• 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
katiegrrl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that gays are currently contributing to that 50% divorce rate.
 
Your Star said:
When did I say it was stopping me?
Click to expand...

That's all I got from your post:
Your Star said:
Well if we were allowed to marry, I'm sure the vernacular would change.
Click to expand...


Your Star said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's something else I don't relate to: Why do you need a church? I didn't. She was my "wife" before we went to the courthouse, and it wasn't until years later that we had a ceremony in a church.
 
Jerry said:
T
That's something else I don't relate to: Why do you need a church? I didn't. She was my "wife" before we went to the courthouse, and it wasn't until years later that we had a ceremony in a church.
Click to expand...

Well, why did YOU want to have a church ceremony? Even years later?
 
Jerry said:
That's all I got from your post:
Click to expand...

I was talking about the common language between LGBT people, and what people refer to LGBT couples as. It's not just LGBT people who refer to their significant other as partners. I personally don't.

That's something else I don't relate to: Why do you need a church? I didn't. She was my "wife" before we went to the courthouse, and it wasn't until years later that we had a ceremony in a church.
Click to expand...

Well first off I want to get married in a church because I'm Christian, also at this point I couldn't get married in a courthouse if I wanted too. I don't get your point here.
 
Your Star said:
I was talking about the common language between LGBT people, and what people refer to LGBT couples as. It's not just LGBT people who refer to their significant other as partners. I personally don't.
Click to expand...

It's a difference in life experiences, I suppose. I've never met a straight couple who referred to their significant other as "partner". "Partner" is what you call a co-owner in your business or legal firm. The term denotes professionalism, not personal intimacy. When a gay says to me "this is my partner" they're saying "this is my professional associate". Even the Air Force's "wing-man" or the Army's "battle-buddy" is a closer relationship than "partner".

Why not use the vocabulary everyone else uses so that we know what that person is to you? So you're both the same sex...we're supposed to overlook that because you allege you're just a variation on a theme. Fine, another variation on a theme is a mixed couple. Ebonics jokes aside, a black man doesn't have a different word for a white girlfriend than he has for a black girlfriend. His labels describe the relationship, not the race.

So to does "partner" describe the relationship. It describes professional distance and necessarily precludes religious and political elements, with financial profit being the mutual goal. A small business.

This is one way that gays are perceived as exploiters, not equal participants.
 
Jerry said:
It's a difference in life experiences, I suppose. I've never met a straight couple who referred to their significant other as "partner". "Partner" is what you call a co-owner in your business or legal firm. The term denotes professionalism, not personal intimacy. When a gay says to me "this is my partner" they're saying "this is my professional associate". Even the Air Force's "wing-man" or the Army's "battle-buddy" is a closer relationship than "partner".

Why not use the vocabulary everyone else uses so that we know what that person is to you? So you're both the same sex...we're supposed to overlook that because you allege you're just a variation on a theme. Fine, another variation on a theme is a mixed couple. Ebonics jokes aside, a black man doesn't have a different word for a white girlfriend than he has for a black girlfriend. His labels describe the relationship, not the race.

So to does "partner" describe the relationship. It describes professional distance and necessarily precludes religious and political elements, with financial profit being the mutual goal. A small business.

This is one way that gays are perceived as exploiters, not equal participants.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood me, I was saying that other people don't refer to LGBT people's significant others as wife/husband, but refer to them as partners. I've never heard a straight person say "hey there is Julie, and her wife Natalie", but they say "hey, there is her partner Natalie"

Also your partner analogy is a big stretch, just because some people use a different word doesn't mean that the relationship is any different then a hetero relationship, besides the fact that the members are of the same sex. And I fail to see how we are trying to exploit anything, when does equality equal exploitation?
 
Your Star said:
You misunderstood me, I was saying that other people don't refer to LGBT people's significant others as wife/husband, but refer to them as partners. I've never heard a straight person say "hey there is Julie, and her wife Natalie", but they say "hey, there is her partner Natalie"
Click to expand...

When you say "hey, there is her partner Natalie", I hear "hey, there is her professional associate Natalie"; or "hey, there is her [business] partner Natalie".

What I don't understand is why not just say "hey, there is her girlfriend Natalie"; or "hey, there is her fiance' Natalie"; or "hey, there is her wife Natalie".


Your Star said:
Also your partner analogy is a big stretch, just because some people use a different word doesn't mean that the relationship is any different then a hetero relationship, besides the fact that the members are of the same sex.
Click to expand...

No I agree. When you say "partner" I'm assuming you mean the same kind of "partner" as a hetero couple; that being one of professionalism, not personal intimacy.

Different words are used to describe different relationships, so if you're using a different word, you're describing a different relationship. A "wife" is a female spouse regardless of whether she's married to a man or a woman. A "partner" is a professional associate.

Your Star said:
And I fail to see how we are trying to exploit anything, when does equality equal exploitation?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I was careful to say "This is one way that gays are perceived as exploiters, not equal participants."

I made a statement regarding how you are perceived, not how you actually are.
 
Last edited:
When you use a different term you reaffirm anti-SSM's argument that homosexuals have a different kind of relationship, not merely a variation on a theme. Every instance "partner" is used, you're admitting your relationships are not like those constitutionally protected against discrimination.
 
Jerry said:
When you say "hey, there is her partner Natalie", I hear "hey, there is her professional associate Natalie"; or "hey, there is her [business] partner Natalie".

What I don't understand is why not just say "hey, there is her girlfriend Natalie"; or "hey, there is her fiance' Natalie"; or "hey, there is her wife Natalie".
Click to expand...

If that is what you hear, then that is your fault for not understanding context. And I don't say partner, as I said before partners are for science projects, I use girlfriend/wife/husband/boyfriend. But that is what some people say, and that is how most straight people refer to LGBT couples, so don't pretend that it's just within the LGBT community that couples are referred to in that way.


No I agree. When you say "partner" I'm assuming you mean the same kind of "partner" as a hetero couple; that being one of professionalism, not personal intimacy.

Different words are used to describe different relationships, so if you're using a different word, you're describing a different relationship. A "wife" is a female spouse regardless of whether she's married to a man or a woman. A "partner" is a professional associate.
Click to expand...

I agree, but you have to understand the reason why people use the term partner. It is because society has repeatedly told us that our relationships aren't equal to straight relationships, and using the terms wife/husband in regards to same sex relationships was considered offensive, and not accurate years ago. Hence the change in the vernacular.

I'm pretty sure I was careful to say "This is one way that gays are perceived as exploiters, not equal participants."

I made a statement regarding how you are perceived, not how you actually are.
Click to expand...

I still fail to see how we could be perceived as exploiters, what would we be exploiting?
 
Your Star said:
I agree, but you have to understand the reason why people use the term partner. It is because society has repeatedly told us that our relationships aren't equal to straight relationships, and using the terms wife/husband in regards to same sex relationships was considered offensive, and not accurate years ago. Hence the change in the vernacular.
Click to expand...

You changed the vernacular so as to agree with society that your relationships are fundamentally different.

If society is unjustly discriminating against you, why would you worry about offending them? What respect of yours has society earned that you should regard with civility?

Your Star said:
I still fail to see how we could be perceived as exploiters, what would we be exploiting?
Click to expand...

You would be exploiting the same legal system that so many heteros exploit today, and for all the same legal benefits, without regard for how your actions contribute to the 50% divorce rate, just as so many heteros do.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
In the context of a Christian life, a gay couple must part ways.
Click to expand...

In your particular brand of Christian life, perhaps. I know many Gay Christians, many who have had their relationships blessed in church.
 
Your Star said:
Not true, not true at all.
Click to expand...

It's absolutly true. If you've chosen to place your relationship under the rules of scripture, then as scripture very clearly establishes marriage as a man/woman affiar and very clearly forbids same-sex relations, the gay couple must part ways in the process of repenting for their sin.
 
Jerry said:
You changed the vernacular so as to agree with society that your relationships are fundamentally different.

If society is unjustly discriminating against you, why would you worry about offending them? What respect of yours has society earned that you should regard with civility?
Click to expand...

It's not just the LGBT community that has changed the vernacular, it is society that has changed the vernacular. The LGBT community is not in a vacuum, and is affected by the rest of the world. And most straight people do not refer to LGBT relationships with the terms wife/husband, but with the term partner. I know LGBT people who refer to their partners as girlfriends/wifes etc, but I don't know any straight people who do.


You would be exploiting the same legal system that so many heteros exploit today, and for all the same legal benefits, without regard for how your actions contribute to the 50% divorce rate, just as so many heteros do.
Click to expand...

How does our actions contribute to the 50% divorce rate, and why should we be denied the legal benefits of marriage because of the rate of divorces?
 
Andalublue said:
In your particular brand of Christian life, perhaps. I know many Gay Christians, many who have had their relationships blessed in church.
Click to expand...

Well it follows that a couple who choose to live a hypocritical life by claiming to live by God's law while violating that law would seek out like-minded hypocrites who filed some paperwork and opened a church. Birds of a feather, and all.
 
Jerry said:
Well it follows that a couple who choose to live a hypocritical life by claiming to live by God's law while violating that law would seek out like-minded hypocrites who filed some paperwork and opened a church. Birds of a feather, and all.
Click to expand...

Agreed, entirely.
 
Jerry said:
It's absolutly true. If you've chosen to place your relationship under the rules of scripture, then as scripture very clearly establishes marriage as a man/woman affiar and very clearly forbids same-sex relations, the gay couple must part ways in the process of repenting for their sin.
Click to expand...

In your version of Christianity maybe, but not everybody's. There are many churches who accept, LGBT Christians, and have same sex marriage ceremonies, and do not believe homosexuality is a sin. You can think whatever you want about them, but don't pretend that it's not possible to live as a Christian LGBT person.
 
Jerry said:
Well it follows that a couple who choose to live a hypocritical life by claiming to live by God's law while violating that law would seek out like-minded hypocrites who filed some paperwork and opened a church. Birds of a feather, and all.
Click to expand...

And why exactly is your version of God's law right, and mine not? Did he personally speak to you?
 
Jerry said:
Well it follows that a couple who choose to live a hypocritical life by claiming to live by God's law while violating that law would seek out like-minded hypocrites who filed some paperwork and opened a church. Birds of a feather, and all.
Click to expand...

In your more extremist and fundamentalist sects of Christianity perhaps this is accepted dogma, but it is far from being the only Christian attitude. Thankfully. But then, there are many, many Christian sects who approve divorce despite far more explicit scriptural injunctions against it than homosexuality.
“I hate divorce, says the LORD God of Israel.” Malachi 2:16
Click to expand...
“So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Matthew 19:6
Click to expand...
Are you prepared to categorically condemn all divorce too?
 
Your Star said:
It's not just the LGBT community that has changed the vernacular, it is society that has changed the vernacular?
Click to expand...

But gays were a party to the change. See no one is going to tell me what a woman means to me. Not society or anyone else. Only I could know that so only I will define it. You say that gays have already let others tell them how they feel, so why then crumb on me when I appear to do the same? Why don't you keep the tradition of your gay for-fathers and adjust your vocabulary to meet the demands I impose on you?

Your Star said:
The LGBT community is not in a vacuum, and is affected by the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Just as a given marriage does not exist in a vacuum and affects and is affected by the rest of the world. I agree.

Your Star said:
And most straight people do not refer to LGBT relationships with the terms wife/husband, but with the term partner.
Click to expand...

Because that's what gays define themselves as.

Your Star said:
I know LGBT people who refer to their partners as girlfriends/wifes etc, but I don't know any straight people who do.
Click to expand...

Wow see that's all we use. Boy/girlfriend, husband, wife, fiance's....that's all we use.

Your Star said:
How does our actions contribute to the 50% divorce rate, and why should we be denied the legal benefits of marriage because of the rate of divorces?
Click to expand...

How do the actions of gays contribute to the divorce rate today: Some gays will live a lie, get married, have children, and later divorce.
Prisons Minister Crispin Blunt MP Says He's Gay And Leaving Wife
Crispin Blunt announces he is gay and has left his wife | Mail Online

How gays could contribute to the divorce rate when SSM is legalized is easy: You're just like us, remember? You will marry to young. You will choose the wrong person. One of you will become religious or loose the faith. You will marry cross-culture. You will marry cross-race. Some of you will commit felonies and be divorced. Some of you will serve openly in the military and come home to find your same-sex spouse has been cheating on you. Some of you will be in abusive relationships. But most of all, you will fight about money, just like everyone else. If gays are just like heteros, then as heteros have a 50% divorce rate, so will gays have a 50% divorce rate.
 
Andalublue said:
In your more extremist and fundamentalist sects of Christianity perhaps this is accepted dogma, but it is far from being the only Christian attitude. Thankfully. But then, there are many, many Christian sects who approve divorce despite far more explicit scriptural injunctions against it than homosexuality.


Are you prepared to categorically condemn all divorce too?
Click to expand...

I think I've don nothing but condemn divorce on this thread.

The only 'out' Jesus, whom you quote, gives to marriage other than death is marital unfaithfulness. If one spouse cheats on the other and then the other seeks a divorce, who 'caused' them to separate?

The legal divorce was reactionary to an initial breach of contract by the other spouse.

The guilt of the divorce falls on the one who caused it, not necessarily the one who filed the paperwork. The one who files the paperwork can be every bit the victim.
 
Jerry said:
You're now in the proper thread.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not, because I have no idea what came before and after those particular posts. If you would like to link to the discussion, I will be happy to discuss it with you in that thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom