• 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 isn't, and should be available to all gay couples

    Votes: 65 78.3%

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

    Votes: 1 1.2%

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

    Votes: 2 2.4%

  • It will set a bad example for Christian youth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

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

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 14 16.9%
  • Total voters
    83
StillBallin75 said:
it means you support Satan! :shock:

:lamo
Click to expand...

hail-satan.jpg
 
O_Guru said:
I think he was just playing back that's why he called it a devils straw man? ;)

But I could be totally wrong he'll have to answer?
Click to expand...

Jet's pretty sharp. He rarely says something without knowing what he's getting at.
 
O_Guru said:
mac said:
Homosexuality and SSM is against my religious beliefs, I don't believe that one is born gay or has no control over becoming gay, and I have not seen any scientific study to prove that wrong.

I don't believe homosexuals are "evil" or "disgusting" or any other derogatory name anyone would assign them. I believe they should be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other person.
Click to expand...



so you are for gay rights then?
Click to expand...

MAC you still out there, I'm waiting for you answer.
 
O_Guru said:
MAC you still out there, I'm waiting for you answer.
Click to expand...

Sorry, missed the question. I support human rights....I don't think that being gay gives you specific rights.
 
StillBallin75 said:
A few points, lpast.

1) What precisely is wrong with "normalizing the abnormal?"
2) The single male loving their parents is an apples to oranges comparison.
3) SSM is NOT merely about getting financial benefits.
Click to expand...

If your going to normalize the abnormal for one small group then you can expect other abnormal groups to expect the same and they would have a "RIGHT" to feel that way.

A single person loving their parents is very much the same thing when it comes to passing on your social security and covering them with health benefits and tax breaks.
 
mac said:
Sorry, missed the question. I support human rights....I don't think that being gay gives you specific rights.
Click to expand...

What specific rights? Free speech, marriage, to own property?
 
O_Guru said:
so you view marriage as just financial and nothing else? Please explain the logic behind that.
also you do know you did EXACTLY what CC sai you would do, you spoke in absolutes based on your opinions and not logic or facts. Just saying.

Anyway please continue, its interesting the SS thing you brought up though IMO that has nothing to do with gay marriage it seems you problem is with how SS is handled.
Click to expand...

Your putting words in my mouth..I didnt say marriage is merely financial, marriage is between a man and woman, homosexuals want to marry and recieve a financial benefit not afforded other groups outside the norm and single people that are the norm.
CC only accepts as logic what he agrees with your apparently the same way...I could just as easily say and be right btw that yyou wanting two men to marry is ridiculous and illogical, see how easy it is to throw labels around just because you dont agree with a point of view?....everything I disagree with is going to illogical from now on and no one will present a logical argument because I dont agree...then i can be just like you and CC :)

Anyway please continue, its interesting the SS thing you brought up though IMO that has nothing to do with gay marriage it seems you problem is with how SS is handled.

It has everything to do with gay marriage...you allow homosexuals to marry and the surviving spouse gets their social security adding even more strain to a system that is broken.
 
Last edited:
Their weddings are too fabulous and make our straight weddings pale in comparison.
 
mac said:
Sorry, missed the question. I support human rights....I don't think that being gay gives you specific rights.
Click to expand...

No biggie its hard sometimes when you are in multiple threads.

Thanks for clearing that up, you just misspoke.

So you actually do NOT believe they should be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other person.

At least your honest.
 
winston53660 said:
So discrimination based on gender is okay?
Click to expand...

How about discrimination based on Polygamy, or Incest...please...its NOT GENDER...its about them wanting to benefit share at a cost to other taxpayers and being afforded special treatment not afforded to other abnormal groups...
 
lpast said:
If your going to normalize the abnormal for one small group then you can expect other abnormal groups to expect the same and they would have a "RIGHT" to feel that way.

A single person loving their parents is very much the same thing when it comes to passing on your social security and covering them with health benefits and tax breaks.
Click to expand...

Not unless you can show that the single person planned to spend their life with their parents, using the money they earned to help in that support.

There is a reason that SS works the way it does for married couples and that is because in many married relationships, it is very common for one person to be making most, if not all, of the money in the relationship while the other person takes care of the domestic responsibilities for the two of them and possibly their children (if there are any). Because of this sharing of responsibilities during the marriage, it is assumed by the government that the money was considered shared by the couple during the marriage and those SS benefits were technically from money that was earned during that time, so therefore it should be shared between the couple later in life.

Trying to apply that to a person living with their parents would be different, since they are not going to be involved in the same sort of relationship. There could be an option for a similar contract like marriage to deal with those rare cases where it might happen, although, in a way it does for certain people who receive SS from their parents' work, while they are considered legally minors and their parents die. Such a contract shouldn't be called marriage though, since it is not involving the same aspects of marriage, including the expectation that the two will stay together for a good portion of their lives, despite who else may come along (which is not a logical expectation of any purely famial relationship, since it is generally accepted that children become independent of their family once they become adults).
 
lpast said:
It has everything to do with gay marriage...you allow homosexuals to marry and the surviving spouse gets their social security adding even more strain to a system that is broken.
Click to expand...

I agree, let's sacrifice the homos for the good of the straight people's welfare.
 
lpast said:
If your going to normalize the abnormal for one small group then you can expect other abnormal groups to expect the same and they would have a "RIGHT" to feel that way.

A single person loving their parents is very much the same thing when it comes to passing on your social security and covering them with health benefits and tax breaks.
Click to expand...

And if society deems that their objections have merit, society will eventually change its mind and accord them such rights. If not, then they won't. This is the slippery slope fallacy that I was talking about.
 
roguenuke said:
Not unless you can show that the single person planned to spend their life with their parents, using the money they earned to help in that support.

There is a reason that SS works the way it does for married couples and that is because in many married relationships, it is very common for one person to be making most, if not all, of the money in the relationship while the other person takes care of the domestic responsibilities for the two of them and possibly their children (if there are any). Because of this sharing of responsibilities during the marriage, it is assumed by the government that the money was considered shared by the couple during the marriage and those SS benefits were technically from money that was earned during that time, so therefore it should be shared between the couple later in life.

Trying to apply that to a person living with their parents would be different, since they are not going to be involved in the same sort of relationship. There could be an option for a similar contract like marriage to deal with those rare cases where it might happen, although, in a way it does for certain people who receive SS from their parents' work, while they are considered legally minors and their parents die. Such a contract shouldn't be called marriage though, since it is not involving the same aspects of marriage, including the expectation that the two will stay together for a good portion of their lives, despite who else may come along (which is not a logical expectation of any purely famial relationship, since it is generally accepted that children become independent of their family once they become adults).
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with your post...what I disagree with is allowing two men to marry and pass on SS and not allow singles to do the same for their parents...they both pay the same into SS without the same rights...along with all other groups that are not the norm....how do you justify allowing one group that is outside the norm the right to do something that is not allowed for other groups outside the norm..that is DISCRIMINATION and homosexuals want to be treated special...and I do not agree with that
 
BDBoop said:
What's your beef. Honest to [expletive-deleted], why DO YOU care? Why are you just fine with an entire segment of the populace being denied the right to marry.
Click to expand...
Why is it -morally- wrong?
Easy. It's icky.
 
lpast said:
I dont disagree with your post...what I disagree with is allowing two men to marry and pass on SS and not allow singles to do the same for their parents...they both pay the same into SS without the same rights...along with all other groups that are not the norm....how do you justify allowing one group that is outside the norm the right to do something that is not allowed for other groups outside the norm..that is DISCRIMINATION and homosexuals want to be treated special...and I do not agree with that
Click to expand...

I think the smiliraties between the two situations end when the two men are married and the single person is still single.

Or maybe I'm missing something here.

Also, last I checked you can't decide and formulate laws based on what people think societal norms are.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom