• 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
There's really no need for in-depth analysis. The opposition to same-sex marriage is, fundamentally, religious.
 
That's why I'm asking, too. I want to understand.

Seriously, your poll options and OP don't make it appear as if you're interested in understanding. I'm not criticizing at all, just saying, you set the tone. I doubt anyone serious about their opposition is going to believe respectful dialogue is what you're after. See what I'm saying?
 
No longevity? No humor? Truly.

I'm sorry, I honestly don't know how to check my personality at the door. Nor am I willing to give it the old college try.

And with further thought I need to say, the objections are silly. They are just as ridiculous as I made them appear. There is NO good reason that two people in love cannot be married in this country, in this century.
 
Last edited:
There's really no need for in-depth analysis. The opposition to same-sex marriage is, fundamentally, religious.

And that makes it fundamentally irrational, which is all we need to know.
 
I didnt participate and its pointless to participate in any of them, because any points anti ssm individuals make, extorts the same pat answers from the same people, who cant present a real argument except for redundant sarcasm.

You say this, but I have yet to see you try to understand our side.
 
I didnt participate and its pointless to participate in any of them, because any points anti ssm individuals make, extorts the same pat answers from the same people, who cant present a real argument except for redundant sarcasm.

No, any points anti-SSMers make are demonstrated to be illogical, as they are, and then when the anti-SSMers are shown to have a loser position, they start to whine that folks are being mean.
 
No, any points anti-SSMers make are demonstrated to be illogical, as they are, and then when the anti-SSMers are shown to have a loser position, they start to whine that folks are being mean.

So am I the only who can see both sides of the issue?
 
Same sex marriage or any type of marriage should not be a part of government. There should be no tax rewards for married couples. Marriage is a contract between two people why does the state of nation need to be involved in any of that. Nonsense.
 
Or in some cases we genuinely want to understand the other side and the logic behind their position.

Sometimes, though it depends on how the other side is being presented. If the presentation is without logic and presented in an attacking or degrading way, I stop caring.


True colors in 3, 2, 1...

And with further thought I need to say, the objections are silly. They are just as ridiculous as I made them appear.

No, any points anti-SSMers make are demonstrated to be illogical, as they are, and then when the anti-SSMers are shown to have a loser position, they start to whine that folks are being mean.
 
Last edited:
Still, your one of my favorite posters on here :) but..no one wants to understand the other side, they want to just attack the other side ad nauseam with the same statements over and over...no one even pays attention to anyone that posts against it or what they say.

Problem is this. The reason that the same points are stated over and over is because you all don't seem to understand them. Here... let me demonstrate:

1) Define natural.
You all can't. Either you run from the definition, make up your own, or have to admit that homosexuality is natural based on the definition. Mostly, you all do either the first or the second. Do the third and it won't be mentioned again.

2) Define normal.
If you all define normal in the statistical sense, it doesn't get mentioned again. When you try to define normal in any other way or place a value judgement on normal, you all get skewered with being exposed for presenting logical fallacies, confronted with a fallacious definition, or both.

3) What is the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation.
When you all recognize that because someone is gay, it doesn't mean that they MUST act on this, it doesn't get brought up again. When you all equate certain sexual behaviors... usually anal sex, with homosexuality, your are shown how absurd that is. Straights do anal sex, not all gays do anal sex, and a behavior is an act whereas an orientation is a state of being.

4) Along with this, define gay sex.
When you admit that, with the exception of penis-vaginal intercourse, any sexual behavior can be practiced by anyone, this does not get mentioned again. But you all often try to define certain acts as "gay only". When you do, you fail, because as stated above, any other act can be practiced by anyone.

Now, I could easily go on, but you see, all you need to do is accept these facts... and they are facts, facts that NO ONE here can dispute, and these issues don't get mentioned again. Problem is, you all keep bringing up your inaccuracies and fallacies, so these things have to be explained over and over. I've probably done this debate 200+ times and explained the above just as many. It's getting tiring and I have been considering retiring from the SSM debate.

Regardless, if you want to believe that SSM should not happen because of your religious beliefs, that's fine and you will get no argument from me. You want to start PROVING that SSM should not happen, either logically or with evidence, and you will get demolished. There is no logical or evidenciary reason to keep SSM illegal. There is only religous faith... which I can accept.

So, the repitition of the SSM debate is due to the anti's, not the pro's.
 
True colors in 3, 2, 1...

Read what I wrote. When there is no logic, I stop caring about understanding the other side. My second post is completely consistent with that.
 
Is the idea of marriage really "logical" in the first place, or is it more emotional?

Strawman. This is about the logic behind denying the legal contract of marriage to LGBT people, not the logic of why people want to enter marriage.
 
Read what I wrote.

You were attacking and degrading. You presented the other side as illogical losers who whine.

This is no different than presenting the other side as perverts who bring down society.
 
Last edited:
So am I the only who can see both sides of the issue?

I don't think so. I can see the other side of the issue just fine. There are two points to it. One is based on belief, which I respect and have no issue discussing. The other is based on lack of logic and lack of evidence which I have a big issue with. I do not like misinformation being spread.
 
You were degrading. You attacked the other side as illogical losers who whine.

Again... READ WHAT I WROTE IN THE FIRST POST. If the poster is presenting a completely illogical position, I have no interest in understanding it. If the position is either logical, or admittedly faith based, I will certainly take interest in understanding it.

And, I stand by what I said, When an anti-SSMer tries to present a logical or evidenciary presentation to their position... and is shown to be absolutely wrong, they tend to complain that people are being mean. Not always, but often.
 
Last edited:
So if YOU don't think their arguments have any merit, THEN it is ok to attack and degrade them.

Ok, now I see how you are not a hypocrite. Attacking and degrading is fine, as long as you are the one doing it.
 
Strawman. This is about the logic behind denying the legal contract of marriage to LGBT people, not the logic of why people want to enter marriage.

I see. So only one side should be held to pure logic? What does it accomplish to deny this is an emotional issue?
 
Last edited:
So if YOU don't think their arguments have any merit, THEN it is ok to attack and degrade them.

Ok, now I see how you are not a hypocrite. Attacking and degrading is fine, as long as you are the one doing it.

If their position is illogical and has no evidence, I will demonstrate that as much as I choose to do. I will also point out behaviors that occur. If you do not like that... too bad.
 
If their position is illogical and has no evidence, I will demonstrate that as much as I choose to do. I will also point out behaviors that occur. If you do not like that... too bad.


What I do not like is you pretending to be all civilized and needing to turn away from the attacking and degrading arguments of the other side, only to present your own demonization.

Reading you is just like reading a rabid pro-lifer or anti-SSMer. Nothing but absolute claims and insults.
 
Last edited:
Is see. So only one side should be held to pure logic? What does it accomplish to deny this is an emotional issue?

I have no idea where you are getting this, my statement was that anti-SSM arguments are devoid of logic(atleast everyone I've seen), all they have is emotional arguments, or ones based out of ignorance on the subject.
 
Same sex marriage or any type of marriage should not be a part of government. There should be no tax rewards for married couples. Marriage is a contract between two people why does the state of nation need to be involved in any of that. Nonsense.

Government oversees contract law and enforces contract... when a contract is broken, as in divorce, the courts determine property rights and custody of children. Government courts enforce such contracts and rule on broken contracts to maintain order in society. Many philosophers believe that one of the reasons human's need government and why government must exist, is to maintain social order by enforcing contracts between parties and ruling on broken contracts.
 
Last edited:
What I do not like is you pretending to be all civilized and needing to turn away from the attacking and degrading arguments of the other side, only to present your own demonization.

Reading you is just like reading a rabid pro-lifer or anti-SSMer. Nothing but absolute claims and insults.

Well that is your opinion, no matter how incorrect it is. I present information that is accurate and logical. Not everything I say in the SSM debate is absolute; only when substantiated. If you actually read my comments in one of the debates, you'd know that... and you'd know what I am referring to in this discussion. But when the other side presents inaccurate or illogical information, you can bet that I will point it out. You don't like that? OK. I can live with that.
 
I don't think so. I can see the other side of the issue just fine. There are two points to it. One is based on belief, which I respect and have no issue discussing. The other is based on lack of logic and lack of evidence which I have a big issue with. I do not like misinformation being spread.

Well, except, I have not attacked either side.

If I admit to being conflicted on the issue, how do you see that?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom