• 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
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.

So the current law is semantics.
 
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.

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



That's not true, I'm saying that both sexs are equally allowed to engage in marriage as it is defined.

A toaster can't sign a marriage contract... Gay and lesbians are human beings and have human DNA. Being a pro lifer who puts so much emphasis on human DNA and why that is enough to warrant human equality, you'd think you would support equal rights for all humans.
 
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.

How is it a dodge? That which we are not born with but is deemed worthy of protection gets specific protection in the Constitution. That's how it works. :shrug:
 
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.

No. Whites were not allowed to attend black schools and blacks were not allowed to attend white schools - it was segregation. Both races were denied access to schools of a different race.

It's the same with interracial marriage. Whites and blacks had the same access to marriage and had the same race based restrictions on marriage. It was racial discrimination.

Now, men and women have the same access to marriage and have the same gender based restrictions on marriage. It is gender discrimination. There's no way to get around this.
 
A toaster can't sign a marriage contract... Gay and lesbians are human beings and have human DNA. Being a pro lifer who puts so much emphasis on human DNA and why that is enough to warrant human equality, you'd think you would support equal rights for all humans.

So? Why can't we change the concept of marriage to include innanimate objects?
 
Moderator's Warning:
It's a contentious topic, but let's keep it civil and non-abrasive.
 
Why doesn't that apply to gay and lesbian people?

so says it doesn't? my question is why doesn't it apply to a human fetus with the same human DNA as a gay person
 
Things that make us go 'huh'.

yeah, only if you haven't been actually reading my posts. I've said at least 2-3 times in this thread alone that I support gay rights.
 
So? Why can't we change the concept of marriage to include innanimate objects?

Because they can't consent. Too easy.
 
How is it a dodge? That which we are not born with but is deemed worthy of protection gets specific protection in the Constitution. That's how it works. :shrug:

Ok, so now you're back pedaling.... You don't think homosexuals should have equal rights, because you don't think they are deemed worthy enough of affording rights too.

Then you went on and compared gay and lesbians to a damn toaster oven... If I said anything like this in the abortion forum to you, you know what you would say. That I think the unborn are not humans, subhuman, and that I was attacking their personhood. Well, I have never said the unborn are worthless, but you just said that homosexuals are. It's good to know how pro lifers like you discriminate against the personhood of living walking human beings, you deem unworthy of rights.
 
So? Why can't we change the concept of marriage to include innanimate objects?

because inanimate objects can't sign a marriage contract
 
What you have said, and what I said you said, wa that you claim it to be natural for humans becuase it exists in nature. Do you deny this? In fact you even offered up a book to prove it. Do you deny it?

I argued that it was natural, simply because you argued that it was unnatural. I never argued that it was right or wrong as a result of being natural. You are the one who took the position that it was wrong because you deemed it unnatural.

Here in your own words...

mac said:
No, I see it as a choice. I also see Heterosexuality as natural, and homosexuality as unnatural and there is no evidence available to prove me wrong. Therefore, it's up to society as a whole what it will accept.

Are you going to claim now that whether homosexuality is or is not defined as natural has no bearing on whether it is good or bad? You have even admitted that you believe it to be pertinent.

Again, sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. To me, in this case...it's a factor in my stance.

You have even gone so far as to invent your own definition of natural just to exclude homosexuality. Clearly you believe that to some degree, the "naturalness" of homosexuality dictates its morality.

I'm still waiting for you to provide me with a quote of when I have argued that homosexuality is right just because it is natural. Either that or apologize.
 
Thank you, CT. I knew he said it, but I'll be damned if I could find it in the amount of time I alloted myself to go digging. Extraordinary search skill points have been awarded you. :D
 
Neither can marry a toaster either.

So there's no gender discrimination when it comes to toast marriage. wonderful.

Within the definition of marriage, both are accorded equal rights. No discrimination.

No, they're not. One gender can do something the other Gender can't do.

That's not true, I'm saying that both sexs are equally allowed to engage in marriage as it is defined.

Correct. And said definition is unconstitutional in my opinion because its discriminatory on gender by legally allowing men to do something women are incapable of doing and vise versa.
 
Within the definition of marriage, they do have the same rights I do.

LEGAL definition. How marriage has been defined has changed over time. Regardless, excellent qualifier. So you admit that under the current law, gays DO NOT have the same rights as you.
 
I'd like to know how Mac gets the authority and superior knowledge and insight to be able to deem weather or not people are "worthy" of equal rights...
 
So there's no gender discrimination when it comes to toast marriage. wonderful.

My toast is all soggy, thanks to my heartbroken toaster. I blame this lot.
 
You can't marry her if she's your sister, or your mother....you can't marry "her" if he's your first cousin. My point is that there are a multitude of situations where civil unions would be beneficial, not just for homosexual unions.

Irrelevant. You can't do these things, regardless. Your slippery slope logical fallacy has no validity, mac.
 
I'd like to know how Mac gets the authority and superior knowledge and insight to be able to deem weather or not people are "worthy" of equal rights...

It probably the same supreme power he gets to bypass logic and argue that the "naturalness" of something has anything to do with its morality.
 
Back
Top Bottom