• 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
Which is fine, but margianalize indscriminately.

There's a real world effect here. You are calling for the use of government force against the rights and liberties of a certain people based on religious opinion. Does that sound like a good law for America? Something the Land of the Free should endorse?

There's no way that one could endorse theocracy against unwilling people and maintain they move for freedom.
 
That last sentence is what the "report this post" button was created for.

when you can't refute a point, report the post. :2bigcry:
 
Read the thread. Seriously. And the last sentence-absolutely disgusting; I mean the lack of reasoning.


how is incest any more disgusting that homosexuality? you just happened to be bothered by one and not the other. your lack of the ability to think objectively is what is disgusting. really.
 
when you can't refute a point, report the post. :2bigcry:

Oscar, your post was disgustingly rude and vulgar. There was nothing to refute. You went for, and hit, shock value.
 
There's a real world effect here. You are calling for the use of government force against the rights and liberties of a certain people based on religious opinion. Does that sound like a good law for America? Something the Land of the Free should endorse?

There's no way that one could endorse theocracy against unwilling people and maintain they move for freedom.

You don't have to endorse theocracy to understand and respect the various religions and their followers in the US. It's not my point to say that as a justification in and of itself, but don't say we don't have to give a crap about what the religious want, but we do have to give a crap about what homosexuals want.
 
Oscar, your post was disgustingly rude and vulgar. There was nothing to refute. You went for, and hit, shock value.


still can't answer the question though can you? how is one act more harmful to society than the other? hmmmmm.....
 
Huh??? Where do you get that the Church would be forced to condone it? This is solely about government. The church can and does what it wants.
No? There's no pressure on the Catholic church to accept gay priests?
 
You don't have to endorse theocracy to understand and respect the various religions and their followers in the US. It's not my point to say that as a justification in and of itself, but don't say we don't have to give a crap about what the religious want, but we do have to give a crap about what homosexuals want.

It's not about what they want. It is about what they are entitled to as equal citizens under the law.
 
You don't have to endorse theocracy to understand and respect the various religions and their followers in the US. It's not my point to say that as a justification in and of itself, but don't say we don't have to give a crap about what the religious want, but we do have to give a crap about what homosexuals want.

The homosexuals are not calling for government force against religion. That's the difference. They are asking for the removal of coercion against their ability to freely practice their rights. You are endorsing the coercion. Do you get the difference?
 
still can't answer the question though can you? how is one act more harmful to society than the other? hmmmmm.....

The. Subject. Of. Incest. Is. Not. The. Point. Of. This. Thread.
 
It's not about what they want. It is about what they are entitled to as equal citizens under the law.

Everyone is entitled to not have their beleifs trampled on, as well.
 
but equal rights is. you can't argue gay marriage in a vacuum.

Of course I can! The rights should be granted by virtue of them being citizens of the United States. Nothing else matters but their rights as citizens.
 
Everyone is entitled to not have their beleifs trampled on, as well.

Well, yeah; they'd know. They are the ones currently experiencing it.
 
Of course I can! The rights should be granted by virtue of them being citizens of the United States. Nothing else matters but their rights as citizens.

so people who want to practice incest are not citizens and have no rights? ;)
 
The homosexuals are not calling for government force against religion. That's the difference. They are asking for the removal of coercion against their ability to freely practice their rights. You are endorsing the coercion. Do you get the difference?

No one is calling for government force against homosexuals, either. I don't agree that it is a right, so therefore, I obviosly don't see the coercion.
 
No one is calling for government force against homosexuals, either. I don't agree that it is a right, so therefore, I obviosly don't see the coercion.

How convenient for you. The right to contract is being infringed upon by the government. But you don't see the coercion. Free of these laws, homosexuals would be able to be married. But you don't see the coercion. You, you and everyone else arguing against same sex marriage is arguing for government force against the rights and liberties of homosexuals. At least be man enough to admit what you're doing.

It's willful blindness and nothing else. But in free society we seek minimization of coercion. Seeing as the individual has right to contract. That the Marriage License is a contract issued and recognized by the government. The People have the right to engage in it at their leisure. It thus takes force to prevent that, and that force is being applied right now to keep same sex couples from obtaining the contract. That's what this all comes down to. You can cry about "trampling beliefs", but none of that is happening. I'm pretty sure we aren't calling for mandated gay marriage and everyone has to gay marry. Your beliefs get to remain intact. You are still free to marry as you like. By removing this coercion against the free exercise of rights, you do not incur a greater coercion. As such, there is no logical argument one can make under the current circumstances to justly argue against same sex marriage.
 
Last edited:
It's obvious most of the people on here are clueless, they don't understand this isn't about rights or whatever but about fags trying to destroy the family and as we all know the family (it's not "individuals", get a clue) is the bedrock of civilization. Fags live short, dangerous and unhealthy lives in addition to the fact that homosexuality is a perversion (as well as a mental disorder). The State should be promoting values that protect and strengthen the family and civilization in general, not sanctifying perverts. "Gay marriage" will also open the door to a form of legalized child abuse, that being "gay adoption". Homosexuality is a perversion that goes against all decency and as well as against nature. No amount of State power can normalize or make this perversion acceptable.
 
It's obvious most of the people on here are clueless, they don't understand this isn't about rights or whatever but about fags trying to destroy the family and as we all know the family (it's not "individuals", get a clue) is the bedrock of civilization. Fags live short, dangerous and unhealthy lives in addition to the fact that homosexuality is a perversion (as well as a mental disorder). The State should be promoting values that protect and strengthen the family and civilization in general, not sanctifying perverts. "Gay marriage" will also open the door to a form of legalized child abuse, that being "gay adoption". Homosexuality is a perversion that goes against all decency and as well as against nature. No amount of State power can normalize or make this perversion acceptable.

That's pretty much the extreme argument against SSM. The one thing about this post is it highlights the irrationality of those calling for government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
It's obvious most of the people on here are clueless, they don't understand this isn't about rights or whatever but about fags trying to destroy the family and as we all know the family (it's not "individuals", get a clue) is the bedrock of civilization. Fags live short, dangerous and unhealthy lives in addition to the fact that homosexuality is a perversion (as well as a mental disorder). The State should be promoting values that protect and strengthen the family and civilization in general, not sanctifying perverts. "Gay marriage" will also open the door to a form of legalized child abuse, that being "gay adoption". Homosexuality is a perversion that goes against all decency and as well as against nature. No amount of State power can normalize or make this perversion acceptable.

258Troll_spray.jpg

..........
 
but equal rights is. you can't argue gay marriage in a vacuum.

And few are doing so. Many people have explained why the two arguments are different, including why there is a difference in the possible harm caused by each. You have to include in the argument what the state's interest is in any discrimination.

In the case of incest, you can bring up the point of the state not wanting to encourage breeding of children who would have an increase in genetic defects and/or encourage relationships that could be psychologically harmful to one or both of those involved in the relationship. These may not be enough to actually discriminate against people who want to be involved in an incest relationship, but that is for the courts to weigh. Personally, I believe they are enough, especially the second one when it comes to incest laws most of the time (should be some exceptions though). Also, another thing to consider is that incest is illegal in most states. We are not just talking about not allowing incest marriages here, but also changing laws on the legality of incest itself.

Those who have argued against same sex marriage have yet to provide an argument that shows how the marriage alone could be harmful in some way like those who are arguing against incest. Homosexual relationships are completely legal, so it cannot be the relationships themselves that are causing the harm. It must be something in the context of just them being allowed to marry, not considering the relationship alone.
 
This article makes a good case against gay marriage from a secular point of view. Not all people argue against "gay marriage" for religious reasons.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Adam Kolasinski

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Source: The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage - The Tech
 
That last sentence is what the "report this post" button was created for.
Why? He didn't attack anyone.

As CC says, you have no right to not be offended. LOL
 
This article makes a good case against gay marriage from a secular point of view. Not all people argue against "gay marriage" for religious reasons.



Source: The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage - The Tech

And this fails to take into account the fact that there are 5 states that specifically limit marriage between certain couples (1st cousins) to being available only if the couple is over a certain age and/or cannot procreate with each other. And the federal government still recognizes all those couples as legally married couples, despite the state knowing that those couples cannot have children together.

Not only that, but the SCOTUS has ruled that incarcerated people can get married, no matter when they might get out of prison and that marriage is not just about having children and is necessary for the legal rights that it gives to each in the relationship.

No state has a single question about whether either person on the contract knowingly cannot procreate, nor a question even about their intents to procreate. If the most important interest the state had in legal marriage and denying it to same sex couples was procreation (since same sex couples can raise children), then there would be at least one of these two questions, if not both, on the marriage license or asked by the clerk when a couple went to apply for their license.
 
Back
Top Bottom