• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
I assume when you say "value" you're talking about the value of commitment between two people that marriage traditionally represents, but why should this value be preserved by the government? Why does it matter if marriage is just a legal contract? Shouldn't that "value" be reserved for religious ceremonies where that commitment is the sole purpose of marriage?
 
roguenuke said:
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".
Click to expand...

100% agree.

Edit:

My basic outline for how love should defined

If a girl loves her man she will be 100% willing to do two things: make him a sandwich, and get down on her knees and suck his dick.

If a man truly loves his girl, he will be man enough to go down on her

:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I raised the following questions in another thread topic.

I'm simply trying to understand all of the horrible detrimental fallouts, social backlashes, drops in moral standards in non-homosexual homes or anyplace where the socialization process exists, which will result because of gay marriage in our nation (or elsewhere).

Gay marriage: Negative social impacts on the U.S. Society?

Is there a genuine list of negative impacts on the overall fabric of our nations diverse cultures along with its common values, traditions, etc...

As I asked before...

Since homosexuality has been out of the social closet for about mega bunches of years, how many heteros have come forward to tell their horrid stories of becoming homosexual because of being expose to information about homosexuality?

How many kids that have been raped by priest and ministers, who would by all knowledge, considered themselves to hetero...and turned homo because of being raped?

How many heterosexuals have made the claim that they turn homosexual from hearing about kids who have been raped by the clergy?

There are almost endless question, but I don't see any genuine answers any where in DP.

Surely something is going to take our nation straight to hell as a result of homosexual and gay marriage. But what is it...or they?

Nothing I've read so far indicates anything sincerely damaging aspects of homosexuality or gay marriage that has lasting effects on our social fabric.
 
theplaydrive said:
I assume when you say "value" you're talking about the value of commitment between two people that marriage traditionally represents, but why should this value be preserved by the government? Why does it matter if marriage is just a legal contract? Shouldn't that "value" be reserved for religious ceremonies where that commitment is the sole purpose of marriage?
Click to expand...

All very good questions.
 
roguenuke said:
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".
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why getting into the discussion about "the value of marriage" is like a black hole because by making that a factor in the SSM discussion, you give government the entirely new power and responsibility of determining "love" and "value" that it should not have and cannot handle.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Depends. There has to be a physical and incurable inpotence at time of marriage and the other spouse couldn't have known about it.

Annulment Laws > Procedures > Nullification of Marriage

I don't see why the same exact annulment process wouldn't apply equally to same sex couples and opposite sex couples.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
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?
Click to expand...
As I said, I hadn't considered these possibilities before, so I'm just putting them out there. You're the one that's saying "Naw, that could never happen because no pedo ever would think of it."

To be clear I'm also not arguing that the risks of something like that occurring are enough of a reason to oppose SSM.


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.
Click to expand...
Why would someone leave a financially beneficial marriage in order to marry someone else for love? You're the one who's ok with taking family out of marriage, right? If marriage is not to be anything other than a consideration of financial benefit, why would anyone desire to be married for any other reason.

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.
Click to expand...
Why do you call marrying for benefits "abuse"? I'm genuinely confused. I thought you didn't believe marriage really meant much more than a legal contract anyway?
 
theplaydrive said:
Exactly, which is why getting into the discussion about "the value of marriage" is like a black hole because by making that a factor in the SSM discussion, you give government the entirely new power and responsibility of determining "love" and "value" that it should not have and cannot handle.
Click to expand...

So, in order to support gay marriage, you have to cast aside all notions on the value and meaning of marriage? I just don't think I can do that (and no I'm not saying my opinion means all that much).
 
X Factor said:
As I said, I hadn't considered these possibilities before, so I'm just putting them out there. You're the one that's saying "Naw, that could never happen because no pedo ever would think of it."
Click to expand...

Where did I say that it wouldn't happen? I have never said anything like that. I said that it wasn't likely. There is a difference.

X Factor said:
Why would someone leave a financially beneficial marriage in order to marry someone else for love?
Click to expand...

Most marriages for benefits deal with benefits due to the marriage (that I know of anyway), such as marrying to get married BAH or base housing or educational benefits for spouse or medical benefits, plus others. These are things that can be gotten for many different marriages and are not limited to a specific person, but rather what job a person has.

Plus, there are a lot of young people who want to put off marriage for love til they are older but decide they will settle for a mutually beneficial marriage until love comes along or they are ready for that type of commitment.

X Factor said:
You're the one who's ok with taking family out of marriage, right? If marriage is not to be anything other than a consideration of financial benefit, why would anyone desire to be married for any other reason.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it is any of my business if others want to take family out of marriage because it doesn't affect my marriage or what I am going to teach my children about marriage. I am not going to judge others on their love or lack of, it isn't my place. What is love to me, may not be love to another person.

X Factor said:
Why do you call marrying for benefits "abuse"? I'm genuinely confused. I thought you didn't believe marriage really meant much more than a legal contract anyway?
Click to expand...

That is how others call it. It is actually how the military refers to a marriage that they can prove is for benefits.

You are twisting my argument. You need to stop. I have said several times that it can be just for benefits to some, but that my marriage is not and I don't believe that most people's marriages are.

Legal marriage is usually tied to a personal marriage. Legal marriage is just a contract. Personal marriage is the actual love and commitment part. The government has no business deciding who is and isn't in love, so the government needs to view marriage as a contract, to avoid doing so.
 
X Factor said:
Well, I guess it would depend on what the legal definition of "sexual intercourse" is.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything about that in there. And it would be up to a judge. I'm pretty sure that if a couple had oral sex or anal sex, but were trying to get an annulment because they couldn't have vaginal sex, that would probably not go over too well with a judge (assuming that it wasn't a case of fraud where one spouse got a surprise about the sex of the other spouse after they were married).

Annulment still have to go before a judge who decides whether to annul or not.
 
X Factor said:
So, in order to support gay marriage, you have to cast aside all notions on the value and meaning of marriage? I just don't think I can do that (and no I'm not saying my opinion means all that much).
Click to expand...

I think all notions on the value and meaning of marriage belong in the private lives and institutions of individuals. Value and meaning are subjective and change not just from society to society or religion to religion, but also from person to person. This kind of subjectivity belongs in private and not in public. As a result, the government should have no role in determining the value of love and marriage. Individuals alone should have the power of determining the value of their marriage. This is my opinion and I haven't heard any argument that successfully defends the position that this subjectivity should be determined by the government.
 
What's with the explosion of interest in gay relationships around here recently?
 
StillBallin75 said:
so is eating your own **** but I don't think there are laws against that lol.
Click to expand...
So? I was asked for the moral argument. Any moral argument forr against any other issue is meaningless.
 
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So would it be better to deny people who you think are simply trying to receive benefits, or to remove the benefits altogether from marriage?

Personally I don't believe marriage should have any sort of benefits, all it is doing is providing an incentive to follow traditions. No wonder the Conservatives are up in arms.
 
TheGreatSandeno said:
So would it be better to deny people who you think are simply trying to receive benefits, or to remove the benefits altogether from marriage?

Personally I don't believe marriage should have any sort of benefits, all it is doing is providing an incentive to follow traditions. No wonder the Conservatives are up in arms.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a choice. The financial benefits provided to marriage are outweighed by the financial benefits to society and our government from just being married. There was an analysis done of this, and unless there is some massive unexpected increase in people marrying for benefits when same sex marriage is allowed, it is already balanced.

In fact, many of the financial benefits of marriage make up for things the government would have to cover anyway. For example, if the government decided that military spouses no longer deserved such reduced medical coverage that is currently got from being a military spouse, there is a good chance that there would be more military spouses on medicaid or being a burden, or that the money to pay for private medical insurance would provide enough of a difference to qualify the couple to receive foodstamps and/or some other government financial assistance anyway.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What is the conflict for you? I've actually always wanted to start a thread in the Abortion Forum like this... since I am really on the fence about abortion. But, you have an opportunity here, to present your conflict and have people, hopefully, give you straight feedback and try to help you expand your positions... either pro or anti. Give it a shot.
Click to expand...

BTW, CC, I don't want you to think I'm blowing off your suggestion. I'll consider spending the time to try to fully articulate my conflicted feelings on this, and maybe make a thread in the religious forum about it. Until then, I have been given several other things to consider from this thread that I hadn't thought about before.
 
BDBoop said:
What's your beef. Honest to [expletive-deleted], why DO YOU care? Why are you just fine with an entire segment of the populace being denied the right to marry.
Click to expand...

So called homosexual "marriage" is laughing about God's law and his commandments!All "priests" who bless it will go to Hell!

The Bible Speaks Against Homosexuality
 
BDBoop said:
What's your beef. Honest to [expletive-deleted], why DO YOU care? Why are you just fine with an entire segment of the populace being denied the right to marry.
Click to expand...

Because to me it is morally wrong from a religious perspective.

I also find the life style repulsive.

Other than my personal misgivings it should be legal under a secular government like in the US.
 
Blackdog said:
Because to me it is morally wrong from a religious perspective.
Click to expand...

Totally respect that.

Other than my personal misgivings it should be legal under a secular government like in the US.
Click to expand...

This too.

I also find the life style repulsive.
Click to expand...

BAM! And there it is. Something you said that DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. How on Earth would a God fearing Church goer such as yourself know ANYTHING about the "gay life style". That's just stupid. I dont actually think you know what it is in particular that you find repulsive about it.
 
kaya'08 said:
Totally respect that.



This too.



BAM! And there it is. Something you said that DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. How on Earth would a God fearing Church goer such as yourself know ANYTHING about the "gay life style". That's just stupid. I dont actually think you know what it is in particular that you find repulsive about it.
Click to expand...
I heard of an incident awhile back where two guys got kicked out of a restaurant for making out. I have to admit, it would make me totally uncomfortable to see that.
 
X Factor said:
I heard of an incident awhile back where two guys got kicked out of a restaurant for making out. I have to admit, it would make me totally uncomfortable to see that.
Click to expand...

and if it were two girls? like, hot ones?
 
X Factor said:
I heard of an incident awhile back where two guys got kicked out of a restaurant for making out. I have to admit, it would make me totally uncomfortable to see that.
Click to expand...

I'm very suspicious that they wouldn't have said anything had it been a straight couple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom