• 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
Once again doing your uninformed lying thing.

They controlled for income.

The difference is not in income, its in the fact that lesbians generally choose when they have children and heterosexuals do not.

Of course, feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a study that indicates that rich lesbians couples are as good at raising children as average heterosexual couples. I would love to see you back up you stupid ass statements just once.

Already have, and YOU know it. You've been closely involved in many of those threads.


Tim-
 
Already have, and YOU know it. You've been closely involved in many of those threads.


Tim-

Lately you have been all puff and no substance. Come on! Substantiate it! If you have already posted about it then all the better. A quick search and you should have it.
 
Last edited:
no in reality your argument is still MEANINGLESS. my original post stands and what you are claming for reasoning of why it matters is still irrlavant LMAO

Sorry what you are calling a family in nature is only your opinion and nature disagrees in may ways

like i said MEANINGLESS :D

Well, no, it's nature that is absolutely behind WHY what I say is 100% true! You're all upset because you inferred on what I said. :)

Tim-
 
Well, no, it's nature that is absolutely behind WHY what I say is 100% true! You're all upset because you inferred on what I said. :)

Tim-

no only certain CASES in nature fit your opinion of what you THINK family is but many do not. Those are the facts :D

Think what you want but again the facts go against you, not with you, and denying it wont change the facts and Im not upset at all I always find you VERY entertaining. lol
 
no only certain CASES in nature fit your opinion of what you THINK family is but many do not. Those are the facts :D

Think what you want but again the facts go against you, not with you, and denying it wont change the facts and Im not upset at all I always find you VERY entertaining. lol

Is an offspring of two parents not family?


Tim-
 
Is an offspring of two parents not family?


Tim-

Another question. If the parents abuse, neglect, molest, abandon, or kill their offspring, do you still consider it a family just because they are biologically related?
 
That's an interesting twist? All I can say is.. Huh? Answer me first, that would be the considerate thing to do.


Tim-

You can't tell that little Johnny is related without blood lines or DNA... it would not be immediately clear if they were family or not, now go ahead and answe mine and discuss how either situation relates to whom is family to whom.
 
I see.. Well thanks for playing, twas fun and all. :)


Tim-

no problem if you ever change your ways and want to actually bring something to the table that is logical or relvant let me know
 
Oh look who wants to play. You can pick up where you left off:

You are in the proper thread.

No, actually we are not but I will play.

It is not adequate because the current marriage license sets up for two people to be each others closest relative. It says that the woman will make the decisions for the man and the man will make the decisions for the woman when one of the two is not able to make those decisions hisself/herself. It can easily be changed to allow a different man to replace the woman or a different woman to replace the man. The same does not work when you have more than two people involved because the marriage license does not get into specifics for any couple, it simply states which two people will be responsible for the decisions of each other. The same does not apply to when you have more than two people involved, because the current rules are specifically set up for two people, but the gender of those two people will not affect how those rules can be applied.

Also, your example of two guys robbing a bank, getting married, and being protected against testifying is wrong on so many levels. First of all, they would have to be married to each other before they talked about the robbery at all, because the law only protects them from testifying on intimate relationship conversations that took place during the legal marriage. Second, they wouldn't be called to a stand to testify against each other if they were both involved in the crime anyway, because that would set them up for self incrimination, and is not allowed.

BTW, I have stated many times that there should be some marriage contract available to polygamous families that gave them an opportunity to make them all family. It can't work with the current contract however, and it is the couples that want this who have the responsibility for coming up with a way to make it work for them, not the government. The gay community has it easy in this regard since the current marriage contract works fine for their relationship with one small change of adjusting the gender blocks of the marriage license so that it can be either two men, two women, or one man and one woman. No change in the actual application of the current marriage contract is necessary.

Now that I have provided what you asked for (again), you can answer some of my questions. Instead of going off on things that I never brought up in this thread.
 
You can't tell that little Johnny is related without blood lines or DNA... it would not be immediately clear if they were family or not, now go ahead and answe mine and discuss how either situation relates to whom is family to whom.

Who said anything about being immediate? Are you deliberately being dishonest? It's ok, you can say it clearly. Little Johnny is family, and is the immediate descendant of poor mamma and papa..

You said -
Why don't you prove that a married Sara (who survived the crash) and Tim (who died in the crash), who have two kids, are family after they Tim died in a plane crash. No DNA. No blood lines. Nothing. Are you going to say that neither Tim nor Sara are family now or justify it in some way?

I couldn't prove it if Tim died, and we had no DNA? That's kinda the point isn't it? Tim and Sara are NOT family, however they were ONCE a family; that is before Tim's demise. :)


Tim-
 
Another question. If the parents abuse, neglect, molest, abandon, or kill their offspring, do you still consider it a family just because they are biologically related?

Not a family.. But family, yes!

Tim-
 
Not a family.. But family, yes!

Tim-

That doesn't make any sense. But most of what you post is unsubstantiated lies and bull**** so I don't know why that would surprise me.
 
That doesn't make any sense. But most of what you post is unsubstantiated lies and bull**** so I don't know why that would surprise me.

I'm not surprised it doesn't make sense to you.

YourStar asked if SSM promotes family?

I replied that it does not in the strictest sense. It cannot without manipulating the biological process, and even then, it cannot ever produce a child that conatins the DNA of both parents. Hence, if anything it is only half the family. How can something that can only ever be 50% of what otherwise would be the genetic material of both a father and a mother be considered promoting family? Without said technologies, how can a homosexual couple produce a family at all?

In this sense, YourStar is incorrect. Homosexual couples, and homosexuality cannot promote family!


Tim-
 
I'm not surprised it doesn't make sense to you.

YourStar asked if SSM promotes family?

I replied that it does not in the strictest sense. It cannot without manipulating the biological process, and even then, it cannot ever produce a child that conatins the DNA of both parents. Hence, if anything it is only half the family. How can something that can only ever be 50% of what otherwise would be the genetic material of both a father and a mother be considered promoting family? Without said technologies, how can a homosexual couple produce a family at all?

In this sense, YourStar is incorrect. Homosexual couples, and homosexuality cannot promote family!


Tim-

So adoptions aren't family? The only way to have a family is through shared DNA?
 
Last edited:
I'm not surprised it doesn't make sense to you.

YourStar asked if SSM promotes family?

I replied that it does not in the strictest sense. It cannot without manipulating the biological process, and even then, it cannot ever produce a child that conatins the DNA of both parents. Hence, if anything it is only half the family. How can something that can only ever be 50% of what otherwise would be the genetic material of both a father and a mother be considered promoting family? Without said technologies, how can a homosexual couple produce a family at all?

In this sense, YourStar is incorrect. Homosexual couples, and homosexuality cannot promote family!


Tim-

Basically then, only 25% of the families in the United States meet your definition of family because they constitute a traditional nuclear family. All those step families, single parent families, grandparent headed families, widowed families, adopted families, etc. are not really families.

What a useless definition of family you endorse. Even ecologists recognize that a group of animals living together can constitute a family even if they are not genetically related. Adoption occurs in the wild among socialized animals.
 
So adoptions are family? The only way to have a family is through shared DNA?

Not A family, but family. That is correct! :)

You know folks, it's really not that complicated.


Tim-
 
Not A family, but family. That is correct! :)

You know folks, it's really not that complicated.


Tim-

Yeah, you have made up your own definition of family. It's that simple. I have never heard of a definition of family as narrow as the one you are advocating in this thread.
 
Basically then, only 25% of the families in the United States meet your definition of family because they constitute a traditional nuclear family. All those step families, single parent families, grandparent headed families, widowed families, adopted families, etc. are not really families.

What a useless definition of family you endorse. Even ecologists recognize that a group of animals living together can constitute a family even if they are not genetically related. Adoption occurs in the wild among socialized animals.

Well, I wouldn't say it's useless. I suspect with a great degree of certainty that our common ancestors were not homosexual. :)

Tim-
 
Well, I wouldn't say it's useless. I suspect with a great degree of certainty that our common ancestors were not homosexual. :)

Tim-

I don't think you can make that assertion. Just because someone is homosexual does not mean they have not engaged in heterosexual sex or procreated.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that it is your individual definition and it is so narrow that it is completely useless and irrelevant to this thread.

I also think anyone who was raised outside of a traditional nuclear family might take offense to you claiming they weren't really raised in family.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you have made up your own definition of family. It's that simple. I have never heard of a definition of family as narrow as the one you are advocating in this thread.

Lets remove the frosting shall we?

Why do you think you instinctually want to have children? Forget about technology for a moment, and lets assume that even hard core lesbians want, and long for children of their own. Now, if you couldn't have children without technological help, or if a woman sleeps with a man only for the "purpose" of having a child, what necessarily would be the driving force behind wanting to do so? Outside of an material, or selfish and unselfish needs, what "posses" someone to want children? Why is it we mate?


Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom