• 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
BDBoop said:
This thread didn't start off with a bang, either. But it's really hard to have a proper debate with all the kitchen sinking going on in here.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think more than a few posters have honestly discussed their objections to SSM and it's given me a better understanding.
 
Zyphlin said:
But tehy don't have access to the same rights.
Click to expand...

They do, neither sex is allowed to marry within it's gender. It would be discrimination (imo) if men were allowed to marry men but women were not allowed to marry women.

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

And a man can't marry a man. Equal treatment.

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?
Click to expand...

Looking for something that sticks? That is not similar in my opinion, but I'll have to think on it awhile to best articulate why. I'll get back to this question.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. But that doesn't mean close curtain and change subject.
 
mac said:
Instead of "opposite sex" we go with "Opposite view regarding the existance of god".



Looking for something that sticks? That is not similar in my opinion, but I'll have to think on it awhile to best articulate why. I'll get back to this question.
Click to expand...

Nope. This is exactly the same, even better than "Marry a man, Mac. You're free to do so."
 
mac said:
They do, neither sex is allowed to marry within it's gender. It would be discrimination (imo) if men were allowed to marry men but women were not allowed to marry women.



And a man can't marry a man. Equal treatment.
Click to expand...

Can a man vote?
Can a woman vote?

Both can of course, equal treatment.

When women could not vote they could not do something a man could do, not equal treatment.
 
mac said:
They do, neither sex is allowed to marry within it's gender. .
Click to expand...
Just like neither blacks nor whites was allowed to marry outside their race. What's the difference?
 
mac said:
Therefore the government has no business being involved any longer.
Click to expand...

I actually don't have a huge disagreement with you here, except for the fact I do think there's legitimate interest in regards to the government in recognizing someone whose your defacto joint individual in matters of estate and power of attorny and other such things without requiring one to go through every various document. And also benefit in regards to streamlining the system...for the government and the individual...with regards to individuals sharing property and income when it comes to taxes and other things regarding it.
 
theplaydrive said:
Just like neither blacks nor whites was allowed to marry outside their race. What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Mainly, race is a false concept. Other than that, only whites and blacks were consistently discriminated against...other pairings were usually allowed.
 
OscarB63 said:
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:
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, I don't have a huge issue with incest as a point of law. On a personal level, sure. But I don't think we necessarily need laws against it. I don't think it'd be common. And I think women getting married and having kids over the age of 40 would be far more common and has a chance to affect the child negatively, much like incest does, and we allow for that. So I don't really feel its a just law.

That said, because it also does affect far fewer people imho then its not as big of an issue to debate about.
 
Zyphlin said:
Strangely enough, I don't have a huge issue with incest as a point of law. On a personal level, sure. But I don't think we necessarily need laws against it. I don't think it'd be common. And I think women getting married and having kids over the age of 40 would be far more common and has a chance to affect the child negatively, much like incest does, and we allow for that. So I don't really feel its a just law.

That said, because it also does affect far fewer people imho then its not as big of an issue to debate about.
Click to expand...

Have you been to West Virginia?
 
mac said:
Mainly, race is a false concept. Other than that, only whites and blacks were consistently discriminated against...other pairings were usually allowed.
Click to expand...

I don't think "false concept" is a term that properly describes it.

Sociologists say that race is a social construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that there aren't real-world consequences stemming from categorizing people into different races.
 
mac said:
Mainly, race is a false concept. Other than that, only whites and blacks were consistently discriminated against...other pairings were usually allowed.
Click to expand...
What do "false concepts" and "consistency" have to do with discrimination? Nothing.

Whites and blacks were equally discriminated against just like men and women are equally discriminated against now. Whites had a right blacks didn't have and blacks had a right whites didn't have. Men have a right women don't have and women have a right men don't have. Nothing you said contradicts this reality.
 
mac said:
They do, neither sex is allowed to marry within it's gender. It would be discrimination (imo) if men were allowed to marry men but women were not allowed to marry women.

And a man can't marry a man. Equal treatment.
Click to expand...

Equal discrimination doesn't make it any less discrimination.

When looking at specifics, a man can do something a woman can't and vise versa based singularly on their gender.

It only appears that they are able to do the "same thing" when one uses generalized terms such as "within their gender" or "the opposite sex" rather than the SPECIFIC terms of the situation which is a man can marry a woman, but a woman can not marry a woman.

Looking for something that sticks? That is not similar in my opinion, but I'll have to think on it awhile to best articulate why. I'll get back to this question.
Click to expand...

No, I'm illustrating the difference between specific and generalized description of groups and showing how one can use the more generalized description in an effort to hide the inequality that's occur.

"Both blacks and whites can use water fountains" is a generalized thing. Rather than speaking about specifics, you're talking about their ability to use water fountains in general. However when you get to the specifics you see that "Blacks can use water fountains designated for blacks, and whites can use water fountains designated for whites".

By being generalized you could say "Both are able to use water fountains that are for their same race, so they're equal in that they both can do the same thing". However, when you look at the specifics, you see its not the case.

Same thing in the analogy I gave you.

"Opposite View of the Existance of God" is attempting to generalize the issue in hopes of hiding the fact that religious people can do something athiests can't, and vise versa, based singularly on what their religious view is.

What you, and others, are doing by constantly going "opposite sex" or "same sex" rather than dealing directly with the specifics of what each gender can do is using the generalization of the situation to hide the specific cases of descrimination. What it is is no different than suggesting that blacks and whites can both use their same-race approved water fountains, so they have equal rights. That suggesting it'd be constitutional to ban religious people from marrying athiests and vise versa because they both have the oppertunity to marry someone of the "opposite religious view on the existance of god" and therefore its equal.

You mentioned you could kind of see it as a seperate but equal situation. And you know what, I can see that. However, "seperate but equal" is a FORM of discrimination so even if you're going with that we're not really far off on this.

At best, its a "seperate but equal" form of gender discrimination where we say women can marry one gender and men can marry one gender and even though they can't marry the same gender that the other person can, its equal so its okay.

At worst, its full on standard fare gender discrimination where we're saying one gender can't do something another gender can based singularly on the gender group they apply to.

In either case, its potentially unconstitutional discrimination depending on how it holds up to the EPC requirements for gender.
 
Those against Gay Marriage: Arguments built around individual beliefs are MOOT, unless their arguments "includes" empirical evidence that society (then entire nation) is or will suffer significant adversities to our daily lives, reduce the nation's overall well being, and damage the ability to function as a society...etc.

I don't care about individual beliefs in a matter such as this. This is about a PRIVATE and consensual relationships that's just nobody's ***** business.

Gay marriage has ZERO effects on my life. And I very certain the same will be opinions of my family members and friends.

3 percent of the population that are gay...will not destroy, injure, or significant change, for the worse, the social fabric of this nation.
 
Zyphlin said:
That said, because it also does affect far fewer people imho then its not as big of an issue to debate about.
Click to expand...

using that logic, only about 3% of the population is gay and not all of them want to get married, so there are really very few people that gay marriage personally affects. so why the big debate over an issue that affects only a small, small # of people? ;)
 
Zyphlin said:
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 (dodge most questions) and just keep throwing spaghetti against a wall hoping something will stick while never actually making any legitimate argument.
Click to expand...

And there you have ladies and gentleman I couldn't have said it better myself this is always the routine used against gay marriage

dodge dodge dodge, slippery slope, dodge dodge dodge, people will sue churches, dodge dodge dodge, it effects me cause I said so, dodge dodge dodge people will want to merry their cats next, dodge dodge dodge, my god doesn't like it

I have yet to see anything of substances that is ON TOPIC and a reason to stop gay marriage in America based on our rights and freedoms.
 
OscarB63 said:
using that logic, only about 3% of the population is gay and not all of them want to get married, so there are really very few people that gay marriage personally affects. so why the big debate over an issue that affects only a small, small # of people? ;)
Click to expand...
because gay people are fighting for their rights and "incest people" aren't.
 
OscarB63 said:
using that logic, only about 3% of the population is gay and not all of them want to get married, so there are really very few people that gay marriage personally affects. so why the big debate over an issue that affects only a small, small # of people? ;)
Click to expand...


Well I thought we were a nation who held individual rights in high esteem regardless of being a small minority or not:shrug:
 
OscarB63 said:
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:
Click to expand...

To a certain extent, incest is tolerable, (not that it's my thing-ew gross).

But I think that brothers and sisters marrying present too great of a risk for genetic disorders.
 
mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should go back and read my other arguments on this. Those arguments explained how exactly the law should consider both the possible discrimination (which is based on the limited number of people per contract and limited number of contracts) with how allowing it could harm someone else. Plus, I included in one of my posts why it could not be considered religious discrimination.

I am not going to repost every argument I make for anything into one single point. You should be considering all of my aruments when you comment, not just one at a time, otherwise you are not being honest about what I am arguing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom