• 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
mac said:
So...you'd do something about it?
Click to expand...

With the second reading, yes....my tax dollars go to the school, and if it's happening on school grounds then the activity is illegal, so it's creating a situation that can negtively involve my kid. If it was off school grounds, or at another school, I wouldn't
 
Zyphlin said:
Statutory rape. An adult using their position to coerce a child into making a choice theyre not legally able to make
Click to expand...

It is possible that something that doesn't affect you directly can cause harm to society (arguably in this case) and indirectly cause you harm?
 
mac said:
It is possible that something that doesn't affect you directly can cause harm to society (arguably in this case) and indirectly cause you harm?
Click to expand...

Yes, however nobody has yet to solidly demonstrate that this is the case with SSM.
 
Zyphlin said:
Using "same" or "opposite" gender is a nonstarter as it's using a broader term to disguise the specifics that actually matter. In this case, men can marry women but women can't marry women, and vise versa.

Would a law stating one can marry the opposite religious preference be constitutional? So athiests can marry religious people and religious people can marry atheists, but an atheist can't marry another athiest and a religious person cant marry another religious person?

After all, NOBODY could marry someone of the same view regarding religion
Click to expand...

What I was replying to was TPD saying that "NOBODY is allowed to marry two women" as a way to distinguish polygamy from SSM. I was just pointing out the same argument can apply to SSM.
 
Zyphlin said:
With the second reading, yes....my tax dollars go to the school, and if it's happening on school grounds then the activity is illegal, so it's creating a situation that can negtively involve my kid. If it was off school grounds, or at another school, I wouldn't
Click to expand...

Against the rules maybe, but illegal? Is is illegal for two teens to engage in sex?
 
mac said:
Against the rules maybe, but illegal? Is is illegal for two teens to engage in sex?
Click to expand...

Where are you going with this line of questioning, counselor?
 
X Factor said:
What I was replying to was TPD saying that "NOBODY is allowed to marry two women" as a way to distinguish polygamy from SSM. I was just pointing out the same argument can apply to SSM.
Click to expand...

I said this yesterday, I see no good reason, in principle, why polygamy should be illegal.

same goes for incest marriage if they choose not to have kids. still waitin' on an answer on why I shouldn't be able to marry my imaginary hot sister.
 
mac said:
It is possible that something that doesn't affect you directly can cause harm to society (arguably in this case) and indirectly cause you harm?
Click to expand...

It could in which case I'd need sizable proof and evidence that it substantially harms society before acted heavily on it, not just my own personal but feeling.

And even with that proof, if it was unconstitutional to act against it than id either deal with it or if it bothered me enough work to try and push for amending the constitutional

For instance, I think slowing the likes of Fred phelps to do what he does harms society, but it's constitutional so I deal with it
 
mac said:
Does there have to be physical harm for there to be harm to society?
Click to expand...

The harm doesn't have to be physical, no. Is there non-physical harm with SSM? Removable Mind asked this question like 10 times and only got one straight answer.
 
X Factor said:
What I was replying to was TPD saying that "NOBODY is allowed to marry two women" as a way to distinguish polygamy from SSM. I was just pointing out the same argument can apply to SSM.
Click to expand...

Except it can't unless on attempts to broadly speak about it in an attempt to hide the specifics.

There's no gender discrimination in not allowing polygamy. There is with marriage
 
StillBallin75 said:
I said this yesterday, I see no good reason, in principle, why polygamy should be illegal.

same goes for incest marriage if they choose not to have kids. still waitin' on an answer on why I shouldn't be able to marry my imaginary hot sister.
Click to expand...

Under our current legal system, there are a large number of laws that would need to be sizably changed or outright removed.

Power of attorney, no longer would it equal your spouse being given that right automatically. Ditto with regards to inheretence if no will I present? Is it just split amongst all spouses or based on time married or what? What happens if a man marries a wife, who marries a wife, who marries another man...but none are actually married to the others. Then the second man divorces the wife....does he have claim to a fourth of what the first woman owns and an eight of what the first man owns since the woman he married has a claim of half of what her wife has and her wife has a claim of half of what her husband has? In divorces, would the biological mother or the wife who took care of the child as the mother the most have rights. And on and on. There is a FAR larger and more in depth issue with our legal system when it comes to changes for polygamy rather than SSM
 
mac said:
Against the rules maybe, but illegal? Is is illegal for two teens to engage in sex?
Click to expand...

Sex is illegal in public. A public school is considered a public place and it's as illegal to bang in it's stairwells and bathrooms as it is to do it in the malls stairwell or bathroom.
 
Zyphlin said:
Under our current legal system, there are a large number of laws that would need to be sizably changed or outright removed.

Power of attorney, no longer would it equal your spouse being given that right automatically. Ditto with regards to inheretence if no will I present? Is it just split amongst all spouses or based on time married or what? What happens if a man marries a wife, who marries a wife, who marries another man...but none are actually married to the others. Then the second man divorces the wife....does he have claim to a fourth of what the first woman owns and an eight of what the first man owns since the woman he married has a claim of half of what her wife has and her wife has a claim of half of what her husband has? In divorces, would the biological mother or the wife who took care of the child as the mother the most have rights. And on and on. There is a FAR larger and more in depth issue with our legal system when it comes to changes for polygamy rather than SSM
Click to expand...

blah blah blah I want to be able to marry two or more women, legal complications be damned! :mrgreen:
 
Zyphlin said:
Sex is illegal in public. A public school is considered a public place and it's as illegal to bang in it's stairwells and bathrooms as it is to do it in the malls stairwell or bathroom.
Click to expand...

hmm, makes me wonder if public decency laws are a violation of the 1st amendment. Just wondering.
 
StillBallin75 said:
blah blah blah I want to be able to marry two or more women, legal complications be damned! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Most every major study I've shown that looks into polygamy shows a massive tendency to issues of jealousy. I'll pass on a regular two girl thing And the cat fights that go with it ;)
 
Zyphlin said:
Most every major study I've shown that looks into polygamy shows a massive tendency to issues of jealousy. I'll pass on a regular two girl thing And the cat fights that go with it ;)
Click to expand...

oh no, it's not jealousy it's just greed :)
 
Zyphlin said:
Except it can't unless on attempts to broadly speak about it in an attempt to hide the specifics.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this. There was no attempt on my part to "hide" anything. NOBODY is allowed to marry someone of the same gender is just, well true.


There's no gender discrimination in not allowing polygamy. There is with marriage
Click to expand...
What if a guy wants to marry two other guys?
 
Zyphlin said:
Believe they've been upheld repeatedly. Not looked at them very closely to be honest
Click to expand...

Here's what I'm getting from my favorite source, wikipedia:

Public indecency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the most states of the United States, state law prohibits exposure of the genitals and/or the female breast in a public place, while in other states[which?] simple nudity is legal, but evidence of intent to shock, arouse or offend other persons (lewd conduct) is evidence of prohibited conduct. For example, in most states[which?], it is a criminal offense punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and/or registered sex offender requirements and restrictions. Some states permit local governments to set local standards. Public nudity itself has not been a crime throughout California since a 2000 Appellate Court ruling, and prosecutions and convictions are unheard of, but arrests do still occur, though they also are unusual,[2] and Vermont only prohibits "open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior"[3] so many forms of public nudity are legal.
In many countries men's and women's bare buttocks are not legal in public area. However, while women's bare buttocks are considered sexually obscene, men's bare buttocks are merely considered rude.
Indecent exposure is defined as a crime in the United States Armed Forces by Article 120(n), Uniform Code of Military Justice. The changes to Article 120 became part of the Manual for Courts-Martial in the 2008 edition.[4]
Click to expand...

Interesting, is there a Constitutional right to not be aroused, shocked, or offended?
 
X Factor said:
I don't understand this. There was no attempt on my part to "hide" anything. NOBODY is allowed to marry someone of the same gender is just, well true.


What if a guy wants to marry two other guys?
Click to expand...

It's like saying every race can use a water fountain. It'd a generalization that hides that when you look at the specifics, one race can use one water fountain and another race can use a different water fountain.

In this case, stating same or opposite sex is a generalization hiding then fact that in the specifics one gender can marry a gender that the other gender can't.

Men can marry women.

Women can't marry women.

Women are denied the ability to do something men can do on the basis of their gender.

That's gender discrimination that isn't present in polygamy. When you look at gender specifics there, men can't marry multiple people and women cant marry multiple people so theres no gender discrimination happening
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom