DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

Cilogy · Dec 24, 2009

texmaster said:
Many have tried here posting laughable studies on flies and even twins where the numbers were by the scientists' own admission not able to be proven to be genetic so if you wish to hit your head against the wall a bit more, have at it but you can't prove your belief in homosexuality being genetic

I'm trying to take the squirrelly way out and say "well why don't you find a source denying it? blah blah blah myah myah myah." But its something to consider.

There are theories here and there concerning the genetic quality of homosexuality, but its something that is being searched for, not found already; thus the science of it.

Anyway my point is that more open-minded people would believe homosexuals when they themselves say it is "not a choice." It seems like more and more people who say it isn't genetic are saying it simply because they care way too much about the person lives of other people. It seems like these people are somewhat scared to be proven wrong, if in fact it turns out to be genetic.

Why? What does it matter if it turns out to be genetic? What does that change about your life?

Genetic or non-genetic, homosexuality still exists. How do we know? Because we have people who openly recognize it as a "threat."

Redress · Dec 24, 2009

texmaster said:
Right Redress. By that logic we're all aliens because its possible but not proven. :roll:

Why do you constantly pretend people don't mean what they say when they directly compare race to homosexuality?

Question for you Redress, real simple: How is race determined?

Do you come out of the closet and discover your race?

Can you experiment with another race and become that race?

Are there church retreats where you can change your race?

Is Tom Cruise hiding his real race in the closet?

Please.

BTW: At conception would be genetic. :roll:

I can't believe after 200+ posts in this thread you still are trying this scam.

Alien has a clear meaning, and none of those meanings would be possible as you try and use it to make your point.

The choice of options to choose as example of things determined pre-birth without being genetic are small and easy examples like the one he used. However, since he expressly used the phrase "before birth" instead of the simpler "genetic", I take that to have meaning.

Yes, I was aware that at conception would be genetic.

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

Charles Martel said:
Actually, this is but one of my links, I've repeatedly overwhelmed the forum with links to children affected by no father in the home. I've been quioting and linking many different sources, CC, something you've failed to do.

You're wrong, I'm proving it so, you don't like that very much, thus your charge I've nothing. I'm actually dead on correct here and we both know it.:mrgreen:

And NONE of your links prove your position, because they are ALL red herrings. And you continue to ignore two things: you have yet to demonstrate that you understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, and you have yet to comment on the studies that I presented.

It's obvious that you hate losing, but I suggest you get used to it. It's the only possible outcome for you in this debate, since you have NOTHING. :lol:

Redress · Dec 24, 2009

Cilogy said:
Anyway my point is that more open-minded people would believe homosexuals when they themselves say it is "not a choice."

My mother explained it to me thus when I asked her many years ago. When she realized she was gay, she knew it was going to involve some pretty harsh times, but enduring those was better than enduring what she was not. Would any one choose to be treated as trash? Would any one choose to risk job and house and church and friends if they did not have to? She knew she would probably lose her job, probably not be allowed back to her church, probably lose friends, probably lose her kids, none of those things would she have chosen if she did not have to. There was no choice, there simply was being what she was. Thankfully, the world has changed and gays are much more accepted, and she is very happy and well adjusted in who she is.

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

Charles Martel said:
I've destroyed your every argument and stand firm on mine. The purposeful removal of either gender on the nuclear family is societal suicide. And most people do not equate a relationship between two of the same gender as the equal of marriage. I've shown you why your research is flawed, why you pretend denial is a river in Egypt, why a 'gay' parent isn't possible, why homosexuality isn't necessary, in fact, irrelevant to human sexuality.

:laughat: You've done nothing of the sort. You've presented information that not only does not address the issue, but also does nothing to bolster your argument. A two-time loser, in other words. :rofl

It does rate on the CDC most suicidal behaviors, in fact, is more dangerous than sharing needles but, that's an another issue, we'll remain on topic, and I'll remain grounded in my arguments.

You're losng this debate, CC.

That is another argument, one you would lose just as handily as you have lost this one.

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

Charles Martel said:
Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. My links are relevant and appropriate and destroy the error-prone arguments being submitted in here. Some of them are downright disingenuous.

It is unfortunate that you have not posted one relevant fact in this entire debate. Like I've said, your errors cannot be measured by modern technology.

Redress · Dec 24, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
That is another argument, one you would lose just as handily as you have lost this one.

Would one of the arguments in this topic be that the cause of the suicides is not being gay, but societal impact on gays?

Cilogy · Dec 24, 2009

Redress said:
My mother explained it to me thus when I asked her many years ago. When she realized she was gay, she knew it was going to involve some pretty harsh times, but enduring those was better than enduring what she was not. Would any one choose to be treated as trash? Would any one choose to risk job and house and church and friends if they did not have to? She knew she would probably lose her job, probably not be allowed back to her church, probably lose friends, probably lose her kids, none of those things would she have chosen if she did not have to. There was no choice, there simply was being what she was. Thankfully, the world has changed and gays are much more accepted, and she is very happy and well adjusted in who she is.

That's a good analogy.

The problem is religious society expects people like your mom to "fake it" or pretend to be something else, which is contradictory to what religious leaders would advocated. Its a vicious circle for anti-homosexuals and they don't even know it.

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

Charles Martel said:
There are no comparison studies and as homosexuals do not reproduce. 'Gay' parents either conceived this child in a heterosexual relationship(in most cases this is true), or are the step parent. And we need not compare, the most adjusted, the best way we now how to raise children..is within marriage where two people reproduce and care and are involved with their children. Any other situation be it step parent, single parent, gay parent, isn't the best foot forward, sorry, it's just not.

Now, this is where you either demonstrate that you have refused to read the thread, you have lied, or you have no idea what you are discussing. Links that I provided have completely destroyed your line of reasoning. There are plenty of comparison studies between gay and straight parents, and they show that children do as well in one as they do in the other. Conclusively. Let's see you show one legitimate study that shows something different.

I've shown what happens when you remove the male from the home. And it's not pretty. Your arguments would like to purposefully remove the male from the home.....replace with a female...and pretend it's the same. It's not. Sorry.

You've shown this in the context of single parent households. Not relevant to the discussion. Sorry.

That's right and EVERYONE pay attention...this is the crux, children are raised just as well...and just as bad. The step parent higher risk as far as abuse goes.....carries to 'gay' families as well, correct? The atrocity of not having a male father in the home......comes with equal risk......the error of not having a female mother in the home...comes with equal risks, yes...yes...yes.

Exactly right....'gay' families situations are the same, the abuse, the emotional neglect, the questions as to why one's natural parents aren't still together, many go looking for a lost or abandoned parent, many purposefully avoid that parent for what may be obvious reasons, yes....all the risks involved that effect heterosexual families and lead to undue crime, withering abuse stats, sexual abuses, and emotional challenges. And all of the rules and stats I've linked to very much apply to 'gay' couples as well....right? Their raised just as stable...and just as unstable...correct.

Unless you're going to argue these relationships are somehomw 'different?' That the stats showing no male in the home don't apply. That somehow...two females can father a boy, for example. You...wouldn't be trying to argue that would you?

Wrong. As usual. I challenge you to show legitimate studies that show that children of gay parents do not do as well as those from straight parents.

And I have had about enough of your trolling. Links have been provided, so when you say there is no comparison studies, you are lying and damaging this thread. I posted links to 12 studies. If you continue to ignore this fact, it is akin to saying "I've never seen you post 2+2=4", when I posted 2+2=4. If you keep doing this, I will thread ban you for trolling. Consider that an official warning. Now, deny the links exist so you can bow out of this colossal defeat that you have brought on yourself, gracefully.

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

texmaster said:
Funny you berate him by claiming he needs to take a statistics class when you have failed miserably to defend the position he is arguing against.

He has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that households without a mother and father have a negative effect on the child. Study after study proves that.

You and others like you have failed miserably to provide even one study that proved 2 people of the same gender can make up for either a mother or father absence.

Until you can do that, stop the flagrant hypocrisy and prove your argument has merit. Remember, it is your side that wants to change the law. I hope you are one of the few who understands this.

The two are not comparable because his studies only address families with single parent households. If they discussed two parent gay households, he would have a point. Because they don't he has none.

Cilogy · Dec 24, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
Consider that an official warning. Now, deny the links exist so you can bow out of this colossal defeat that you have brought on yourself, gracefully.

Oh come on now ...

I agree he's limp debater but warning him? Everyone on this forum does what did. [/broadgeneralization]

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

Charles Martel said:
After your "double the income argument", you didn't expect anyone to be back. Hold on a second.....that is brilliant...:clap:

Two incomes...doubles the income of the family! Amazing! Why not commune with three, why not four parents wouldn't the argument be this would quadruple income and therefore benefit the child.

Pretend all you'd like that gender makes no difference, pretend purposely removing the mother or father is a positive or has no effect. You're all dead on wrong, you couldn't be more wrong. Searching your childhoods, your father could have been replaced? Your mother?

By this theory, a man could leave his wife but take the three year old daughter with him, never have a woman live in the home again...and it not affect the child as long as his boyfriend moves in with him?

You're all dreaming, in my opinion your arguments sound agenda driven, and you all seem to think denial is a river in Egypt.

It ain't.

And yet... you've got nothing to prove anything you said. Only studies that have nothing to do with two parent gay households. :lol:

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

Cilogy said:
Oh come on now ...

I agree he's limp debater but warning him? Everyone on this forum does what did. [/broadgeneralization]

No, they do not. If someone refuses to acknowledge that something has been posted, when it has, that is trolling. Clearly. Look at texmaster. He acknowledged it. I may not agree with him, but he is not trolling.

Cilogy · Dec 24, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
No, they do not. If someone refuses to acknowledge that something has been posted, when it has, that is trolling. Clearly. Look at texmaster. He acknowledged it. I may not agree with him, but he is not trolling.

Wow I really messed up the grammar of my post.

Okay that's fine with me. You're the DJ, I'm the rapper.

CrusaderRabbit08 · Dec 24, 2009

Taylor said:
That's a rather narrow view. Child rearing is only one of many interests the state has in marriage. Some examples of others include an interest related to procreation (illegitamacy, incest) and familial support (including spousal support). Advocates of same-sex marriage often cite a state interest in public health - asserting that monogamous relationships reduce the transmission of disease.

A state sanctioned document doesn't stop spousal abuse, nor does it ensure monogamy. Lack of that document doesn't prevent siblings from having sex, nor does it excuse a parent from child support.

So what's the point in continuing with this state sanctioned discrimination?

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

texmaster said:
Finally. This does have real tangible evidence.

And I will concede based the evidence presented does support the argument that children raised by stable lesbian and gay men couples do not according to these studies have an adverse effect on the child being raised.

Thank you. I appreciate your honesty.

However, I am concerned to how the data was obtained. One professor that was sourced many times over does not interview the couples or the children but instead relies on questionnaires, a very poor research tool.

. Fifty same-sex partners (25 couples) have completed questionnaires evaluating various individual, marital, parental and social aspects associated to parenthood. Variance analysis of theses aspects have shown the effects of two factors that is, the type of mother (biological/non-biological) and the procreation mode (known/unknown genitor).

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cbs/39/2/135/

Actually, that is not true. Questionnaires are more reliable than interviews because they are far more generic. Interviews can be more easily subjective.

One on one interviews would have provided far more reliable data because they can evaluate body language and see reactions to certain questions in real time.

Too subjective. How one person reads body language is different than how others might. I've conducted research studies. Questionnaires are more reliable.

Another author, again cited extensively relies only on volunteers which is not a proper sampling.

Existing research on children with lesbian parents is limited by reliance on volunteer or convenience samples.

Volunteers cannegatively influence reliability, but not necessarily. Good point, though.

Children with lesbian parents: a community study. [Dev Psychol. 2003] - PubMed result

Another author whose work is cited is itself citing others instead of doing the research themselves making it harder to track.

http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/cbrp98.pdf

Click to expand...

Ummm...no, that is a study done by the authors themselves.

In your second study we find this:

The study had been based on a convenience sample that had been assembled by word of mouth. It was therefore impossible to rule out the possibility that families who participated in the research
were especially well adjusted.

So we explore more into the article and once again we find the reliance on questionaires mailed to the households with no supervision when they were filled out, if the child was assisted or if another advocacy group assisted the families.

Materials were mailed to participating families, with instructions to complete them privately and return them in self-addressed stamped envelopes we provided.

This is not scientific research and it certainly does not explore the true psychological makeup of the child in these families because if this was out psychotherapy worked, no one would ever visit and therapist.

Click to expand...

Been a while since I've looked at this study. You could be right about this one. I would not conduct research this way, but I need to take a harder look at it for validity's sake.

Again, I do concede if I based my findings solely on the evidence provided in the article and did not investigate the methods they use or the sampling they took, I would concede the conclusions you drew on earlier but now that I have done the research on the authors I find their sampling flawed based on volunteers no doubt eager to show how normal they are or based on questionnaires which are not sufficient to draw conclusions from since their body language and thought process cannot be explored.

Click to expand...

I do not agree. An interview is far more subjective than a well designed questionnaire.

I asked you to support yourself with actual evidence which you did. I'm not denying that. But you would do well to dig into the articles and find out why they have to keep citing other studies to support the very conclusions you agree with and what methods they used to gather the data to support those conclusions.

Click to expand...

It is common practice when conducting research to cite other studies both in the introduction and discussion sections. The studies themselves relied on the data they obtained.

You can't be content because someone cited an article that makes the facts infallible. You have to dig to find out what methods they used to draw their conclusions.

Relying on volunteers and questionnaires for psychological evaluation is flat out lazy science and riddled with inaccuracies. Its the reason psychologists have offices and do not hand out questionnaires and base their findings on what someone wrote down.

Click to expand...

No, both of these practices are standard and in most cases produce far more reliable results. If one chooses random sampling for a study, one often gets unwilling participants who can create skewed data. Using volunteers and questionnaires do not, in general, create reliability problems. Questionnaires certainly not, and volunteers mostly not.

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

Moderator's Warning:

apdst. Stop the "Libbos" comments...and the like. You are baiting.

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

Redress said:
Would one of the arguments in this topic be that the cause of the suicides is not being gay, but societal impact on gays?

Someone goes to the head of the class. Yes, from all the information that I have seen, that would be true.

Redress · Dec 24, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
Someone goes to the head of the class. Yes, from all the information that I have seen, that would be true.

It's not that I am particularly smart, just that I got to see alot of this up close. Visiting your mother in a mental hospital where she had to go when the stress got too thick once is a surreal event.

I find it interesting that people who are quick to point out the self destructive behavior of some gays are also quick to discount how much the pressures of being gay in the last 30 + years have to do with that behavior. it's not an excuse for that behavior, but it is a reason, and a place to put some hope. As society has changed, the pressures are lessening, which I think and hope will lead to more stable, less self destructive gay community.

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 24, 2009

Redress said:
It's not that I am particularly smart, just that I got to see alot of this up close. Visiting your mother in a mental hospital where she had to go when the stress got too thick once is a surreal event.

I find it interesting that people who are quick to point out the self destructive behavior of some gays are also quick to discount how much the pressures of being gay in the last 30 + years have to do with that behavior. it's not an excuse for that behavior, but it is a reason, and a place to put some hope. As society has changed, the pressures are lessening, which I think and hope will lead to more stable, less self destructive gay community.

For example, although studies are very sketchy on this issue, do you know what occupation is one of the most elevated as far as successful suicides? Doctors. Why do you think? Being a doctor is extremely stressful Now, obviously, this is not genetic, but the number one reason for suicide is depression/stress. Just as being a doctor is more stressful than other jobs, being gay is more stressful than not, because of societal issues surrounding being gay.

Here is an interesting article on the topic:

Doctors Have Highest Suicide Rate of Any Profession - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Consider this based on what the article says about physicians. The have a very stressful job. Their job can be, literally, life or death. Their mistakes get magnified. They are always a doctor, even at outings. There is a stigma around seeking mental health treatment for doctors. They often have to be the bearer of bad news. All things that bring on stress and depression.

Let's look at gays. Often can't be open about their sexual orientation because of potential retributions. Difficulty with employers. May get ostracized by their church. May be isolated from family. Cannot marry someone they love. These are all issues that bring on stress and depression.

The issue is situational. Take anyone and give them this level of stress and their rate of sucidality will go up.

Taylor · Dec 24, 2009

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
A state sanctioned document doesn't stop spousal abuse, nor does it ensure monogamy. Lack of that document doesn't prevent siblings from having sex, nor does it excuse a parent from child support.

Like most laws, marriage laws promote healthy behavior they do not guarantee it.

Charles Martel · Dec 24, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
It is unfortunate that you have not posted one relevant fact in this entire debate. Like I've said, your errors cannot be measured by modern technology.

The fact that you cannot prove me wrong nor shield your argument from the truth doesn't mean my argument isn't both relevant and factual.

I haven't had my question answered btw.

Charles Martel · Dec 24, 2009

Kal'Stang said:
Charles Martel,

Since you continually take things out of context and only cherry pick what you want to hear you are no longer worth debating. Those kinds of moves clearly indicate a closed mind that is here in this thread more to promote a percieved agenda than to actually discuss and debate things.

Kal, why not pretend you are a professor at a university debate...and using the same structure. Claiming "out of context" and "cherry picking" wouldn't be the norm here as that's an argument concerning process, and not content.

I still haven't had my questions answered and now have many who would like to end the conversation. And that is quite telling.

windovervocalcords · Dec 24, 2009

Charles Martel said:
Kal, why not pretend you are a professor at a university debate...and using the same structure. Claiming "out of context" and "cherry picking" wouldn't be the norm here as that's an argument concerning process, and not content.

I still haven't had my questions answered and now have many who would like to end the conversation. And that is quite telling.

It speaks volumes about you, Charles.:2wave:

Charles Martel · Dec 24, 2009

windovervocalcords said:
It speaks volumes about you, Charles.:2wave:

The issue isn't about me either.....

I realize you're gonna argue me and not the content of my argument as well, I find that quite telling is all. I think I'm right...and I think ya'll know it.

I'm on solid ground here, might be time for another smilie and a wave with a pretend you've won the argument tactic. Quite common strat in here, transparent as it gets but, common nonetheless.

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

Pathetic Douchebag

Liberal Fascist For Life!

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Liberal Fascist For Life!

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Pathetic Douchebag

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Pathetic Douchebag

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Pathetic Douchebag

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Liberal Fascist For Life!

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency