• 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
So far science has found no biological component in DNA or anything else.

The problem with your arguement is it also applies to being hetrosexual as well.. Which invalidates your arguement from the start.. It is the same mechanism that makes some people hetrosexual, that also makes somke people homosexual.. Being homophobic is a choice..

Intersex people have no physical gender.. Yet they are still female or male and attracted to either female or male.. Without a physical gender for you to examine.. who is gay and who isn't??

This is to someone else.. Anal sex has no bearing on being gay or not.. Some men like it and some don't.. Some women like it and some don't.. Anal sex is pretty common in the porn industry so it pretty safe to say it is popular in society.. There is no connection to anal sex and homosexuality.. To make that claim is idiotic at best.. For some couples, anal sex is the cheapest and most natural form of birthcontrol..

But your likes and dislikes are different than other peoples.. In the end.. That is all we are talking about here.. Likes and dislikes.. There is no right or wrong.. Just like being homosexual isn't an issue of right or wrong.. If nobody can say you are wrong for disliking anal sex.. Then you can't say someone is wrong for liking it.. That is simply how it is..
 
Yes it does, it is even critical of the earlier data. It also does not support a physical cause for homosexuality, only accounts for differences in twins for many things, and why a 10% difference can be present.

You are reaching for straws Winston.


Hormones aren't physical influences?

Okey dokey

Yes it does, it is even critical of the earlier data.

Where?
 
I have heard social scientists say that we're all really bi sexual in some sense, but because we are social creates and organize our societies with moral and religious agents, we have caused ourselves to define behavior... and obviously sexual behavior, according to moral and immoral, natural and unnatural, and weird or normal constructs.

So for the sake of the argument, I'd like somebody to show me where the hetrosexual gene is.

Did you ever think that human sexuality isn't black and white? That maybe attraction to the same sex isn't uncommon or that the amount of attraction to the same sex and the opposite sex NATURALLY varies from person to person? But because of our social nature, we like to box people in and force everybody to define themselves so we are more comfortable.
 
The problem with your arguement is it also applies to being hetrosexual as well.. Which invalidates your arguement from the start.. It is the same mechanism that makes some people hetrosexual, that also makes somke people homosexual.. Being homophobic is a choice..

I said it applies to all sexuality. WTF does that have to do with being homophobic????

Intersex people have no physical gender.. Yet they are still female or male and attracted to either female or male.. Without a physical gender for you to examine.. who is gay and who isn't??

We are not talking about rare conditions or birth defect's.

This is to someone else.. Anal sex has no bearing on being gay or not.. Some men like it and some don't.. Some women like it and some don't.. Anal sex is pretty common in the porn industry so it pretty safe to say it is popular in society.. There is no connection to anal sex and homosexuality.. To make that claim is idiotic at best.. For some couples, anal sex is the cheapest and most natural form of birthcontrol..

How did we go to anal sex??? I did not say anything about it???

But your likes and dislikes are different than other peoples.. In the end.. That is all we are talking about here.. Likes and dislikes.. There is no right or wrong.. Just like being homosexual isn't an issue of right or wrong.. If nobody can say you are wrong for disliking anal sex.. Then you can't say someone is wrong for liking it.. That is simply how it is..

What in the name of Joseph are you talking about???
 
Gay marriage: Is there any EVIDENCE that gay citizens who choose to marry or has married has in anyway damaged the social fabric and/or underrmines our nation's values, tradition, or dignity?

My answer: NO!

Shamefully, dark age thinking, fear, myths, superstition, and personal insecurities still cripples the minds of many in a highly advanced civilization.

We live in a society where many refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that "circumstance of birth" exist.

Amazing...
 
Last edited:
I said it applies to all sexuality. WTF does that have to do with being homophobic????

There are two things that decide a persons gender.. Physically and emotionally.. The reason why I mention people that are intersex is that is shows exactly how these things can be seperate from eachohter.. The problem some people have is that they feel that what is between their legs determines their gender.. Physically it does.. Emotionally it doesn't.. That is the part you are missing.. Someone can be born physically male.. But be emotionally female..

We are not talking about rare conditions or birth defect's.

You missed the point.. intersex people have no physical gender.. So then by your own arguement, they shouldn't have any attractions for people of one gender or the other.. Most intersex children are simply made into girls.. It is easier for doctors to make a hole than it is to make a pole.. But, that doesn't mean many of them are not emotionally boys.. The point was to show the seperation from the physical gender and the emotional one.. Hermaphrodites are the other side of the spectrum..

How did we go to anal sex??? I did not say anything about it???

Did you see the part where I said this was to someone else?? The rest of the post was not to you.. Sorry for the confusion..
 
Sorry, missed the question. I support human rights....I don't think that being gay gives you specific rights.

Do you think being straight gives you specific rights?

You walk into it EVERY time, mac. EVERY time.
 
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.

Ah. The slipperly slope argument. Logical fallacy. Guess what? In this country, we actually can decide on these things. So, your slippery slope does not apply.

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.

No, it isn't. But, for the record, I think this should be allowed.
 
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...

More slippery slope logical fallacies. Your position ISN'T logical, lpast. Here... let me explain. Why does the government sanction marriage, anyway? It does so for several reasons: 1) To foster the positive REARING (NOT procreation) of children; 2) To create stability both in finances and in society; 3) To improve the health of the population. Both traditional marriage and gay coupling have been found to provide positive outcomes to each of these 3 issues. Polygamy does not. Incest does not. Both traditional and gay coupling are superior in each of those things to being single. See? This is why your argument fails and is nothing but a slippery slope. fallacy.
 
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...

I can marry my female friend so I can put her on my medical benefits, right now. Allowing SSM changes nothing of the sort. It can happen, currently.
 
That doesn't matter. Homosexuals are asking for a right that no-one else has, because they are homosexuals.

No, they are asking for a right that heterosexuals have because they are heterosexuals.

Every time, mac.
 
Of course I do....no other group is allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Equality is a two way street.

But any other group can marry someone of the opposite gender. I could marry an illegal immigrant so she can become legal.
 
It allows diseased individuals another means of pretending they're normal. If fulfills their denial and prevents them from seekin much needed assistance.

I'm curious, Mayor. Do you hold ANY positions that do not reek of ignorance?
 
Not if marriage just becomes a way to get certain legal benefits. If one of my buddies is having financial trouble, I could "marry" him and put him on my insurance or whatever.

If your "buddy" was a girl, you could do that now.
 
I heard of an incident awhile back where two guys got kicked out of a restaurant for making out. I have to admit, it would make me totally uncomfortable to see that.

You have no right to not be offended.
 
I have known way to many that do. It just amazes me how people don't want to see it.

It's not that people don't want to see it. It's just that it is irrelevant, logically.
 
See that is just it, I never said "all gay men."

Please explain to me why when someone says "many" or "a majority" people on this issue or race always, every time jump to "all?"

Which is precisely why it is irrelevant.
 
How do you know? Or are you just guessing because you think you have an all knowing in to my life?

My set is large enough and I have seen the opposite. You cannot refute it because you are not around me and are not all knowing in my life.

That was easy.
 
It doesn't exclude gays. :shrug:
They have the same right I do.

No they do not. You can choose to marry they person that you are attracted to. They cannot.
 
It has everything to do with "knowing they have been gay" so you can remember being gay at 3????

Do you remember being straight at 3???

Please. A study was posted recently that children raised in a lesbian household was more likely to be gay. What does this tell you?

That the study has methodological flaws. I've read probably a dozen studies on this issue. Every one showed that chidren of a gay household were no more likely to be gay than those in a traditional household. Post the study so we can look at it.
 
Last edited:
Actually if you ask him he will say that is not true. I showed him the study and allot of us debated at length about it. Like anything else it had advantages and that was (what some consider) a disadvantage.

Huh?????? Refresh my memory and post the study or a link to the thread. If it's the study that I am thinking, I purchased the study online to read it and demonstrated all of it's methodological flaws.

The only other one I can remember is one that didn't say that at all, but said something very different.
 
That borders on hate speech. You're saying there is no logic or evidence behind a sociological norm or folkway simply because it has religious clothing. I'm quite disappointed you chose such an ignorant point of view.

You COMPLETELY misread my post. Read it again.

In point of fact the taboo against sodomy in scripture is supported with data on the spread of STDs, as well as other physical ailments such as greatly increased occurrence of urinary tract infection and, over time, developing the drip.

Sodomy is a behavior. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Two different concepts.

Looking down on sodomy is hardly uniquely religious. There are plenty of heteros and non-religious who do not have anal sex for those reasons.

Good, then we agree.

People didn't just sit down and make this **** up one day.

You and I have nothing left to discuss here.

And, like I said, you COMPLETELY misread my post. I said that the only legitimate argument against SSM WAS religious based.
 
OK... after doing a search for the study that BD mentioned, I found the one that he was talking about. It was the Schumm study, the one that I purchased and completely dismantled and demonstrated to have no credibility. Children raised in lesbian households are NOT more likely to be gay.
 
Apparently no itemized list of how gay marriage will damage our nation's values, traditions, morals...etc.

After reading past dozen pages (and glancing at other similar threads) it's obvious that homosexuality is as mysterious as it the question as to whether God exist.

At ton of post are expressing every possible "Why" I believe. That isn't outlining the actually effects of the topic.

As the old saying goes, "you have to define the problem before the solution". When defining a problem, that includes not just behaviors, but the effects of those behaviors.

In the end, what are the genuine effects of homosexual marriage on friends, neighbors, community, state, and nation?

Thanks...
 
Back
Top Bottom