• 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
How can restricting the number of potential families make one pro family?
 
lifeisshort said:
A family is one man one woman and kids, anything else is something else.
Click to expand...

Says who? The family police? Sorry but single parent families and same sex families are just as much family as one man one woman with or without children.
 
lifeisshort said:
A family is one man one woman and kids, anything else is something else.
Click to expand...

I guess all those poor widows/widowers and their kids are stuck with 'something else' then.

Same for all those poor divorced moms and dads with their kids. They aren't 'families' either. :(
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Marriage, by definition, always has and always will be between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

That really isn't true. Hell, your own Bible shows it isn't true:

Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.”
Click to expand...

In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more.
Click to expand...

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3.
Click to expand...
 
It doesn't define you as pro-family, but from my experience most who are against SSM are pro-family in that they support a strong nuclear family unit with a mother and father.
 
digsbe said:
It doesn't define you as pro-family, but from my experience most who are against SSM are pro-family in that they support a strong nuclear family unit with a mother and father.
Click to expand...

I think most people...all?...support that with the exception that 2 parents is more desirable, and that their gender doesn't matter.

And so far, most research shows exactly that.

I don't think anyone is against strong families but families end up being what they are...death, divorce, adoption, step-parenting, etc. All families can be strong and positive and in many cases...people have to live with the hand they're dealt. Life doesn't always end up the fairy tale.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
It doesn't define you as pro-family, but from my experience most who are against SSM are pro-family in that they support a strong nuclear family unit with a mother and father.
Click to expand...

It's been my experience that most who support SSM also support a strong nuclear family unit.
Regardless of whether it's mother/father, mother/mother, or father/father.

In fact most who support SSM happen to be in a "traditional" mother/father/children nuclear family.

Go figure.
 
digsbe said:
It doesn't define you as pro-family, but from my experience most who are against SSM are pro-family in that they support a strong nuclear family unit with a mother and father.
Click to expand...

Where else does that fly? Guns? Let's see... if you support a handgun ban, but you're okay with hunting rifles, will you get labeled as pro-2nd amendment? Of course not. What about science? If you're against vaccination, but have no problem with advil, will you get labelled as a supporter of modern medicine? Nope. What about animal welfare? Do people who make a distinction as to what animals they'd rather eat get labelled "part time vegetarian"? Your attempt to be a middle child in this discussion isn't working. You can't consider yourself pro-family and oppose types of families because of nothing other than religious belief. There is no reasonable argument to be made against gays having families that doesn't rely on religious belief and people keep demonstrating it. So no. You can't be 'pro-family' and then define families with subjective beliefs.
 
Dragonfly said:
It's been my experience that most who support SSM also support a strong nuclear family unit.
Regardless of whether it's mother/father, mother/mother, or father/father.

In fact most who support SSM happen to be in a "traditional" mother/father/children nuclear family.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

yeah in my experience the people that I know who are against minorities and women are PRO-Rights in that they support rights for themselves to not give rights to minorities and women:roll:
 
Dragonfly said:
What's truly ironic is that the "don't tread on me" thing, along with "less government intrusion" and "more individual rights" thing goes completely hand-in-hand with SSM. Conservative ideologies and SSM are entwined.
Click to expand...

Conservatives are not anarchists. Even libertarians are not anarchists.

Anyone who is not an anarchist recognizes that there are certain standards of law, order, and decency that have to be upheld in order to maintain a healthy and orderly society. Among these are preserving the institutions of marriage and family, as necessary to form the foundation of such a society.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Except when it's between two men or two women. That is marriage too, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

No, that is not marriage. That never has been marriage, and never will be marriage.

Marriage always has been, and always will be, only between a man and a woman.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, that is not marriage. That never has been marriage, and never will be marriage.

Marriage always has been, and always will be, only between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

you keep repeating this opinions and pushing them as facts but facts, law, and the dictionary all disagree with you.
 
Gaius46 said:
How can restricting the number of potential families make one pro family?
Click to expand...

It is not pro-X to demand that things that are not X be considered to be X, and treated the same as X. All that this does, at best, is to weaken and dilute the definition of whatever X it is that is under discussion.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It is not pro-X to demand that things that are not X be considered to be X, and treated the same as X. All that this does, at best, is to weaken and dilute the definition of whatever X it is that is under discussion.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY, the facts prove its all X

So thats why your posts claiming SSM isnt a real marriage is a mentally retarded, dishonest and asinine claim that is illogical and quite hilarious.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, that is not marriage. That never has been marriage, and never will be marriage.

Marriage always has been, and always will be, only between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Must be getting lonely on that island you've built.
 
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...

No. It's simply "pro-my narrow definition of who is allowed to have a family."

Being anti-SSM means being anti-all the things gay couples heading families do, including raising children and caring for their partner in medical situations. It is really pro-family dysfunction, if the people involved happen to be gay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom