• 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
friday said:
Centrist77 said:
So you don't think we could replace marriage on a government level with a family contract system? It would require smaller government. But aside from that, I don't see how you are going to redefine marriage without losing any plausible definition.

While we are at it, why adults? Once again you are showing that you have a definition in mind.
Click to expand...

Replacing marriage with a bunch of different family contracts would involve a lot more government involvement, hence, larger government. The government would still be involved, since it is the government that ensures rights of family are enforced/given. The largest benefits for marriage come from government because of the way the government works, i.e. taxes and SS and how they relate to two people owning money jointly when it is earned by either or both.
Click to expand...
 
friday said:
Let me finish for now with this observation. If I had to guess, I would probably guess that the pro-gay marriage debaters on this site supported Barack Obama in 2008. If that is true, that would be interesting since Obama said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman and that he would support civil unions but not gay marriage. Contrast that with those ultra conservatives like Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain who said the states should decide and Ron Paul who believes marriage should be between a couple and their church without any government involvement.
Click to expand...

No I didn't support Barack Obama nor do I really want him as President again, but I also do not want either Michelle Bachman or Herman Cain, since both support having a national Anti-SSM Amendment.

Michele Bachmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bachmann supports both a federal and state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and any legal equivalents.
Click to expand...

Herman Cain - Gay Marriage
Herman Cain believes that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. He states that the courts have let down the American people, and that he would support a constitutional amendment to define marriage.
Click to expand...
 
Unnatural, UnChristian, bad example for kids, subversive toward the Judeo-Christian values upon which Western society is built. No thanks.
 
ElCid said:
Unnatural, UnChristian, bad example for kids, subversive toward the Judeo-Christian values upon which Western society is built. No thanks.
Click to expand...

You and Alfons would make a great couple. Anyways, what I think is more perverse is people continue to have these talking point discussions simply because they are shallow and have easier answers. I see people get more heated up on this and stuff like abortion and keeping mexicans out, and Shria Law than I do anything, and these topics in the scheme of everything do not matter a sliver compared to the economy, how our government is ran, and our foreign affairs.
 
ElCid said:
1.)Unnatural, 2.)UnChristian, 3.)bad example for kids, 4.)subversive toward the Judeo-Christian values upon which Western society is built. No thanks.
Click to expand...

1.) false
2.) only your opinion
3.) false
4.) false
 
Centirst77 is describing my position almost exactly. He has thought about it more than I have. However, I’d like to describe a process that is not often used. Most of the time people do what some call a bottom up analysis of a condition that should be improved. Seldom is a top down analysis done.

From the top: When it comes to marriage little is described in our constitution. The constitution mostly describes the rules between an individual and the government focusing on individual freedoms. Since its not described in detail, but freedom of religion is, and other marriage ‘rules’ set by religion were to some level understood not to be uniform and one was not chosen to be the correct one, we have a top down view to consider. If we started from the beginning, like we were writing the constitution for the first time, but with the additional knowledge we have today, how would we handle marriage?

There are rational pragmatic reasons to support a family unit in a constitution, but are they important enough to step into what is a very difficult area? Are there reasons to have some tax advantages for a family unit? Should there be some reasons to limit the size of a family unit if there are going to be advantages to be in one? To document it there needs to be a government recognized contract or there is no point to this discussion. ‘Churches’ could develop their own contracts that could be legally recognized, and the government would have to decide if ‘churches’ could require that certain married individuals could be required to legally give up their some or more of their rights when married by a church. So, if you think about marriage in a country that has freedom of (and therefore, from) religion how would you define marriage from scratch? Why?
 
I would say gay marriage is wrong simply because it is started as an unproductive union. There is no reason for gay to marry and can handle any legal matters under current law with a simple power of attorney. The purpose of most company health plans was children. Since I am totally against gays being able to adopt there is no justification for a company to be forced to cover a same sex partner under a marriage contract. That coverage should be up to the individual company to decide.
 
caucasiannation said:
I would say gay marriage is wrong simply because it is started as an unproductive union.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Then, in order to be married the man and the woman should need to prove to the state that they can be and intend to be productive. Simple tests would do wouldn’t they? Or marriage is not done until a couple proves they were productive, simple DNA tests would do, right?

Or, if you think about marriage in a country that has freedom of (and therefore, from) religion how would you define marriage from scratch? Why?
 
Centrist77 said:
say it 50 more times and it still wont be true.
this is your statement.
"There is no such thing as a religious marriage!"
Click to expand...
It would be hard to prove that someone had a religious marriage - they might have had a "religious wedding ceremony" but to have a religious marriage is rather strange. Oh well, we know that you don't know the difference between the marriage and the marriage ceremony.

this is 100% false and or you lying
Click to expand...
Since you didn't indicate which statement you were addressing, it is hard to respond, but I know that I don't lie and nothing I said is false.

pick one LMAO
Click to expand...
Pick one what?

Nothing else needs responded to until you accept the facts.
When you can address the facts and talk reality instead of your fantasy world let me know.
Click to expand...
Did you mean "Nothing else needs responding to" - "responded" is past tense and you can't have responded to something you don't intend to respond to. I know that would be too difficult for you to figure out.

we will all be waiting for something reality based instead of nonsensical and false statements based on your opinion and emotion .
Click to expand...
The same response you gave the other poster when he challenged your inane arguments.

That will never happen because your mind is stuck on falsehoods and nothing is going to change that when you are unable to comprehend what others are trying to tell you.
 
caucasiannation said:
I would say gay marriage is wrong simply because it is started as an unproductive union. There is no reason for gay to marry and can handle any legal matters under current law with a simple power of attorney. The purpose of most company health plans was children. Since I am totally against gays being able to adopt there is no justification for a company to be forced to cover a same sex partner under a marriage contract. That coverage should be up to the individual company to decide.
Click to expand...

Marriage does something legally that no POAs can do, it establishes that all money made by both within the marriage contract legally belongs to both people because they are agreeing under the contract that it does due to the nature of the relationship (they are agreeing to take responsibility for each other, no matter which is actually earning the money or how much). This includes the money that is taxed and the money coming out for specific taxes that are supposed to eventually come back to the person who paid in (i.e. SS). That means that SS that was paid in during a marriage legally belongs to both spouses, not just the spouse that paid it in. No other legal contract can set that up.

Plus there are those issues when one of the couple is in the military, since DADT is about to officially be repealed sometime this year, and they are not able to be fairly considered a spouse, despite fulfilling the same role as a legal spouse of the opposite sex.
 
mertex said:
It would be hard to prove that someone had a religious marriage - they might have had a "religious wedding ceremony" but to have a religious marriage is rather strange. Oh well, we know that you don't know the difference between the marriage and the marriage ceremony.

Since you didn't indicate which statement you were addressing, it is hard to respond, but I know that I don't lie and nothing I said is false.


Pick one what?


Did you mean "Nothing else needs responding to" - "responded" is past tense and you can't have responded to something you don't intend to respond to. I know that would be too difficult for you to figure out.


The same response you gave the other poster when he challenged your inane arguments.

That will never happen because your mind is stuck on falsehoods and nothing is going to change that when you are unable to comprehend what others are trying to tell you.
Click to expand...


again just keep dodging
what you said is STILL 100% false whether you address it or not LMAO

this is one of your false statements
""There is no such thing as a religious marriage!"
this ABOVE is 100% wrong

again I repeat when you understand the facts lets us know and we can debate anything on topic you like, until then keep putting egg on your face. :D

we will all be waiting for something reality based instead of nonsensical and false statements based on your opinion and emotion. I comprehend what you are saying just fine. I comprehend that it is false LOL
 
Centrist77 said:
again just keep dodging
what you said is STILL 100% false whether you address it or not LMAO
Click to expand...
According to you, and you don't count! LMAO!

this is one of your false statements
""There is no such thing as a religious marriage!"
this ABOVE is 100% wrong
Click to expand...
What is a religious marriage?

again I repeat when you understand the facts lets us know and we can debate anything on topic you like, until then keep putting egg on your face.
Click to expand...
I understand the facts, and I'm not wrong, I'm just not able to dumb it down enough for you to understand it.

we will all be waiting for something reality based instead of nonsensical and false statements based on your opinion and emotion. I comprehend what you are saying just fine. I comprehend that it is false LOL
Click to expand...
You think you do, but based on your statements, it is plain to see that you don't.

And, who is "we" - I didn't know two people were allowed to join as a team on this Forum. LMAO!
 
I voted Other.

The reason I don't approve of same-sex marriage is because I don't like calling a Ford F-150 a frog or call a horse an oak tree.
 
LesGovt said:
I voted Other.

The reason I don't approve of same-sex marriage is because I don't like calling a Ford F-150 a frog or call a horse an oak tree.
Click to expand...


You just called same sex marriage what it is, same sex marriage.
 
winston53660 said:
You just called same sex marriage what it is, same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. I used the word marriage. For the sake of the poll, I had to call the Ford F-150 a frog. Doesn't mean that I believe the Ford F-150 is a frog. Thwppppppppt!
 
LesGovt said:
No I didn't. I used the word marriage. For the sake of the poll, I had to call the Ford F-150 a frog. Doesn't mean that I believe the Ford F-150 is a frog. Thwppppppppt!
Click to expand...


So what did you mean when you said and I quote "same sex marriage", Ford?
 
winston53660 said:
NPR was saying the anti gay marriage people were doing everything they could to stall this.
Click to expand...

Our system is so ridiculously ****ed up. If the senate majority leader doesn't want it to go to the floor, it doesn't. There's nothing anyone can do other than him, and he's a republican. It's going to be hard for him though considering 60%+ of us want it passed. Governor Cuomo can just keep ordering the legislature back in session so basically they're stuck there until he brings it to a vote.
 
mertex said:
According to you, and you don't count! LMAO!


What is a religious marriage?

I understand the facts, and I'm not wrong, I'm just not able to dumb it down enough for you to understand it.


You think you do, but based on your statements, it is plain to see that you don't.

And, who is "we" - I didn't know two people were allowed to join as a team on this Forum. LMAO!
Click to expand...

translation:

You can't refute my facts, or back up your false statements. Thanks we already know that.
Let me know when you can, this is fun watching you dodge and twist and spin yet the facts remain the same :)
 
Last edited:
LesGovt said:
Oh, I'm pretty sure you knew what I was saying.
Click to expand...


Yeah you meant same sex marriage. Just like the same sex marriage that is legally recognized in the State of New York now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom