• 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
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...

Not everyone has such a need. It isn't a universal need. Some people do not want children. As such, it is a socialized need. It is something that we are raised to want.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, but this is where you have continually, and to my amusement I might add, made your error. I never said they weren't a family, only that they are not family in the strictest sense. There is no evolutionary advantage to an individual to fails to add to the gene-pool. Their, "family" stops there. They may contribute to the success of other families, but their's is now at an end. Some of their individualism is now, and forever lost to the genome.


Tim-
 
CriticalThought said:
Not everyone has such a need. It isn't a universal need. Some people do not want children. As such, it is a socialized need. It is something that we are raised to want.
Click to expand...

I see.. So you're of the opinon that something as fundamental as the drive to mate, and procreate is a "socialized need", and yet homosexuality is an inborn, innate condition not subject to any "socialized need"..

Wow.. Is that what you really think? So now the engine that fired humanity is now a socialized mechanism, but homosexuality is not? Homosexuality is somehow in your mind, more fundamental to humanity? Hehehe.. You do see how ridiculous that sounds, right?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
I see.. So you're of the opinon that something as fundamental as the drive to mate, and procreate is a "socialized need", and yet homosexuality is an inborn, innate condition not subject to any "socialized need"..
Click to expand...

Typical Tim trick. You asked several different questions and I answered the first. Why do people want children? Because they are socialized to want children. Why do people want sex? Because they have a biological drive to have sex. Not every animal on this planet is conscious that having sex leads to having children. In fact some primitive human cultures that exist even today believe that sex has nothing to do with having children.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is over 50 years in the making. It began with the slow process of repealing various cohabitation laws, and moved on to anti-sodomy laws.

Now if a new Congress can make sweeping fundamental changes to the health-care system, so much easier would it be to assimilate marriage regulation to accommodate polygamy.
 
Hicup said:
Ah, but this is where you have continually, and to my amusement I might add, made your error. I never said they weren't a family, only that they are not family in the strictest sense. There is no evolutionary advantage to an individual to fails to add to the gene-pool. Their, "family" stops there. They may contribute to the success of other families, but their's is now at an end. Some of their individualism is now, and forever lost to the genome.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Biologists do not use the term "family" as you are trying to use it. As such, it is nothing but your personal defnition. Not the "strictest" sense of family, but Tim's made up definition of family.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
So you think only dna-related families should be recognized?
Click to expand...

On some levels, I believe that families that produce offspring of themselves are superior to those that cannot. Depends on how you measure superior? In this context I measure it in evolutionary terms.


tim-
 
Jerry said:
Gay marriage is over 50 years in the making. It began with the slow process of repealing various cohabitation laws, and moved on to anti-sodomy laws.
Click to expand...

Not to overstate the fact, but even two different Roman emporers married men. Gay marriage has been around for a long, long time. In the United States, its about 50 years old.

Now if a new Congress can make sweeping fundamental changes to the health-care system, so much easier would it be to assimilate marriage regulation to accommodate polygamy.
Click to expand...

Oh I have got to hear this. Please go into detail on this one Jerry. I'm just so excited to hear all the specifics on this one.
 
Hicup said:
On some levels, I believe that families that produce offspring of themselves are superior to those that cannot. Depends on how you measure superior? In this context I measure it in evolutionary terms.


tim-
Click to expand...

Evolution favors superior social structures.
 
CriticalThought said:
Typical Tim trick. You asked several different questions and I answered the first. Why do people want children? Because they are socialized to want children. Why do people want sex? Because they have a biological drive to have sex. Not every animal on this planet is conscious that having sex leads to having children. In fact some primitive human cultures that exist even today believe that sex has nothing to do with having children.
Click to expand...

Trick? :)

Question, why the need to be conscious of wanting children, and how does that specifically invalidate anything I'm claiming? Another question. Why would anyone want sex in the first place, especially if they never knew what it felt like? What drives them to have sex? What.. Mommy and Daddy? Society?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
On some levels, I believe that families that produce offspring of themselves are superior to those that cannot. Depends on how you measure superior? In this context I measure it in evolutionary terms.


tim-
Click to expand...

Oh goody, now you are a Social Darwinist.
 
CriticalThought said:
Biologists do not use the term "family" as you are trying to use it. As such, it is nothing but your personal defnition. Not the "strictest" sense of family, but Tim's made up definition of family.
Click to expand...

Wrong, biologists do use the term, and they use it exactly the same way I do. Anthropologists however, see it differently. Or at least some do. :)


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

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


Tim-
Click to expand...

It is only your definition of family that makes it that way. First of all, the entire point of legal/civil marriage is to make two adults a part of each other's legal family, adults who have no or little blood relation at all. The same thing goes for adoption when you are talking about children. Family is a lot more than blood relations to most people.

My father-in-law is actually my husband's stepfather. We live in the same city as my husband's biological father currently, and have since August, yet he has not accepted any invitation from us to come meet me and his grandsons or for us to come to meet him and his current family. My husband considers his bio father to be little more than a sperm donor, but has great respect and love for his stepfather, as do I.

Blood may be thicker than water, but love is always better than blood. <Unless you're a vampire.>
 
Jerry said:
Evolution favors superior social structures.
Click to expand...

Oh they do.. And how would you go about structuring your society if you were an evolution machine? :)


Tim-
 
CriticalThought said:
Not to overstate the fact, but even two different Roman emporers married men. Gay marriage has been around for a long, long time. In the United States, its about 50 years old.
Click to expand...

Well sure, I would agree that homosexuality has been with us for as long as we've been around. But gay-marriage being seen as the same and equal to regular hetero-marriage is uniquely modern. In ancient Rome and feudal Japan where gay relationships were the accepted norm, it was not seen as the same as opposite-sex marriage. In Rome the relationship was of Master and Student or Owner and Slave, and it was illegal for the Roman citizen to be on the receiving end. In Japan the relationship was an indulgence. The gay warrior was still expected to marry a woman and have children by her.

CriticalThought said:
Oh I have got to hear this. Please go into detail on this one Jerry. I'm just so excited to hear all the specifics on this one.
Click to expand...

As am I. I await the DP member with nothing better to do then create a 2,000 page draft Marriage Reform Bill like Congress made for health care.
 
Hicup said:
Oh they do.. And how would you go about structuring your society if you were an evolution machine? :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

I would have my weak societies eaten by the strong ones.
 
roguenuke said:
It is only your definition of family that makes it that way. First of all, the entire point of legal/civil marriage is to make two adults a part of each other's legal family, adults who have no or little blood relation at all. The same thing goes for adoption when you are talking about children. Family is a lot more than blood relations to most people.

My father-in-law is actually my husband's stepfather. We live in the same city as my husband's biological father currently, and have since August, yet he has not accepted any invitation from us to come meet me and his grandsons or for us to come to meet him and his current family. My husband considers his bio father to be little more than a sperm donor, but has great respect and love for his stepfather, as do I.

Blood may be thicker than water, but love is always better than blood. <Unless you're a vampire.>
Click to expand...

I have a step Dad as well, and a real Father. My real Father died many years ago when I was 16. I love both men, and my step Dad is one of the people on this planet that I have a great deal of respect for. He IS my Dad, but he will never be my Father. They both imprinted themselves on me the individual, but it is my fathers biology that I passed on to my four children.


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
Question, why the need to be conscious of wanting children, and how does that specifically invalidate anything I'm claiming?
Click to expand...

You asked why we want children. I answered. We are socialized to want children. It is separate from our biological need for sex. The fact that many people do not want children is evidence of that fact.

Another question. Why would anyone want sex in the first place, especially if they never knew what it felt like? What drives them to have sex? What.. Mommy and Daddy? Society?
Click to expand...

Hormones drive people to want sex. I never suggested that the desire for sex was driven by socialization. I suggested that the desire for children was driven by socialization. The desire for sex is driven mostly by biological processes.


And yes Tim, you are a Trickster. That is all you bring to debate. Leading questions and unsubstantiated lies and bull****.
 
Hicup said:
Wrong, biologists do use the term, and they use it exactly the same way I do. Anthropologists however, see it differently. Or at least some do. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Dude, I studied Biology. They do not use the word "family" the way you are using it. That is a bull**** lie.
 
Jerry said:
Well sure, I would agree that homosexuality has been with us for as long as we've been around. But gay-marriage being seen as the same and equal to regular hetero-marriage is uniquely modern. In ancient Rome and feudal Japan where gay relationships were the accepted norm, it was not seen as the same as opposite-sex marriage. In Rome the relationship was of Master and Student or Owner and Slave, and it was illegal for the Roman citizen to be on the receiving end. In Japan the relationship was an indulgence. The gay warrior was still expected to marry a woman and have children by her.
Click to expand...

I don't think same sex marriage will ever be seen as the same as traditional marriage. It's considerably different in that it leads to no procreation.

As am I. I await the DP member with nothing better to do then create a 2,000 page draft Marriage Reform Bill like Congress made for health care.
Click to expand...

Oh goody, conspiracy theories. The evil gay agenda will strike again. Haven't heard that one before. :roll:
 
CT -
You asked why we want children. I answered. We are socialized to want children. It is separate from our biological need for sex. The fact that many people do not want children is evidence of that fact.
Click to expand...

What if I told you that I wasn't socialized to want children. Would you believe me?

Hormones drive people to want sex. I never suggested that the desire for sex was driven by socialization. I suggested that the desire for children was driven by socialization. The desire for sex is driven mostly by biological processes.
Click to expand...

Yes, hormones, biological processes, now you got it. But why have sex at all? Especially since you have no idea what it feels like? What is driving you to want sex? Why are these "hormones, and biological processes" pushing in that direction? :)


Tim-
 
CriticalThought said:
Dude, I studied Biology. They do not use the word "family" the way you are using it. That is a bull**** lie.
Click to expand...

LOL.. Ok, ok.. Well what kind of biology did you study? All of it? :)

In biological classification, family (Latin: familia) is

a taxonomic rank. Other well-known ranks are life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, and species, with family fitting between order and genus. As for the other well-known ranks, there is the option of an immediately lower rank, indicated by the prefix sub-: subfamily (Latin: subfamilia).
a taxonomic unit, a taxon, in that rank. In that case the plural is families (Latin familiae)
Example: Walnuts and hickories belong to the Juglandaceae, or walnut family.
What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist. Similarly for the question if a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a family. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely.



Maybe that will spark your memory a tad?

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
CT -

What if I told you that I wasn't socialized to want children. Would you believe me?
Click to expand...

So you never watched TV? You never went to school? You never read a book about families? I don't know how you could throw a rock in our modern culture and not hit something that is used to socizlize people to want families.

Yes, hormones, biological processes, now you got it. But why have sex at all? Especially since you have no idea what it feels like? What is driving you to want sex? Why are these "hormones, and biological processes" pushing in that direction?
Click to expand...

Sex is the greatest scheme that nature has ever devised. Undoubtedly sex tricks animals into procreating. However, sex in and of itself is not the desire for children. Just because you want sex does not mean you want kids. The market for condoms and contraceptives would dry up awfully quick if everyone who wanted to have sex also wanted to have kids.

Also, you aren't really thinking this through are you? How many movies of virgin teenagers wanting to get it on have you seen? They don't know what sex feels like so why do they want it? Does every teenage boy want to have a baby? I mean come on dude, it's a pretty dumb ass argument to make.
 
Hicup said:
LOL.. Ok, ok.. Well what kind of biology did you study? All of it? :)

In biological classification, family (Latin: familia) is

a taxonomic rank. Other well-known ranks are life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, and species, with family fitting between order and genus. As for the other well-known ranks, there is the option of an immediately lower rank, indicated by the prefix sub-: subfamily (Latin: subfamilia).
a taxonomic unit, a taxon, in that rank. In that case the plural is families (Latin familiae)
Example: Walnuts and hickories belong to the Juglandaceae, or walnut family.
What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist. Similarly for the question if a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a family. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely.



Maybe that will spark your memory a tad?

Tim-
Click to expand...

ROFL! Exactly! Biologists only use the term "family" to refer to a taxonomic rank. Not in the sense that you use it. As in humans belong to the family hominda. You just proved yourself wrong!

No Biologist uses the word "family" the way you are trying to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom