• 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!

Does Same Sex Marriage promote family?

Yes or No?


  • Total voters
    58
Where the hell did you get the idea that intelligence is merely organized information?

Are you telling me that my local library is intelligent?

I don't have problem describing the modern library's computer system as an AI, no.
 
I WANT YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE THE HELL I SAID THAT MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FAMILY!

Either do it or admit that you were lying!

Oh don't get your panties in a twist sonny! :)

Is it your position or not? If not, then I retract the statement Is it your postion that marriage and the states interest in marriage has nothing to do with children? Yes OR No?? Now go away with your immature aggression.


Tim-
 
I hear you saying that... what I don't hear is any logic behind denying homosexuals from being able to do the same exact thing.

thats because there is none. Also notice how he keeps squeezing adjectives in there to try support his false opinion.

Not to mention there have been MANY studies that prove that any TWO parents are just as good or bad as any other TWO parents.
 
So nature is suddenly a sentient conscious being with an opinion on what constitutes a family and what does not?

Dear lord.. Do you all graduate philosophy 101 recently? Are we really going to deconstruct every commonly understood meaning in a sentence?


Tim-
 
I hear you saying that... what I don't hear is any logic behind denying homosexuals from being able to do the same exact thing.

He took 4 peragraphs to say that women can't get women pregnant and men can't bear children.
 
Dear lord.. Do you all graduate philosophy 101 recently? Are we really going to deconstruct every commonly understood meaning in a sentence?


Tim-

Again the problem is you, we live in reality and you live in your own world where your think your OPINION is reality. You have proven this many times it often exposes you.
 
Oh don't get your panties in a twist sonny! :)

Is it your position or not? If not, then I retract the statement Is it your postion that marriage and the states interest in marriage has nothing to do with children? Yes OR No?? Now go away with your immature aggression.


Tim-

You and Jerry like to play this little ****ing game where you try to argue that everyone suddenly changed their positions. I've been holding to that family argument since before December of 09, which would have been a couple months since you registered on this forum. SO DON'T EVEN TRY TO PLAY THAT STUPID ASS GAME WITH ME!

Marriage is a part of family. How could it not be? Marriage makes you god damn next to kin!
 
The polls submitted in the "Polls" section of this forum are useless because guests are allowed to vote and thus some members troll them by voting mulitiple times.

Are you kidding me?? Non-registered "guests" can vote? That's wrong on so many levels...

You're right. The polls are meaningless, because registed forum members can only vote once.
 
Why would i waste time refuting something that is MEANINGLESS to the dabate at hand and doesnt change it at all? LMAO

So survival of the fittest genes is meaningless? Tell Darwin..

I wonder what, if not SOTF, and natural selection, is at play that is the root of our sexual inclinations at all? What is contained within our genes that gives us the desire to procreate at all? Could Darwin be wrong?


Tim-
 
Why don't you prove your case instead of simply saying that it is so. I certainly would attempt to do that prior to making up all this **** that fly in the face of what the terms actually mean. Why don't you prove that a married Sara (who survived the crash) and Tim (who died in the crash), who have two kids, are family after they Tim died in a plane crash. No DNA. No blood lines. Nothing. Are you going to say that neither Tim nor Sara are family now or justify it in some way?


That's an interesting twist? All I can say is.. Huh? Answer me first, that would be the considerate thing to do.


Tim-
 
So survival of the fittest genes is meaningless? Tell Darwin..

I wonder what, if not SOTF, and natural selection, is at play that is the root of our sexual inclinations at all? What is contained within our genes that gives us the desire to procreate at all? Could Darwin be wrong?


Tim-

why did you quote me?
What you said has nothing to do with my post, my stance nor the topic of the OP, its totally senseless.

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you posted in the wrong thread
 
thats because there is none. Also notice how he keeps squeezing adjectives in there to try support his false opinion.

Not to mention there have been MANY studies that prove that any TWO parents are just as good or bad as any other TWO parents.

Well, all things being equal, that's a debateable opinion, and we've done it many times. But something needs a distinction in your statement. You said "two" parents. If one has no biological connection to a child are they a parent in the truest sense. They may be parent figures, even identifies as such by the child, but they are not a parent.


Tim-
 
Well, all things being equal, that's a debateable opinion, and we've done it many times. But something needs a distinction in your statement. You said "two" parents. If one has no biological connection to a child are they a parent in the truest sense. They may be parent figures, even identifies as such by the child, but they are not a parent.


Tim-


100% WRONG AGAIN LMAO

more failed word games by you, do you ever find people stupid enough to fall for this stuff?
 
Well, all things being equal, that's a debateable opinion, and we've done it many times. But something needs a distinction in your statement. You said "two" parents. If one has no biological connection to a child are they a parent in the truest sense. They may be parent figures, even identifies as such by the child, but they are not a parent.


Tim-

Actually the evidence shows that a lesbian couple are better parents than your typical hetero couple.
 
why did you quote me?
What you said has nothing to do with my post, my stance nor the topic of the OP, its totally senseless.

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you posted in the wrong thread

Because you said
Why would i waste time refuting something that is MEANINGLESS to the dabate at hand and doesnt change it at all? LMAO

In other words you're avoiding my central theme. You're all claiming that there are tons of different families, and although that may be true, as far as nature is concerned there is only one type of family that matters in evolutionary terms, and there is very strong evidence that, if the mechanism for evolution holds true, there should be laid a clear distinction as to the viability of such an familial order of things.

Nut shell.. All things being equal, heterosexual families are best suited to perfom this function.. Evolutionariliy speaking of course.. :)


Tim-
 
Actually the evidence shows that a lesbian couple are better parents than your typical hetero couple.

No, no it doesn't suggest that. What the "evidence" does suggest is that rich lesbian parents are as good as the average heterosexual parent. Now, the "average" heterosexual parents is made up from samples from all walks of life.. Not very fair is it? Statistics are wonderful things..


Tim-
 
Well, all things being equal, that's a debateable opinion, and we've done it many times. But something needs a distinction in your statement. You said "two" parents. If one has no biological connection to a child are they a parent in the truest sense. They may be parent figures, even identifies as such by the child, but they are not a parent.


Tim-

Hundreds of thousands of adoptive parents would say otherwise. Any male past puberty can inseminate a female. That does not make him a parent. Any female past puberty can bear a child. That does not make her a parent.

Parents are the ones who raise the child, who make certain it is properly fed, clothed, educated, taught core values, and over a period of decades, mould that infant into a secure adult, capable of being a productive member of society. Parents are the ones who love that child with all their hearts, who cherish that child, who would die to protect that child.

That is what a parent does. When you state that only the biological sperm/egg donors can be parents is an insult to all real parents everywhere.
 
No, no it doesn't suggest that. What the "evidence" does suggest is that rich lesbian parents are as good as the average heterosexual parent. Now, the "average" heterosexual parents is made up from samples from all walks of life.. Not very fair is it? Statistics are wonderful things..


Tim-

Once again doing your uninformed lying thing.

They controlled for income.

The difference is not in income, its in the fact that lesbians generally choose when they have children and heterosexuals do not.

Of course, feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a study that indicates that rich lesbians couples are as good at raising children as average heterosexual couples. I would love to see you back up you stupid ass statements just once.
 
Last edited:
Once again doing your uninformed lying thing.

They controlled for income.

The difference is not in income, its in the fact that lesbians generally choose when they have children and heterosexuals do not.

Of course, feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a study that indicates that rich lesbians couples are as good at raising children as an average heterosexual couples. I would love to see you back up you stupid ass statements just once.

It's worth pointing out that the reasons why lesbians are better actually has nothing to do with their sexual orientation at all. They wait until later in life when they're more stable and settled. That's it. There's nothing uniquely lesbian about that.
 
Because you said

In other words you're avoiding my central theme. You're all claiming that there are tons of different families, and although that may be true, as far as nature is concerned there is only one type of family that matters in evolutionary terms, and there is very strong evidence that, if the mechanism for evolution holds true, there should be laid a clear distinction as to the viability of such an familial order of things.

Nut shell.. All things being equal, heterosexual families are best suited to perfom this function.. Evolutionariliy speaking of course.. :)


Tim-

no in reality your argument is still MEANINGLESS. my original post stands and what you are claming for reasoning of why it matters is still irrlavant LMAO

Sorry what you are calling a family in nature is only your opinion and nature disagrees in may ways

like i said MEANINGLESS :D
 
DiAnna -
Hundreds of thousands of adoptive parents would say otherwise. Any male past puberty can inseminate a female. That does not make him a parent. Any female past puberty can bear a child. That does not make her a parent.

Actually it does make them a parent.

Parents are the ones who raise the child, who make certain it is properly fed, clothed, educated, taught core values, and over a period of decades, mould that infant into a secure adult, capable of being a productive member of society. Parents are the ones who love that child with all their hearts, who cherish that child, who would die to protect that child.

Agreed! That's what good parents are!

That is what a parent does. When you state that only the biological sperm/egg donors can be parents is an insult to all real parents everywhere.

Why would you be insulted?


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom