• 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
It is largely based on religion.


nope its a legal one it has nothing to do with religion, once it became legal that alone nullified any such relation.



Not really. Since people seem to love to discriminate, not discriminating is certainly not the easiest solution, although it may be the right one.

in this case since LEGAL marriage already exists it is the easiest unless you can so me an easier one.



It's only a state issue if the fed says it is.

uhm thats exactly what I said.
Marriage in general is state
civil rights, discrimination is fed
if fed decides it about civil rights then the states lose as they should.
 
You're counting on the general public seeing sexual preference (or wtf ever yall are calling it this year) as being on the same level as race. My bet is they won't.

edit: And by "yall" of course, I mean "you people."

The question is how the courts will see it. And it doesn't have to be on the same level as race.
 
You're counting on the general public seeing sexual preference (or wtf ever yall are calling it this year) as being on the same level as race. My bet is they won't.

edit: And by "yall" of course, I mean "you people."

Uhm no?
Im counting on the COURTS seeing it for exactly what it is, the general public is meaningless.
 
nope its a legal one it has nothing to do with religion, once it became legal that alone nullified any such relation.

I disagree. Just because marriage became a civil issue, that fact alone did not and cannot severe that relationship. People who marry at a court house will swear to God their vows. God is mentioned so it is by nature religious.





in this case since LEGAL marriage already exists it is the easiest unless you can so me an easier one.

This is an issue that people will never agree on-like abortion, for instance. I'm only saying that government involvement, like most government involvement, is unnecessary.





uhm thats exactly what I said.
Marriage in general is state
civil rights, discrimination is fed
if fed decides it about civil rights then the states lose as they should.

-ok.
 
The question is how the courts will see it. And it doesn't have to be on the same level as race.

How the courts will see DOMA? Or the question of SSM in general? For the scrutiny SSMers are claiming right to, it does have to be on the level of race. For DOMA, we're getting back to full faith and credit, which is the basis on which I would attack DOMA constitutionally. That BO and Holder haven't pleasantly surprises me.

The poster I replied to mentioned Loving in response to my claim that an amendment will be called for by cons if DOMA is overturned. I know SSMers like to point to it, but I just don't think they'll win the public or legal debate in equating homosexuality to race.

Appeals to equality, and logical contortions all day long, won't get them to the same footing as keeping two people of different races from marrying.
 
Last edited:
How the courts will see DOMA? Or the question of SSM in general? For the scrutiny SSMers are claiming right to, it does have to be on the level of race. For DOMA, we're getting back to full faith and credi, which is the basis on which I would attack DOMA constitutionally. That BO and Holder haven't pleasantly surprises me.

The poster I replied to mentioned Loving in response to my claim that an amendment will be called for by cons if DOMA is overturned. I know SSMers like to point to it, but I just don't think they'll win the public or legal debate in equating homosexuality to race.

Appeals to equality, and logical contortions all day long, won't get them to the same footing as keeping two people of different races from marrying.

For strict scrutiny, yes it has to be on the same level as race. 50/50 it is ruled to be strict scrutiny. I suspect it will be the next level lower, which will still get it overturned.
 
I disagree. Just because marriage became a civil issue, that fact alone did not and cannot severe that relationship. People who marry at a court house will swear to God their vows. God is mentioned so it is by nature religious.

You can disagree all you want but it doesnt change the fact they are seperate. Nor did I imply the relationship is "severed".
But the fact remains religious marriage has absolutley nothing to do with legal marriage unless the people getting married want it to and vice versa.

ALso god absolutley does not have to be mentioned and is not unless people want it to be LOL
Sorry you didnt know this.







This is an issue that people will never agree on-like abortion, for instance. I'm only saying that government involvement, like most government involvement, is unnecessary.

so you are CHANGING your argument from easier to unnecessary? ok

and that vast majority disagree with you, government got involved for your protection, thier intrests and your well being.
 
How the courts will see DOMA? Or the question of SSM in general? For the scrutiny SSMers are claiming right to, it does have to be on the level of race. For DOMA, we're getting back to full faith and credit, which is the basis on which I would attack DOMA constitutionally. That BO and Holder haven't pleasantly surprises me.

The poster I replied to mentioned Loving in response to my claim that an amendment will be called for by cons if DOMA is overturned. I know SSMers like to point to it, but I just don't think they'll win the public or legal debate in equating homosexuality to race.

Appeals to equality, and logical contortions all day long, won't get them to the same footing as keeping two people of different races from marrying
.

well since the country is split on this issue, which is WAY better than how country felt about interracial marriage, the killing of DADT because of freedoms and gays are already a protected class, logically I have to totally disagree. The legal debate seems easy and already established, the public one doesnt matter.
 
For strict scrutiny, yes it has to be on the same level as race. 50/50 it is ruled to be strict scrutiny. I suspect it will be the next level lower, which will still get it overturned.

DOMA? Gayality has nothing to do with it.

Saying one state can ignore another state's recognition of marriage is the constitutional problem.
 
well since the country is split on this issue, which is WAY better than how country felt about interracial marriage, the killing of DADT because of freedoms and gays are already a protected class, logically I have to totally disagree. The legal debate seems easy and already established, the public one doesnt matter.

DADT is a military thing. SSM is very civil. When we get to the amendment phase, the public debate might grab your attention.
 
DADT is a military thing. SSM is very civil. When we get to the amendment phase, the public debate might grab your attention.

Wont grab my attention at all because theres no logic reason to be against it in america with the freedoms we already have and its up to the courts not the public.

I stand by my post "since the country is split on this issue, which is WAY better than how country felt about interracial marriage, the killing of DADT because of freedoms, and that gays are already a protected class, logically I have to totally disagree with your statment. The legal debate seems easy and already established, the public one doesnt matter.
 
DADT is a military thing. SSM is very civil. When we get to the amendment phase, the public debate might grab your attention.


The FMA never got off the ground in the first place.
 
Centrist, We may be talking past each other.

I'm saying that if DOMA falls, as it should really, and SSM becomes an issue between the states, an amendment to the constitution will be demanded by trads. That would take it out of the hands of the courts.
 
Last edited:
So far it hasn't had to take flight. See DOMA.


people tried to give it wings and it failed:

The most recent Congressional vote to take place on the proposed Amendment occurred in the United States House of Representatives on July 18, 2006 when the Amendment failed 236 yea to 187 nay votes, falling short of the 290 yea votes required for passage in that body. The Senate has only voted on cloture motions with regard to the proposed Amendment, the last of which was on June 7, 2006 when the motion failed 49 yea to 48 nay votes, falling short of the 60 yea votes required to proceed to consideration of the Amendment and the 67 votes which would be required to pass the amendment.
Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And now with attitudes changing about gay marriage I doubt it will go any where.
 
You can disagree all you want but it doesnt change the fact they are seperate. Nor did I imply the relationship is "severed".
But the fact remains religious marriage has absolutley nothing to do with legal marriage unless the people getting married want it to and vice versa.

I don't want to argue semantics since that bores me to tears, but the meaning of separate and severed are very close; so you're trying to split hairs here, which is fine. Just really boring.

Separate: Forming or viewed as a unit apart or by itself: "two separate issues" and then Severed: To set or keep apart; divide or separate.

Marriage existed before recorded history. Of course, it varies from one culture to the next, but in western culture it is usually Christianity. This fact is the very reason why gays are being discriminated against in the first place. This misguided and pathetically archaic belief that gays are sinners on their way to hell is still influencing this secular and civil institution. Who would have thought?


ALso god absolutley does not have to be mentioned and is not unless people want it to be LOL
Sorry you didnt know this.

It's written on an official government document. So yeah-people can request that it not be mentioned. So what? God and marriage are connected. The "Moral Majority' has seen to it.

so you are CHANGING your argument from easier to unnecessary? ok

ha, that went over your head. I was saying that government intervention is often unnecessary. Not my argument.


and that vast majority disagree with you, government got involved for your protection, thier intrests and your well being.

I could care less who agrees with me.

Ad populum fallacies abound. :roll:
 
Centrist, We may be talking past each other.

I'm saying that if DOMA falls, as it should really, and SSM becomes an issue between the states, an amendment to the constitution will be demanded by trads. That would take it out of the hands of the courts.

No matter the path I have faith in the right thing happening and thats eventually the constitution, freedoms, rights, liberities and equal rights prevailing while discrimination and bigotry loses. :)
 
I don't want to argue semantics since that bores me to tears, but the meaning of separate and severed are very close; so you're trying to split hairs here, which is fine. Just really boring.

Separate: Forming or viewed as a unit apart or by itself: "two separate issues" and then Severed: To set or keep apart; divide or separate.

Marriage existed before recorded history. Of course, it varies from one culture to the next, but in western culture it is usually Christianity. This fact is the very reason why gays are being discriminated against in the first place. This misguided and pathetically archaic belief that gays are sinners on their way to hell is still influencing this secular and civil institution. Who would have thought?

if you dont like semantics don't talk them.
I however am talking facts, legal facts that stand right now, all you have to give me is stories and qualifies and opinions etc etc, thats semantics.

Fact remains legal marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage they are in fact separate and the constitution and laws make them that way. A magistrate or singing elvis can marry me tomorrow and religion would play ZERO role. Those are the facts.


It's written on an official government document. So yeah-people can request that it not be mentioned. So what? God and marriage are connected. The "Moral Majority' has seen to it.

no matter how many times you say it LEGAL marriage and god are totally separate, accept this fact or don't, it doesn't change LMAO

God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage. Not sure why these facts bother you?



ha, that went over your head. I was saying that government intervention is often unnecessary. Not my argument.
didnt go over my head you changed your stance and tried a back pedal




I could care less who agrees with me.

Ad populum fallacies abound. :roll:

the saying goes "I couldnt care less" meaning you dont care at all and its impossible for you to care any less

if you say "I COULD care less" you are actually saying you care a little right now but you could care less

and lastly people agreeing with you has nothing to do with FACTS, facts remain the same whether you agree or not and the only fallacies stated were in your post. ;):2wave:
 
Last edited:
people tried to give it wings and it failed:

The most recent Congressional vote to take place on the proposed Amendment occurred in the United States House of Representatives on July 18, 2006 when the Amendment failed 236 yea to 187 nay votes, falling short of the 290 yea votes required for passage in that body. The Senate has only voted on cloture motions with regard to the proposed Amendment, the last of which was on June 7, 2006 when the motion failed 49 yea to 48 nay votes, falling short of the 60 yea votes required to proceed to consideration of the Amendment and the 67 votes which would be required to pass the amendment.
Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And now with attitudes changing about gay marriage I doubt it will go any where.

You just said yourself that "attitudes are changing." It's coming to a battle, in other words. What was the attitude in 2006? It wasn't even close, as I recall. DOMA had been in force for 10 years. There was no need to make any noise about an amendment.
 
No matter the path I have faith in the right thing happening and thats eventually the constitution, freedoms, rights, liberities and equal rights prevailing while discrimination and bigotry loses. :)

(applause)

I am not a bigot. I do not hate gay people. They're not nuts about me when they figure out I'm a con - things get chilly fast - but I do not hate them. It's too bad you feel a need to characterize those who value trad marriage in such terms.
 
You just said yourself that "attitudes are changing." It's coming to a battle, in other words. What was the attitude in 2006? It wasn't even close, as I recall. DOMA had been in force for 10 years. There was no need to make any noise about an amendment.


Well the numbers of people against gay marriage has been steadily dropping quite dramatically and I have not heard any one pushing for the FMA.
 
(applause)

I am not a bigot. I do not hate gay people. They're not nuts about me when they figure out I'm a con - things get chilly fast - but I do not hate them. It's too bad you feel a need to characterize those who value trad marriage in such terms.

whooooooa cowboy
I apologize to you right now if you thought that was directed at you? I dont believe you have even stated your opinion on SSM or if you had to vote if you would or what you would vote.

I was simply making a general statement LOL

But to address your last part, YOUR value of traditional marriage would suffer ZERO impact just like YOUR value of traditional marriage suffers ZERO impact because of the high divorce rate and adultery.

Its YOURS it cant be changed by OTHERS, I feel that's a cop out.

Anything "I" value cant be influenced by YOU thats just silly IMO
 
DOMA? Gayality has nothing to do with it.

Saying one state can ignore another state's recognition of marriage is the constitutional problem.

One of the problems, but not the only problem.
 
Well the numbers of people against gay marriage has been steadily dropping quite dramatically and I have not heard any one pushing for the FMA.

It fell shy in the 2006 House by 54 votes.

54.

I'm comfortable taking the matter to the ballot box. Are you?
 
whooooooa cowboy
I apologize to you right now if you thought that was directed at you? I dont believe you have even stated your opinion on SSM or if you had to vote if you would or what you would vote.

I was simply making a general statement LOL

But to address your last part, YOUR value of traditional marriage would suffer ZERO impact just like YOUR value of traditional marriage suffers ZERO impact because of the high divorce rate and adultery.

Its YOURS it cant be changed by OTHERS, I feel that's a cop out.

Anything "I" value cant be influenced by YOU thats just silly IMO

I object to any characterization of an anti-SSM stance as "bigotry." I didn't feel personally insulted, but then isn't the implication in your original statement of wanting to defeat bigotry aimed at those who oppose SSM? As if hatred of gays is the only possible motivation? It's unfair and inaccurate.

And it isn't my personal marriage that I consider devalued by SSM. It's the institution of marriage, and thereby family - and I mean blood family across generations - that is devalued.

And forgive me, but I just don't - after all this time reading all these pro- SSM posts on DP - understand why gays suddenly feel they cannot be happy unless they are married. Where did this come from?

If I were a homosexual man, I would understand that my lifestyle will not be traditional. And if I were lucky enough to find another man who cared for me, and who I wanted to spend my life with, how would a state-recognized marriage make our lives together any better? What would we lack, aside from some weird facade of "equality" with our opposite sex friends?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom