• 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
Jerry said:
I'm glad you said this, and I'm glad you feel that way.

What I did was reflect pro-SSM's vocabulary back at them to show how they've been disrespectful to the institution all along.
Click to expand...

That has got to be the weakest excuse ever.

By the way Jerry, my default first argument is that SSM is good for families.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Yes. I think that SSM lends a totally different perspective on homosexuality. Rather than being viewed as simply living together or being partners, allowing SSM in itself changes the view to family, because married people ARE family. Thus, rather than appearing as only a "life-style" choice, SSM shows that homosexuals are not some counter-culture, anti-family group that serves the devil, but rather simply PEOPLE who have a family and wish to live it as makes them happy. Ultimately, I believe this is why so many are ardently opposed to SSM, for if just allowed, they fear homosexuality will become widely "accepted" and promoted.
Click to expand...

While most people who oppose SSM usually base their objection on scripture, it's worth pointing out that scripture also bans mixed-religion and mixed-culture (= race) marriages just as much as SSM.

Those things became accepted because they also claimed to promote the family, even while they are in fact higher-risk unions.
 
Jerry said:
I'm glad you said this, and I'm glad you feel that way.

What I did was reflect pro-SSM's vocabulary back at them to show how they've been disrespectful to the institution all along.
Click to expand...

So SSM advocates tell Traditional Marriage advocates what they should call each other? I don't remember seing that. Care to provide some quotes/
 
Redress said:
That has got to be the weakest excuse ever.

By the way Jerry, my default first argument is that SSM is good for families.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not going to make any attempt to hold actual debate if you're gona keep acting like that. The purpose of the post in question was to reflect pro-SSM's vocabulary back at them. You don't have to believe me, but if you have something rude like that to say then as you're a Mod I invite you to say it in the forum where I can respond in kind.
 
roguenuke said:
BTW, are you going to ever address any of my actual points, instead of making these petty comments trying to imply that I don't truly want equality for everyone? Doing so would certainly make your argument look better.
Click to expand...

I was just wondering myself if you were going to address my challenges to your argument.....

Jerry said:
It what way(s) is the current license inadequate? Specific examples of regulation would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
Jerry said:
I apologize for having missed these examples. Would you mind re-posting them?

Just as "husband" and "wife" were replaced with "person 1" and "person 2", all we have to do is add "person 3". Anyone with basic Microsoft Office Word 2011 skills can so alter a form.

I apologize but this sounds a lot like anti-SSM when they say if you let men mary men then you have to let men marry dogs. I think a limit of 4 spouses is reasonable AND established in "the traditions, history and culture of the people"; thus establishing polygamy as a basic human right.

Just add "person 3".

Present regulation regarding "Community Property" require equal shares for each spouse unless there are special considerations which require a hearing.

Yes.

if you were business partners and your partner wanted to add someone as an equal, they would require your consent. This is no different.

2 men rob a bank, are caught, and ordered to testify against each other or get a longer sentence. According to you, we shouldn't allow gay marriage otherwise these 2 men could marry each other to take advantage of Spousal Privilege.
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
So SSM advocates tell Traditional Marriage advocates what they should call each other? I don't remember seing that. Care to provide some quotes/
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone's trying to argue ;)

No no, pro-SSM separate themselves from 'traditional' marriage by using alien terminology. Constant use of "partner" by you're typical gay couple is something which shows that they are not simply a variation on a theme, but something distinctly different.
 
OscarB63 said:
read much? I have said that I have 2 bio and two adopted kids at least twice in this very thread.
Click to expand...
No I am not reading all the posts. I didn't see that so I asked. Why did you adopt? Are you gay or are you defective as has been suggested in this thread?
 
Zyphlin said:
I didn't say its diminished, I said its not "Just like" a straight couple because its not "just like" a straight couple. For it to be "just like" a straight couple a homosexual couple would need to be able to produce a larger family unit through intercourse between the two of them without assistance of outside means in the creation of said child.

That doesn't belittle it or state that ones promotion of family is necessarily "better", but they are not "just like" each other in their ability and their methods of how they are able to do it.

An orange is good for you. An apple is good for you. They both promote good health. They both promote good health in similar ways and in some ways that are exaclty alike. However an orange is not "just like" an apple with regards to how it helps your health.
Click to expand...

I think we're misunderstanding each other, I'm not denying that LGBT couples are different then straight couples, and how they become parents are different. I'm saying that marriage provides the same benefits, family structure, and other incentives to promote people to have children, no matter who is in the marriage.
 
Jerry said:
Sounds like someone's trying to argue ;)

No no, pro-SSM separate themselves from 'traditional' marriage by using alien terminology. Constant use of "partner" by you're typical gay couple is something which shows that they are not simply a variation on a theme, but something distinctly different.
Click to expand...

Well if we were allowed to marry, I'm sure the vernacular would change.
 
Your Star said:
I think we're misunderstanding each other, I'm not denying that LGBT couples are different then straight couples, and how they become parents are different. I'm saying that marriage provides the same benefits, family structure, and other incentives to promote people to have children, no matter who is in the marriage.
Click to expand...

Nope, I get your point clearly, and I'm saying I don't agree. They share many of the same benefits, family structure, and other incentives to promote people to have children and create a family.

However, the primary family structure promoted from opposite sex marriage proportionally is a biological family structure where the additional members of the family are biologically tied to each of the parents and created by the parents. The primary family structure promoted from same sex marriage proportionally is either an adoptive one or one where there is a singular biological link. I do not believe that one of those is necessarily "promoting family" more than the other, both types of marriages tend to promote a stable family structure in some sense. My statement is that they are not "just like" each other in terms of the ways and types of family structures and promotion that occurs.
 
Zyphlin said:
Nope, I get your point clearly, and I'm saying I don't agree. They share many of the same benefits, family structure, and other incentives to promote people to have children and create a family.

However, the primary family structure promoted from opposite sex marriage proportionally is a biological family structure where the additional members of the family are biologically tied to each of the parents and created by the parents. The primary family structure promoted from same sex marriage proportionally is either an adoptive one or one where there is a singular biological link. I do not believe that one of those is necessarily "promoting family" more than the other, both types of marriages tend to promote a stable family structure in some sense. My statement is that they are not "just like" each other in terms of the ways and types of family structures and promotion that occurs.
Click to expand...

Oh okay, I understand you now, and I agree, my whole point is that marriage promotes family just as well, no matter who is in the marriage. Not that the families are similar in how they are formed.
 
OscarB63 said:
I already did it the way nature intended...twice. I just went out of my way to be a good citizen and take a couple more out of the overcrowded system. I'm just asking gay couples to do the same.... aka holding them to the same standard I hold myself.
Click to expand...

I think I'm going to agree with Oscar here.:smileyfart

I think that all newly married couples (gay and straight) should be helping the 'overcrowded system' and choose adoption as a first child-rearing port of call. I don't get the biological urge to pass on genes/blood (however you want to describe it) but do understand the desire to nurture new life. If all newlyweds for a period of, ooh say 10 years, made their first moves into building a family the adoption agency, then the problem of unwanted kids filling an inadequate and impersonal statutory system would ease hugely.
 
Great question... and a trap for those opposed to SSM. Marriage promotes stability and family, they say, just not when same sex couples do it... that is the hypocrisy. I like it! :)
 
Yes it does. Because a family is more than just those with children.

But it does also in cases with children because it is much better for children to be raised in a legally married, two parent household. There are states where adoption for two people is only allowed if the two are legally married.

Being legally married gives an added incentive for a couple to work on their problems rather than just giving up on a relationship. Doesn't work for every couple, but it most likely helps some.

And I really can't think of any way the allowing gay marriage could hurt families.

I would say that SSM promotes families in the same exact way that it does for opposite sex couples that know that they can't have children together or don't want to have children together. Because the only difference between every same sex couple and every opposite sex couple is their relative sexes. The ability to procreate with each other is only a difference between all same sex couples and most opposite sex couples, yet all opposite sex couples are allowed to legally marry.
 
Jerry said:
No, you're a "strictly legal contracted" woman. And she's not your 'wife', she's your "partner". This is the vocabulary your side has presented, and is one way we know that pro-SSM is not about the family. You're about just whatever feels good, whatever that may be. In your case, specifically, at best you're the broken watch.
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read this and wondered which century we were in for a moment.

Jerry said:
SSM harms the family and society by condoning if not perpetuating the 50% divorce rate and juvenile crime rate.
Click to expand...

Same sex marriage families are (I believe) some of the most stable families around. What is important to societies children is that they are brought up by loving parents, the ideal of one male and one female is a rarity and cannot be used as a guide for what "family" means.
 
OscarB63 said:
plain english. unless "ONLY" is specified, the meaning of the statement is not an absolute. you are just nit-picking semantics because you can't refute the basic premise.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Plain English. Unless the word "some" is used, the statement IS an absolute. Don't blame others for being unclear with your statement.
 
Zyphlin said:
I didn't say its diminished, I said its not "Just like" a straight couple because its not "just like" a straight couple. For it to be "just like" a straight couple a homosexual couple would need to be able to produce a larger family unit through intercourse between the two of them without assistance of outside means in the creation of said child.

That doesn't belittle it or state that ones promotion of family is necessarily "better", but they are not "just like" each other in their ability and their methods of how they are able to do it.

An orange is good for you. An apple is good for you. They both promote good health. They both promote good health in similar ways and in some ways that are exaclty alike. However an orange is not "just like" an apple with regards to how it helps your health.
Click to expand...
Truthfully, Zyph. This sounds like a lot of sematical mumbo-jumbo to me. There are plenty of straight marriages that create very non-traditional families. And yet, in the larger sense, they to create a beneficial atmosphere that promotes family in the same way as a traditional family does. All the benefits are there… positive child rearing, partner health, social/financial stability. For these things, biology is irrelevant. Now, if you are saying that the nuances of the family will be different, I would agree. But then again, we'll see different nuances in most families. In the big picture, the two are "just like".
 
Jerry said:
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. You're one of those people who react with "yeah but the bible also bans shellfish and mixed fabrics"...and then crums when an anti-SSM says "what about polygamy, then". Your arguments are equivocation top-to-bottom.

GLBT is all about Equality®, not family.
Click to expand...

Of curse The GLBT is about equality. That is what they want. They want equality in marriage which creates families. Well used to create familes. The heterosexuals now have divorce over 50%. But it is supposed to create family and family is the basis of marriage. So yes it does create family and promotes good parenting. All the assets that family brings to the table fit under the umbrella of equality. Just because they are seeking equality does not change in any way or alter the idea that marriage is about family and family values. So you are wrong to think that eoquality cannot and does not create family.
 
In the end, it does not matter if marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) promotes family.
It’s all about liberty and the right of consenting adults to create social unions freely.
 
peepnklown said:
In the end, it does not matter if marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) promotes family.
It’s all about liberty and the right of consenting adults to create social unions freely.
Click to expand...

You're right. The more relevant question is, "Should it?" Not in my book. People taking their family responsibilities seriously is the only thing that will promote family life. I don't think you need a piece of official paper to do that.
 
Your Star said:
Well if we were allowed to marry, I'm sure the vernacular would change.
Click to expand...

I had a "wife" before I was legally married. What's stopping you?

Also, my mother in-law is "married" in every sense except legally to her man. They had the ceremony, they wear the rings, the family regards them as husband and wife (oh excuse me...the family regards them as spouse 1 and spouse 2....). Now, the reason why they don't legally marry is because they have to play a game with their disability and SS benefits to pay for their medical needs. On paper they're roommates.

My point is nothing is stopping them form having the relationship, and they don't need the law to validate who they are to each-other. So, why do you?

edit:
LOL let me toss this reversal at you: Right now I'm still legally married to my X. SHE IS NOT MY "WIFE", even though the law says she is. We don't refer to each-other as husband or wife even though we have the "strictly legal contract" stating otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you need to have your marriage legally recognized by the state to have it validated in your own mind.

I do think you need to have it that way though to have it validated in the mind of the government and many actors who rely on the governments validation.

And since there is equal protection under the LAW, the fact you can personal validation is irrelevant as an excuse why you should get less legal validation then someone else.
 
Jerry said:
I had a "wife" before I was legally married. What's stopping you?

Also, my mother in-law is "married" in every sense except legally to her man. They had the ceremony, they wear the rings, the family regards them as husband and wife (oh excuse me...the family regards them as spouse 1 and spouse 2....). Now, the reason why they don't legally marry is because they have to play a game with their disability and SS benefits to pay for their medical needs. On paper they're roommates.

My point is nothing is stopping them form having the relationship, and they don't need the law to validate who they are to each-other. So, why do you?

edit:
LOL let me toss this reversal at you: Right now I'm still legally married to my X. SHE IS NOT MY "WIFE", even though the law says she is. We don't refer to each-other as husband or wife even though we have the "strictly legal contract" stating otherwise.
Click to expand...

When did I say it was stopping me? I plan to whenever I find who I want to marry to marry her in a church. No matter if it will be legally recognized at that time or not. The whole issue here is why should the government not recognize my marriage, just because it is between two women?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom