• 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
Removable Mind said:
IMMORAL ACT according to who, Mac?

Mac said:
According to me.

Just as we all suspected. The best advice I can give, Mac. If you believe gay marriage or behaviors are immoral, then don't have sex with an man...and don't marry a guy.

But your "opinion" about immoral is just that. It's not universal.

Besides, Mac... If I had a camera concealed, monitoring you post your comments, I would make a hefty bet that every time you make a post...you have to break out the Kleenex and wipe away the tears from laughing your ass off.

This thread is now like... :beatdeadhorse

The arguments have become stale, fruitless, and in some cases totally laughable and nonsensical.
 
I dunno, is there a point to your asinine assertion that marriage is not an act? It obviously is, one "get's married" or even "enters into the marriage contract" both acts, denying it is beyond moronic.

So you're not going to read, huh? That's what we've come to. Sad. I didn't say that marriage does not include an act. I said the act, in the sense of ceremony, is not the contention. It's the ability to engage in the legal contract of marriage which is the contention. People can still pretend to be married. You can go through the actions of being married, even be married in a church in front of your god; but you cannot legally enter into the marriage contract. A contract which is government issued and recognized as contract. That's the contention. Marriage does contain action; but the contention in regards to SSM is not the action of being married; but rather the denial of their right to contract.

Please learn to read, there's very little point in rehashing things which have already been said. A little honesty on your part will go a long way.
 
Just as we all suspected. The best advice I can give, Mac. If you believe gay marriage or behaviors are immoral, then don't have sex with an man...and don't marry a guy.

Good advice....

But your "opinion" about immoral is just that. It's not universal.

It may not be universal....but I vote...a lot.

Besides, Mac... If I had a camera concealed, monitoring you post your comments, I would make a hefty bet that every time you make a post...you have to break out the Kleenex and wipe away the tears from laughing your ass off.

Well.....sometimes, maybe...

This thread is now like... :beatdeadhorse

The arguments have become stale, fruitless, and in some cases totally laughable and nonsensical.

ding.ding.ding.
 
So you're not going to read, huh? That's what we've come to. Sad. I didn't say that marriage does not include an act. I said the act, in the sense of ceremony, is not the contention. It's the ability to engage in the legal contract of marriage which is the contention. People can still pretend to be married. You can go through the actions of being married, even be married in a church in front of your god; but you cannot legally enter into the marriage contract. A contract which is government issued and recognized as contract. That's the contention. Marriage does contain action; but the contention in regards to SSM is not the action of being married; but rather the denial of their right to contract.

Please learn to read, there's very little point in rehashing things which have already been said. A little honesty on your part will go a long way.

and I say, "to you maybe"

When I said "opposing a moral act is not immoral" I meant opposing SSM is not immoral. To be honest....I don't really give a rat's ass about what your point of contention is...I care about mine.
 
It is what it is.

I'm sorry, I apparently was mistaken that a law being unconstitutional didn't matter because "it is what it is".

Happy to know we still have slavery, blacks drinking from seperate water fountains, prohibition on alcohol, and women not being able to vote.

Since apparently, "it is what it is" means things can't change if they're unconstitutional.

Thanks for the history lesson mac.

It's been defined this way for thousands of years.

As was slavery being a common practice in the civilized world. Thankfully we have this strange little thing called the constitution that doesn't care if something's been happening for 1000 years of 1 year.

The union of two of the same gender is a different thing altogether...some things can only be redefined so far before they become something else entirely.

Well, if you'd prefer for the unconstitutional law to be stricken from the books rather than amended to be constitutional I'm fine with that as well.

The Government not recognizing any union is constitutional. The government recognizing the marriage regardless if its same or opposite sex is constitional. I'm fine with either. However, I'm of the belief that as it stands now there's gender discrimination. I've laid my argument for this out for you before. All you ever say is "its what its always been" which is not a constitutional counter.

Its really simple Mac.

True or false. A man can marry a woman but a woman can't marry a woman?
 
Hello BDBoop. That is a very valid statement. You should check out pollvote.info. It's another great forum to express political opinions.
 
I think you have it backwards. most people (at least those I know) have no disagreement with a LEGAL recognition of a gay couple, they just don't want the church to be forced to condone it via the religious act of marriage

Wait, so you're saying most people are fine with the government recognizing gay marriage as long as they don't force the church to condone it?

or are you saying they don't want it being called marriage because that's a religious act, which in and of itself leads into the discussion of you forbidding someone from having a SECULAR GOVERNMENT term of "marriage" applied to them due to some Private religous groups using the same term?
 
and I say, "to you maybe"

When I said "opposing a moral act is not immoral" I meant opposing SSM is not immoral. To be honest....I don't really give a rat's ass about what your point of contention is...I care about mine.

I care about actual debate, which is not what you present. You can oppose SSM all day long for whatever reason. End of the day the actual action taking place is the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. Some of us want to remove that force, other of you want to excuse that force. And now you're just trying to scrape together arguments on how you can argue for this flavor of government force.

And it isn't MY point of contention (again with the reading...Jesus our school systems are failing us). It is the contention of the entire SSM argument. Their desire is to obtain the recognition of their right to contract so that they may engage in the the contract called the Marriage License and have their marriage legally recognized by the State.
 
Wait, so you're saying most people are fine with the government recognizing gay marriage as long as they don't force the church to condone it?

This is the correct one. But I fear that perhaps the latter was meant.
 
What a hoot. I'm gonna make a score card on how many arguments that have been made with slightly different words...but with the same meaning.
 
I believe what Ikari is saying is this...

ANYONE can go out and perform the act of a "marriage". Find the right church or preson to perform the ceremony and you can go forward with the act of "marriage" with anyone you damn well choose.

However, if you want said marriage to be recognized as legitimate under the government it requires you to sign the marriage contract.

So he's equating:

"Act" to the actual marriage ceremony

Yes, its an "action" to sign something...but that's kind of like saying "I'm performing the act of typing the letter m right now".

The ACT of marriage, the ceremony, the proclaiming ones self as married, does not require the government in any way shape or form.

However, to be legally viewed as such it requires the signing of a government contract, and said contract comes with restrictions. One is perfectly able to sign said contract without actually going through the ceremony. One can even consider themselves, in their day to day life and in personal conversations, as not married if they so chose while still being "married" under the law.
 
Its all about the definition.

Do you believe marriage should be between a man and woman as it has always been?

Or should it be expanded to allow for other people?

Or should those other people have some other type of union?
 
Good advice....



It may not be universal....but I vote...a lot.



Well.....sometimes, maybe...



ding.ding.ding.

Mac...you have any peanut butter and jelly? Oh, and some milk? It's gonna be a long thread.
 
I'm sorry, I apparently was mistaken that a law being unconstitutional didn't matter because "it is what it is".

Happy to know we still have slavery, blacks drinking from seperate water fountains, prohibition on alcohol, and women not being able to vote.

Since apparently, "it is what it is" means things can't change if they're unconstitutional.

Thanks for the history lesson mac.

It is what it is means exactly that. We can change what it is, but right now and for the last several thousand years, marriage has been between a man and a woman.

As was slavery being a common practice in the civilized world. Thankfully we have this strange little thing called the constitution that doesn't care if something's been happening for 1000 years of 1 year.

Then change it....until then...it is what it is.

Well, if you'd prefer for the unconstitutional law to be stricken from the books rather than amended to be constitutional I'm fine with that as well.

The Government not recognizing any union is constitutional. The government recognizing the marriage regardless if its same or opposite sex is constitional. I'm fine with either. However, I'm of the belief that as it stands now there's gender discrimination. I've laid my argument for this out for you before. All you ever say is "its what its always been" which is not a constitutional counter.

Its really simple Mac.

Why is it ok for a 17 year old to have sex with a 14 year old but not for a 35 year old to have sex with a 14 year old? Why do two 15 year olds need permission to get married? Why is prostitution largely illegal?

Does society, even American society have the right to regulate itself and decide what is moral and what is not within it's domain?

True or false. A man can marry a woman but a woman can't marry a woman?

True.
 
Do you believe marriage should be between a man and woman as it has always been?

Same sex marriage existed in many parts of the world and even two different Roman emperors married men. The whole, "as it has always been" argument is a bunch of bull. It's more like, "how religion has imposed it since the 4th century."
 
Its all about the definition.

Do you believe marriage should be between a man and woman as it has always been?

Or should it be expanded to allow for other people?

Or should those other people have some other type of union?

As soon as the government usurped marriage and created the Marriage License, the only rightful thing we can do in this country is to expand the definition and allow homosexuals their full right to contract.
 
I care about actual debate, which is not what you present. You can oppose SSM all day long for whatever reason. End of the day the actual action taking place is the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. Some of us want to remove that force, other of you want to excuse that force. And now you're just trying to scrape together arguments on how you can argue for this flavor of government force.

And it isn't MY point of contention (again with the reading...Jesus our school systems are failing us). It is the contention of the entire SSM argument. Their desire is to obtain the recognition of their right to contract so that they may engage in the the contract called the Marriage License and have their marriage legally recognized by the State.

Well, jeez let's talk about literacy...

If there are more than one party to and argument, and one thing is important to one party but not important to another...does that one party's argument cease to exist?

I think not....are Libertarians required to be egomaniacs?
 
It is what it is means exactly that. We can change what it is, but right now and for the last several thousand years, marriage has been between a man and a woman.

And we should in my opinion, as we have changed other unconstitutional things that had existed for a long amount of time.

Then change it....until then...it is what it is.

Thus why I support changing it through legal means if its not changed by the Supreme Court on the grounds of the EPC.

Why is it ok for a 17 year old to have sex with a 14 year old but not for a 35 year old to have sex with a 14 year old? Why do two 15 year olds need permission to get married? Why is prostitution largely illegal?

Neither is deemed to be in a position where one of their ages is viewed as a legal adult and the other is viewed as a minor in the case of the 17 and 14 year old. That's not the case with the 35 year old or the 14 year old. That's easy.

Minors are not able to enter into binding contracts on their own in regards to the second question. Again, easy.

In both cases, multiple surpreme court cases have affirmed a state interest to the necessary level in regards to having a "minor" designation and the things that go along with it. I've not seen any significant argument against such a thing. If you'd like to make one I'd be absolutely all ears.

The reasons for Prostitutions illegality is multidimensional, and unlike the others there's a decent sized debate in the country over its constitutionality so hard to really say there.

What's your point?

Does society, even American society have the right to regulate itself and decide what is moral and what is not within it's domain?

Sure, as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

Pesky little thing that. I know it sucks you can't just pull it out when talking about them taking your guns and just ignore it at other times.


And thus Gender Discrimination under the Law, allowing one gender to do something another gender can't do.
 
Same sex marriage existed in many parts of the world and even two different Roman emperors married men. The whole, "as it has always been" argument is a bunch of bull. It's more like, "how religion has imposed it since the 4th century."

How long did that last? Why in hell couldn't two of the most powerful people in history establish SSM as normal?
 
As soon as the government usurped marriage and created the Marriage License, the only rightful thing we can do in this country is to expand the definition and allow homosexuals their full right to contract.

Or get government out of marriage entirely. But that isn't going to happen.
 
If there are more than one party to and argument, and one thing is important to one party but not important to another...does that one party's argument cease to exist?

No, the argument still exists. But if someone makes a stupid argument, even if they believe it's important, it's still stupid. It's stupid to say "signing something is an act and I'm against that act" because essentially everything is an "act" at that point. What you're concerned with seems to be the ability of same sex couples to legally access the "marriage" title. The act of marriage is represented in the ceremony and not all forms of marrage go through that act. Hell not all forms of marriage require you sign a marriage license either. Common law marriage doesn't have a marriage license. It's still denied to same sex couples though. But as it stands the Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract, and the individual has right to contract.
 
Or get government out of marriage entirely. But that isn't going to happen.

That is actually, IMO, the ideal solution. But I also fear you are right in that it's not going to happen. Government rarely gives up power it has usurped.
 
He did post a blurb from a study last night suggesting hormones play a big role in twin fetal development.

Ok. But that doesn't sound like what we were discussing. :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom