• 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
CriticalThought said:
When did same sex marriage advocates present this terminology?
Click to expand...

That can't be a serious question....it's like asking "since when was the sky blue"...You've never been on a DP thread when pro-SSM start pulling out the "marriage is a strictly legal contract" arguments? "Gays have a right to contract" doesn't ring a bell? What about "pooling resources" or "legal benefits of marriage"? Ever see a demonstration where gays refer to each other as "partner"...and after a short time of seeing gays you realize that "partner" is what they keep calling each other? When the Mayor of SF says to a mass-wedding "I now pronounce you partners alike"....you never heard any of this?
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...

Don't tell me what my beliefs are, I have always said that SSM promotes family, but it is not the only argument for SSM.

Also there is adoption, surrogacy, invetro, sex with the opposite sex, all ways LGBT people can have a family. I really don't know what your arguing here, are you saying that LGBT people don't have families? Because reality proves you wrong.
 
Originally Posted by DiAnna
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
Click to expand...

So a childless couple would not qualify as "family"? Really?
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

Isn't that funny.........you guys need to fix that.


portrait-get-serious-500.jpg
 
Dutch said:
Not in my neck of the woods. Do I just chalk this up to......cultural differences?
Click to expand...

No idea... but if it is occurring, it is occurring. Permeating would indicate that it has started and might just well end up being the new PC term that everybody uses in 50-100 years... who knows.
 
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...

I agree. If my gall called me her "partner" I'd take it as an insult because "partner" doesn't denote any level of affection or intimacy.

I suspect that straight couples who call each other "partner" do so to make their gay friends feel more accepted. IMO it's the gay friends who should start calling their significant other "husband" or "wife" as appropriate.
 
Your Star said:
Don't tell me what my beliefs are, I have always said that SSM promotes family, but it is not the only argument for SSM.

Also there is adoption, surrogacy, invetro, sex with the opposite sex, all ways LGBT people can have a family. I really don't know what your arguing here, are you saying that LGBT people don't have families? Because reality proves you wrong.
Click to expand...

Whoa now, if you're married to your woman, having sex with anyone other than her is adultery; even if consensual. That's beyond the bounds of gay marriage, you're crossing a line on a fundamental level there. I don't care what form of marriage is at hand, you don't have sex with anyone but your spouse(s).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Hicup
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...
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't about kids, it is about two people joining together legally and often religiously. Kids can and generally are a by-product of the union. Is it really that difficult of a concept to understand?


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-
Click to expand...

The amusement begins and ends with such short sighted and limited understanding such as you are displaying... a same sex couple can adopt just as an opposite sex couple can. They can be willed care of children when natural parents die. They can, as you say, use gene splicing...

What is an opposite sex couple without children known as if not as a family? Can you simply apply that logic to same sex couples and grow up a bit? Thanks...
 
Bodhisattva said:
No idea... but if it is occurring, it is occurring. Permeating would indicate that it has started and might just well end up being the new PC term that everybody uses in 50-100 years... who knows.
Click to expand...

I'll believe it when I, err, hear it. So, far it's only one of our posters. I'm thinking it's the kids screwing up the language.......again.
 
Jerry said:
I agree. If my gall called me her "partner" I'd take it as an insult because "partner" doesn't denote any level of affection or intimacy.

I suspect that straight couples who call each other "partner" do so to make their gay friends feel more accepted. IMO it's the gay friends who should start calling their significant other "husband" or "wife" as appropriate.
Click to expand...

I know a couple of gays that do call their partners "wife", both lesbian couples. They are both "wives" to each other. And I agree it is about being PC and appeasing or feeling more accepted to gays. There is no need for that though...

Dutch
Well, maybe a really sucky one.
Click to expand...

Are you striving for the irrelevant clown of the year award?
 
Dutch said:
I'll believe it when I, err, hear it. So, far it's only one of our posters. I'm thinking it's the kids screwing up the language.......again.
Click to expand...

When hundreds of adults are doing it it is not kids...
 
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...

So - 1/3 Lesbian households have children; and 1/5 of gay male households are raising children.

Same-Sex Households with Children in the United States

People have past relationships before coming out that result in children; adopt; make surrogate arrangements; take in foster children; raise God-children...

The only difference is while most heterosexual households do have kids; most same-sex households do not - but many do. Straight couples who choose not to have kids shouldn't have their rights restricted - nor do they "hate" traditional families. In the same way, same-sex households should be restricted in their rights, nor do they hate traditional families.

But - if the Iowa constitutional amendment should pass, it would make those same-sex households who have children families of divorce immediately. So I hardly see how that is "supporting family".
 
Dutch said:
I'll believe it when I, err, hear it. So, far it's only one of our posters. I'm thinking it's the kids screwing up the language.......again.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying, but this is America, we started out with a melting pot of bastardized versions of English and have only made it worse with time....there's not much left to ruin, yo.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
So - 1/3 Lesbian households have children; and 1/5 of gay male households are raising children.

Same-Sex Households with Children in the United States

People have past relationships before coming out that result in children; adopt; make surrogate arrangements; take in foster children; raise God-children...

The only difference is while most heterosexual households do have kids; most same-sex households do not - but many do. Straight couples who choose not to have kids shouldn't have their rights restricted - nor do they "hate" traditional families. In the same way, same-sex households should be restricted in their rights, nor do they hate traditional families.

But - if the Iowa constitutional amendment should pass, it would make those same-sex households who have children families of divorce immediately. So I hardly see how that is "supporting family".
Click to expand...

Married couples who are not raising children should be arrested for defrauding the state.
 
Jerry said:
I agree. If my gall called me her "partner" I'd take it as an insult because "partner" doesn't denote any level of affection or intimacy.

I suspect that straight couples who call each other "partner" do so to make their gay friends feel more accepted. IMO it's the gay friends who should start calling their significant other "husband" or "wife" as appropriate.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you here. Again, I don't really care what people call one another, but "partner" has worked its way into the lexicon (shortened from "life partner"), and it will not be easy to remove.

How the word got there, though, was the result trying to come up with something other than "husband" or "wife" when they couldn't be legally married.

And, "partner" is nowhere near as annoying as "significant other". Who the hell came up with that one. I laugh about that one to this day.
 
Jerry said:
Married couples who are not raising children should be arrested for defrauding the state.
Click to expand...

Do you favor forced adoption for those who are biologically unable to have kids?

I can just see it. Government knocks on the door with two orphans and says, "They're legally your responsibility now."
 
Jerry said:
I know what you're saying, but this is America, we started out with a melting pot of bastardized versions of English and have only made it worse with time....there's not much left to ruin, yo.
Click to expand...

Don't try to explain. It was my generation that thought up..........groovy. Ugh, what were we thinking.
picard-facepalm2.jpg
 
FilmFestGuy said:
I actually agree with you here. Again, I don't really care what people call one another, but "partner" has worked its way into the lexicon (shortened from "life partner"), and it will not be easy to remove.

How the word got there, though, was the result trying to come up with something other than "husband" or "wife" when they couldn't be legally married.

And, "partner" is nowhere near as annoying as "significant other". Who the hell came up with that one. I laugh about that one to this day.
Click to expand...

I think it's funny that we have all these names and labels for what someone is to us...until the relationship ends; then they're just the "ex" :mrgreen:
 
Dutch said:
Note to self.......new zealanders have no known sense of humor. Check.

SuperStock_1826R-7514.jpg
Click to expand...


What is worse is that I am an American...
 
Jerry said:
I think it's funny that we have all these names and labels for what someone is to us...until the relationship ends; then they're just the "ex" :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I toss in "my crazy" before ex... makes it much more accurate.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Do you favor forced adoption for those who are biologically unable to have kids?

I can just see it. Government knocks on the door with two orphans and says, "They're legally your responsibility now."
Click to expand...

I think that when you marry you are voluntarily applying for the job as parent. That's what marriage is all about, that's the state's "compelling interest" in violating your right to privacy and sticking it's noes in your relationships in the first place.

If you don't want to do the job, that's fine, the State can just annul/divorce you.
 
Last edited:
Dutch said:
Don't try to explain. It was my generation that thought up..........groovy. Ugh, what were we thinking.
picard-facepalm2.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah but "boss" is back, though...not all is lost.

We use it a little differently now than then....instead of "that's boss" it's "like a boss", but basically the same meaning.
 
Jerry said:
Whoa now, if you're married to your woman, having sex with anyone other than her is adultery; even if consensual. That's beyond the bounds of gay marriage, you're crossing a line on a fundamental level there. I don't care what form of marriage is at hand, you don't have sex with anyone but your spouse(s).
Click to expand...

I was talking about before the marriage, not during the marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom