• 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
And now you are using a blog as a source. Keep up the good work Dutch.

Please provide a source that references support for your contentions. I'm right here. I'll wait for ya'. :mrgreen:
 
Can you provide some unbiased, scientific studies please? I was interested in reading what I thought was going to be accredited research supporting your side. I clicked on one link, and it took me to the Family Research Council, and another took me to Mercatornet. I'm not interested in reading opinions, but facts, and these two sources are about as unscientific and biased as you can get (and wasn't the Family Research Council actually listed as a hate group this year?) The Slate article was a good start, but it's 6 years old, and with all the new unbiased scientific and psychiatric evidence coming out over the last few years that shows support for same sex couples and child rearing, I am looking for something reputable that supports the other side's arguments.

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.
 
Last edited:
So once again you don't compare unmarried homosexual couples to unmarried heterosexual couples, you compare unmarried homosexual couples to married heterosexual couples. You really don't see the obvious flaw in doing that?

I'll tell ya' what critic thinking why don't you provide a study, an article, anything from anywhere that suggests that just as many members of the gay community view the importance of monogamy in the institution of marriage as the straight community. Why don't you do that. That would be very helpful.
 
.......and the studies contained therein? Naturally, you don't approve of the sources but that's how this works. You provide a source I provide an alternative one. We both know that. If I am only limited to sources that you approve then you should only use those I approve of. Otherwise this doesn't work. Debate is impossible.

You have yet to provide a real source. Try finding some actual studies, not some website that talks about studies. I again point out that FRC has a long history of slanting badly what they present and flat out dishonesty.

I've provided articles suggesting gays presently view marriage from a different perspective than I do. I view it as an insitution that requires monogamy as essention in order to be effective. I have provided articles that suggest "many" in the gay community do not believe marriage requires monogamy, at all. This is a cultural difference. It's to be expected. It's at the heart of my argument. It's your culture that determines the institution, not the institution that determines your culture.

You are still repeating the same mistake. You are still comparing married people to single people. You want results that mean something, compare married gay people in the US with strait married people in the US. Saying unmarried people are more less monogamous than married people, and since gays cannot marry, they are more promiscuous, so gays should not be married because they are too promiscuous is an obviously flawed premise.


I believe I have. I have already provided two articles that suggest indicate homosexual relationships tend to be less stable than heterosexual ones now. I have also linked an article in the new york times (many disagree with) that suggests many gays don't view monogamy important for a marriage.

You have shown that relationships outside of marriage are less stable. You have presented an article which is based on a study that was not yet published, and which also uses anecdotes to show something. Your problem is that, in fact, you have presented no actual evidence to back up your point.

Unless monogamy becomes a priority in gay relationships, unless the nature of gay relationships change for the majority of the community they will continue to remain shortlived, and unstable by definition.

Then you promote monogamy by the best method...marriage.

In some ways we are at an impass. You are suggesting the institution of marriage will change the gay community. I am suggesting the gay community will have to change in order for the institution of marriage to work for them. What comes first the chicken or the egg.

I am not saying marriage will change the gay community in any way other than it does for the strait community. You are expecting gays to do more than you expect straits to have ever done.

At any rate the very best environments for children are those that are stable, and longterm. Feel free to call me "delusional" for thinking this way as critical thinking has already branded me as such.

No one has argued otherwise, but this is an argument for gay marriage, to promote those long term stable relationships, and you have yet to counter this argument.

[quoteI tell ya' what why don't you references support for your contention that the gay community will change their cultural mores and their views of marriage.........just because. You see the problem, don't ya? [/QUOTE]

Because that is not what I am arguing. I am merely arguing that marriage leads to longer term, more stable relationships. Are you suggesting this is not true?
 
Please provide a source that references support for your contentions. I'm right here. I'll wait for ya'. :mrgreen:

So you don't think marriage promotes monogamy?
 
You have yet to provide a real source. Try finding some actual studies, not some website that talks about studies. I again point out that FRC has a long history of slanting badly what they present and flat out dishonesty.

Real studies reside in sources such as questia, a database of scientific studies. I used it as a source when getting my masters. Such sources require money. I'm not doing that for this forum. Instead, why don't you provide sources that contradict the studies referenced in the article. In point of fact why don't you provide any articles, for any of your assertions. All you've done so far is complain about my sources.


You are still repeating the same mistake. You are still comparing married people to single people. You want results that mean something, compare married gay people in the US with strait married people in the US. Saying unmarried people are more less monogamous than married people, and since gays cannot marry, they are more promiscuous, so gays should not be married because they are too promiscuous is an obviously flawed premise.

No, I'm comparing attitudes concerning the institution of marriage from the differing perspectives of peoples occupying differing cultures.


You have shown that relationships outside of marriage are less stable. You have presented an article which is based on a study that was not yet published, and which also uses anecdotes to show something. Your problem is that, in fact, you have presented no actual evidence to back up your point.

No, I've suggested large numbers of straights have a different view of what constitutes marriage than what large numbers of gays feel constitutes marriage and provided sources that support my assertions. You have provided no supporting references for your assertions at all. Why not? I'm still waiting.

Then you promote monogamy by the best method...marriage.

No, that's your assertion. Please provide some support for your belief that marriage changes promiscuous behavior.

I am not saying marriage will change the gay community in any way other than it does for the strait community. You are expecting gays to do more than you expect straits to have ever done.

Yes, you are.


No one has argued otherwise, but this is an argument for gay marriage, to promote those long term stable relationships, and you have yet to counter this argument.

Marriage does not promote stability in relationships. If you feel it does please provide some support for your contention. I don't believe it exists but you can source something and we can debate the validity of such. Otherwise you just have a "theory."

Because that is not what I am arguing. I am merely arguing that marriage leads to longer term, more stable relationships. Are you suggesting this is not true?

Then provide something to support your contention. Otherwise it is mearly wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
So you don't think marriage promotes monogamy?

No, I believe monogamy promotes stability. I believe marriage is a cultural concept used by tradional societies (with variations) as a good vehicle for encouraging the procreation and raising of children. Stable relationships enhance that effect. That's all.
 
Since it appears that some wish to discuss gays getting married (again), I figured I'd start another poll about it. A little different spin on this one than I've seen in at least a while, although the argument is common in gay rights threads.

(Besides, there doesn't seem to be a single poll about it on the first or second page of the Polls section, so I figure I'll change that.)

Is same sex marriage a special right or equal protection?

Please explain all answers so we can have a good debate about this.

Marriage per-se is a Basic Human Right for the raising and socializing of children.
 
As I've already stated "many times" in this thread if you don't see the institution of marriage as requiring monogamy and the new york times article supports this assertion you will not change a culture of promiscuity. In point of fact this article in the family research council makes the same assertion as the new york times article. In regards to hetero v homosexual relationship lengths this article indicates;source



No, you will not approve of the source but it's a very complete article and they do reference studies and provide references. If you would like I can provide articles referencing studies indicating heterosexual relationships last considerably longer.

so you have no direct answer to what I said? thanks thats what I thought.
 
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.

I'm still waiting for you to source some support for your contention that gay marriage is changing gay culture in europe as is your assertion in post #124. You haven't done so as yet. why not?

You've had time enough to call me "delusional" for making the assertion that men and women are equally important in raising both male and female children. You've had time to send me a snotty pm. (I'll get back to you later on that, I still have to write my lesson plans for next week.)

Come to think of it why don't you provide some support for your assertion that men and women aren't equally important in the raising of both male and female children. Why don't you provide us all with something to support that conclusion. I'll be here all day. :mrgreen:
 
Dutch, you have 3 big problems with your posts.

1) You are now using FRC. They have zero credibility. What you are doing would be akin to me using the Democratic National Committee Website to prove republicans are wrong.

2) You are still comparing married strait people to unmarried gay people. It's not a valid comparison for what you are trying to do.

3) You still have not countered the argument that gays being allowed to marry would promote stability, a better environment for children, reduced promiscuity and lower STD rates.

Common sense at it finest.
Not to mention the repeated reference to "liberals" or people on the "left". Typical when somebody is in this much denial about one side vs their own and makes inaccurate blanket statements their argument is already lost. They are desperate to validate their opinion while at the same time down play the other side by TYRING to insinuate bias on the OTHER side but its their stance that is obviously bias. You think by now bias righties AND lefties would have learned, that tactic alone NEVER works.
 
so you have no direct answer to what I said? thanks thats what I thought.

I don't mean to be rude but in case you hadn't noticed there is only one of me and several of you. I honestly don't know what "direct" answer you wish to what question. Perhaps you could ask the question again. I cannot read your mind any better than I can read my wife's.
 
Common sense at it finest.
Not to mention the repeated reference to "liberals" or people on the "left". Typical when somebody is in this much denial about one side vs their own and makes inaccurate blanket statements their argument is already lost. They are desperate to validate their opinion while at the same time down play the other side by TYRING to insinuate bias on the OTHER side but its their stance that is obviously bias. You think by now bias righties AND lefties would have learned, that tactic alone NEVER works.

You don't approve of the terms "liberal" or "left?" Why is that? Would you like to debate the use of such terms? I'm willing. :mrgreen:

In regards to bias, yes, at times I see bias. Would you like to debate bias and just what that entails? I'm here for ya'.
 
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.

I know, and I really wasn't trying to downplay your thread or anything. It's just that it wasn't on the first or second page of the Polls section, and some people were hijacking another thread that was getting way off topic onto gay marriage that had nothing to do with gay marriage.

Besides, sometimes it is good to have a fresh start on topics, so that it isn't a small group of people arguing one point back and forth, devolving the thread into just an argument over one particular part of the whole argument.
 
I think you're missing something Centrist.

What you are suggesting above is not what I'm proposing, but what we have now in some states. Separate but equal type of thing.

I'm saying remove "marriage" COMPLETELY as a legal term, for ANYONE, and simply make civil union between two people the only government sponsored coupling. Two same sex people? Civil union. Two opposite sex people? Civil Union.

So if people want they could be "Married" in their church, but not form a civil union under the government to have it legally recognized and be given the extra privileged associated. Conversely, two people could choose to forgo a religious "marriage" but simply go and get a civil union. Or they could be married by a church and sign the documents needed to form a civil union.

What it essentially does is allow you to have two COMPLETELY separate things...legally, the civil union, privately, the marriage.

There can be no legitimate claims of discrimination because it would be the status applied to all individuals.

No I get what you want to do, remove it completely. But what I fail to see is if people argue thats discrimination is how to argue against it. I certainly wouldnt argue against them and would see their point.

You say "There can be no legitimate claims of discrimination because it would be the status applied to all individuals."

But the very first question I would ask if I was trying to argue discrimination is WHY was it changed? And any answer that didnt involve "because gays wanted to get married and some religious people cried loud enough to get the law changed" or because "some overly religious people cried so loud the government made a compromise based on them not wanting gays using the term marriage (even though marriage does NOT have to do with religion) so they changed it" would be pretty much dishonest.

Again, it wouldnt bother "me" so much but im playing devils advocate, if the question is asked "why was it changed" seems a pretty easy path to argue discrimination.
IMO?:shrug:

What if when blacks wanted to be more 2/3 a man/human the ruling was now NOBDOY will be a man under law, we will all be call patriots now because some white people refuse to call them men, that word is sacred to them, so were are changing the name.

I know that example is an appeal to emotion and dramatic in ways but Im just doing it to make a point. I couldn't look another american in the eye, especially a gay american and tell them that, yes, making them all civil unions was fair and not discrimination. Thats just my opinion.
 
No, I believe monogamy promotes stability. I believe marriage is a cultural concept used by tradional societies (with variations) as a good vehicle for encouraging the procreation and raising of children. Stable relationships enhance that effect. That's all.

This is dishonest IMO but again lets say its true
If marriage doesnt promote monogamy then to me it further proves that length or relationships is MORE of an invalde argument than it was to begin with

Next is, in our culture, raising children in marriage already is a non factor, you dont have to nor are required too, so thats not an argument either.
 
Marriage per-se is a Basic Human Right for the raising and socializing of children.

Is that why they make you promise to have kids and force to you too?
Is thats why getting a marriage license requires you to have kids?

Oh thats right none of the is true. :D

You pre se are flat out wrong, and even if I wanted to pretend your fantasy was true a Gay Couple with children can EASILY accomplish what you made up.
 
I know, and I really wasn't trying to downplay your thread or anything. It's just that it wasn't on the first or second page of the Polls section, and some people were hijacking another thread that was getting way off topic onto gay marriage that had nothing to do with gay marriage.

Besides, sometimes it is good to have a fresh start on topics, so that it isn't a small group of people arguing one point back and forth, devolving the thread into just an argument over one particular part of the whole argument.

Ooooooh no no no
My apoligies if you thought I was taking a jab at you in anyway, I wasnt, I was just making a statement. I agree sometimes new angles at a debate do refresh it. Also sometimes its fun to have a break from normal debate. I find this topic fun because it can't be won logically by the other side, its entertaining to watch people drown and participate in a trap shoot at times :D Not fair, but still entertaining.
 
You don't approve of the terms "liberal" or "left?" Why is that? Would you like to debate the use of such terms? I'm willing. :mrgreen:

In regards to bias, yes, at times I see bias. Would you like to debate bias and just what that entails? I'm here for ya'.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go? I have no problem with those terms in general, I laugh at yours or ANYBODY'S misuse of BLANKET statements of a lefty or a right or independent etc etc. When people GROUP them all together it shows a persons obvious bias, their unwillingness to actually defend their stance and their insecurities about it.
 
I would just like to point out that there is someone or a group of someones trying to be cute with the poll (as usual), which is pretty much why I always make polls like this public.

At least be honest enough to log in before you vote for something like this, instead of spamming the option that you apparently are embarrassed to admit that you actually believe or want people to believe is more popular, when in reality, there hasn't been an identifiable person to associate with any of those votes for "special right", while there have been almost 27 (less if don't include nameless votes) "equal protection" and almost 11 (I know at least 7 or 8 named votes at least) "other".

Just wanted to set the poll straight. I do wish there was an option to restrict voting to only people logged in. Oh well.
 
Is that why they make you promise to have kids and force to you too?
Is thats why getting a marriage license requires you to have kids?

Oh thats right none of the is true. :D

Is that your way of asking me to substantiate my claim?

You pre se are flat out wrong, and even if I wanted to pretend your fantasy was true a Gay Couple with children can EASILY accomplish what you made up.

Anyway, yes, gays are more than capable of raising and socializing children just as good and sometimes better than their hetero counterparts; which is why I welcome gays who want to raise families into the institution. Gays, and any-other coupling, who do not wish to have children can piss off.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean to be rude but in case you hadn't noticed there is only one of me and several of you. I honestly don't know what "direct" answer you wish to what question. Perhaps you could ask the question again. I cannot read your mind any better than I can read my wife's.

See the little blue block next to centrist77 in YOUR post, that will take you back to the post YOU replied too. And then their will be another one in which "I" replied too and you can follow them all the way back. I qouted you so you shouldnt have any trouble figuring it out. I didnt take it as rude at all just as a sign that you either cant keep up, ignorance to what you have said in the past or an inablity to defend your stance, no biggie :D
 
Is that your way of asking me to substantiate my claim?

Anyway, yes, gays are more than capable of raising and socializing children just as good and sometimes better than their hetero counterparts; which is why I welcome gays who want to raise families into the institution.Gays, and any-other coupling, who do not wish to have children can piss off.

No need to because it is in fact invalid and meaningless to today's institution of marriage. The FACT that you dont need to have kids to get married or don't need to have them after you get married makes your statement totally irrelevant to the GAY marriage topic.

Now if you would like to debate your statement in a GENERAL way you are welcome too, I was just pointing out that its meaningless to the GAY marriage topic that's all.
 
Last edited:
I would just like to point out that there is someone or a group of someones trying to be cute with the poll (as usual), which is pretty much why I always make polls like this public.

At least be honest enough to log in before you vote for something like this, instead of spamming the option that you apparently are embarrassed to admit that you actually believe or want people to believe is more popular, when in reality, there hasn't been an identifiable person to associate with any of those votes for "special right", while there have been almost 27 (less if don't include nameless votes) "equal protection" and almost 11 (I know at least 7 or 8 named votes at least) "other".

Just wanted to set the poll straight. I do wish there was an option to restrict voting to only people logged in. Oh well.

Ive pointed this out in other threads too, it always happens with gay rights, seems those particular people are very insecure and childish about their stance of wanting to discriminate against their fellow Americans. Thats why I always make my polls public so you can easily click on them and see if people really voted. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom