• 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
Removable Mind said:
Thanks, Mac...I appreciate your opinions.
Click to expand...

Prego.

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.
Click to expand...

Wrong, there is legal precedent. DOMA and something like 30 states have ammendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

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.
Click to expand...

I don't really think that's what the oppostion stems from except for the real homophobes out there. It's human nature for human societies to regulate their bahavior in accordance with it's morals.

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.
Click to expand...

So?

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.
Click to expand...

Or the opposite could be true....maybe there is some inherited aversion that is there for a reason. To be honest, your opinion above is no more valid than the tinfoil one I just offered.

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?"
Click to expand...

There will always be those that resist change and there will always be those that demand change. It's the constant struggle that keeps us from going headlong into the abyss or from stagnating in immobilization. It is what it is.
 
mac said:
Great, you got me on poor wording. Touche.
Click to expand...

If that's true, I also got Oscar and BlackDog, because they came to a conclusion based on your 'poor wording'.

And thank you for spelling touche properly. Seriously, I have an issue when people "Hooked on phonics worked for me!" their way through a sentence, rather than consulting a dictionary.
 
mac said:
You mean like the right to life?
Click to expand...

I don't believe changing the subject is good form.

Gays have inalienable human rights.
 
BDBoop said:
I don't believe changing the subject is good form.

Gays have inalienable human rights.
Click to expand...

as do all things human.

let's be fair, if you can't discriminate against a human because of their sexual orientation then surely you can't discriminate against them simply because they haven't been born yet. neither made a conscious decision to adopt their condition
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
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:
Click to expand...

You have nothing to say about this Mac?

I know, I know... you don't live by the golden rule. Treat people how you want to be treated and all that.... so of course you don't think society should treat YOU how you want to treat homosexuals.
 
OscarB63 said:
ouch..... ;)
Click to expand...

Only an ouch in your mind. In reality, it was obvious he changed the subject because he was losing ground on the actual point of the debate.
 
mac said:
Then it should be legal, universally, by now. :shrug:
Click to expand...
So discrimination is defined by time? What a joke. You can't be taken seriously. It's discrimination and you're only defense against it is "well if it were, then it would be fixed". Embarrassing.
 
OscarB63 said:
as do all things human.

let's be fair, if you can't discriminate against a human because of their sexual orientation then surely you can't discriminate against them simply because they haven't been born yet. neither made a conscious decision to adopt their condition
Click to expand...

How is that a logical comparison? An unborn's right to life generally conflicts with a mother's rights to privacy, liberty, and her own body when it comes to the issue of abortion. Whose rights are violated by allowing gays to marry?
 
All y'all, can we please stay on topic.
 
just gotta love the "human rights" hypocrites when it comes to discussing gays and abortion.
 
mac said:
I beleive what you'll find is that since all are restricted and allowed equally....there is no discrimination.
Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:
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:
Click to expand...

Hey mac, please explain how DOMA is not gender discrimination using the definition of discrimination.
 
CriticalThought said:
How is that a logical comparison? An unborn's right to life generally conflicts with a mother's rights to privacy, liberty, and her own body when it comes to the issue of abortion. Whose rights are violated by allowing gays to marry?
Click to expand...

whose rights are violated by allowing me to marry my sister (if I had one)?

that's my big problem with all the gay rights supporters. If you want equal rights for everyone, then dammit support equal rights for EVERYONE
 
theplaydrive said:
Hey mac, please explain how DOMA is not gender discrimination using the definition of discrimination.
Click to expand...

Good luck. mac doesn't believe in using definitions unless he is the one making them up.
 
mac said:
Then it should be legal, universally, by now. :shrug:
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people who think ending segregation was wrong, and they are serving public office right now... lol. It's a never ending battle, and America was initially on the wrong side so that appeal to tradition **** hasn't usually worked. It didn't work with slavery, segregation, women's rights, native American rights, and tradition will give away to equality and freedom in this case too, and you'll be on the wrong side Mac.
 
CriticalThought said:
You are an incredibly dishonest individual. You even created your own definition of "natural" in a thread in order to argue that homosexuality did not meet it and was therefore wrong. I'm just about sick of debating with you since you have no apparent affinity for truth or honesty.
Click to expand...

No, you are dishonest....I never once said homosexuality is wrong becuase it is unnatural. Never once. Quote me, or stop lying about what I've said. You read what you want me to have said so you can fit me into your catagories.

Logical fallacies demonstrate thinking errors. 1+1 will never equal 3, just as appealing to nature or tradition will never be a valid argument.
Click to expand...

Then why do you appeal to nature regularly? It seems only a thinking error when you want it to be, but perfectly valid when you want it to be. Homosexuality is not an issue ruled by logic and as such it is not only logic that applies.

Please quote any instance where I have said homosexuality is right because it occurs in nature. I have argued homosexuality is natural, by most definitions, but I have never argued on this forum that it is right just because it is natural. If you cannot quote me, then I expect an apology and will not acknowledge you any further until I receive one. I am sick of lying and deceit. You epitomize everything I hate about Christianity.
Click to expand...

What you have said, and what I said you said, wa that you claim it to be natural for humans becuase it exists in nature. Do you deny this? In fact you even offered up a book to prove it. Do you deny it?
 
OscarB63 said:
whose rights are violated by allowing me to marry my sister (if I had one)?
Click to expand...

Pathetic. Can't stay on abortion, so you are switching to incest? I'm not arguing that gay marriage should be legal simply because it doesn't violate anyone else's rights, and you know that isn't my argument. Stop trying to pull a red herring and answer my question. My argument was how abortion was a comparable argument to gay marriage. How is abortion comparable to gay marriage when abortion deals with a conflict between the unborn and the mother and gay marriage has no such conflict? That has nothing to do with incest and nothing to do with equal rights.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Pathetic. Can't stay on abortion, so you are switching to incest? I'm not arguing that gay marriage should be legal simply because it doesn't violate anyone else's rights, and you know that isn't my argument. Stop trying to pull a red herring and answer my question. My argument was how it was a comparable argument. How is abortion comparable to gay marriage when abortion deals with a conflict between the unborn and the mother and gay marriage has no such conflict?
Click to expand...

pot...meet kettle.

human rights are human rights, whether it be abortion, incest, polygamy, gays, etc, etc, etc.

funny how the only ones you give a **** about are gays.

now get mad and start attacking me, even though I actually support gay rights
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Yeah, this threads not about abortions. There's a legitimate debate about whether or not a fetus/baby in the womb is constituted as a human with all the rights there is. There's no legitimate debate happening in this country as to whether or not homosexuals are human. The attempt at thread-jacking ends now.

Additionally, I know this is a heated topic but keep the personal attacks out of it. People on both sides are slinging them and they need to end as well.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Hey mac, please explain how DOMA is not gender discrimination using the definition of discrimination.
Click to expand...

Men and women are equally allowed to marry within the confines of that definition, men are no more restricted than women (and vice versa). The law applies equally to both genders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom