[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Wan said:

Calling it marriage is not the only way that gays can enjoy the same rights.

Click to expand...

But it's called marriage now so it's a moot point.

We have give them civil union, and change laws so that all the legal concerns you raised no longer exist, and now both sides will be happy.

Click to expand...

So you want the law changed to pay you lip service? I don't foresee that.

AGENT J said:

exactly!!! and your feelings on that are 100% MEANINGLESS to the topic its a failed strawmwan that doesn't matter one bit to facts, rights and legal marriage when it comes to "arguments against same sex marriage"
thank you AGAIN for proving my point.

Click to expand...

I never suggested it was an argument against same sex marriage. That's you desperately grasping about for refuge in a strawman. It is an argument that gay marriage isn't about "equality", because first, marriage is purposeful discrimination written into the law between the married and unmarried. The opposite of "equality". And secondly because 50 states by law prohibit closely related couples from marrying while freely allowing couples who are not closely related to marry freely. Again, purposeful discrimination written into the law. The opposite of equality.

Wan said:

Indeed I have no evidence, it was just the general impression I got when I went to school.

Click to expand...

So you made your claim based on absolutely nothing but your own anacdotes?

But it's not unreasonable nor all that un-fathomable. Surely you don't mean to tell me scientists have figured out what exactly causes homosexuality and it's purely genes, do you?

Click to expand...

I mean to tell you there isn't consensus. You simply made that up.

Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying it's been conclusively proven that homosexuality is entirely genetic?

Click to expand...

No, here's saying your claim is bunk.

Wan said:

Calling it marriage is not the only way that gays can enjoy the same rights. We have give them civil union, and change laws so that all the legal concerns you raised no longer exist, and now both sides will be happy.

Click to expand...

Why would we go through all that, when we've already legalized marriage for same-sex couples nationwide? Do you realise how unbelievably stupid it would be to try to reverse that decision, and then wait for every single state to instate some civil union laws, all to placate the bigoted fools that have a problem with gay people getting married?

CLAX1911 said:

But it's called marriage now so it's a moot point.

Click to expand...

You are right. And there is nothing I can do about gays rubbing their gay "marriage" thing in my face. But this does not mean they did not pervert the idea of marriage.

So you want the law changed to pay you lip service? I don't foresee that.

Click to expand...

How is wanting to change laws to give more rights to gays "paying lip service to me"?

CLAX1911 said:

So you made your claim based on absolutely nothing but your own anacdotes?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's based on personal anecdotes, though I see that you like to put a negative spin on what I say.

I really don't know how to explain this better. And I also don't know why you have such a huge problem with my asserting that homosexuality is due to both genetic and environmental factors. Do you really think it's strictly genetic?

I mean to tell you there isn't consensus. You simply made that up.

Click to expand...

Ok, so I "made up" the part where I mentioned consensus. But do you agree with the general spirit of what I said, which is that homosexuality has both genetic and environmental factors?

No, here's saying your claim is bunk.

Click to expand...

You think that my assertion "homosexuality is both genetic and environmental" is bunk? How so?

dixon01767 said:

I never suggested it was an argument against same sex marriage. That's you desperately grasping about for refuge in a strawman. It is an argument that gay marriage isn't about "equality", because first, marriage is purposeful discrimination written into the law between the married and unmarried. The opposite of "equality". And secondly because 50 states by law prohibit closely related couples from marrying while freely allowing couples who are not closely related to marry freely. Again, purposeful discrimination written into the law. The opposite of equality.

Click to expand...

But again: who is now being discriminated against?

The 'closely related' couples angle has been exposed as not being discriminatory in nature.

So your continued claim that it's discriminatory to enable gays to marry remains unsupported.

Wan said:

You are right. And there is nothing I can do about gays rubbing their gay "marriage" thing in my face. But this does not mean they did not pervert the idea of marriage.

Click to expand...

Nobody is rubbing anything in your face. Last time I checked, you are not forced to attend a same-sex couple's wedding.

How is wanting to change laws to give more rights to gay "paying lip service to me"?

Click to expand...

That's not what you want. You want to make a stupid distinction with marriage between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, for your own bigoted reasons.

I don't think it's based on personal anecdotes, though I see that you like to put a negative spin on what I say.

Click to expand...

The negativity is all your doing. You've done absolutely nothing but make bogus, unfounded claims, that have no basis in anything scientific (which you've admitted).

Wan said:

You are right. And there is nothing I can do about gays rubbing their gay "marriage" thing in my face. But this does not mean they did not pervert the idea of marriage.

Click to expand...

How odd that you believe that their equality equates to something being rubbed in your face. I see no such overt or even subtle efforts.

But if that's how you perceive it, surely you can understand that centuries of gay people might consider straight marriage, completely forbidden to them, as 'being rubbed in their faces?'

Esp. when, in America, there's no reasonable foundation to do so?

JasperL said:

You're assuming that "marriage" should or must have something to do with procreation, but that's only a preference of yours.

Click to expand...

You missed the "was of traditional marriage limited to men and women" part, even though you quoted it. Its not my preference and is instead the history of 1000s of years of human civilization. This idea that marriages limitation to men and women was all just a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure " homosexuals is a recent invention. Heres something from ancient, BC Roman law.

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

Its not my preference, its history.

JasperL said:

And even if we accept your unsubstantiated premise - that SSM is about making gays feel better about their homosexuality - so what? Does this benefit to them, what you acknowledge is a benefit, harm you somehow? If not, why not celebrate the increase in happiness experienced by married gay couples, instead of condemn it?

Click to expand...

AT A MINIMUM under equal protection law, any discrimination in the law must be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. I would argue helping gays feel better about their sexuality isn't a proper role of government, and even if I give you that one, the exclusion of closely related couples has no rational relation to serving that interest. And if marriage is now unrelated to procreation youll need some other purpose for marriage than helping gays feel better about themselves and an explanation of how that purpose is served by excluding closely related couples. Usually it was argued in the gay marriage debate that marriage fosters the creation of stable households and to exclude same sex couples from receiving these benefits is unconstitutional discrimination against gays. They benefit from stable homes just as much as heterosexual couples would. OK, but now youll need a new justification for excluding two sisters in their 80s living in a stable home for 40 years because they might make a baby with genetic defects doesnt cut it any longer.

dixon01767 said:

AT A MINIMUM under equal protection law, any discrimination in the law must be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. I would argue helping gays feel better about their sexuality isn't a proper role of government, and even if I give you that one, the exclusion of closely related couples has no rational relation to serving that interest. And if marriage is now unrelated to procreation youll need some other purpose for marriage than helping gays feel better about themselves and an explanation of how that purpose is served by excluding closely related couples. Usually it was argued in the gay marriage debate that marriage fosters the creation of stable households and to exclude same sex couples from receiving these benefits is unconstitutional discrimination against gays. They benefit from stable homes just as much as heterosexual couples would. OK, but now youll need a new justification for excluding two sisters in their 80s living in a stable home for 40 years because they might make a baby with genetic defects doesnt cut it any longer.

Click to expand...

Where did you find the bold? Equality under the Constitution stands alone, not requiring justification for serving (or not) govt interest.

There may however, be times where, just like with our other rights, the govt may need to 'balance' certain rights against each other for the public good.

So what sources do you have to support the bold?

Lursa said:

But if that's how you perceive it, surely you can understand that centuries of gay people might consider straight marriage, completely forbidden to them, as 'being rubbed in their faces?'

Click to expand...

Seems to me that among gay men in their 40s-50s, or at least the small number I have become acquainted with, that a prior marriage with children seems to be the norm as opposed to the exception. Most gays and their advocates will insist that this was societal oppression that pushed them into a marriage and kids. I think its instead men in their younger days valuing starting a family over sexual gratification, and now in their 40s and 50s with the family raised, sexual gratification rises on the value scale.

Lursa said:

Where did you find the bold? Equality under the Constitution stands alone, not requiring justification for serving (or not) govt interest.

Click to expand...

OK so how do you justify the discrimination between the married and unmarried? And what you bolded is basic equal protection law.


The rational basis test prohibits the government from imposing restrictions on liberty that are irrational or arbitrary, or drawing distinctions between persons in a manner that serves no constitutionally legitimate end.[13] While a "law enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons", it must nevertheless, at least, "bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose".[14]
Rational basis review - Wikipedia

Lursa said:

But again: who is now being discriminated against?

The 'closely related' couples angle has been exposed as not being discriminatory in nature.

.

Click to expand...

No, you've simply told us 5 times that it wasn't.

Wan said:

Calling it marriage is not the only way that gays can enjoy the same rights. We have give them civil union, and change laws so that all the legal concerns you raised no longer exist, and now both sides will be happy.

Click to expand...

OK, but I don't really care if the people who are hung up on "marriage" versus "civil unions" are happy. If they're the same thing, and someone is upset because teh gays get to call it 'marriage' just like we straight people, boo f'ing hoo for them. :boohoo:

JasperL said:

OK, but I don't really care if the people who are hung up on "marriage" versus "civil unions" are happy. If they're the same thing, and someone is upset because teh gays get to call it 'marriage' just like we straight people, boo f'ing hoo for them. :boohoo:

Click to expand...

Or maybe they not "upset". Maybe they simply refuse to go along with the new definition that gays have come up with for the word "marriage".

dixon01767 said:

Seems to me that among gay men in their 40s-50s, or at least the small number I have become acquainted with, that a prior marriage with children seems to be the norm as opposed to the exception. Most gays and their advocates will insist that this was societal oppression that pushed them into a marriage and kids. I think its instead men in their younger days valuing starting a family over sexual gratification, and now in their 40s and 50s with the family raised, sexual gratification rises on the value scale.

Click to expand...

Not sure how this amounts to 'rubbing people's faces into' anything.

These men...and women...in order to fit into society and find some happiness, married. And were family oriented and happily had and raised kids.

I see a method of survival here, a way of finding happiness in a society hostile to them. So I dont see a connection to what you responded to.

dixon01767 said:

OK so how do you justify the discrimination between the married and unmarried? And what you bolded is basic equal protection law.


The rational basis test prohibits the government from imposing restrictions on liberty that are irrational or arbitrary, or drawing distinctions between persons in a manner that serves no constitutionally legitimate end.[13] While a "law enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons", it must nevertheless, at least, "bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose".[14]
Rational basis review - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Ah..that's another subject. IMO legal marriage is not justifiable discrimination and it's not 'fair' that married couples are eligible for more benefits and tax breaks from the govt. But I do see some of the reasons for it, even if I disagree.

But I'm also not concerned enough about it to fight against it. Perhaps the next generation will care to do so. Or not.

dixon01767 said:

No, you've simply told us 5 times that it wasn't.

Click to expand...

Well there are none that I am aware of. I asked you as many times to prove that it is.

I cant prove the negative but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

Wan said:

Or maybe they not "upset". Maybe they simply refuse to go along with the new definition that gays have come up with for the word "marriage".

Click to expand...

That's fine with me if they don't "go along" with it, because it's not up to them to agree or not with who someone marries. I didn't ask anyone but my father in law for permission, and if he'd said no I'm sure I would have married my wife anyway. No one else's opinion mattered, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Furthermore, if they believe it's between one man and woman, good for them. Don't get gay married! I promise not to care, AT ALL, one way or the other what they decide! Cross my heart and all that!

What I really do not understand is why anyone cares who gets married. From where I sit, if it makes the couple happy, that is a positive for life here on earth. More happiness, more security, more content lives committed to loved ones - all those are good things, for them and for society, and try as I might I cannot figure out a way that two gay people committing to one another in 'marriage' recognized by the state harms me in the slightest!

JasperL said:

That's fine with me if they don't "go along" with it, because it's not up to them to agree or not with who someone marries.

Click to expand...

Except nobody is trying to tell gays who they can or cannot marry.

Furthermore, if they believe it's between one man and woman, good for them. Don't get gay married!

Click to expand...

Are you ok with some people pointing out that gays cannot marry (not legally speaking but rather, linguistically and philosophically speaking)?

What I really do not understand is why anyone cares who gets married. From where I sit, if it makes the couple happy, that is a positive for life here on earth. More happiness, more security, more content lives committed to loved ones - all those are good things, for them and for society, and try as I might I cannot figure out a way that two gay people committing to one another in 'marriage' recognized by the state harms me in the slightest!

Click to expand...

Are you saying you think laws should be based on increasing human happiness? Not saying this is wrong but the implication of it is that the government should make laws to give me a lot of money because that would increase my happiness.

Wan said:

Except nobody is trying to tell gays who they can or cannot marry.


Are you ok with some people pointing out that gays cannot marry (not legally speaking but rather, linguistically and philosophically speaking)?

Are you saying you think laws should be based on increasing human happiness? Not saying this is wrong but the implication of it is that the government should make laws to give me a lot of money because that would increase my happiness.

Click to expand...

Marriage should be abolished as a legal entity.

Wan said:

Except nobody is trying to tell gays who they can or cannot marry.

Click to expand...

Of course you are. You said you only wanted gays to have civil unions. That's not marriage.

dixon01767 said:

1.) I never suggested it was an argument against same sex marriage. That's you desperately grasping about for refuge in a strawman.
2.) It is an argument that gay marriage isn't about "equality", because first, marriage is purposeful discrimination written into the law between the married and unmarried. The opposite of "equality".
3.) And secondly because 50 states by law prohibit closely related couples from marrying while freely allowing couples who are not closely related to marry freely. Again, purposeful discrimination written into the law. The opposite of equality.

Click to expand...

1.) thats what this thread is about hence why YOUR claim is a straw man
2.) theres no argument against that, it was about equality and hence why equal rights were established on this issue. AGain your FEELINGS and straw men on this DO NOT MATTER . . no matter how much you went them to hence why your posts keep failing
3.) once again a meaningless straw man that has nothing to do with this thread.
thank you for again proving my point!
Maybe you should look for or start a thread called " i think closely related couples should be allowed to marry" . . related couples arent the topic of this thread please stay on topic

Please let us know when you can make your feelings and claims matter to facts, rights and legal marriage, thanks!

dixon01767 said:

I never suggested it was an argument against same sex marriage. That's you desperately grasping about for refuge in a strawman. It is an argument that gay marriage isn't about "equality", because first, marriage is purposeful discrimination written into the law between the married and unmarried. The opposite of "equality". And secondly because 50 states by law prohibit closely related couples from marrying while freely allowing couples who are not closely related to marry freely. Again, purposeful discrimination written into the law. The opposite of equality.

Click to expand...

I don't see how "marriage" is discrimination, purposeful or otherwise. It's a set of rights and associated obligations. Yes, it entitles some couples to tax benefits, but for the early years of our marriage, there was a 'marriage penalty' and we'd have been better off financially divorcing each Dec 31, filing as two single people, the remarrying New Year's day. There were perhaps apocryphal stories of couples doing that in Las Vegas each year, with the tax savings funding the trip. But there are rights associated with marriage, obviously, which are often if not always benefits, such as survivor benefits for SS or work pensions, or being able to enjoy 'family' insurance at work. But I'm also on the hook for my wife's debts and she mine in many cases!

Point is it's not all one sided. Ask a spouse stuck with alimony, or splitting assets, retirement plans, etc. at divorce. And it's available to any couple at this point, so who is the victim of this discrimination?

Also, not sure why you keep bringing up the closely related. If that's an injustice in your view, OK, fight it. Write your Congressman or state legislator or governor and work to get that changed! Good luck with your efforts! But the existence of a remaining injustice, if you believe it so, isn't an argument FOR or AGAINST SSM. The arguments pro or con exist independently of, are not affected by, how the law treats the closely related when it comes to marriage.

JasperL said:

OK, but I don't really care if the people who are hung up on "marriage" versus "civil unions" are happy. If they're the same thing, and someone is upset because teh gays get to call it 'marriage' just like we straight people, boo f'ing hoo for them. :boohoo:

Click to expand...

In California they had same sex unions identical to same sex marriages and the gays and their advocates boo hooed our constitutional rights are violated if we don't get the word marriage.