• 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
The only thing missing was the LOL at the end of each sentence.. LOL

Ok, so I'll bite. Care to refute my assertion that the only true family is that contained within bloodlines?

Tim-

That's an easy one: What you're calling a "technical family" is already called a "natural family" and is but a variation, not a pure element.
 
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?

I have been the biggest advocate on this forum for the family argument of same sex marriage. I can point out entire threads that I have dedicated to that argument. Don't even do that strawman bull**** with me.
 
That's an easy one: What you're calling a "technical family" is already called a "natural family" and is but a variation, not a pure element.

Right, and that's my point. Remove the subjectivity, and you are left with only one defining criterion. When issues become muddy, you need to wash them by beginning at the beginning. The question is does SSM marriage promote family? Well, the answer, all things being equal, is a firm no! If the question were, "Does SSM promote my defintion of a family", YourStar must answer in the affirmative. However, lacking certain natural and intrinsic characterstics her definition may be, she is still correct, but only within the context of her definition. Go outside for a little fresh air, and things are not as crystal clear anymore.


Tim-
 
The only thing missing was the LOL at the end of each sentence.. LOL

Ok, so I'll bite. Care to refute my assertion that the only true family is that contained within bloodlines?

Tim-

What are heterosexual families that adopt then? And then there are also people that are so close friendship wise that they consider each other to be brothers/sisters and call each other family?
 
Same-Sex Family implies that everyone is the same sex and gay....it doesn't work...

It denotes the sex of the adult couple. Call it non-Nuclear Families then, it matters not, so long as they are accepted as a family.

They're just descriptions.

Labeling the light frequency range of 560nm-490nm "green" doesn't limit light or the frequency; it just helps us relate to it.

Descriptions shouldn't scare anybody away from accepting them...

Originally Posted by Centrist77
You seem shocked as you expected different?
The topic of the OP is family, Marriage either fulfills that requirement or doesnt trying to separate them will ALWAYS lack logic.

Not shocked, just slightly annoyed at the uncompromising and rude nature of people... but that is just how it is.

Originally Posted by Hiccup
Well lets pull off their finger prints, and remove their teeth. Now what are they?

Did you suffer head trauma earlier in life? What in the **** does this have to do with anything?

Right a "grouping"

Family is a grouping. Same Sex groupings are families. Glad to see that you agree.
 
The only thing missing was the LOL at the end of each sentence.. LOL

Ok, so I'll bite. Care to refute my assertion that the only true family is that contained within bloodlines?

Tim-

Nothing to "bite"
Nor is there anything to refute, what you said was simply untrue

Which part dont you get? what you said is only your opinion and thats a FACT.
You called everybody else's opinion subjective and clamied your opinion was fact and objective but thats simply not true. You opinion is simply just that, opinion and subjective. Just like the rest.

Of course you can TRY and use adjectives like, REAL, TRUE, NATURAL ect ect but thats just a false front and deflecting the truth and actual REAL TRUE topic lol and thats FAMILY period

Accept it or not, tomorrow the facts will remian the same and what you said was subjective and nothing more than opinion. :D
 
Right, and that's my point. Remove the subjectivity, and you are left with only one defining criterion. When issues become muddy, you need to wash them by beginning at the beginning. The question is does SSM marriage promote family? Well, the answer, all things being equal, is a firm no! If the question were, "Does SSM promote my defintion of a family", YourStar must answer in the affirmative. However, lacking certain natural and intrinsic characterstics her definition may be, she is still correct, but only within the context of her definition. Go outside for a little fresh air, and things are not as crystal clear anymore.


Tim-

Another proof against you is adoption. Adoption promotes the family and is clearly not a "technical family".
 
Last edited:
I have been the biggest advocate on this forum for the family argument of same sex marriage. I can point out entire threads that I have dedicated to that argument. Don't even do that strawman bull**** with me.

Hmm.. Odd, your accusation of a strawman doesn't address my assertion. I did not say you don't believe that SS couples can have families, what I said is that YOU and many others have argued that marriage has nothing to do with family, AND that society's (the State) interest in marriage isn't about children and family at all.. Am I wrong? Do I need to perform a search, and if I find some daming evidence that you DID in fact hold this position will be a man about it?


Tim-
 
Right, and that's my point. Remove the subjectivity, and you are left with only one defining criterion. When issues become muddy, you need to wash them by beginning at the beginning. The question is does SSM marriage promote family? Well, the answer, all things being equal, is a firm no! If the question were, "Does SSM promote my defintion of a family", YourStar must answer in the affirmative. However, lacking certain natural and intrinsic characterstics her definition may be, she is still correct, but only within the context of her definition. Go outside for a little fresh air, and things are not as crystal clear anymore.


Tim-

You are saying that marriage does not promote family? That clears up a lot and makes sense of most of your illogical rantings...
 
Nothing to "bite"
Nor is there anything to refute, what you said was simply untrue

Which part dont you get? what you said is only your opinion and thats a FACT.
You called everybody else's opinion subjective and clamied your opinion was fact and objective but thats simply not true. You opinion is simply just that, opinion and subjective. Just like the rest.

Of course you can TRY and use adjectives like, REAL, TRUE, NATURAL ect ect but thats just a false front and deflecting the truth and actual REAL TRUE topic lol and thats FAMILY period

Accept it or not, tomorrow the facts will remian the same and what you said was subjective and nothing more than opinion. :D


Hmm.. And this refutes my assertion how exactly? Let's play a game. How else would you prove two parents killed in a plane crash were the parents of little Jimmy who survived the crash? Let's assume that the parents have no identifiable features, only their DNA? So, refute that, and you'll have my attention.

Tim-
 
Hmm.. Odd, your accusation of a strawman doesn't address my assertion. I did not say you don't believe that SS couples can have families, what I said is that YOU and many others have argued that marriage has nothing to do with family, AND that society's (the State) interest in marriage isn't about children and family at all.. Am I wrong? Do I need to perform a search, and if I find some daming evidence that you DID in fact hold this position will be a man about it?


Tim-

I have never argued that marriage has nothing to do with family. That is your strawman. Present your evidence that I have made that argument or shut the **** up. In fact, I was the first person to point out to Jerry that 6-8 million children were being raised by gay parents and same sex couples.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-legalize-gay-marriage-92.html#post1058437501
 
Another proof against you is adoption. Adoption promotes the family and is clearly not a "technical family".

Right you are.. I never said it didn't, nor did I say that YourStar's version of family and her opinon was inconsistent, only that it flies in the face of what nature considers to be athe fundamental family.

Tim-
 
You are saying that marriage does not promote family? That clears up a lot and makes sense of most of your illogical rantings...

I'm saying that heterosexual marriage is the best suited form to promote the natural family.


Tim-
 
Right you are.. I never said it didn't, nor did I say that YourStar's version of family and her opinon was inconsistent, only that it flies in the face of what nature considers to be athe fundamental family.

Tim-

Nature doesn't consider "family" to be anything as that is a human concept.
 
Right you are.. I never said it didn't, nor did I say that YourStar's version of family and her opinon was inconsistent, only that it flies in the face of what nature considers to be athe fundamental family.

Tim-

So nature is suddenly a sentient conscious being with an opinion on what constitutes a family and what does not?
 
Right you are.. I never said it didn't, nor did I say that YourStar's version of family and her opinon was inconsistent, only that it flies in the face of what nature considers to be athe fundamental family.

Tim-

Regarding humans, nature promotes polygamy.
 
Hmm.. And this refutes my assertion how exactly? Let's play a game. How else would you prove two parents killed in a plane crash were the parents of little Jimmy who survived the crash? Let's assume that the parents have no identifiable features, only their DNA? So, refute that, and you'll have my attention.

Tim-
Why would i waste time refuting something that is MEANINGLESS to the dabate at hand and doesnt change it at all? LMAO
 
So nature is suddenly a sentient conscious being with an opinion on what constitutes a family and what does not?

Well if intelligence is merely organized information I don't think calling nature sentient is a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Well if inteligence is merly organised information I don't think calling nature sentiant is a big deal.

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 have never argued that marriage has nothing to do with family. That is your strawman. Present your evidence that I have made that argument or shut the **** up. In fact, I was the first person to point out to Jerry that 6-8 million children were being raised by gay parents and same sex couples.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-legalize-gay-marriage-92.html#post1058437501

Meant having kids, as in, marriage has nothing to do with having kids, necessarily, and that, society shouldn't restrict, or limit marriage simply because a couple cannot produce children. Now, because I'm inherently lazy, I'll retract my comment if this is not your now stated position, but if I happen to come across where my memory thinks your position is/was, then I'll post it, but for now, if you say you didn't say it, or hold that position then I will formally retract it.

Tim-
 
Right you are.. I never said it didn't, nor did I say that YourStar's version of family and her opinon was inconsistent, only that it flies in the face of what nature considers to be athe fundamental family.

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?
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that heterosexual marriage is the best suited form to promote the natural family.


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.
 
Meant having kids, as in, marriage has nothing to do with having kids, necessarily, and that, society shouldn't restrict, or limit marriage simply because a couple cannot produce children. Now, because I'm inherently lazy, I'll retract my comment if this is not your now stated position, but if I happen to come across where my memory thinks your position is/was, then I'll post it, but for now, if you say you didn't say it, or hold that position then I will formally retract it.

Tim-

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!
 
Nature doesn't consider "family" to be anything as that is a human concept.

Kal, I love ya, but what else would you call it? I mean if you want to go even further you could say that all humans are family I suppose. How about we limit it to offspring though for the sake of meaningful dialogue. :)


Tim-
 
Right you are.. I never said it didn't, nor did I say that YourStar's version of family and her opinon was inconsistent, only that it flies in the face of what nature considers to be athe fundamental family.

Tim-

Did you just say "Nature" and fundemental family?

LMAO

wow, your hole was deep before but now its even deeper.

What does nature have to do with family?

many things in NATURE dont do family or do polygamy or do homosexual acts or do incest and rape etc etc

this is what happens when your points are nothing but meaningless strawmen and nothing more than your OPINION that you try to argue as fact BUT majorly fail.
 
Back
Top Bottom