• 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
You didn't debunk anything. You simply disparaged my article and provided none of your own in response. I'll give you an example from your link.



my post

your refutation


Marriage equality has gradually changed gay culture in europe? really? Good, just where is your support for your contention?

Shouldn't you support your claim first, before expecting him to support his debunking of it?

By the way, to summarize, we have SSM is good for child raising, stability, monogamy, lower STD rates. So far you have not been able to argue against any of these.
 
You didn't debunk anything. You simply disparaged my article and provided none of your own in response. I'll give you an example from your link.


The article you presented was only of gays couples in one city in one of the most liberal parts of the country. As such, you cannot generalize it.
The article you presented provided no comparison to heterosexual couples living in that area. As such, you have no comparison between the attitudes of heterosexual couples in that area to the same sex couples in that area.
Same sex couples were allowed to marry in California for only 5 months. Do you honestly believe that any major change in human behavior can occur over the course of 5 months?

I'm sorry, but I get the feeling you are deliberately ignoring the limiations of that article.
 
Oh, and important advice if you go with the cut/paste strategy...make sure you update links.

It was fine when I posted it about 3 months ago.

I found the links. Will work on updating.
 
The APA recreated all the links that I provided into one PDF. Unfortunately, whereas before they had separated the information out into sections, hence my number of links, they have now put it into one report. Here is the PDF. It is a bit unwieldy, but a good read.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf

Oh, and here's another study... from 2010 that supports all the findings from the previous studies: Children of gay parents do just as well as those of straight parents. No differences in adjustment or sexuality. This study looks at adopted children only. What it does determine... no surprisingly, is that the biggest factor in a child's success is parenting style, disciplinary style, and greater happiness in the couple's relationship.

http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
 
It's a good strategy. When you get those members who aren't here to debate but just post the same debunked crap over and over again and run from threads when they realize they are losing, then by posting the same rebuttals it shows that nobody is taking them seriously anymore and that they are actually going to have to justify their opinions with valid evidence. Most of them just give up and go away, which is fine by me.

Yup. That's why I have about 6 of my most effective posts bookmarked so I can repost them at a moment's notice if need be.
 
Adoption isn't exactly "producing children." You do know that don't you?

No, however the presence of kids needing adoptive parents leads to a conundrum for your suggestion that government has an interest in marriage due to a desire for them to produce off spring because its essential to our continuation as a society. As a society, we have such an abundance of produced off spring currently that we do not have enough family units to properly care for them all. There is no risk to society failing because people aren't being produced anytime in the near future as we are running at a significant surplus currently.

The general fall back is that its not to PRODUCE children, but to create a healthy environment for raising said children. Again, this fails to work as documented by the studies from CC that shows such an environment can be produced.

I've already provided an article that suggested some 50% of gays think marriage shouldn't be be limited to monogamy.

You linked to an article that made a statement about a report that hadn't been issued yet and thus had no information regarding the actual question asked, the potential answers, the percentage chance of error, or a legitimate chance to be peer reviewed. Its rather worthless.

And...even if it was legitimate, which is highly dubious, it would still not change the fact that it also means 50% of them believe it SHOULD be monogamous. Taking your ridiculous rampant sex for all homosexual notion, then that means that 50% less would be engaging in such should they be able to enter into an official and beneficial monogamous relationship.
 
Looks like the APA changed their site and didn't update the links. I'll have to go look for them. You can read what I wrote, however, I summarized each study with both an abstract and commentary.

go ahead, I'll read them next week. but the fact of the matter is all of these studies essentially reach the same conclusion; gays produce children as well adjusted as straight parents or better adjusted. Nice. Gay parents produce better adjusted children than straights all the time. Quite remarkable when you think of it.

Most of these studies seem to have similar problems;
-most of these studies concentrate on lesbians.
-most of these studies concentrate on whites.
-control groups tend to be based on gays with children from previous hetero marriages, just how do you factor out the effects of divorce on the children? Just how do divorced children show no problems from divorce when most studies show the children of divorce more often than not develop emotional and developemental problems from divorce. Could it be lesbians can mysteriously overcome all those developmental problems simply because their gay?
-just why are there so few longitudal studies of gay parenting?
-representative samples of parents in studies are still mostly very small.
-most reprresentative sample of parents are from urban areas. Are they really representative of the rest of the country?
-virtually all the studies I've read, that includes some of yours the reasearchers have come to eerily similar results......gays, lesbians anyway, tend to produce children as well adjusted as hetero couple, or better! Are there no red flags here for you at all?
-What, exacty qualifies as "well adjusted?"
-if these studies are anything to go by we no longer need men to raise children, unless they're gay of course. So much for all that research that suggests children actually need fathers in order to develop properly.
 
Last edited:
As to the answer to this question, it depends what you mean by a special right really.

I, personally, do not believe that marriage is a "right"...not in the sense that its viewed today, with some kind of government sponsored benefit status. However, what I personally believe is rather useless in this context. The courts have ruled it a right and until such time as that's over turned its the basis for which we need to work.

If its a Right, then said right needs to be equally protected per the EPC clause of the 14th amendment.

Currently, there is a legitimate argument based on gender that the discrimination currently being employed by the government...wherein men can marry women but women can't marry women and vise versa...does not show that such discrimination serves an "important" state interest that "substantially" requires said discrimination to properly perform as would be required for a "Middle-Tier Scrutiny" situation.

As such, it is an equal protection issue based on gender under the 14th amendment that I believe is currently unconstitutional.

Now, with that said...more often then not when people reference EPC its with regards to discrimination against sexual preference, not gender. Sexual preference, currently, is at the minimum tier level of scrutiny and I believe there's enough there to meet that level of scrutiny. As such, until such a time that precedent happens that sets sexual preference as a middle or strict level of scrutiny, I would have to say it doesn't fall under EPC when using that argument. However, there is always the chance that if challenged in that way it may cause the court to evaluate what level of scrutiny such needs to fall under.

As I have said in a number of threads, the best option that is realistic (realizing that the government is never going to fully get out of the marriage business) is to abolish the term "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" country wide. Allow marriage to firmly and completely fall only within one realm, the private realm, rather than straddling both private and public with duel meanings and thus issues revolving around both.
 
go ahead, I'll read them next week. but the fact of the matter is all of these studies essentially reach the same conclusion; gays produce children as well adjusted as straight parents or better adjusted. Nice. Gay parents produce better adjusted children than straights all the time. Quite remarkable when you think of it.

Most of these studies seem to have similar problems;
-most of these studies concentrate on lesbians.
-most of these studies concentrate on whites.
-control groups tend to be based on gays with children from previous hetero marriages, just how do you factor out the effects of divorce on the children? Just how do divorced children show no problems from divorce when most studies show the children of divorce more often than not develop emotional and developemental problems from divorce. Could it be lesbians can mysteriously overcome all those developmental problems simply because their gay?
-just why are there so few longitudal studies of gay parenting?
-representative samples of parents in studies are still mostly very small.
-most reprresentative sample of parents are from urban areas. Are they really representative of the rest of the country?
-virtually all the studies I've read, that includes some of yours the reasearchers have come to eerily similar results......gays, lesbians anyway, tend to produce children as well adjusted as hetero couple, or better! Are there no red flags here for you at all?
-What, exacty qualifies as "well adjusted?"
-if these studies are anything to go by we no longer need men to raise children, unless they're gay of course. So much for all that research that suggests children actually need fathers in order to develop properly.

Seriously...you're going to come up with that laundry list of complaints while a few dozen posts backs claim you "proved" something by posting an article that talked about a then unpublished study?
 
As I have said in a number of threads, the best option that is realistic (realizing that the government is never going to fully get out of the marriage business) is to abolish the term "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" country wide. Allow marriage to firmly and completely fall only within one realm, the private realm, rather than straddling both private and public with duel meanings and thus issues revolving around both.

Zyphlin..........
 
I'm guilty of posting these threads myself, two of them to be exact. One was locked due to reaching 2000 posts and they are both very entertaining but in the end there are no good reason to stop gay marriage, none as an American. They have all be thoroughly debunked but they are fun discussing but at the same time its kind of unfair, its an argument the other side cant win.
 
No, however the presence of kids needing adoptive parents leads to a conundrum for your suggestion that government has an interest in marriage due to a desire for them to produce off spring because its essential to our continuation as a society. As a society, we have such an abundance of produced off spring currently that we do not have enough family units to properly care for them all. There is no risk to society failing because people aren't being produced anytime in the near future as we are running at a significant surplus currently.

this is completely off topic. BTW you should be aware we have a growing population by virtue of the fact we've managed to rob mexico, among other countries, of something like 10% of it's native born population. (also off topic)

The general fall back is that its not to PRODUCE children, but to create a healthy environment for raising said children. Again, this fails to work as documented by the studies from CC that shows such an environment can be produced.

I firmly believe a tradional family unit composed of two parents, male and female, is the best possible combination to accomplish that goal. Just why do you insist on lowering the bar?


You linked to an article that made a statement about a report that hadn't been issued yet and thus had no information regarding the actual question asked, the potential answers, the percentage chance of error, or a legitimate chance to be peer reviewed. Its rather worthless.

It was an article, not a study. It did however, support my contention monogamous behavior isn't exactly the goal of a great number of homosexual couples, something that has been pointed out in other studies. Would you like for me to produce one? I understand you don't approve of the article. It doesn't fit your political perspective. That still doesn't make it wrong. It just shows you have a bias you want to keep.

And...even if it was legitimate, which is highly dubious, it would still not change the fact that it also means 50% of them believe it SHOULD be monogamous. Taking your ridiculous rampant sex for all homosexual notion, then that means that 50% less would be engaging in such should they be able to enter into an official and beneficial monogamous relationship.

That would amount to only 50% and that before the trials and tribulations of marriage. Hetero couples usually go into marriage with somelike a 95% expectation of monogomy. Something like 25% eventually stray. Do the math.
 
Seriously...you're going to come up with that laundry list of complaints while a few dozen posts backs claim you "proved" something by posting an article that talked about a then unpublished study?

Well, yes, much of the "research" I've seen have problems. We're all aware not all research is valid. Not all research is reproducable. Reseachers do have biases. Several of you have objected to my new york times article. Am I not allowed to object to some of these studies? Are liberals/leftists the only ones allowed to object to sources? Walter shumm has pointed out some of these in a recent study of his. I could provide that. I wouldn't even object if you disagreed with his findings, unlike yourself, of course. :mrgreen:

In regards to my article. I provided support for an assertion I made. Gay coupling tends to be short and often non monogamous. I've made no claims to "proving" anything. I have notice a tendancy among my erstwhile liberl/leftist brothers and sisters to some rather remarkable claims themselves tho. Have you not noticed yourself? You have the capacity to read.
 
Last edited:
As to the answer to this question, it depends what you mean by a special right really.

I, personally, do not believe that marriage is a "right"...not in the sense that its viewed today, with some kind of government sponsored benefit status. However, what I personally believe is rather useless in this context. The courts have ruled it a right and until such time as that's over turned its the basis for which we need to work.

If its a Right, then said right needs to be equally protected per the EPC clause of the 14th amendment.

Currently, there is a legitimate argument based on gender that the discrimination currently being employed by the government...wherein men can marry women but women can't marry women and vise versa...does not show that such discrimination serves an "important" state interest that "substantially" requires said discrimination to properly perform as would be required for a "Middle-Tier Scrutiny" situation.

As such, it is an equal protection issue based on gender under the 14th amendment that I believe is currently unconstitutional.

Now, with that said...more often then not when people reference EPC its with regards to discrimination against sexual preference, not gender. Sexual preference, currently, is at the minimum tier level of scrutiny and I believe there's enough there to meet that level of scrutiny. As such, until such a time that precedent happens that sets sexual preference as a middle or strict level of scrutiny, I would have to say it doesn't fall under EPC when using that argument. However, there is always the chance that if challenged in that way it may cause the court to evaluate what level of scrutiny such needs to fall under.

As I have said in a number of threads, the best option that is realistic (realizing that the government is never going to fully get out of the marriage business) is to abolish the term "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" country wide. Allow marriage to firmly and completely fall only within one realm, the private realm, rather than straddling both private and public with duel meanings and thus issues revolving around both
.

"I" personally wouldn't have a problem with this but you have to see that changing the name could easily be argued discrimination.

Theres no need to change the name because no matter what anybody says, that TRIES to use "religion" as an excuse they are wrong. Marriage already has NOTHING to do with religion RIGHT NOW. Religion ONLY plays a role in marriage if the people involved want it to, I can get married by a magistrate tomorrow if I want or go to Vegas and get married at a freaking drive up window and RELIGION will play NO ROLE.

I know you Zyphlin aren't saying this Im just making a general statement and pointing out the HUGE hypocrisy that "most" people have that try and use religion. When people get married without religion or with a DIFFERENT religion very very few cry about that but if its same sex all of sudden they act like they car about that word, give me a break, its a joke.

But like I said, it wouldn't both me to call them all civil unions IF they were made equal, currently they all are NOT, but I would definitely understand and support the people that would say its discrimination because it is.
 
I provided support for an assertion I made. Gay coupling tends to be short and often non monogamous. I've made no claims to "proving" anything. I have notice a tendancy among my erstwhile liberl/leftist brothers and sisters to some rather remarkable claims themselves tho. Have you not noticed yourself? You have the capacity to read.

Not that it matters one bit or that is a good argument to stop marriage but say that was true, I got 2 things.

1. wouldn't it be possible that marriage would help extend relationships
2. I don't see them being dramatically shorter than hetero relationships and marriage itself already ends in divorce what? 51% of the time?

With that said, length of relationship is meaningless and with 1 & 2 above it makes that weak argument even more meaningless.
 
go ahead, I'll read them next week. but the fact of the matter is all of these studies essentially reach the same conclusion; gays produce children as well adjusted as straight parents or better adjusted. Nice. Gay parents produce better adjusted children than straights all the time. Quite remarkable when you think of it.


Actually, it's quite consistent, when you think about it. Also, it shows repeatablity, one of the key factors that identifies validity in research. I find it interesting that you don't see this, But, of course, you are not anti-gay. :roll:

Most of these studies seem to have similar problems;
-most of these studies concentrate on lesbians.

Most but not all.

-most of these studies concentrate on whites.

That's true. The samples are overly representative of whites. However, further research, and I believe it is in the link that I provided, has demonstrated similar findings amongst other ethnicities. This, however, does need to be looked at further.
-control groups tend to be based on gays with children from previous hetero marriages, just how do you factor out the effects of divorce on the children? Just how do divorced children show no problems from divorce when most studies show the children of divorce more often than not develop emotional and developemental problems from divorce. Could it be lesbians can mysteriously overcome all those developmental problems simply because their gay?

This is not accurate. Control groups for the studies tend to be based on either biological, intact families, or adoptive intact families, depending on the study.

-just why are there so few longitudinal studies of gay parenting?

Because most of the research around homosexuality was faulty, especially that of homosexuality and child molestation. As that information has been found to be non-credible, the amount of gays who rear children have gone up. If I recall correctly, there is at least one, if not two longitudinal studies that I did list.

-representative samples of parents in studies are still mostly very small.

Mostly, but the key factor in their reliability is the repeatability of the studies.

-most reprresentative sample of parents are from urban areas. Are they really representative of the rest of the country?

This is not accurate. I would say that the samples are mostly NOT from urban areas.

-virtually all the studies I've read, that includes some of yours the reasearchers have come to eerily similar results......gays, lesbians anyway, tend to produce children as well adjusted as hetero couple, or better! Are there no red flags here for you at all?

Not at all. It demonstrates the repeatability of this hypothesis, a cornerstone of research validity. If you do a test and your hypothesis is proven each time, you can say that your hypothesis is valid. I find it interesting that you would question repeatability.
-What, exacty qualifies as "well adjusted?"

There are four factors and I believe they were listed at the beginning of my first post.
-if these studies are anything to go by we no longer need men to raise children, unless they're gay of course. So much for all that research that suggests children actually need fathers in order to develop properly.

No, it doesn't show that at all. What it shows is that two parents, of any gender or sexual orientation, will rear children equally as well.

So, where are your sources?
 
As I have said in a number of threads, the best option that is realistic (realizing that the government is never going to fully get out of the marriage business) is to abolish the term "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" country wide. Allow marriage to firmly and completely fall only within one realm, the private realm, rather than straddling both private and public with duel meanings and thus issues revolving around both.

This has also been the solution that I have been professing in a number of threads over the past few years.
 
I firmly believe a tradional family unit composed of two parents, male and female, is the best possible combination to accomplish that goal. Just why do you insist on lowering the bar?

You can believe what you want, but it is nothing but your opinion. Research does not suppor this opinion. And since this is the case, why do YOU insist on keeping the bar low?




It was an article, not a study. It did however, support my contention monogamous behavior isn't exactly the goal of a great number of homosexual couples, something that has been pointed out in other studies. Would you like for me to produce one? I understand you don't approve of the article. It doesn't fit your political perspective. That still doesn't make it wrong. It just shows you have a bias you want to keep.

Produce the study.



That would amount to only 50% and that before the trials and tribulations of marriage. Hetero couples usually go into marriage with somelike a 95% expectation of monogomy. Something like 25% eventually stray. Do the math.

Really? Lets see some research that proves those numbers.
 
This has also been the solution that I have been professing in a number of threads over the past few years.

Its a fine COMPREMISE in my opinion but not being gay id wonder what that voice would think of it, but also, dont you think that makes it too easy for people to still argue discrimination?

IMO a name change is just that, discrimination.
 
The problem with making all marriages civil unions is that it just is not going to happen, not any time soon.
 
Well, yes, much of the "research" I've seen have problems. We're all aware not all research is valid. Not all research is reproducable.


Yet I have shown the reseach IS repeatable, one of the most important components to research validity. I understand that you must ignore this because it does not fit with your personal biases, but that does not make it any less true.


Reseachers do have biases. Several of you have objected to my new york times article. Am I not allowed to object to some of these studies? Are liberals/leftists the only ones allowed to object to sources? Walter shumm has pointed out some of these in a recent study of his. I could provide that. I wouldn't even object if you disagreed with his findings, unlike yourself, of course. :mrgreen:

Several of us already destroyed Schumm's study in another thread about two weeks ago. His study is not credible.

In regards to my article. I provided support for an assertion I made. Gay coupling tends to be short and often non monogamous. I've made no claims to "proving" anything. I have notice a tendancy among my erstwhile liberl/leftist brothers and sisters to some rather remarkable claims themselves tho. Have you not noticed yourself? You have the capacity to read.

Actually, what I've noticed is that conservatives like you tend to make ridiculous claims that are just opinions and try to pass them off as facts. Which is precisely what you have been doing in this thread... whereas the liberals have been producing research. Now... how about dispensing with the ridiculous partisan hackery and discuss the topic, honestly. Oh... and btw... Zyphlin is no liberal. Further fail for you.
 
Its a fine COMPREMISE in my opinion but not being gay id wonder what that voice would think of it, but also, dont you think that makes it too easy for people to still argue discrimination?

IMO a name change is just that, discrimination.

The problem with making all marriages civil unions is that it just is not going to happen, not any time soon.

I don't agree that altering the name is discrimination. It can still be called marriage if one gets joined in a church. But I do agree that changing the name for everyone would be a huge undertaking.
 
I don't agree that altering the name is discrimination. It can still be called marriage if one gets joined in a church. But I do agree that changing the name for everyone would be a huge undertaking.

again I dont think it would bother me either but I bet it would bother people because we would all know that it was changed because of gays and that could easily be argued as discrimination.

If you dont think so just apply it to race or gender. Heres a funny example I like to use.

Congrats Mr. Obama/ Mrs Clinton! you won! uhm listen, see the thing is we aren’t going to call you the President, see well, uhm , you are half black/a woman and we just cant call you THE PRESIDENT, that’s a “sacred" word based on MY opinion, even though we have used it for all others we are going to change it NOW, we are going to call you aaaaaah . . . . uhm . . . The CEO if the United States of America, yeah thats it.

Now mind you, you'll still have the same "full rights/privileges" and powers and decisions to make has the president we just cant call you that or use that word anymore because of you.


Like I said I dont think it would bother me but if someone wanted to argue discrimination based on the example above id have a tough time arguing against them.

Just saying
 

Ok, I have an article here that references a book by a european sociologist that has come to a different conclusion.
source
.......In her book Children as Trophies? European sociologist Patricia Morgan reviews 144 published studies on same-sex parenting and concludes that it fosters homosexual behaviour, confused gender roles, and increased likelihood of serious psychological problems later in life. A French parliamentary report on the rights of children decried the "flagrant lack of objectivity" in much of the pro-gay research in this area, and concluded with the warning that "we do not yet know all the effects on the construction of the adopted child's psychological identity. As long as there is uncertainty, however small, is it not in the best interest of the child to apply the precautionary principle, as is done in other domains?"(1)

When spouses "fall in love" with their children, it doesn't diminish their love for the other spouse, but enriches it. Same-sex couples may seek children hoping they will provide this same effect, but will more often find them an obstacle to and a competitor for affection..........
 
Back
Top Bottom