• 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 will set a bad example for Christian youth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    83
Actually Mac seems to be the one suggesting that as he's the one constantly trying to bring up everything but same sex marriage in hopes of somehow finding something that sticks.

No, it's not about trying to find something that sticks. Many of the people (religious people) that I know complain mostly about SSM in terms of decency and and the harm that public indecency causes them personally. I attempted (however poorly) to draw parrallels to other indecent behavior to illustrate this, not to equate the behaviors. I personally don't "suffer" the harm many others do with any of these decency "infractions" but I do see how others legitiamtely do. I also recognize that society has the right to regulate the public behavior (not the private) of it's members.
 
Because the access to polygamy is still legal as far as religious ceremonies are concerned.

Access to multiple marriage contracts and the rights that go with those marriage contracts would be based on number of people allowed in a contract and/or number of contracts allowed at one time for each person. It is not a discrimination based on religion, since no religion is being denied access to their religious practice of marriage and every person is limited by number of/in marriage contract at a time. That puts the characteristic used for discrimination being number of/in contract, not religion.

That doesn't explain why it's not discrimination that I can legally marry one person, but not two. Simply becuase current law does not adequately regulate it is not reason to discriminate, and for those religions that encourage polygamy...it's religious discrimination.
 
No, it's not about trying to find something that sticks. Many of the people (religious people) that I know complain mostly about SSM in terms of decency and and the harm that public indecency causes them personally. I attempted (however poorly) to draw parrallels to other indecent behavior to illustrate this, not to equate the behaviors. I personally don't "suffer" the harm many others do with any of these decency "infractions" but I do see how others legitiamtely do. I also recognize that society has the right to regulate the public behavior (not the private) of it's members.

The gay people aren't going to disappear. As long as they exist, "indecencies" will occur. Maybe if you explained that all the gays are currently being forced to sin by having sex out of wedlock, they'd take pity.
 
Problem is the benefits that both SSM and traditional marriage bring to individuals an society are not shared by poligamy. Therefore, there is no reason for state sponsership.

Why would they not be shared by polygamy?
 
So what? It still gives straights specific rights not afforded gays... and don't go with your "gays can marry those of the opposite sex, too" argument, because I've already shot that to smithereens. Straights can marry who they are attracted to. Gays cannot.

I don't think you have shot it to smithereens, and I'm straight and I can't marry everyone I am attracted to.
 
I don't think you have shot it to smithereens, and I'm straight and I can't marry everyone I am attracted to.

Legally, you are able to. Your inability to marry everyone you are attracted to is not limited by the law, but rather personal and social factors.

That is, unless you are attracted to a child or a minor.
 
I don't think you have shot it to smithereens, and I'm straight and I can't marry everyone I am attracted to.

Mac, why can't you? I'm assuming because 1) you're already married, and 2) attraction is not mutual. But if both parties want to get married and they are both free to do so, they should have that right.
 
if I had a super hot porn star bodied sister all bets are off

Still, only like two people have given me a response as to why incest marriage shouldn't happen.

Kindly start your own thread. I can't even verbalize how much I'd appreciate it.
 
I love when people try to use what could happen as a basis for their position on what is happening. The issue is SSM. Whether consent is erradicated in 100 years is irrelevant to the discussion. You keep throwing out irrelevancies like polygamy, incest, apple tree, toasters, lack of consent, etc... None of these things have any LOGICAL bearing on the issue. If they do to you, it is because you are not debating logically, but are diverting away from the simple fact that your position is faith based... not logic based.

My position is faith based, you are absolutely right. Beyond that I don't see it as discrimination (which may be changing), and I won't ignore the moral fabric harm that most don't feel has any merit. You can call it slippery slope, domino effect, or anything you like. The fact is, many civil rights advances have had unforseen effects to marraige and society and this one will too.
 
This is probably the most reasonable solution. Complete separation. Government handles civil unions for all... straights and gays, and religion handles marriage. Each religion can determine what type of marriage they will recognize, whereas the government recognizes both. Very simple solution.

I agree with this completely.
 
Understood, however I still disagree that banning SSM is gender discrimination since both genders have equal access to the same rights and are both dissalowed the same rights equally.

But tehy don't have access to the same rights.

You agreed that the statement is true that a man can marry a woman, but a woman can't.

Why can't she? Because she's a woman? IE, she's prevented from doing something based on her gender.

Flip this to something else...

Instead of "opposite sex" we go with "Opposite view regarding the existance of god".

So everyone is free to marry someone of the "opposite view regarding the existance of god".

This would mean that athiests could marry religious people, and religious people could marry athiests. However athiests can't marry each other and religious people can't marry each other.

Would that be constitutional in your mind? Would that be discriminating against ones religion? Or would it be okay because both sides have the same right...IE the ability to marry the opposite of their religious views regarding a god?
 
I don't beleive that to be true. Limits on pornography, sex, explicit lyrics, etc, say otherwise.

Obscenity laws aren't based on individuals who may be offended. They are governed by "community standards".

Access to Internet porno is uncontrollable despite the warning disclaimers. Up to parents to install programs to block assess. So, I'm not sure what limits you're talking about.

Music has as an age appropriate rating on the cover. But kids purchase whatever they want on the Internet.

Not sure what you're talking about when you say " Limitations on sex".
 
Slippery slope is not a legitimate argument, or not one that holds a lot of water. I find it funny that people like you point to the "domino" effect here. Yet did you point to the potential Domino Effect and speak so worriedly about it when we moved from a nationa agenda of defensive to pre-emptive offensive in regards ot foreign policy? Did you and mac go on and on about the potential "Domino Effect" of the Patriot Act? The potential "Domino Effect" of allowing "enhanced" interrogation actions? The potential "domino effect" of having out of country prisons that are not subject to the US constitution? And on and on...

I did and do have problems with the patriot act and have had these issues with many of our foreign policy actions, yes.

Or do you just care about the "Domino Effect" on issues you don't agree with, and thus need an extra excuse to argue against them? Why is it that the "Domino Effect" seemingly only exists in cases of things people dislike?

Support for Gay Marriage or unions of some kind is at the very least right around the 50% market. I dare say far higher than the mark for people agreeing with the notion of people walking around nude wherever they please. Not to mention that one does not directly correlate to the other so trying to argue against one because it may somehow, someway, potentially, lead to a thought process that might, potentially, possibly, in some way lead to the other happening. Its ridiculous and on par with saying we shouldn't reform Medicare in any way because it could lead to use stripping all veterans of any form of insurance due to the "domino effect".

People have such a hard problem actually finding and presenting legitimate fault in THIS argument that they have to reach for hypotheticals that are absolutely unprovable and unknowable and attempt to argue against those things as a means of trying to discredit the issue at hand. "If this happens it may cause a thought process that might possibly lead to x happening" is not a good argument against the initial thing, unless a distinct, measurable, realistic expectation of the latter possabilities can actually be presented. That's not the case here.

Being unprovable or unknowable doesn't mean they won't occur.

I find it hillarious that Mac speaks about the "will of the people" and how "important" it is...and yet, with poll after poll showing more and more support for gay marriage, I somehow doubt that when 51% of "the people" show that their "will" is for its legalization that Mac would be sitting there saying "Well, its important we follow the Will of the people so make it legal".

I have said that society has the right to regulate its own behaviors and that if it is the will of the people to allow SSM then so be it. I'll go on with my life. However, as one of the people, I reserve my right to weigh in on how our laws are passed be that in favor or opposed. There are plenty of existing laws I oppose, not just aspects of marriage law....I'm still living.

Maybe someday there will be some big movement to allow people to bang wherever they want. That said, there's no such movement now. There's no significant public support for it now. There's not even as sound of constitutional arguments in favor of it as there is in regards to gay marriage. So attempting to use that as a shield for why we shouldn't legalize gay marriage is a bit ridiculous.

There are those of us in this society that are concerned with it's moral welfare, regardless of whether or not you think that is a legitimate concern. The domino effect, if you want to call it that has happened as a result of many civil rights laws that I'll agree were absolutely necessary changes, but did have some negative effects.
 
It's amusing to me when people give examples of pedophilia and incest, and then try to compare that to gay marriage.

it's amusing to me that those who bleat "consenting adults" in regards to gay marriage go "icky" when it comes to consenting adults in regards to incest.

man ****s man = ok
man ****s female cousin = icky

:shrug:
 
Legally, you are able to. Your inability to marry everyone you are attracted to is not limited by the law, but rather personal and social factors.

That is, unless you are attracted to a child or a minor.

No, I cannot legally marry everyone I am attracted to...just one person I am attracted too.
 
Mac, why can't you? I'm assuming because 1) you're already married, and 2) attraction is not mutual. But if both parties want to get married and they are both free to do so, they should have that right.

I am allready married...and I'm only allowed one (at a time).
 
it's amusing to me that those who bleat "consenting adults" in regards to gay marriage go "icky" when it comes to consenting adults in regards to incest.

man ****s man = ok
man ****s female cousin = icky

:shrug:

Each stands on their own regardless of how anyone feels. I would say man with sister would be more icky, but regardless, each stands on its own. If there is no just cause, neither should be banned. The critieria should not be icky, but just cause.
 
From wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Prohibitions_to_inbreeding

The taboo of incest has been discussed by many social scientists. Anthropologists attest that it exists in most cultures. As inbreeding within the first generation often produces expression of recessive traits, the prohibition has been discussed as a possible functional response to the requirement of culling those born deformed, or with undesirable traits.[citation needed] Some biologists like Charles Davenport advocated traditional forms of assortative breeding, i.e., eugenics, to form better "human stock".

In discussing humans, the term inbreeding is often considered highly offensive and judgmental.[citation needed] However, such marriages are not illegal in most of the world. Although it is an undisputed fact that cousin marriages increase the probability of genetic disease, the level of statistical increase varies with the degree of relationship, and the frequency of the marriages. The casual use of the term inbred implies that some degree of degradation exists, when in fact there may be no effect at all.
Some Hindus follow the Gotra system, which prescribes prohibition of marriages among relatives based on a name attached to paternal relatives, to prevent inbreeding. Direct inbreeding is also prohibited in Islam, as described in the Quran (chapter 4, verse 23).
 
Back
Top Bottom