• 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:
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 asked for examples of any harm caused to a person by allowing them to marry someone of the same sex. You haven't given me anything but supposition and apparently an assumption that I believe that walking down the street naked causes harm and/or should be banned.

For the record, I don't believe this, I happen to be very much against laws that ban walking around naked because I was raised by a mother who taught us to see the human body as just a body and not something sexual, it's just that such laws are not actually causing harm to a lot of people at the moment. Same sex marriage is much more important to me but believe me, if someone is arrested and especially put on a sex offenders' list for just being naked in public, I do get mad and speak out against it.

Just answer the questions with some sort of examples of the harm that might be caused so that those can be legitimately compared to the harm done in preventing same sex couples from getting a legal marriage.
 
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...

me neither :shrug: they should let people express their love in public! don't like it, avert they eyes
 
Zyphlin said:
Then you see our difference. I'm glad I could clarify the difference between your very narrow minded view and what I was stating.
Click to expand...

The only difference is you think mac and people like him in some convoluted way actually care about the Constitution and I think he would use it to wipe his ass if it would allow him to impose his religious views on others. Nothing he has said or done in this thread has lead me to believe otherwise.
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's why I said it isn't any more discriminatory than.....

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.
Click to expand...

No...it's just another example to me. No more, no less discriminatory, neither unconstitutionally so.

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.
Click to expand...

That's the opposite of what I said and why I said it.

But I understand you think its perfectly constitutional, and since its constitutional its okay to oppose it on religious grounds.
Click to expand...

Are you going to keep saying this until I say or do something?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
But any other group can marry someone of the opposite gender. I could marry an illegal immigrant so she can become legal.
Click to expand...

Actually I thought the federal government called that a fraudulent marriage. While I think this can be done, it wouldn't change her status automatically. I think there are requirements you have to meet to prove that the marriage is not just for that reason.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm on orders atm, I visit DP when/if I can.
 
CriticalThought said:
The only difference is you think mac and people like him in some convoluted way actually care about the Constitution and I think he would use it to wipe his ass if it would allow him to impose his religious views on others. Nothing he has said or done in this thread has lead me to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Nor ever you would. Either someone is a religious zealot or is non-religious in your eyes. You're a bigot.
 
roguenuke said:
I asked for examples of any harm caused to a person by allowing them to marry someone of the same sex. You haven't given me anything but supposition and apparently an assumption that I believe that walking down the street naked causes harm and/or should be banned.

For the record, I don't believe this, I happen to be very much against laws that ban walking around naked because I was raised by a mother who taught us to see the human body as just a body and not something sexual, it's just that such laws are not actually causing harm to a lot of people at the moment. Same sex marriage is much more important to me but believe me, if someone is arrested and especially put on a sex offenders' list for just being naked in public, I do get mad and speak out against it.

Just answer the questions with some sort of examples of the harm that might be caused so that those can be legitimately compared to the harm done in preventing same sex couples from getting a legal marriage.
Click to expand...

I think it safe to say that you would not recognize any harm because you have decided it's completely harmless. I'm of the opinion people either think it is harmless and therefore completely dismissive of any harm induced by ssm or they think it is very harmful and therefore overly sensitive to its perceived harm. I think there are very few in the middle of those two extremes.
 
mac, missed the part about the sex on the beach, which is why it wasn't addressed. I am actually okay with people having sex on the beach as well. Doesn't really hurt me at all. Granted, I can at least see why some people might not want to allow their children to see such acts, since we have some available research to suggest that children are affected negatively by viewing some adult acts. This is most likely one of the biggest reasons that it is illegal most places. If someone wishes to challenge those laws, I say "go for it".

I don't equate either being allowed to walk naked in public or have sex on a beach though as being on equal standing with being allowed to marry. Not being allowed to the first two in no way harms or restricts a person in a way that could reasonably affect their property or rights, such as being allowed to visit people in hospitals or live with a loved one in the same nursing home room as a spouse or being given the right to make certain decisions for someone who considered you their closest relative or being allowed to take sole possession of money and property that should have been considered legally half yours due to the nature of your relationship with another person without penalty upon their death and others. SSM is much more important to get legalized to me than the other two.
 
I can't make a much more clear argument that this...

Marriage is a law.

Text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It should be pretty clear that same sex marriage bans deny me a right that every woman has, and that is the right to marry a man. Before any state can impose such a law on me, and discriminate solely on the basis of my sex, it must give me due process of law.

And that means that those bans, which discriminate against me on the basis of my sex must meet the second level of scrutiny and serve some important state interest. To date, nobody has provided a reasonable state interest that is served by denying me equal protection of marriage.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
I think it safe to say that you would not recognize any harm because you have decided it's completely harmless. I'm of the opinion people either think it is harmless and therefore completely dismissive of any harm induced by ssm or they think it is very harmful and therefore overly sensitive to its perceived harm. I think there are very few in the middle of those two extremes.
Click to expand...

You have not yet given me even a single example of harm that it might cause. You just keep avoiding answering the question and accusing me of various things I have not done.
 
roguenuke said:
You have not yet given me even a single example of harm that it might cause. You just keep avoiding answering the question and accusing me of various things I have not done.
Click to expand...

I haven't accused you of anything, and the only option I have to do what you ask is relate it to things people still recognize as being indirectly harmful. There are plenty of things we regulate for the sake of perceived harm...not just ban SSM.
 
CriticalThought said:
Please quote any instance where I have said homosexuality is right because it occurs in nature. I have argued homosexuality is natural, by most definitions, but I have never argued on this forum that it is right just because it is natural. If you cannot quote me, then I expect an apology and will not acknowledge you any further until I receive one. I am sick of your lying and deceit. You epitomize everything I hate about Christianity.
Click to expand...

This rant is so very rich coming from you. :roll:
 
majora$$hole said:
which should stay out of political decisions being how they pay no taxes.
Click to expand...

We don't?!?! :shock:

Tell that to the federal government who keeps taking chunks out of my paycheck.
 
mac said:
I haven't accused you of anything, and the only option I have to do what you ask is relate it to things people still recognize as being indirectly harmful. There are plenty of things we regulate for the sake of perceived harm...not just ban SSM.
Click to expand...

I can give you some expected harm from the two examples you gave me. Generally, the argument against being naked in public and certainly having sex in public is about how children observing sex, especially at young ages, can be detrimental to their developing natural sexual maturity and how nudity can be viewed as a sexual act in itself. I really don't agree with either of these things, but again they would both be a part of different arguments that the state and those who want to challenge these laws would need to make.

A part of the argument for the side of those challenging laws should be how the laws harm them in some way. The two should be weighed in connection to each other. It should not be a one-sided argument for what harm might come from the action if allowed, but also include what harm comes from restricting the action.

Now, give me the possible harm that might be caused from allowing same sex couples to get married, while allowing them civil unions or at least the rights that come with civil unions (since you are for giving them the rights just not the word "marriage"). If you want to retract that you are actually for same sex civil unions, then you need to show the harm that might be come from allowing same sex marriage or civil unions while keeping in mind that their relationships are completely legal and the only thing that they are affecting in getting such unions is contract law and the laws that go with marriage contracts.
 
mac said:
I haven't accused you of anything,
Click to expand...

You accused me of not being willing to accept any example of harm that you gave me if you might present.

I may not agree with you that what you might post is an actual harm, but I will not just ignore it and it is not right that you automatically assume what I will do before you present your information. I will make an effort (as I usually try to do for everything) to refute your possible harm with logical arguments for why it should not be legally considered harm or for why the harm caused by not allowing same sex couples marriage rights is more important.
 
Mac... I left this conversation hours ago when "the HARM" issue was brought in. Now you are using it in a passive-aggressive way. The context was appropriate to the question "does gay marriage impose damage or negative impact on society as a whole.
 
mac said:
That's why I said it isn't any more discriminatory than.....
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be more discriminatory then.

45 mph in a 45 mph zone isn't speeding. 45 in a 34 mph zone is. 45 mph isn't any faster than 45 mph, but that doesn't mean its not speeding in one case.

The discrimination may not be any more than in the case of age discrimination, but age discrimination is a lower tier of the EPC than age, so it doesn't necessarily NEED to be more discriminatory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom