• 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
Wow, that was absolute sophistry. You said nothing.

Also the word you were looking for was "immaterial" not "material". If you are going to practice mindless rhetoric then at least use the correct words.

Also, if most parents wanted kids as much as you seem to claim, then abortion and adoption would not exist. You are not even presenting a decent or coherent argument anymore.

Boy.. I used the word correctly in this context. There ARE material reasons why not bringing a child into the world would be best, but they ARE exceptional.



You are not even presenting a decent or coherent argument anymore

Well it's comforting to at least know that I was at one time in this discussion. :)


Tim-
 
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.

Sorry, no.

Marriage is about what the 2 people entering into the agreement is about, not what you or anyone else says.
 
Boy.. I used the word correctly in this context. There ARE material reasons why not bringing a child into the world would be best, but they ARE exceptional.

ROFL. You are so full of crap. "but they are material, and also exceptional" is what you said. You suck at equivocation so why not give it up and stop embarrassing yourself?

Well it's comforting to at least know that I was at one time in this discussion. :)

I'm just assuming you were.
 
I have to agree. In fact, lots of married heterosexuals are getting abortions. So much higher than that is the gay couple who want to adopt.



Abortions are a crude form of birth control. Why is birth control thrown into this argument in support of CT's assertions? How does it address YourStar's premise, specifically? Or yours?


Tim-
 
ROFL. You are so full of crap. "but they are material, and also exceptional" is what you said. You suck at equivocation so why not give it up and stop embarrassing yourself?



I'm just assuming you were.

OMG.. Why pray tell can something NOT be mateiral and exceptional you moron? :)


Tim-
 
By the way, are we done yet? I can't afford to ignore my work for another day arguing with the likes of you, CT.. :)

It's tiresome


Tim-
 
Perhaps within your own home, but your opinions apply to absolutely nobody else...

A debate is not won or lost by simply saying I am "right", and you are "wrong"....which is your only real tactic here.

As for the semantics you revert to in earlier posts, well that tactic is for those who need to define what the word "is" means....and not really a strong place to argue from.





Not really...I mean, consider it....I am both a loyal following and a benevolent ruler....self governance...it's a win/win.
 
Perhaps within your own home, but your opinions apply to absolutely nobody else...

A debate is not won or lost by simply saying I am "right", and you are "wrong"....which is your only real tactic here.

As for the semantics you revert to in earlier posts, well that tactic is for those who need to define what the word "is" means....and not really a strong place to argue from.

Oh.. Well ok then, thanks! :)


Tim-
 
Abortions are a crude form of birth control. Why is birth control thrown into this argument in support of CT's assertions? How does it address YourStar's premise, specifically? Or yours?


Tim-

Most abortions occur for the sake of convenience, not necessity, and it is based on that fact that I argue that the gay-couple looking to take responsibility are superior to the hetero-couple who are derelict.
 
Most abortions occur for the sake of convenience, not necessity, and it is based on that fact that I argue that the gay-couple looking to take responsibility are superior to the hetero-couple who are derelict.

then why don't more of these responsible gay couples adopt kids instead of going to all the expense of invitro or surrogacy?
 
Perhaps within your own home, but your opinions apply to absolutely nobody else...

A debate is not won or lost by simply saying I am "right", and you are "wrong"....which is your only real tactic here.

As for the semantics you revert to in earlier posts, well that tactic is for those who need to define what the word "is" means....and not really a strong place to argue from.

Depends on my goal in the debate. I'm not necessarily trying to convince you of my point of view. The black ribbon under my name was won by convincing an audience; the person I was debating is just as pro-prostitution now as she ever was. The red ribbons under my name are for exploring a different way of looking at the issue, while the blue ribbon under my name is for exploring an issue more in depth free from the nut-gallery and trolls. Sometimes the purpose of the debate is just to shut someone down. In that case victory is achieved when they leave the thread/forum/website.

I think here we're playing to the audience, and we're not very serious, either. This is a lightweight thread, which mean people aren't so invested in the discussion that they spend a half hour creating a well researched argument and fill a post with links. Maybe the discussion will go that way on this thread, but it's not there at this moment.

As you have no history on this forum, I think the best you can hop for in the immediate future is a pre-made post from those of us who have them saved from the last time we were holding this discussion.

You can't just join a forum and demand that every syllable be backed up with a credible link. In my experience, being so new you're more likely to be a troll or a sock-puppet than a real person.
 
then why don't more of these responsible gay couples adopt kids instead of going to all the expense of invitro or surrogacy?

I would ask the same of any infertile hetero couple. Even the couple who adopted 2 children from me tried invertro first.
 
I would ask the same of any infertile hetero couple. Even the couple who adopted 2 children from me tried invertro first.

that's just crazy...and selfish.
 
Most abortions occur for the sake of convenience, not necessity, and it is based on that fact that I argue that the gay-couple looking to take responsibility are superior to the hetero-couple who are derelict.

Well, sure. I have no argument with that statement.


Tim-
 
(smile) In other words you are a legend in your own mind, I get it.

Sorry Jerry....I am not quite as enomored of you as you are yourself...and as I peruse the thread you are agruing from both sides of your mouth which actually makes you completely irrelevant to a serious conversation.

Am I supposed to in awe of all those pretty ribbons?

Depends on my goal in the debate. I'm not necessarily trying to convince you of my point of view. The black ribbon under my name was won by convincing an audience; the person I was debating is just as pro-prostitution now as she ever was. The red ribbons under my name are for exploring a different way of looking at the issue, while the blue ribbon under my name is for exploring an issue more in depth free from the nut-gallery and trolls. Sometimes the purpose of the debate is just to shut someone down. In that case victory is achieved when they leave the thread/forum/website.

I think here we're playing to the audience, and we're not very serious, either. This is a lightweight thread, which mean people aren't so invested in the discussion that they spend a half hour creating a well researched argument and fill a post with links. Maybe the discussion will go that way on this thread, but it's not there at this moment.

As you have no history on this forum, I think the best you can hop for in the immediate future is a pre-made post from those of us who have them saved from the last time we were holding this discussion.

You can't just join a forum and demand that every syllable be backed up with a credible link. In my experience, being so new you're more likely to be a troll or a sock-puppet than a real person.
 
then why don't more of these responsible gay couples adopt kids instead of going to all the expense of invitro or surrogacy?

Because adoption is a pain in the ass, and some states do not recognize same sex couple adoption.
 
and tracking down a sperm donor or surrogate for invitro is such an easy effortless process. :lamo

If you have a friend willing to help (sperm donor or surrogate) or insurance to cover it, it's a lot cheaper than adoption.
 
and tracking down a sperm donor or surrogate for invitro is such an easy effortless process. :lamo

I've actually had two female friends offer to be a surrogate for me if I ever need one. I didn't even have to ask.
 
I've actually had two female friends offer to be a surrogate for me if I ever need one. I didn't even have to ask.

so are you gonna pork em or do the artificial insemination thing?
 
I was going back to add, "because adoption is incredibly expensive" as well.

adoption is only incredibly expensive if you want a cute baby girl from china or a little Romanian boy. If you go through your state department of human resources it doesn't cost much of anything. We adopted both of our younger sons through DHR and the state not only paid all the court costs, but they also pay us a monthly stipend for each boy until they turn 18.


the only thing I had to pay was a $25 fee to have new birth certificates made
 
If I wanted to "pork em" then I would just marry one of them.

so then you will have to pay a clinic to do the artificial insemination, yes?

also, if they are just going to be a "baby momma" why would you have to marry them?
 
Back
Top Bottom