• 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
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you believe you're objective? Seems you're getting angry already.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Look, I got nothing against your "Crusade for Truth and Logic".

But you, earlier in the thread, pretended to object to attacking and degrading.

You can prove all your logicalness and the rest of it without claiming that the other side is completely irrational and calling them whining losers.

I'm all for correcting inaccuracies, but your hypocrisy sucks.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Well, except, I have not attacked either side.

I can totally see why someone who conflicted on the issue (as I can be) would be wiser to take that better part of valor. Can't you?
Click to expand...

Watch how I debate Goshin on this issue. Or Baron for the most part. Or Jerry. These people debate the issue reasonably, either with logic or with their belief systems used as reasons for their position. I have no issue with discussing the issue with them. But folks who come here and say "homosexuality is unnatural", "homosexuality is a mental illness", "homosexuality is a perversion", "homosexuality is just a choice", or many other illogical things or things that can be proven wrong, I WILL go after them and these issues. Usually what happens when I do, is the cognitive dissonance that is formed by being shown that their position is not logical, causes them to get upset and then THEY start to post aggressively. It is not my fault that I have proven their logic faulty.

If you are conflicted on the issue, again, I have no issue with that. There are three positions you can have that would make sense to me: 1) Pro: logic and evidence based; 2) Anti: faith based; 3) Elimination of marriage altogether. Whatever your position, I can point out the positives or negatives of each and help you to understand the issue better.
 
ecofarm said:
Look, I got nothing against your "Crusade for Truth and Logic".

But you, earlier in the thread, pretended to object to attacking and degrading.

You can prove all your logicalness and the rest of it without claiming that the other side is completely irrational and calling them whining losers.
Click to expand...

Point out the post where I said I "object to attacking and degrading".

And the other side IS illogical. This is not an attack; it's accurate. And when THEY start to attack they do it because they cannot win... at which point they often whine that others are being mean, rather than debating. This is not being degrading; it's what actually happens. I have no issue calling a spade a spade. I've seen this on and off for 5 years, here. It's not some thing I just came up with.
 
I'm pro-gay rights. I do not see the anti position as "faith based". I see it as sociologically based. I think the anti position is wrong, but I see where they are coming from.


FWIW, I think there should only be civil unions (sanctioned by the state), for everyone. I find this to be BY FAR the most rational position. I think that the argument for SSM is illogical and irrational on most points.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Watch how I debate Goshin on this issue. Or Baron for the most part. Or Jerry. These people debate the issue reasonably, either with logic or with their belief systems used as reasons for their position. I have no issue with discussing the issue with them. But folks who come here and say "homosexuality is unnatural", "homosexuality is a mental illness", "homosexuality is a perversion", "homosexuality is just a choice", or many other illogical things or things that can be proven wrong, I WILL go after them and these issues. Usually what happens when I do, is the cognitive dissonance that is formed by being shown that their position is not logical, causes them to get upset and then THEY start to post aggressively. It is not my fault that I have proven their logic faulty.

If you are conflicted on the issue, again, I have no issue with that. There are three positions you can have that would make sense to me: 1) Pro: logic and evidence based; 2) Anti: faith based; 3) Elimination of marriage altogether. Whatever your position, I can point out the positives or negatives of each and help you to understand the issue better.
Click to expand...

Well, in that it has to do with reconciling it with my faith, I don't think there's much you can help with (I do sincerely appreciate the offer). I just wish a discussion about this didn't have to be met with such hostility if you're not immediately and whole-heartedly in favor. /shrug

Ah well, as I've said, it's an emotional issue. What can ya do?
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
And you believe you're objective? Seems you're getting angry already.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting angry, just pointing out what I'm saying. I have yet to see a logical reason why SSM should be denied legally.
 
Your Star said:
I'm not getting angry, just pointing out what I'm saying. I have yet to see a logical reason why SSM should be denied legally.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying it's not a purely logical issue.
 
Your Star said:
I'm not getting angry, just pointing out what I'm saying. I have yet to see a logical reason why SSM should be denied legally.
Click to expand...

Marriage has no place in the government. Expanding the "service" to others would only serve to entrench a flawed system.

Is that illogical? Irrational?


Edit: I edited the wrong post and erased a bunch of explanation for the above. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Marriage has no place in the government. Expanding the "service" to others would only serve to entrench a flawed system.

Is that illogical? Irrational?
Click to expand...

To be fair, Eco, state sanctioned marriage is not going anywhere and we all know it.
 
I support same sex marriage because I believe in the sanctity of marriage. Marriage and family are the bedrock of the nation and excluding homosexuals from it is foolish when we should be doing everything in our power to encourage them to take part.
 
X Factor said:
To be fair, Eco, state sanctioned marriage is not going anywhere and we all know it.
Click to expand...

A fair counter, but I think this issue is hot enough to change the system.


Viktyr Korimir said:
I support same sex marriage because I believe in the sanctity of marriage. Marriage and family are the bedrock of the nation and excluding homosexuals from it is foolish when we should be doing everything in our power to encourage them to take part.
Click to expand...

You are a consistent social engineer and I see where you are coming from.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
Why should laws be based on anything other than logic?
Click to expand...

Well "logic" is subjective. To you, SSM is perfectly logical (and I totally get why, I really do). To someone else, the thought of two people of the same sex getting married defies logic.
 
ecofarm said:
A fair counter, but I think this issue is hot enough to change the system.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think this entire "anti-marriage" argument is a bunch of frustrated conservatives saying that if they have to share their toys with gays, they're going to pack them up and go home.

Marriage is a fundamental institution in any civilized society and must be preserved at all costs.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Frankly, I think this entire "anti-marriage" argument is a bunch of frustrated conservatives saying that if they have to share their toys with gays, they're going to pack them up and go home.

Marriage is a fundamental institution in any civilized society and must be preserved at all costs.
Click to expand...

I'm not a conservative. I oppose social engineering.
 
ecofarm said:
Marriage has no place in the government. Expanding the "service" to others would only serve to entrench a flawed system.

Is that illogical? Irrational?
Click to expand...

If you think a government institution isn't right, that is a fair point, but is the solution really to treat people unequally under the law in order to keep that institution from growing>
 
X Factor said:
Well, in that it has to do with reconciling it with my faith, I don't think there's much you can help with (I do sincerely appreciate the offer). I just wish a discussion about this didn't have to be met with such hostility if you're not immediately and whole-heartedly in favor. /shrug

Ah well, as I've said, it's an emotional issue. What can ya do?
Click to expand...

What is the conflict for you? I've actually always wanted to start a thread in the Abortion Forum like this... since I am really on the fence about abortion. But, you have an opportunity here, to present your conflict and have people, hopefully, give you straight feedback and try to help you expand your positions... either pro or anti. Give it a shot.
 
Your Star said:
If you think a government institution isn't right, that is a fair point, but is the solution really to treat people unequally under the law in order to keep that institution from growing>
Click to expand...

You propose that we treat people equal by expanding a social engineering project in the government.

I propose that we treat people equally by eliminating marriage (and all of its baggage) from the governmental lexicon.


Which position is more rational? Which is more logical?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I'm pro-gay rights. I do not see the anti position as "faith based". I see it as sociologically based. I think the anti position is wrong, but I see where they are coming from.


FWIW, I think there should only be civil unions (sanctioned by the state), for everyone. I find this to be BY FAR the most rational position. I think that the argument for SSM is illogical and irrational on most points.
Click to expand...


With the exception of your belief that the anti position is not faith based (I see it as being so) I agree with your position, completely. My position on SSM is that EVERYTHING sanctioned by the government should be called a civil union. Marriage should be left strictly to religion... therefore if a religion wants to sanction SSM, great, and if it doesn't, great. Complete separation.
 
X Factor said:
And I'm saying it's not a purely logical issue.
Click to expand...

And this is completely true. Thing is you really can't mix the two. That's what makes this debate so complicated.
 
X Factor said:
Well "logic" is subjective. To you, SSM is perfectly logical (and I totally get why, I really do). To someone else, the thought of two people of the same sex getting married defies logic.
Click to expand...

And I have yet to see someone argue against SSM logically.
 
ecofarm said:
You propose that we treat people equal by expanding a social engineering project in the government.

I propose that we treat people equally by eliminating marriage (and all of its baggage) from the governmental lexicon.


Which position is more rational? Which is more logical?
Click to expand...

You can certainly advocate for that, but while marriage laws are still on the books, we should treat every citizen equally in that regards.
 
X Factor said:
Well "logic" is subjective. To you, SSM is perfectly logical (and I totally get why, I really do). To someone else, the thought of two people of the same sex getting married defies logic.
Click to expand...

Once you ask each why they believe their position to be logical, you will find that the former is and the latter isn't... at least in the sense that it isn't universally logical. It may be logical because it is logical for YOU to accept the tenets of your religion, but in a universal sense, that is a faith based belief... completely separate from logic.
 
Your Star said:
You can certainly advocate for that, but while marriage laws are still on the books, we should treat every citizen equally in that regards.
Click to expand...

Your liberal, you think more and bigger government programs are going to bring equality. I'm not liberal, and I think less government social engineering is going to bring equality.

You can argue about laws on the books all day long, but your position on SSM is less rational and logical than mine; in fact, your argument is based largely on emotion and inconsistency caused by an extreme sense of urgency.

Untimately, your position is counter-productive; it is both irrational and illogical. It is self-defeating, as it reinforces the government's authority over relationships. Stop addressing the symptoms and go for the source.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom