• 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
Homosexuals are certainly biologically defective in the sense that they are not inclined to procreate. Of course, that doesn't mean they are defective as people.
Modern genetics has made procreation very possible. They do the same for heterosexual women as well.
 
Point out where you said "some"

You simply said that straights do it due to physical defect. I pointed out that's not always the case, as your post suggests by indicating what "straights" do not what "some straights" do.

plain english. unless "ONLY" is specified, the meaning of the statement is not an absolute. you are just nit-picking semantics because you can't refute the basic premise.

hetero couples tend to adopt because they can't have kids on their own.

So you "went against the way of nature"?

what? can't you read?
 
Modern genetics has made procreation very possible. They do the same for heterosexual women as well.

they can make glow in the dark pigs and goats that give spider silk when milked too. does that make it natural or normal?
 
Last edited:
they can make glow in the dark pigs and goats that give spider silk when milked too. does that make it natural or normal?

Link, please.
 
plain english. unless "ONLY" is specified, the meaning of the statement is not an absolute. you are just nit-picking semantics because you can't refute the basic premise.

Plain english you would've said "most" if you weren't implying that straights as a whole do it because of defects. Yes, I'm nitpicking a bit...in part because you nitpicked that I was "strawmaning" you becasue your words, that could've easily been taken either way because you didn't specific either way, implied one way where your intent was to imply a different way. If you're going to nitpick, I'll do it right back.

what? can't you read?

Sure I can. And alright then. As long as you hold yourself to the same with regards to you not going about it "the way nature intended" for all your kids, I got no issue with it.
 
Last edited:
Sure I can. And alright then. As long as you hold yourself to the same with regards to you not going about it "the way nature intended" for all your kids, I got no issue with it.

I already did it the way nature intended...twice. I just went out of my way to be a good citizen and take a couple more out of the overcrowded system. I'm just asking gay couples to do the same.... aka holding them to the same standard I hold myself.
 
I do not know..
Certainly not "family" in the normal sense.
I still do not think that "same sex" or homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, but if we run out of qualified people then, yes , it may be better than nothing.
 
they can make glow in the dark pigs and goats that give spider silk when milked too. does that make it natural or normal?
Is there anything wrong with the practice when Straight Women do the same things to have children. They are defective if you think about it. Gays aren't defective in the sense that they have no ability to make a child. They aren't in a situation normally that would allow for that so they use artificial means not because of defect but by choice.
 
stupid point. that's like saying hungry people tend to eat more than non-hungry people. therefore hungry people promote eating.

If you think the topic of the thread is stupid then take it up with the OP.

again, you are just looking for something to get butthurt over. get over yourself. not everyone/thing is out to offend you.

Whatever. :roll:
 
I do not know..
Certainly not "family" in the normal sense.
I still do not think that "same sex" or homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, but if we run out of qualified people then, yes , it may be better than nothing.

What constitutes the "normal" sense? Only 1/4th of families in the United States are the traditional nuclear family of a mom, dad, and children.

And why would a same sex couple not be qualified to adopt? What do you know that the National Association of Social Workers and the American Pediatric Association does not know?
 
Last edited:
Is there anything wrong with the practice when Straight Women do the same things to have children. They are defective if you think about it. Gays aren't defective in the sense that they have no ability to make a child. They aren't in a situation normally that would allow for that so they use artificial means not because of defect but by choice.

they choose to be in that situation, straight women don't choose to be infertile. live with the choice and adopt. there are plenty of kids out there that need homes.
 
I do not know..
Certainly not "family" in the normal sense.
I still do not think that "same sex" or homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, but if we run out of qualified people then, yes , it may be better than nothing.

I think same sex couple should be encouraged, almost forced, to adopt.
 
Another poll ruined by scamming tea-bagging conservatives....or religious nuts...
Maybe these polls should be a closed affair, only for a select group of DP members..
An impossible task...
 
Another poll ruined by scamming tea-bagging conservatives....or religious nuts...
Maybe these polls should be a closed affair, only for a select group of DP members..
An impossible task...

Yes, so impossible that you'd simply need to post it in a forum other than "polls".
 
I disagree. It most assuredly does not promote it "just like" opposite sex marriage. The fact that the two that are married can not on average create said family singularly through their own primary actions and means makes it not "just like" opposite sex marriage. That doesn't mean it can't promote family. However, you do your side a disservice with such hyperbole.

I disagree, marriage provides many benefits, and a stabilized environment that is ideal for raising children. And those will be the same for both SSM, and straight marriages. Just because in a SSM the couple involved don't have the necessary parts to have a baby by having sex doesn't mean that the incentive to have children are diminished.
 
they choose to be in that situation, straight women don't choose to be infertile. live with the choice and adopt. there are plenty of kids out there that need homes.

Yes and I have adopted two and have one of my own throouh artificial means. How many have you adoted?
 
I disagree, marriage provides many benefits, and a stabilized environment that is ideal for raising children. And those will be the same for both SSM, and straight marriages. Just because in a SSM the couple involved don't have the necessary parts to have a baby by having sex doesn't mean that the incentive to have children are diminished.

I didn't say its diminished, I said its not "Just like" a straight couple because its not "just like" a straight couple. For it to be "just like" a straight couple a homosexual couple would need to be able to produce a larger family unit through intercourse between the two of them without assistance of outside means in the creation of said child.

That doesn't belittle it or state that ones promotion of family is necessarily "better", but they are not "just like" each other in their ability and their methods of how they are able to do it.

An orange is good for you. An apple is good for you. They both promote good health. They both promote good health in similar ways and in some ways that are exaclty alike. However an orange is not "just like" an apple with regards to how it helps your health.
 
Yes and I have adopted two and have one of my own throouh artificial means. How many have you adoted?

read much? I have said that I have 2 bio and two adopted kids at least twice in this very thread.
 
Read up in his posts, he's adopted 2

what he said. seriously, if you are going to debate/argue with someone...at least try to pay some attention to what they are saying.
 
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.

I'm glad you said this, and I'm glad you feel that way.

What I did was reflect pro-SSM's vocabulary back at them to show how they've been disrespectful to the institution all along.
 
Back
Top Bottom