• 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
Zyphlin said:
As I've said, I've seen absolutely nothing concrete suggesting anywhere near a "harm" to society if gays are allowed to be married and let alone more harm then there is potentially in continuing to discriminate against same sex marriage. Perhaps if you could provide something it'd change my mind. But I'm tired of your round about game where you're not saying anything and just keep throwing spaghetti against a wall hoping something will stick while never actually making any legitimate argument.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there is no harm to you, or at least any harm you recognize. There is harm to a great many, or so they say. Who are you to judge them false?
 
mac said:
Because non physical harm is exceedingly difficult to illustrate.
Click to expand...

SO difficult that you've not been able to provide a single ounce of proof or evidence suggesting its there, and instead keep dancing around and asking ridiculous questions hoping to spit something out that sticks or catch people in a gotcha rather than actually putting forth your own argument because you have none.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, I don't think there's anything that's illegal that causes NO harm, its just the level of harm potentially there and what is acceptable or not.

However, not all those things are necessarily unconstitutional as I feel same sex marriage is.
Click to expand...

Rather than pull a CT on you, I'm going to assume you mean opposition to ssm is unconstitutional.
 
mac said:
Because non physical harm is exceedingly difficult to illustrate.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So someone should show some reason for those actual laws being in a state's interest. That is what courts are for when people cannot overturn those laws through legislation (which is unlikely to happen for many laws that have been in place for a while).
 
roguenuke said:
Why do you keep on bringing up these other issues?
Click to expand...

He is playing consequences of belief.

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

He can't imagine morals without his Bible and so he thinks if he questions people enough he will eventually find a situation or law that they embrace just as subjectively as he embraces his hatred of same sex marriage.

What he doesn't understand is that human beings evolved to be social animals, and as such, we are biologically predisposed to empathy, which in turn forms the foundation of all morality, reciprocity. Reciprocity as in, "An eye for an eye," or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or even "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." He doesn't understand that morality comes from our biological need to form a cohesive tribe, not from an ancient book.
 
Zyphlin said:
SO difficult that you've not been able to provide a single ounce of proof or evidence suggesting its there, and instead keep dancing around and asking ridiculous questions hoping to spit something out that sticks or catch people in a gotcha rather than actually putting forth your own argument because you have none.
Click to expand...

I don't actually think that it will cause me harm, I know enough people that feel strongly enough about it that it will cause them harm.
 
mac said:
I don't actually think that it will cause me harm, I know enough people that feel strongly enough about it that it will cause them harm.
Click to expand...
There were a lot of people who thought that interracial marriage would cause them harm. These are not the type of people who ought to be taken seriously. These are people who choose to be harmed.
 
mac said:
I don't actually think that it will cause me harm, I know enough people that feel strongly enough about it that it will cause them harm.
Click to expand...

It will cause them harm in the same way that voodoo causes harm. It doesn't. You have to believe that the harm is real and imminent.
 
mac said:
Perhaps there is no harm to you, or at least any harm you recognize. There is harm to a great many, or so they say. Who are you to judge them false?
Click to expand...

Stating "It harms me" does not mean there is harm. Not to a level that I would require to think it legitimate, IE something that can actually be measured or proven or shown in some way other than a claim by an individual. If they can't....like you apparently...actually SHOW how it harms them in some fashion, then their words are hollow and irrelevant.

This is ESPECIALLY true when they're asking me to believe nothing but their FEELINGS as an excuse to violate the constitution.

"No, I'm sorry it makes you feel really really sad that black people are treated like humans...no you can't continue to discriminate against them".

Sorry your feelings are hurt mac. Your being sensitive isn't a reason the constitution should be shat upon.
 
mac said:
I don't actually think that it will cause me harm, I know enough people that feel strongly enough about it that it will cause them harm.
Click to expand...

What kind of harm will it cause them? Do tell.

Will they become physically hurt by seeing SSM legalized? Will they be forced to be involved in a SSM? How exactly are they going to be harmed? Will it be due to their own actions and choices? What exactly is it that will cause the harm and why wouldn't that harm be caused from calling same sex relationships at the level of marriage civil unions instead of marriage?
 
mac said:
Rather than pull a CT on you, I'm going to assume you mean opposition to ssm is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Nope. Opposition to SSM is perfectly constitutional.

The Government not allowing SSM to me is what's unconstitutional.

You're absolutely within your constitutional right to oppose it. I'll never begrudge someone the fact they oppose something. I will definitely have issues though if they expect me to think their idiotic reasons for opposition that can't actually stand up to reality should be something I just "accept" as legitimate.

You are constitutionally allowed to be against Same Sex Marriage because Jooboo, the giant cuban man in the sky told you through smoke rings that you should be opposed to it. I've got no issue with that.

However, if you can't give me any constitutional argument why its not gender discrimination other than Jooboo says its bad and therefore it'd hurt you if it was allowed, I'm not going to think your position is smart, constitutional, or intelligent. And if you tried to tell me it was legitimate I'd laugh at it, show you why its not, and ridicule it if you continue to push an issue that is against the constitution. And god help you if you later try to proclaim the constitution as your basis for allowing something in the future.

However, the act of being opposed to SSM is not in and of itself unconstitutional and I don't have any issue with someone having that stance in a general sense.
 
Zyphlin said:
However, if you can't give me any constitutional argument why its not gender discrimination other than Jooboo says its bad and therefore it'd hurt you if it was allowed, I'm not going to think your position is smart, constitutional, or intelligent.
Click to expand...

Didn't I make this exact same argument in another thread and you called it a "rant"?
 
Zyphlin said:
Stating "It harms me" does not mean there is harm. Not to a level that I would require to think it legitimate, IE something that can actually be measured or proven or shown in some way other than a claim by an individual. If they can't....like you apparently...actually SHOW how it harms them in some fashion, then their words are hollow and irrelevant.

This is ESPECIALLY true when they're asking me to believe nothing but their FEELINGS as an excuse to violate the constitution.

"No, I'm sorry it makes you feel really really sad that black people are treated like humans...no you can't continue to discriminate against them".

Sorry your feelings are hurt mac. Your being sensitive isn't a reason the constitution should be shat upon.
Click to expand...

My feelings aren't hurt. I oppose SSM but if it's made legal I'll live. You'd be surprised, but in other circles...it's usually me taking your position to people far more convinced of this harm than I am.
 
Jerry! Dude, I haven't seen you in forever. Wanna debate some old bud? I've ignored half my debating partners because they have been lying and it's getting kind of boring.
 
Zyphlin said:
Nope. Opposition to SSM is perfectly constitutional.

The Government not allowing SSM to me is what's unconstitutional.

You're absolutely within your constitutional right to oppose it. I'll never begrudge someone the fact they oppose something. I will definitely have issues though if they expect me to think their idiotic reasons for opposition that can't actually stand up to reality should be something I just "accept" as legitimate.

You are constitutionally allowed to be against Same Sex Marriage because Jooboo, the giant cuban man in the sky told you through smoke rings that you should be opposed to it. I've got no issue with that.

However, if you can't give me any constitutional argument why its not gender discrimination other than Jooboo says its bad and therefore it'd hurt you if it was allowed, I'm not going to think your position is smart, constitutional, or intelligent. And if you tried to tell me it was legitimate I'd laugh at it, show you why its not, and ridicule it if you continue to push an issue that is against the constitution. And god help you if you later try to proclaim the constitution as your basis for allowing something in the future.

However, the act of being opposed to SSM is not in and of itself unconstitutional and I don't have any issue with someone having that stance in a general sense.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it to be gender discrimination, I get why you do, I just don't buy it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Do you think being straight gives you specific rights?

You walk into it EVERY time, mac. EVERY time.
Click to expand...

No, being straight does not give one specific rights, because rights are not based on sexual orientation. Just because you're hetero doesn't mean you can marry just any opposite-sex person you want. There are all kinds of restrictions on the 'right to contract' as no right is universal or absolute.

This includes the right to marry.
 
CriticalThought said:
Didn't I make this exact same argument in another thread and you called it a "rant"?
Click to expand...

No, since your argument was assuming unquestionably that the law is unquestionably unconstitutional, and thus anyone supporting it for any reasons other than what you deem okay is a "wolf". You were criticizing them not for their HAVING the disagreement for non-constitutional reasons. I have no problem with someone suggesting they're opposed to Same Sex Marriage because of religion, nor do I think they're a wolf if they do it. However, I would have a prolbem only if they told me it could violate the constitution BECAUSE of their religious reasons.

If they simply think that its NOT unconstitutional, and at that point oppose it due to their religion. SO be it. I'll debate them, but I don't think they're wolves. However, in that case I'd want to know at least why they think its unconstitutional.

I disagree greatly with Mac on this. I think he's absolutely wrong regarding the EPC, and I think his arguments make absolutely no sense. However, I don't think he's a "wolf" or some horrible person or being entirely irrational, because his religious views aren't being used to justify violating the constitution because his constitutional views say there is no violation.

I fully understand my views on the EPC are my OPINION at this point. I don't go into the conversation assuming they're absolutely correct, like you appear to do in your post you reference. However, if someone disagrees with my opinion I like to know their reasons why and will debate them on it.
 
roguenuke said:
What kind of harm will it cause them? Do tell.

Will they become physically hurt by seeing SSM legalized? Will they be forced to be involved in a SSM? How exactly are they going to be harmed? Will it be due to their own actions and choices? What exactly is it that will cause the harm and why wouldn't that harm be caused from calling same sex relationships at the level of marriage civil unions instead of marriage?
Click to expand...

I imagine no more harm than seeing someone walking down the street naked, or having sex on the beach.....I guess it's all perception...
 
mac said:
I don't believe it to be gender discrimination, I get why you do, I just don't buy it.
Click to expand...

And none of your arguments make sense (IE, discrimination isn't happening despite you agreeing that a group of people is being denied something based on their classification as a certain group of people which is text book discrimination....or suggesting that something our form of government specifically rarely allows for is somehow an "important government interest") and are completely illogical and nonsensical, but they're at least rooted in whatever cooky way you apparently view definitions and the constitution.

But I understand you think its perfectly constitutional, and since its constitutional its okay to oppose it on religious grounds.
 
Zyphlin said:
And none of your arguments make sense (IE, discrimination isn't happening despite you agreeing that a group of people is being denied something based on their classification as a certain group of people which is text book discrimination....or suggesting that something our form of government specifically rarely allows for is somehow an "important government interest") and are completely illogical and nonsensical, but they're at least rooted in whatever cooky way you apparently view definitions and the constitution.
Click to expand...

I don't think it anymore discrimination than denying people under a certain age the right to drive, or denying people of a certain gender access to certain facilities...but meh, to each their own.

But I understand you think its perfectly constitutional, and since its constitutional its okay to oppose it on religious grounds.[/QUOTE]
 
Zyphlin said:
No, since your argument was assuming unquestionably that the law is unquestionably unconstitutional, and thus anyone supporting it for any reasons other than what you deem okay is a "wolf". You were criticizing them not for their HAVING the disagreement for non-constitutional reasons. I have no problem with someone suggesting they're opposed to Same Sex Marriage because of religion, nor do I think they're a wolf if they do it. However, I would have a prolbem only if they told me it could violate the constitution BECAUSE of their religious reasons.

If they simply think that its NOT unconstitutional, and at that point oppose it due to their religion. SO be it. I'll debate them, but I don't think they're wolves. However, in that case I'd want to know at least why they think its unconstitutional.

I disagree greatly with Mac on this. I think he's absolutely wrong regarding the EPC, and I think his arguments make absolutely no sense. However, I don't think he's a "wolf" or some horrible person or being entirely irrational, because his religious views aren't being used to justify violating the constitution because his constitutional views say there is no violation.

I fully understand my views on the EPC are my OPINION at this point. I don't go into the conversation assuming they're absolutely correct, like you appear to do in your post you reference. However, if someone disagrees with my opinion I like to know their reasons why and will debate them on it.
Click to expand...

I guess we do differ. I think anyone who wants to impose their views without a Constitutional justification is a wolf. I would be glad to debate anyone who disagrees with me on the Constitutionality, but outside of that, it is just people trying to impose their desires on the minority with no regard for their Constitutional rights. Am I really that wrong? Look at mac. Do you really think he gives a crap about my Constitutional right to due process? No, he would be happy to slap a same sex marriage ban on me in a second based on nothing but his religious beliefs. That is a perfect example of the wolves ganging up on the lamb, particularly since if the independent judiciary steps in to protect my Constitutional rights, he bitches that it goes again the will of the wolves.
 
mac said:
I imagine no more harm than seeing someone walking down the street naked, or having sex on the beach.....I guess it's all perception...
Click to expand...

I agree with you that the walking down the street nude likely doesn't have a largely harming affect on kids. I think sex might, in the same way studies show that early exposure to pornography can have negative effects on children. However, in both those cases, I don't think there's a constitutional right that's being violated by denying people the ability to that. I don't think people have the right to have sex on public property, so there's no constitutional violation there. I think one COULD argue walking around naked is a form of free speech, but then again I also think there is far larger public will against public nudity then same sex marriage, I think the affects of suck laws affect far less people than the denial of same sex marriage, and I think the direct affect on other individuals is greater since it would be a visible thing to all individuals in public with that person where as there's no giant sign sitting over two people that says "THESE PEOPLE ARE MARRIED". So while I wouldn't oppose over turning said laws, I see it fall more in line with a "blue law" where I don't think its affect on society is so great that its a major issue that needs to be dealt with at the moment.
 
mac said:
I don't think it anymore discrimination than denying people under a certain age the right to drive,
Click to expand...

Because it isn't any less discriminatory.

However, constitutionally...discrimination against gender needs a more serious reason and more serious evidence of its necessity than against age.

You're right, they're both ABSOLUTELY discriminatory.

However, they're not given the same amount of constitutional protection.

I thought you said you understood the EPC?

or denying people of a certain gender access to certain facilities...but meh, to each their own.
Click to expand...

That is another form of discrimination. Bathrooms in public places are "separate but equal" and in some cases not even equal. However, I think a far easier argument for their importance and why the separation is necessary can be made for that then for marriage laws. Though if you want to make an argument against them, be my guest mac. You seem to laboring under this misconception that if it exists elsewhere in government then that invalidates it anywhere. Or that if I'm not arguing it as strongly in all cases then my argument is invalid. This is, of course, ridiculous, illogical, and a fallacy.

If you'd like to make an argument that opposite sex bathrooms are unconstitutional, be my guess. Considering that's not my argument, nor care here...its irrelevant as to whether or not you think its unconstitutional and doesn't change the fact that gender discrimination is unconstitutional and middle tier.

But I understand you think its perfectly constitutional, and since its constitutional its okay to oppose it on religious grounds.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
CriticalThought said:
I guess we do differ. I think anyone who wants to impose their views without a Constitutional justification is a wolf. I would be glad to debate anyone who disagrees with me on the Constitutionality, but outside of that, it is just people trying to impose their desires on the minority with no regard for their Constitutional rights. Am I really that wrong? Look at mac. Do you really think he gives a crap about my Constitutional right to due process? No, he would be happy to slap a same sex marriage ban on me in a second based on nothing but his religious beliefs. That is a perfect example of the wolves ganging up on the lamb, particularly since if the independent judiciary steps in to protect my Constitutional rights, he bitches that it goes again the will of the wolves.
Click to expand...

Then you see our difference. I'm glad I could clarify the difference between your very narrow minded view and what I was stating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom