• 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
Boo Radley said:
Only to a very limited degree. In my discussions with both legal professors and lawyers, there has to be shown just cause for the discrimination. As I understand it, if there is no just cause, no argument of a just reason for the discrimination, society cannot impose their moral values.
Click to expand...

Limited degree or not, it's there. Accepted norms are acceptable until successfully challenged. We'll see in the next few years if they are.

And would we want them to? Think for a minute if you're on the other side of such a thing?
Click to expand...

That's not to much of a stretch for me.
 
mac said:
lets cut to the chase.
Click to expand...

I was expecting you to put forth and argument but all I got is basically you saying "This is what I think, I'm not giving any reasons for why I think it, so just accept it"

I understand levels of scrutiny, and I understand why you and others think banning SSM is gender discrimination, and why that should be denied via the EPC. My point is that the state is able to categorize people for the purpose of applying the EPC and it is recognized that under certain circumstances, equal protection doesn't necessarily apply.
Click to expand...

I'm with you here, because we're both saying the same thing at this point. I acknowledge they can categorize people and under certain circumstances discriminate against them as well.

The problem is, you seemingly refuse to explain WHY you think in this particular case it meets the levels necessary.

I don't agree that just because a person is not allowed to do something another person can do that it is discrimination.
Click to expand...

Well, yes you're correct. It becomes discrimination when you're doing it based not off the merit of the individual but due to a grouping they belong to. Such as "You can't marry a woman because you're a woman but Bill can marry a woman because he's a man". The law is preventing one person from doing something because of a grouping (their gender) and allowing another person to do something due to his grouping (his gender).

I also believe that under the constitution, American society is allowed to impose it's morals on itself except when such imposition directly opposes the constitution.
Click to expand...

And in this case, its a clear example of a person being denied the ability to do something based upon their gender grouping. Which in and of itself is not unconstitutional. I'm just asking you to show me the important state interest that substantially requires gender to be discriminated against.
 
Ikari said:
What? You don't buy the centaur argument? It's clearly true. If you allow same sex marriage, next thing you know you have to allow bestiality. And if you allow bestiality, then some dude will marry a horse and guess what you get when a dude ****s a horse. A centaur. This is all clear and measured science. Duh.

But in reality, there's little to no data to indicate what would happen. I think the most probable outcome would be nothing. People are free to believe it's immoral till the cows come home. They can stand on the corner and preach it till they are blue in the face. What they cannot do is use government force to stop it; which is what is being done currently. It's the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual with no proof of harm demonstrated. It's a bit sad that people feel their righteous indignation has place in law.
Click to expand...

Thanks...my sentiment exactly...

I'm gonna take you up on the Centaur argument...its the only one that makes sense.

Now, since there is no defined consequences of gay marriage... We all need to move on.
 
Removable Mind said:
Thanks...my sentiment exactly...

I'm gonna take you up on the Centaur argument...its the only one that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Heheh, I came up with that one awhile back as the argument I will use against SSM. Though if you use it a lot in enough places, you'll eventually find the 1 person who will think you're serious. And that's when the real fun begins.
 
Zyphlin said:
And in this case, its a clear example of a person being denied the ability to do something based upon their gender grouping. Which in and of itself is not unconstitutional. I'm just asking you to show me the important state interest that substantially requires gender to be discriminated against.
Click to expand...

Not acting in opposition to the will of the people is a valid state interest. In a nutshell.
 
mac said:
Not acting in opposition to the will of the people is a valid state interest. In a nutshell.
Click to expand...

The will of the majority is allowed to rule so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of the minority.
 
Ikari said:
The will of the majority is allowed to rule so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...

The will of the people is the Constitution of the United States. Of course, the average social conservative takes a crap on that document every chance they get to impose their religious views on the rest of the country.
 
Ikari said:
The will of the majority is allowed to rule so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...

CriticalThought said:
The will of the people is the Constitution of the United States. Of course, the average social conservative takes a crap on that document every chance they get to impose their religious views on the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

That doesn't give the minority right to infringe upon the majority.
 
mac said:
That doesn't give the minority right to infringe upon the majority.
Click to expand...

How so? If you mean that the minority defending their rights infringes upon the majority; then that is wrong. If it is the minority cannot act in a way which infringes upon the rights of the majority; then fair enough. But that is not the case in SSM. It's the majority's will to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the minority in that case.
 
mac said:
That doesn't give the minority right to infringe upon the majority.
Click to expand...

No rights are being infringed. Your wishes aren't being honored is all.
 
They should be able to get married. We have more important things to bicker about.
 
Wow, mac got awfully silent when you guys asked him about the rights of the majority he was so sure were being infringed.
 
After hundreds of post it all boils down to this...?

As aggressive as so many posts have been on both sides of the argument...it could have all been averted by asking that simple question..."what social damage or impacts would be imposed gay marriage."

It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

I figured we'd be here for the next week, 24/7 debating a Lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng list of negative impacts on society.

Thanks all...
 
Removable Mind said:
After hundreds of post it all boils down to this...?

As aggressive as so many posts have been on both sides of the argument...it could have all been averted by asking that simple question..."what social damage or impacts would be imposed gay marriage."

It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

I figured we'd be here for the next week, 24/7 debating a Lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng list of negative impacts on society.

Thanks all...
Click to expand...

If you allow gay marriage, then a certain percentages of those marriages (I would hamper to guess the same base amount as we have now), will end in divorce. The increase in divorce cases will put strain on the court systems as well as encourage more divorce lawyers to come about. The increase in lawyers will negatively impact our society by creating more lawyers which we are apparently not allowed to shoot.
 
mac said:
There is as much as there is for the minority's desire to do the same.
Click to expand...

Here's the difference:

Insofar as the definition of marriage is concerned, there's a pretty solid argument that the current DOMA definition of marriage is hurting gay couples.

I fail to see how the reverse holds true.
 
mac said:
There is as much as there is for the minority's desire to do the same.
Click to expand...

That's not the minority's desire. Their desire is to have the full of their right to contract recognized. What you're arguing is the right of the majority is the right to discriminate against certain sects with the use of government force; and that one most certainly cannot be allowed to be upheld.
 
This thread is probably a good example of what goes on in Washington.

If there are claims that social problems are arising from gay marriage that ultimately "can't be identified, with some level of detail" - and which is also framed in a way to substantially reduce as much skepticism as possible. Then there will never be a solution. The arguments will continue on as it has in here - and to no avail.

Personal beliefs are moot without some social evidence that gay marriage is indeed causing harm to our society as a whole.

Thus far...nada.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom