View Poll Results: Same-sex marriage is wrong because

Voters
113. You may not vote on this poll
  • It isn't, and should be available to all gay couples

    77 68.14%
  • Being gay is wrong, so they can't get married

    16 14.16%
  • The sanctity of marriage. No, I wasn't laughing. I was coughing. *cough* ... see?

    4 3.54%
  • It will set a bad example for Christian youth

    0 0%
  • I don't honestly have a good reason, but I still say no

    1 0.88%
  • Other (please explain)

    15 13.27%
Page 117 of 158 FirstFirst ... 1767107115116117118119127 ... LastLast
Results 1,161 to 1,170 of 1577

Thread: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

  1. #1161
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I think Mac is worried, as I am, about the domino effect. I've seen a couple arguments here that suggest that to be for gay marriage, you have to chuck any meaning marriage has beyond just a contractual one. I also don't want to have to support public nudity or public sex. Does supporting SSM mean that morality no longer has a place in the law, at all?
    Slippery slope is not a legitimate argument, or not one that holds a lot of water. I find it funny that people like you point to the "domino" effect here. Yet did you point to the potential Domino Effect and speak so worriedly about it when we moved from a nationa agenda of defensive to pre-emptive offensive in regards ot foreign policy? Did you and mac go on and on about the potential "Domino Effect" of the Patriot Act? The potential "Domino Effect" of allowing "enhanced" interrogation actions? The potential "domino effect" of having out of country prisons that are not subject to the US constitution? And on and on...

    Or do you just care about the "Domino Effect" on issues you don't agree with, and thus need an extra excuse to argue against them? Why is it that the "Domino Effect" seemingly only exists in cases of things people dislike?

    Support for Gay Marriage or unions of some kind is at the very least right around the 50% market. I dare say far higher than the mark for people agreeing with the notion of people walking around nude wherever they please. Not to mention that one does not directly correlate to the other so trying to argue against one because it may somehow, someway, potentially, lead to a thought process that might, potentially, possibly, in some way lead to the other happening. Its ridiculous and on par with saying we shouldn't reform Medicare in any way because it could lead to use stripping all veterans of any form of insurance due to the "domino effect".

    People have such a hard problem actually finding and presenting legitimate fault in THIS argument that they have to reach for hypotheticals that are absolutely unprovable and unknowable and attempt to argue against those things as a means of trying to discredit the issue at hand. "If this happens it may cause a thought process that might possibly lead to x happening" is not a good argument against the initial thing, unless a distinct, measurable, realistic expectation of the latter possabilities can actually be presented. That's not the case here.

    Furthermore, the purpose is not to chuck away at the meaning of marriage to just one of contractual. If it was there'd be talk of banning the use of the term in the private sector, which simply isn't the case. Ones marriage cna continue to be as holy and special to them as they wish it to be. However, by having it involved in government it MUST be constitutional...no matter how much it might offend your christian morals...or else you're chucking away the meaning of the CONSTITUTION.

    I find it funny that you X, a person who so routinely speaks of the constitution and being a conservative and caring about "limited government" are at the same time so horribly concerned with the GOVERNMENT interjecting itself into peoples lives to tell them what to do. Might I ask, what portion of the constitution suggests it is the role of the government to tell the people how to live a moral life? You and others like you ask where in the constitution it says we have a right to health care, or where the government has the ability to tell us what to eat, or what cars to drive. Well, where does it have the authority to tell me how to live my life morally when its not directly infringing upon the rights of another person?

    Marriage is hardly the only morality based law. Hell, up until this debate it wasn't even deeply rooted as a morality based law. To suggest that somehow allowing any two people instead of one man and one woman to get married is somehow going to destroy the notion of morality based laws is ludicrous and akin to suggesting that tweaking welfare means the end of all entitlement programs. (oh, if only).

    Its a slippery slope argument not based on reality but pure apocolyptic fantasy out of fear that the persons sensabilities may be offended.

    I find it hillarious that Mac speaks about the "will of the people" and how "important" it is...and yet, with poll after poll showing more and more support for gay marriage, I somehow doubt that when 51% of "the people" show that their "will" is for its legalization that Mac would be sitting there saying "Well, its important we follow the Will of the people so make it legal".

    Maybe someday there will be some big movement to allow people to bang wherever they want. That said, there's no such movement now. There's no significant public support for it now. There's not even as sound of constitutional arguments in favor of it as there is in regards to gay marriage. So attempting to use that as a shield for why we shouldn't legalize gay marriage is a bit ridiculous.

  2. #1162
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I think you yourself have made an argument that marriage between two people will no longer be about family, as any two people of consenting age will be allowed to marry for whatever reason. Honestly, I would be less bothered by allowing only gay people (I know, how would you prove it?) to marry someone of the same sex, because I don't care for the cheapening of marriage that, what you advocate for, would cause.
    Marriage is already no longer about family.

    Where on the marriage contract does one have to signify that they'll have a family? When is it that a man and woman getting married agree to pop out kids? Where is the law that keeps sterile or infertile people from having children? If its about a "healthy" family, where's the law keeping people with significant genetic disorders from getting married? Or keeping women over the age of 45 from being able to be married?

    The law doesn't do or require what you suggest it does now. It only does so IN YOUR PERCEPTION. Your perception is fully and completely under your control, and if gays or people of the same sex gain the right to marry, it only cheapens marriage if you allow your perception of it to change to such a way.

    Marriage is sacred? How's that square with a nearly 50% divorce wait. Its for a family? Then why is it perfectly acceptable not to raise a family and get married while a gay couple raising an adopted (or even one of them's biological) child not able to get married? If its to have a healthy family, why do we allow people far more likely to have an unhealty baby get married yet we ignore studies that show a child can be perfectly healthy growing up in a gay house hold? If its to simplify the tax burden on individuals living in a household and sharing ownership of things, why are we lieing to ourselves by saying only two people of the opposite sex can have that happen?

    I suggest to you that this isn't changing any deep rooted meaning of what marriage is or represents, at worst its changing your personal perception of it which is entirely an individual issue.

  3. #1163
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You have it backwards X. The Constitution states that the government cannot establish a state religion. As such, the government is not obligated to respect the practices of any religion.

    Furthermore, freedom of religion does not entitle anyone to the privileges and rights of marriage. Those privileges and rights come from the state and no religion is entitled to them.
    You either ignorantly or intellitionally ignored the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

    The only time such can be done is when there is a situation where one persons right to free exercise of their religion comes into conflicts with someone elses rights. Such as the case where a religion suggests its okay to stone their daughter for being raped, the free exercise of that religion would infringe upon the rights of the daughter.

    In the case of polygamy, frankly, as long as nothing illegal is occuring it should be perfectly legal to engage in for religious reasons. The state is not required to recognize it in any way though, as allowing you to exercise your religion and recognitizing and condoning your religion are two seperate things.

    But the government absolutely must respect the practices of a religion, in so far as they can't legally force you to violate your rights to free exercising of that religion unless there is legitimate cause that such exercise will infring upon someone elses rights.

  4. #1164
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    You forgot part,

    A religion that advocates polygamy sure has an argument that they are prohibited from their "free exorcise thereof".
    You're correct, but not in the way you're speaking.

    Some states actually make it illegal to be living with multiple adult women of non-relation in a polygamous unit even when done fully in a private setting.

    I agree with you 100% that those laws are unconstitutional...not due to EPC but because of the 1st amendment.

    However, its not unconstitutional in regards to the marriage contract, because there is no "religious group" that is being discriminated against. "Polygamists" is not a religion, "The number of people one wants to marry" isn't a religion. If it stated that "Mormons" are not allowed to marry more than one person, that'd be discrimination based on marriage. However, that's not the case.

  5. #1165
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    I think it safe to say that you would not recognize any harm because you have decided it's completely harmless. I'm of the opinion people either think it is harmless and therefore completely dismissive of any harm induced by ssm or they think it is very harmful and therefore overly sensitive to its perceived harm. I think there are very few in the middle of those two extremes.
    There is no harm. It may be perceived or imagined but it is NOT real. If you can show me REAL harm, with NO comparisons involved, then we can entertain that possibility existing.

    In other words, if nobody is buying gays being born, then nobody is buying harm being inflicted. Capisce?

  6. #1166
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Women do not have the right to marry men. Men do not have the right to marry women.
    You are correct. They do not. However, they should. Gays are being penalized for being exactly who they are.

  7. #1167
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Just because the discrimination is not the same, doesn't mean that laws against polygamy aren't also discriminatory. Please, people compare types of discrimination all the time, even if they're not exactly the same.
    My birthday is in 25 days. In honor of thereof, I think it would be simply swell if you stopped comparing SSM to everything under the sun, and stuck to the topic. Deal?

  8. #1168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Meh, so is 'family relation', and siblings are born that way also. Incest ftw?
    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    My birthday is in 25 days. In honor of thereof, I think it would be simply swell if you stopped comparing SSM to everything under the sun, and stuck to the topic. Deal?
    And you as well.

  9. #1169
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,312

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    My birthday is in 25 days. In honor of thereof, I think it would be simply swell if you stopped comparing SSM to everything under the sun, and stuck to the topic. Deal?
    This kind of talk leads to stuff like birthmonths. Madness.

  10. #1170
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I think Mac is worried, as I am, about the domino effect. I've seen a couple arguments here that suggest that to be for gay marriage, you have to chuck any meaning marriage has beyond just a contractual one. I also don't want to have to support public nudity or public sex. Does supporting SSM mean that morality no longer has a place in the law, at all?
    I think you ladies need to cease with the histrionics. You all are trying so hard to muddy the waters that you've frightened yourselves.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •