• 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
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.

and yet the state does not prohibit marriage between unrelated individuals who have a higher risk of passing on genetic disorders. I have a cousin who's youngest child has williamson syndrome. they knew she was at risk for having a child with this disorder and the govt didn't prevent her from getting married and having kids. what's the difference?

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. .

incestuous marriage in and of itself is no more harmful than gay marriage. all they need to do is use BC or have one partner sterilzed and the "tarded baby" arguement goes out the window. or, for that matter, how is it going to harm you if I marry my cousin and we have a kid with a genetic disorder?


incestuous marriages may not contribute viable offspring to the genepool...but, then again, neither do gay marriages

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.

FWIW....sodomy is still illegal in many states. are you going to tell gays that they can get married but they can't have sex?
 
Last edited:
and yet the state does not prohibit marriage between unrelated individuals who have a higher risk of passing on genetic disorders. I have a cousin who's youngest child has williamson syndrome. they knew she was at risk for having a child with this disorder and the govt didn't prevent her from getting married and having kids. what's the difference?



incestuous marriage in and of itself is no more harmful than gay marriage. all they need to do is use BC or have one partner sterilzed and the "tarded baby" arguement goes out the window.

That would be for the courts to decide as to whether or not the state has a valid argument to keep incest illegal, and along with that deny incest marriages. That would have to include the fact that the level of scrutiny is lower for such a relation than the level of scrutiny for same sex marriage bans. I believe that the state makes a good case for allowing incest laws to remain in effect. Perhaps the SCOTUS would disagree with me. I honestly wouldn't consider it a big deal if they did, since at least some people who really aren't harming anyone (those incestuous relationships that do not include some sort of abuse or harm to one of the two involved) would be getting their right to marry who they want to.

So far, people still have not presented a valid argument for what state interest (at the proper scrutiny level) is being met by banning SSM.

FWIW....sodomy is still illegal in many states. are you going to tell gays that they can get married but they can't have sex?

Those sodomy laws may be on the books, but they are not valid. The SCOTUS case Lawrence v TX invalidated all those laws as violation of privacy, even the military mentioned the SCOTUS decision for its current enforcement of only non-consentual sodomy. Let them try to say that and it would not even be considered a valid argument by the SCOTUS because of the previous decision.
 
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.
There is absolutely no need to refer to gay people by the perjorative "fag". Any legit argument you may have is drowned out by your obvious intent to inflame. Also, I may have my reservations about gay marriage, but I, in no way believe that gays are wanting or trying to destroy marriage. That makes no sense when gays are wanting to be a part of the institution you claim they wish to destroy. If you have nothing of substance to add, kindly take a hike.
 
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.

Yadda yadda yadda. Same boring arguments. Fags trying to destroy the family? How so? One in every five gay couples has children. Fags live short lives? Depends on how they live them. You run around having unprotected sex, whether you are straight or gay, you are probably going to live a short life. Homosexuality a mental disorder? Pretty hard to justify that one when the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Association of Counselors, and the National Association of Social Workers all disagree. Homosexuality is perverted? Not anymore so that what average heterosexual person does in the bedroom, at least as far as Judeo-Christian vales are concerned. Gay adoption is child abuse? Funny, 30 years of research has shown that children raised by same sex parents do just as well as those raised by opposite sex couples. Homosexuality goes against decency? Whose decency? The kind of decency of a person who comes on an internet forum and calls an entire group of people a derogatory name just because he knows he can't be held accountable for it? Homosexuality is against nature? Whose definition of nature? It certainly occurs in nature, in hundreds of species of animals. But who cares? Does being natural make something good or bad? Driving and flying airplanes is unnatural and we certainly don't consider those things bad.

This is just the typical rant of a person who has never given a moment of thought to why he believes what he believes. I feel nothing but pity for people who make fools of themselves in this fashion.
 
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.

The "right to contract" is regulated in a number of ways. That's not convienient, thats truth, whether or not it has anything to do with SSM.
 
The "right to contract" is regulated in a number of ways. That's not convienient, thats truth, whether or not it has anything to do with SSM.


And the state has to demonstrate why a particular regulation is in place. What is the state's interest that is being addressed by the regulation and is it reasonable to assume that the state interest is being addressed with that regulation? Also, the state needs to show that the state interest is enough to justify the discrimination.
 
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? ;)

The number of homosexuals reported in polls has long been considered questionable based on the social stigma of publicly admitting one is gay. And on top of that, there have been multiple studies done finding anywhere between 3% total to 5 to 8% in each gender. Beyond that however, the fact that this is a national hot button issue that comes up during federal campaigns, has resulted in votes in numerous states, and is routinely polled gives the distinct impression that while a small amount of the population is gay the notion of same sex marriage affects a large amount of people in this country.

Since there is not a large call or public outcry...and no where close to a 50/50 split on the issue...regarding incest and the number of people that engage in it is at the very least on par with the number of homosexuals and potentially significantly smaller. On top of that, the vast majority of participants are participating in it in an illegal way beyond simply the illegality of incest, as its individuals participating in it with minors which is an entirely different issue.

If Incest became such a significant issue that there was a legitimate national presence towards a discussion regarding the constitutionality of it, I would be more apt to take up the banner for debating it. As it stands however, there is very little national mindshare regarding it, there is very little evidence of any kind of substantial number of individuals choosing at a legal age to get involved in such, and there's no national discussion going on about it. As such, when it comes up I'll share my views, but it is not an issue that is of great importance in the country at this time. The same can not be said for same sex marriage.
 
but equal rights is. you can't argue gay marriage in a vacuum.

but you can't go down the slippery slope either. Each stands on its own. The criteria should be just cause.
 
The number of homosexuals reported in polls has long been considered questionable based on the social stigma of publicly admitting one is gay. And on top of that, there have been multiple studies done finding anywhere between 3% total to 5 to 8% in each gender. Beyond that however, the fact that this is a national hot button issue that comes up during federal campaigns, has resulted in votes in numerous states, and is routinely polled gives the distinct impression that while a small amount of the population is gay the notion of same sex marriage affects a large amount of people in this country.

Since there is not a large call or public outcry...and no where close to a 50/50 split on the issue...regarding incest and the number of people that engage in it is at the very least on par with the number of homosexuals and potentially significantly smaller. On top of that, the vast majority of participants are participating in it in an illegal way beyond simply the illegality of incest, as its individuals participating in it with minors which is an entirely different issue.

If Incest became such a significant issue that there was a legitimate national presence towards a discussion regarding the constitutionality of it, I would be more apt to take up the banner for debating it. As it stands however, there is very little national mindshare regarding it, there is very little evidence of any kind of substantial number of individuals choosing at a legal age to get involved in such, and there's no national discussion going on about it. As such, when it comes up I'll share my views, but it is not an issue that is of great importance in the country at this time. The same can not be said for same sex marriage.

IOW...equal rights are only equal rights if a sufficiently large # of people are affected. got it ;)
 
IOW...equal rights are only equal rights if a sufficiently large # of people are affected. got it ;)

What is your scthick with equal rights?

When we talk about equal rights, we are talking about the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That means we are talking about due process of law.

Which means the levels of scrutiny and protected classes.

Now I'm sure you meet lots of uneducated, dimwits who argue a vague notion of equality that would make Karl Marx and Alfred Kinsey proud, but that is generally not what people are talking about when they are talking about equal rights on this forum. Equal rights is a Constitutional argument. Not a cultural argument that all things in our culture must be equal.
 
but the main arguement for SSM is EQUAL RIGHTS for gays. I'm just saying it is hypocritical to bleat for equal rights for gays and then argue against equal rights for another group.

You as a conservative are in favor of spending cuts.

Are you in favor of ALL spending cuts regardless of what they're too, why they're happening, how they occur, etc? If you're not in favor of ALL budget cuts are you hypocritical?

Unless you're suggesting Incest is EXACTLY the same as SSM in all ways, then blatantly saying its hypocritical to support one and be against another is purely and utterly incorrect or at the very least ignorant if you don't have further info to go off of.
 
IOW...equal rights are only equal rights if a sufficiently large # of people are affected. got it ;)

No, time, energy, and the ability to speak are finite entities. Due to this fact priorites in life must be made as to what is the most important to focus on at any given time.

If time didn't exist, if energy was never exhuasting, and if peoples patience for political battles never wained then we could take up every cause with equal passion and purpose.

Since that's about as likely to occur as having unicorns fly out of your ass the next time you take a ****, I deal in reality.

Reality in life is that in ALL things we as people do, we set priorites based on importance. It'd be a good and nice thing to do to call great aunt betsy on her birthday and say hello and give her birthday wishes. However, on the scale of importance it may be behind work, taking little timmy to basketball practice, cooking dinner, and paying the mortgage, and unwinding to your favorite television show and at the very end if you have time you'll call aunt betsy. That doesn't mean that calling great aunt betsy isn't a good and decent thing that, given infinite time and energy, you'd do. Its acknowledging that there are things that ALSO are good things that are more important, and you have to priorities that are more important.

Are you seriously suggesting that you NEVER forgo doing something because there's a more pressing matter at hand?

There are larger issues that affect more people and are more plausable to reach a conclussion in the near future then the issue of incest. That doesn't mean that the issue isn't legitimate, or worth while, what it does mean is that there's not enough time in a day, political capital in the world, or energy in me to debate EVERY SINGLE ISSUE AT ALL TIMES 24/7 A DAY on an internet message board.
 
There are larger issues that affect more people and are more plausable to reach a conclussion in the near future then the issue of incest. That doesn't mean that the issue isn't legitimate, or worth while, what it does mean is that there's not enough time in a day, political capital in the world, or energy in me to debate EVERY SINGLE ISSUE AT ALL TIMES 24/7 A DAY on an internet message board.

the same can be said of gay marriage, but you seem to make the time to argue for it ;)
 
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.

Actually, people are calling for continued government force against homosexuals by denying them the ability to contract with someone of the same sex in the act of marriage

The law as it stands tangably negatively affects people who are wanting to marry someone of the same sex.

How would allowing any two people to be married tangably negatively affect anyone?
 
What is your scthick with equal rights?

When we talk about equal rights, we are talking about the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.



That means we are talking about due process of law.

Which means the levels of scrutiny and protected classes.

Now I'm sure you meet lots of uneducated, dimwits who argue a vague notion of equality that would make Karl Marx and Alfred Kinsey proud, but that is generally not what people are talking about when they are talking about equal rights on this forum. Equal rights is a Constitutional argument. Not a cultural argument that all things in our culture must be equal.

got it, so gays should have the same rights as straights, but to hell with polygamists and practicioners of incest
 
the same can be said of gay marriage, but you seem to make the time to argue for it ;)

Yes. But there you go again Oscar, using a strawman like you always do. Where did I ever say that order of importance is a universal scale?

Based on my own judgements, same sex marriage is of more importance to rectify in regards to a constitutional issues than incest for reasons I've stated.

Now, for someone else, it may be entirely different. They may find it FAR more important to argue about incest. And more power to them. Everyone decides what's most important in their mind based on the criteria they set forth.

Others may not care about social issues AT ALL and focus only on things like budgets and defense. That's also legitimate.

However, you will not show me a single solitary individual on this forum...including yourself...who argues equal time, with equal passion, every single solitary issue that they believe is of even the smallest amount of importance in this country. Because its not physically possible while living an actual real life.
 
got it, so gays should have the same rights as straights, but to hell with polygamists and practicioners of incest

And by got it you mean "look, i'm oscar and I refuse to read anything people say and continue to build strawmans".

When you want to act like an adult and actually debate and have a conversation, look me up.

My thoughts with regards to polygamists are in this thread. Got a problem with it, start another thread instead of attempting to thread jack this one.

My stance on Incest, which is that it should be legal, is also in this thread. My stance on why I don't talk about it as much as same sex marriage is in here as well. Got an issue with it, start your own thread and stop trying to thread jack this one.

Enough of your pathetic little games built on refusing to actually read what people say and purposefully taking singular sentences out of context to attempt and derail the conversation.
 
got it, so gays should have the same rights as straights, but to hell with polygamists and practicioners of incest

Okay I have a challenge for you since you argue that it is comparable. Provide a Constitutional argument as strong as the one for gay marriage, to support polygamous marriages and incest marriages. If you can't, then I expect you to be intellectually honest about it and withdraw the comparison.
 
Okay I have a challenge for you since you argue that it is comparable. Provide a Constitutional argument as strong as the one for gay marriage, to support polygamous marriages and incest marriages. If you can't, then I expect you to be intellectually honest about it and withdraw the comparison.

As strong as the one for gay marriage?

The government is required to provide equal protection under the law. Both adults in an incestuous relationship are full reasoned adults who are perfectly capable of entering into a contract. The government has no legitiamte interest to deny them the ability to enter into a marriage the same as non-incestuous couples except based on the argument that their offspring has a higher percentage of potentially having a genetic disorder.

Considering marriage:

- Doesn't require one to have children.
- Allows people with genetic disorders to get married and to have children
- Allows older women to get married and to have children

I don't think its rational to suggest that the government needs to ban incestuous couplings nor that it has an important interest in making sure married couples are ones who have a lower chance of producing genetically defective offspring. And seeing how it would take no other change in the law outside of removing the prohibition for incest, since all other aspects of it match a normal marriage, its not unduly laborous on the part of the government to enact such a change.

Considering the argument for GAY marriage only meets the bottom teir of the equal protection clause, I think the argument for allowing incestuous marriages can defintiely be made just as strongly.

That said, we're veering farther and farther off topic with this.
 
Last edited:
As strong as the one for gay marriage?

The government is required to provide equal protection under the law. Both adults in an incestuous relationship are full reasoned adults who are perfectly capable of entering into a contract. The government has no legitiamte interest to deny them the ability to enter into a marriage the same as non-incestuous couples except based on the argument that their offspring has a higher percentage of potentially having a genetic disorder.

Considering marriage:

- Doesn't require one to have children.
- Allows people with genetic disorders to get married and to have children
- Allows older women to get married and to have children

I don't think its rational to suggest that the government needs to ban incestuous couplings nor that it has an important interest in making sure married couples are ones who have a lower chance of producing genetically defective offspring.

Considering the argument for GAY marriage only meets the bottom teir of the equal protection clause, I think the argument for allowing incestuous marriages can defintiely be made just as strongly.

That said, we're veering farther and farther off topic with this.

I didn't ask you, I asked Oscar. He has been playing this incest slippery slope in every thread, so I want to see him make a decent Constitutional argument. I don't see why you would jump into my debate with him when I clearly laid the challenge out specifically to him. Anyways, that is a pretty weak argument. Same sex marriage bans easily meet gender discrimination, which is middle tier since sex is a protected class. There is also no conceivable harm allowing same sex couples to marry, whereas you admit that incest marriages can lead to genetic defects. Furthermore, there are other benefits to allowing people to marry outside of their family, such as increasing the sexual diversity of the population and bringing unrelated families together. Those benefits alone can serve as a state interest to deny incestuous marriages.
 
And by got it you mean "look, i'm oscar and I refuse to read anything people say and continue to build strawmans".

When you want to act like an adult and actually debate and have a conversation, look me up.

My thoughts with regards to polygamists are in this thread. Got a problem with it, start another thread instead of attempting to thread jack this one.

My stance on Incest, which is that it should be legal, is also in this thread. My stance on why I don't talk about it as much as same sex marriage is in here as well. Got an issue with it, start your own thread and stop trying to thread jack this one.

Enough of your pathetic little games built on refusing to actually read what people say and purposefully taking singular sentences out of context to attempt and derail the conversation.

be honest. what you said was, because they aren't a big enough group you don't have time to care about them
 
. Furthermore, there are other benefits to allowing people to marry outside of their family, such as increasing the sexual diversity of the population and bringing unrelated families together. Those benefits alone can serve as a state interest to deny incestuous marriages.

and how do gay marriages provide any of these benefits?
 
Back
Top Bottom