• 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
The right to marry someone of the same sex is new...it's not the same as being able to marry someone of the opposite sex.

The 14th amendment states that everyone is required to be treated under the law, and because of my sex, I can't do something a man can do, and vice versa. That is wrong, and unconstitutional.
 
I really do not care if you change your mind.

Marriage as it stands now is a special right seeing that it excludes gays. It is a right federally at least that only heterosexuals can exercise.

It doesn't exclude gays. :shrug:
They have the same right I do.
 
You have deduced that gay's or the "gay lifestyle" is repulsive because you have for whatever reasons gone to a gay bar? Your argument is flawed because its based on circumstancial evidence at best, in a BAR.

Why dont you go to a gentlemans club and stick some cash down a womans titties as she dances on that pole, or does the straight lifestyle disgust you?

My answer actually has statistical evidence I posted. No one has posted anything even close. Now you try to base my whole argument on one answer when I have stated a few already. Intellectual dishonesty on your part at best. You asked "I was just wondering, what could you possibly know about this lifestyle you describe that is so horrendous and repulsive?" and I answered with one SPECIFIC location.

You need to stick to the facts of what I say and stop making stuff up or putting words in my mouth so to speak.

You're really good at avoiding questions.

No. You are really good at avoiding my answers, lol.

Fire away.

Already have.

Does not matter anyway because you are to busy trying to misrepresent what I say than actually debate anything.
 
The 14th amendment states that everyone is required to be treated under the law, and because of my sex, I can't do something a man can do, and vice versa. That is wrong, and unconstitutional.

That's your interpretation of what it says....in actuality, the states have the right to categorize people....we've been over this.
 
It doesn't exclude gays. :shrug:
They have the same right I do.


Yeah it does. For now on a federal level two men or two women do not have their marriages recognized. To say anything else is disingenuous.
 
That's your interpretation of what it says....in actuality, the states have the right to categorize people....we've been over this.

The states can't deny equal treatment under the law due to sex unless there is a compelling state interest to do so, as in bathrooms. There is no compelling state interest to deny SSM based on sex.

Federal law trumps state law, every time.
 
Yeah it does. For now on a federal level two men or two women do not have their marriages recognized. To say anything else is disingenuous.

No, it doesn't. Marriage is between one man and one woman...they have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
 
The states can't deny equal treatment under the law due to sex unless there is a compelling state interest to do so, as in bathrooms. There is no compelling state interest to deny SSM based on sex.

That suits your criteria.

Federal law trumps state law, every time.

Really? How about DOMA? Might want to rethink that...
 
Where exactly do we take the promiscuity component of why gays might or might not be able to get a legal marriage? Even if it were true that most gay people live more promiscuous lives than straight people, so do many other subsets of people.

I went to church with my dad a few years back, who told one of the pastors that I was in the Navy. The guy was nice before the sermon, talking to me about my experiences and his own aboard ships, but then when he got up to preach, he pretty much accused me of being promiscuous for the sole reason that I was in the Navy. Many people believe that those who are in the Navy or even the military in general are more promiscuous than the average person, so should we base whether military personnel should be allowed to get married on that presumption?

Also, marriage itself tends to settle down many people. Many give up promiscuity for stability when they get married. It is generally considered part of the package (to most people).

Of course, fidelity in itself should be up to the couple. Swinging is not illegal (except for the military). Any couple that decides mutually that either of them are free to sleep around should be the business of that couple and no one else's. It should not determine whether they are able to get married or not.
 
That suits your criteria

That suits the Constitutions criteria.


Really? How about DOMA? Might want to rethink that...

And the fed government doesn't recognize SSM, and DOMA lets states define marriage themselves, so I don't get your point.
 
That suits your criteria.



Really? How about DOMA? Might want to rethink that...

DOMA is unconstitutional as well. Once it goes down, any state laws against SSM are likely to go down as well under the 14th Amendment.
 
No, it doesn't. Marriage is between one man and one woman...


The State of Massachusetts says people of the same sex can be married. And I bet the federal government will say that too in your life time.

they have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Now there is a winning recipe for a great marriage:roll:
 
DOMA is unconstitutional as well. Once it goes down, any state laws against SSM are likely to go down as well under the 14th Amendment.

That pesky Constitution ;)
 
That's your interpretation of what it says....in actuality, the states have the right to categorize people....we've been over this.

Not in the way they do so for marriage. They still have to meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment and cannot randomly categorize people just because. They still have to show how they are meeting an actual state interest by denying anyone equal access to a government issued contract/privilege/right/whatever.

No one has been able to give a sound/logical/legitimate state interest to discriminate against people when it comes to marriage based on their sex.
 
Don't need one it's lower. Look it up for yourself.

Better yet provide an actual survey that says otherwise. I have asked 2 people to do so already.
I've already pointed you to a study through Wikipedia that claims gay men have a similar amount of sexual partners as straight men and women.

However, according to two large population surveys, the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women.
Sexual Behavior Does Not Explain Varying HIV Rates Among Gay And Straight Men

No but that's OK. Nonsense does not an answer make.

Black is a race, not a type of sexuality. Not the same thing.
You think promiscuity runs rampant in the gay community. It's been proven that incarceration runs rampant in the black community. Therefore, the gay lifestyle is to be promiscuous and the black lifestyle is to be in jail - we're just going by numbers right?
 
It may not be an alternative lifestyle to them, but is to the majority of the world. I'm afraid no matter how emotional you attempt to make the argument, the right to marry somoene of the same gender is a new right, it is not the same as being able to marry someone of the opposite gender. Just like it is also illegal for me to marry two people of the opposite (or same) gender.

It is what it is, and it is not what it is not.

And I didn't attempt to emotionalize it. So why did you say I did.
 
So...deciding that I am a polygamist and demanding my equal rights under the law is somehow different?
Yes. Different is, in fact, what it is. Nobody vs. some people.
 
Sure ya did, "It's who they are." That's emotional appeal.

No it's not. It is a statement of fact, given without infliction or emotion of any kind.
 
So Multiple marriage is different, but Same sex marriage is not different?
Multiple marriage is a right afforded to no one. Marriage to men is right afforded to some people. Marriage to women is right afforded to some people.

To be fair, I think polygamy should be legal too, but the point is that marriage currently discriminates according to gender. Banning same-sex marriage discriminates, banning polygamy does not.
 
Last edited:
Because you ordain it so? What's the reasoning?

Because SSM, and opposite sex marriage are the same institution, with the same amount of people, the same benefits, same way to divorce etc, while polygamous marriage isn't.
 
Multiple marriage is a right afforded to no one. Marriage to men is right afforded to some people. Marriage to women is right afforded to some people.

To be fair, I think polygamy should be legal too, but the point is that marriage currently discriminates according to gender. Banning same-sex marriage discriminates, banning polygamy does not.

Current marriage laws do not discriminate, marriage is between one man and one woman and all men and women have equal right to engage in marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom