• 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
Yup. Now you're getting it.

Well, I disagree with that. The regulation changes that some are saying would be necessary wouldn't be enitrely necessary except for a little bit of wording. For example, if one of 3 persons in a marriage wished to divorce than the remaining two would be treated as one party to the divorce.

It's just perception, really.
 
Do you think being straight gives you specific rights?

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

I'm not. You are ignoring that marriage between a man and woman is the traditionally accepted and legal form of marriage. Gays are asking for that to be changed, straights are not.
 
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.

You can't marry her if she's your sister, or your mother....you can't marry "her" if he's your first cousin. My point is that there are a multitude of situations where civil unions would be beneficial, not just for homosexual unions.
 
But any other group can marry someone of the opposite gender. I could marry an illegal immigrant so she can become legal.

Again, you are operating under the assumption that ssm is the same thing as osm...it is not. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and every man and every woman has equal access to it.
 
Religious polygamous marriage is perfectly legal, while legal polygamous marriage isn't. Big difference, again thank you for admitting that religious marriage is separate from legal marriage. :)

Now can we get past this, and discuss what is pertinent?

It's not anymore legal than anything else. I call call myself married to my apple tree if I wish, but I ain't getting any tax breaks for it.
 
Again, you are operating under the assumption that ssm is the same thing as osm...it is not. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and every man and every woman has equal access to it.

The definition of marriage has changed repeatedly over the last few milennia. No reason why it couldn't be changed to accept homosexual couples. In fact, it's really only a matter of time before it does.
 
The definition of marriage has changed repeatedly over the last few milennia. No reason why it couldn't be changed to accept homosexual couples. In fact, it's really only a matter of time before it does.

True, but as of right now...it is what it is.
 
Again, you are operating under the assumption that ssm is the same thing as osm...it is not. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and every man and every woman has equal access to it.
In 1945 Alabama, every black and white person had equal access to education. However, blacks could only attend certain schools and whites could only attend certain schools. Each race had a right that the other didn't. Racial discrimination.

Now, every man and woman has equal access to marriage. However, men can only enter the contract with women and women can only enter the contract with men. Each gender has a right that the other doesn't. Gender discrimination.

When one gender can enter into a contract that another gender cannot, that's called discrimination.
 
True, but as of right now...it is what it is.

In your opinion, Mac...

Why is it "is what it is"? What could be the root reason for "it is what it is"?

The most reducible answer that I've seen thus far might be inferred simply as: "because".

What form of power and/or control by 3 percent of the population have over the 97 percent that can and/or will cause the majority to want to succumb to a lesser moral standard (defining standards claimed by many non gays)?

By the sheer act of allowing gay marriage, how will the moral fabric of non gay members of society be effected?
 
Last edited:
In 1945 Alabama, every black and white person had equal access to education. However, blacks could only attend certain schools and whites could only attend certain schools. Each race had a right that the other didn't. Racial discrimination.

Now, every man and woman has equal access to marriage. However, men can only enter the contract with women and women can only enter the contract with men. Each gender has a right that the other doesn't. Gender discrimination.

When one gender can enter into a contract that another gender cannot, that's called discrimination.

I beleive what you'll find is that since all are restricted and allowed equally....there is no discrimination. Legally. Otherwise, such marriage bans would have been shot down long ago.
 
In your opinion, Mac...

Why is it "is what it is"? What could be the root reason for "it is what it is"?

In my opinion, human nature. It's an innate aversion to homosexuality that causes opposition to it.

The most reducible answer that I've seen thus far might be inferred simply as: "because".

Perhaps, but it has been "because" for the majority of human history. Opposition to homosexuality is as ingrained as is the existence of it.

What form of power and/or control by 3 percent of the population have over the 97 percent that can and/or will cause the majority to want to succumb to a lesser moral standard (defining standards claimed by many non gays)?

None, other than perceptually.

By the sheer act of allowing gay marriage, how will the moral fabric of non gay members of society be effected?

Many beleive that in the last 50 to 100 years, modern societies have eroded the intitution of marriage, and many see allowing SSM as going further down the rabbit hole to the point that it will eventually become inconseguential or disappear altogether.
 
In my opinion, human nature. It's an innate aversion to homosexuality that causes opposition to it.



Perhaps, but it has been "because" for the majority of human history. Opposition to homosexuality is as ingrained as is the existence of it.



None, other than perceptually.



Many beleive that in the last 50 to 100 years, modern societies have eroded the intitution of marriage, and many see allowing SSM as going further down the rabbit hole to the point that it will eventually become inconseguential or disappear altogether.

I believe it's socialization and social conditioning that produces an innate aversion to homosexuality. Don't think people are born thinking gay sex is nasty.

As for things that I believe are ACTUALLY eroding the institution of marriage, you could start with divorce rates, and dumb **** like the bachelor, the bachelorette, and who wants to marry a millionaire
 
Last edited:
I beleive what you'll find is that since all are restricted and allowed equally....there is no discrimination. Legally. Otherwise, such marriage bans would have been shot down long ago.

That isn't how our legal system works. We have what are called "levels of scrutiny". In order for the government to discriminate on the basis of sex, it has to justify it by demonstrating that a state interest is served by doing so.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

There is no such thing as equal discrimination under our Constitution. The law used to be written that any person could marry someone of their own race. That is equal discrimination. The Supreme Court overturned those laws in Loving versus Virgina.

But of course, I bet you could be the typical social conservative and not give a crap about our Constitution unless it is serving your interests.
 
I beleive what you'll find is that since all are restricted and allowed equally....there is no discrimination. Legally. Otherwise, such marriage bans would have been shot down long ago.
Blacks and whites were restricted and allowed equally as well. They were both allowed to attend school and both were restricted based on race. It was still discrimination. :shrug:
 
Sorry, missed the question. I support human rights....I don't think that being gay gives you specific rights.

Then you should support equal rights for all humans...
 
In my opinion, human nature. It's an innate aversion to homosexuality that causes opposition to it.



Perhaps, but it has been "because" for the majority of human history. Opposition to homosexuality is as ingrained as is the existence of it.



None, other than perceptually.



Many beleive that in the last 50 to 100 years, modern societies have eroded the intitution of marriage, and many see allowing SSM as going further down the rabbit hole to the point that it will eventually become inconseguential or disappear altogether.

Thanks, Mac...I appreciate your opinions.

My position is that there is a majority conclusion that people (in general) don't have the ability to define the institution of marriage for themselves. There is no legal precedence for it. I doubt that we'll ever see a Constitutional Amendment defining what marriage is. Consequently, the institution itself will be subject to very diverse views and beliefs.

If I grew up in a neighborhood that is predominately gay, which also had a high number of gay marriages. As a straight man, regardless of their views on what constitutes marriage would be relativity no interest to me for one really important reason. Their views, their values, their principles would never alter my perceptions and understanding of what the institution of marriage is for me...BECAUSE I'm not gay. I can't be co-opted or influenced to be other than heterosexual.

I don't bear the responsibilities of any other couples marriage...and nor they with mine. We are all so busy trying to just live life that the details fade with the seconds, minutes, hours, and days.

As I've said before...and most will disagree, but in regards to homosexuality's role in humanity, even with all it's mysteries, it's controversies, it's social stigmas - it's shameful that homosexuality is still viewed with so much 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 when the "preponderance" of evidence leans more to the building scientific research that that is indeed the reality of humanity's existence.

Humanity is currently incapable of living in a world without "unnecessary" prejudices and discrimination.

People will leave claw marks in an effort to resist change. But change won't wait for any of us.

Mac...your right, "it is what it is." That said, can anyone ever accept, "we are what we are?"
 
Last edited:
Of course I do....no other group is allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Equality is a two way street.

You just said you viewed rights as a human issue, now you are viewing rights as an affirmative action issue. We don't award rights to people because of their race, their gender, their religion, etc anymore, nor do we give each group special rights anymore... segregation is unconstitutional. We give rights to people because they are people and our constitution promotes human equality. Why are you opposed to human equality, Mac?
 
Within the definition of marriage, they do have the same rights I do.

I think we should remove Christians right to marry in America and only let people marry once they renounce God.

Would you have a problem with that Mac? Because I really don't see how that would be unfair or discriminatory to anybody in society. You'd still be a Christian, you'd just have to pretend to be an atheist and publicly renounce God to get married.

I don't see a problem with that, and I don't see why you would... Equal rights and all that. :shrug:
 
I'm not. You are ignoring that marriage between a man and woman is the traditionally accepted and legal form of marriage. Gays are asking for that to be changed, straights are not.

And voting rights traditionally excluded women, and women asked them to change... What's your point? A lot of the traditions in America were wrong, and this is no exception.
 
I'm not. You are ignoring that marriage between a man and woman is the traditionally accepted and legal form of marriage. Gays are asking for that to be changed, straights are not.

Appeal to tradition fallacy. Also, more straights than gays are asking for same sex marriage.
 
I believe it's socialization and social conditioning that produces an innate aversion to homosexuality. Don't think people are born thinking gay sex is nasty.

Very possible, but it's been there for a very long time.

As for things that I believe are ACTUALLY eroding the institution of marriage, you could start with divorce rates, and dumb **** like the bachelor, the bachelorette, and who wants to marry a millionaire

Welp, that certainly doesn't help.
 
Blacks and whites were restricted and allowed equally as well. They were both allowed to attend school and both were restricted based on race. It was still discrimination. :shrug:

Then it should be legal, universally, by now. :shrug:
 
I had to vote other because my option isn't up there.

Its not wrong, actually I think Same Sex Marriage is constitutional.

But I don't think it has anything to do with gay couples directly, and singling them out as some kind of special group regarding it is wrong. Same Sex marriage is just that. Two people of the same sex can be married. There's no requirement in the least they be homosexual.
 
Then you should support equal rights for all humans...

I do, I just don't necessarily agree that personal choices or orientations grant rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom