• 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!

'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-s

Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

CLAX1911 said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Just Google the three words and read up on the supporting evidence. But why does it surprise you that genes don't only produce differences in pigmentation? Even more interesting is why you seem to have a problem with the idea.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

joG said:
I think you would find that the Christian codes are pretty much as they were. I realize that you do not much care about ethical theory. But the arguments for SSM do not touch the axioms that lead to the conclusion that it is sinful.
Also, it would be good to remember that challenges to the individual afflicted are not all the same. They can have quite different social or biological attributes that require very different conclusions of appropriate treatment.

PS: How did the first crop or two of interracial children fare? I don't believe I have seen a study on that.
Click to expand...

Well, one became President of the United States.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

CLAX1911 said:
No, that's your burden.
Click to expand...

Nope. I am not interested in rechecking the facts now. If you don't want to know, that's fine by me.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

Grand Mal said:
Well, one became President of the United States.
Click to expand...

That is not quite true, you know. The first generation after liberation is much longer ago. It is true, however, that there were a couple of Congress people relatively early on.
What is interesting is that indigenous black Americans seem to do less well than newer black immigrants.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

joG said:
Nope. I am not interested in rechecking the facts now. If you don't want to know, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...
Facts? You haven't presented any.

Just bull****.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

TheGoverness said:
Facts? You haven't presented any.

Just bull****.
Click to expand...

How would you know, if what I said was true or not. I reported the finding of a study i read a while back. Someone didn't like it. But how would you know itwas that word that juveniles use to feel grown? You didn't check it.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

joG said:
How would you know
Click to expand...
Nobody could. All we have is claims. You have to establish them as facts. That's your burden.

Nowhere in any form of debate is it expected for others to prove your argument.

You presented no facts, facts are proven.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

joG said:
That is not quite true, you know. The first generation after liberation is much longer ago. It is true, however, that there were a couple of Congress people relatively early on.
What is interesting is that indigenous black Americans seem to do less well than newer black immigrants.
Click to expand...
Define a black person.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

joG said:
That is not quite true, you know. The first generation after liberation is much longer ago. It is true, however, that there were a couple of Congress people relatively early on.
What is interesting is that indigenous black Americans seem to do less well than newer black immigrants.
Click to expand...

It is true that Obama's father was African. Obama, genetically, is a first-generation product of mixed marriage. Any difference between him and someone born 150 years ago is cultural.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

Grand Mal said:
It is true that Obama's father was African. Obama, genetically, is a first-generation product of mixed marriage. Any difference between him and someone born 150 years ago is cultural.
Click to expand...

Oh. That is what I meant. The socialization is different and makes it more probable that a new immigrant her sibling will be successful than an indigenous born black American. It is quite probably that this is not a genetic but sociological matter.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

CLAX1911 said:
Define a black person.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If I say Obama is white, who could deny it?
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

Grand Mal said:
Exactly. If I say Obama is white, who could deny it?
Click to expand...

The concept of race is strictly perception. Being black doesn't require a certain skin pigment, or an ethnic background, a similar nation of origin, a combination of physical features, a type of last name nor does being white or Asian.

It really all comes down to the shape of a person's noise and the way their hair grows. That's it, that's what race is.

So somebody with a flat wide nose and straight hair marries a person with a pointy nose and straight hair, May not bring up kids as well as a couple who's noses and hair is similar, because of their nose and hair?

That's beyond stupidity. There are no academic tests for that because it's not an academic claim. But racism is stupidity, sadly only smarter people understand this.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

Paleocon said:
If our society were decent they would be arrested for promoting perversion.
Click to expand...



What century are you from?



Let me advise you here. The world has changed. The morality laws of the middle ages are gone. No longer do the powerful get to tell people how they must live their lives. Gays and lesbians have fought for and won their rights, a battle for which I respect that community.

It is never going to go back to medevil times, it's here to stay. So, you may as well visit the library and take out some self help books that will guide to such things as tolerance and acceptance.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

Fearandloathing said:
What century are you from?



Let me advise you here. The world has changed. The morality laws of the middle ages are gone. No longer do the powerful get to tell people how they must live their lives. Gays and lesbians have fought for and won their rights, a battle for which I respect that community.

It is never going to go back to medevil times, it's here to stay. So, you may as well visit the library and take out some self help books that will guide to such things as tolerance and acceptance.
Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't that simple. Many periods in history have seen sexual ethics similar to ours or even more liberal id est liberal in ways our society is rather prudish about. Saying things are better because they are modern is not the strongest of arguments.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

joG said:
Actually, it isn't that simple. Many periods in history have seen sexual ethics similar to ours or even more liberal id est liberal in ways our society is rather prudish about. Saying things are better because they are modern is not the strongest of arguments.
Click to expand...



I don't know what you're trying to say. For your information there was a time in society when homosexuality was encouraged; the ancient Greeks and later Romans considered it a right of passage.

What you missed in your post is an understanding of the rise of puritanical Christianity in the middle ages, and how it has affected various nations to this day, the largest of which is the United States. You will be advised that the US has always been more puritanical than the rest of the world, in fact I would say obsessed with it. All it takes for your nation to go ballistic is to expose part of a nipple at a football game.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

Fearandloathing said:
What century are you from?



Let me advise you here. The world has changed. The morality laws of the middle ages are gone. No longer do the powerful get to tell people how they must live their lives. Gays and lesbians have fought for and won their rights, a battle for which I respect that community.

It is never going to go back to medevil times, it's here to stay. So, you may as well visit the library and take out some self help books that will guide to such things as tolerance and acceptance.
Click to expand...

I'm aware that our society is no longer decent.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

Paleocon said:
I'm aware that IN MY OPINION AND ACCORDING TO MY MORALS ALONE, our society is no longer decent.
Click to expand...

Corrected for accuracy.
 
Re: 'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

Fearandloathing said:
I don't know what you're trying to say. For your information there was a time in society when homosexuality was encouraged; the ancient Greeks and later Romans considered it a right of passage.

What you missed in your post is an understanding of the rise of puritanical Christianity in the middle ages, and how it has affected various nations to this day, the largest of which is the United States. You will be advised that the US has always been more puritanical than the rest of the world, in fact I would say obsessed with it. All it takes for your nation to go ballistic is to expose part of a nipple at a football game.
Click to expand...

I do not think that the language "missed" the periods of stricter societal codes and personal ethics at all. It just focused on the fact that we are somewhere in the more liberal space, but by no means exceptionally liberal. The implication being that, what we consider "modern" or "progressive" or the right ethical balance is neither new nor particularly liberal in comparison. Lacking an absolute measure it might even be bad by destabilizing out societal basis. I once read a treatise by Huxley on that, where he believes that history shows a certain tendency for societies to fall after a short while following their becoming lax on sexual (and other) behavior. I never checked it out, but Huxley said he had. And He was something of a libertine, it is said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom