Yes or no, and explain your answer.
I say yes, SSM promotes family just like opposite sex marriage.
Yes it does. I am a married lesbian. My wife and I have two adopted children we have one that she is the birth mother of and I am the biological mother. At the moment she is pregnant with her own egg. I am pregnant for only a few days and i will be the birth mother and she will be the biological mother. Yes it promotes family.
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:
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.
SSM harms the family and society by condoning if not perpetuating the 50% divorce rate and juvenile crime rate.
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.
It's hilarious when Redress thinks I was talking about here, especially when she bases such arrogance on a post where I'm quoting someone else :lol:
It's hilarious when Redress thinks I was talking about here, especially when she bases such arrogance on a post where I'm quoting someone else :lol:
It's hilarious when.....Redress uses key phrases like "hey guess what". Ok, what? You're pro-SSM? Wow I guessed right. Now let me try: Hey guess what Redress. Since you've been on this forum you've never promoted the family in support of SSM unless first challenged by a skeptic. Pro-SSM uses the family argument as a means to an end, not the end itself.
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.
It's hilarious when.....Redress uses key phrases like "hey guess what". Ok, what? You're pro-SSM? Wow I guessed right. Now let me try: Hey guess what Redress. Since you've been on this forum you've never promoted the family in support of SSM unless first challenged by a skeptic. Pro-SSM uses the family argument as a means to an end, not the end itself.
GLBT is all about Equality®, not family.
Actually I did just today Jerry. Wrong again, but what else is new.
Not on this thread at least. Once again you reacted, you didn't take initiative on your own. You didn't post a thread, argument or single post about the benefits of SSM all on your own without being prompted.
Redress posted a response on this thread indicating he believes that that SSM supports the family. This thread, post #2. If that's not good enough for you, too bad.
Of course same sex marriage promotes family. All of the benefits that heterosexual marriages reap are reaped from gay marriage. Positive child rearing, health of the partners, social and financial security, these are all things that promote family and all things that SSM accomplishes.
Oooooo another one. K let's see if I can link them together....ok: Hey guess what Capt'n, I think it's hilarious when you reiterate exactly what I said as though it contradicts what I said...If that's not good enough for you, too bad.
But no seriously you did just reiterate my own words as though doing so is counters what I said which you said I said when you quoted. The whole point was that she responded, not pro-actively campaigned.
Right, see, here again is someone reacting to being questioned. At best it's an afterthought to you people.
Moderator's Warning: |
You are doing nothing here but baiting and trying to start an argument based on nothing. Keep doing it and I will boot you from the thread. |