• 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
Jerry said:
If SSM is so uniqu, why isn't anyone offering those atributes uniqu to SSM?
Click to expand...

There is 30 years of evidence showing that same sex couples can raise children as well as opposite sex couples.

There is no evidence that incest couples can raise children well.

Jerry said:
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?
Click to expand...

Okay. How about, if you don't like same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex?
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Why would they not be shared by polygamy?
Click to expand...

I think I explained this. If I did not, I have a post from a while back that does that I can repost.
 
mac said:
I don't think you have shot it to smithereens, and I'm straight and I can't marry everyone I am attracted to.
Click to expand...

I figured you would go with that explanation. So, of course I have a prepared rebuttal. :2razz:

If you and another are attracted to each other and want to get married to each other, you can. If a two gay people are attracted to each other and want to get married to each other, they cannot. Straights have the right to marry who they are attracted to, in these circumstances, and gays do not.
 
mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good. Your position is faith based. I respect that. I also do not see it, really from a discrimination standpoint. I argue from a family position, though I see the discrimination argument, too.

And many civil rights advances have had POSITVE affects on society. The only negative I see from SSM is that some people, who have nothing to do with marry a gay person, won't like it. To me, that is irrelevant in prohibiting it. If someone doesn't like what I do, but it has no logistical affect on them, other than they don't like it, are offended by it, it harms their sensibilities, or is against their religion, I do not care. None of those are valid reasons for preventing ME from doing something.
 
mac said:
I don't beleive that to be true. Limits on pornography, sex, explicit lyrics, etc, say otherwise.
Click to expand...

For the most part, these limits are for minors, not adults.
 
mac said:
Americans are religious people...the most religious in the Western world. Whether or not religion directly affects law or not, it does influnce it and it does influence society. Every society has a right to regulate the public behaviors of it's members. Violating the religious beleifs of sizeable portions of that society causes harm to that society wheter or not it causes harm to you or whether or not you see any legitimacy in that harm.

Saying that religious people should keep their sentiments to themselves is no different than saying homosexuals should keep their orientation to themselves.
Click to expand...

Mac... this is just absurd. Religious people SHOULD keep their sentiments to themselves. Heterosexuals AND homosexuals should keep their orientation to themselves. And government should have nothing to do with preventing the religious from doing anything the non-religious do, or gays from doing anything that straights can do.

And no one is violating one's religious beliefs. Those beliefs are not be taken away or disallowed.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And many civil rights advances have had POSITVE affects on society. The only negative I see from SSM is that some people, who have nothing to do with marry a gay person, won't like it. To me, that is irrelevant in prohibiting it. If someone doesn't like what I do, but it has no logistical affect on them, other than they don't like it, are offended by it, it harms their sensibilities, or is against their religion, I do not care. None of those are valid reasons for preventing ME from doing something.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Nobody on this planet should have to live their life in an attempt at not offending anyone. Eleanor Roosevelt said it best.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I figured you would go with that explanation. So, of course I have a prepared rebuttal. :2razz:

If you and another are attracted to each other and want to get married to each other, you can. If a two gay people are attracted to each other and want to get married to each other, they cannot. Straights have the right to marry who they are attracted to, in these circumstances, and gays do not.
Click to expand...

Still, my "right to contract" is limited in many ways by the government. Saying that I can marry a person I am attracted to does not change that. My right to contract is regulated, just in a different way.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Good. Your position is faith based. I respect that. I also do not see it, really from a discrimination standpoint. I argue from a family position, though I see the discrimination argument, too.

And many civil rights advances have had POSITVE affects on society. The only negative I see from SSM is that some people, who have nothing to do with marry a gay person, won't like it. To me, that is irrelevant in prohibiting it. If someone doesn't like what I do, but it has no logistical affect on them, other than they don't like it, are offended by it, it harms their sensibilities, or is against their religion, I do not care. None of those are valid reasons for preventing ME from doing something.
Click to expand...

No, but they are valid reasons for society at large to oppose it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Mac... this is just absurd. Religious people SHOULD keep their sentiments to themselves. Heterosexuals AND homosexuals should keep their orientation to themselves. And government should have nothing to do with preventing the religious from doing anything the non-religious do, or gays from doing anything that straights can do.

And no one is violating one's religious beliefs. Those beliefs are not be taken away or disallowed.
Click to expand...

This is a matter of opinion....I myself am often telling religious people I associate with that they "need to calm down" over this issue and many others, however, I am able to see there desire to influence the society they live in. You can't ignore the wishes of a sizeable portion of society just becuase you think they are being "silly".

This is why I support civil unions....compromise.
 
mac said:
This is a matter of opinion....I myself am often telling religious people I associate with that they "need to calm down" over this issue and many others, however, I am able to see there desire to influence the society they live in. You can't ignore the wishes of a sizeable portion of society just becuase you think they are being "silly".

This is why I support civil unions....compromise.
Click to expand...


I don't see any reason why people should compromise on their rights.
 
mac said:
This is why I support civil unions....compromise.
Click to expand...

Separate but equal is not equal. We've already done this one. So long as the Marriage License remains a government issued and recognized contract, you cannot rightfully ban same sex couples from engaging in it.
 
100% consistency simply doesn't exist so your tactic of tearing down someone's argument by attempting to find an inconsistency is fruitless. If the government wasn't corrupt and dangerous I would support genetic screening so that people with genetic disorders couldn't have their own biological children, albeit the disorder would have to be severe and incurable. But certain diseases like Huntington's are so terrible that it shouldn't be passed on. There are many more. And the cures for these horrible diseases are years away. However, I can't support mandatory genetic screening because it breaches the personal liberties of the individual. So we're at an impasse. I can't support genetic screening for every citizen and then limiting people's ability to have children, but I can't support allowing incestuous marriage, either.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Separate but equal is not equal. We've already done this one. So long as the Marriage License remains a government issued and recognized contract, you cannot rightfully ban same sex couples from engaging in it.
Click to expand...

Well, see...I am not.
 
BDBoop said:
So you can see (asked in all honesty) why gays would want the right to marry who they see fit?
Click to expand...

Absolutely....but that doesn't mean I agree that they have that right.
 
mac said:
I dare say none that you would recognize...but since you are not every person, who gives a **** what you recongnize?
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're trying to communicate here, but the indirect implication is that there aren't any valid reasons, so thank you for clarifying.
 
theplaydrive said:
I don't know what you're trying to communicate here, but the indirect implication is that there aren't any valid reasons, so thank you for clarifying.
Click to expand...

Nope, wrong again. I think what I said is pretty clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom