• 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
Bodhisattva said:
What happens more often... separation? You know that you can't count separation of a non-married homosexual couple against anything other than the separation of a non-married heterosexual couple, right? Once this simple little bit of logic is understood, your whole issue become moot.

Both orientations separate frequently when not married...
Click to expand...

They do? Any data to back that up? :)



Tim-
 
Bodhisattva said:
What happens more often... separation? You know that you can't count separation of a non-married homosexual couple against anything other than the separation of a non-married heterosexual couple, right? Once this simple little bit of logic is understood, your whole issue become moot.

Both orientations separate frequently when not married...
Click to expand...

One thing I'm worried about, I'm not saying this is certain, it's just a concern, is all these gay couples living together prior to being married. When SSM is legalized, since living together prior to marriage is correlated with divorce, how many of these couples pro-SSM is fighting for will even last?
 
Amazed said:
Meaning you've learned I will hold your feet to the fire in what you post :)

All the same, your opinion is no more than the next man's.

Like I said Jerry, just because YOU "believe" something doesn't make it fact, sorry.


you Post.
Click to expand...

I went back to read what you're all in a tizzy about, and I don't see it? Your whole argument stems from some false dichotomy concerning the "word of God" and the Bible. Either you believe it all, or none of it? Is that your argument? I want to know before I tear you a new one sunshine. :)


Tim-
 
That said, it WILL have to wait, as I have a date with my woman on the bed with some popcorn, and a movie, and whatever pops up.. :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
They do? Any data to back that up? :)



Tim-
Click to expand...

Data? Is that a joke? It is simple logic. You can't compare non-comparable items... when talking about apples, introducing a walnut simple makes no sense. Think what you want... I can only introduce people to reality if they are willing to see and hear it.


Jerry
One thing I'm worried about, I'm not saying this is certain, it's just a concern, is all these gay couples living together prior to being married. When SSM is legalized, since living together prior to marriage is correlated with divorce, how many of these couples pro-SSM is fighting for will even last?
Click to expand...

Good point. No idea. Perhaps they will end primarily in divorce. I would think that, logically, given some time that problem would balance itself out and we would start seeing higher rates of staying together that would probably settle with stats similar to heterosexual marriage... then it would all just be a comparable "marriage".
 
(smile) You aren't capable of it.

Now, IF some wants to claim they are "Christian", and a Religious "Zealot" then a baseline must be established...the gentleman in question seems to not want to follow up on his "arguements" as being against ssm on Biblical grounds....as a "Christian" (as defined in the most meaningful sense of the word) one cannot pick and choose which "Bible" passages ne likes...and which ones they don't.

Either the "Bible" is the word of one's God, or isn't...all or nothing.

Now I don't care either way, but I won't someone have it both ways. ;)

Hicup said:
I went back to read what you're all in a tizzy about, and I don't see it? Your whole argument stems from some false dichotomy concerning the "word of God" and the Bible. Either you believe it all, or none of it? Is that your argument? I want to know before I tear you a new one sunshine. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...
 
Jerry said:
What?! SSM means SAME SEX marriage? OMG :shock:
Click to expand...

So since your claim that people are saying it is the "same", even though obviously it isn't, what exactly are you complaining about. It's clear either you do not understand the argument made, or are misrepresenting it.
 
Amazed said:
(smile)Now, IF some wants to claim they are "Christian", and a Religious "Zealot" then a baseline must be established
Click to expand...

Christian = One who believes Christ is his savior and the son of God. That's it.

There are 33,820 different sects of Christianity. So who decides this base line? :lol:

Amazed said:
...the gentleman in question seems to not want to follow up on his "arguements" as being against ssm on Biblical grounds....as a "Christian" (as defined in the most meaningful sense of the word) one cannot pick and choose which "Bible" passages ne likes...and which ones they don't.
Click to expand...

This is absolute hogwash. If this were the case, Christians again would not have 33,820 different sects. Actually that number is old. By now it may have even doubled.

Amazed said:
Either the "Bible" is the word of one's God, or isn't...all or nothing.
Click to expand...

I believe it is. Told from the perspective of each different author. 66+ different people wrote the Bible, it was not originally one book.

You assertions thus far are pretty un-historical or accurate.

Amazed said:
Now I don't care either way, but I won't someone have it both ways. ;)
Click to expand...

Your opinion is duly noted even if it means little. :mrgreen:
 
Amazed said:
one cannot pick and choose which "Bible" passages ne likes...and which ones they don't.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I said the NIV was the one I could read and understand as I don't get old English at all.

If we were going to be pure, we would read every text in it's original language.
 
Jerry said:
Well, for me, I don't want the ability to marry a man. That's not my game.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur that has nothing to do with what I said.

Jerry said:
You're trying to change your argument. You presented the argument that SSM should be allowed 'for the sake of the children'. You need to demonstrate why no other union should be granted 'for the sake of the children'.
Click to expand...

Marriage is about family and so is SSM. Nothing has changed in my argument.

Incest is not beneficial to children because it creates guaranteed genetic abnormality and dysfunction.

Polygamy is not beneficial to children because all research points to two stable parent figures being required for healthy psychology.

Marrying an animal is absurd, and if you think the slippery slope would lead to that, then you're just a fool.

Marrying a child is illegal because a child cannot enter into contract, and it's morally reprehensible.

Is there any other kind of marriage you want to bring up?

Jerry said:
So you support banning marriage when inheritable genetic disorders are present?
Click to expand...

I said nothing about inheritable genetic disorders. You just made that up.

Jerry said:
It's an integrity check on your argument, not evidence of anything.
Click to expand...

No, it's you nitpicking for the sake of wanting to be right, instead of discussing the facts of the situation. You're being contrary for contrariness' sake.

Jerry said:
Link or it demonstrates no such thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not doing the work for you. It's been commonly established which is why the polygamy debate is non-existent right now. Also, marriage and family structures have been always been between two people. Even in Middle Eastern cultures where multiple wives are common, there is still a primary wife that bears the children while the others are a support role only. The children born have two fixed parents.

Jerry said:
I'm sorry to see you leave the forum. Have a good one
Click to expand...

Stop being a jerk.

Jerry said:
Ahh so you're retracting your argument
Click to expand...

Explanation or it never happened.

Jerry said:
I never did :lol:

You just think I'm anti-SSM just because I can shoot down your cookie-cutter arguments :peace
Click to expand...

Only in your imagination did that happen. Most of your victories were the result of blatantly distorting and manipulating the things I've said because you have some weird dysfunction when it comes to wanting to pat yourself on the back for being a jerk.

Jerry said:
Yes the Bible was written by humans. Everyone knows this. I mean the original scripts are in human handwriting, even.
Click to expand...

Right... so why do you think the Bible has anything to do with what God wants? Is it because the authors supposedly spoke to God? You know, in today's world that would be mental illness. Maybe you should get your head checked.

Jerry said:
Hey guess what? The Constitution and the Deceleration of Independence were written by humans, too...that doesn't make them any less valid.
Click to expand...

Hey guess what, we KNOW who wrote the Constitution and the entire context in which it was written because it was a secular document outlining the founding of a nation. The Bible is composed of many dozen books (many of which are not even included in the version available), edited and translated over the ages but a myriad of unknown people. Its stories are controversial and not objective. It's not even close to being the legal document that the Constitution is.

Nice try though.

Jerry said:
Please keep in mind, however, that Pro-SSM brought the bible into this discussion. If you follow the track-backs, you'll see that religion, the church, and what the bible has to say was initiated by YourStar in post 124. It's been a part of this thread for a long time and is not simply excluded because you say so. YouStar has been caught in an integrity fault by cherry-picking scripture. Do you want to help her out or just abandon your fellow pro-SSM?
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in your he-said-she-said non-sense, or your accusatory or partisan overtones. I called BS on a comment you made and if you can't deal with that without trying to bait, evade, and misdirect the blame to someone else, then maybe you should sign off of this thread your heiness.
 
Temporal said:
Non-sequitur that has nothing to do with what I said.
Click to expand...

That wasn't supposed to do with anything anyone said.

Temporal said:
Incest is not beneficial to children because it creates guaranteed genetic abnormality and dysfunction.
Click to expand...

Until you ban other marriages where inheritable genetic disorders are an isse, you have to allow them 'for the children'.

Temporal said:
Polygamy is not beneficial to children because all research points to two stable parent figures being required for healthy psychology.
Click to expand...

Links or "research" says no such thing.

Temporal said:
Marrying an animal is absurd, and if you think the slippery slope would lead to that, then you're just a fool.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I said anything about animals....

Temporal said:
Marrying a child is illegal because a child cannot enter into contract, and it's morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...

Parental consent ftw.

Temporal said:
Is there any other kind of marriage you want to bring up?
Click to expand...

All categories of "high-risk", which include couples under 26, mixed race and mixed faith.

Temporal said:
I said nothing about inheritable genetic disorders. You just made that up.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you did say anything about inheritable genetic disorders, and no I actually came across that argument on another forum.

Temporal said:
No, it's you nitpicking for the sake of wanting to be right, instead of discussing the facts of the situation. You're being contrary for contrariness' sake.
Click to expand...

It's an integrity check of your argument.

Temporal said:
I'm not doing the work for you.
Click to expand...

It's your claim so it's your work. Link or it says no such thing.

Temporal said:
Hey guess what, we KNOW who wrote the Constitution and the entire context in which it was written because it was a secular document outlining the founding of a nation. The Bible is composed of many dozen books (many of which are not even included in the version available), edited and translated over the ages but a myriad of unknown people. Its stories are controversial and not objective. It's not even close to being the legal document that the Constitution is.
Click to expand...

Hey guess what, that wasn't your argument. You said the bible was invalid only because man wrote it. Therefore you hold that any and everything, including computer software, that man writes is invalid. Having been caught in your lie, you now want to change your argument. Go ahead, but we see how you messed up.

My N.I.V. names everyone who translated it from the original Greek and Hebrew to modern English. Oh well, you don't seem very interested in evidence and this thread isn't about the bible anyway.

Temporal said:
I'm not really interested in your he-said-she-said non-sense, or your accusatory or partisan overtones. I called BS on a comment you made and if you can't deal with that without trying to bait, evade, and misdirect the blame to someone else, then maybe you should sign off of this thread your heiness.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Until you ban other marriages where inheritable genetic disorders are an isse, you have to allow them 'for the children'.
Click to expand...

I'll say it again... the genetic disorder caused by incest is not inherited, it is acquired. Two completely healthy adults who are related can create a genetically dysfunctional individual. But you don't know the science, so I can't blame you for your ignorance.

Jerry said:
Links or "research" says no such thing.
Click to expand...

There's not much point. You're clinging pretty tightly to your slippery slope fallacy.

Jerry said:
Parental consent ftw.
Click to expand...

Really? A five year old can get married merely with parental consent? Link?

Jerry said:
All categories of "high-risk", which include couples under 26, mixed race and mixed faith.
Click to expand...

You'll have to expand upon this one. Why are they high risk?

Jerry said:
I didn't say you did say anything about inheritable genetic disorders, and no I actually came across that argument on another forum.
Click to expand...

Yet you continue to refer to genetic incest as an inherited genetic disorder, which it isn't. Maybe you need to check your facts.

Jerry said:
It's an integrity check of your argument.
Click to expand...

Others have met your so-called checks only to be brushed aside. No thanks. I'm not doing the work for you.

Jerry said:
It's your claim so it's your work. Link or it says no such thing.
Click to expand...

Or WHAT says no such thing?

Jerry said:
Hey guess what, that wasn't your argument. You said the bible was invalid only because man wrote it. Therefore you hold that any and everything, including computer software, that man writes is invalid.
Click to expand...

Wow, major logical fallacy here. You are either stupid or intellectually dishonest, and I'm not sure which is worse. You took one specific thing and turned it into a generalization that I never said. I said the Bible is invalid as a testament to God's will, since man wrote it. See: the Bible cannot attest to God's will because God did not write it. Are you having trouble following a specific string or logic? I know that can be hard for the religious, but try to keep up.

Jerry said:
Having been caught in your lie, you now want to change your argument. Go ahead, but we see how you messed up.
Click to expand...

Hardly a lie. The Bible was written by humans and is thus incapable of addressing God's will, despite you and your ilk thinking that it does so concretely. Again, your distortions in this debate are very obvious and sadly unclever. Whatever axe you have to grind, it's pretty pathetic the way you're acting.

Jerry said:
My N.I.V. names everyone who translated it from the original Greek and Hebrew to modern English. Oh well, you don't seem very interested in evidence and this thread isn't about the bible anyway.
Click to expand...

Are you still claiming that the Bible objectively depicts God's will? Unless God wrote it, you are the liar.

Oh wait, here, let's do that which you are so fond of: provide a link which proves that the Bible is God's will, otherwise you're a liar.

Jerry said:
:lol:
Click to expand...

I know, your string of fallacies are quite hilarious. It's good that you can laugh at your own mistakes though.
 
Temporal said:
Incest is not beneficial to children because it creates guaranteed genetic abnormality and dysfunction.
Click to expand...

An incest baby is 1% to 4% higher at risk of having mutations than the offspring of unrelated couples. That is hardly guaranteed.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
An incest baby is 1% to 4% higher at risk of having mutations than the offspring of unrelated couples. That is hardly guaranteed.
Click to expand...

You forget that the risk is multiplied for every subsequent generation of incest. It becomes guaranteed.
 
CriticalThought said:
You forget that the risk is multiplied for every subsequent generation of incest. It becomes guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Well that's my point: children with inherited genetic disorders emerge in the first generation. The fact that incest takes a while demonstrates that incest is a lesser evil than inheritable genetic disorders.
 
Bodhisattva -
Data? Is that a joke? It is simple logic. You can't compare non-comparable items... when talking about apples, introducing a walnut simple makes no sense. Think what you want... I can only introduce people to reality if they are willing to see and hear it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. But I'm not comparing non-comparable items? Whether pre-marriage or during marriage, I asked you for data to back up your assertion that they happen at the same frequency, or I believe you said just "frequently". Whereas, I claim that homosexual relationships separate much more frequently, due primarily to the fact that they have many more relationships. So, whether pre marriage or engaged in marriage, I don't see how this is comparing apples to walnuts? Can you explain?


Tim-
 
Amazed said:
(smile) You aren't capable of it.

Now, IF some wants to claim they are "Christian", and a Religious "Zealot" then a baseline must be established...the gentleman in question seems to not want to follow up on his "arguements" as being against ssm on Biblical grounds....as a "Christian" (as defined in the most meaningful sense of the word) one cannot pick and choose which "Bible" passages ne likes...and which ones they don't.

Either the "Bible" is the word of one's God, or isn't...all or nothing.

Now I don't care either way, but I won't someone have it both ways. ;)
Click to expand...

Still a false dichotomy, and for someone claiming superior debating skillz, one should know that? :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Bodhisattva -

Hmmm.. But I'm not comparing non-comparable items? Whether pre-marriage or during marriage, I asked you for data to back up your assertion that they happen at the same frequency, or I believe you said just "frequently". Whereas, I claim that homosexual relationships separate much more frequently, due primarily to the fact that they have many more relationships. So, whether pre marriage or engaged in marriage, I don't see how this is comparing apples to walnuts? Can you explain?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Marriage changes the dynamics of the relationship, if nothing else. Just about everybody I have ever talked to that had a long term relationship and then got married admits that the fundamental nature of their relationship drastically altered. It became more serious. It became more solid. It became more stable.

56% of unmarried cohabiting couples vs 77% married cohabiting couples were still together 5 years after the birth of their child...
The Role of the Father in Child ... - Google Books

I didn't spend long looking, but that is pretty clear that the nature of marriage makes the nature of the relationship more stable, hence comparing unmarried homosexuals to married heterosexuals is about as comparable as comparing apples and walnuts when discussing fruit.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Marriage changes the dynamics of the relationship, if nothing else. Just about everybody I have ever talked to that had a long term relationship and then got married admits that the fundamental nature of their relationship drastically altered. It became more serious. It became more solid. It became more stable.

56% of unmarried cohabiting couples vs 77% married cohabiting couples were still together 5 years after the birth of their child...
The Role of the Father in Child ... - Google Books

I didn't spend long looking, but that is pretty clear that the nature of marriage makes the nature of the relationship more stable, hence comparing unmarried homosexuals to married heterosexuals is about as comparable as comparing apples and walnuts when discussing fruit.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see the disconnect now. I wasn't intending to compare unmarried homosexuals to married heterosexuals, but reading back I see how you might have made that inference. That said, comparing unmarried homosexuals to unmarried heterosexuals is valid in terms of frequency of separation, partners etc.. Likewise, (and what I was meaning to say earlier) there have been many reports by gay advocates, such as Andrew Sullivan, et al, who claim that gay marriage will do absolutely nothing to curb homosexual infidelity. The infidelity will still be there, (although presumably to some degree less) regardless of marriage. This is the point I was trying to make regarding averagehomosexual culture, and lifestyle, compared to average heterosexual culture, and virtue.

Now, if you want to ignore the data on the number of partners homosexuals have compared to their heterosexual counterparts, and the alcohol, and drug abuse, domestic violence etc.. Then I'd be curious to see your sources, but even among the gay members here, these numbers are staggeringly lopsided as a percentage of incidence. Giving this axiom, one might conclude that homosexual marriage will do nothing to promote family in the macro, and in fact might serve to bring the macro of marriage down for everyone..

I see no reason not to believe this.


Tim-
 
Henrin said:
An incest baby is 1% to 4% higher at risk of having mutations than the offspring of unrelated couples. That is hardly guaranteed.
Click to expand...

This is why it shouldn't be the main argument against incest. The main argument against incest, especially when the relationships are parent/child or sibling/sibling or any older generation/younger generation (related by a certain percentage of blood) relationships, should be based more on looking at how/when the relationships develop. These types of relationships are not healthy relationships. They almost always develop before age of consent for one of the two involved, if not both.

Incest, Information about Incest
Incest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Now, there still is a case for developmental disorders being more highly probable in cases of incest, so it cannot be completely discarded as an argument. But I still feel that most of the cases can be combatted better with how/when the relationship developed rather than just on the basis of genetic abnormalities.

Health Buzz: DNA Test Exposes Undisclosed Incest - US News and World Report
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom