• 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
What is worse is that I am an American...



Noooooooooooo............
anguish.jpg



.........wait, you must be a liberal. Well, that would explain it doctor.

doctor.jpg
 
I was talking about before the marriage, not during the marriage.

Well then we're having a different kind of discussion which applies to heteros and gays, as I would argue that you have no right to create a child outside of a stable home. That child is not your body, it's not your life you're messing up there. Any child deserves both parents.

If you were playing around and got pregnant, imo that should be a crime because you are harming that child.

If the child is from a previous marriage, I already argue that no parent with small children should re-marry (I live this one, btw), so that would apply to my view of gays marrying as well.
 
Last edited:
Noooooooooooo............[/SIZE]


.........wait, you must be a liberal. Well, that would explain it doctor.

STRIKE TWO!!

I am a middle leaning conservative. ;)
 
And this means what exactly?

It means "sometimes", as in between 'not never' and 'not always', with information describing the frequency of occurrence.

Of those gay couples with children, how many should not be married for other reasons; step-parent, to young, cross race, cross religion, significant money problems, abuse?

I'm sure we could whittle those numbers down even further.
 
Last edited:
It means "sometimes", as in between 'not never' and 'not always', with information describing the frequency of occurrence.

Of those gay couples with children, how many should not be married for other reasons; step-parent, to young, cross race, cross religion, significant money problems, abuse?

I'm sure we could whittle those numbers down even further.

So you don't think that people without children wouldn't have children if marriage was available to them?
 
Practicing Catholic are you?

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.
 
Then you practive your own relativity...and clearly think only whaT you think can be correct...it must be awful living as your very own god...


I'm not sure why Bodhisattva is arguing with you as he clearly agrees with that position on moral relativity and subjective definitions....


Bodhisattva said himself that he makes his own definitions. I don't know about others, but like food I make what I like. I imagine others make things they like, including definitions.
 
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.

Ah, and there are many families, that's why I said "technically" in my post. I was drawing off of Zyphlin's comment a few pages back about likening SSM to OSM, and what comes from them. You realize that a "family" consisting of two parents producing a child that contains the biological imprint from each parent is considered a technical family, whereby, should all that ever remain of an individual be genetic material, the parents of that individual could be identified. Families of animals of every other species on Earth are clearly tracable through their genetic material. It is only humans that have the power to consider a family something other than what nature does.

My point was that, SSM does not promote family in the technical sense, just like adoption doesn't. What it does do is complicate the natural order of the family, when leaving aside any material definition of family outside of what we biologically identify a family to be. Put it this way. As scientists are eagerly putting together the puzzle of human acenstory, they're tracking families, not by any other means than that of matching DNA, and the penetration and percent of that DNA within genomes. They can't tell if anyone was gay, or adopted or whatever, only that the familial ties that bind are, in themselves, unmistakable.

So, since this definition of what constitutes a family is ... Well, true, then what is your definition of a family? Is it a cultural definition, perhaps a manufactured definition out of some convienence that undoubtedly serves some political purpose? Can an adopted parent, gay, transexual, whatever person love their child, even though both parents do not share their DNA to produce the offspring? Of they can, but are they family? That's the point (I think) Zyphlin was making, and I agree.

As to my point about SSM proponents first making a mockery of marriage, and then now embracing the concept in terms of first and foremost being that of the best way to produce and raise children is laughable, inconsistent, and you, and CT, and many others are hypocrits for straddling the proverbial fence. My point about society, marriage, children is that OSM proponents have been making this rational argument for years, and it is dismissed, muddied by you folks, and diminished as unimportant to those that argue for equity in the law, yet, now that you seem confident that marriage rights are just around the corner, you are agreeing with those very same folks that clung to the "marriage is about children and raising them" argument, and that society has every right to protect that arrangement.

In short, you lack credibility!


Tim-
 
So you don't think that people without children wouldn't have children if marriage was available to them?

The Triple negative is throwing me off... can you rephrase?
 
So you don't think that people without children wouldn't have children if marriage was available to them?

I'm saying they're in the wrong for making children outside of marriage, and if that child already knows a mother and father, that neither parent should marry anyone other than each other until that child is 18.
 
Then you practive your own relativity...and clearly think only whaT you think can be correct...it must be awful living as your very own god...

Not really...I mean, consider it....I am both a loyal following and a benevolent ruler....self governance...it's a win/win.
 
Last edited:
Yes or no, and explain your answer.

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

YES
of course the common sense answer is always yes.

Now if you want to argue marriage PERIOD doesnt promote family then fine have that argument but theres no difference between the two.

Marriage and family are what people make them so if you think marriage promotes family then ALL marriage does and if you dont you think it depends on the people involved than that also applaies to ALL marriage.

This is a pretty cut and dry question.
 
The Triple negative is throwing me off... can you rephrase?

Well we know that any 2 negatives would cancel each other out, leaving the remaining negative, so let's try them out....

So you _ think that people without children wouldn't have children if marriage was available to them?

This is the one I went with.
So you don't think that people with children wouldn't have children if marriage was available to them?

if someone has children, and is not married, they shouldn't marry anyone other than the person that child knows as their parent until that child turns 18.

So you don't think that people without children would have children if marriage was available to them?

I think childless couples would look at raising children as an option were they married.
 
Ah, and there are many families, that's why I said "technically" in my post. I was drawing off of Zyphlin's comment a few pages back about likening SSM to OSM, and what comes from them. You realize that a "family" consisting of two parents producing a child that contains the biological imprint from each parent is considered a technical family, whereby, should all that ever remain of an individual be genetic material, the parents of that individual could be identified. Families of animals of every other species on Earth are clearly tracable through their genetic material. It is only humans that have the power to consider a family something other than what nature does.

My point was that, SSM does not promote family in the technical sense, just like adoption doesn't. What it does do is complicate the natural order of the family, when leaving aside any material definition of family outside of what we biologically identify a family to be. Put it this way. As scientists are eagerly putting together the puzzle of human acenstory, they're tracking families, not by any other means than that of matching DNA, and the penetration and percent of that DNA within genomes. They can't tell if anyone was gay, or adopted or whatever, only that the familial ties that bind are, in themselves, unmistakable.

So, since this definition of what constitutes a family is ... Well, true, then what is your definition of a family? Is it a cultural definition, perhaps a manufactured definition out of some convienence that undoubtedly serves some political purpose? Can an adopted parent, gay, transexual, whatever person love their child, even though both parents do not share their DNA to produce the offspring? Of they can, but are they family? That's the point (I think) Zyphlin was making, and I agree.

As to my point about SSM proponents first making a mockery of marriage, and then now embracing the concept in terms of first and foremost being that of the best way to produce and raise children is laughable, inconsistent, and you, and CT, and many others are hypocrits for straddling the proverbial fence. My point about society, marriage, children is that OSM proponents have been making this rational argument for years, and it is dismissed, muddied by you folks, and diminished as unimportant to those that argue for equity in the law, yet, now that you seem confident that marriage rights are just around the corner, you are agreeing with those very same folks that clung to the "marriage is about children and raising them" argument, and that society has every right to protect that arrangement.

In short, you lack credibility!


Tim-

I you want two heterosexual parents with their own children to mean to have a distinct meaning from other mentioned situations, then you need to come up with your own new term. Family encompasses more than what you want, just as marriage does. Call your type of family, family type 1, or something, but it is pretty laughable and extremely pathetic watching you attempt to hi-jack a common term that applies directly to other types of families...
 
I you want two heterosexual parents with their own children to mean to have a distinct meaning from other mentioned situations, then you need to come up with your own new term. Family encompasses more than what you want, just as marriage does. Call your type of family, family type 1, or something, but it is pretty laughable and extremely pathetic watching you attempt to hi-jack a common term that applies directly to other types of families...

He already has the term "Nuclear Family", which is a term that does not apply to same-sex couples. What, then, shall we call same-sex couples?
 
I you want two heterosexual parents with their own children to mean to have a distinct meaning from other mentioned situations, then you need to come up with your own new term. Family encompasses more than what you want, just as marriage does. Call your type of family, family type 1, or something, but it is pretty laughable and extremely pathetic watching you attempt to hi-jack a common term that applies directly to other types of families...

No, what I am attempting to do is clear the air. Whatever "type" of family you wish to have, or I, or anyone, lays no bearing on the fact that a family in any natural sense can only ever be one thing. Any cultural meaning of a family is just that. Cultural. It's a human construction, and it's subjective. The family I define is completely objective, free of dirty water.


Tim-
 
No, what I am attempting to do is clear the air. Whatever "type" of family you wish to have, or I, or anyone, lays no bearing on the fact that a family in any natural sense can only ever be one thing. Any cultural meaning of a family is just that. Cultural. It's a human construction, and it's subjective. The family I define is completely objective, free of dirty water.

You understand this sentence totally condridicts itself right?

Your definition is also subjective and is NOT objective at all nor is YOUR opinioin of what a family is in any natural sense a fact.

If you want to clear the air, the only fact here is that your OPINIONS ARE the dirty water.
 
He already has the term "Nuclear Family", which is a term that does not apply to same-sex couples. What, then, shall we call same-sex couples?

Nuclear Family... fine. Call a same sex family a Same Sex Family... the common usage of the term "family" applies to both still, problem solved. Next issue?

Originally Posted by Hiccup
No, what I am attempting to do is clear the air. Whatever "type" of family you wish to have, or I, or anyone, lays no bearing on the fact that a family in any natural sense can only ever be one thing. Any cultural meaning of a family is just that. Cultural. It's a human construction, and it's subjective. The family I define is completely objective, free of dirty water.

Right, a "Family" is a grouping. Once that is understood, attempting to limit some groups from using the term is illogical.
 
Nuclear Family... fine. Call a same sex family a Same Sex Family... the common usage of the term "family" applies to both still, problem solved. Next issue?

Same-Sex Family implies that everyone is the same sex and gay....it doesn't work...

Right, a "Family" is a grouping. Once that is understood, attempting to limit some groups from using the term is illogical.

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.

pro-SSM said:
But not all light frequency is the same...what about light frequencies just below 490nm? Huh? Huh internet tough guy? You have all teh answers.

Well light frequency just below the 490nm range is called "blue".

Pro-SSM said:
ZOMG who are you to tell light frequencies what to call themselves!!

That's just what it's called...

Pro-SSM said:
Maybe that's what your church tells you to think but in the real world light frequencies are free to call themselves purple if they want!!

Well sure a light frequency of 700nm-635nm could call itself "purple" all day but that doesn't mean it's actually in the 450nm-400nm range.

Pro-SSM said:
ZOMGRFOL ur a Chromatophobiac lulz kthnxby LMAO
 
Last edited:
Nuclear Family... fine. Call a same sex family a Same Sex Family... the common usage of the term "family" applies to both still, problem solved. Next issue?



Right, a "Family" is a grouping. Once that is understood, attempting to limit some groups from using the term is illogical.

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.
 
You understand this sentence totally condridicts itself right?

Your definition is also subjective and is NOT objective at all nor is YOUR opinioin of what a family is in any natural sense a fact.

If you want to clear the air, the only fact here is that your OPINIONS ARE the dirty water.

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-
 
Nuclear Family... fine. Call a same sex family a Same Sex Family... the common usage of the term "family" applies to both still, problem solved. Next issue?



Right, a "Family" is a grouping. Once that is understood, attempting to limit some groups from using the term is illogical.

Right a "grouping" Well lets pull off their finger prints, and remove their teeth. Now what are they?

Tim-
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom