• 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
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, Jerry, I countered what you said. You are presenting the position that Redress does not promote SSM in a pro-family way because he doesn't initiate threads or arguments. Go look at how many threads I'VE started on pro-family SSM. NONE. So, what does that prove? NOTHING. Just like your position. You want to start an argument for the sake of starting an argument, you are going to fail, at least in this thread.
Click to expand...

Redress is an example of how pro-SSM wants to claim they're pro family, but don't ever do anything to promote the family. When pressed they try to defend themselves, but if you leave them alone they use just whatever argument they think will get them access to money.

Pro-SSM will come to a thread to defend themselves, but they don't make pro-family threads arguing their side, inviting anti-SSM to defend themselves.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Redress is an example of how pro-SSM wants to claim they're pro family, but don't ever do anything to promote the family. When pressed they try to defend themselves, but if you leave them alone they use just whatever argument they think will get them access to money.
Click to expand...

So, Jerry, instead of arguing what Redress believes or not... something that is far better discussed by REDRESS, how about arguing what YOU believe?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, Jerry, I countered what you said. You are presenting the position that Redress does not promote SSM in a pro-family way because he doesn't initiate threads or arguments. Go look at how many threads I'VE started on pro-family SSM. NONE. So, what does that prove? NOTHING. Just like your position. You want to start an argument for the sake of starting an argument, you are going to fail, at least in this thread.
Click to expand...

Why are any of us here if not to start debate?

You didn't have a problem with my posting style when I argued pro-SSM for the last year....you didn't have a problem when I took a compromising position....or when I took a neutral position...

Noone really gives a **** about gays one way or the other. Fact is, even most gays don't even really care about SSM. They think it would be nice if they got it, but in reality they have better things to do, like live their lives. No one cares, even those of us on this thread.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
So, Jerry, instead of arguing what Redress believes or not... something that is far better discussed by REDRESS, how about arguing what YOU believe?
Click to expand...

Hello? I'm using Redress as a live example of what I believe. She is my case-in-point, and so are you.
 
Jerry said:
Why are any of us here if not to start debate?

You didn't have a problem with my posting style when I argued pro-SSM for the last year....
Click to expand...

The problem with your posting style, as of late has little to do with your position on anything.
 
**Sigh** I really wish people didn't game the polls. It's blatantly obvious and it doesnt sway anyone.
 
Jerry said:
Hello? I'm using Redress as a live example of what I believe. She is my case-in-point, and so are you.
Click to expand...

And I am not. The proof of that is in the hundreds of posts I've made on the subject. You are absolutely wrong.
 
Hoplite said:
**Sigh** I really wish people didn't game the polls. It's blatantly obvious and it doesnt sway anyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some anti-GM poster decided to mess with the poll, as usual. Fortunately, it's public, so anyone can tell that all of the "NO" votes but two have no meaning.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The problem with your posting style, as of late has little to do with your position on anything.
Click to expand...

The only thing I've don on this thread is argue from a point of view.

...oh you must be referring to my reactions to stupid turn-of-phrases like "hey guess what" and such. There is no other reason for using phrases like "if that's not good enough for you, to bad" other than to incite a negative reaction. You treat me like **** and then crum when I don't like it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And I am not. The proof of that is in the hundreds of posts I've made on the subject. You are absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...

Someone always has to ask, and then you guys are like "oh yeah yeah right family". Someone always has to ask first.
 
**** it's nearly 4am....guess I'm staying up...where's some coffee....got divorce papers to sign today....****ing bitch is getting what she deserves real soon...a nice matching set of bracelets.....
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yeah, some anti-GM poster decided to mess with the poll, as usual. Fortunately, it's public, so anyone can tell that all of the "NO" votes but two have no meaning.
Click to expand...

Man....don't people know to put a poll in a forum if they want somewhat accurate results? yes people, you can make a poll thread in non-"poll" forums.
 
Marriage creates a family of two out of two single people, so yeah, marriage promotes family.
 
Jerry said:
The only thing I've don on this thread is argue from a point of view.
Click to expand...

No, Jerry. What you've done is be argumentative, and misrepresent folks' point of view.

...oh you must be referring to my reactions to stupid turn-of-phrases like "hey guess what" and such. There is no other reason for using phrases like "if that's not good enough for you, to bad" other than to incite a negative reaction. You treat me like **** and then crum when I don't like it.
Click to expand...

You came in here misrepresenting posters' positions. You don't like being called on it, don't do it.
 
Jerry said:
Someone always has to ask, and then you guys are like "oh yeah yeah right family". Someone always has to ask first.
Click to expand...

False premise Jerry. Simple as that. If someone brings it up, I state my position. I don't start threads. Your premise on this is illogical and wrong. Drop it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, Jerry. What you've done is be argumentative, and misrepresent folks' point of view.
Click to expand...

Right, that's now I argued my point...continue....

CaptainCourtesy said:
You came in here misrepresenting posters' positions.
Click to expand...

...deliberately, yes, it serves a purpose....continue...

CaptainCourtesy said:
You don't like being called on it, don't do it.
Click to expand...

They're supposed to call me on it. That's the whole point. Well, not you, 'cuz you've been around, but the n00b who wrote the OP....
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
False premise Jerry. Simple as that. If someone brings it up, I state my position. I don't start threads. Your premise on this is illogical and wrong. Drop it.
Click to expand...

You don't start such threads, hell neither do I, but my point is that neither does anyone else. Go to the ME forum and you'll see threads arguing the merits of various policy. Law n Order forum, you'll find threads promoting the benefit of an armed society. Military forum, you'll find threads promoting a given military action. But not here. The most we see in this forum is a court ruling, and even then it's only posted if there's an argument to be had.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You don't start such threads, hell neither do I, but my point is that neither does anyone else. Go to the ME forum and you'll see threads arguing the merits of various policy. Law n Order forum, you'll find threads promoting the benefit of an armed society. Military forum, you'll find threads promoting a given military action. But not here. The most we see in this forum is a court ruling, and even then it's only posted if there's an argument to be had.
Click to expand...

Someone really should start a thread detailing how Same-Sex Marriage is ruining our soil. :roll:
 
Jerry said:
No.

You have to pull teeth to get pro-SSM to even mention anyone other than the "consenting adults" on the "strictly legal constract". SSM doesn't give a **** about family. They never did, they never will. The world has more important things to worry about then if some dude can put some other dude on his insurance plan.
Click to expand...

My question wasn't "Do people you've have had debates about SSM with use family values as an argument for endorsing SSM" My question was does SSM promote family. Now if you want to answer my question feel free, but if you are going to continue to do this please tell me so I don't waste my time.

Jerry said:
No, you're a "strictly legal contracted" woman. And she's not your 'wife', she's your "partner". This is the vocabulary your side has presented, and is one way we know that pro-SSM is not about the family. You're about just whatever feels good, whatever that may be. In your case, specifically, at best you're the broken watch.
Click to expand...

Also this post is not only inaccurate but extremely rude. If she calls her wife her wife, then there is nothing that you can say to invalidate that, and using this ridiculous theory that she can't use those words because "our side"(like that means anything of substance) has used different words is so ridiculous it barely justifies a response.
I also use the terms, girlfriend/wife, boyfriend/husband in talking about same sex relationships, partners are for science projects.
 
Jerry said:
Right, that's now I argued my point...continue....



...deliberately, yes, it serves a purpose....continue...



They're supposed to call me on it. That's the whole point. Well, not you, 'cuz you've been around, but the n00b who wrote the OP....
Click to expand...

1) The person who started the OP is no noob. She's been posting on this forum for a bit and posts a lot on this issue.
2) Your posts that present you as trolling for an argument are getting REAL old. See, perhaps noobs will call you on the misrepresenting of your position, but I and a few others will call you on your behavior. When the latter happens, whatever purpose you would have wanted to accomplish will be rendered impotent. There's enough argumentativeness in these threads without YOU creating some intentionally.
3) Go back to actually debating, Jerry. You were much better at that.
 
Your Star said:
My question wasn't "Do people you've have had debates about SSM with use family values as an argument for endorsing SSM" My question was does SSM promote family. Now if you want to answer my question feel free, but if you are going to continue to do this please tell me so I don't waste my time.



Also this post is not only inaccurate but extremely rude. If she calls her wife her wife, then there is nothing that you can say to invalidate that, and using this ridiculous theory that she can't use those words because "our side"(like that means anything of substance) has used different words is so ridiculous it barely justifies a response.
I also use the terms, girlfriend/wife, boyfriend/husband in talking about same sex relationships, partners are for science projects.
Click to expand...

YS, Jerry's just trying to start an argument. It's been his thing for a bit. Don't feed into it.
 
Jerry said:
You don't start such threads, hell neither do I, but my point is that neither does anyone else. Go to the ME forum and you'll see threads arguing the merits of various policy. Law n Order forum, you'll find threads promoting the benefit of an armed society. Military forum, you'll find threads promoting a given military action. But not here. The most we see in this forum is a court ruling, and even then it's only posted if there's an argument to be had.
Click to expand...

Most threads get started because of an incident, situation, or issue with a conflict... pro or con. More academic issues around "why's" or "how's" rarely get started. Conflict stirs interest.
 
Yes. I think that SSM lends a totally different perspective on homosexuality. Rather than being viewed as simply living together or being partners, allowing SSM in itself changes the view to family, because married people ARE family. Thus, rather than appearing as only a "life-style" choice, SSM shows that homosexuals are not some counter-culture, anti-family group that serves the devil, but rather simply PEOPLE who have a family and wish to live it as makes them happy. Ultimately, I believe this is why so many are ardently opposed to SSM, for if just allowed, they fear homosexuality will become widely "accepted" and promoted.
 
Your Star said:
Yes or no, and explain your answer.

I say yes, SSM promotes family just like opposite sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Once you see the couples offspring, you wonder why it wasn't more obvious. :doh
 
American said:
Once you see the couples offspring, you wonder why it wasn't more obvious. :doh
Click to expand...

Same sex couples can have kids, and marriage only promotes them having children, care to prove otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom