• 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
In certain states, a civil union provides the same benefits as a legal marriage.

“Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides.

Read more: A Primer on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Defense of Marriage Acts — Infoplease.com A Primer on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Defense of Marriage Acts — Infoplease.com



People getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state, so I don't understand your statement.

NO they are not because civil unions have been over turned or ruled over in case of death by family members etc etc

Civil unions are NOT equal to marriage they do not carry the weight nor come with the same legal benefits / protections

It seems there may be quite a bit you dont understand about legal marrage.

People that get married in church are NOT considered married by the state unless they and the church choose it to be. Most churches have the power to marry just like a magistrate or ANYBODY that applies for the power but a religious marriage does NOT guarantee a legal marriage.

Notice the part of the vows where the preacher, pastor, minister, Rabi etc etc will say "by the power invested in my by the state of blah blah blah, I know pronounce you husband and wife"

With out that power given by the state and people applying for a marriage license religious marriage have NOTHING to do with legal marriages unless the for mentioned is done.

SO no simply getting a religious marriage does NOT give you legal marriage, there are churches that marry gay couples right now and they are not LEGALLY married because that state currently discriminates against them.

Also the reverse is also true, I can get married by singing elvis or a magistrate or anybody that has the power to do marriages and it will have nothing to do with religion unless I chose it to.

Hopefully you understand now.
 
Still, my "right to contract" is limited in many ways by the government. Saying that I can marry a person I am attracted to does not change that. My right to contract is regulated, just in a different way.

So, tell me mac, would you say that the limitations that gay folk have to marrying someone are quantitatively equal to those that straight folks have?
 
No, but they are valid reasons for society at large to oppose it.

Name them. And remember, we are talking about LOGISTICAL affects, not because it's offensive to you, or you don't like it.
 
This is a matter of opinion....I myself am often telling religious people I associate with that they "need to calm down" over this issue and many others, however, I am able to see there desire to influence the society they live in. You can't ignore the wishes of a sizeable portion of society just becuase you think they are being "silly".

Sure I can.

The religious can make their opinions known at the voting both.

This is why I support civil unions....compromise.

And I agree.
 
If churches could legally be forced to perform same sex marriages, do you believe they should be? I ask only out of pure curiosity and I'd like to see other SSM proponents answer this.

Absolutely not under any circumstances. I don't think I could express my opposition to the government trying to force a church to do this, enough.
 
If churches could legally be forced to perform same sex marriages, do you believe they should be? I ask only out of pure curiosity and I'd like to see other SSM proponents answer this.

Nope. They should not, unless the church in question is the state church (not applicable in the US, but certainly applicable in many countries) in which case it must comply with the law of the state from which it receives its benefits.
 
Ok, my initial question was not so much if such a challenge would actually win in court, I was more asking would you support forcing churches to perform SSM if it could be done?

Why do I ask? Well, CT has made an argument regarding a homeless shelter that the shelter should not receive federal funding for refusing gays. Funding is, indeed, one way the federal government exerts control, so maybe I've asked the wrong question. Let me ask this one instead, do you all believe a church should lose its tax exempt status if it refused to perform SSM?

Churches do not receive federal funding for performing wedding ceremonies, nor is that why they do not pay taxes. The two have nothing to do with each other.
 
Churches do not receive federal funding for performing wedding ceremonies, nor is that why they do not pay taxes. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I missed the federal funding part of the homeless shelter. Anytime a church receives federal funding for something, then it should have to abide by discrimination laws. If they are completely privately funded, then it should be up to them who they allow into their shelters unless they can show some other reason beyond religious objections for the discrimination (I'm thinking a funded place specifically for people of a certain sex for specific reasons, such as abuse).
 
I missed the federal funding part of the homeless shelter. Anytime a church receives federal funding for something, then it should have to abide by discrimination laws. If they are completely privately funded, then it should be up to them who they allow into their shelters unless they can show some other reason beyond religious objections for the discrimination (I'm thinking a funded place specifically for people of a certain sex for specific reasons, such as abuse).

Correct. That is not the case here however. No funding for, nor tax relief because of wedding ceremonies.

I would not that I don't have a problem with churches adding small conditions to things like homeless shelters. In Grand Rapids MI, the big homeless shelter/soup kitchen expects homeless people to say a prayer together at meals, and something like that, I simply don't think is worth making an issue over, whether they get money from the government or not.
 
Correct. That is not the case here however. No funding for, nor tax relief because of wedding ceremonies.

I would not that I don't have a problem with churches adding small conditions to things like homeless shelters. In Grand Rapids MI, the big homeless shelter/soup kitchen expects homeless people to say a prayer together at meals, and something like that, I simply don't think is worth making an issue over, whether they get money from the government or not.

While in some cases I totally agree and in others I dont not what it does do is show how grossly hypocritical and despicable some are.
 
This is a state issue, but really, marriage shouldn't be a legal/civil issue at all. Leave it to religion where it ultimately belongs. If gays want to marry, they could find a church to marry them-no problem.
 
This is a state issue, but really, marriage shouldn't be a legal/civil issue at all. Leave it to religion where it ultimately belongs. If gays want to marry, they could find a church to marry them-no problem.

Equal rights and discrimination is not a state isse.
This is about LEGAL marriage and as long as it is around so should equal legal marriage rights gays.
Religious marriage has no place in this debate.
 
I'm only saying that marriage itself is ultimately a religious issue. If the government had no dealings with it, it would be less complicated which is good. But I believe this is a state issue. The fed is far too involved these days.
 
I'm only saying that marriage itself is ultimately a religious issue. If the government had no dealings with it, it would be less complicated which is good. But I believe this is a state issue. The fed is far too involved these days.

Marriage is a state issue. Churches don't issue marriage licenses, states do. You are correct in that the federal government has no business in this though.

It's pretty simple actually and yet everyone wants to make it so damned complicated. If states A, B, C, D and E want to legalize gay marriage, I have no problem with that. If states F, G, H, I and J want to ban gay marriage (or define marriage as being between a man and a woman), I have no problem with that either. If gays want to marry, move to a state that legalizes it. It's no different than if someone moves from state X to state Y because the tax laws are far more lenient in state Y than they are in state X.
 
Marriage is a state issue. Churches don't issue marriage licenses, states do. You are correct in that the federal government has no business in this though.

It's pretty simple actually and yet everyone wants to make it so damned complicated. If states A, B, C, D and E want to legalize gay marriage, I have no problem with that. If states F, G, H, I and J want to ban gay marriage (or define marriage as being between a man and a woman), I have no problem with that either. If gays want to marry, move to a state that legalizes it. It's no different than if someone moves from state X to state Y because the tax laws are far more lenient in state Y than they are in state X.

Equal rights shouldn't be a state issue.
 
Equal rights shouldn't be a state issue.

But defining "equal rights" is not that simple when it comes to gay marriage. Can a man marry a sheep? Can a woman marry a horse? Wouldn't you be infringing on the rights of the man and the woman if you denied them the right to marry who they loved? Is this a ridiculous comparison? Of course it is, but to some a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman is just as preposterous.
 
Equal rights shouldn't be a state issue.

It is up to states to decide who can marry and who can't. However, as Loving taught us, the laws as to who can and cannot marry cannot violate the constitution. So while yes, marriage is a state issue, it does not mean states can be allowed to exclude groups unlawfully. SSM is on the way to being allowed across the country. It is coming, and it is coming soon. When DOMA goes down, that will spell the end, since at that point, every state and the federal government will have to recognize any SSM from any state.
 
I'm only saying that marriage itself is ultimately a religious issue. If the government had no dealings with it, it would be less complicated which is good. But I believe this is a state issue. The fed is far too involved these days.

You could SAY its ultimately a religious issue but the fact remains its not.

The easiest solution would be equal rights and not discriminating.

ANd marriage in general is a state issue but equal rights and discrimination is not and one that ruling is made similar to the ruling that was made on interracial marriage the states can stick it.

lastly if you want government not to grant ANY marriages thats fine but thats a different topic.
 
It is up to states to decide who can marry and who can't. However, as Loving taught us, the laws as to who can and cannot marry cannot violate the constitution. So while yes, marriage is a state issue, it does not mean states can be allowed to exclude groups unlawfully. SSM is on the way to being allowed across the country. It is coming, and it is coming soon. When DOMA goes down, that will spell the end, since at that point, every state and the federal government will have to recognize any SSM from any state.

correct it will happen in the not so far future and the states will have to abide as they should.
 
correct it will happen in the not so far future and the states will have to abide as they should.

The DOMA case is, if not a sure thing, close to it. That will be the catalyst.
 
The DOMA case is, if not a sure thing, close to it. That will be the catalyst.

Agreed and the proper killing of DADT help snowball it.
 
Marriage is a state issue. Churches don't issue marriage licenses, states do. You are correct in that the federal government has no business in this though.

It's pretty simple actually and yet everyone wants to make it so damned complicated. If states A, B, C, D and E want to legalize gay marriage, I have no problem with that. If states F, G, H, I and J want to ban gay marriage (or define marriage as being between a man and a woman), I have no problem with that either. If gays want to marry, move to a state that legalizes it. It's no different than if someone moves from state X to state Y because the tax laws are far more lenient in state Y than they are in state X.

But then don't we have the "full faith and credit" matter to deal with? If DOMA goes, the only alternative will be a constitutional amendment to define marriage. That means going back to the voters. And a public debate. I'm looking forward to it, myself.
 
But then don't we have the "full faith and credit" matter to deal with? If DOMA goes, the only alternative will be a constitutional amendment to define marriage. That means going back to the voters. And a public debate. I'm looking forward to it, myself.

It doesnt have to mean that at all just like loving vs virgina didnt mean that.
 
It doesnt have to mean that at all just like loving vs virgina didnt mean that.

You're counting on the general public seeing sexual preference (or wtf ever yall are calling it this year) as being on the same level as race. My bet is they won't.

edit: And by "yall" of course, I mean "you people."
 
Last edited:
Marriage is a state issue. Churches don't issue marriage licenses, states do. You are correct in that the federal government has no business in this though.

It's pretty simple actually and yet everyone wants to make it so damned complicated. If states A, B, C, D and E want to legalize gay marriage, I have no problem with that. If states F, G, H, I and J want to ban gay marriage (or define marriage as being between a man and a woman), I have no problem with that either. If gays want to marry, move to a state that legalizes it. It's no different than if someone moves from state X to state Y because the tax laws are far more lenient in state Y than they are in state X.

It's only a state issue if the federal government doesn't intervene with a constitutional amendment. Right now, as far as I know, states can and have allowed gays to marry.

The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage in the United States, but such marriages are recognized by some individual states.

You could SAY its ultimately a religious issue but the fact remains its not.

It is largely based on religion.

The easiest solution would be equal rights and not discriminating.

Not really. Since people seem to love to discriminate, not discriminating is certainly not the easiest solution, although it may be the right one.

ANd marriage in general is a state issue but equal rights and discrimination is not and one that ruling is made similar to the ruling that was made on interracial marriage the states can stick it.

lastly if you want government not to grant ANY marriages thats fine but thats a different topic.

It's only a state issue if the fed says it is.
 
Back
Top Bottom