• 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

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,381
Reaction score
20,153
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
Yes or no, and explain your answer.

I say yes, SSM promotes family just like opposite sex marriage.
 
Stability and benefits to raise children, of course it promotes family.
 
I'm a little perplexed by the wording. I don't actually think any marriage as such "promotes family." It doesn't promote anything, except two people decided for emotional and/or financial reasons that they want to spend a portion of their lives together. (I'd say their entire lives, but with the divorce rate at 50% that makes me sound a bit clueless!) Children actually promote family, in my view.

If I understand what you actually mean, the opposite of what you're asking would be "Does SSM degrade or harm family?" Since my answer to that question would be "no", I suspect my answer to your question would be "yes."

Or something. :mrgreen:
 
I wish there was an ‘other’ choice but, oh well.
I say, heterosexual or homosexual marriage does not promote family by itself but, that does not take away from the social union created by marriage.
 
Yes it does. I am a married lesbian. My wife and I have two adopted children we have one that she is the birth mother of and I am the biological mother. At the moment she is pregnant with her own egg. I am pregnant for only a few days and i will be the birth mother and she will be the biological mother. Yes it promotes family.
 
Yes or no, and explain your answer.

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

No.

You have to pull teeth to get pro-SSM to even mention anyone other than the "consenting adults" on the "strictly legal constract". SSM doesn't give a **** about family. They never did, they never will. The world has more important things to worry about then if some dude can put some other dude on his insurance plan.
 
Yes it does. I am a married lesbian. My wife and I have two adopted children we have one that she is the birth mother of and I am the biological mother. At the moment she is pregnant with her own egg. I am pregnant for only a few days and i will be the birth mother and she will be the biological mother. Yes it promotes family.

No, you're a "strictly legal contracted" woman. And she's not your 'wife', she's your "partner". This is the vocabulary your side has presented, and is one way we know that pro-SSM is not about the family. You're about just whatever feels good, whatever that may be. In your case, specifically, at best you're the broken watch.
 
I'm a little perplexed by the wording. I don't actually think any marriage as such "promotes family." It doesn't promote anything, except two people decided for emotional and/or financial reasons that they want to spend a portion of their lives together. (I'd say their entire lives, but with the divorce rate at 50% that makes me sound a bit clueless!) Children actually promote family, in my view.

If I understand what you actually mean, the opposite of what you're asking would be "Does SSM degrade or harm family?" Since my answer to that question would be "no", I suspect my answer to your question would be "yes."

Or something. :mrgreen:

SSM harms the family and society by condoning if not perpetuating the 50% divorce rate and juvenile crime rate.
 
No.

You have to pull teeth to get pro-SSM to even mention anyone other than the "consenting adults" on the "strictly legal constract". SSM doesn't give a **** about family. They never did, they never will. The world has more important things to worry about then if some dude can put some other dude on his insurance plan.

It's hilarious when people try and tell me what I really think. They never fail to get it completely wrong. Jerry once again proves the rule. Nothing remotely like the honest truth, and he even knows better.
 
SSM harms the family and society by condoning if not perpetuating the 50% divorce rate and juvenile crime rate.

It has exactly nothing to do with either.
 
It's hilarious when Redress thinks I was talking about here, especially when she bases such arrogance on a post where I'm quoting someone else :lol:
 
No.

You have to pull teeth to get pro-SSM to even mention anyone other than the "consenting adults" on the "strictly legal constract". SSM doesn't give a **** about family. They never did, they never will. The world has more important things to worry about then if some dude can put some other dude on his insurance plan.

It's hilarious when Redress thinks I was talking about here, especially when she bases such arrogance on a post where I'm quoting someone else :lol:

Hey guess what Jerry. I am "pro-SSM", so apparently you where talking about me. If you where not, you should make an effort to be actually clear in what you say. You would still be wrong, but at least we would know what you are trying to say.
 
It's hilarious when.....Redress uses key phrases like "hey guess what". Ok, what? You're pro-SSM? Wow I guessed right. Now let me try: Hey guess what Redress. Since you've been on this forum you've never promoted the family in support of SSM unless first challenged by a skeptic. Pro-SSM uses the family argument as a means to an end, not the end itself. You're one of those people who react with "yeah but the bible also bans shellfish and mixed fabrics"...and then crums when an anti-SSM says "what about polygamy, then". Your arguments are equivocation top-to-bottom.

GLBT is all about Equality®, not family.
 
Last edited:
It's hilarious when Redress thinks I was talking about here, especially when she bases such arrogance on a post where I'm quoting someone else :lol:

Then perhaps you need to qualify your comments with disclaimers such as "some". Speak in absolutes, and you will get proven wrong... as you already have been.
 
It's hilarious when.....Redress uses key phrases like "hey guess what". Ok, what? You're pro-SSM? Wow I guessed right. Now let me try: Hey guess what Redress. Since you've been on this forum you've never promoted the family in support of SSM unless first challenged by a skeptic. Pro-SSM uses the family argument as a means to an end, not the end itself.

Use the word "some" Jerry. Then you might actually be making an accurate statement.
 
No.

You have to pull teeth to get pro-SSM to even mention anyone other than the "consenting adults" on the "strictly legal constract". SSM doesn't give a **** about family. They never did, they never will. The world has more important things to worry about then if some dude can put some other dude on his insurance plan.

This is absolutely true. Just read the beginning of this thread.

In most cases it is the anti-ssm side that brings it up.... until recently. I mean as the issue goes in recent years as well.
 
It's hilarious when.....Redress uses key phrases like "hey guess what". Ok, what? You're pro-SSM? Wow I guessed right. Now let me try: Hey guess what Redress. Since you've been on this forum you've never promoted the family in support of SSM unless first challenged by a skeptic. Pro-SSM uses the family argument as a means to an end, not the end itself.

GLBT is all about Equality®, not family.

Actually I did just today Jerry. Wrong again, but what else is new.
 
Actually I did just today Jerry. Wrong again, but what else is new.

Not on this thread at least. Once again you reacted, you didn't take initiative on your own. You didn't post a thread, argument or single post about the benefits of SSM all on your own without being prompted.
 
Not on this thread at least. Once again you reacted, you didn't take initiative on your own. You didn't post a thread, argument or single post about the benefits of SSM all on your own without being prompted.

Redress posted a response on this thread indicating he believes that that SSM supports the family. This thread, post #2. If that's not good enough for you, too bad.
 
I'm not sure how much same sex marriage promotes family, but I also don't think it harms families either.
 
Of course same sex marriage promotes family. All of the benefits that heterosexual marriages reap are reaped from gay marriage. Positive child rearing, health of the partners, social and financial security, these are all things that promote family and all things that SSM accomplishes.
 
Redress posted a response on this thread indicating he believes that that SSM supports the family. This thread, post #2. If that's not good enough for you, too bad.

Oooooo another one. K let's see if I can link them together....ok: Hey guess what Capt'n, I think it's hilarious when you reiterate exactly what I said as though it contradicts what I said...If that's not good enough for you, too bad.

But no seriously you did just reiterate my own words as though doing so is counters what I said which you said I said when you quoted. The whole point was that she responded, not pro-actively campaigned.
 
Of course same sex marriage promotes family. All of the benefits that heterosexual marriages reap are reaped from gay marriage. Positive child rearing, health of the partners, social and financial security, these are all things that promote family and all things that SSM accomplishes.

Right, see, here again is someone reacting to being questioned. At best it's an afterthought to you people.
 
Oooooo another one. K let's see if I can link them together....ok: Hey guess what Capt'n, I think it's hilarious when you reiterate exactly what I said as though it contradicts what I said...If that's not good enough for you, too bad.

But no seriously you did just reiterate my own words as though doing so is counters what I said which you said I said when you quoted. The whole point was that she responded, not pro-actively campaigned.

No, Jerry, I countered what you said. You are presenting the position that Redress does not promote SSM in a pro-family way because he doesn't initiate threads or arguments. Go look at how many threads I'VE started on pro-family SSM. NONE. So, what does that prove? NOTHING. Just like your position. You want to start an argument for the sake of starting an argument, you are going to fail, at least in this thread.
 
Right, see, here again is someone reacting to being questioned. At best it's an afterthought to you people.

Moderator's Warning:
You are doing nothing here but baiting and trying to start an argument based on nothing. Keep doing it and I will boot you from the thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom