[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Lursa · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
But they didnt extend marriage to any American and instead extended it to gay couples to win more "respect and dignity" for gays. Marriage betwen men and women hasnt been regulated by society for 1000s of years because men and women have sex with each other but instead because when men and women have sex, children are frequently the result.

I asked you previously...what other 'groups' of 2 consenting adults has "America" refused marriage privileges to? (Close relative are in some places due to genetic concerns)

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Dragonfly said:
Sorry. I don't believe you.

????? ok. I guess you need to believe so for any of your arguments to make any sense. Ive gotten the same silly denial in response to my criticisms of Islam. Like Ive said before, this statute, similiar to those in every state, my views AND traditional marriage licensed and regulated by the government, have nothing to do with religion, its biology.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....

This isnt religion or spirituality, its biology.

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Lursa said:
I asked you previously...what other 'groups' of 2 consenting adults has "America" refused marriage privileges to? (Close relative are in some places due to genetic concerns)

No one is suggesting closely related couples engage in sexual relations. Thats illegal in 49 states. AND its absurd to argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation and so homosexual couples must be included, and then exclude two elderly brothers in their 70s from marrying over genetic concerns. BUT it does reveal the hypocracy of the claims that traditional marriage had nothing to do with procreation

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Lursa said:
Then I'm sorry you are capable of understanding it...that doesnt mean it's not valid. (The words were pretty clear :doh)

And even so, you cannot provide any source to support your own position.

BS. Nothing from your source supported your assertion or contradicted mine. Why dont you show us you are not full of **** and copy and paste a few sentences from the source you think best supports your assertion or coontradicts mine.

Lursa · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
No one is suggesting closely related couples engage in sexual relations. Thats illegal in 49 states. AND its absurd to argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation and so homosexual couples must be included, and then exclude two elderly brothers in their 70s from marrying over genetic concerns. BUT it does reveal the hypocracy of the claims that traditional marriage had nothing to do with procreation

Is there a reason you didnt answer my direct question?

Here, for the 3rd time:

I asked you previously...what other 'groups' of 2 consenting adults has "America" refused marriage privileges to?

Lursa · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
BS. Nothing from your source supported your assertion or contradicted mine. Why dont you show us you are not full of **** and copy and paste a few sentences from the source you think best supports your assertion or coontradicts mine.

Did you not understand this the first time I posted it? Please try again:

There were more than 700,000 cohabiting same-sex couples in the U.S. in 2016, including 346,000 male same-sex couples and 359,000 female same-sex couples. An estimated 114,000 were raising children, including 86,000 female couples and 28,000 male couples.

How many same-sex couples in the U.S. are raising children? - Williams InstituteWilliams Institute

When you consider that only about 10% of the American population is gay, that's a significant number.

I claimed that gay couples want families just as much as straight couples. Not the same, but similar. (I wrote 'want,' not 'have.' It's more difficult for them, it often costs alot more $ due to sometimes using adoption, IVF, surrogates, so that limits any couples with less $$) Are you under the impression that all straight couples want families? We didnt, many dont...and that's a trend. If you disagree, let's see your sources.

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Lursa said:
Is there a reason you didnt answer my direct question?

Here, for the 3rd time:

I asked you previously...what other 'groups' of 2 consenting adults has "America" refused marriage privileges to?

Heres a hint. See if you can figure it out or if your going to stick with the stupid act.

dixon01767 said:
closely related couples

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Lursa said:
Did you not understand this the first time I posted it? Please try again:

When you consider that only about 10% of the American population is gay, that's a significant number.

Your claim wasnt that there was a "significant number" of gay couples wanting to start a family. and nothing there contradicts a thing Ive said or supports your actual assertion.

Irwin Corey · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
But they didnt extend marriage to any American and instead extended it to gay couples to win more "respect and dignity" for gays. Marriage betwen men and women hasnt been regulated by society for 1000s of years because men and women have sex with each other but instead because when men and women have sex, children are frequently the result.

For thousands of years we prejudiced and bigoted. I know many modern heterosexual couples that get married with absolutely no intention of having children. They get married for love, legal and even political reasons. Marriage as many modern institutions has evolved and shouldn’t be discriminatory.

AGENT J · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
1.) The only deflection was your rant about spitituality and religion while I was talking about biology

dixon01767 said:
2.) Medical science does not determine what is and is not a perversion.

1.) add deflection to the list of words that you dont know what they mean LMAO...nothing you said changes the facts your claims were wrong and done matter to legal marriage.
2.) actually in regards to the defintions of sexual orientation YES it factually does and hetero and homosexual orientations are NOT perversions

AGAIN legal marriage is a legal contract PERIOD. If you want to have a spiritual marriage, religious marriage or talk about biology etc etc you are free to but it doesnt matter one bit to the legal marriage contract.
This fact will never change because you WANT it to or because of your FEELINGS, facts dont care about your feelings.

If you have anything that chnages these facts PLEASE present it and let us know . . thanks!

Lursa · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
Heres a hint. See if you can figure it out or if your going to stick with the stupid act.

I already qualified that the first time. Why are you repeating it?

Are you saying that the only other "group" of 2 consenting adults that have not been extended the privilege of legal marriage are 'closely related' couples? You were not referring to any other groups? If so...since there are genetic reasons for that decision (also mentioned previously)...what is your objection to gays marrying?

I have seen your "argument" about reproduction but we already know that has nothing to do with it in any legal sense, as there is no imperative for straight couples to reproduce as a condition of marriage...and that gay couples are very willing to create families as well.

So...for the 4th time: I asked you previously...what other 'groups' of 2 consenting adults has "America" refused marriage privileges to (besides closely related couples)? If you werent referring to any others, just say so. :roll:

For clarity, here is the original post I replied to:

dixon01767 said:
That would be a good argument that any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Instead they only extended marriage to gays, because its not about equality and is instead inequality by design for the benefit of gays.

I had asked what other "groups" of 2 consenting adults are restricted from marriage?

And I qualified it at the time that closely related couples were restricted for genetic reasons...legitimate IMO, while no such legitimate reason has been put forth to restrict it from gays...reproduction not being valid as demonstrated by many here.

Lursa · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
Your claim wasnt that there was a "significant number" of gay couples wanting to start a family. and nothing there contradicts a thing Ive said or supports your actual assertion.

LOL the numbers are significant...your lack of honestly merely shows how weak your own opinion...as yet unfounded...is.

But ok...it's there for everyone else to consider. :2wave:

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Irwin Corey said:
For thousands of years we prejudiced and bigoted. I know many modern heterosexual couples that get married with absolutely no intention of having children. They get married for love, legal and even political reasons. Marriage as many modern institutions has evolved and shouldn’t be discriminatory.

Well, were talking about marriage. PURPOSEFUL discrimination written into the law. Purposeful discrimination between the married and unmarried. And your arguments would be a good reason to extend mariage to any two consenting adults but does nothing for your arguments to instead extend it just to include gay couples.

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Lursa said:
LOL the numbers are significant...your lack of honestly .......:

I never assertd they were not significant and we can see where the lack of honesty resides.

Irwin Corey · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
Well, were talking about marriage. PURPOSEFUL discrimination written into the law. Purposeful discrimination between the married and unmarried. And your arguments would be a good reason to extend mariage to any two consenting adults but does nothing for your arguments to instead extend it just to include gay couples.

I AM arguing to extend marriage to ANY two consenting adults irrespective of race, creed or gender.

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Lursa said:
I already qualified that the first time. Why are you repeating it?

Are you saying that the only other "group" of 2 consenting adults that have not been extended the privilege of legal marriage are 'closely related' couples? .

Youre a little slow but eventually even you can grasp simple concepts.

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Irwin Corey said:
I AM arguing to extend marriage to ANY two consenting adults irrespective of race, creed or gender.

While selectively clinging to the old testament prohibition excluding closely related couples. Just stop with this BS about equality when inequality is what you call for.

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Lursa said:
I had asked what other "groups" of 2 consenting adults are restricted from marriage?

And I qualified it at the time that closely related couples were restricted for genetic reasons...legitimate IMO, while no such legitimate reason has been put forth to restrict it from gays...reproduction not being valid as demonstrated by many here.

AND I all ready pointed out that it is the heights of hypocricy to insist that marriage has nothing to do with procreation so its unconstituional to exclude gay couples and then insist that closely related couples be excluded for genetic reasons because they might procreate, EVEN when its two 70s year old brothers or sisters. NO ONE has suggested closely related couples engage in sexual relations. Thats against the law in 49 states.

Irwin Corey · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
While selectively clinging to the old testament prohibition excluding closely related couples. Just stop with this BS about equality when inequality is what you call for.

No, inequality is your thing.

BTW, I've never mentioned the Old Testament, or closely related couples; again that's your thing.

Lursa · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
I never assertd they were not significant and we can see where the lack of honesty resides.

I said that they want it just as much, similar to, not the same. And you denied it...and 'more significantly' (pun intended) you are unable to dispute it with more than your opinion.

the bad faith in your posts is clear...it seems you feel it's important to look 'right on the Internetz'

Lursa · Apr 18, 2019

dixon01767 said:
AND I all ready pointed out that it is the heights of hypocricy to insist that marriage has nothing to do with procreation so its unconstituional to exclude gay couples and then insist that closely related couples be excluded for genetic reasons because they might procreate, EVEN when its two 70s year old brothers or sisters. NO ONE has suggested closely related couples engage in sexual relations. Thats against the law in 49 states.

I have no problem with closely related couples marrying...I dont care for the idea for the medical reasons...however it's fine with me if they were given that privilege. I only stated that there was a legitimate genetic reason for the govt to restrict them.

As for procreation, you are wrong, plain and simple. There is no criteria for reproduction at all attached to legal marriage. Zero, nada, zippo.

And even if there were, since gay couples do reproduce...biologically and then also create families thru other methods (which straight couples also resort to), they still qualify.

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

AGENT J said:
1.) add deflection to the list of words that you dont know what they mean LMAO...nothing you said changes the facts your claims were wrong and done matter to legal marriage.
2.) actually in regards to the defintions of sexual orientation YES it factually does and hetero and homosexual orientations are NOT perversions !

???? I know what deflection means AND I know what perversion means.

Perversion is a type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal.

Orthodoxy (from Greek ὀρθοδοξία orthodoxía "right opinion")[1] is adherence to correct or accepted creeds, especially in religion.

Nothing to do with science.

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Lursa said:
I have no problem with closely related couples marrying....

AND you have no problem with instead, limiting the extension of marriage to only gay couples while claiming its equal protection when in fact its purposeful discrimination for the benefit of gays.

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Lursa said:
I said that they want it just as much, similar to, not the same. And you denied it...and 'more significantly' (pun intended) you are unable to dispute it with more than your opinion.

No, I have the example of Sweden. ONE HALF OF ONE% are marriages between same sex couples, 99.5% are opposite sex couples and youve not presented a shred of evidence to indicate gays are as much or similiar to.

dixon01767 · Apr 18, 2019

Irwin Corey said:
No, inequality is your thing.

BTW, I've never mentioned the Old Testament, or closely related couples; again that's your thing.

Correct, you excluded them and istead only call for "equality" on the basid of race creed or gender only. Your selective discrimination isnt equality.

[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Lursa

Tenacious

dixon01767

dixon01767

dixon01767

Lursa

Tenacious

Lursa

Tenacious

dixon01767

dixon01767

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Lursa

Tenacious

Lursa

Tenacious

dixon01767

dixon01767

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN

dixon01767

dixon01767

dixon01767

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN

Lursa

Tenacious

Lursa

Tenacious

dixon01767

dixon01767

dixon01767

dixon01767