• 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
StillBallin75 said:
Here's the difference:

Insofar as the definition of marriage is concerned, there's a pretty solid argument that the current DOMA definition of marriage is hurting gay couples.

I fail to see how the reverse holds true.
Click to expand...



Ikari said:
That's not the minority's desire. Their desire is to have the full of their right to contract recognized. What you're arguing is the right of the majority is the right to discriminate against certain sects with the use of government force; and that one most certainly cannot be allowed to be upheld.
Click to expand...

Why does there need to be harm? What harm does it do? And if it's just right to contract, then why not civil unions?
 
mac said:
Why does there need to be harm? What harm does it do? And if it's just right to contract, then why not civil unions?
Click to expand...


Why don't anti gay marriage people argue to take the word "marriage" off the State issued contracts for every one?
 
mac said:
Why does there need to be harm? What harm does it do? And if it's just right to contract, then why not civil unions?
Click to expand...

All Opinions Are Local - Why the word 'marriage' matters

If it's a matter of what we choose to call it (civil unions vs. marriage), then it becomes a semantic debate instead of a substantive one. If it looks like a marriage, quacks like a marriage, and walks like a marriage, why the hell not just call it a marriage? If gay civil unions are given the same basic legal rights as marriages, then doesn't it become a marriage in all but name only, substantively speaking? If that's the issue, then we're just arguing over what to call something as opposed to reality and substance, which I think is just stupid.
 
mac said:
Why does there need to be harm? What harm does it do? And if it's just right to contract, then why not civil unions?
Click to expand...

Harm is the halmark. People should be free to do as they like so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process. If no harm is coming to you or others, your rights are not being infringed upon, then it's really none of your business what others do and they should be free to pursue their own happiness. As for Civil Unions, those are fine so long as there is no Marriage License. But so long as the Marriage License exists as a government issued and recognized contract; there is no just argument for forbidding same sex couples from engaging in it.
 
mac said:
Why does there need to be harm? What harm does it do? And if it's just right to contract, then why not civil unions?
Click to expand...

Harm has everything to do with it. Why intervene in a private matter when clearly there are no negative social consequences?
 
Ikari said:
Harm is the halmark. People should be free to do as they like so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process. If no harm is coming to you or others, your rights are not being infringed upon, then it's really none of your business what others do and they should be free to pursue their own happiness. As for Civil Unions, those are fine so long as there is no Marriage License. But so long as the Marriage License exists as a government issued and recognized contract; there is no just argument for forbidding same sex couples from engaging in it.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The "harm principle" is an idea that I base a lot of my opinions on.
 
StillBallin75 said:
All Opinions Are Local - Why the word 'marriage' matters

If it's a matter of what we choose to call it (civil unions vs. marriage), then it becomes a semantic debate instead of a substantive one. If it looks like a marriage, quacks like a marriage, and walks like a marriage, why the hell not just call it a marriage? If gay civil unions are given the same basic legal rights as marriages, then doesn't it become a marriage in all but name only, substantively speaking? If that's the issue, then we're just arguing over what to call something as opposed to reality and substance, which I think is just stupid.
Click to expand...

It may be, but if it gives everyone what they want, who cares how stupid it is?
 
winston53660 said:
Why don't anti gay marriage people argue to take the word "marriage" off the State issued contracts for every one?
Click to expand...

I think that is the more legitimate answer personally. All people can get their civil unions, and religious people can go to their Church and get married.
 
mac said:
It may be, but if it gives everyone what they want, who cares how stupid it is?
Click to expand...

But who exactly is being harmed, or hurt, or whatever when marriage is expanded to include a new group of people?

I still don't really see the rights of the majority really being infringed in any substantial manner.
 
mac said:
I think that is the more legitimate answer personally. All people can get their civil unions, and religious people can go to their Church and get married.
Click to expand...

I think this is a reasonable position, but as of right now marriage isn't purely a religious institution, it's a civil one. If it was a purely religious institution then each group is free to define it however the hell they want, as long as they don't impose that view on others.
 
mac said:
I think that is the more legitimate answer personally. All people can get their civil unions, and religious people can go to their Church and get married.
Click to expand...

The true proper course, the one which won't be followed as government rarely gives back power it usurped, would be to remove the Marriage License all together. The contracts which come with the Marriage License for legal privilege can be broken down and made widely available. If there is no Marriage License, the the Churches are free to define marriage any way they want. But so long as the Marriage License exists, same sex couples should have the full of their right to contract recognized.
 
Marriage is largely a religious institute. It is also civil, but it has its roots in religion which is why we are having this discussion. If marriage was purely a civil issue, why can't gays marry? What harm would it do society? I can think of many more benefits.
 
Alright, here's a question for mac and others.

Why is the institution of marriage, as a whole, so important to you personally that you personally feel the need to define it and exclude others in the process? I'm just curious.
 
Alright, here's a question for gays and others.

Why is the institution of marriage, as a whole, so important to you personally that you personally feel the need to RE-define it ? I'm just curious.
Click to expand...


1234567890
 
StillBallin75 said:
Alright, here's a question for mac and others.

Why is the institution of marriage, as a whole, so important to you personally that you personally feel the need to define it and exclude others in the process? I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

First and foremost it offends me as an affront to my Religious beliefs. I also believe it to be just another lessening of the importance of marriage in lockstep with the many others we've experienced since the 60's. While I recognize and defend the separation of Church and state, I feel that the legal aspects of marriage are of no concern to any religion and such legal aspects should be extended to anyone who wishes to enter such an agreement. If asked to vote, I would vote against it, but to be fair...other than exploring the issue here at DP, it's not something that takes up much of my life, and I don't see it as something if legalized, would have much affect on me personally or my family.
 
mac said:
Not acting in opposition to the will of the people is a valid state interest. In a nutshell.
Click to expand...

However "valid" state interest is more in line with the bottom tier of the epc not the middle. Something can be valid while not being important.

The government routinely acts against the will of the people. Just in recent years you have the Iraq war, push for amnesty, not going single payer, not getting rid of Obamacare, not raising taxes on the rich, and I can go on. Furthermore, our system of government is distinctly set up to NOT focus on the will of the people. If that was an important state interest we'd be a direct democracy. However we are a representative Republic and therefore the will of the people is not directly what's important for then states interest.

So that nutshell is rather hollow
 
mac said:
First and foremost it offends me as an affront to my Religious beliefs. I also believe it to be just another lessening of the importance of marriage in lockstep with the many others we've experienced since the 60's. While I recognize and defend the separation of Church and state, I feel that the legal aspects of marriage are of no concern to any religion and such legal aspects should be extended to anyone who wishes to enter such an agreement. If asked to vote, I would vote against it, but to be fair...other than exploring the issue here at DP, it's not something that takes up much of my life, and I don't see it as something if legalized, would have much affect on me personally or my family.
Click to expand...

A fair answer, though I completely disagree. I'm just trying to understand why many people are personally expending so much political and financial capital in doing things like campaigning for the upholding of DOMA and campaigning against prop 8. And why some people think that it is their personal prerogative to "defend" marriage and define it as such.

And as I stated before, I disagree that extending gays the right to marry erodes the institution itself, and there are a host of other things that actually harm marriage a whole hell of a lot more than SSM.

But I can't argue with the religious aspect.
 
The right for equal protection under the law is in the constitution

The right to not have a word defined in a way you don't like isn't
 
mac said:
First and foremost it offends me as an affront to my Religious beliefs. I also believe it to be just another lessening of the importance of marriage in lockstep with the many others we've experienced since the 60's. While I recognize and defend the separation of Church and state, I feel that the legal aspects of marriage are of no concern to any religion and such legal aspects should be extended to anyone who wishes to enter such an agreement. If asked to vote, I would vote against it, but to be fair...other than exploring the issue here at DP, it's not something that takes up much of my life, and I don't see it as something if legalized, would have much affect on me personally or my family.
Click to expand...

Those two statements are interesting. So on one hand, whether or not gays get married doesn't have any affect on your life (in other words, no harm), but you're against it because it offends your religious sensibilities. Therefore, because you and other religious people are offended by gay marriage, it should be illegal.

So should religious fervent dictate public policy?
 
Zyphlin said:
The right for equal protection under the law is in the constitution

The right to not have a word defined in a way you don't like isn't
Click to expand...

Zyph, i have some serious man-love for you. It's too bad gay marriage is illegal in both our states :mrgreen:
 
StillBallin75 said:
I guess you missed the whole bit about equal rights.

Gays want their romantic relationships to be just as valid and recognized as heteros.
Click to expand...

they can be...by the govt. why do they insist on forcing the church to recognize them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom