• 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
Jerry said:
My lawyer has a time share there.



I can agree with that.



I rant in a Basement thread and have a thread in the Tavern on it, yeah I've been going through this for a couple years now.
Click to expand...

After I posted that I started thinking that you might have mentioned this before... you dealt with BPD then, specifically? It is amazing, the disconnect that goes on. It is crazy and abusive, and when I try to talk to people about it, they indicate that they just think that I'm a whiner and can't deal with normal problems... those that have had to deal with her know exactly what I am talking about.
 
Bodhisattva said:
After I posted that I started thinking that you might have mentioned this before... you dealt with BPD then, specifically? It is amazing, the disconnect that goes on. It is crazy and abusive, and when I try to talk to people about it, they indicate that they just think that I'm a whiner and can't deal with normal problems... those that have had to deal with her know exactly what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

I feel for you both. I only had a girlfriend with BPD, and fortunately we did not marry. I can't even imagine that kind of emotional roller coaster in a marriage!
 
Blackdog said:
I feel for you both. I only had a girlfriend with BPD, and fortunately we did not marry. I can't even imagine that kind of emotional roller coaster in a marriage!
Click to expand...

Well, it ended mine.

What would normally be a typical argument any couple would have would always be escalated into something epic. Should I back down, I was 'lieing'. If I just walked away, I was 'neglectful'. If I fought on....well that just made everything worse. Regardless of the outcome, it would always be brought back up weeks, even years later. Let me tell you that there's nothing wrong with her memory lol.

She could go from wanting to fix the marriage straight into her boyfriend's arms at the bar in under an hour.

We both love the kids, but love is not enough.
 
Your Star said:
Yes or no, and explain your answer.

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

Of course it does.

Side note: I see that someone has been tampering with the poll again. This is why I make all my polls public.
 
Of course it does. Not sure why the bigots and haters would think it does not. :(
 
Jerry said:
If that were true, then since we all agree that divorce undermines the family, two loving,caring, nurturing parents would never divorce.

But they do, which disproves Amazed's premise.
Click to expand...

Did you all agree that divorce undermines a family? I'm pretty sure that everyone hasn't agreed to that. In fact, there are definitely times when divorce is better for everyone in the relationship, including the children. It might not be ideal for the children but if it comes down to parents who can't live together or be together at all or parents who get a divorce, can move on from a failed relationship, and become better people in new relationships or even just as two single parents who still both share in raising the children, then it may actually support a family more than staying together.

And, no, most divorces do not work this way and do hurt the family, but it is not an absolute that all divorces undermine the family. I had friends in high school who were happy that their parents got divorced because they didn't believe that their parents were happy together. Overall, their family was better for their parents not being with each other.

Divorce still has nothing to do with allowing same sex marriage. It is a separate issue for promoting the family, that should be dealt with through incentives for trying to get people to not marry before they know what they are getting into and finding ways to encourage people to stay together during rough times. I think that one good thing that I have recently read that might be one incentive that every state could possibly try would be to offer a waiver on the marriage license fee for attending approved premarital counseling, like Georgia does. Or, there could be some sort of tax incentive to attending premarital couseling or marriage counseling (make it a tax writeoff or something like that). Unfortunately, the best way to get people to understand that marriages can be hard and should be worked on in most cases (with exceptions being most abuse cases) is to teach this to people when they are young.
 
roguenuke said:
Did you all agree that divorce undermines a family? I'm pretty sure that everyone hasn't agreed to that. In fact, there are definitely times when divorce is better for everyone in the relationship, including the children. It might not be ideal for the children but if it comes down to parents who can't live together or be together at all or parents who get a divorce, can move on from a failed relationship, and become better people in new relationships or even just as two single parents who still both share in raising the children, then it may actually support a family more than staying together.

And, no, most divorces do not work this way and do hurt the family, but it is not an absolute that all divorces undermine the family. I had friends in high school who were happy that their parents got divorced because they didn't believe that their parents were happy together. Overall, their family was better for their parents not being with each other.

Divorce still has nothing to do with allowing same sex marriage. It is a separate issue for promoting the family, that should be dealt with through incentives for trying to get people to not marry before they know what they are getting into and finding ways to encourage people to stay together during rough times. I think that one good thing that I have recently read that might be one incentive that every state could possibly try would be to offer a waiver on the marriage license fee for attending approved premarital counseling, like Georgia does. Or, there could be some sort of tax incentive to attending premarital couseling or marriage counseling (make it a tax writeoff or something like that). Unfortunately, the best way to get people to understand that marriages can be hard and should be worked on in most cases (with exceptions being most abuse cases) is to teach this to people when they are young.
Click to expand...

Oh look who wants to play. You can pick up where you left off:
Jerry said:
It what way(s) is the current license inadequate? Specific examples of regulation would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
I apologize for having missed these examples. Would you mind re-posting them?

Just as "husband" and "wife" were replaced with "person 1" and "person 2", all we have to do is add "person 3". Anyone with basic Microsoft Office Word 2011 skills can so alter a form.

I apologize but this sounds a lot like anti-SSM when they say if you let men mary men then you have to let men marry dogs. I think a limit of 4 spouses is reasonable AND established in "the traditions, history and culture of the people"; thus establishing polygamy as a basic human right.

Just add "person 3".

Present regulation regarding "Community Property" require equal shares for each spouse unless there are special considerations which require a hearing.

Yes.

if you were business partners and your partner wanted to add someone as an equal, they would require your consent. This is no different.

2 men rob a bank, are caught, and ordered to testify against each other or get a longer sentence. According to you, we shouldn't allow gay marriage otherwise these 2 men could marry each other to take advantage of Spousal Privilege.
Click to expand...

You are in the proper thread.
 
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...

Really? When did you get to decide what people call themselves. Are you going to bust down her door and disallowe her to call her wife, "Honey" when she comes home? Are you going to prevent their children from calling them Mom?

How else do you intend to rule the lives of gay people?

Why stop there? Why not dictate to everyone what they should call themselves and how they should live their lives?
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Really? When did you get to decide what people call themselves. Are you going to bust down her door and disallowe her to call her wife, "Honey" when she comes home? Are you going to prevent their children from calling them Mom?

How else do you intend to rule the lives of gay people?

Why stop there? Why not dictate to everyone what they should call themselves and how they should live their lives?
Click to expand...

What I did in that post was reflect back to the gay community what they look like.

Ugly, isn't it?

In the last few pages I've argued with YourStar that gays should call each-other "wife" "husband", etc, because "partner" does not describe the same kind of relationship. YourStar gave insight that gays call each-other "partner" due to social rejection, and I maintain that continued use of "partner" perpetuates that social rejection and does the gay community no favors.
 
Jerry said:
What I did in that post was reflect back to the gay community what they look like.

Ugly, isn't it?

In the last few pages I've argued with YourStar that gays should call each-other "wife" "husband", etc, because "partner" does not describe the same kind of relationship. YourStar gave insight that gays call each-other "partner" due to social rejection, and I maintain that continued use of "partner" perpetuates that social rejection and does the gay community no favors.
Click to expand...

Jerry, the arguments regarding equality and legality of marriage are derived from the historical origins of the gay rights movement. It began as a part of the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and as such, it utilizes many of the same Constitutional arguments spanning from a broad interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

It seems you wish to demonize the historical origins of the gay rights movement because it does not correlate with your vision of marriage being a particularly family centered institution. Regardless of whether same sex couples are allowed to marry or not, marriage has already been radically transformed to the point that only 25% of the families in our country represent the traditional nuclear family. Same sex marriage promises to increase the number of 2 parent homes in which children could be raised, and if the latest 35 years of research is any indication, having 2 parents is considerably more important than the gender of the parents. Furthermore, as many as 8 million children are being raised by gay couples and same sex couples and all of those could benefit from the institution.

Regardless of how you feel about the historical motives of the gay rights movement, the family benefits of marriage will exist within same sex marriage. As such, you have no rational recourse in which to deny same sex couples the right to marriage.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
Really?
Click to expand...

Yes, really. This is what the gay community has established and who are you to tell them they're wrong?

FilmFestGuy said:
When did you get to decide what people call themselves.
Click to expand...

There should be a "?" at the end of that sentence as it's worded as a question.

Anyway, I was commissioned as your local EvilConservative™ Representative in March of 2002, years before I joined this forum. As an EvilConservative™ I am authorized to decide for the minorities in my sphere of influence, among other things, what they shall call themselves. Failure to comply will result in a net increase in Glenn Beck's TV ratings, and no one wants that, do they?

FilmFestGuy said:
Are you going to bust down her door and disallowe her to call her wife, "Honey" when she comes home?
Click to expand...

It's "disallow".

I could. As an EvilConservative™ I have, in addition to a Survival Seed-Vault, bibles and various firearms, a personal set of riot gear. Busting down doors is easy, and once inside the home there's little a car battery and cables won't accomplish.

However, generally speaking, I'm inclined to allow the use of "Honey" as such affection is usually accompanied by a kiss, and no male in his right mind is going to put a stop to some hot lesbo action.

FilmFestGuy said:
Are you going to prevent their children from calling them Mom?
Click to expand...

I will allow the woman who is the biological parent can be called "mom". However, the other parent will have to be called by her name. You need to understand that allowing a child to call the non-biological parent "mom" is just an attempt by the gays to indoctrinate that child into the Leftist movement and convert them into homosexuality. This fact is incontrovertible as it's firmly substantiated by NARTH and Godhatesfags.org.

FilmFestGuy said:
How else do you intend to rule the lives of gay people?
Click to expand...

Without giving to much away, I think it's public knowledge that We will not allow gays to marry, adopt, buy a home or car together, serve in the military at all (forget about DADT, we want them found and court marshaled), or allowed onto public school property.

FilmFestGuy said:
Why stop there? Why not dictate to everyone what they should call themselves and how they should live their lives?
Click to expand...

That's a damn good idea.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Jerry, the arguments regarding equality and legality of marriage are derived from the historical origins of the gay rights movement. It began as a part of the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and as such, it utilizes many of the same Constitutional arguments spanning from a broad interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

It seems you wish to demonize the historical origins of the gay rights movement because it does not correlate with your vision of marriage being a particularly family centered institution. Regardless of whether same sex couples are allowed to marry or not, marriage has already been radically transformed to the point that only 25% of the families in our country represent the traditional nuclear family. Same sex marriage promises to increase the number of 2 parent homes in which children could be raised, and if the latest 35 years of research is any indication, having 2 parents is considerably more important than the gender of the parents. Furthermore, as many as 8 million children are being raised by gay couples and same sex couples and all of those could benefit from the institution.

Regardless of how you feel about the historical motives of the gay rights movement, the family benefits of marriage will exist within same sex marriage. As such, you have no rational recourse in which to deny same sex couples the right to marriage.
Click to expand...

Wow see I wasn't talking about denying or supporting gay marriage either way there.

We were talking about how the vernacular manipulates perception.
 
Very interesting poll results. Two to one feel gay marriage doesn't promote yet I'd be willing to believe at least two thirds would support gay marriage. Yes indeed this poll is very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
What I did in that post was reflect back to the gay community what they look like.

Ugly, isn't it?

In the last few pages I've argued with YourStar that gays should call each-other "wife" "husband", etc, because "partner" does not describe the same kind of relationship. YourStar gave insight that gays call each-other "partner" due to social rejection, and I maintain that continued use of "partner" perpetuates that social rejection and does the gay community no favors.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Language can alter perception; but who cares what people want to call their loved ones? I know people who use "partner" and I know people who say "husband / wife". I know people who go back and forth depending on context or for no apparent reason. I also know straight people who say "partner".
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Perhaps. Language can alter perception; but who cares what people want to call their loved ones? I know people who use "partner" and I know people who say "husband / wife". I know people who go back and forth depending on context or for no apparent reason. I also know straight people who say "partner".
Click to expand...

Strange neighborhood.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Perhaps. Language can alter perception; but who cares what people want to call their loved ones? I know people who use "partner" and I know people who say "husband / wife". I know people who go back and forth depending on context or for no apparent reason. I also know straight people who say "partner".
Click to expand...

That's a new one for me, I haven't ever met a straight couple who called each other "partner".

As for who cares, well, everyone cares. A "partner" is not a "brother" is not a "battle" is not a "friend" is not a "husband".....
 
Dutch said:
Very interesting poll results. Two to one feel gay marriage doesn't promote yet I'd be willing to believe at least two thirds would support gay marriage. Yes indeed this poll is very interesting.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

When did same sex marriage advocates present this terminology?
 
DiAnna said:
I'm a little perplexed by the wording. I don't actually think any marriage as such "promotes family." It doesn't promote anything, except two people decided for emotional and/or financial reasons that they want to spend a portion of their lives together. (I'd say their entire lives, but with the divorce rate at 50% that makes me sound a bit clueless!) Children actually promote family, in my view.

If I understand what you actually mean, the opposite of what you're asking would be "Does SSM degrade or harm family?" Since my answer to that question would be "no", I suspect my answer to your question would be "yes."

Or something. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yeah - agreed, here.

The technical term for a married couple with no children is a 'conjugal pair'
 
Jerry said:
What I did in that post was reflect back to the gay community what they look like.

Ugly, isn't it?

In the last few pages I've argued with YourStar that gays should call each-other "wife" "husband", etc, because "partner" does not describe the same kind of relationship. YourStar gave insight that gays call each-other "partner" due to social rejection, and I maintain that continued use of "partner" perpetuates that social rejection and does the gay community no favors.
Click to expand...

What I find strange is that the term "partner" has now permeated into the heterosexual community. Personally, I don't like it. It seems to be the more liberal people that do that, and what I don't like is that I don't know if they are talking about their wife of thirty years or the chick that he is banging the past month. Don't know if the guy is gay or not either... not that it really matters, but the term "partner" is elusive and not accurate in many times... that is just me though.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, that is unfair. It won't let me vote twice. Perhaps you are wrong.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What I find strange is that the term "partner" has now permeated into the heterosexual community. Personally, I don't like it. It seems to be the more liberal people that do that, and what I don't like is that I don't know if they are talking about their wife of thirty years or the chick that he is banging the past month. Don't know if the guy is gay or not either... not that it really matters, but the term "partner" is elusive and not accurate in many times... that is just me though.
Click to expand...

Not in my neck of the woods. Do I just chalk this up to......cultural differences?
 
CriticalThought said:
If that is the case, then why do most of the same sex couples who do get married have children or seek to adopt children?

Jerry, the only consistent argument you have ever provided against same sex marriage is that you don't like that gay rights advocates often justify it with a call for equality. It isn't just about equal individuals, its also about equal families.

Jerry, not every gay rights advocate is a secular humanist. That might be hard for you to believe, but it is true.
Click to expand...

Not for nothing, (I didn't answer this stupid poll) but, you, and YourStar, and others on your side, have argued ad infinitum that "marriage" isn't about kids at all, and even further some have argued that the state's interest in marriage has nothing to do with the little ones. Do you NEED me to perform a search to prove that you've all claimed this position countless times?

Now, it seems that you've all changed your narrative on the issue? So which is it, what is your position on society, family, children, and marriage? This ought to be interesting...

I await eagerly to see what the Pro-SSM side says about that? :)

Oh, and while you're at it, and since you folks always like to pull out the "technical" card. Why don't you folks explain exactly how two same sex people (outside of expensive invetro gene splicing) can even have a "family" at all? The equivocating on this one should provide some minor, if only shortly lived amusement as well. :)


Tim-
 
Dutch said:
Well, that is unfair. It won't let me vote twice. Perhaps you are wrong.
Click to expand...

No he is right. It happens to alot of polls. But you can click on the numbers in the poll to see the real numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom