• 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
CT -
So you never watched TV? You never went to school? You never read a book about families? I don't know how you could throw a rock in our modern culture and not hit something that is used to socizlize people to want families.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. So what you might be implying is that we could also be socialized to be heterosexual, or homosexual as well then? Hmm.. Interesting thought? :)

Sex is the greatest scheme that nature has ever devised. Undoubtedly sex tricks animals into procreating. However, sex in and of itself is not the desire for children. Just because you want sex does not mean you want kids. The market for condoms and contraceptives would dry up awfully quick if everyone who wanted to have sex also wanted to have kids.

Also, you aren't really thinking this through are you? How many movies of virgin teenagers wanting to get it on have you seen? They don't know what sex feels like so why do they want it? Does every teenage boy want to have a baby? I mean come on dude, it's a pretty dumb ass argument to make
Click to expand...

No not dumb. Just incredibly short sighted of you to not realize that the unconscious desire to procreate drives the sexual process.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
CT -

Hmm.. So what you might be implying is that we could also be socialized to be heterosexual, or homosexual as well then? Hmm.. Interesting thought? :)
Click to expand...

Really dude? Is this how far your intellectual dishonesty has gone?

No not dumb. Just incredibly short sighted of you to not realize that the unconscious desire to procreate drives the sexual process.
Click to expand...

Unconscious? Oh, so now we are bringing Freudian concepts into this. So does that mean you sexually desired your mother when you were growing up?
 
CriticalThought said:
ROFL! Exactly! Biologists only use the term "family" to refer to a taxonomic rank. Not in the sense that you use it. As in humans belong to the family hominda. You just proved yourself wrong!

No Biologist uses the word "family" the way you are trying to use it.
Click to expand...

Hehe, no, no, you're missing it again, CT. Family fits squarely between order, and genus and in biological terms a species, or family of humans within the species is affected by the natural pressures within their sphere. An orange grown in California is biologically different than one grown in Florida. Likewise, branches of humans look different than others, and although human, uniquely so.


Tim-
 
CriticalThought said:
Really dude? Is this how far your intellectual dishonesty has gone?
Click to expand...

Not so fast.. Not dishonest, just trying to paint you into a corner. It's what I do.. :)



Unconscious? Oh, so now we are bringing Freudian concepts into this. So does that mean you sexually desired your mother when you were growing up?
Click to expand...

Does not compute? I'm not sure I understand your avoidence?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Hehe, no, no, you're missing it again, CT. Family fits squarely between order, and genus and in biological terms a species, or family of humans within the species is affected by the natural pressures within their sphere. An orange grown in California is biologically different than one grown in Florida. Likewise, branches of humans look different than others, and although human, uniquely so.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Wow, that was the dumbest BS you have pulled out yet.

FYI, the taxonomy for all humans, regardless of where they live on the planet is...

Kingdom: Animal

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Genus : Homo

Species: Sapiens

Go take a 9th grade biology class Tim. Good night.
 
Hicup said:
Not so fast.. Not dishonest, just trying to paint you into a corner. It's what I do.. :)
Click to expand...

You don't paint someone into a corner by making up bullcrap that they never even came close to stating.

Does not compute? I'm not sure I understand your avoidence?
Click to expand...

Unconcious instincts and desires are a Freudian concept. They have been largely abandoned by modern psychiatry and psychology.
 
CriticalThought said:
I don't think same sex marriage will ever be seen as the same as traditional marriage. It's considerably different in that it leads to no procreation.



Oh goody, conspiracy theories. The evil gay agenda will strike again. Haven't heard that one before. :roll:
Click to expand...

Idk what you're talking about as I support a 'marriage reform' which would enable gay-marriage in the process...but at least you know what you're talking about....I assume.
 
Your Star said:
Same sex couples can have kids, and marriage only promotes them having children, care to prove otherwise?
Click to expand...

They can't create offspring.
 
CriticalThought said:
Wow, that was the dumbest BS you have pulled out yet.

FYI, the taxonomy for all humans, regardless of where they live on the planet is...

Kingdom: Animal

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Genus : Homo

Species: Sapiens

Go take a 9th grade biology class Tim. Good night.
Click to expand...

Oh brother.. Ok, so family, heredity, genetics, etc.. NOT biology.. Got it..Moving on now. :)

Tim-
 
CriticalThought said:
You don't paint someone into a corner by making up bullcrap that they never even came close to stating.



Unconcious instincts and desires are a Freudian concept. They have been largely abandoned by modern psychiatry and psychology.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. Well, there's a topic for ya all right there. Might be a useful thread. But needless to say that by unconcious in this context, I extend the notion that whilst one may be cognizant of a particular behavior, why they may be behaviing in a particular manner may not be fully realized. I would say that without that human failing, psychology, and psychiatry would be mostly out of work.. :)


Tim-
 
American said:
They can't create offspring.
Click to expand...

Neither can infertile opposite sex couples. Both infertile opposite sex couples and same sex couples can become families and they can even raise children through either one of the pair fathering or mothering a child, someone else having a child specifically for them, or adoption.
 
roguenuke said:
Neither can infertile opposite sex couples. Both infertile opposite sex couples and same sex couples can become families and they can even raise children through either one of the pair fathering or mothering a child, someone else having a child specifically for them, or adoption.
Click to expand...

are you saying that same sex couples are just the same as reproductively defective opposite sex couples?
 
OscarB63 said:
are you saying that same sex couples are just the same as reproductively defective opposite sex couples?
Click to expand...

It is isn't a defect if they choose to be infertile. Not all infertile couples are that way involuntarily. And there are even some couples who are only infertile with certain other people. They actually can have children with each other, but it would require assistance from a fertility doctor, which could cost them a lot of money or could be risky for the woman to carry the child or risky that the probability of the man's sperm fertilizing the egg is really low or they may just have incompatable RH factors that could put the child at risk in the mother's womb.
 
roguenuke said:
It is isn't a defect if they choose to be infertile. Not all infertile couples are that way involuntarily. And there are even some couples who are only infertile with certain other people. They actually can have children with each other, but it would require assistance from a fertility doctor, which could cost them a lot of money or could be risky for the woman to carry the child or risky that the probability of the man's sperm fertilizing the egg is really low or they may just have incompatable RH factors that could put the child at risk in the mother's womb.
Click to expand...

I just find it funny that whenever a gay supporter tries to make a comparison to a hetero couple/situation to show they are "the same", they always have to use a hetero couple with biological deficiency.

gay couples can't create their own kids and get compared to infertile (ie not normal) hetero couples

the anus is not self lubricating so gay dudes have to use lube, this gets compared to women with arousal problems (aka a deficiency) who have to use lube

etc. etc. etc.

nothing against gays but they are not "the same".

If God/evolution had intended for dudes to bang each other up the old hershey highway they wouldn't need to use astro glide or KY.
 
OscarB63 said:
I just find it funny that whenever a gay supporter tries to make a comparison to a hetero couple/situation to show they are "the same", they always have to use a hetero couple with biological deficiency.

gay couples can't create their own kids and get compared to infertile (ie not normal) hetero couples

the anus is not self lubricating so gay dudes have to use lube, this gets compared to women with arousal problems (aka a deficiency) who have to use lube

etc. etc. etc.

nothing against gays but they are not "the same".

If God/evolution had intended for dudes to bang each other up the old hershey highway they wouldn't need to use astro glide or KY.
Click to expand...

Same goes for post-menopausal women! So, apparently if you bang your wife after she goes dry, you're sinning and shouldn't be allowed to stay married.

Forced divorce after menopause and impotence!
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Same goes for post-menopausal women! So, apparently if you bang your wife after she goes dry, you're sinning and shouldn't be allowed to stay married.

Forced divorce after menopause and impotence!
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed a problem. :shrug: maybe you just don't know what you're doing? :lamo
 
OscarB63 said:
I just find it funny that whenever a gay supporter tries to make a comparison to a hetero couple/situation to show they are "the same", they always have to use a hetero couple with biological deficiency.

gay couples can't create their own kids and get compared to infertile (ie not normal) hetero couples

the anus is not self lubricating so gay dudes have to use lube, this gets compared to women with arousal problems (aka a deficiency) who have to use lube

etc. etc. etc.

nothing against gays but they are not "the same".

If God/evolution had intended for dudes to bang each other up the old hershey highway they wouldn't need to use astro glide or KY.
Click to expand...

Why would sex come into this at all? Not all gay guys have anal sex. And how they have sex is none of yours or my business. And it has absolutely zero to do with marriage or even having a family, besides pointing out that most opposite sex couples nowdays accidentally get pregnant more often than not because of their usual method of having sex for their own pleasure. The majority of even married heterosexual couples do not plan their children. Most of them are not trying to get pregnant when they do. It happens as a consequence of their activities rather than after a planned process to get them ready for having children, which is preferred.

Legal marriage is a contract. The contract grants certain rights and responsibilities to those two people involved that are meant to encourage them to stay together and to help them be more independent of their childhood families by making them more dependent on each other, legally. This helps children that may already be there or that they may want to raise or, in the case of opposite sex couples, that may just come along by accident, because it is important for children to have stability in those that are raising them.

I don't understand what the issue is here. Why is it so important to anti-SSM people that the gays can't produce children with each other? Adoption and raising children that weren't biologically one of the two people's in a relationship isn't new. It has happened pretty much throughout history. And it really isn't even a new concept to have sex outside of a marriage for the sole purpose of reproduction either. And today we have the technology to make it even easier for those couples who can't have children between them to still have children that carry at least on of the two of their DNA without any infidelity involved.

Those families are no less of a family than families like mine where a husband and wife are raising their own biological children. And compared to some families that are like mine, they are even better because those who use other methods to legally raise children that aren't the product of sex between the two people raising the children most likely planned for the child/children they are raising. They are more likely to actually take into account their finances and situation before they think about raising children, and it isn't going to happen by accident.
 
roguenuke said:
Neither can infertile opposite sex couples. Both infertile opposite sex couples and same sex couples can become families and they can even raise children through either one of the pair fathering or mothering a child, someone else having a child specifically for them, or adoption.
Click to expand...

The didn't know they were infertile when the got married.
 
roguenuke said:
Why would sex come into this at all? Not all gay guys have anal sex. And how they have sex is none of yours or my business. And it has absolutely zero to do with marriage or even having a family, besides pointing out that most opposite sex couples nowdays accidentally get pregnant more often than not because of their usual method of having sex for their own pleasure. The majority of even married heterosexual couples do not plan their children. Most of them are not trying to get pregnant when they do. It happens as a consequence of their activities rather than after a planned process to get them ready for having children, which is preferred.

Legal marriage is a contract. The contract grants certain rights and responsibilities to those two people involved that are meant to encourage them to stay together and to help them be more independent of their childhood families by making them more dependent on each other, legally. This helps children that may already be there or that they may want to raise or, in the case of opposite sex couples, that may just come along by accident, because it is important for children to have stability in those that are raising them.

I don't understand what the issue is here. Why is it so important to anti-SSM people that the gays can't produce children with each other? Adoption and raising children that weren't biologically one of the two people's in a relationship isn't new. It has happened pretty much throughout history. And it really isn't even a new concept to have sex outside of a marriage for the sole purpose of reproduction either. And today we have the technology to make it even easier for those couples who can't have children between them to still have children that carry at least on of the two of their DNA without any infidelity involved.

Those families are no less of a family than families like mine where a husband and wife are raising their own biological children. And compared to some families that are like mine, they are even better because those who use other methods to legally raise children that aren't the product of sex between the two people raising the children most likely planned for the child/children they are raising. They are more likely to actually take into account their finances and situation before they think about raising children, and it isn't going to happen by accident.
Click to expand...

See. This is the "frosting on the cake" I was referring too. All of these equivocations are just that - equivocation! If you remove any cultural adaptations, or circumstantial, and material needs, and desires across the board, you're left with one conclusion. Homosexuality, in and of itself does NOT promote family! By extension, homosexual marriage would also not promote family. Any attempts here to somehow place some emphasis on exceptional situations (Sophistry), or to marginalize, or de-emphasize the significance of heterosexual marriage as an appropritate and self evident vehicle for creating famlies is falling on deaf ears.
 
American said:
The didn't know they were infertile when the got married.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Lots of people know they are infertile before they get married. Lots of people decide they don't want children before they are married.
 
CriticalThought said:
What are you talking about? Lots of people know they are infertile before they get married. Lots of people decide they don't want children before they are married.
Click to expand...

What is significant statistically for you to use the term, lots? I don't about you, but almost, if not every parent I know wanted kids, the when, and why may not be as so clear cut among the families I know, but the question of children was never an after-thought. There are tons of situations whereby creating a family is not ideal, even for heterosexuals, mainly where the best interests of the child are concerned; but these are material, and also exceptional. Heterosexual marriage, and by extension homosexual marriage, pin the argument to certain intrinsic characteristics that one infers as important to the underlying conclusion. That is, YourStar's premise. All things being equal, homosxual marriage, IMO does NOT promote families.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
What is significant statistically for you to use the term, lots? I don't about you, but almost, if not every parent I know wanted kids, the when, and why may not be as so clear cut among the families I know, but the question of children was never an after-thought. There are tons of situations whereby creating a family is not ideal, even for heterosexuals, mainly where the best interests of the child are concerned; but these are material, and also exceptional. Heterosexual marriage, and by extension homosexual marriage, pin the argument to certain intrinsic characteristics that one infers as important to the underlying conclusion. That is, YourStar's premise. All things being equal, homosxual marriage, IMO does NOT promote families.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Wow, that was absolute sophistry. You said nothing.

Also the word you were looking for was "immaterial" not "material". If you are going to practice mindless rhetoric then at least use the correct words.

Also, if most parents wanted kids as much as you seem to claim, then abortion and adoption would not exist. You are not even presenting a decent or coherent argument anymore.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
Homosexuality, in and of itself does NOT promote family!
Click to expand...

Heterosexuality alone does not promote family. Just because it can lead to pregnancy does not mean it leads to family. Of course, you use a convoluted definition of family whereby a parent could kill, abondon, or maim their child and they would still be considered family, so I'm sure that point goes right over your head.

And don't accuse people of equivocation when that is purely what you have practiced in this thread, very unskillfully I might add, with your made up definition of family.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Heterosexuality alone does not promote family. Just because it can lead to pregnancy does not mean it leads to family. Of course, you use a convoluted definition of family whereby a parent could kill, abondon, or maim their child and they would still be considered family, so I'm sure that point goes right over your head. And don't accuse people of equivocation when that is purely what you have practiced in this thread, very unskillfully I might add.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. In fact, lots of married heterosexuals are getting abortions. So much higher than that is the gay couple who want to adopt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom