• 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
Ok guys and girls its been fun but I got yard work, family and a grill to tend too, but I shall return later.

Happy holiday weekend to you all.
 
Thanks and believe it or not they are all real, there have been morons that have actually stated all those things and meant them 100%.

I hope to keep growing it but soon I think I'm going to have to rank them and replacing some because IM going to run out of room :(

In all honesty I have seen things that are waaaay stupider (usually such material comes from the overt racists and the potheads). Makes for DP comedy gold.
 
No, it would actually give it equality in my opinion.
Would still have tons of meaning.

Not if marriage just becomes a way to get certain legal benefits. If one of my buddies is having financial trouble, I could "marry" him and put him on my insurance or whatever.
 
Not if marriage just becomes a way to get certain legal benefits. If one of my buddies is having financial trouble, I could "marry" him and put him on my insurance or whatever.

you could, but then you'd be a faggot4lyf! :lamo :lamo
 
So what another couple does affects your marriage, like divorce say?

A couple of pedophiles could get married in order to make it easier to adopt children, but, you're right, it doesn't affect me so I guess that'd be ok.
 
A couple of pedophiles could get married in order to make it easier to adopt children, but, you're right, it doesn't affect me so I guess that'd be ok.


Would it make your marriage meaningless?
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by X Factor
Then this really does make the notion of marriage absolutely meaningless.
 
A couple of pedophiles could get married in order to make it easier to adopt children, but, you're right, it doesn't affect me so I guess that'd be ok.

A couple of pedophiles could do that now. There are pedophiles of both genders. And you don't have to be married to adopt children in most places. What some people may or may not do should not determine whether we give equal treatment under the law. We do our best to try to prevent those who would take advantage of something from doing so.
 
I'm not talking in circles. The fact is homosexuals are asking for a right no one else has. That's just a fact, from a cold hard legal perspective.

By that same logic, though, everyone will obtain this new right. So everyone benefits equally. No one gets special treatment, no one is given an advantage. We all benefit. The fact that you don't plan to exercise the right is immaterial. There are many many rights we have that we do not take advantage of.

Of course, this assumes that the constitution does not already provide for SSM, given the right to privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut, which was one of the foundations for Roe v. Wade. Like it or not, these rulings are foundations for American law, and SSM fits with these rulings.
 
Oh no, not when marriage becomes nothing more than a legal contract.

Legal marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, although it is a legal contract that is generally harder to mutually get out of than some other contracts. Personal marriage should be whatever the couple personally wants it to be. For most people, including myself, marriage is much more than the contract. The contract is there to protect us as a couple, and each of us individually.
 
A couple of pedophiles could do that now. There are pedophiles of both genders. And you don't have to be married to adopt children in most places. What some people may or may not do should not determine whether we give equal treatment under the law. We do our best to try to prevent those who would take advantage of something from doing so.


Heck they can just go out and kidnap kids like that married male female couple did with Elizabeth Smart.

I guess that made marriages meaningless too.
 
Alright, I'm gonna put my serious hat on and say this:

I think X has a point. When marriage is available to everyone and any two individuals who want to get together purely for the financial benefits, then yes, at that point the value of marriage would become significantly degraded.

On the flip side, as long as YOUR marriage means something to you, why should you care if someone else's marriage is effectively meaningless?
 
Not if marriage just becomes a way to get certain legal benefits. If one of my buddies is having financial trouble, I could "marry" him and put him on my insurance or whatever.

Or your buddy could currently find a girl who is willing to marry him in the same arrangement and put him on her insurance. I know a girl who was a civilian who was perfectly willing to enter into these kind of marriages for the benefits she got from it.
 
Only if you leave out reality logic common sense and rational and play word games.
Is that how you view handicap access also?

Not so much, I'm afraid.
 
When "marriage" is just understood to mean nothing more than a legal contract, yes.


That is up to the couple and some do view it jut as a contract. And if that effects your marriage that is your and yours partners problem.
 
A couple of pedophiles could do that now. There are pedophiles of both genders. And you don't have to be married to adopt children in most places. What some people may or may not do should not determine whether we give equal treatment under the law. We do our best to try to prevent those who would take advantage of something from doing so.

There are far more male pedos than there are women pedos.

This was just one example. Honestly, you and Mac have gotten me thinking along these lines. I hadn't considered what could happen if you take the idea of "family" out of marriage.
 
I still want to know why I shouldn't be able to marry my imaginary hot sister!

only mac and guru responded so far
 
Alright, I'm gonna put my serious hat on and say this:

I think X has a point. When marriage is available to everyone and any two individuals who want to get together purely for the financial benefits, then yes, at that point the value of marriage would become significantly degraded.
Thanks SB, you're the only one who gets what I'm trying to say here.

On the flip side, as long as YOUR marriage means something to you, why should you care if someone else's marriage is effectively meaningless?

I could ask the same about commitment ceremonies between gays now. Nobody's saying they can't do that.
 
There are far more male pedos than there are women pedos.

And they can already just as easily adopt children by moving to another state instead of bothering with marriage.

Most pedos are not going to bother to get married just to get children to molest, especially since, they would have to actually deal with the children and be responsible for them, not just molest them and leave. I highly doubt that most pedos would prefer to adopt their victims rather than just find them, molest them, and not have the responsibility of raising them.

Wanna show some evidence that this should be a major concern that couldn't be dealt with by just thorough background checks for anyone trying to adopt children, no matter their sexuality or marital status?

This was just one example. Honestly, you and Mac have gotten me thinking along these lines. I hadn't considered what could happen if you take the idea of "family" out of marriage.

Family is a part of most marriages. There is a small percentage of couples who marry with the belief that it is just for benefits, since most people don't want to be bothered with the hassle of divorce procedures when/if they meet someone that they would prefer to be actually in a married relationship with.

The best way to limit abuse of marriage for benefits alone is to keep the number of marriages limited or the number of marriage partners limited. I am not completely against polygamy, but this is a valid concern for that particular issue, since the majority of people prefer monogamy but could also see the benefit of not having to choose between love or benefits.
 
Thanks SB, you're the only one who gets what I'm trying to say here.



I could ask the same about commitment ceremonies between gays now. Nobody's saying they can't do that.

Well, the issue here is that there are many legal benefits besides the financial ones that heterosexual married couples are entitled to, but gay couples aren't.

I assume it's because of this complex situation that many people say we should just get the state out of marriage altogether.
 
That is up to the couple and some do view it jut as a contract. And if that effects your marriage that is your and yours partners problem.

Interesting, I thought a hetero marriage that wasn't consummated could be annulled. So, if that's the case, you're imposing something on opposite married folks (to fulfill the contract) that wouldn't be imposed on same sex couples.
 
Alright, I'm gonna put my serious hat on and say this:

I think X has a point. When marriage is available to everyone and any two individuals who want to get together purely for the financial benefits, then yes, at that point the value of marriage would become significantly degraded.

On the flip side, as long as YOUR marriage means something to you, why should you care if someone else's marriage is effectively meaningless?

The only way to effectively cut back on marriage being done for benefits alone though is to instill the belief within the culture that marriage should be for love. The government cannot legally determine that same sex couples are more likely to be in it for the benefits than opposite sex couples, not without getting into how to legally define "love".
 
Back
Top Bottom