• 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
Zyphlin said:
Wait, so you're saying most people are fine with the government recognizing gay marriage as long as they don't force the church to condone it?

or are you saying they don't want it being called marriage because that's a religious act, which in and of itself leads into the discussion of you forbidding someone from having a SECULAR GOVERNMENT term of "marriage" applied to them due to some Private religous groups using the same term?
Click to expand...

I'm saying, what would be wrong with having a govt recognized civil union for everybody and then letting those who wanted, and the church approved, do the religious thing?

IMHO, it comes down to gays wanting the term "marriage" and the social/religious acceptance that comes with it.
 
OscarB63 said:
I'm saying, what would be wrong with having a govt recognized civil union for everybody and then letting those who wanted, and the church approved, do the religious thing?

IMHO, it comes down to gays wanting the term "marriage" and the social/religious acceptance that comes with it.
Click to expand...

That would be fine if the government renamed the Marriage License "Civil Union License". But under no circumstance is it just to make same sex couples obtain a Civil Union license when it still offers the Marriage license as well.
 
Zyphlin said:
Neither is deemed to be in a position where one of their ages is viewed as a legal adult and the other is viewed as a minor in the case of the 17 and 14 year old. That's not the case with the 35 year old or the 14 year old. That's easy.
Click to expand...

Deemed by whom? Has it always been thus? If they have the parts (naturally) why can't they use them at will with whom ever they choose?

Minors are not able to enter into binding contracts on their own in regards to the second question. Again, easy.
Click to expand...

Why is 17 a minor and 18 is not?

In both cases, multiple surpreme court cases have affirmed a state interest to the necessary level in regards to having a "minor" designation and the things that go along with it. I've not seen any significant argument against such a thing. If you'd like to make one I'd be absolutely all ears.
Click to expand...

I agree that a minor needs protection, by how do we define who is a minior and who isn't? What science is that based on?

The reasons for Prostitutions illegality is multidimensional, and unlike the others there's a decent sized debate in the country over its constitutionality so hard to really say there.

What's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is there is an awful lot of interpretation in the constitution.

Sure, as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.
Click to expand...

Whether it does or does not is often up for interpretation.

Pesky little thing that. I know it sucks you can't just pull it out when talking about them taking your guns and just ignore it at other times.
Click to expand...

I don't care about gun ownership.

And thus Gender Discrimination under the Law, allowing one gender to do something another gender can't do.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that interpretation.
 
Once again...

It's kind of a given that if a person doesn't like having sex with a person who is of the same sex...groovy. We would also have to conclude that same person would avoid marrying a person of the same sex.

Now the question remains. Foregoing personal preferences one might have. HOW does gay marriage impose any social damage?
 
Ikari said:
No, the argument still exists. But if someone makes a stupid argument, even if they believe it's important, it's still stupid. It's stupid to say "signing something is an act and I'm against that act" because essentially everything is an "act" at that point. What you're concerned with seems to be the ability of same sex couples to legally access the "marriage" title. The act of marriage is represented in the ceremony and not all forms of marrage go through that act. Hell not all forms of marriage require you sign a marriage license either. Common law marriage doesn't have a marriage license. It's still denied to same sex couples though. But as it stands the Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract, and the individual has right to contract.
Click to expand...

and it's stupid to say marriage is not an act. Whether it is something else or not doesn't change that.
 
Removable Mind said:
HOW does gay marriage impose any social damage?
Click to expand...

It leads to centaurs, which would destroy the whole of our culture. Think of all the useless doorways! We'd have to remake elevators and escalators. Centaurs will be the death of us all!
 
mac said:
and it's stupid to say marriage is not an act. Whether it is something else or not doesn't change that.
Click to expand...


Driving is an act too, :coffeepap
 
Ikari said:
That would be fine if the government renamed the Marriage License "Civil Union License". But under no circumstance is it just to make same sex couples obtain a Civil Union license when it still offers the Marriage license as well.
Click to expand...

who said it was?

Originally Posted by OscarB63
I'm saying, what would be wrong with having a govt recognized civil union for everybody and then letting those who wanted, and the church approved, do the religious thing?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mac said:
and it's stupid to say marriage is not an act. Whether it is something else or not doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Well it's good I did not say it was not an act. Someone who actually read what I wrote could understand that.
 
Ikari said:
Well it's good I did not say it was not an act. Someone who actually read what I wrote could understand that.
Click to expand...

I read it and understood it. I guess not everyone has very good reading comprehension.
 
OscarB63 said:
who said it was?
Click to expand...

I wasn't claiming you were for having both. I was merely making my point clear. It's fine of there's a civil union license so long as there is no marriage license. But you can't have both. one or the other (I'd prefer none)
 
CriticalThought said:
I read it and understood it. I guess not everyone has very good reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'm beginning to think the dishonesty is intended and it's being used as a deflect in order to not actually address any of the real issues brought forth, but rather to bog down the debate in semantics.
 
Ikari said:
It's not an act, the act is not what's most important currently since the act can be taken by anyone. The contention is the legal argument over same sex marriage; which is the use of government force to forbid adults from freely entering into a government issued and recognized contract. The individual has right to contract.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
Well it's good I did not say it was not an act. Someone who actually read what I wrote could understand that.
Click to expand...

Actually you said both, You don't seem to have a train of thought...actually.
 
Ikari said:
I wasn't claiming you were for having both. I was merely making my point clear. It's fine of there's a civil union license so long as there is no marriage license. But you can't have both. one or the other (I'd prefer none)
Click to expand...

why not a civil union license issued by the govt available to everyone and a marriage decree issued by the church?
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, but I'm beginning to think the dishonesty is intended and it's being used as a deflect in order to not actually address any of the real issues brought forth, but rather to bog down the debate in semantics.
Click to expand...

Nah, they wouldn't feign ignorance in order to avoid having an actual debate. That would be cowardly. ;)
 
CriticalThought said:
I read it and understood it. I guess not everyone has very good reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
It's not an act, the act is not what's most important currently since the act can be taken by anyone. The contention is the legal argument over same sex marriage; which is the use of government force to forbid adults from freely entering into a government issued and recognized contract. The individual has right to contract.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension...he quite literally said "It's not an act" you lose, again.
 
mac said:
Actually you said both, You don't seem to have a train of thought...actually.
Click to expand...

No, I should have typed "it's not the act" instead of an. Because in the very same sentence (if you'd PLEASE READ) it says "the act is not what's most important currently since the act can be taken by anyone." Which clearly is saying that the action part of marriage isn't the contended part. It's the legal definition.

Please have some shred of intellectual honesty and please read the entire sentence. kthnxbye
 
mac said:
Very possible, but it's been there for a very long time.



Welp, that certainly doesn't help.
Click to expand...

I think it really depends on the culture and the society. As you well know there have been civilizations and societies throughout history that looked upon sexuality and marriage completely differently than our society (which is generally based on a Western Judeo-Christian culture) has.
 
mac said:
Reading comprehension...he quite literally said "It's not an act" you lose, again.
Click to expand...

Read the rest of the god damned sentence. There was a common there. For ****'s sake, how damned difficult is it for you to finish a sentence? Pretty damned when you want to take things out of context and harp on typos to try to make an entire argument out of. Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick.
 
Ikari said:
No, I should have typed "it's not the act" instead of an. Because in the very same sentence (if you'd PLEASE READ) it says "the act is not what's most important currently since the act can be taken by anyone." Which clearly is saying that the action part of marriage isn't the contended part. It's the legal definition.

Please have some shred of intellectual honesty and please read the entire sentence. kthnxbye
Click to expand...

Hmm, since you started this of in reply to my opposition to an immoral act statement, and led the sentence with, it's not an act...but then said it's not the act and now say you didn't mean what you said....it would seem that this is all one big confusion over your inability to communicate. :roll:

I'll accept that you just ****ed up.
 
OscarB63 said:
why not a civil union license issued by the govt available to everyone and a marriage decree issued by the church?
Click to expand...

Because I think that a lot of the things accessed thorugh the marriage license should be regularly available to everyone. As such, I would break down the marriage license into many other contracts which can be available to all. You can maybe package contracts together for ease of people reporting marriage; but that's really about it. Leave marriage to the Churches.
 
mac said:
Hmm, since you started this of in reply to my opposition to an immoral act statement, and led the sentence with, it's not an act...but then said it's not the act and now say you didn't mean what you said....it would seem that this is all one big confusion over your inability to communicate. :roll:

I'll accept that you just ****ed up.
Click to expand...

I said it was a typo. However, my position has been very clearly laid out in subsequent posts. Read or just GTFO because you're just wasting time and energy currently. I really honestly don't understand it. If it said "it's not an act" and ended there; I could see the confusion, but the rest of the sentence clearly stated that the action portion of marriage wasn't the contented portion. And from that point on I was very clear in what I was saying. You're still just trying to scrape a cover for that mouth running of yours. Not only was it originally there that I meant the act portion wasn't contended, but in subsequent posts I was very clear on that. You want to try to harp on a type and nothing more; but it's not a good argument. Had I said it several times and then changed tune; fine. But not when it was clarified in the very sentence you're trying to abuse.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
I'm saying, what would be wrong with having a govt recognized civil union for everybody and then letting those who wanted, and the church approved, do the religious thing?
Click to expand...

That's my preferred option actually.

IMHO, it comes down to gays wanting the term "marriage" and the social/religious acceptance that comes with it.
Click to expand...

It may be it. Or it could be with them thinking it's the easiest solution for having "equal" rights under the law. IE...it'll be easier getting included in marriage than it will be in changing what straights are identified in under the law and then also having it apply to gay marriages.

I don't really think that's the case of which would be more difficult, but I do understand the reasoning.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I think it really depends on the culture and the society. As you well know there have been civilizations and societies throughout history that looked upon sexuality and marriage completely differently than our society (which is generally based on a Western Judeo-Christian culture) has.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that they have been generally short lived and the "acceptance" rescinded, for lack of a better word.
 
Ikari said:
I said it was a typo. However, my position has been very clearly laid out in subsequent posts. Read or just GTFO because you're just wasting time and energy currently.
Click to expand...

Actually you just wasted an ass-ton of my time, because you apparently don't know what the **** you're trying to say. Great, everyone should be able to contract.....got it, cya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom