• 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
lpast said:
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...
Click to expand...

It is gender, since any person can currently marry either homosexual person, a heterosexual person, or a bisexual person, of the opposite sex. It happens all the time.
While a heterosexual cannot legally marry either a heterosexual person, a homosexual person, or a bisexual person of the same sex for whatever reason. All laws that ban same sex marriage deny marriage based on sex, not sexuality. There is not a single law anywhere that prevents a homosexual person from getting married. The laws prevent everyone from marrying a person of their choosing if that person is a person of the same sex.

Polygamy and incest are strawmen arguments and if they want marriage rights, they should present their arguments for those rights in a logical and workable fashion. Hint: there are actually logical arguments to be made against both of these that have nothing to do with randomly denying equal protection because some/many people don't agree with these things. Whether those arguments would be enough to continue to deny them marriage rights would be something for the courts to decide.
 
actually I'm in favor of legalizing polygamy in principle. I see no good reason why it shouldn't be legal.
 
lpast said:
Your putting words in my mouth..I didnt say marriage is merely financial
Click to expand...

I did NOT put words in your mouth that is in fact what you said, so to clear it up I ASKED you instead of assuming and if it was what you said I wanted to know the logic behind it. See how that works. It seems you get quite defensive rather quickly even though you claim its the opposition.

lpast said:
marriage is between a man and woman
Click to expand...

Nothing more than your opinion, history, some laws and dictionaries already disagree with you. Now you are free to feel that way and I support that but not force that on others


lpast said:
homosexuals want to marry and recieve a financial benefit not afforded other groups outside the norm and single people that are the norm.
Click to expand...
this is two separate opinions, the first is you are assuming that's the only reason gays want to get married and two that they are out side the norm. Again you are speaking in absolutes based off of your opinion, that is what CC is talking about.

Gay want equal rights period and with that there are MANY things they are being denied





lpast said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

More defensive tactics even though you offer nothing of logic and substance, CC easily backs up what he says while you seem to say, "because I said so"

just saying, you state you want to have a discussion but it doesn't appear you really want too? Im all ears when you are ready.

lpast said:
"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.
Click to expand...

No it has NOTHING to do with gay marriage lol it has to do with you thinking SS is broken LOL how cant you see that? What if marriages increased by 10% next year, what would you blame then? according to your logic you'd have to blame MARRIAGE period.

If SS is strained already its already broken, sorry that has nothing to do with gay marriage no matter the parallel you try to draw to it. You either dont like marriage and or SS to claim you don't like Gay Marriage doesn't make sense.
 
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The slippery slope fallacy ignores the concept of legal precedent. As it stands, in most places, it is illegal for two the same gender to enter into a legal marriage agreement. There are a number of situations were it would be beneficial for such a an agreement between two people (or more) that is currently illegal. For example, two old widows could cohabitate and enjoy the legal benefits that a SSM or CU would allow. I could "marry" my sister and adopt her children so that they could receive the medical benefits that my job provides....there's plenty of legal situations that allowing SSM would set a precedent for...
 
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...

The solution is easy then, then fight to change SS not to deny others eaqual rights.
 
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...

Because the other group (singles wanting to pass on SS to parents/whoever) have not agreed to take on other legal and financial responsibilities for that other person and vice versa, as any married person has.

And if your problem is with SS benefits being passed on, you cannot say that it is just same sex couples that would get this, since opposite sex couples currently have this through their marriages. It is wrong to argue that one group would be wrong for trying to get marriage for a specific benefit that you may be against while not mentioning that another group already gets that benefit that works the same way no matter the sexes/genders of those involved in the legal marriage.
 
mac said:
The slippery slope fallacy ignores the concept of legal precedent. As it stands, in most places, it is illegal for two the same gender to enter into a legal marriage agreement. There are a number of situations were it would be beneficial for such a an agreement between two people (or more) that is currently illegal. For example, two old widows could cohabitate and enjoy the legal benefits that a SSM or CU would allow. I could "marry" my sister and adopt her children so that they could receive the medical benefits that my job provides....there's plenty of legal situations that allowing SSM would set a precedent for...
Click to expand...

I agree with your examples, not so much with the other typical pedophile/pederasty/necrophile/bestiality examples.

I think the problem you're outlining here, however, is an issue with the financial benefits of marriage as opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage itself. A couple other posters have already pointed out the potential for exploiting marriage for financial benefit, and the problem starts with marriage in general, not SSM in particular.
 
lpast said:
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...
Click to expand...

these are strawman
Polygamy is fine with me as long as it follows the same rules as marriage, consenting human adults.
Incest sex is none of my buisness but marriage is restricted because of gentic dangers.

sorry one strawman is fine but different as long as it follows the rules
the second strawman is totally unrelated.
 
mac said:
The slippery slope fallacy ignores the concept of legal precedent. As it stands, in most places, it is illegal for two the same gender to enter into a legal marriage agreement. There are a number of situations were it would be beneficial for such a an agreement between two people (or more) that is currently illegal. For example, two old widows could cohabitate and enjoy the legal benefits that a SSM or CU would allow. I could "marry" my sister and adopt her children so that they could receive the medical benefits that my job provides....there's plenty of legal situations that allowing SSM would set a precedent for...
Click to expand...

Your first scenario, with the two old widows, would be allowed with same sex marriage being legal. Same sex marriage could not be limited to only people who are homosexual. I'm pretty sure no one would be asked what their sexuality was at all when getting a marriage license (just as it isn't legal to ask that question now).

Precedent only applies when the situations are almost identical and would still need to go through a court to decide, especially if there are any differences (such as blood ties, number of contracts, etc.) that would change the reasons that one could be denied the right to marriage. If precedent were an issue, then it would have been set in stone with Loving v. VA.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I agree with your examples, not so much with the other typical pedophile/pederasty/necrophile/bestiality examples.

I think the problem you're outlining here, however, is an issue with the financial benefits of marriage as opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage itself. A couple other posters have already pointed out the potential for exploiting marriage for financial benefit, and the problem starts with marriage in general, not SSM in particular.
Click to expand...

Actually, what I'm pointing out is how SSM could be used to open the door to other groups...you're "slippery slope". I actually support Civil Unions for the reasons I mentioned, and for homosexuals.
 
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...

This is a total fallacy, please support this statment with something logical.
 
roguenuke said:
Your first scenario, with the two old widows, would be allowed with same sex marriage being legal. Same sex marriage could not be limited to only people who are homosexual. I'm pretty sure no one would be asked what their sexuality was at all when getting a marriage license (just as it isn't legal to ask that question now).
Click to expand...

What if the old widows were cousins...or sisters?

Precedent only applies when the situations are almost identical and would still need to go through a court to decide, especially if there are any differences (such as blood ties, number of contracts, etc.) that would change the reasons that one could be denied the right to marriage. If precedent were an issue, then it would have been set in stone with Loving v. VA.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be identical, or near identical. Just similar.
 
mac said:
The right to marry someone of the same gender.
Click to expand...

Which would be a right given to everyone, not just homosexuals. So it will not be a special right to one group because everyone will be given the right to marry a person of the same sex.
 
mac said:
Yep, just me. I'm the only one opposing it. :roll:
Click to expand...

Who said that? oh thats right nobody. I'll just assume that means you can't back up your previous statement so you chose to just randomly deflect.
 
roguenuke said:
Which would be a right given to everyone, not just homosexuals. So it will not be a special right to one group because everyone will be given the right to marry a person of the same sex.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. Homosexuals are asking for a right that no-one else has, because they are homosexuals.
 
mac said:
Actually, what I'm pointing out is how SSM could be used to open the door to other groups...you're "slippery slope". I actually support Civil Unions for the reasons I mentioned, and for homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I think the slippery slope you've just pointed out ISN'T fallacious. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

My post was in response to lpast, who I believe is referring to sexual deviance such as bestiality, pedophilia, etc. which are different situations and IMO those examples are fallacious.
 
Last edited:
TheGreatSandeno said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your correct thats one of the reasons im against SSM
 
mac said:
The right to marry someone of the same gender.
Click to expand...

O_Guru said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course I do....no other group is allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Equality is a two way street.
 
mac said:
Actually, what I'm pointing out is how SSM could be used to open the door to other groups...you're "slippery slope". I actually support Civil Unions for the reasons I mentioned, and for homosexuals.
Click to expand...

What other groups, as long as its consenting human sound mind adults I'm probably fine with any of those groups and if the group isn't that I have no clue how this opens the door to them.

We aren't letting horses, dogs and cows marry or vote yet? That's what people said when we let interracial marriage happen and granted minority, and womens rights.

If we let women vote, we might as well let my dog vote!
If blacks and whites marry, I should be able to marry my horse!

Sorry those were silly and irrelevant years ago and they are the same today they hold no logical rational realistic merit.
 
mac said:
The right to marry someone of the same gender.
Click to expand...

O_Guru said:
What other groups, as long as its consenting human sound mind adults I'm probably fine with any of those groups and if the group isn't that I have no clue how this opens the door to them.

We aren't letting horses, dogs and cows marry or vote yet? That's what people said when we let interracial marriage happen and granted minority, and womens rights.

If we let women vote, we might as well let my dog vote!
If blacks and whites marry, I should be able to marry my horse!

Sorry those were silly and irrelevant years ago and they are the same today they hold no logical rational realistic merit.
Click to expand...

I already showed some of the possible groups, now, when you're done with your rant...go back and read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom