• 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!

Is being anti-same sex marriage Pro-Family?

Does being anti-same sex marriage make one Pro-Family?

  • Yes it does (state your reasons in the thread)

    Votes: 3 7.0%

  • No it doesn't (state you reasons in the thread)

    Votes: 40 93.0%
  • Total voters
    43
Paleocon said:
What links? What evidence supports purposely denying a child a proper upbringing?
Click to expand...


Being good parents has nothing at all to do with sexual orientation.

There's been studies, and subsequently plenty of evidence to support that well know FACT.
 
Paleocon said:
What links? What evidence supports purposely denying a child a proper upbringing?
Click to expand...

I won't speak for anyone else, but for me, I'm done arguing this topic in depth. You people are a waste of valuable intellectual capital that I could allocate to other, more meaningful pursuits. The argument is done, it's been settled from the ground up, from the courts to the streets. Eventually, as the older generations die off, this debate won't even register on the national stage.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I have noticed that Senator Pat Roberts is billing himself in adds here in the Kansas City area as a Pro-Family Candidate because of his position against same sex marriage. Do you think that being anti-same sex marriage makes one pro-family?
Click to expand...

I voted "No it doesn't." Mainly because I consider the position a political distinction among a declining social conservative demographic that being pro-family means being anti-same sex marriage. But using that logic, the majority of the nation is now not "pro-family" in a manner that social conservatives believe.

image.jpg
 
Dragonfly said:
Most pedophiles are "straight".
So what's your point?
Click to expand...

Pedophiles are much more likely to be homosexual or bisexual than the average person.

Moreover, the most commonly practiced type of homosexuality practiced historically was ephebophilia.

In any case, my point was to refute your comment that sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting.

Please answer the question.
 
Paleocon said:
Pedophiles are much more likely to be homosexual or bisexual than the average person.

Moreover, the most commonly practiced type of homosexuality practiced historically was ephebophilia.

In any case, my point was to refute your comment that sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting.

Please answer the question.
Click to expand...

the majority of pedophiles have a straight sexual orientation
ephebophilia is not a type of homosexuality
YOU never answered what pedphila has to do with sexual orientation, please answer the question .. . . .

are rapist allowed to adopt?
felons?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I have noticed that Senator Pat Roberts is billing himself in adds here in the Kansas City area as a Pro-Family Candidate because of his position against same sex marriage. Do you think that being anti-same sex marriage makes one pro-family?
Click to expand...

I never thought about it before. I am not certain that being either pro or anti same sex marriage has anything at all to do with being pro family. Of course that might depend on what or how one views being pro family is. I really do not think it is related.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I have noticed that Senator Pat Roberts is billing himself in adds here in the Kansas City area as a Pro-Family Candidate because of his position against same sex marriage. Do you think that being anti-same sex marriage makes one pro-family?
Click to expand...

Personally, no I don't think that.

But do I understand the reasoning behind such a claim and think that it's logically consistent given the thought process of those making the statement? Yes.

Part of why some people opposed "same sex marriage" is a belief that "marriage" as a government entity should be there in part to encourage the "traditional family unit" of a mother, father, and children. Often, these people feel that a non-traditional unit is either worse, or at the least less ideal, and thus shouldn't necessarily be encouraged via governmental recognition. If a person holds such a view then it makes logical sense to claim to be "pro-family" by being "anti-same sex marriage" because, based on their ideological thinking, they are in favor of promoting the "traditional family unit" via the government as opposed to encouraging marriage that is less likely to product a family unit, let alone a "traditional" one.

Now, I don't really think a homosexual couple adopting is inherently worse nor do I think the primary purpose of marriage as a government recognized entity should be to promote having children...so I disagree in general with that logic. But I can understand the claim and why he'd make it based on his likely view points regarding the issues.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Being in favor of marriage isn't being in favor of marriage?

On bizarro world perhaps.
Click to expand...

“Same sex marriage” never has been, and never will be the same thing as genuine marriage. It will never be anything more than a sick, hollow mockery of marriage. To promote it as being in any way comparable to genuine marriage is to attack and degrade marriage, to suggest that genuine marriage is no more meaningful or important than a sick mockery.
 
Zyphlin said:
Personally, no I don't think that.

But do I understand the reasoning behind such a claim and think that it's logically consistent given the thought process of those making the statement? Yes.

Part of why some people opposed "same sex marriage" is a belief that "marriage" as a government entity should be there in part to encourage the "traditional family unit" of a mother, father, and children. Often, these people feel that a non-traditional unit is either worse, or at the least less ideal, and thus shouldn't necessarily be encouraged via governmental recognition. If a person holds such a view then it makes logical sense to claim to be "pro-family" by being "anti-same sex marriage" because, based on their ideological thinking, they are in favor of promoting the "traditional family unit" via the government as opposed to encouraging marriage that is less likely to product a family unit, let alone a "traditional" one.

Now, I don't really think a homosexual couple adopting is inherently worse nor do I think the primary purpose of marriage as a government recognized entity should be to promote having children...so I disagree in general with that logic. But I can understand the claim and why he'd make it based on his likely view points regarding the issues.
Click to expand...

Being you are not one of them I guess it might make it difficult to guess but in your opinion what do you think this "encouragement and recognition" is they speak of?
-how is it different than any other contract that the government simply legally protects
-why would civil unions/domestic partnerships (some anti marriage support these things) not have this "encouragement and recognition" that they speak of?
-and why would it change at all for those not interested in others subjective versions of marriage? Meaning if a person is gay the chances of them participating in that is small already.

again this is not your stance so I dont know what your guess may be if you have any at all so others please feel free if you have these views to state what you think this "encouragement and recognition" because i currently dont see it any different than anything else. WHat am I missing?
 
spud_meister said:
Your idea of marriage is quite obviously a failure. Heterosexuals are the biggest threat to families, with their ridiculously high divorce rates, amount of children born out of wedlock, and failure at instilling morals into children.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that I approve any more of the high rates of divorce and illegitimacy than I do of homosexuality?

These are all part of the very same evil, all leading to the very same set of social ills. You are right, of course, that a major part of the problem is a failure to teach proper moral values to our younger generations. The acceptance of homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality and perversion are also symptoms of this same failure.

We have devolved into a dysfunctional society where immorality is treated as equal to morality, indecency as equal to decency, evil as equal to good. Homosexuality, along with high rates of divorce and illegitimacy, and all the ills that follow these, are all the results of such a broken society.
 
Tolerance and acceptance of divorce causes more damage to the family than gay marriage.

Just because you think gay sex is strange and yucky doesn't mean that you have any values whatsoever.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Tolerance and acceptance of divorce causes more damage to the family than gay marriage.

Just because you think gay sex is strange and yucky doesn't mean that you have any values whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Arguing that one thing is destructive is not an argument in favor of something else which is also destructive.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
“Same sex marriage” never has been, and never will be the same thing as genuine marriage.
Click to expand...
It's just marriage, hire could marriage not be marriage?

We don't really call it "same sex marriage" it's just marriage. You call it that to say it's different.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Family is what it is. marriage is what it is.

Marriage, by definition, always has and always will be between a man and a woman. Period.

A sick mockery of a “marriage”, between two homosexuals, never has been, never will be, and can never be in any way comparable to a genuine marriage. That's just not what marriage is. To insist that genuine marriage be treated as nothing more than an equivalent to this sick mockery thereof is to degrade and attack marriage itself.

And to insists that a “family” can be built on a sick mockery, that is comparable to a genuine family built on a genuine marriage, is to attack family as well.

You cannot honestly claim to be “pro-marriage” nor “pro-family”, if you support degrading these institutions to the level of the mockeries that the sick, immoral perverts want to impose on society.
Click to expand...

No, that is your opinion that it should be between a man and a woman, society can after some enlightenment decide to chance those parameters. Period.

A marriage between 2 gays/lesbians is not a mockery but a partnership just like most marriages.

And families can be both gay and straight. You may think it is a sick mockery but that is just backward thinking IMHO, we no longer live in the stone age time of old world thinking.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Arguing that one thing is destructive is not an argument in favor of something else which is also destructive.
Click to expand...
Marriage isn't destructive to marriage.

Keeping in mind marriage of a same sex couple is just marriage.

Many of you folks have claimed that I guess thinking people will just say "okay well in that case we don't want to be married." Bob, it's a lie, marriage doesn't hurt marriage. If it cheapens your marriage that two people of the same sex get married, your marriage would be the "sick mockery."
 
Peter King said:
No, that is your opinion that it should be between a man and a woman, society can after some enlightenment decide to chance those parameters. Period.

A marriage between 2 gays/lesbians is not a mockery but a partnership just like most marriages.

And families can be both gay and straight. You may think it is a sick mockery but that is just backward thinking IMHO, we no longer live in the stone age time of old world thinking.
Click to expand...

Some folks would like us to return though.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Arguing that one thing is destructive is not an argument in favor of something else which is also destructive.
Click to expand...

Look at the question in the OP. You can hate same sex marriage and love divorce. That means I would answer, "no" to the question in the OP and I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom