[DanDaMan]

Isn't that circular? You've made a claim, I ask you to make an argument to support said claim, and you've backed down because I have asked you to illustrate your claim?

You cant even competently understand what I want.

[Rei Murasame]

Please, stop whining and actually make your argument. It's becoming almost pitiful.

[PBVBROOK]

Rei: There is nothing to do here. The man is a troll. He has no point to make. You are wasting your time. I do it too. Have you ever heard the old saying?

Never wrestle with a pig. You will just get dirty and the pig likes it.

[ninurta]

It's not bias.
It's discriminating what happens more often in broken familes than unbroken ones.
Sure there are success stories in even broken families. But do I use those success to justify breaking up a family and destroying a childs universe? No.

What are you talking about? How do you ever expect to be taken seriously? I have already explained this to you and refuse to do so over and over as if it were a meditative mantra.

A child's universe destroyed? Most of the time, when two married parents seperate, they both still take care of the child and everything is just fine, not no small number. Just more neocon crap.

The toilet is 3 doors to your left, don't forget to flush when you dispose of the crap.

What I claim....
[DDM's point]

All of which can be avoided if we do things right when 2 parents seperate, and not abandon the child's needs for a loving family and to be taught the things he needs. Losing a parent can be stressful, and is the cause of most of what you mention above, there are steps to take to make sure such doesnt happen.

That is what two lesbians prove as unnecessary to the raising of children.
IE... a father is unnecessary.

Not that it is unnecessary, but that a child will be just fine without one as he or she is with one as long as the care for that child doesn't go away or lessen.

Well done, but this debate is not about the commonly-observed attributes of single-parent homes, is it?

The problems they have observed are not from the lack of a person with an Y-chromosome, they are from a lack of stable care from a responsible adult, which is more likely to occur if there's only one parent, than if there are two.

What's so magical about the Y-chromosome?

It's the shape of a Y instead of an X! That makes all the difference you know

No. But I think if you argue lesbians are the equal of heterosexual parents you have to conclude a father is irrelevant to the raising of a child.

Okay, so where's your logical support for this based on the facts?

This is not lost on those looking for justification to abandon their children.

Then there is the logical conclusion, from that, that a single mother of means is also acceptable as a parent.

And that is sometimes what happens, and often the children turn out just fine.

Then you have to impose religious morality on poor women for wanting the same equality as rich single women.

Irony alert!

Rei: There is nothing to do here. The man is a troll. He has no point to make. You are wasting your time. I do it too. Have you ever heard the old saying?

Never wrestle with a pig. You will just get dirty and the pig likes it.

QFT!

[DanDaMan]

Statistics of a Fatherless America
http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/fact ... _kids.html

Check the famous fatherless at the bottom of this article!

Sexual activity. In a study of 700 adolescents, researchers found that "compared to families with two natural parents living in the home, adolescents from single-parent families have been found to engage in greater and earlier sexual activity."
Source: Carol W. Metzler, et al. "The Social Context for Risky Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents," Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17 (1994).

A myriad of maladies. Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Drinking problems. Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households
Source: Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan and Hyman Hops, "The Effects of Family Cohesiveness and Peer Encouragement on the Development of Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Cohort-Sequential Approach to the Analysis of Longitudinal Data," Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55 (1994).

Drug Use: "...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
Source: Deane Scott Berman, "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse," Adolescence 30 (1995)

Sexual abuse. A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.
Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, "Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment," U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Child Abuse. Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers."
Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay, "A Study of Child Abuse in Lansing, Michigan," Child Abuse and Neglect, 8 (1984).

Deadly predictions. A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.
Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23, 1994.

High risk. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Suicidal Tendencies. In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.
Source: David A. Brent, et al. "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34, 1995.

Confused identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984.

Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)

Emotional distress. Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.
Source: L. Remez, "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems," Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992).

Uncooperative kids. Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.
Source: Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov, "Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development," Child Development 65 (1994).
Unstable families, unstable lives. Compared to peers in two-parent homes, black children in single-parent households are more likely to engage in troublesome behavior, and perform poorly in school.
Source: Tom Luster and Hariette Pipes McAdoo, "Factors Related to the Achievement and Adjustment of Young African-American Children." Child Development 65 (1994): 1080-1094

Beyond class lines. Even controlling for variations across groups in parent education, race and other child and family factors, 18- to 22-year-olds from disrupted families were twice as likely to have poor relationships with their mothers and fathers, to show high levels of emotional distress or problem behavior, [and] to have received psychological help.
Source: Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, "Long Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment and Achievement in Young Adulthood." Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993).

Fatherly influence. Children with fathers at home tend to do better in school, are less prone to depression and are more successful in relationships. Children from one-parent families achieve less and get into trouble more than children from two parent families.
Source: One Parent Families and Their Children: The School's Most Significant Minority, conducted by The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One Parent Families, co sponsored by the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, Arlington, VA., 1980

Divorce disorders. Children whose parents separate are significantly more likely to engage in early sexual activity, abuse drugs, and experience conduct and mood disorders. This effect is especially strong for children whose parents separated when they were five years old or younger.
Source: David M. Fergusson, John Horwood and Michael T. Lynsky, "Parental Separation, Adolescent Psychopathology, and Problem Behaviors," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 33 (1944).

Troubled marriages, troubled kids. Compared to peers living with both biological parents, sons and daughters of divorced or separated parents exhibited significantly more conduct problems. Daughters of divorced or separated mothers evidenced significantly higher rates of internalizing problems, such as anxiety or depression.
Source: Denise B. Kandel, Emily Rosenbaum and Kevin Chen, "Impact of Maternal Drug Use and Life Experiences on Preadolescent Children Born to Teenage Mothers," Journal of Marriage and the Family56 (1994).

Hungry for love. "Father hunger" often afflicts boys age one and two whose fathers are suddenly and permanently absent. Sleep disturbances, such as trouble falling asleep, nightmares, and night terrors frequently begin within one to three months after the father leaves home.
Source: Alfred A. Messer, "Boys Father Hunger: The Missing Father Syndrome," Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, January 1989.

Disturbing news: Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, Hyattsille, MD, 1988

Poor and in trouble: A 1988 Department of Health and Human Services study found that at every income level except the very highest (over $50,000 a year), children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior.
Source: James Q. Wilson, "In Loco Parentis: Helping Children When Families Fail Them," The Brookings Review, Fall 1993.

Fatherless aggression: In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households."
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, "Household Family Structure and Children's Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children," Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).

Act now, pay later: "Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong."
Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, "Family Interaction" in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)

Crazy victims: Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes.
Source: J.B. Elshtain, "Family Matters...", Christian Century, July 1993.

Duh to dead: "The economic consequences of a [father's] absence are often accompanied by psychological consequences, which include higher-than-average levels of youth suicide, low intellectual and education performance, and higher-than-average rates of mental illness, violence and drug use."
Source: William Galston, Elaine Kamarck. Progressive Policy Institute. 1993

Expelled: Nationally, 15.3 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 10.7 percent of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school, compared to only 4.4 percent of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure...", Journal of Marriage and Family, No. 53. 1991.

Violent rejection: Kids who exhibited violent behavior at school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers and six times as likely to have parents who were not married. Boys from families with absent fathers are at higher risk for violent behavior than boys from intact families.
Source: J.L. Sheline (et al.), "Risk Factors...", American Journal of Public Health, No. 84. 1994.

That crowd: Children without fathers or with stepfathers were less likely to have friends who think it's important to behave properly in school. They also exhibit more problems with behavior and in achieving goals.
Source: Nicholas Zill, C. W. Nord, "Running in Place," Child Trends, Inc. 1994.

Likeliest to succeed: Kids who live with both biological parents at age 14 are significantly more likely to graduate from high school than those kids who live with a single parent, a parent and step-parent, or neither parent.
Source: G.D. Sandefur (et al.), "The Effects of Parental Marital Status...", Social Forces, September 1992.

Worse to bad: Children in single-parent families tend to score lower on standardized tests and to receive lower grades in school. Children in single-parent families are nearly twice as likely to drop out of school as children from two-parent families.
Source: J.B. Stedman (et al.), "Dropping Out," Congressional Research Service Report No 88-417. 1988.

College odds: Children from disrupted families are 20 percent more unlikely to attend college than kids from intact, two-parent families.
Source: J. Wallerstein, Family Law Quarterly, 20. (Summer 1986)

On their own: Kids living in single-parent homes or in step-families report lower educational expectations on the part of their parents, less parental monitoring of school work, and less overall social supervision than children from intact families.
Source: N.M. Astore and S. McLanahan, Americican Sociological Review, No. 56 (1991)

Double-risk: Fatherless children -- kids living in homes without a stepfather or without contact with their biological father -- are twice as likely to drop out of school.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Survey on Child Health. (1993)

Repeat, repeat: Nationally, 29.7 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 21.5 percent of children living with a divorced mother have repeated at least one grade in school, compared to 11.6 percent of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Well-Being," Journals of Marriage and Family, No. 53. (1991).

Underpaid high achievers: Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes.
Source: "One-Parent Families and Their Children;" Charles F. Kettering Foundation (1990).

[ninurta]

DDM, that isn't a reason to be against gay marriage. And all of them are attributed to the factors of an instable, divided home and not single parenthood itself. Gay marriage would close the gap, and while it wouldn't be as great as having the father in the home, it at least helps to make a better after situation.

[DanDaMan]

DDM, that isn't a reason to be against gay marriage. And all of them are attributed to the factors of an instable, divided home and not single parenthood itself.

What you have is a coin with two faces... a divided home and single parents.
If you had a bit of common sense you would understand that a single parents success justifies a divided home.


I only condone a divided home when the absent parent was/is destructive.

[JohnRawls]

This



And this

[ninurta]

What you have is a coin with two faces... a divided home and single parents.
If you had a bit of common sense you would understand that a single parents success justifies a divided home.


I only condone a divided home when the absent parent was/is destructive.

You forgot the cheese!
I ordered cheese on the pizza.

[Individual]

By the definition of 'marriage' and the root of the word from 'matrimony' homosexuals should find their own terms to partner, as the terms quoted are directly from religions that condemn them for who and what they are.

Second part would be that as a Conservative Constitutionalist you should know the government has no business being in the marriage business as like I mentioned 'marriage' is a religious institution and it should stay that way. Why does the government need to be involved in the process.

Matrimony is from Latin and 'matri' comes out of Matriarch or mother if you choose, then 'mony' is many, so we have 'mother'+'many'..... not something homosexuals are naturally capable of so to me you look foolish based on the definition of the words... and the words come out of the 16th century at about the time the Bible was being re-written and the King James version arrived on the scene early 17th century.

[ninurta]

By the definition of 'marriage' and the root of the word from 'matrimony' homosexuals should find their own terms to partner, as the terms quoted are directly from religions that condemn them for who and what they are.

The term comes from latin, so by your logic, since originally it was for pagan roman weddings, christians need to call it something else. Or we can just say that there are religions that are for it, and those that are against it, and secular weddings are neither for nor against it.

Second part would be that as a Conservative Constitutionalist you should know the government has no business being in the marriage business as like I mentioned 'marriage' is a religious institution and it should stay that way. Why does the government need to be involved in the process.

No doubt. I don't support the government being in the marriage buisness, and this is why, as soon as they find their way in, they start saying who can and can't marry. In my opinion, marriage is a contract in which 2 people live as if one. It can be secular or not, if we stop calling it secular marriage, then the religion part will apply. But then you have to speak against certain religions that allow that form of marriage, which isn't something a constitutionalist should do.

I am not a conservative constitutionalist per se, I'm more of an economic conservative/libertarian, constitutionalist/libertarian. I call myself conservative because I lean it.

Though my point is that in my opinion, they should be allowed to marry.

Matrimony is from Latin and 'matri' comes out of Matriarch or mother if you choose, then 'mony' is many, so we have 'mother'+'many'..... not something homosexuals are naturally capable of so to me you look foolish based on the definition of the words...

Lesbians exist. 2 = many. 2 mothers. (not being serious here, but they do exist)

Aside from that, the term has come to mean to marry as in to unite, as a bond/contract between two people. that is the way in which I'm using it. There are many latin words in which we borrowed that mean something different than they meant in latin.

and the words come out of the 16th century at about the time the Bible was being re-written and the King James version arrived on the scene early 17th century.

At the same time King James had the Tanakh and NT (mis)translated, the word matrimony was being taken into the english language, preparing itself to mean something new.

[Individual]

Lesbians can't naturally reproduce, so they cannot 'mother' 'many'. Not that I mind them adopting or planting eggs or sperm.

Then I don't care and neither should anyone else care what two loving people do with each other as long as one is not violating another persons rights.

The Roman Catholics came up with matrimony.

The government became involved to control and keep track of people with such things as the Census. I say that local and state governments should have that taken away from them via the initiative process such as the one here in California. Word it so the law states government has no place being involved with the goings on with free people. Being Gay was a crime once and I think some states still have sodomy laws, talk about middle ages.

[Lightman]

The Roman Catholics came up with matrimony.

This is historically inaccurate. Marriage, in the European legal tradition, descends from the secular Roman concept of marriage, which had nothing to do with religion. I suppose it could be argued that European marriage also has to do with Jewish marriage, but, legally, speaking, the tradition is Roman. The Church took the role from the state after the collapse of the Western Empire. While I appreciate your sentiment, marriage historically has been, in essence, a contract; the involvement or not of the government notwithstanding. I don't see why the government should suddenly stop providing all the benefits that it already provides to married couples.

[Individual]

The word not the concept, matrimonium from Latin.

Here:

matrimony definition
mat·ri·mony (ma′trə mō′nē)
noun pl. matrimonies -·nies
the act, rite, or sacrament of marriage
the state of being husband and wife
married life
Etymology: ME matrimonye < OFr matrimoine < L matrimonium < mater (gen. matris), mother
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2009 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Old Frisian spoken in Western Germany up to the 16th Century and Middle English beyond that.
I am not taking away that the idea and the base comes out of Latin as I pointed out previously but here's the rest via the definition I presented.
Then you already know the story.

[ninurta]

Lesbians can't naturally reproduce, so they cannot 'mother' 'many'. Not that I mind them adopting or planting eggs or sperm.

O yeah they can, just not with eachother. My friend offered a "service" to my lesbian friends and they did have a child.

Would you be against an infertile couple marrying?

Then I don't care and neither should anyone else care what two loving people do with each other as long as one is not violating another persons rights.

I agree here.

The Roman Catholics came up with matrimony.

The term maybe, not marriage as it is used today by non roman catholics and others around the world.

The government became involved to control and keep track of people with such things as the Census. I say that local and state governments should have that taken away from them via the initiative process such as the one here in California. Word it so the law states government has no place being involved with the goings on with free people. Being Gay was a crime once and I think some states still have sodomy laws, talk about middle ages.

That's why we shouldn't be giving the government power, because as soon as it gets it, it abuses it.

[BassHole]

Please explain valid reasons to let gay marriage then.

Being a "libertarian" (a label i find laughable when talking to you) you believe in negative liberty, right? That means the onus is on you to give a valid reason to forbid gay marriage.

I sense I'm about to be reading "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

[DanDaMan]

Being a "libertarian" (a label i find laughable when talking to you) you believe in negative liberty, right? That means the onus is on you to give a valid reason to forbid gay marriage.

That would be the same reason to ban marriage to a goat. Or, the law can lawfully ban marriage of the same sex because heterosexuals are equally prohibited. That means the law is blind and treats each sex equally.

[BassHole]

Or, the law can lawfully ban marriage of the same sex because heterosexuals are equally prohibited

Well, no. Heterosexuals are free to marry homosexually, they just choose not to. What a stupid argument.

The same reason to ban marriage to a goat? Well, last I checked, goats and humans were different species. That is definitely unnatural.

Homosexuality is displayed throughout the animal kingdom. It is not unnatural.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
Or, the law can lawfully ban marriage of the same sex because heterosexuals are equally prohibited

Well, no. Heterosexuals are free to marry homosexually, they just choose not to. What a stupid argument.

There is no inequality of law when all men are barred from marrying each other. Period.

[Lightman]

There is no inequality of law when all men are barred from marrying outside their race. Period.