• 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 will set a bad example for Christian youth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    83
What if the old widows were cousins...or sisters?

Which would put it back in the famial relationship argument and go to my second post. They would still need to show why they should have the right to marry and that they are planning on spending their lives together.

I personally don't have an issue with such an arrangement, but I don't think marriage would be an appropriate term for it since they would already have many of the rights that come with marriage and it is quite possible that they could change their minds if someone else came along, a lot more likely than people in marriages, as it is supposed to be now, where the vast majority are pledging this. A different contract that covered something like this would be more appropriate. Or being able to present this situation could work too.

As a side note, I have always had the position that all first cousins and further out family relations should be allowed to marry. It's not a bad idea to include genetic counseling in this, like many states that allow it do, but it should be completely legal.

They don't have to be identical, or near identical. Just similar.

They have to be very similar, and both polygamy and incest marriage involve some fundamental differences than same sex marriages. The arguments for and against are going to be different. The courts have to decide based on the individual arguments for particular cases. It is only when those arguments are going to basically be the same, where you find a precedent has been set.
 
playing devil's advocate here - what is the rationale for being against incest marriage?

if i had a sister that was super-hot and I was madly in love with her I'd want to marry her too.
 
Which would put it back in the famial relationship argument and go to my second post. They would still need to show why they should have the right to marry and that they are planning on spending their lives together.

That would not be difficult to do, specially if they're seniors.

I personally don't have an issue with such an arrangement, but I don't think marriage would be an appropriate term for it since they would already have many of the rights that come with marriage and it is quite possible that they could change their minds if someone else came along, a lot more likely than people in marriages, as it is supposed to be now, where the vast majority are pledging this.

That's kinda how I feel about SSM, funny that.

A different contract that covered something like this would be more appropriate. Or being able to present this situation could work too.

I agree, civil unions.

As a side note, I have always had the position that all first cousins and further out family relations should be allowed to marry. It's not a bad idea to include genetic counseling in this, like many states that allow it do, but it should be completely legal.

Talk about slippery slopes....


They have to be very similar, and both polygamy and incest marriage involve some fundamental differences than same sex marriages. The arguments for and against are going to be different. The courts have to decide based on the individual arguments for particular cases. It is only when those arguments are going to basically be the same, where you find a precedent has been set.

No they don't. For example, you are using people of different ethnicities as a precedent for marriage between people of the same gender. That's not identical.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't matter. Homosexuals are asking for a right that no-one else has, because they are homosexuals.

Only from a very narrow perspective. Right now, everyone is only given the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. When same sex marriages are legal, everyone will have the right to marry a person of either their own sex or the opposite sex. No sexuality involved unless it is by choice.

Plus, how do you know that it is just homosexuals that want the right to marry people of the same sex? I would argue that there are probably at least some other people who want this right as well. Personally, I am married, but I can see the benefits to others who might be heterosexual, bisexual, or even asexual wanting to be able to marry a person of the same sex.
 
Of course I do....no other group is allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Equality is a two way street.

This is intellectually dishonest and you know it cause others are allowed to marry another consenting human they love and are sexually attracted too. Nice try but nobody objective will buy this dishonesty.

I mean damn handicaps wanting RAMPS and RAILS nobody else gets ramps and rails and parking spaces damn it! I vote to take this stuff away because equality is a two way street and we should ignore reality, logic and rational. Maybe I should do one of those eye roll icons that you like here ;)
 
Only from a very narrow perspective. Right now, everyone is only given the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. When same sex marriages are legal, everyone will have the right to marry a person of either their own sex or the opposite sex. No sexuality involved unless it is by choice.

Isn't a narrow perspective you're only defense to the "slippery slope"?

Plus, how do you know that it is just homosexuals that want the right to marry people of the same sex?

I'm sure there are, being Navy I bet you can come up with a few examples without thinking to hard about it.

I would argue that there are probably at least some other people who want this right as well. Personally, I am married, but I can see the benefits to others who might be heterosexual, bisexual, or even asexual wanting to be able to marry a person of the same sex.

I do too, that's the door that's being opened.
 
This is intellectually dishonest and you know it cause others are allowed to marry another consenting human they love and are sexually attracted too. Nice try but nobody objective will buy this dishonesty.

I mean damn handicaps wanting RAMPS and RAILS nobody else gets ramps and rails and parking spaces damn it! I vote to take this stuff away because equality is a two way street and we should ignore reality, logic and rational. Maybe I should do one of those eye roll icons that you like here ;)

No, you're being dishonest, unless of course you consider homosexuality a handicap.
 
I already showed some of the possible groups, now, when you're done with your rant...go back and read.

translation: You again can't respond agains my post so you will deflect. Thanks

Sorry your examples are meaningless because people get married or divorced NOW to try and defraud the systems read what I wrote and try to respond with logic. And gay marriage isnt going to allow any you to marry your sister because of other laws of genetic risks.

Thanks for conceding.
 
Isn't a narrow perspective you're only defense to the "slippery slope"?



I'm sure there are, being Navy I bet you can come up with a few examples without thinking to hard about it.



I do too, that's the door that's being opened.

everyone knows the Navy turns you gay.
 
playing devil's advocate here - what is the rationale for being against incest marriage?

if i had a sister that was super-hot and I was madly in love with her I'd want to marry her too.

Genetic problems with offspring, and general icky-ness.
 
Genetic problems with offspring, and general icky-ness.

only if you choose to have offspring.

FWIW, I'm not too big on the animal comparisons when it comes to gay marriage, but I'd like to point out that there are many cases in the animal kingdom where incest is actually necessary.

if my standard for barring people from marriage was icky-ness, then I would deny obese people the right to marry.
 
No, you're being dishonest, unless of course you consider homosexuality a handicap.

Nice try what but thats not what I said I clearly said it involves reality, logic and rational.
Those things point out that handicap need ramps and rails even though others dont, so they also point out gays need to marry the same sex because, well, are you ready for this logical, rational, reality bomb, THATS WHAT THEY LOVE AND ARE ATTRACTED TOO and its is another consenting human just like straights

Do your tactics of avoiding logic and talking in circles every work on anybody?
 
It allows diseased individuals another means of pretending they're normal. If fulfills their denial and prevents them from seekin much needed assistance.
 
It allows diseased individuals another means of pretending they're normal. If fulfills their denial and prevents them from seekin much needed assistance.

speaking of diseased individuals pretending to be normal, maybe we should bar people who speak in the third person from marrying as well. :2razz:
 
Nice try what but thats not what I said I clearly said it involves reality, logic and rational.
Those things point out that handicap need ramps and rails even though others dont, so they also point out gays need to marry the same sex because, well, are you ready for this logical, rational, reality bomb, THATS WHAT THEY LOVE AND ARE ATTRACTED TOO and its is another consenting human just like straights

Do your tactics of avoiding logic and talking in circles every work on anybody?

I'm not talking in circles. The fact is homosexuals are asking for a right no one else has. That's just a fact, from a cold hard legal perspective.
 
playing devil's advocate here - what is the rationale for being against incest marriage?

if i had a sister that was super-hot and I was madly in love with her I'd want to marry her too.


Well if there was no gentic issue to worry about honestly I wouldn't stop you because its none of my business.

Lets not forget it used to be a lot more common back in the day and any religion that started with two people had to have lots of incest happening to get where we are today.
 
I'm not talking in circles. The fact is homosexuals are asking for a right no one else has. That's just a fact, from a cold hard legal perspective.

Only if you leave out reality logic common sense and rational and play word games.
Is that how you view handicap access also?
 
That's kinda how I feel about SSM, funny that.

Not really. There are differences in the types of relationship and levels of intimacy involved in marriage is generally thought to be more than what goes with family relations. Plus, there is also a difference, in general, in how long the relationship would be expected to last at its current level, including the responsibilities involved.

As a side note, if they are an old widowed couple, they would most likely not have to adopt each other's kids, since their kids would most likely be adults.

I agree, civil unions.

Either for all, including opposite sex marriage-level relationships, or for certain types based on level of responsibility and relationship that is not based on the sex of the two involved.


Talk about slippery slopes....

Explain. I'm pretty sure I made no slippery slope argument there at all. In fact, I didn't really even make and argument, just gave my opinion on a type of relationship and whether they should be allowed legal marriages or not.

No they don't. For example, you are using people of different ethnicities as a precedent for marriage between people of the same gender. That's not identical.

But that is not the only part of my argument. I have never argued that because interracial marriages have been legalized, that is the only reason to allow SSM. I use interracial marriages as a big comparison and foundation for the right, not as the entire argument. I always bring in how marriage is legally treated and what the differences between all opposite sex couples who are married and all same sex couples who want to be married are. The only difference is the fact that they are of the opposite sex, since we currently allow people of the opposite sex to marry who cannot procreate and whether something is considered a sin or not is not a valid argument alone to justify discrimination.
 
Well if there was no gentic issue to worry about honestly I wouldn't stop you because its none of my business.

Lets not forget it used to be a lot more common back in the day and any religion that started with two people had to have lots of incest happening to get where we are today.

Guru, i'm getting a real kick out of your sig line.
 
Guru, i'm getting a real kick out of your sig line.

Thanks and believe it or not they are all real, there have been morons that have actually stated all those things and meant them 100%.

I hope to keep growing it but soon I think I'm going to have to rank them and replacing some because IM going to run out of room :(
 
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.

Then this really does make the notion of marriage absolutely meaningless.
 
Isn't a narrow perspective you're only defense to the "slippery slope"?



I'm sure there are, being Navy I bet you can come up with a few examples without thinking to hard about it.



I do too, that's the door that's being opened.

I could probably come up with a few people who wouldn't mind being married to someone of the same sex, no matter their sexuality. I know plenty of people who wanted to and/or did marry someone of the opposite sex just for benefits. Not my business, especially since it is not illegal to do so, unless the benefit is a green card, and it is against some rules of the military. You can't prove love.
 
Then this really does make the notion of marriage absolutely meaningless.

Then it is already meaningless, since people marry for reasons other than love and procreation and childraising now. They are just restricted to marrying a person of the opposite sex.
 
Back
Top Bottom