• 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
Mac...

The homosexual population in America is about 3 percent the total. Ask yourself, "how much influence would the gay community at large have over the 97 percent?

They haven't so far. They never will. You know that deep down.

Inside the 3 percent...how many marriage would be established?

Most people struggle to keep up with any kind of relationship. People don't care until it becomes a forum.

I don't care who sleeps with their dog behind closed doors. I don't know what my neighbors or doing...because they don't let me watch. :lol:
 
The right for equal protection under the law is in the constitution

yes it is, too bad that some people think that protection is limited to gays

The right to not have a word defined in a way you don't like isn't


you mean like having marriage defined as being between one man and one woman? yeah that definition really pisses the gays off ;)
 
However "valid" state interest is more in line with the bottom tier of the epc not the middle. Something can be valid while not being important.

The government routinely acts against the will of the people. Just in recent years you have the Iraq war, push for amnesty, not going single payer, not getting rid of Obamacare, not raising taxes on the rich, and I can go on. Furthermore, our system of government is distinctly set up to NOT focus on the will of the people. If that was an important state interest we'd be a direct democracy. However we are a representative Republic and therefore the will of the people is not directly what's important for then states interest.

So that nutshell is rather hollow

Not buying it. Becuase the will of the people may be violated....even routinely...doesn't make it not a valid interest. Prohibition comes to mind. Anything can be enacted, whether or not it survives depends on the will of the people.
 
Those two statements are interesting. So on one hand, whether or not gays get married doesn't have any affect on your life (in other words, no harm), but you're against it because it offends your religious sensibilities. Therefore, because you and other religious people are offended by gay marriage, it should be illegal.

So should religious fervent dictate public policy?

Dictate, no. Influence..certainly.
 
Simple answer is that they're not. And the gov't for the most part hasn't done so.

really? then why do they insist on "MARRIAGE" instead of a civil union that is equivalent in every legal respect? why is it so important that their unions be called "marriages"???
 
Those two statements are interesting. So on one hand, whether or not gays get married doesn't have any affect on your life (in other words, no harm), but you're against it because it offends your religious sensibilities. Therefore, because you and other religious people are offended by gay marriage, it should be illegal.

So should religious fervent dictate public policy?

I view it more as a situation like if a family member is choosing to do something you really disapprove of.

Like let's say your daughter is dropping out of college to be a stripper. You think it's dumb and morally wrong, and youre not going to support her decision with emotional or financial support.....but that doesn't mean if she does it youre going to stop loving her.

They oppose it on religious grounds and due to their personnel beliefs actively supporting it is a bad thing to do and thus won't do it. They also realize however it has little real affect on their lives, so while they won't actively support it theyre not going to make a big stink about it.

Similar as well to someone who doesnt drink, doesn't like alcohol, doesn't like bars because a family member died from alcohol poisoning. They're not going to sign a petition to allow their dry neighborhood main street to have a bar erected. But they can always just not go to the bar if it happens, so if it happens they aren't going to care a lot to get up in arms about it. But they're not going to help it come to pass.

I think it's entirely reasonable even if I disagree with them
 
they can be...by the govt. why do they insist on forcing the church to recognize them?

Who is pushing for that? Honestly, I've never heard a big movement by gays to force jchurches to recognize their marriage
 
really? then why do they insist on "MARRIAGE" instead of a civil union that is equivalent in every legal respect? why is it so important that their unions be called "marriages"???

what the hell does this have to do with the church? Again, marriage isn't purely a religious institution. Gays are looking for LEGAL recognition, not religious.

As for why they want them to be called marriages? Again, equal rights. Gays see the insistence on calling such contracts "civil unions" as a de facto form of discrimination, that somehow their relationships aren't as valid and that they are being given de facto second-class status.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2011/02/why_the_word_marriage_matters.html

On the flip side, why the insistence that they MUST be called civil unions, and not marriages? It's practically a marriage in all but name only. Why not just call a spade a spade? The insistence on calling gay marriages "civil unions" is nothing more than political correctness on the part of the religious right. Just ****ing call it what it is.
 
Last edited:
really? then why do they insist on "MARRIAGE" instead of a civil union that is equivalent in every legal respect? why is it so important that their unions be called "marriages"???

Because our government, the non-religious entity calls it that, and thus society...even the non religious...generally view the coupling as that. So for social reasons they want it called the same thing as straights.

If you make straights have to call it civil union under the government as well, thatd be fine. But theres no big push on either side to go that route sadly, and many in the gay marriage movement think convincing straights to change the name AND the definition is going to be more difficult then just changing the name
 
yes it is, too bad that some people think that protection is limited to gays

Who thinks that?

you mean like having marriage defined as being between one man and one woman? yeah that definition really pisses the gays off ;)

Don't care that the definition pisses them off. I care that it's discriminatory based on gender without the necessary reasons
 
Not buying it. Becuase the will of the people may be violated....even routinely...doesn't make it not a valid interest. Prohibition comes to mind. Anything can be enacted, whether or not it survives depends on the will of the people.

It's not an IMPORTANT interested. If it was the "will of the people" would decide law. It absolutely does not. The will of the people is not required to be followed by any politician, nor does it directly make law 99% of the time.

Something that almost never happens, ie the will of the people making law, can not be considered an IMPORTANT interest
 
For those who favor civil unions for gays:

basically, you're essentially saying "I have support gay marriage, I just don't want to call it that." You guys know how absolutely stupid that argument sounds? What's in a name, really?
 
It's not an IMPORTANT interested. If it was the "will of the people" would decide law. It absolutely does not. The will of the people is not required to be followed by any politician, nor does it directly make law 99% of the time.

Something that almost never happens, ie the will of the people making law, can not be considered an IMPORTANT interest

I disagree that it almost never happens. Many laws are enacted through and due to the will of the people....like every civil rights law....like the endeavor to legalize SSM.....DUI, drinking age, explicit lyrics, ffs......that alone shoots your argument down.
 
For those who favor civil unions for gays:

basically, you're essentially saying "I have support gay marriage, I just don't want to call it that." You guys know how absolutely stupid that argument sounds? What's in a name, really?

If there was nothing in a name, why oppose it?
 
Dictate, no. Influence..certainly.

Most people just want to live their lives in peace, how they choose, without interference.

I view it more as a situation like if a family member is choosing to do something you really disapprove of.

Like let's say your daughter is dropping out of college to be a stripper. You think it's dumb and morally wrong, and youre not going to support her decision with emotional or financial support.....but that doesn't mean if she does it youre going to stop loving her.

They oppose it on religious grounds and due to their personnel beliefs actively supporting it is a bad thing to do and thus won't do it. They also realize however it has little real affect on their lives, so while they won't actively support it theyre not going to make a big stink about it.

Similar as well to someone who doesnt drink, doesn't like alcohol, doesn't like bars because a family member died from alcohol poisoning. They're not going to sign a petition to allow their dry neighborhood main street to have a bar erected. But they can always just not go to the bar if it happens, so if it happens they aren't going to care a lot to get up in arms about it. But they're not going to help it come to pass.

I think it's entirely reasonable even if I disagree with them

I see what you're saying and it makes sense. However, it's frustrating to me when people want to "influence" how others choose to live even though they have no stake in it at all. The example you gave about having a daughter who is doing something I strongly disapprove of isn't in the same league as a stranger making decisions I wouldn't approve of. And those against gay marriage admit that it causes no harm to them or to society. Therefore, their only reason to disapprove of gay marriage, and even vote against it, is based on religious ideology.

My point is that religion and government don't mix.
 
Most people just want to live their lives in peace, how they choose, without interference.



I see what you're saying and it makes sense. However, it's frustrating to me when people want to "influence" how others choose to live even though they have no stake in it at all. The example you gave about having a daughter who is doing something I strongly disapprove of isn't in the same league as a stranger making decisions I wouldn't approve of. And those against gay marriage admit that it causes no harm to them or to society. Therefore, their only reason to disapprove of gay marriage, and even vote against it, is based on religious ideology.

My point is that religion and government don't mix.

How about if a teacher was having sex with students at your kids school....but it wasn't your kid. Would you oppose that? Or, how about kids were having sex in your kids school....but not your kid. How about that?
 
I disagree that it almost never happens. Many laws are enacted through and due to the will of the people....like every civil rights law....like the endeavor to legalize SSM.....DUI, drinking age, explicit lyrics, ffs......that alone shoots your argument down.

The will of the people can affect what representatives vote for....it does not create law. The only way the will of the people creates law is through direct voting.

If 99% of people wanted ice cream free on Tuesday's and congress didn't vote for it...what happens? Does the will of the people become law or do we still pay for ice cream? It's the latter, because our government is a republic not a direct democracy, and thus does not state that the will of the people is an important state interest. Instead, our government is specifically set up so that the people rarely can directly enforce their will and has an entire government in part dedicated to not allowing the will of the people to violate other peoples rights.

The very definition of what our government is proves your suggestion wrong. If it was an important state interest we'd be a direct democracy

Not a single thing you listed came into being through the will of the people. It came into existence either through supreme court rulings or through congressional law
 
Last edited:
How about if a teacher was having sex with students at your kids school....but it wasn't your kid. Would you oppose that? Or, how about kids were having sex in your kids school....but not your kid. How about that?

I'd oppose the first as I find it morally wrong and it illegal and thus call forthe teachers job. I'd be unhappy with th second one, but there's nothing illegal going on so I'd tell my kid not to engage in that and it's wrong but I'm not going to raise a fit with the school for kids being kids
 
How about if a teacher was having sex with students at your kids school....but it wasn't your kid. Would you oppose that? Or, how about kids were having sex in your kids school....but not your kid. How about that?

Not a real good analogy on two points.

1) If you don't do anything, the potential harm to your child still exists.
2) If you have reason to believe that redefining marriage to include gays is actually harming someone as the kid is being harmed in this instance, then you might have a point.

It's the harm principle, homey.
 
How about if a teacher was having sex with students at your kids school....but it wasn't your kid. Would you oppose that? Or, how about kids were having sex in your kids school....but not your kid. How about that?

Of course I oppose pedophilia, but then again, pedophilia cannot be compared gay marriage. Sex between an adult and a child cannot be compared to sex between two consenting adults.
 
what is a Civil Union?

If marriage stays on the books...a separate but equal term.

Petty sure there's been court cases dealing with the constitutionality of allowing a group to have "separate but equal" things.
 
Back
Top Bottom