• 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
mac said:
No, you are dishonest....I never once said homosexuality is wrong becuase it is unnatural. Never once. Quote me, or stop lying about what I've said. You read what you want me to have said so you can fit me into your catagories.
Click to expand...

And when CT goes back and finds a quote, your defense will be..... that's not what I meant....... :roll:
 
lpast said:
Do you think if you keep putting this same thread up over and over ad nauseam it will "FORCE" people to change their mind or something ?
Click to expand...
now that is REALLY funny!!!!
 
theplaydrive said:
So discrimination is defined by time? What a joke. You can't be taken seriously. It's discrimination and you're only defense against it is "well if it were, then it would be fixed". Embarrassing.
Click to expand...

It's not discrimination just becuase you want it to be. :shrug:
 
mac said:
Men and women are equally allowed to marry within the confines of that definition, men are no more restricted than women (and vice versa). The law applies equally to both genders.
Click to expand...

Rosa Parks was allowed to ride the bus, within the confines of black people riding the bus..
 
OscarB63 said:
pot...meet kettle.

human rights are human rights, whether it be abortion, incest, polygamy, gays, etc, etc, etc.

funny how the only ones you give a **** about are gays.

now get mad and start attacking me, even though I actually support gay rights
Click to expand...

Idiotic remarks. I don't care if you support gay rights or not, when you come into a thread and distort my arguments then you are going to hear about it! I asked you a simple question about how abortion was comparable to gay marriage and you went off on some tangent about equal rights because you knew it was an illogical comparison to make. Be a man and admit when you are wrong!
 
BDBoop said:
I don't believe changing the subject is good form.

Gays have inalienable human rights.
Click to expand...

There are no partial inalienable human rights. Do you have to become gay befor you get rights?
 
mac said:
It's not discrimination just becuase you want it to be. :shrug:
Click to expand...

discrimination doesn't mean something else because you want it to
 
mac said:
Men and women are equally allowed to marry within the confines of that definition, men are no more restricted than women (and vice versa). The law applies equally to both genders.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

A man can do something a woman can't do, marry a woman.

A woman can do something a man can't do, marry a man

Saying "They can marry the opposite sex" doesn't work in regards to EPC. If it was the case, one could suggest constitutionally a law stating that one can marry someone of the same race only would be legal because every race has the same ability as any other race, the chance to marry their own race. However, that is not constitutional either under EPC.

You're attempting to use ambiguous terminology with regards to the "opposite sex" as a means of attempting to obfuscate the reality, which is that men and women can each do something under the law that the law prevents the other sex from doing.
 
SheWolf said:
There are a lot of people who think ending segregation was wrong, and they are serving public office right now... lol. It's a never ending battle, and America was initially on the wrong side so that appeal to tradition **** hasn't usually worked. It didn't work with slavery, segregation, women's rights, native American rights, and tradition will give away to equality and freedom in this case too, and you'll be on the wrong side Mac.
Click to expand...

Two major problems with that emotional appeal. One, there's no proof that one is born gay, like one is born black, latino, male, female, etc. Second, when arguing from a purely legal standpoint, existing anti-discrimination law would overrule such a discriminatory practice if indeed it truely were discrimination. It's not.
 
mac said:
There are no partial inalienable human rights. Do you have to become gay befor you get rights?
Click to expand...

:lamo:

You're arguing people have to become or act straight to get rights... Is being homosexual the only thing that will self alienate your rights, and if you become or act straight *bam* your rights magically activate?

How many times will you contradict yourself?
 
CriticalThought said:
Idiotic remarks. I don't care if you support gay rights or not, when you come into a thread and distort my arguments then you are going to hear about it! I asked you a simple question about how abortion was comparable to gay marriage and you went off on some tangent about equal rights because you knew it was an illogical comparison to make. Be a man and admit when you are wrong!
Click to expand...

but it is perfectly OK for you to distort mine and tell me how I feel and what I think? ;)

hypocrisy...what a concept
 
mac said:
It's not discrimination just becuase you want it to be. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Now you're projecting. For me, it's not about wanting mac. It's about the definition.

Blacks and whites had equal access to schools and had the same race based restrictions on which schools they could attend.

Men and women have equal access to marriage and have the same opposite-sex based restrictions on who they can marry.

Discrimination.
 
Kali said:
The reason some feel it is wrong is cause they think it will lead to people legally being able to marry animals and bang little childrens. I have no clue why some feel this way but figured I would go ahead and point out the stupid before someone else did:roll:
Click to expand...

"bang little children"? i thought that was reserved for the clergy and michael jackson who is dead now so i guess it's just for the clergy now.
 
NGNM85 said:
There's really no need for in-depth analysis. The opposition to same-sex marriage is, fundamentally, religious.
Click to expand...
which should stay out of political decisions being how they pay no taxes.
 
mac said:
Two major problems with that emotional appeal. One, there's no proof that one is born gay, like one is born black, latino, male, female, etc. Second, when arguing from a purely legal standpoint, existing anti-discrimination law would overrule such a discriminatory practice if indeed it truely were discrimination. It's not.
Click to expand...

Nobody is born believing in God, yet we afford religious groups special rights and freedoms at the federal level. Do you have a problem with that, yes or no?

And you are on the wrong side of history. There will be equal rights for gay and lesbian people.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Same sex marriage or any type of marriage should not be a part of government. There should be no tax rewards for married couples. Marriage is a contract between two people why does the state of nation need to be involved in any of that. Nonsense.
Click to expand...
HERE HERE sister!!!
 
Zyphlin said:
Incorrect.

A man can do something a woman can't do, marry a woman.

A woman can do something a man can't do, marry a man
Click to expand...

Neither can marry a toaster either. Within the definition of marriage, both are accorded equal rights. No discrimination.

Saying "They can marry the opposite sex" doesn't work in regards to EPC. If it was the case, one could suggest constitutionally a law stating that one can marry someone of the same race only would be legal because every race has the same ability as any other race, the chance to marry their own race. However, that is not constitutional either under EPC.

You're attempting to use ambiguous terminology with regards to the "opposite sex" as a means of attempting to obfuscate the reality, which is that men and women can each do something under the law that the law prevents the other sex from doing.
Click to expand...

That's not true, I'm saying that both sexs are equally allowed to engage in marriage as it is defined.
 
SheWolf said:
Nobody is born believing in God, yet we afford religious groups special rights and freedoms at the federal level. Do you have a problem with that, yes or no?
Click to expand...

Which is why we have specific protections for religion in the constitution.

And you are on the wrong side of history. There will be equal rights for gay and lesbian people.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it.
 
mac said:
Two major problems with that emotional appeal. One, there's no proof that one is born gay, like one is born black, latino, male, female, etc. Second, when arguing from a purely legal standpoint, existing anti-discrimination law would overrule such a discriminatory practice if indeed it truely were discrimination. It's not.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how they got there. It really doesn't. What matters is they are adults in America, who (God help them, for whatever reasons they) want to get married to their dearly beloved, who is of their same gender because that's who they are, and this is who they love. They can't marry. Therefore. They are being discriminated against.
 
majora$$hole said:
which should stay out of political decisions being how they pay no taxes.
Click to expand...

Yeah... Christians can CHOOSE to join a church, then CHOOSE to become a preacher, and then get federal tax breaks.

But Mac argues we don't give people special rights based on CHOICE.
 
mac said:
Neither can marry a toaster either.
Click to expand...

Okay, so now that you are apparently willing to play that particular game.

What if you could only marry another man. You know, that question you sidestepped for many reasons which I quoted in a recent post, and you ignored. What if you could marry any man you wanted, Mac.
 
mac said:
Neither can marry a toaster either. Within the definition of marriage, both are accorded equal rights. No discrimination.
Click to expand...
The key word is "neither".

That's not true, I'm saying that both sexs are equally allowed to engage in marriage as it is defined.
Click to expand...
The definition is the problem.
 
theplaydrive said:
Now you're projecting. For me, it's not about wanting mac. It's about the definition.

Blacks and whites had equal access to schools and had the same race based restrictions on which schools they could attend.

Men and women have equal access to marriage and have the same opposite-sex based restrictions on who they can marry.

Discrimination.
Click to expand...

Attendance at public schools was the same for both races. One race being denied access to a school was discrimination. Same education system, one was denied access one was not.

That doesn't happen in marriage. If marriage is redefined as between two cognizant adults, and then someone is not allowed to engage, then you have descrimination.
 
mac said:
Which is why we have specific protections for religion in the constitution.



I don't doubt it.
Click to expand...

That's the most pathetic dodge I have ever seen... either that, or you don't know what you're saying from one post to the next.
 
BDBoop said:
Okay, so now that you are apparently willing to play that particular game.

What if you could only marry another man. You know, that question you sidestepped for many reasons which I quoted in a recent post, and you ignored. What if you could marry any man you wanted, Mac.
Click to expand...

I don't do what ifs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom