• 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!

SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Same-sex marriage is wrong because

  • It will set a bad example for Christian youth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    83
No, each has the same rights, and each has the same restriction. It's equal treatment.

How so. If lesbian women can't marry women (as men do) and gay men can't marry men (as women do) then gays are being restricted from marrying their beloved.
 
Why does polygamy change it anymore than SSM?

It would change the number of people, change the dynamics, change the laws extensively, with the way how people would get married, how things get passed on from one spouse to another, probably change the tax codes, how people get divorced etc. Allowing polygamy would drastically change the institution, while SSM would not, because none of that stuff will have to change when we allow SSM.
 
I find it interesting that you left out the primary reason...religious belief. Did you not think that that was a viable option for the poll?

For every religion that uses the Old Testament, marriage is the first ceremony and institution that is created and it was created by God and performed by God. You can't find a more holy ceremony and/or institution. It just doesn't exist.

Yes, I know...tons of people have bastardized marriage in the past and some seem to think that is justification for continuing the improper trend. It is not.

As for me, and a growing number of people, it is a violation of the First Amendment to regulate marriage in any manner. If I had my way, the government would drop all references to marriage. Then, if they chose, they could replace marriage with a secular social contract. That would not violate the First Amendment and it would provide a much easier path to the fairness you seek.

The 1st amendment is not impacted in any way what so every since legal marriage has ZERO impact on religious marriage. Sorry your statement is in fact false.
 
Last edited:
No, hypotheticals are foolish games.

If it is an appropriate allegory, then it is not a foolish game. It is a way to open up your mind, and look at something from a different perspective.
 
No, each has the same rights, and each has the same restriction. It's equal treatment.
No. They each have different restrictions - men cannot marry women, women cannot marry men - those are different restrictions.

You are right, however. Both men and women do have the right to marry just like both blacks and whites had the right to go to school in 1945.
 
I find it interesting that you left out the primary reason...religious belief. Did you not think that that was a viable option for the poll?

For every religion that uses the Old Testament, marriage is the first ceremony and institution that is created and it was created by God and performed by God. You can't find a more holy ceremony and/or institution. It just doesn't exist.

Yes, I know...tons of people have bastardized marriage in the past and some seem to think that is justification for continuing the improper trend. It is not.

As for me, and a growing number of people, it is a violation of the First Amendment to regulate marriage in any manner. If I had my way, the government would drop all references to marriage. Then, if they chose, they could replace marriage with a secular social contract. That would not violate the First Amendment and it would provide a much easier path to the fairness you seek.

Marriage in the sense it is being discussed is a legal contract, religion should have no place in this discussion.
 
Marriage in the sense it is being discussed is a legal contract, religion should have no place in this discussion.

Our government is secular, religion has no place in *ANY* legal disussion.

Too bad the religious can't get that through their heads.
 
How so. If lesbian women can't marry women (as men do) and gay men can't marry men (as women do) then gays are being restricted from marrying their beloved.

because marriage is not between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman...it's between a man and a woman, and all are equally allowed to engage in it.
 
It would change the number of people, change the dynamics, change the laws extensively, with the way how people would get married, how things get passed on from one spouse to another, probably change the tax codes, how people get divorced etc. Allowing polygamy would drastically change the institution, while SSM would not, because none of that stuff will have to change when we allow SSM.

So it's ok to ban it because it would be more difficult to regulate?
 
Our government is secular, religion has no place in *ANY* legal disussion.

Too bad the religious can't get that through their heads.

The religious have no say in government?
 
because marriage is not between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman...it's between a man and a woman, and all are equally allowed to engage in it.

Just because you say that doesn't mean it's Constitutional.
 
Marriage in the sense it is being discussed is a legal contract, religion should have no place in this discussion.

According to you....unfortunately, you are not the only person it affects.
 
So it's ok to ban it because it would be more difficult to regulate?

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the two don't compare.
 
According to you....unfortunately, you are not the only person it affects.

Using religion as a reason to deny SSM is against the first amendment, and my religious rights.
 
I think it's going to be legalized despite everybody's feelings, and I bet I don't see 60 (7 years) before it happens.

Oh it will be the only question is when, Id say 10 years MAX!
It will be a proud day in AMERICA as we rid ourselves of one more discriminating practice. We will be closer to every man and woman are created equal and equal treatment, laws, rights, freedoms and liberties for all.

Sadly in this case we wont be ahead of the curve.
 
According to you....unfortunately, you are not the only person it affects.

In reality legal marriage has not impact on religious marriage and thats a fact.
 
According to you....unfortunately, you are not the only person it affects.

She's not the only person "what" affects?
 
Using religion as a reason to deny SSM is against the first amendment, and my religious rights.

Not if willfully disregarding religious beliefs is ok so long as you get what you want.
 
Not if willfully disregarding religious beliefs is ok so long as you get what you want.

Government doesnt have to regard them LMAO they just cant impede them or you from practicing them.

HUGE difference, its not the same at all.
 
Not if willfully disregarding religious beliefs is ok so long as you get what you want.

We live under a government that is secular, and we must think about secular reasons to justify our laws. Would you be okay with muslims banning pork, and alcohol through law because it is their religious belief?
 
Not if willfully disregarding religious beliefs is ok so long as you get what you want.

Religion has no place in laws.
 
We live under a government that is secular, and we must think about secular reasons to justify our laws. Would you be okay with muslims banning pork, and alcohol through law because it is their religious belief?

Not necessarily. We live under a secular govt that must represent us all equally. Many a religious value is represented in our legal system.
 
Back
Top Bottom