SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

ecofarm said:

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 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.

Click to expand...

The only way to have true equality is to treat people equally under the law. To have the laws apply the same to one person, as it does to the next. I won't deny that I have a pretty large emotional stake in this issue, but I advocate for SSM based on a logical thought process about how the laws in this country work.

CaptainCourtesy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Damn it CC, finding the words to describe how I basically feel when I couldn't :lol:

It being almost 5 in the morning probably doesn't help.

You say expand the goverment, I say drop the program(ing). I believe we are both wanting the same thing - equal rights.

However, I find your approach to be self-defeating and counter-productive.

Source > symptom

Stop being emotional, and let's solve this problem at the source.

ecofarm said:

You say expand the goverment, I say drop the program. I believe we are both wanting the same thing - equal rights.

However, I find your approach to be self-defeating and counter-productive.

Source > symptom

Stop being emotional, and let's solve this problem at the source.

Click to expand...

I believe the institution of marriage helps the country as a whole though.

Your Star said:

Damn it CC, finding the words to describe how I basically feel when I couldn't :lol:

It being almost 5 in the morning probably doesn't help.

Click to expand...

I've been saying something like this a few times, on a few threads, all weekend. It's starting to come naturally.

But it's really true. I know that you are religious. So am I. How do YOU resolve the conflict between your faith and being pro-SSM? How do you separate faith from logic?

Your Star said:

I believe the institution of marriage helps the country as a whole though.

Click to expand...

Ok, that helps with your consistency. I disagree.


To the point: is my position illogical or irrational?

ecofarm said:

You say expand the goverment, I say drop the program(ing). I believe we are both wanting the same thing - equal rights.

However, I find your approach to be self-defeating and counter-productive.

Source > symptom

Stop being emotional, and let's solve this problem at the source.

Click to expand...

Well, if you are still talking about civil unions being for everyone, civil unions are governmentally sanctioned. I'm not sure how this is not in conflict with what you are saying. Can you explain?

CaptainCourtesy said:

I've been saying something like this a few times, on a few threads, all weekend. It's starting to come naturally.

But it's really true. I know that you are religious. So am I. How do YOU resolve the conflict between your faith and being pro-SSM? How do you separate faith from logic?

Click to expand...

I don't, I believe homosexuality isn't a sin. So there is no conflict for me.

To be honest, I'm really tired debating this subject, I don't talk about this issue hardly at all in real life, I really wish the law would just hurry up and change so I won't have this need to debate people about this.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Well, if you are still talking about civil unions being for everyone, civil unions are governmentally sanctioned. I'm not sure how this is not in conflict with what you are saying. Can you explain?

Click to expand...

IF we need some kind of government contract for sharing responsibility, we can go with civil unions. To some extent this is not so different than marriage, but I believe it is in an important way - it drops all the baggage and takes 'marriage' (some read: religion) out of government.

My solution is to address the source of the problem. Addressing a symptom of the problem by expanding the problem is not reasonable to me. I do not see expanding the source of the problem as a rational solution. Let's just accept that the word 'marriage' might have religious connotations and drop it.

If someone cannot see the above(s) as a logical and rational objection to SSM, that's their (overly-emotional) problem.

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...

I'm not arguing to keep things the same. Both of us are arguing for a change, but only one of us is arguing to expand governmental social engineering as some kind of (emotionally misguided) solution.

Your Star said:

And I have yet to see someone argue against SSM logically.

Click to expand...

There is some room to do so if one focuses entirely on the reproductive function of marriage while ignoring the others; it is a given that homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general does nothing to sustain the birth rate.

I consider this approach short-sighted, personally. But it seems that our preoccupations with biological parentage and romantic love distract us from a functional viewpoint on marriage.

Your Star said:

I don't, I believe homosexuality isn't a sin. So there is no conflict for me.

Click to expand...

OK.

To be honest, I'm really tired debating this subject, I don't talk about this issue hardly at all in real life, I really wish the law would just hurry up and change so I won't have this need to debate people about this.

Click to expand...

Yeah... I've been doing this debate, consistently, for 5 years. I DO address it in RL at times (helping kids come out to unsupportive parents), but I have been thinking, lately, about retiring from the whole SSM debate. It's really not much of a challenge. Except for a few folks who present something interesting, most of the arguments I could write in my sleep.

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?


Edit: I edited the wrong post and erased a bunch of explanation for the above. Oh well.

Click to expand...

I'll respond to some of your other posts here as well..

In a nutshell.. Your view is both illogical and irrational..

I'll give you an example.. White people drink cold clean fresh water served up by the government.. We will say black people drink dirty water from where ever they can get it.. Whites being hetorsexuals and blacks being homosexuals.. I am not calling you a racist so bear with me.. Your solution is to give everyone dirty water.. While you are in a sense giving everyone equal rights, you are taking rights away to do it.. Which isn't logical..

Marriage is such a basic thing.. Denying marriage to everyone does give eveyone equal rights.. But you are still denying a right that we all should have.. The reason behind the race thing was to use the example of blacks, and how they were once denied rights and viewed as a 2nd class citizen.. Which in many respects is where homosexuals are today.. They are viewed as 2nd class citizens and not worthy of the same rights as everyone else..

Civil unions?? Equality but under a different name is not equal.. Nobody has a monopoly on marriage.. Nobody can claim it for themselves.. Nobody can demand that a marriage be this or that or not this or not that..

The logic of this arguement is simple.. Nobody here has a right or the authority to determine what is or isn't a marriage.. The 1st amendment strips the use of religion from this arguement.. There is no religous view here.. From a legal stand point, there is no reason to deny gay couples the right to marry.. Anything less than them being allowed to get married is in the simplest of terms, descrimination and a violation of their rights..

As for the government being involved?? That has been how it is for thousands of years.. Marriage historically was an act of the government.. It was later adopted by the church.. Marriage is a major part in any society..

So if you want a logical and rational position?? Start supporting gay marriage and equal rights for all.. Because that is the only true answer..

Oh and taking away the rights of others to make it equal, simply because you are against something, doesn't count nor is it logical..

ecofarm said:

IF we need some kind of government contract for sharing responsibility, we can go with civil unions. To some extent this is not so different than marriage, but I believe it is in an important way - it drops all the baggage and takes 'marriage' (some read: religion) out of government.

My solution is to address the source of the problem. Addressing a symptom of the problem by expanding the problem is not reasonable to me. I do not see expanding the source of the problem as a rational solution. Let's just accept that the word 'marriage' might have religious connotations and drop it.

If someone cannot see the above(s) as a logical and rational objection to SSM, that's their (overly-emotional) problem.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... not sure I completely agree on this. The only "source" you are addressing is removing the conflict of using the word "marriage". Folks are wedded to this word. Problem is, eliminating the word, altogether from government would be as difficult to attain, if not more so, than using marriage to describe all kinds of unions. Seems to me, if you are using the terms, interchangably, and the only issue is removing the conflict of the word "marriage", all you are doing is presenting a sematical argument.

X Factor said:

Is the idea of marriage really "logical" in the first place, or is it more emotional?

Click to expand...

Nope, it's entirely logical. Two people who have chosen to legally entangle their lives are better for the overall economy because they tend to have more free money to spend. Thus, society gives them breaks in recognition of their positive effect.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Yeah... I've been doing this debate, consistently, for 5 years. I DO address it in RL at times (helping kids come out to unsupportive parents)

Click to expand...

Could you explain this some? I don't quite see how telling kids "the government accepts such relationships in some places, so your parent's should" is a strong position.

I'd be more inclined to tell the kid "there's nothing wrong with you, not matter what your parents or the government says".

ecofarm said:

Could you explain this some? I don't quite see how telling kids "the government accepts such relationships in some places, so your parent's should" is a strong position.

I'd be more inclined to tell the kid "there's nothing wrong with you, not matter what your parents or the government says".

Click to expand...

The first statement never comes up. The second does, but the kids I work with are minors and often need/want their parents emotional support. Until they reach majority, parental non-support can be difficult for them to deal with.

CaptainCourtesy said:

The first statement never comes up. The second does, but the kids I work with are minors and often need/want their parents emotional support. Until they reach majority, parental non-support can be difficult for them to deal with.

Click to expand...

Okay, I read this as first "amendment" instead of statement, and was highly confused for a moment :lol:

Time to sleep I think.

Your Star said:

Okay, I read this as first "amendment" instead of statement, and was highly confused for a moment :lol:

Time to sleep I think.

Click to expand...

Ummm... yeah... probably for me, also. 5:30 AM is enough.

Same-sex marriage is wrong because

Click to expand...

We shouldn't create yet another form of legal recognition of one person's love and commitment to another. To me marriage is marriage and I don't like the term "same sex marriage." Two adults (of whatever sex) who choose to make such a commitment should be allowed to marry and it marriage. Calling it "same-sex-marriage" creates a fake position such as we have in the UK where only heterosexuals can have an ordinary marriage and only gay people can have a civil partnership or civil union.

I don't buy the argument that marriage sanctifies one or other religion as marriage (I strongly believe) has been around in one form or another for quite a long time and we have seen various religions come and go in that time. I also think when some speak of protecting the religious meaning of "marriage" they are speaking only about a western concept of marriage and most probably tied to a christian version. If you look in the broadest sense - there are all sorts of religions and none should have the right to define whether other people -whether religious or not- are allowed to be called married or not.

X Factor said:

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?

Click to expand...

They arent interested in understanding its all about demanding

I believe same sex marriage and same sex relationships is a sin. However I support the right of homosexuals to enter into marriage contracts with each other. I voted other.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage", the term 'marriage' describes a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting children. This whole issue is just ridiculous.

Audiophile said:

There is no such thing as "gay marriage", the term 'marriage' describes a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting children. This whole issue is just ridiculous.

Click to expand...

so according to this logic, sterile couples and couples who don't plan on having children should be denied the ability to marry as well. Amirite?

Audiophile said:

1.)There is no such thing as "gay marriage", 2.)the term 'marriage' describes a union between a man and a woman 3.)for the purpose of begetting children. 4.)This whole issue is just ridiculous.

Click to expand...

1.) False and Opinion, It already exist your are misinformed.
2.) False and Opinion, Since it already exists obviously again you are misinformed and even the dictionary disagrees.
3.) False and Opinion, marriage has NOTHING to do with children unless the people that are married want it to. Government has no requirements for you to have or not have children.
4.) Yes I agree your issues are ridiculous because they are false.

Maybe you misunderstood, the debate is about addressing legal marriage and how gays should or should not have equal rights.

digsbe said:

I believe same sex marriage and same sex relationships is a sin. However I support the right of homosexuals to enter into marriage contracts with each other. I voted other.

Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of someone who can think logically and separate personal religious beliefs for the greater good of a whole society. You would make an excellent politician, Digs.