Homosexuality

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 125
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
If your a gay person and you want to spend the rest of your life with another gay person, why can't you just get a civil union instead of a marriage?  Marriage is a religious institution.

Because of this I think gay people should get civil unions/secular marriages so they aren't forcing the church to do something that violates their religious beliefs.
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Yes, didn't God really kill Jesus because he was gay? The Scriptures (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34) record Jesus saying as He is dying on the cross for the sin of the world, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me.” 
#3
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. People have been getting married for thousands of years. 
Topic's author
#4
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
If that's the case, than gay people can get married by a secular entity.
#5
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
I believe gay people, as well as everyone else, can be married by a judge.
Topic's author
#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
That's fine; that's a civil union.  It's cheaper too.
#7
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because its denying a civil right to a person based on religious exception, nothing gives the church that right. You aren't allowed to discriminate against people because your holy book says you can, same goes for not marrying gay people. Because hint hint, some people don't buy your interpretation of holy texts, and a lot of marriges aren't with Christian priests to begin with, this is all accepting the axiom that your church has the claim on marriage, it doesn't, and it never has had it. 
Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because its denying a civil right to a person based on religious exception, nothing gives the church that right.
Almost anything is acceptable if for religious reasons, including telling gay people they got to get married by the state.  The reason why religious freedom is so important is because without it, people go to hell to suffer and burn forever if not allowed to practice their religion by almost any method they choose.  If I had to pick between religious leaders burning in hell forever for marrying gay people and gay people merely going to get a civil union, I'd pick the ladder.

Because hint hint, some people don't buy your interpretation of holy texts
The Catholic church I think is anti gay marriage, so their interpretation determines what they do.

 and a lot of marriges aren't with Christian priests to begin with
Most marriages are done by religions that frown upon homosexuality.

this is all accepting the axiom that your church has the claim on marriage, it doesn't, and it never has had it. 
Most people get married at religious institutions that disapprove of homosexuality, so religious marriages are well, religious.
#9
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
No, you can be married by a judge and it be a marriage. 
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Yeah, so gays can get married by a judge instead of a church.  If gays want to get married, keep the church out of it.
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Your premise is faulty.

 so they aren't forcing the church to do something that violates their religious beliefs.
No church is forced to so something that violates their religious beliefs.  No church is required to perform a queer marriage if it doesn't want to.

Relatively speaking, very few churches choose to perform the rites of marriage for queer people.

The First Amendment prevents Govt from making any law that segregates by religion, since that is clearly respecting the establishment of some religions- marriage for some religiously correct, civil unions for those who fail these religious tests.  We can either get government out of the marriage business entirely and so gays may marry as they please or create a federal standard for marriage that's available to all citizens;

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2004, more than 1,138 federal rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
The Supreme Court correctly ruled that the  government has no right to refuse me these protections based on any religious argument.

The best argument for marriage over civil union is that it makes queers the same as everybody else.  As States began to legalize gay marriage beginning in 2005, a pronounced drop in teen suicides was associated with each legalization as it legalized- an average of 14%.  An estimated 134,000 fewer suicides are directly associated with queer people deciding to live after the legalization of marriage.



Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@oromagi
No church is forced to so something that violates their religious beliefs.  No church is required to perform a queer marriage if it doesn't want to.

Relatively speaking, very few churches choose to perform the rites of marriage for queer people.

The Supreme Court correctly ruled that the  government has no right to refuse me these protections based on any religious argument.

So your position is keep civil unions legal but allow churches the right to refuse same sex ceremonies, right?
#13
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
So your position is keep civil unions legal but allow churches the right to refuse same sex ceremonies, right?

My position is that the word marriage carries rights and privileges I demand as a US citizen and I don't care what any religion has to say about it.  Civil union was a Clinton Era compromise that we need no longer give any fucks about. 

It's not a question of allowing churches to refuse, Government simply has no power to dictate sanctity and ceremony to any religious institution, no matter how bigoted.
#14
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Incorrect, the bible actually doesn't say anything about "burning in hell for marrying gay people" in fact, if I recall, Jesus preached that you ought to not judge others for their "sins" because you are as guilty as they. You have literally no idea what your talking about, on a religious or rhetorical level. 
#15
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because its denying a civil right to a person based on religious exception
Who ever said it is a "civil right" in the first place? You're begging the question lol.

You aren't allowed to discriminate against people because your holy book says you can
Firstly, all people discriminate, so your argument is a non-starter. If you say that you get equally worried about a petite, old Chinese lady and a large, black man following you down a dark alley, you are lying. I assume a man in a suit is more likely to have a better paying job than a disheveled, unshowered man sitting in the gutter. I assume a lady with a distinct lump in her chest is pregnant, whilst a thin woman is not. All people discriminate.

Secondly, what you're actually not allowed to do is say why you're discriminating against someone, because then they have evidence and the law on their side. All people like you have done is made people silent about why they are discriminating -- no real effect.

this is all accepting the axiom that your church has the claim on marriage, it doesn't, and it never has had it. 
Religion has the claim on marriage. Marriage is about supporting the best child-rearing unit: two biological parents. This is clearly superior to any other child-rearing unit, including homosexual couples Children should be born into wedlock with their biological, adult parents (debateart.com) . Hence, it makes sense that this superior unit is given more credence than others. I'm not saying that homosexual couples have no value, but they are inferior to two biological parents when it comes to child-rearing.
#16
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your a gay person and you want to spend the rest of your life with another gay person, why can't you just get a civil union instead of a marriage?  Marriage is a religious institution.
The underlying issue here is that committed gay couples aren't as valuable as committed heterosexual couples. This is what religions all throughout the world realized, and hence why most of them stress the importance of heterosexual marriage. Religion solidified the institute of marriage by making it of divine importance -- secularism failed (and still fails) to do it to the degree religion did (we should thank religion for this because it made the most important claim). This is why people want to maintain the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples -- one is clearly more valuable than the other.

On another point, an aversion to homosexuality mattered a lot more in eras gone by, wherein resources (food, shelter etc.) were limited. To put it super bluntly: homosexuals were genetic dead-end. Spending resources on genetic dead-ends isn't going to help the tribe survive as much as spending resources on heterosexual couples. Nowadays, there are plenty of resources to go around, and so this aversion to homosexuality isn't nearly as warranted. Nonetheless, that's another other part of why religions saw homosexuals as less valuable.

So, in our modern era, it doesn't make as much sense to see homosexuals as lesser people, but it absolutely makes sense to revere heterosexual marriage as superior to homosexual marriage, and hence make it clear that the two are distinct (marriage and a civil union). 
#17
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your a gay person and you want to spend the rest of your life with another gay person, why can't you just get a civil union instead of a marriage?  Marriage is a religious institution.
Funny. My marriage license didn't come from a church. Did yours?

The fact is the government licenses marriages, so they should be available to everyone regardless of how dogmatic religious folks feel about it. 

#18
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yeah, so gays can get married by a judge instead of a church.  If gays want to get married, keep the church out of it.
You're welcome to speak for your own church, but some churches - CHRISTIAN churches - marry gay folks.

Stay in your lane.
#19
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your a gay person and you want to spend the rest of your life with another gay person, why can't you just get a civil union instead of a marriage?  Marriage is a religious institution.
Marriage being a "religious" institution, the government should recognize marriages for it's purposes as civil unions. Then, validation would not be in the jurisdiction of the state.

#20
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mesmer
False on a whole lot of fronts, but um... civil liberities are liberties or freedoms that citizens ought to have, therefore if one group of people have them, the others ought to as well. That's what civil liberities are, furthermore, no... marriage is not about raising children, that is not the only reason that there is... also, studies have indicated that two homosexual parents can raise a child with negligible to BETTER outcomes for the children than straight couples, the real importance is that there are at least two parents and that they aren't too young.

Children raised by same-sex parents perform better in school:
"n. It appears from column (1) that children from same-sex couples perform significantly better at the end of primary education than their peers from opposite-sex couples. In particular, we find that children from same-sex couples have 0.252 standard deviations higher test score than children from opposite-sex couples."

#21
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
If atheists can get married, if Ted Bundy can get married, what religious sanctity is preserved by excluding gay people from marrying?

A marriage doesn't have to be officiated by the church for it to carry legal weight. A court provides a marriage license to all couples, gay or otherwise, which acknowledges the marriage in the eyes of the law. Getting married without all the faff and B.S. does not reduce a marriage to a "civil union."  

If the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't want to host someone's wedding ceremony, they aren't compelled to do so under the law. You can support gay marriage and believe that private religious organizations should be able to refuse their services to gay people. I'd be curious to know if you would extend this religious exemption to doctors, but that's already being done.




As for the "inviolable institution of marriage" being tainted, I think it helps to remember what it did protect. A "good Christian" marriage used to involve a practice known as coverture in the early days of the American republic, which legally mandated husbands to subsume the rights and obligations of their wives. This meant that wives were unable to draw pay, husbands were obligated to defray their wives' debts, and husbands could legally beat their wives.

Coverture, through a slow and laborious process, was excised from the law. No matter how "sacred" the institution of marriage, it always evolves. For much of American history, interracial marriages were anathema to the public, and society generally accepted that spouses always consented to sex. If the institution of marriage is truly sacrosanct, then when did it start being so sacred? Was it during the 90s, when it was finally understood that married partners can still commit rape if a spouse is unwilling? Was it during the 60s, when it was accepted that married couples could use contraception and that interracial marriages could not be banned by state statutes?

If marriage can shift so radically in the span of a lifetime, both legally and culturally, then there really isn't anything sacred about it. It's good, no doubt, for people to marry (sometimes anyway). But, to treat marriage as a hermetically sealed time capsule which cannot change for the sake of religious tradition seems more damaging to the institution of marriage than simply allowing gays to marry. If we did treat marriage as a time capsule since the inception of the US, then coverture would still be legal, as would laws targeting "miscegenation," and marital rape would not be punished.



#22
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
You really need to learn to quote the parts you're responding to. That's the whole point of it: making it crystal clear what you're responding to, instead of forcing the poor reader to go back and see the context in which you're responding.

False on a whole lot of fronts, but um... civil liberities are liberties or freedoms that citizens ought to have, therefore if one group of people have them, the others ought to as well.
Yeah so when I say you're begging the question, what that means is that you've embedded the conclusion of your argument within the argument itself. You clearly don't understand that, hence why you've done it here again. What citizens "ought" to have is entirely debatable. You can't define civil liberty as someone all people "ought" to have and then make an argument in favor of homosexual marriage because it's pre-determined a "civil liberty". Hopefully, you understand this time.

no... marriage is not about raising children, that is not the only reason that there is
No one of intellectual merit cares about the semantics of 'marriage'. What we care about is the fact that heterosexual marriage is distinct from homosexual marriage, one is superior to the other, and therefore one should be supported more than the other. That's the argument. You're about to address that, too, so don't waste everyone's time with the 'that's not real marriage' worthless semantics.

also, studies have indicated that two homosexual parents can raise a child with negligible to BETTER outcomes for the children than straight couples, the real importance is that there are at least two parents and that they aren't too young.
You say "studies" yet dump a singular study. You've also, again, just dumped your study and not elaborated to any worthwhile degree. This study is over 11,000 words long, yet all you could manage was a run-on sentence worth of description and a singular quote from the study.

Also, you've entirely ignored my OP that I linked you on why heterosexual marriage is better Children should be born into wedlock with their biological, adult parents (debateart.com) . I made a heavily sourced argument as to why heterosexual marriage is best for childrearing, and you've just conceded it all. You've conceded things like the Cinderella Effect, wherein adopted children are 100-300 times more likely to be bashed to death by their parents, are far more likely to be neglected, and have less parental funding for their education. Getting slightly better grades doesn't matter much when your parents are beating you to death.

Children raised by same-sex parents perform better in school:
"n. It appears from column (1) that children from same-sex couples perform significantly better at the end of primary education than their peers from opposite-sex couples. In particular, we find that children from same-sex couples have 0.252 standard deviations higher test score than children from opposite-sex couples."
In the singular study you posted, you haven't even addressed the topic properly. We're discussing whether hetero/homosexual marriages are better for childrearing, and you've mentioned one factor (school grades). That's not the entirety of the topic. What about mental health? What about self-actualization? What about number of friends made? What about ability to attract the opposite (or same) sex? What about the ability to learn social skills? The list could go on. You've essentially argued that all that matters in childrearing is school grades.

Also, your study doesn't even agree with your argument lol: "... our findings indicate that children particularly benefit from same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex couples if the couple is cohabiting rather than married." It argues it's better that homosexuals **don't** get married, if you're interested in the children doing better at school.

Try to do better.
#23
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mesmer
I'm clear what begging the question is, and you're actually incorrect, you see it's more that you use your conclusion as your foundational premise. Which is decidely not what I'm doing, I'm merely defining civil liberities, aka, liberities or freedoms which granted to citizens. There is nothing there that is a conclusion hiding as a premise, you are merely incorrect in your deduction of the fallacy. 

I don't quote what I'm responding too, I'm responding to your entire point, one thing at a time, if you aren't familiar with the bit I'm responding too than I don't believe you are quite sure enough of your own argumentation. :)

In regards to the "semantics of marriage", you are entirely incorrect with your claim here, or at least contradicted by what you claimed earlier: "Marriage is about supporting the best child-rearing unit: two biological parents", which seems to me entirely about the semantics of what marriage is, you are changing the goalpost, where you establish one metaphorical "endgoal" and later change it midconversation without properly addressing your previous point. This entire paragraph is literally just hand waving away the point, no actual substance. 

As for your studies? They're bullshit. I don't care to engage further than that, you're the type to submit reports without any reference and trust them without critical thought, linking articles as if they mean anything. No, you've established that you've made an argument regarding the subject. Bring it here and we'll see if you have actual links. I'm not digging through your homework honey.  As for the short quote... so what? You quoted exactly zero in the MLKjr. thing, you paraphrased sure, but regardless I got my point across. The study is simple, testing various academic outcomes between children with same-sex parents and hetero-parents.  There is no need for elaboration, you're being an moron.

How about this one for you?
"No differences were observed between household types on family relationships or any child outcomes. Same-sex parent households scored higher on parenting stress (95% confidence interval = 2.03–2.30) than different-sex parent households (95% confidence interval = 1.76–2.03), p = .006. No significant interactions between household type and family relationships, or household type and parenting stress, were found for any child outcomes."
Again, you're being a moron. 
#24
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mesmer
Also, just gonna respond to the discrimination point - while you aren't technically wrong that we all have built in biases, you are incorrect in applying them. You see, me personally, I view white people as the most dangerous people - I've taken several hidden biases tests for my psychology major friend. Furthermore, some people of specific races and sexualities are discriminated against empirically a WHOLE LOT FUCKING MORE because of various events in history as well as racist, homophobic, etc, etc mindsets. 

Such things might include: Slavery, Jimcrow, Misogony, Stonewall, etc, etc... you're being even more moronic! What an "well actually!" You must have won the "I like debating like Ben Shaprio" award cuz' you're arguments are laughable! I'm actually cracking up here.
#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
What is marriage anyway.

It's an unnecessary relationship contract, embellished with a load of frippery and as big a party as can be afforded.

And then back to the same old daily routine of eating, working, sleeping and a bit of recreational how's your father. 

Until divorce or death do us part.
#26
Polyglot
Polyglot's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
1
2
5
Polyglot's avatar
Polyglot
1
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
If that's the case, than gay people can get married by a secular entity.
Just want to point out here that a lot of homosexuals still tie themselves to a religion and want to be married within their religion. Just because someone is homosexual doesn’t automatically make them not apart of that religion.
#27
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm clear what begging the question is, and you're actually incorrect, you see it's more that you use your conclusion as your foundational premise. Which is decidely not what I'm doing, I'm merely defining civil liberities, aka, liberities or freedoms which granted to citizens. There is nothing there that is a conclusion hiding as a premise, you are merely incorrect in your deduction of the fallacy. 
You can't lie about this because I can directly quote you.

You said that TheUnderdog's church couldn't refuse marriage between homosexuals "Because its denying a civil right to a person based on religious exception, nothing gives the church that right." Homosexuality (debateart.com) So, implicit within this argument is (1) because homosexual marriage is a "civil right" (2) nothing gives the church "the right" to deny homosexual marriage. Your reasoning begs the question because your argument has the implication of homosexual marriage being a "civil right", of which is debatable. 

At no stage did you explain why homosexual marriage is a "civil right". You just asserted it and assumed it as a premise, despite it being the conclusion of your argument. Hence, the charge of begging the question stands.

I don't quote what I'm responding too, I'm responding to your entire point, one thing at a time, if you aren't familiar with the bit I'm responding too than I don't believe you are quite sure enough of your own argumentation. :)
You don't do this all the time.

This is why you didn't respond to the discrimination point until after you responded to me the second time Homosexuality (debateart.com) , when the discrimination point was made in the first round of replies (my response) Homosexuality (debateart.com) --> (your response without responding to it) Homosexuality (debateart.com) .

You also didn't do this with my previous post Homosexuality (debateart.com) wherein I directly quoted your own study to show that it didn't agree with what you were arguing. Your responses Homosexuality (debateart.com) Homosexuality (debateart.com) didn't address this point.

Perhaps you're the one who needs to become more familiar with what is written.

In regards to the "semantics of marriage", you are entirely incorrect with your claim here, or at least contradicted by what you claimed earlier: "Marriage is about supporting the best child-rearing unit: two biological parents", which seems to me entirely about the semantics of what marriage is, you are changing the goalpost, where you establish one metaphorical "endgoal" and later change it midconversation without properly addressing your previous point. This entire paragraph is literally just hand waving away the point, no actual substance. 
You've strawmanned my point, likely unintentionally.

My argument is that the specific term doesn't matter. Whether 'marriage' is 'union', 'coupling' or something wild like 'duckwater sausage igloo' is the label used to describe heterosexual marriage, all that matters is that it's held in higher esteem than homosexual unions. The label needs to be held in higher regard -- that is my point. Currently, when homosexuals argue for the term 'marriage' to be applied to their unions, they are arguing that their union should be held in the same esteem -- exactly what I don't want.

I'll excuse your misunderstanding because this point is the most nuanced here.

As for your studies? They're bullshit. I don't care to engage further than that [...] Bring it here and we'll see if you have actual links. 
Without reading my studies, you've concluded that they are "bullshit", and then demanding that I link them here, despite it already being linked.

What are you doing lol.

you're the type to submit reports without any reference and trust them without critical thought, linking articles as if they mean anything. No, you've established that you've made an argument regarding the subject.
You're arguing that I'm the type to link articles without critical thought, yet it was established that your own study said that homosexual marriages **weren't** the best unit for their children's schooling, despite you arguing that it was:

"... our findings indicate that children particularly benefit from same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex couples if the couple is cohabiting rather than married."

It appears that you're the one trying to submit reports without critical thought.

I'm not digging through your homework honey.
They're called references. You're the one with homework, child.

As for the short quote... so what? You quoted exactly zero in the MLKjr. thing, you paraphrased sure, but regardless I got my point across.
It's funny to watch you retract an accusation midsentence. 

The study is simple, testing various academic outcomes between children with same-sex parents and hetero-parents.  There is no need for elaboration, you're being an moron.
If it's so simple, then why did you use it as evidence for homosexual marriages being better for childrearing, when the study found the opposite conclusion:

"... our findings indicate that children particularly benefit from same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex couples if the couple is cohabiting rather than married."

In regards to your contradiction here, there is no need for elaboration, moron.

"No differences were observed between household types on family relationships or any child outcomes. Same-sex parent households scored higher on parenting stress (95% confidence interval = 2.03–2.30) than different-sex parent households (95% confidence interval = 1.76–2.03), p = .006. No significant interactions between household type and family relationships, or household type and parenting stress, were found for any child outcomes."
My name is Theweakeredge and I already know that's bullshit because I haven't read the study or what you quoted here.

Also, just gonna respond to the discrimination point - while you aren't technically wrong that we all have built in biases, you are incorrect in applying them. You see, me personally, I view white people as the most dangerous people
Ah, I'm wrong (and probably a moron) because you have racial hatred against white people.

Thanks for clearing that up.

- I've taken several hidden biases tests for my psychology major friend. Furthermore, some people of specific races and sexualities are discriminated against empirically a WHOLE LOT FUCKING MORE because of various events in history as well as racist, homophobic, etc, etc mindsets. 
Yeah. I've met this guy on the internet who thinks I'm dangerous due to the color of my white skin. What a racist lol.

Such things might include: Slavery, Jimcrow, Misogony, Stonewall, etc, etc... you're being even more moronic! What an "well actually!" You must have won the "I like debating like Ben Shaprio" award cuz' you're arguments are laughable! I'm actually cracking up here.
Pure cringe.

#28
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is all accepting the axiom that your church has the claim on marriage, it doesn't, and it never has had it. 
The church is older than the English language, and I highly doubt that the word marriage was not coined by Christians.

Topic's author
#29
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
 the bible actually doesn't say anything about "burning in hell for marrying gay people"
The bible says that men who practice homosexuality shall not enter the kingdom of god.

Jesus preached that you ought to not judge others for their "sins" because you are as guilty as they
The church doesn't judge gays for their sins; they merely don't want anything to do with the sinful activities of homosexual marriage.
Topic's author
#30
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Polyglot
Just want to point out here that a lot of homosexuals still tie themselves to a religion and want to be married within their religion. Just because someone is homosexual doesn’t automatically make them not apart of that religion.
Just like there are some Muslims that drink alcohol.  If they want to drink, then fine, but don't expect the mosque to serve alcohol to you at a hypothetical mosque party.  It's a similar situation for the church and homosexuality.