• 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!

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?

  • Total voters
    62
Dutch said:
aye aye capn crunch.




{sigh} opinion.







Fine, how bout a little linky. Your star tricked me into watching rachel maddow on youtube. {sigh}



Once again, how bout a link capn linkless. and if I see one more rachel maddow video...........I'm outta there.
Click to expand...

*waits for ban hammer for ignoring a moderators command*
 
Dutch said:
source
Click to expand...

He uses "biological" as a synonym for "intact" just as you do. I've seen countless articles like these. They prove that single parents, divorced families, and step families generally have more problems. They don't prove a thing about whether being biologically related to the parents has anything to do with the adjustment of children. In fact, I bet there wasn't a single gay couple even involved in any of the research the author reviewed. Once again you demonstrate your inability to critically review literature.
 
Last edited:
Dutch said:
Thank you. I appreciate that. I'll set aside some time this week to read them. I'm interested in their findings.
Click to expand...

Why would you waste your time? You have already admitted that you refuse to accept marriage equality because of your ethnocentrism.
 
Dutch said:
aye aye capn crunch.
Click to expand...

Poor choice.

{sigh} opinion.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Fact. As I said, nothing you want to hear. Doesn't alter that it's fact.



Fine, how bout a little linky. Your star tricked me into watching rachel maddow on youtube. {sigh}
Click to expand...

Here's the link to the thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/87542-do-gays-recruit-children.html

Your Star posted it correctly. Go to post #265. That's where I start discussing the Schumm study.



Once again, how bout a link capn linkless. and if I see one more rachel maddow video...........I'm outta there.
Click to expand...

Use the forum correctly. The Maddow video is the first post... that's all. Go to post #265.
 
Dutch said:
Consistancy is one thing but virtually identical results is something else. here, contrast the results of your studies with these concerning the length of homosexual relationships. These are very similar findings from different studies, but there are variances among them. That is exactly what one expects from different studies from different researchers in differents countries. One would expect to see variations in studies especially those concerning human behavior. I'm not getting that from many of your studies or the ones I'm familiar with. Just why is that and just why aren't you concerned about that too?
Click to expand...

I would be if there were major methodological flaws. There aren't from what I see. One can expect similar results with minimal variance if a hypothesis is correct. This repeatablity indicates validity. It seems to me that the only reason you are questioning this is because it proves your position incorrect.

source
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Find me a study that compares gays who are married to straights who are married and then we can talk,

I'd say the vast majority. You understand that point too. Yet for some reason you don't see a problem. and this after making the same point in an earlier article I offered concerning gays in large cities.
Click to expand...

I don't see a huge issue with this. Firstly, because the studies that DO look at gay men show similar results. And secondly, because if the issue is concerns about single sex parenting, the studies address that.

Once again, I don't as yet have those links. I agree further research is seriously needed but some of these issues already constitute red flags for sceptics such as myself.
Click to expand...

I'd go FAR beyond the word "skeptic" to describe your concerns.




Gosh, not according to this article from slate.
source
Click to expand...

And slate proves me right. I do not believe that any of the studies I presented are from the 1980's... which were the ones that slate indicated were problematic because of divorce. So, again, you are incorrect.

Well, is this "fact" or "opinion" on your part. If it is a "fact" shouldn't you provide something to support your position or am I to simply accept it as fact......because you say it's so. By the way one or two studies don't constitute "a lot." (that would be an opinion)
Click to expand...

It's fact. But now you are asking me to provide information/links that demonstrate that there is no link between homosexuality and child molestation. This is a pretty big topic... in fact, big enough for an entire new thread. I haven't quite finished schooling you on THIS topic yet, so why don't we just stick to gay parenting for now.

And two longitudinal studies may not be a lot, but it's two more than the opposition.




Yes, about all those findings that indicate lesbian couples raise children who are better adjusted than those raised in homes with a mother and a father. This article suggests the "repeatability" of many of these studies exist for a reason....bias on the part of the researchers themselves. Of course we both know that could never happen. (that sarcasm on my part not fact)

source
Click to expand...

I always love it when people quote Stacy and try to misuse her comments against research that demonstrates that children of gay parents do as well as those of straight parents. Like you... and Slate did above, her comments are misrepresented. Now, I could spend time demonstrating this, but I think it would be MUCH better for you to hear it from the source. Stacey herself:



Mod edit: URLS no longer working
 
Last edited:
Hey CC, how long did it take for this poll to get messed with?
 
Kal'Stang said:
CC has consistently given many links to studies on homosexuality and homosexuals raising kids through out the time that I have been around DP. If you don't want to look for the ones in the previously provided link just because you wish to throw a hissy fit about watching Maddow then it is your fault.

BTW, why did you even watch Maddow? Did you seriously think that CC would use her as a frame of reference for this topic? CC might be a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.
Click to expand...

The Maddow video was in the first post of the thread. Dutch didn't bother to scroll.
 
Dutch said:
I never suggested it was anything but my opinion. BTW just for grins and giggles you could supply some of that good old fashioned research you keep telling me about. Or am I simply required to accept your word such research is in point of fact firmly on your side of the argument and is incontravertable.







This isn't a study but is an article that supports my contention fathers and mothers are important in the developement of children. I know, call me crazy to actually put forth the idea that boys and girls need positive role models from both genders in order to develop and become well adjusted adults.






Those numbers were from the new york times article so many of you objected to. So, I'll give you some wholly new figures to complain about. :mrgreen: (you won't like them or the source either but the article refrences all the needed studies)
source
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah. Show a study that compares married straights and married gays. Then we can discuss.
 
Dutch said:
You don't like my source, ok. That source did reference studies that support my contentions. Better yet just what is your premis? I mean other than complaining of my sources. Then provide sources that support your contentions. That would be nice.
Click to expand...

And the studies were meanlingless as I demonstrated. Find some valid ones, please. If you can.
 
Centrist77 said:
It always a pleasure to watch you work in gay rights threads. You have even done some work in threads of my own and after fallacy upon fallacy is slapped down it always humors me to see people deny reality over and over again with more and more desperate measures.

Id love to know how many broken keyboards, mice and monitors your facts and logic have caused the over emotional, discriminatory and illogical to break. Some times I can almost hear them punching their keyboards :D

Good posting.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I've done a lot of research on the issue over the past 10 years, both from a sociological and a psychological perspective. Research on both sides of the coin. In my profession, I have also seen situations first hand, though I rarely discuss them as they are anecdotal.

As far as broken keyboards, mice and monitors that have been destroyed through my logical and fact based torturing of those who try to come at me from a position of ignorance, I've lost count. There are plenty, though.
 
Your Star said:
Hey CC, how long did it take for this poll to get messed with?
Click to expand...

Apparently not long. Each and every one of the "A special right" votes is a non-member rigged vote. ANYONE can check that themselves. Not ONE DP member voted for "A special right". Typical of GM threads. Some extreme conservative or conservatives seem to feel the need mess with the poll dishonestly... especially when all the factual content of the thread is completely stacked against them.
 
the desire for it is a seeking of one portion of the population to gain a measure of social acceptance from the rest of the population.
 
cpwill said:
the desire for it is a seeking of one portion of the population to gain a measure of social acceptance from the rest of the population.
Click to expand...

No, I don't care if you accept me or not, all I care about is being treated the same as you. Big difference.
 
Your Star said:
No, I don't care if you accept me or not, all I care about is being treated the same as you. Big difference.
Click to expand...

I accept you. The conservative community simply has to work out its divisions on lgbt rights. This will happen.
 
Your Star said:
No, I don't care if you accept me or not, all I care about is being treated the same as you. Big difference.
Click to expand...

perhaps as an individual you do. however; if all this were a mere search for technical 'equal treatment' before the law; then there would be no "homosexual marriage" movement. there are a variety of other legal mechanisms for gaining all the "advantages" of marriage even without the tax penalties. this is an "equal treatment" before "society" movement. 'YOU WILL ACCEPT ME, DAD!', was how my little sister put the emotion, though i think she was a bit upset at the time, and not exactly thinking clearly.
 
cpwill said:
perhaps as an individual you do. however; if all this were a mere search for technical 'equal treatment' before the law; then there would be no "homosexual marriage" movement. there are a variety of other legal mechanisms for gaining all the "advantages" of marriage even without the tax penalties. this is an "equal treatment" before "society" movement. 'YOU WILL ACCEPT ME, DAD!', was how my little sister put the emotion, though i think she was a bit upset at the time, and not exactly thinking clearly.
Click to expand...

that doesnt make sense?
for the majority its about EQUAL treatment and fighting DISCRIMINATION
what logic says that fighting for marriage rights (something the is UNEQUALLY denied) makes it about something else and that fight for "other" things would make it for equal rights?

was interracial marriage only about being accepted?
womens rights?
minority rights?

Sorry but you have it backwards.
 
cpwill said:
perhaps as an individual you do. however; if all this were a mere search for technical 'equal treatment' before the law; then there would be no "homosexual marriage" movement. there are a variety of other legal mechanisms for gaining all the "advantages" of marriage even without the tax penalties. this is an "equal treatment" before "society" movement. 'YOU WILL ACCEPT ME, DAD!', was how my little sister put the emotion, though i think she was a bit upset at the time, and not exactly thinking clearly.
Click to expand...

If gays are allowed to marry the same sex then everyone is allowed to marry the same sex. Sounds equal under the law to me. Just because you wouldn't want to marry the same sex doesn't mean that you didn't have the right to do so.
 
cpwill said:
perhaps as an individual you do. however; if all this were a mere search for technical 'equal treatment' before the law; then there would be no "homosexual marriage" movement. there are a variety of other legal mechanisms for gaining all the "advantages" of marriage even without the tax penalties.
Click to expand...

Why should they be forced to take these "alternate" methods? Which probably are not quite as simple as the Marriage License. The Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract. People are looking to infringe upon an individual's right to contract when no rights were violated or would be violated by the other party. So long as the Marriage License exists, there is not a logical argument built upon rights which could excuse the use of government force against same sex couples in their ability to exercise their own rights.
 
Your Star said:
No, I don't care if you accept me or not, all I care about is being treated the same as you. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Hey You Star whats your opinion on the whole name change?
I have more than a dozen gay friends and all of them but one think it would be a slap in the face. Now about half admit if it came down to it they would probably very well accept it but think it would be giving in and letting the bad guy wins.

Just curious what your take is since mine is kinda in the middle, i definitely see their point but not me gay myself Im always curious of those views.
 
CriticalThought said:
If gays are allowed to marry the same sex then everyone is allowed to marry the same sex. Sounds equal under the law to me. Just because you wouldn't want to marry the same sex doesn't mean that you didn't have the right to do so.
Click to expand...

oh its VERY equal its just more empty spin
 
Centrist77 said:
Hey You Star whats your opinion on the whole name change?
I have more than a dozen gay friends and all of them but one think it would be a slap in the face. Now about half admit if it came down to it they would probably very well accept it but think it would be giving in and letting the bad guy wins.

Just curious what your take is since mine is kinda in the middle, i definitely see their point but not me gay myself Im always curious of those views.
Click to expand...

I see no point in the name change, why would the government have two names for something that is the same, and I also think it would be unconstitutional. You know, the whole separate but equal thing. It's a rather pointless distinction, and nothing more than a tactic to try and delay the inevitable passage of SSM.

And I agree, if it came down to it, I would take it, but I wouldn't be surprised if that did happen it would be ruled unconstitutional at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom