• 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
silly me, I thought equal protection under the law applied to all US citizens.
 
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.

all I'm arguing is equal rights.
 
got it, so gays should have the same rights as straights, but to hell with polygamists and practicioners of incest

You're not really arguing equal rights. you're trying to side step the the gay rights issue. Many ahve tried to sue this slippery slope (fallacy) argument. The point is, each stands on its own merit. They can, and likely should, be discussed separately. If there is no just cause, not just icky, then they should be allowed. If not, not.
 
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.

They are. There are fradulent protections, protections for minors, you can't do something that's illegal, etc. But the restraints and force have to be properly justified. I don't see how keeping same sex couples from entering into contract when other couples can is justifiable.
 
You're not really arguing equal rights. you're trying to side step the the gay rights issue. Many ahve tried to sue this slippery slope (fallacy) argument. The point is, each stands on its own merit. They can, and likely should, be discussed separately. If there is no just cause, not just icky, then they should be allowed. If not, not.

wrong. I am saying if you are going to argue for equal rights for gays, then you shouldn't agrue against equal rights for anyone else
 
wrong. I am saying if you are going to argue for equal rights for gays, then you shouldn't agrue against equal rights for anyone else

Depends on the reasons. If it's because you think it is icky, I agree. but if you can show just cause, then do so. As we're speaking of same sex marriage here, that is what you need to do. Show just cause to prevent it. There's an incest thread elsewhere.

But, here, you're just diverting, using the slippery slope fallacy.
 
wrong. I am saying if you are going to argue for equal rights for gays, then you shouldn't agrue against equal rights for anyone else

Nobody is ...
 
Same sex marriage bans easily meet gender discrimination, which is middle tier since sex is a protected class.

You didn't say same sex marriage, you said gay marriage.

"Gay Marriage" suggests allowing homosexuals to marry, identifying that homosexuals are being discriminated against.

Homosexuals are a bottom teir protected class at this point in time under the EPC.

Same Sex Marriage, technically, has jack squat to do with homosexuality or "gay" marriage. It simply in the process would allow homosexuals to potentially get married to their lover, but is not about "gay marriage".
 
wrong. I am saying if you are going to argue for equal rights for gays, then you shouldn't agrue against equal rights for anyone else

Actually, you were saying that if someone argues for something in one case they must argue it in EVERY OTHER CASE regardless of any differences they may have, or else they're a hypocrite.

Which is retarded.
 
Actually, you were saying that if someone argues for something in one case they must argue it in EVERY OTHER CASE regardless of any differences they may have, or else they're a hypocrite.

Which is retarded.

actually I wasn't arguing anything of the sort.
 
Depends on the reasons. If it's because you think it is icky, I agree. but if you can show just cause, then do so. As we're speaking of same sex marriage here, that is what you need to do. Show just cause to prevent it. There's an incest thread elsewhere.

But, here, you're just diverting, using the slippery slope fallacy.

haven't been paying attention have we? I support gay marriage
 
(Ten Characters)

and? what language are you speaking if you interpret that as me arguing that everything must be equal in every case?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Final warning - stick to the topic, cease with the personal attacks, baiting, flaming and one-liners or else.
 
They failed to reach the necessary level to justify the discrimination under equal protection.

I believe that's what I just said, yes. Thank you for reiterating it, I suppose. Not sure what your point is though.
 
In the case of marriage, being hetero gives you special rights that gays do not have. Straights can marry someone they are attracted to. Gay cannot.

Gays can't marry someone they're attracted to, but neither can siblings.

What uniquely homosexual attributes set SSM apart from any other form of marriage? I'm not saying there are non, I'm saying you need to base your argument on those attributes.

Changing gears: I already oppose ruffly 50% of all hetero marriages. If gays are no different than heteros, I therefore automatically oppose ruffly 50% of all SSMs for the exact same reasons.
 
Gays can't marry someone they're attracted to, but neither can siblings.

What uniquely homosexual attributes set SSM apart from any other form of marriage? I'm not saying there are non, I'm saying you need to base your argument on those attributes.

Changing gears: I already oppose ruffly 50% of all hetero marriages. If gays are no different than heteros, I therefore automatically oppose ruffly 50% of all SSMs for the exact same reasons.

Well that means you could accept roughly 50% of SSM.
 
Well that means you could accept roughly 50% of SSM.

Absolutely.

Now if only the sheople of America would stop looking at social issues through the rose colored glasses of class-warfare, we could solve some problems quickly and move on.
 
I believe that's what I just said, yes. Thank you for reiterating it, I suppose. Not sure what your point is though.

That's how EPC works. If you don't reach the necessary levels then you are unconstitutionally discriminating. I'm not sure how you were attempting to suggest that the fact the state couldn't provide evidence necessary due to the EPC to justify the discrimination somehow proves that arguing against it for gender reasons can't work.
 
Gays can't marry someone they're attracted to, but neither can siblings.

One group wrongly being denied their rights doesn't make it okay to wrongly deny the rights of another group.
 
Gay marriage does-not-compare to incest. jeez, does the opposing side have any arguments at all? I mean it's almost as if there's a record playing itself over and over.

What harm does gay marriage pose to society? -right, none. Moving on. What harm does incest pose to society? Genetic disorders. There's a difference, and trying pretend that there's not is disingenuous.
 
One group wrongly being denied their rights doesn't make it okay to wrongly deny the rights of another group.

You're saying siblings are being wrongly denied their right to marry.

You aren't presenting anything unique to SSM which distinguishes it from any other form of objectionable marriage.
 
Gay marriage does-not-compare to incest.

If SSM is so uniqu, why isn't anyone offering those atributes uniqu to SSM?

Capt'n C's post 1155 claims:
In the case of marriage, being hetero gives you special rights that gays do not have. Straights can marry someone they are attracted to. Gay cannot.

...here he argues that everyone should be allowed to marry just anyone they're attracted to. If his premise is true, then as per the 14th amendment it must necessarily apply to all classes equally, to include the federally protected class of familial relation.

You can't support one and deny another without compromising your integrity. It's an old trap you pro-SSM keep falling for.

jeez, does the opposing side have any arguments at all? I mean it's almost as if there's a record playing itself over and over.

I agree. Why do you people keep bringing up all the same old failed arguments, instead of the one pro-SSM argument which wins every time it's used?

What harm does gay marriage pose to society? -right, none.

It condones and perpetuates the 50% divorce rate by ignoring the root problems in favor of fostering class warfare over topics we don't actually disagree on. It's a social divide and conquer.

Moving on. What harm does incest pose to society? Genetic disorders. There's a difference, and trying pretend that there's not is disingenuous.

In order to support a ban on incest and maintain your integrity, you must also support banning any couple with inheritable genetic disorders and similar. Such a ban is not in place today, and harms far more people than incest.
 
Back
Top Bottom