.
Click to expand...

OK you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

I am saying it has been a huge success for a long time. It has shown to be the best, period. It may not be by any huge margin, but it is still the optimal family. This includes the ability to breed and raise a successful child into adulthood.

Other variables exist, but this does not change the rate of success vs any other way in the history of mankind.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Irrelevant. Appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

:roll: Only in your book.

CaptainCourtesy said:
No "ifs". Evidence. Your position is based on logical fallacies. I'll go with evidence over that.
Click to expand...

My position is based on history and fact. Yours is based on a few studies that prove a same sex couple can successfully raise a child. This does not make it the best solution. That would be like saying a single parent home is as good as a 2 parent home because single parents have raised successful children. The single parent home is not optimal.
 
OK becoming to much to respond to, so I will summarize my position and we can go from there.

I have no problem and support gay couples adopting even more so than single parent adoptions. I have stated this multiple times throughout the thread.

I agree with the experts and a proven history that a male, female home is the optimal parental arrangement for child rearing. This has nothing at all to do with gays adopting or raising a family.

Different levels of good exist.

You people seem to think everything is all or nothing. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom