• 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:
How does a teacher having sex with a student equal abuse?
Click to expand...

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...

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...

Truthfully, the institution of marriage is a joke. Who takes it seriously anymore? Who really stays with another person for life? For better or for worst.
-I mean with the Evangelicals getting divorced at the same rate as the non religious, the whole concept is outdated. Nowadays, it is a tax status.

Imo, if people want to marry their dog, I can't really see why I should give a crap. If the government ended the special tax status and gave this issue to the states, I would support that.
 
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.
Click to expand...

NOBODY was allowed to marry someone of a different race in the south once upon a time. It's still discrimination. There is no discrimination by not allowing polygamy.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Here's what I'm getting from my favorite source, wikipedia:

Public indecency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting, is there a Constitutional right to not be aroused, shocked, or offended?
Click to expand...

Here's my understanding of it.

Its been established that free speech CAN have limits. Specifically when it violates another persons rights substantially.

There are certain things that by and large society finds to be "obscene" and that society has a reasonable expectation of not running into in "public". If these things are ran into in a private setting, then that's perfectly fine because you shouldn't have an expectation of not seeing it. However, in a public setting, its not okay.

That's of course as assuming the laws didn't violate the constitution in other ways...such as suggesting being black in public is offensive, etc.

I think, in a general sense, many of the laws are unconstitutional. At the same time, some are legitimate...such as if pornography is illegal for people under 18 to view, its reasonable to suggest that pornographic images shouldn't be in public as a parent has a reasonable expectation to assume their children won't be exposed to something illegal while traversing the public byways. The more questionable, non-constitutional ones though fall in the category of blue laws for me. Something that is affecting so few people, and is enforced so rarely, that it'd probably be more trouble and cost in attempting to actually do anything about them then it is to just ignore it.
 
theplaydrive said:
NOBODY was allowed to marry someone of a different race in the south once upon a time. It's still discrimination. There is no discrimination by not allowing polygamy.
Click to expand...

Well, there is discrimination, but none that rises to the level of unconstitutionality.
 
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on the amount of stock you put in a person or people's general feeling of wellbeing and acceptance with and within their society.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well, there is discrimination, but none that rises to the level of unconstitutionality.
Click to expand...
What discrimination is there? Nobody is allowed to practice polygamy.
 
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...

Which raises another point...why is it illegal to have sex in public? Sex is perfectly natural, is it not?
 
mac said:
I guess that depends on the amount of stock you put in a person or people's general feeling of wellbeing and acceptance with and within their society.
Click to expand...

Not much.

If I did, that notion would be far more pushing me in favor of legalizing SSM than against it, as I think the harm done by the discrimination towards homosexuals would be far far greater than the harm in people having to accept that their government allows gay marriage.
 
mac said:
Which raises another point...why is it illegal to have sex in public? Sex is perfectly natural, is it not?
Click to expand...

Appeal to Nature

Pornography/nudity is illegal to display to a minor. Minors, and their parents, have a reasonable expectation not to be subjected to illegal activity while going through public areas. As such, engaging in said act in public is illegal.

It'd be similar to why, if you wanted to sit in your house and chuck knives all over the place the police wouldn't do anything to you. However, if you went into the middle of the city square and started doing it you'd likely be arrested, because your action is now endangering people by directing illegal activity their way.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Not much.

If I did, that notion would be far more pushing me in favor of legalizing SSM than against it, as I think the harm done by the discrimination towards homosexuals would be far far greater than the harm in people having to accept that their government allows gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's possible for said lack of a people's well being to lead to violent upheaval or civil war?
 
theplaydrive said:
What discrimination is there? Nobody is allowed to practice polygamy.
Click to expand...

Individuals who wish to marry only one person is able to fulfill their wish if they so choose. Individuals who wish to marry multiple people are not able to fulfill their wish. As such, they're being discriminated against based on the number of people they'd like to marry.

Unfortunately for them, "number of people one wishes to marry" is not a protected group under the EPC and even if it was it'd be at the absolute bottom tier which is very simple to suggest what the government should be able to perform said discrimination.
 
mac said:
Human sex....... as far as I know most other animals are allowed to shag where they please.
Click to expand...

Still, you're saying its natural so it should be okay....text book appeal to nature.

But as my edit stated

Pornography/nudity is illegal to display to a minor. Minors, and their parents, have a reasonable expectation not to be subjected to illegal activity while going through public areas. As such, engaging in said act in public is illegal.

It'd be similar to why, if you wanted to sit in your house and chuck knives all over the place the police wouldn't do anything to you. However, if you went into the middle of the city square and started doing it you'd likely be arrested, because your action is now endangering people by directing illegal activity their way.
 
mac said:
Do you think it's possible for said lack of a people's well being to lead to violent upheaval or civil war?
Click to expand...

In this particular instance for either side, absolutely not.

In a general sense, sure...there's nothing in our society that is close to enough to make me think such would happen.

As was shown in a recent poll, FAR more people opposed interracial marriage than oppose same sex marriage at the moment and we didn't have violent civil war or upheaval then. Its absolutely laughably retarded to even imply that such is a factor currently in an anywhere serious level.
 
Zyphlin said:
Appeal to Nature

Pornography/nudity is illegal to display to a minor. Minors, and their parents, have a reasonable expectation not to be subjected to illegal activity while going through public areas. As such, engaging in said act in public is illegal.

It'd be similar to why, if you wanted to sit in your house and chuck knives all over the place the police wouldn't do anything to you. However, if you went into the middle of the city square and started doing it you'd likely be arrested, because your action is now endangering people by directing illegal activity their way.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of places where children are not shielded from nudity or even pornography. Holland and France come to mind, they seem to be doing, ok.
 
Zyphlin said:
In this particular instance for either side, absolutely not.

In a general sense, sure...there's nothing in our society that is close to enough to make me think such would happen.

As was shown in a recent poll, FAR more people opposed interracial marriage than oppose same sex marriage at the moment and we didn't have violent civil war or upheaval then. Its absolutely laughably retarded to even imply that such is a factor currently in an anywhere serious level.
Click to expand...

Does it have to get to actual violent upheaval or civil war to be detrimental to the country or society?
 
mac said:
There are plenty of places where children are not shielded from nudity or even pornography. Holland and France come to mind, they seem to be doing, ok.
Click to expand...

There are places where stoning a woman for having sex with someone before marriage is legal...your point.

Or are you going to change your argument and the goal posts AGAIN and now switch to porn laws.

How about you stop playing these pathetic games and attempts to go further and further off topic and you get to your point?
 
mac said:
Does it have to get to actual violent upheaval or civil war to be detrimental to the country or society?
Click to expand...

I would not support violating the constitution simply to stop people from having their feelings hurt, even if it is going to lead to civil war.

If it was really that big of an issue then it wouldn't be a problem to get a constitutional amendment barring the issue.

As I've said, I've seen absolutely nothing concrete suggesting anywhere near a "harm" to society if gays are allowed to be married and let alone more harm then there is potentially in continuing to discriminate against same sex marriage. Perhaps if you could provide something it'd change my mind. But I'm tired of your round about game where you're not saying anything and just keep throwing spaghetti against a wall hoping something will stick while never actually making any legitimate argument.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Individuals who wish to marry only one person is able to fulfill their wish if they so choose. Individuals who wish to marry multiple people are not able to fulfill their wish. As such, they're being discriminated against based on the number of people they'd like to marry.

Unfortunately for them, "number of people one wishes to marry" is not a protected group under the EPC and even if it was it'd be at the absolute bottom tier which is very simple to suggest what the government should be able to perform said discrimination.
Click to expand...
Okay, I get that. It's more indirect discrimination than direct discrimination though since no one has the ability to fulfill that wish as opposed to being a right afforded to some, but not to all as is the case with the gender discrimination in DOMA.
 
Zyphlin said:
There are places where stoning a woman for having sex with someone before marriage is legal...your point.

Or are you going to change your argument and the goal posts AGAIN and now switch to porn laws.

How about you stop playing these pathetic games and attempts to go further and further off topic and you get to your point?
Click to expand...

I'm not moving any goal posts....there are things that are illegal that cause no real harm in the US, simply because America in general wants it that way. That is the point, not pornography.
 
mac said:
Which raises another point...why is it illegal to have sex in public? Sex is perfectly natural, is it not?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep on bringing up these other issues? Many of the people who are for SSM are for, at least some, of the things that you bring up. Some of the other issues that you bring up have are least able to be defended with some legitimate state interest (whether that state interest actually should prevail over the right to do the thing is what is in contention).

The momentum to tackle these social issues may not be as big or as important in the eyes of most as compared to SSM because preventing SSM actually does harm to people every day that it isn't allowed. Every day there is someone who has a same sex partner that they need marriage rights for some reason to cover them and their partner that they don't have and can't get due to discriminatory laws.

Every law needs to be measured for discrimination or unconstitutionality on its own merits. Just because a law hasn't been challenged yet or hasn't been overturned yet, doesn't mean those laws are automatically Constitutional and just laws.
 
Zyphlin said:
How about you stop playing these pathetic games and attempts to go further and further off topic and you get to your point?
Click to expand...

ROFL! You think he has a point? His point is to see how long he can get people to still debate with him when he isn't presenting a single decent or rational argument.
 
roguenuke said:
Why do you keep on bringing up these other issues? Many of the people who are for SSM are for, at least some, of the things that you bring up. Some of the other issues that you bring up have are least able to be defended with some legitimate state interest (whether that state interest actually should prevail over the right to do the thing is what is in contention).

The momentum to tackle these social issues may not be as big or as important in the eyes of most as compared to SSM because preventing SSM actually does harm to people every day that it isn't allowed. Every day there is someone who has a same sex partner that they need marriage rights for some reason to cover them and their partner that they don't have and can't get due to discriminatory laws.

Every law needs to be measured for discrimination or unconstitutionality on its own merits. Just because a law hasn't been challenged yet or hasn't been overturned yet, doesn't mean those laws are automatically Constitutional and just laws.
Click to expand...

Because non physical harm is exceedingly difficult to illustrate.
 
mac said:
I'm not moving any goal posts....there are things that are illegal that cause no real harm in the US, simply because America in general wants it that way. That is the point, not pornography.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think there's anything that's illegal that causes NO harm, its just the level of harm potentially there and what is acceptable or not.

However, not all those things are necessarily unconstitutional as I feel same sex marriage is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom