• 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
Also on a side note to the people that say all legal marriage is wrong, you understand that is an entirely different debate right?

Since marriage is here and that's what the debate about your issue is different.
Also to claim its logical to end ONE government thing and put in place another and CLAIM less government is also irrational and illogical. Not only that but to claim that would be easier also makes no sense. How would it be easier to reclassify all marriages already on the books, end that law, figure out a new one, take the time to write it, pass it and then apply it to all past marriages as opposed to just changing the current laws and stating it can me same sex?

Can anyone explain how it would be "less" government and easier?
Lastly as soon as you mention marriage and religion you are also showing your hand.
 
Middleground said:
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.
Click to expand...

Im basically for the same thing as he...I word it differently and my opposition to SSM is not religious based
 
lpast said:
Im basically for the same thing as he...I word it differently and my opposition to SSM is not religious based
Click to expand...

Well digs characterizes homosexuality as a sin, and his personal objections are clearly religion-based.

If not religious-based, where is your opposition coming from?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The sanctitties of marriage would be ruined by gay marriage

The divorces, the extra maritial affairs do not ruin marriage, but allowing two devoted and deeply in love people to marry of the same gender will. While the marriage of Anna Nicole Smith to some rich old millionare is as pure as the driven snow
Click to expand...

You forget the deep, meaningful and traditional sanctity of Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire.
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe youll find the majority of pro gay equal rights think this way though.
the vast majority all agree that a PERSON can think what they want but they want the laws to treat everyone equally on the issue.

Do you disagree?
 
StillBallin75 said:
Well digs characterizes homosexuality as a sin, and his personal objections are clearly religion-based.

If not religious-based, where is your opposition coming from?
Click to expand...


I am opposed to normalizing what is obviously abnormal for just one group that is different than the norm, merely for financial benefits. Ive said this more than once a single male or female loves their mother father sister brother just as much and cannot pass on their social security and cover their mothers or fathers with their health benefits. Neither should homosexuals.
 
O_Guru said:
I believe youll find the majority of pro gay equal rights think this way though.
the vast majority all agree that a PERSON can think what they want but they want the laws to treat everyone equally on the issue.

Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Seems to me that most opposed to SSM use their religious beliefs as their argument.
 
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...

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 "eveil" 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.
 
lpast said:
I am opposed to normalizing what is obviously abnormal for just one group that is different than the norm, merely for financial benefits. Ive said this more than once a single male or female loves their mother father sister brother just as much and cannot pass on their social security and cover their mothers or fathers with their health benefits. Neither should homosexuals.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
I am opposed to normalizing what is obviously abnormal for just one group that is different than the norm, merely for financial benefits. Ive said this more than once a single male or female loves their mother father sister brother just as much and cannot pass on their social security and cover their mothers or fathers with their health benefits. Neither should homosexuals.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 "eveil" 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...

I'm with CC here, if this is primarily where your opposition against SSM is rooted, then I respect your opinion but completely disagree. There's no way to logically argue against opinion that is religion-based, but if that's your position then so be it. I believe that for those who don't derive their opposition to SSM from religion, they're on much shakier ground, logically speaking.

That being said, mac, I'm not sure why homosexuality being a choice is relevant. Even if it WERE a choice, so what, and why should they be denied the right to marry because of that?
 
Middleground said:
Seems to me that most opposed to SSM use their religious beliefs as their argument.
Click to expand...

Oh Ok I get, yes I agree with you many that have religious views making them against it DO use that for a reason to stop others which is incorrect in AMERICA.
 
lpast said:
I am opposed to normalizing what is obviously abnormal for just one group that is different than the norm, merely for financial benefits. Ive said this more than once a single male or female loves their mother father sister brother just as much and cannot pass on their social security and cover their mothers or fathers with their health benefits. Neither should homosexuals.
Click to expand...

What do you feel about this scenario:

A gay couple live together devotedly for 25 years. They buy a house and share a bank account. Then suddenly, one dies. The family of the deceased never agreed with her lifestyle and pretty much didn't keep in touch. However because the couple were never ever legally entitled, the surviving part of the couple loses half of what she had worked for all of her life to the people who didn't give a rat's behind about them.

Think that is fair?
 
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 "eveil" 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...

Honest question; how does the right gay people to marry, in a church that is willing to marry two gays affect you in any way? It's totally cool you aren't personally down with the idea, but is there a connection between how you feel and how what you feel is put onto others you don't agree with that? You know what I'm saying?

I've never been able to make the connection between the legitimate idea of being personally opposed and how that translates to explicitly denying another's right to do what they personally feel is right and decent? How and why would that affect you in any way?

Again, not picking a fight, it's an honest question.
 
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 "eveil" 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?
 
StillBallin75 said:
I'm with CC here, if this is primarily where your opposition against SSM is rooted, then I respect your opinion but completely disagree. There's no way to logically argue against opinion that is religion-based, but if that's your position then so be it. I believe that for those who don't derive their opposition to SSM from religion, they're on much shakier ground, logically speaking.

That being said, mac, I'm not sure why homosexuality being a choice is relevant. Even if it WERE a choice, so what, and why should they be denied the right to marry because of that?
Click to expand...



Devil's advocate; could people exploit the fiduciary benefits of marriage to gain a better tax rate by marrying their best dude/gal friend? Not that that couldn't happen with straight couples, but could that open to door to a new way of exploiting the couples tax rate?
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
What do you feel about this scenario:

A gay couple live together devotedly for 25 years. They buy a house and share a bank account. Then suddenly, one dies. The family of the deceased never agreed with her lifestyle and pretty much didn't keep in touch. However because the couple were never ever legally entitled, the surviving part of the couple loses half of what she had worked for all of her life to the people who didn't give a rat's behind about them.

Think that is fair?
Click to expand...

Or better yet that person doesn't die, they are just in the hospitial but they have no legal or visitation rights while the one is on their death bed in the hospital.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Devil's advocate; could people exploit the fiduciary benefits of marriage to gain a better tax rate by marrying their best dude/gal friend?
Click to expand...

I don't see single hetero people doing it for that reason, so no, I don't think that would be an issue.
 
O_Guru said:
Or better yet that person doesn't die, they are just in the hospitial but they have no legal or visitation rights while the one is on their death bed in the hospital.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is another valid point.
 
Middleground said:
I don't see single hetero people doing it for that reason, so no, I don't think that would be an issue.
Click to expand...

These two definitely married for love :mrgreen:

Hugh-Hefner-and-Crystal-Harris.jpg
 
RadicalModerate said:
Devil's advocate; could people exploit the fiduciary benefits of marriage to gain a better tax rate by marrying their best dude/gal friend? Not that that couldn't happen with straight couples, but could that open to door to a new way of exploiting the couples tax rate?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they can, they do, and they will. Doesn't make it right, though. However, same goes for heterosexual marriage.

FWIW i posted a mini-rant earlier about how single people are killed when it comes to taxes vis a vis married people. it's not fair! :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom