Does Same Sex Marriage promote family?

Your Star said:

Yes or no, and explain your answer.

I say yes, SSM promotes family just like opposite sex marriage.

Click to expand...

Same sex marriage is moral insanity. Such an ideology is far more dangerous to the American way of life than is EXTERNAL TERRORISM. America is being held hostage by moral and judicial domestic terrorism. The majority of Americans reject the very idea of homosexuality as being normal, moral or mainstream, 43 states have laws on the books making same sex marriage illegal and 29 states have incorporated amendments to their state constitutions forbidding same sex marriage. The United States is coming ever closer to not only facing an economic collapse but a moral implosion.... just as the Communists detailed in their list of Communist Goals in the 1960s, they will use our court system to bring the United States down from within, and the attack on the American Family by Gay Rights Activists is just one example. This modern judicial radicalism has done away with over 200 years of Constitutional Precedent in just the last few decades in order to promote immorality as a CIVIL RIGHT. Notice Goals number 16 and 26 of the Documented list of Communist goals within the United States, with the ACLU to be used as their TRANSMISSION....promoting homosexuality certainly does not construct FAMILY VALUES, no more than promoting any immoral activity promotes family values. Why can't little "Bobby/Suzy" have two or 3 mommies and one daddy the way the Mormons wanted, are their RIGHTS TO supposed love and happiness any less important than homosexuals? What about the Bi-Sexuals, what if they can only be happily in love by having ONE EACH, a male and a female as domestic partners....are their rights to happiness any less important than the homosexual who prefers only the same sex? Where does it end? Can all these examples be accepted as a NORMAL FAMILY? If not, why not? By what stoke of logic does anyone deny them their right to happiness and love as defined by them?

Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

Walter said:

Same sex marriage is moral insanity. Such an ideology is far more dangerous to the American way of life than is EXTERNAL TERRORISM. America is being held hostage by moral and judicial domestic terrorism. The majority of Americans reject the very idea of homosexuality as being normal, moral or mainstream, 43 states have laws on the books making same sex marriage illegal and 29 states have incorporated amendments to their state constitutions forbidding same sex marriage. The United States is coming ever closer to not only facing an economic collapse but a moral implosion.... just as the Communists detailed in their list of Communist Goals in the 1960s, they will use our court system to bring the United States down from within, and the attack on the American Family by Gay Rights Activists is just one example. This modern judicial radicalism has done away with over 200 years of Constitutional Precedent in just the last few decades in order to promote immorality as a CIVIL RIGHT. Notice Goals number 16 and 26 of the Documented list of Communist goals within the United States, with the ACLU to be used as their TRANSMISSION....promoting homosexuality certainly does not construct FAMILY VALUES, no more than promoting any immoral activity promotes family values. Why can't little "Bobby/Suzy" have two or 3 mommies and one daddy the way the Mormons wanted, are their RIGHTS TO supposed love and happiness any less important than homosexuals? What about the Bi-Sexuals, what if they can only be happily in love by having ONE EACH, a male and a female as domestic partners....are their rights to happiness any less important than the homosexual who prefers only the same sex? Where does it end? Can all these examples be accepted as a NORMAL FAMILY? If not, why not? By what stoke of logic does anyone deny them their right to happiness and love as defined by them?

Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

Click to expand...

You will need to cite Mr. Skousen's source.

Congress merely read it on the floor, which is why those goals are matter of congressional record, not because the conspiracy was independently validated with supporting evidence.

Just flip to the back of your personal copy of The Naked Communist and tell us what he uses as his source.

Jerry said:

You will need to cite Mr. Skousen's source.

Congress merely read it on the floor, which is why those goals are matter of congressional record, not because the conspiracy was independently validated with supporting evidence.

Just flip to the back of your personal copy of The Naked Communist and tell us what he uses as his source.

Click to expand...

The Goals are self evident, the only thing you need to site is "COMMON SENSE" as the United States is on the verge of both Economic and Moral Collapse with the ACLU leading the assault. Poverty is up to its highest level since the goals were read into the congressional record, The US is 14 Trillion Dollars in Debt, Crime is up 300% as the ACLU defends the criminals and punishes the righteous. Even consider this thread, homosexuality promoted as a "NORMAL" family value. Human Life devalued by the murderous action of abortion on demand...the list goes on an on, porn pumped directly into the home, women treated as sexual objects, the Democratic Party has incorporated Marxist Communists into their mist, simply go down the list, simply look around and it is evident what has been implemented. The assault continues on our Constitution, simply look at the 28 states that have sued for CONSTITUTIONAL RELIEF of totalitarian mandates coming from the Central Government in direct opposition of the Peoples will.

To play internet tag is a useless endeavor when communicating with the indoctrinated, as some refuse to see the forest because the trees block the view. Regardless of what factual evidence is presented the circular argument will continue ending at the beginning point, which was the evidence of the LIST being introduced into the congressional record, and the history of the ACLU attempting to hide and deflect from the validated evidence of that organizations grounded foundation in Social Communism.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959

Walter said:

Same sex marriage is moral insanity.

Click to expand...

Do you have actual evidence about the insanity or is this just circumstantial bigoted rhetoric?

Walter said:

The Goals are self evident, the only thing you need to site is "COMMON SENSE" as the United States is on the verge of both Economic and Moral Collapse with the ACLU leading the assault. Poverty is up to its highest level since the goals were read into the congressional record, The US is 14 Trillion Dollars in Debt, Crime is up 300% as the ACLU defends the criminals and punishes the righteous. Even consider this thread, homosexuality promoted as a "NORMAL" family value. Human Life devalued by the murderous action of abortion on demand...the list goes on an on, porn pumped directly into the home, women treated as sexual objects, the Democratic Party has incorporated Marxist Communists into their mist, simply go down the list, simply look around and it is evident what has been implemented. The assault continues on our Constitution, simply look at the 28 states that have sued for CONSTITUTIONAL RELIEF of totalitarian mandates coming from the Central Government in direct opposition of the Peoples will.

To play internet tag is a useless endeavor when communicating with the indoctrinated, as some refuse to see the forest because the trees block the view. Regardless of what factual evidence is presented the circular argument will continue ending at the beginning point, which was the evidence of the LIST being introduced into the congressional record, and the history of the ACLU attempting to hide and deflect from the validated evidence of that organizations grounded foundation in Social Communism.

The ACLU's shocking legacy

Click to expand...

World Nut Daily...outstanding....you may as well be quoting NARTH.

I haven't heard a good reason to stop SSM yet, and I've been all ears since the get go. Mind you, I've lived in Canada for the past few years and up here it's a non-issue at this point. In 2000 I think it was, the Fed passed the house vote and that was it. No more whining and no more crying from the activists groups. Everyone still has their private views on it and churches are free to do what they want, and so are individuals. No fuss no muss.

I don't see how this doesn't help families. There's lots of gay couples out there with children and only the biological parent is recognized. If anything were to happen to them their kid could become a ward of the state even if they have a strong attachment to the other parent. That's messed up. How does traumatizing a child in this way help society? Furthermore, if the stereotypical argument about gays being promiscuous and prone to unhealthy lifestyles is actually the case - and I don't believe it is as a rule - then including them in marriage could help bring some structure to their supposed insane relationship world.

A man in my office is married to a man. They dine together at work social functions and they're great dancers at the Christmas party. Can't imagine what it must be like growing up gay in the world, let alone people thinking they have the business to tell you that you're wrong for who you sleep with, live with, or love. It's just crazy.

Validate SSM and move on already. The activist groups are just going to stay at each other's throats and escalate over the long-term. Most of the population does not care either way, it's just these nutjobs who shout the loudest. I'll never forget when I was last in NYC and a group was demonstrating in lower Manhattan against SSM. I was asked if I favour SSM and why or why not. I said I honestly didn't care either way, and my indifference was condemned as outright support! This "with us or against" us mentality of the Christian right really alarms me. I respect freedom of religious but seriously GTFO of my face and the bedrooms of America.

Temporal said:

I haven't heard a good reason to stop SSM yet, and I've been all ears since the get go.

Click to expand...

I think you've heard all the reasons...you just don't agree with any.

Temporal said:

Validate SSM and move on already.

Click to expand...

We're still hashing out abortion and interracial marriage....we won't be moving on any time soon.

Jerry said:

I think you've heard all the reasons...you just don't agree with any.

Click to expand...

I agree with what makes sense. I grew up with a mix of conservative and liberal values and there is little about the anti-SSM marriage argument that justifies denying the expansion of marriage definitions.

I respect your culture and your upbringing, but that doesn't mean you own marriage as an institution or get to tell others that have a different culture from you that their traditions don't matter. The U.S. is a plurality and the law must reflect equal protection so that everyone gets a fair chance to pursue happiness. Marriage as it is defined between two people simply cannot be constrained to man and woman any longer.

Jerry said:

We're still hashing out abortion and interracial marriage....we won't be moving on any time soon.

Click to expand...

Really? That's too bad. Have fun being stuck then.

Temporal said:

I agree with what makes sense. I grew up with a mix of conservative and liberal values and there is little about the anti-SSM marriage argument that justifies denying the expansion of marriage definitions.

Click to expand...

...because you grew up with a mixture of liberal and conservative values. Children of mixed religions tend not to follow either tradition, either.

Temporal said:

I respect your culture and your upbringing, but that doesn't mean you own marriage as an institution or get to tell others that have a different culture from you that their traditions don't matter.

Click to expand...

My support for SSM aside, yes I do get a say. Unlike Canada, in America we get to vote on these issues at the ballot box. When pro-SSM approaches me, who are you to tell me I have no right to reserve my support? You think you own me and can order me to give them money? One benefit of being an armed society is that people like you can't force us to support whatever YOU want. We reserve our own freedoms and one such freedom is to oppose legislation for whatever reasoning we choose.

Temporal said:

The U.S. is a plurality and the law must reflect equal protection so that everyone gets a fair chance to pursue happiness. Marriage as it is defined between two people simply cannot be constrained to man and woman any longer.

Click to expand...

My strong support for gays serving openly in the military doesn't come from a notion of equality because the military is not about equality. In the same way, neither is marriage about equality; it is about the raising and socializing of children.

Temporal said:

Really? That's too bad. Have fun being stuck then.

Click to expand...

Haven't you noticed....you're having that fun with us :2wave:

We still obsess over Reagan and Carter and White-Water and JFK and Lincoln and Clinton.....legalize SSM today, we'll still be debating it in 40 years just like everything else.

Jerry said:

...because you grew up with a mixture of liberal and conservative values. Children of mixed religions tend not to follow either tradition, either.

Click to expand...

That's a big assumption about my life experience and my views on marriage. If you think I have always been in favour of SSM you're wrong.

Jerry said:

My support for SSM aside, yes I do get a say. Unlike Canada, in America we get to vote on these issues at the ballot box.

Click to expand...

Canadians do get a say at the ballot, it just depends on the issue.

Jerry said:

When pro-SSM approaches me, who are you to tell me I have no right to reserve my support? You think you own me and can order me to give them money? One benefit of being an armed society is that people like you can't force us to support whatever YOU want. We reserve our own freedoms and one such freedom is to oppose legislation for whatever reasoning we choose.

Click to expand...

I never said you have to give you support, but Equal Protection ultimately doesn't care what you think. Gays are going to have this entitlement because it is the Constitutionally right thing to do, and you are entitled to not like it all you want.

Jerry said:

My strong support for gays serving openly in the military doesn't come from a notion of equality because the military is not about equality. In the same way, neither is marriage about equality; it is about the raising and socializing of children.

Click to expand...

Yes and everything points to children being better off if their gay parents can have the same marriage benefits as their heterosexual counter-parts.

Jerry said:

We still obsess over Reagan and Carter and White-Water and JFK and Lincoln and Clinton.....legalize SSM today, we'll still be debating it in 40 years just like everything else.

Click to expand...

As long as the rights get acknowledged and enshrined, people can debate it for all eternity for all I care.

Bodhisattva said:

.

To be family is to be A family... end of story. Your attempt to qualify your statement wreaks of desperation.



Delusions of grandeur can do that to you...



They are A family that is family in every sense of the word...



You are having trouble understanding the term promote... to promote family can be as simple as those that engage in, or have A family, are promoting family. It is not narrowing oneself, it is accepting how it really is. Heterosexuals do not promote family any more than homosexuals, and no less either... You say that they can have a family, well they are promoting family by having a family and why you can't or won't accept this fact is beyond most reasonable people's understanding...

Click to expand...

Well, thanks for your stated opinion.

One might ask on another poll whether allowing homosexual marriage promotes marriage infidelity? I suspect the answer would be yes? Is a family still a family by your definition if a marriage is wrought with infidelity? Infidelity I might add that seems pervasive in the homosexual community, certainly more so percentage-wise than the heterosexual culture.. Add, domestic violence to the equation, and this whole idea of homosexuality promoting family seems to contradict itself, at least statistically when we look at the numbers compared to their heterosexual counter-parts. What about drug and alcohol abuse? Again, statistically more prevalent in homosexual communities, and individuals than in heterosexual circles. One has to ask themselves whether all of these tangible characteristics are really worth giving any weight to, when the question of promoting family enters into the equation.


Tim-

Temporal said:

I never said you have to give you support...

Click to expand...

You assumed you have some right to control what I choose to put my voice to and what my voice will say.

Temporal said:

....but Equal Protection ultimately doesn't care what you think. Gays are going to have this entitlement because it is the Constitutionally right thing to do, and you are entitled to not like it all you want.

Click to expand...

And I'm entitled to come to an online debate forum and post said said opinion, which is all that's happening here. I'm not sure why you're acting like this is the Congressional floor. We at DP don't decide cases or pass legislation, but you're acting like we do.

Temporal said:

Yes and everything points to children being better off if their gay parents can have the same marriage benefits as their heterosexual counter-parts.

Click to expand...

Oh, "marriage benefits"....a 'strictly legal' argument :roll:

Temporal said:

As long as the rights get acknowledged and enshrined, people can debate it for all eternity for all I care.

Click to expand...

And so we shall, regardless of what happens.

Your Star said:

And why exactly is your version of God's law right, and mine not? Did he personally speak to you?

Click to expand...

Do you choose to ignore the scriptures stating that it is a sin? If you then say that the Bibe was made by bigots, then why fwould you follow it? If you state that "Oh, that's just as innane as this scripture here...", then why not use that for every verse?

The Bible clearly state in both New and Old testament that homosexuality is a sin. Period. You can do what you want in this world, but if you claim yourself a Christian, you will answer to God for it in the next. You may brand me a bigot, but that merely shows your own extent of ignorance. If you call me a bigot, by your lines of faulty logic, I can call you an extremely perverse heathen. Hate the sin, not the sinner. You shouldn't get caught up in the trap that people against homosexuality hate homosexuals. You're just blind and unwise if you let those preconcieved notions get the best of you.

Wake said:

Do you choose to ignore the scriptures stating that it is a sin? If you then say that the Bibe was made by bigots, then why fwould you follow it? If you state that "Oh, that's just as innane as this scripture here...", then why not use that for every verse?

The Bible clearly state in both New and Old testament that homosexuality is a sin. Period. You can do what you want in this world, but if you claim yourself a Christian, you will answer to God for it in the next. You may brand me a bigot, but that merely shows your own extent of ignorance. If you call me a bigot, by your lines of faulty logic, I can call you an extremely perverse heathen. Hate the sin, not the sinner. You shouldn't get caught up in the trap that people against homosexuality hate homosexuals. You're just blind and unwise if you let those preconcieved notions get the best of you.

Click to expand...

I have a different view on those passages yes, and I truly believe it is not a sin. Now why does it matter? I believe in Christ, and I am following what I believe is the word of God to the best of my ability. Does that make me any less of a Christian than you, because we disagree on something?

I would really stop acting all holier than thou.

Your Star said:

I have a different view on those passages yes, and I truly believe it is not a sin. Now why does it matter? I believe in Christ, and I am following what I believe is the word of God to the best of my ability. Does that make me any less of a Christian than you, because we disagree on something?

I would really stop acting all holier than thou.

Click to expand...

hey, you are all good. from what I recall (haven't read leviticus in a while) it doesn't mention anything about lesbians. it does forbid men laying with men as with a woman and a woman presenting herself to an animal, but I don't recall it forbidding carpet munching. :thumbs:

Hehehe.. Well that's true^^^


Tim-

Your Star said:

I have a different view on those passages yes, and I truly believe it is not a sin. Now why does it matter? I believe in Christ, and I am following what I believe is the word of God to the best of my ability. Does that make me any less of a Christian than you, because we disagree on something?

I would really stop acting all holier than thou.

Click to expand...

It's not that we disagree, it's that the evidence proving you wrong is so clear, and yet you ignore it in spite.

Jerry said:

You assumed you have some right to control what I choose to put my voice to and what my voice will say.

Click to expand...

I made no such assumption, and continually harping on this point only serves to distract us from the main point of the discussion, which is...

Jerry said:

Oh, "marriage benefits"....a 'strictly legal' argument

Click to expand...

Does marriage contribute to the healthy rearing of children, yes or no? You said yourself that this is about family, so answer the question.

The answer to this question is what the entire debate hinges upon.

I am a proud perverse heathen then..

Temporal said:

I made no such assumption...

Click to expand...

Yes you did, right here:

Temporal said:

I respect your culture and your upbringing, but that doesn't mean you own marriage as an institution or get to tell others that have a different culture from you that their traditions don't matter.

Click to expand...

Yes I do. I get to tell people that. Me, and every other registered voter get to say that at the ballot box, when we give or don't give money, when we go to an event or write our representative. We get to do exactly that, and they of us.

Temporal said:

Does marriage contribute to the healthy rearing of children, yes or no? You said yourself that this is about family, so answer the question.

The answer to this question is what the entire debate hinges upon.

Click to expand...

The reason the issue does not hinge on that question is that the question applies to other types of marital unions which are objectionable.

Take incest for example. Sure no one wants children with genetic disorders, but until you ban people with any of the over 4000 inheritable genetic disorders from marrying you have no argument against incest.

You would have to argue that such familial couples have the right to marriage for the sake of their inbred children.

And what of men with children by more than one woman? Even assuming their not Muslim, you would have to argue that all of those children are better off in a polygamist household under a marital union. It can even be argued that a polygamist family is better than a nuclear family when it comes to financial stability, the lack of which the leading cause of divorce.

Jerry said:

It's not that we disagree, it's that the evidence proving you wrong is so clear, and yet you ignore it in spite.

Click to expand...

Evidence? Until you can prove and show your godhead does exsist? You gots none.

Kali said:

Evidence? Until you can prove and show your godhead does exsist? You gots none.

Click to expand...

The difference Your Star and I have is not whether or not the God we both already believe in exists. We already agree on that.

Our difference is whether or not SSM is against the rules of the God we both already agree exists, and yes that's easy to prove with a simple scriptural quote.

Jerry said:

Yes you did, right here:

Yes I do. I get to tell people that. Me, and every other registered voter get to say that at the ballot box, when we give or don't give money, when we go to an event or write our representative. We get to do exactly that, and they of us.

Click to expand...

It won't last though. Gays are already gaining rights bit by bit, starting with Don't Ask Don't Tell being tossed out. Once there is enough public support to challenge Equal Protection, it will be granted to everyone.

Jerry said:

The reason the issue does not hinge on that question is that the question applies to other types of marital unions which are objectionable.

Take incest for example. Sure no one wants children with genetic disorders, but until you ban people with any of the over 4000 inheritable genetic disorders from marrying you have no argument against incest.

You would have to argue that such familial couples have the right to marriage for the sake of their inbred children.

And what of men with children by more than one woman? Even assuming their not Muslim, you would have to argue that all of those children are better off in a polygamist household under a marital union. It can even be argued that a polygamist family is better than a nuclear family when it comes to financial stability, the lack of which the leading cause of divorce.

Click to expand...

As with others, you have a difficult time opposing SSM without referencing other things that have nothing to do with it. In other words, there's nothing you can say about SSM itself that warrants stopping it.

Your arguments are all flawed in numerous ways anyway. Incest has demonstrable and unique, fatal problems that develop with multi-generational inbreeding. There is no getting around that. Mating with someone because they are a carrier of a diseased gene that may or may not express itself is entirely different than inbreeding, in which the two sets of similar DNA themselves are the problem, as they lack diversity.

The polygamy argument has been debunked numerous times but you and people like you seem deafened to evidence. Modern child psychology has demonstrated repeatedly that children do not benefit from transient parental environments or those with multiple parental figures, like three people all being called mom or dad. It's different in family communities where there are aunts, uncles, and other types of role-takers because they are not as central as the parents. Two central parents provide the best outcome. It's already been proven, just as it's been proven that it doesn't matter if those two parents are same-sex or different-sex, in which case, granting them the security and state benefits of marriage only makes sense because it will provide additional direct benefit to children.

There is not really more to debate. Yes you can choose to vote for or against it, and many people will make the wrong decision that isn't based on facts. The facts show that SSM is beneficial to same-sex couples with children, period. You cannot deny it.

Jerry said:

Our difference is whether or not SSM is against the rules of the God we both already agree exists, and yes that's easy to prove with a simple scriptural quote.

Click to expand...

The Bible was written by humans, not God. It isn't a factor in this discussion. Sorry bucko.

Hicup said:

Well, thanks for your stated opinion.

One might ask on another poll whether allowing homosexual marriage promotes marriage infidelity? I suspect the answer would be yes? Is a family still a family by your definition if a marriage is wrought with infidelity? Infidelity I might add that seems pervasive in the homosexual community, certainly more so percentage-wise than the heterosexual culture.. Add, domestic violence to the equation, and this whole idea of homosexuality promoting family seems to contradict itself, at least statistically when we look at the numbers compared to their heterosexual counter-parts. What about drug and alcohol abuse? Again, statistically more prevalent in homosexual communities, and individuals than in heterosexual circles. One has to ask themselves whether all of these tangible characteristics are really worth giving any weight to, when the question of promoting family enters into the equation.


Tim-

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's due to the strain of constantly having to defend themselves to people like you. Perhaps, if people's weren't constantly under the strain of having to live up to YOUR precious standards there would be less violence and alcohol abuse.

Certainly if people weren't so hateful about homosexuality, there would be fewer youth suicides and fewer beatings of kids who appear to be gay.

And until studies are completed, we won't know - but it's quite possible that married couples in Massachusetts will have fewer incidences of domestic violence, infidelity, and drug/alcohol abuse. THUS, promoting family.