• 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!

While reading arguments against same sex marriage...

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.

1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.

2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.

In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.
 
It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.

1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.

2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.

In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.

But but.........yeah they really have nothing left do they. Excellent point as well i think. They could've spent all this time arguing how same sex marriage would *help* the institution by demonstrating its appeal, even among those who can't reproduce directly and risk being hated for it. A lesbian from the next city over was even brutally attacked after marrying. Yet the struggle continues.
 
It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.

1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.

2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.

In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.

LOL

So what does that mean when the couple falls into the 'not having sex anymore' category.

Funny - I hadn't thought of it that way.
 
LOL

So what does that mean when the couple falls into the 'not having sex anymore' category.

Funny - I hadn't thought of it that way.

Well, even if the married couple is a man and a woman, if they're not having vaginal intercourse, they're homos and jesus weeps.
 
Well, even if the married couple is a man and a woman, if they're not having vaginal intercourse, they're homos and jesus weeps.

And, interestingly enough (and ironically), you can use those tears from Jesus as lube.
 
It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.

1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.

2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.

In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.

1. there is, of course, a difference between hetero sex and, what you call sex between gays.

But why not get government out of regulating marriage altogether? Let everyone do it the way they want. If you and your boyfriend want your sex holied, rent a priest. If you want protection, get a lawyer.
 
Well, even if the married couple is a man and a woman, if they're not having vaginal intercourse, they're homos and jesus weeps.

Now that would be tricky of them.
 
1. there is, of course, a difference between hetero sex and, what you call sex between gays.

If a heterosexual couple only had anal sex, would that make their relationship the moral equivalent of a homosexual relationship?
 
If a heterosexual couple only had anal sex, would that make their relationship the moral equivalent of a homosexual relationship?

In certain aspects it would. They would be stilling their sexual drive but not having sex in the evolutionary reproductive sense. No problem with having fun. But it won't move the species very far. ;)
 
So true. I've had the same thoughts myself. The total obsession and focus on the sexual aspects of marriage is astounding. They really make it sound as if marriage is mainly about sex and nothing else. Their argument is basically this: "Their parts don't fit. That's not a marriage." The countless gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships, living together and/or raising children are apparently irrelevant. Their parts don't fit. Not a marriage. Boggles the mind.
 
It occurs to me that opponents of same sex marriage do two things.

1. Fail to find any significant difference between gay and heterosexual relationships besides the type of sex they have.

2. Reduce the concept of marriage to the act of vaginal intercourse.

In this way I think that the opponents of same-sex marriage are actually damaging marriage. They are teaching people that it is not the spiritual and emotional connection of a life long commitment of affection and support that is important. Nope! What they teach is important is that there is a penis and a vagina. They reduce marriage to the potential for sexual acts that lead to procreation. Nevermind that heterosexuals utilize birth control and practice forms of non procreative sex in and outside of marriage. They argue that what defines marriage is sex and anything else that comes of the union is of relative unimportance.

Yep, some folks think it's all about penises and vaginas. I pity them.
 
1. there is, of course, a difference between hetero sex and, what you call sex between gays.

But why not get government out of regulating marriage altogether? Let everyone do it the way they want. If you and your boyfriend want your sex holied, rent a priest. If you want protection, get a lawyer.

Why get the govt out of marriage? Allowing homosexual marriage does allow peopel to do what they want.
 
Why get the govt out of marriage? Allowing homosexual marriage does allow peopel to do what they want.

There is no good reason to use a one fits all contract that state regulation of marriage means. So let's grab the opportunity, give the people real contractual freedom and put it on rational footing without government interference in people's private affairs..
 
There is no good reason to use a one fits all contract that state regulation of marriage means. So let's grab the opportunity, give the people real contractual freedom and put it on rational footing without government interference in people's private affairs..

There are lots of reasons, just legally speaking look here.
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dont like what happens when you get married dont get married but dont make everyone else suffer because you dont like it.
 
But why not get government out of regulating marriage altogether? Let everyone do it the way they want. If you and your boyfriend want your sex holied, rent a priest. If you want protection, get a lawyer.


So could you explain specifically how this "getting government out of marriage" (assuming your are talking about Civil Marriage [i.e. that recognized under the law]) would work?

With this "private" marriage, would the government still recognize the establishment of a family relationship where one did no exist before making the spouse the default legal next of kin for all emergency medical decisions or would they need a separate Medical Power of Attorney?

Would this "private" marriage have general applicability like current Civil Marriage or would each couple have to write up their own contract that could vary wildly and cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to get lawyers to review them?

If the government would recognize for Civil purposes "marriages" conducted by a religious organization, would they recognize as valid those religious marriages performed by a religious organization for same-sex couples?

In recognition and contributions we've made to the family unit (which can be just spouses or spouses & children) and the sacrifices my wife has made over our 27 year marriage, she is exempt from estate taxes for my portion of our joint property, would that disappear?

In recognition and contributions we've made to the family unit (which can be just spouses or spouses & children) and the sacrifices my wife has made over our 27 year marriage, if I die - she get to continue to claim the "married" exemption (up to a $500,000) on the sale of our home, while the single exemption (which is what she is once I die) is only $250,000, would that disappear?

In recognition and contributions we've made to the family unit (which can be just spouses or spouses & children) and the sacrifices my wife has made over our 27 year marriage, if I die before she does she gets to draw on my Social Security (which is higher than her's since I'm the main wage earner), would that disappear?

While I was on active duty my wife could seek medical attention at military clinics/hospitals, the government provided relocation for her when I was ordered to move, and they provided "Command Sponsorship" when I was stationed in foreign countries so she could accompany me, would this disappear?​


At last count there were 1,134 Federal "rights, responsibilities, and benefits" tied to Civil Marriage. Now if we figure another 300 or so for each State that - Ummm - 16,134 legal items that have to do with Civil Marriage. To have the same general applicability as a $35 Civil Marriage license - how much to you think it will cost to have lawyers draw up documents that provide the same expansive results?


>>>>
 
So could you explain specifically how this "getting government out of marriage" (assuming your are talking about Civil Marriage [i.e. that recognized under the law]) would work?

With this "private" marriage, would the government still recognize the establishment of a family relationship where one did no exist before making the spouse the default legal next of kin for all emergency medical decisions or would they need a separate Medical Power of Attorney?

Would this "private" marriage have general applicability like current Civil Marriage or would each couple have to write up their own contract that could vary wildly and cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to get lawyers to review them?

If the government would recognize for Civil purposes "marriages" conducted by a religious organization, would they recognize as valid those religious marriages performed by a religious organization for same-sex couples?

In recognition and contributions we've made to the family unit (which can be just spouses or spouses & children) and the sacrifices my wife has made over our 27 year marriage, she is exempt from estate taxes for my portion of our joint property, would that disappear?

In recognition and contributions we've made to the family unit (which can be just spouses or spouses & children) and the sacrifices my wife has made over our 27 year marriage, if I die - she get to continue to claim the "married" exemption (up to a $500,000) on the sale of our home, while the single exemption (which is what she is once I die) is only $250,000, would that disappear?

In recognition and contributions we've made to the family unit (which can be just spouses or spouses & children) and the sacrifices my wife has made over our 27 year marriage, if I die before she does she gets to draw on my Social Security (which is higher than her's since I'm the main wage earner), would that disappear?

While I was on active duty my wife could seek medical attention at military clinics/hospitals, the government provided relocation for her when I was ordered to move, and they provided "Command Sponsorship" when I was stationed in foreign countries so she could accompany me, would this disappear?​


At last count there were 1,134 Federal "rights, responsibilities, and benefits" tied to Civil Marriage. Now if we figure another 300 or so for each State that - Ummm - 16,134 legal items that have to do with Civil Marriage. To have the same general applicability as a $35 Civil Marriage license - how much to you think it will cost to have lawyers draw up documents that provide the same expansive results?


>>>>

There would certainly be a lot of details to work out. This would be especially, where the government had responsibilities toward citizens out of presently active marriage contracts. All present obligations would have to be fulfilled in one way or another. That would be taken care of in a law and in courts. Thereafter many laws and regulations would become redundant.

But in the final analysis we would be talking about a private marriage contract that two persons would agree on and sign very much like any contract.
 
There are lots of reasons, just legally speaking look here.
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dont like what happens when you get married dont get married but dont make everyone else suffer because you dont like it.

Just because there are rights and responsibilities out of history, it does not mean that they are sensible nor that the olden ways were the best. People here are yelling all the time that the old ways were not good and want them changed. The only thing is that the proposed change just reproduces an error form the past.
 
Just because there are rights and responsibilities out of history, it does not mean that they are sensible nor that the olden ways were the best. People here are yelling all the time that the old ways were not good and want them changed. The only thing is that the proposed change just reproduces an error form the past.

What olden ways? what are you talking about? What specifically?
Is this unsensible? Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
Or this? Custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
Or this? Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Or this? Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Or this? Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Or this? Funeral and bereavement leave
Or this? Joint adoption and foster care
Or this? Legal status with stepchildren
Or this? Making spousal medical decisions
Or this? Right to inheritance of property
Or this? Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
Or this? Providing financial support for raising children born of the marriage
ETC etc....
Again If YOU dont want everything that legal marriage entails dont get married. There is no reason for you to deny others marriage.
 
There would certainly be a lot of details to work out. This would be especially, where the government had responsibilities toward citizens out of presently active marriage contracts. All present obligations would have to be fulfilled in one way or another. That would be taken care of in a law and in courts. Thereafter many laws and regulations would become redundant.

But in the final analysis we would be talking about a private marriage contract that two persons would agree on and sign very much like any contract.

Bolded pretty much describes legal marriage as it is today so why are you bothering?
 
What olden ways? what are you talking about? What specifically?
Is this unsensible? Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
Or this? Custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
Or this? Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Or this? Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Or this? Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Or this? Funeral and bereavement leave
Or this? Joint adoption and foster care
Or this? Legal status with stepchildren
Or this? Making spousal medical decisions
Or this? Right to inheritance of property
Or this? Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
Or this? Providing financial support for raising children born of the marriage
ETC etc....
Again If YOU dont want everything that legal marriage entails dont get married. There is no reason for you to deny others marriage.

Did your mother tell you things would be simple? If she did, she was wrong. And another secret. Just because thing appear difficult to you does not mean that they are well ordered. As a matter of fact, the opposite is often the case. Keep it simple and remove the government from regulating matrimony.
 
1. there is, of course, a difference between hetero sex and, what you call sex between gays.

But why not get government out of regulating marriage altogether? Let everyone do it the way they want. If you and your boyfriend want your sex holied, rent a priest. If you want protection, get a lawyer.

Because there are some things that require the government to be involved in, including recognition of spouse as a legal relation, along with (as some more than others may want) recognition of inlaws as legal family. This is only achieved with legal marriage.

Plus, marriage is one of the most efficient things the government does. It uses a single legal document to create a pretty good contract between tens of millions of people. And should those people wish to break up and end that contract, they are able to do so involving rules that attempt to make their separation fair to those involved. It also sets up so many smaller contracts automatically with just that single one, including medical power of attorney and some decision making ability. It helps to protect both people together and separately for their relationship. And it does this because we have come to recognize such relationships as having a good deal of value to society.

That may change in the future, but for now, marriage is a very inexpensive and efficient contract that also sets up a solid legal family relationship.
 
In certain aspects it would. They would be stilling their sexual drive but not having sex in the evolutionary reproductive sense. No problem with having fun. But it won't move the species very far. ;)

Who says? Maybe they are planning to have children using a different method, choosing to take one of their sets of genes out because they feel their genes are harmful to the gene pool (a bad genetic disorder, or maybe genes from both that give them a great possibility of having a child with a disease or devastating disability).

In some cases, some couples not having children, particularly with each other can move the species further than them having a dozen children. Heck, them providing their resources to raise a child they adopt may prove to be a thousand times better than them having their own biological children to raise.
 
There is no good reason to use a one fits all contract that state regulation of marriage means. So let's grab the opportunity, give the people real contractual freedom and put it on rational footing without government interference in people's private affairs..

Except that it works for the majority of those in marriage, and requires a few tweaks using only a few other contracts for most of the rest of the people. Those who it wouldn't work for at all are free to not enter into it, as many do. Heck, that is actually the main purpose of domestic partnerships or civil unions, at least prior to about a decade ago, to act as a less extensive relationship contract on the state level for those who don't want all the things that come with an actual legal marriage.
 
Did your mother tell you things would be simple? If she did, she was wrong. And another secret. Just because thing appear difficult to you does not mean that they are well ordered. As a matter of fact, the opposite is often the case. Keep it simple and remove the government from regulating matrimony.

Things should be as simple as we can make them. Not everything will be simple, but it is stupid to take something that works in a simple form and make it more complicated just because a few feel it doesn't work for them, eventhough making it more complicated makes it more likely to not work for a whole lot more people than those few who were complaining before and had other options.
 
Did your mother tell you things would be simple? If she did, she was wrong. And another secret. Just because thing appear difficult to you does not mean that they are well ordered. As a matter of fact, the opposite is often the case. Keep it simple and remove the government from regulating matrimony.

Who said anything about simple or difficult? If anything you are the one who wants to complicate things by getting rid of marriage.
We are talking about sensible and unsensible you have yet to state where any of the above rights/responsabilities are unsensible or even give a valid reason for the govt to get out of marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom