• 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
Zyphlin said:
The will of the people can affect what representatives vote for....it does not create law. The only way the will of the people creates law is through direct voting.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. I guess with your conservative tag I assumed you voted for people you expected to represent you...not govern you.

If 99% of people wanted ice cream free on Tuesday's and congress didn't vote for it...what happens? Does the will of the people become law or do we still pay for ice cream? It's the latter, because our government is a republic not a direct democracy, and thus does not state that the will of the people is an important state interest. Instead, our government is specifically set up so that the people rarely can directly enforce their will and has an entire government in part dedicated to not allowing the will of the people to violate other peoples rights.
Click to expand...

Well, if it were that big an issue we'd get another Remember November. We either directly vote on these, like most of the states SSM referendums, or we elect people we expect to represent our will in Government. Not getting everything all the time doesn't mean it's not the will of the people making law, however indirectly.

The very definition of what our government is proves your suggestion wrong. If it was an important state interest we'd be a direct democracy
Click to expand...

We could be, but don't need to be.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Again, depends on which gays we're talking about, and whether they're representative of gays as a whole. CT is referring to the gays that do, regardless of whether they be a minority or a majority.
Click to expand...

What was the last "hetero pride" parade or event you've heard of?

Although that particular post I think was just meant to be a nasty shot at religious folk.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it. Not CT. <read with heavy sarcasm>
 
mac said:
Would that be true if civil unions were all that existed?
Click to expand...

you mean a hypothetical situation in which no marriages existed but only civil unions did? I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as it's equal.
 
mac said:
How about if a teacher was having sex with students at your kids school....but it wasn't your kid. Would you oppose that? Or, how about kids were having sex in your kids school....but not your kid. How about that?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously comparing the statuatory rape of children with same-sex marriage of consenting adults? I mean, seriously? :shock:
 
evanescence said:
Of course I oppose pedophilia, but then again, pedophilia cannot be compared gay marriage. Sex between an adult and a child cannot be compared to sex between two consenting adults.
Click to expand...

It's not meant to be a direct comparison...it's meant to illustrate that which causes harm without affecting you directly. Why oppose these things if they do you no harm?
 
DiAnna said:
Are you seriously comparing the statuatory rape of children with same-sex marriage of consenting adults? I mean, seriously? :shock:
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Not a real good analogy on two points.

1) If you don't do anything, the potential harm to your child still exists.
2) If you have reason to believe that redefining marriage to include gays is actually harming someone as the kid is being harmed in this instance, then you might have a point.

It's the harm principle, homey.
Click to expand...

How is the kid being harmed?
 
OscarB63 said:
I think you have it backwards. most people (at least those I know) have no disagreement with a LEGAL recognition of a gay couple, they just don't want the church to be forced to condone it via the religious act of marriage
Click to expand...

First of all, no he doesn't have it backwards, since many of the laws and/or amendments that states have made have banned any marriage-like legal recognition of gay couples along with calling them married. And the federal government has no legal recognition available for same sex couples.

Second, the first amendment protects all churches from ever having to perform a ceremony, including a wedding, that they don't want to do. In fact, if the church wanted to deny a couple a wedding ceremony in their church due to their race/ethnicity, that would be completely fine. Most people asking for same sex marriage would be on the side of any church who refuses to perform a same sex wedding, since those churches are protected by the Constitution.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'd oppose the first as I find it morally wrong and it illegal and thus call forthe teachers job. I'd be unhappy with th second one, but there's nothing illegal going on so I'd tell my kid not to engage in that and it's wrong but I'm not going to raise a fit with the school for kids being kids
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be concerned with conditions at the school that allowed that to happen?
 
X Factor said:
What was the last "hetero pride" parade or event you've heard of?



I don't believe it. Not CT. <read with heavy sarcasm>
Click to expand...

Well, people who participate in gay pride parades aren't representative of gays as a whole.
 
mac said:
It's not meant to be a direct comparison...it's meant to illustrate that which causes harm without affecting you directly. Why oppose these things if they do you no harm?
Click to expand...

I see.

I oppose children being harmed because it can potentially destroy society. Out of all the abusers in the world, a large percentage of them were abused themselves. Imo, people that harm children should be met with a swift and severe punishment, not for morality's sake, but for our future. End the cycle of abuse before it begins/
 
X Factor said:
Right, just like NOBODY can marry someone of the same gender.


(I'm way behind on this thread, can you tell?)
Click to expand...

Using "same" or "opposite" gender is a nonstarter as it's using a broader term to disguise the specifics that actually matter. In this case, men can marry women but women can't marry women, and vise versa.

Would a law stating one can marry the opposite religious preference be constitutional? So athiests can marry religious people and religious people can marry atheists, but an atheist can't marry another athiest and a religious person cant marry another religious person?

After all, NOBODY could marry someone of the same view regarding religion
 
X Factor said:
What was the last "hetero pride" parade or event you've heard of?
Click to expand...
To be fair, gay pride is less about thinking sexuality is important and more about responding to societal attempts to make gay people feel ashamed of their sexuality. It's the same with black pride and all other kinds of social "pride". It's just a response to the attempt to shame. I don't think most gay people think their sexuality is any more important than most straight people do.
 
X Factor said:
Right, just like NOBODY can marry someone of the same gender.

(I'm way behind on this thread, can you tell?)
Click to expand...

Right, just like NOBODY could marry someone of a separate race in 1945 in many states.
 
theplaydrive said:
To be fair, gay pride is less about thinking sexuality is important and more about responding to societal attempts to make gay people feel ashamed of their sexuality. It's the same with black pride and all other kinds of social "pride". It's just a response to the attempt to shame. I don't think most gay people think their sexuality is any more important than most straight people do.
Click to expand...

I agree, and this is why "pride" events are more socially acceptable among marginalized minorities vs. the majority.

Although to be fair, sexuality is a pretty big theme at gay pride events so X isn't completely off base.
 
mac said:
You wouldn't be concerned with conditions at the school that allowed that to happen?
Click to expand...

I'd expect the school to look into it, I wouldnt have a huge care about it though. It's not something so troubling that I'd feel would need me making a cause over it to have things done. Though to be honest when I first red it I thought it said kids at school having sex with each other, as in a general sense not actually on school grounds. I'd have bit more issues in that case, because it's something I'm paying money to have my kid go to due to taxes.So the environment at school does affect my kid.
 
evanescence said:
I see.

I oppose children being harmed because it can potentially destroy society. Out of all the abusers in the world, a large percentage of them were abused themselves. Imo, people that harm children should be met with a swift and severe punishment, not for morality's sake, but for our future. End the cycle of abuse before it begins/
Click to expand...

How does a teacher having sex with a student equal abuse?
 
Zyphlin said:
I'd expect the school to look into it, I wouldnt have a huge care about it though. It's not something so troubling that I'd feel would need me making a cause over it to have things done. Though to be honest when I first red it I thought it said kids at school having sex with each other, as in a general sense not actually on school grounds. I'd have bit more issues in that case, because it's something I'm paying money to have my kid go to due to taxes.So the environment at school does affect my kid.
Click to expand...

So...you'd do something about it?
 
mac said:
How does a teacher having sex with a student equal abuse?
Click to expand...

Statutory rape. An adult using their position to coerce a child into making a choice theyre not legally able to make
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom