• 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!

[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Sonnet CXVI

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.​

Shakespeare's Sonnets
 
Angel said:
Hear, hear.
Click to expand...

There are secular rights involved with marriage such as tax laws and spousal privilege rights.
Marital rights can vary from state to state, however, most states recognize the following spousal rights: ... right to inherit spouse's property upon death. right to sue for spouse's wrongful death or loss of consortium, and. right to receive spouse's Social Security, pension, worker's compensation, or disability benefits.
Click to expand...
 
Lisa said:
There are secular rights involved with marriage such as tax laws and spousal privilege rights.
Click to expand...

They idea behind that is that married couples are likely to have children and that is a positive thing for our culture and society.

Offering a tax incentives... Which doesn't really exist anymore was to promote the formatting of a family.
 
CLAX1911 said:
They idea behind that is that married couples are likely to have children and that is a positive thing for our culture and society.

Offering a tax incentive... Which doesn't really exist anymore was to promote the formatting of a family.
Click to expand...

LGBT couples can have kids from former marriages and they can adopt.

Conservatives lost the fight in the courts so now they are looking for other avenues to deny LGBT couples equality to their own marriage, even if they have to destroy the idea of marriage in the process.
 
Angel said:
Hear, hear.
Click to expand...

There was a point in time when the involvement was a benefit to people. I think that ceased to be after the creation of no fault divorce. You know how government is, once they start collecting taxes which is what a marriage license is, they have a strong reluctance to stop.
 
Lisa said:
LGBT couples can have kids from former marriages and they can adopt.
Click to expand...
Of course, and they can do surrogacy. I've looked into all with my partner

Conservatives lost the fight in the courts so now they are looking for other avenues to deny LGBT couples equality to their own marriage, even if they have to destroy the idea of marriage in the process.
Click to expand...
To remove government involvement in marriage would make them all equal. Because the only thing that says you're married is you. You can be married to a man, a woman, multiple partners of either sex and it's absolutely equal under the law.

Legal marriage doesn't hold much value any more. It can be dissolved very easily, men and women are equal, there are no laws against adultery. I think about my state, Texas. They had a law on the books forbidding "homosexuality" they kept it even though it was unenforceable for breaking rights and they didn't stop recognizing marriage once the government forced them to recognize same-sex marriage because they like that money they get from marriage licenses.

That's the only reason why it's recognized today so that the government can take some money from you. All of the other reasons don't exist anymore.
 
CLAX1911 said:
There was a point in time when the involvement was a benefit to people. I think that ceased to be after the creation of no-fault divorce. You know how the government is, once they start collecting taxes which is what a marriage license is, they have a strong reluctance to stop.
Click to expand...

The idea that there is a fee to procure and then file a marriage license is not a tax.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Those all can absolutely exist independent of marriage.
Click to expand...

Some yes others not so much but it makes an easy convienent one stop covers all. No need to prove have multiple differnt rights jsut that you are married.
But for thigns like the right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse is granted by the govt through marraige not Something you can confger on another by yourself.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Of course, and they can do surrogacy. I've looked into all with my partner


To remove government involvement in marriage would make them all equal. Because the only thing that says you're married is you. You can be married to a man, a woman, multiple partners of either sex and it's absolutely equal under the law.

Legal marriage doesn't hold much value anymore. It can be dissolved very easily, men and women are equal, there are no laws against adultery. I think about my state, Texas. They had a law on the books forbidding "homosexuality" they kept it even though it was unenforceable for breaking rights and they didn't stop recognizing marriage once the government forced them to recognize same-sex marriage because they like that money they get from marriage licenses.

That's the only reason why it's recognized today so that the government can take some money from you. All of the other reasons don't exist anymore.
Click to expand...
They are all equal now, but polygamy is still banned because of Reynolds v. US. Secular civil marriage, which is a contract between 2 people, is different from religious matrimony and it always will be, because a religious ritual is not a constitutional right.

The government isn't making any money off of marriage.
Its the standard fee for a government document. This is what I hate about libertarian thought. Libertarian thoughts sees that everything is about money when it is not. If you can't afford the filing fee then just live together. It's an hour of time if you get married once in your life.

Lawerence v. Texas was decided on the legality of sodomy/homosexuality. That decision occurred in 2003
{{meta.fullTitle}}
 
Quag said:
Some yes others not so much but it makes an easy convienent one stop covers all.
Click to expand...
you could do that without the government recognizing it as a marriage. Contracts happen all the times that are recognized by the government.

No need to prove have multiple differnt rights jsut that you are married.
Click to expand...
you could prove that regardless of government recognition.
But for thigns like the right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse is granted by the govt through marraige not Something you can confger on another by yourself.
Click to expand...
that's a contract with the government over an easement and yes you can do that without government recognizing marriage it would work exactly the same way. Except the state wouldn't take money from you when you got married.
 
CLAX1911 said:
you could do that without the government recognizing it as a marriage. Contracts happen all the times that are recognized by the government.
Click to expand...
So its just the term you wanty to change? why bother it already exists.

you could prove that regardless of government recognition.
Click to expand...
Actually no if the govt doesnt recognize whatever contract youy make it isnt really valid

that's a contract with the government over an easement and yes you can do that without government recognizing marriage it would work exactly the same way. Except the state wouldn't take money from you when you got married.
Click to expand...

You would have to make a contract with the govt which they could refuse or take so much time that iot isnt doen before the owner dies.. Marraige alreqady has it included

Really marraige is a convient and cheap and comprehensive method of doing all thi . there is no Reason to remove it at all.
 
Lisa said:
They are all equal now, but polygamy is still banned
Click to expand...
if one of them is banned than they are not all equal.

because of Reynolds v. US. Secular civil marriage, which is a contract between 2 people, is different from religious matrimony and it always will be, because a religious ritual is not a constitutional right.
Click to expand...
neither is State recognition of marriage. we could throw away all this gibberish about civil marriage and legal marriage and Supreme Court's getting involved in s*** they have no business being involved in if we got rid of government involvement in marriage. they would then therefore all be equal which would mean none of them including polygamy would be banned.

The government isn't making any money off of marriage.
Click to expand...
so that money you pay when you get married to the government did it just burn that up in a ritual?


Its the standard fee for a government document.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I just guess I don't understand how collecting a fee in this case charging money is not making money that's the whole point of charging money for anything. They absolutely do make money that's why you give them money to do this. That's the whole point of giving the money so they can have that money.

This is what I hate about libertarian thought. Libertarian thoughts sees that everything is about money when it is not.
Click to expand...
collecting money in the form of licensing fees is absolutely all about money. Collecting money in exchange for anything is about money. This isn't a libertarian thought it's economy.

If you can't afford the filing fee then just live together. It's an hour of time if you get married once in your life.
Click to expand...
okay this is a strange comment. I wasn't talking about the fee because it's produces a hardship the fee is the reason for States recognizing marriage there are no other reasons you can't list any.

Let's say I contract with a customer to do a job I don't need the government involvement that. I don't need to pay a fee to the government I don't need a license to have this contract with this customer. if the customer doesn't pay for services rendered I can file a civil suit if I don't provide services that customer paid for the customer can file a civil suit.

What is the difference if we call the contract marriage other than the government making money on it?

Lawerence v. Texas was decided on the legality of sodomy/homosexuality. That decision occurred in 2003
{{meta.fullTitle}}
Click to expand...

I don't remember mentioning sodomy, tell him he has nothing to do with homosexuality oral and anal sex is sodomy.


I stated laws against homosexuality that we're still on the books when I was in Police academy and I graduated in 2013. I remember asking a friend who was an attorney about that.
 
Quag said:
So its just the term you wanty to change? why bother it already exists.
Click to expand...
No it's not just the term I don't care about the term. It's government interference. That's the only thing that ever existed that made marriage inequal. the government was the one that said we won't recognize same-sex marriages.


Actually no if the govt doesnt recognize whatever contract youy make it isnt really valid
Click to expand...
I don't remember having to get a government stamp of approval like a marriage license in order to get a loan or to have some dirt work done. in all of those cases and in every case where you have a contractor there is a contract that I didn't get government approval to enter into.



You would have to make a contract with the govt which they could refuse or take so much time that iot isnt doen before the owner dies.. Marraige alreqady has it included
Click to expand...
I'm not saying there wouldn't be a marriage of course there would be it's just that you didn't go to Mommy government and ask for permission and then pay them for the privilege.

It's the asking government for permission and then paying them for the privilege that's the problem that's the creator of all problems that ever existed with regards to marriage equality.

government was the one that said black people and white people can't get married. The government was the only one that said two same-sex people cannot get married to each other.

It's not about making sure that your spouse inherits your contracts it's about controlling people that's all it has ever been about.

Really marraige is a convient and cheap and comprehensive method of doing all thi . there is no Reason to remove it at all.
Click to expand...
I'm not in disagreement with that. The only thing I'm in disagreement with is having to ask the government for permission. The only reason you would it's because they get to choose who they deny permission to.

And that's the only reason it was ever instituted in the first place. It was designed to make sure you didn't violate any Christian morals.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No it's not just the term I don't care about the term. It's government interference. That's the only thing that ever existed that made marriage inequal. the government was the one that said we won't recognize same-sex marriages.
Click to expand...
Govt is the only thing that gives marriages any legal meaning. As to SSM they were wrong and it is now recognized.


I don't remember having to get a government stamp of approval like a marriage license in order to get a loan or to have some dirt work done. in all of those cases and in every case where you have a contractor there is a contract that I didn't get government approval to enter into.
Click to expand...
No but if you get into a dispute with your bank you go to court and if the court doesnt recognize whatever deal you have with them for whatever reason (I not dotted, signed in wrong place etc etc) then the deal is meaningless.



I'm not saying there wouldn't be a marriage of course there would be it's just that you didn't go to Mommy government and ask for permission and then pay them for the privilege.


It's the asking government for permission and then paying them for the privilege that's the problem that's the creator of all problems that ever existed with regards to marriage equality.
Click to expand...
So its because it cost money?
government was the one that said black people and white people can't get married. The government was the only one that said two same-sex people cannot get married to each other.
Click to expand...
False govt is the only one who said SSM was not legal. Many religious groups would not allow it either but religious marriage without legal status is just a themed party.

It's not about making sure that your spouse inherits your contracts it's about controlling people that's all it has ever been about.
Click to expand...
Govt doesn't control you with marriage, it confers rights and responsibilities on those who get married.


I'm not in disagreement with that. The only thing I'm in disagreement with is having to ask the government for permission. The only reason you would it's because they get to choose who they deny permission to.

And that's the only reason it was ever instituted in the first place. It was designed to make sure you didn't violate any Christian morals.
Click to expand...
Untrue, there are many non religious reasons for govt to be involved in marriage. For instance if you take a foreign spouse it can affect the their immigration status and the govt doesn't want people to use that as a loophole.
Despite the claims Dixon made about incestuous marriage when he was failing to make an argument there are non reproductive reasons to refuse a father/mother from marrying their child.
 
Quag said:
Govt is the only thing that gives marriages any legal meaning. As to SSM they were wrong and it is now recognized.



No but if you get into a dispute with your bank you go to court and if the court doesnt recognize whatever deal you have with them for whatever reason (I not dotted, signed in wrong place etc etc) then the deal is meaningless.




So its because it cost money?
Click to expand...
No it's because of government dictation of who you can and can't enter this one type of contract with.

False govt is the only one who said SSM was not legal. Many religious groups would not allow it either but religious marriage without legal status is just a themed party.
Click to expand...
This underscores my point. If the government has no say they wouldn't get to say and miraculously all discrimination evaporates.


Govt doesn't control you with marriage, it confers rights and responsibilities on those who get married.
Click to expand...
False, the contact does that. All the government does is pick and choose who gets to enter into this particular contract based on their moral view at that point and time.

I don't understand how you can argue for discrimination.



Untrue, there are many non religious reasons for govt to be involved in marriage. For instance if you take a foreign spouse it can affect the their immigration status and the govt doesn't want people to use that as a loophole.
Click to expand...
If they but out of the marriage contract, it doesn't effect immigration status, and the loop hole ceases to exist.

Government interference created that loop hole.
Despite the claims Dixon made about incestuous marriage when he was failing to make an argument there are non reproductive reasons to refuse a father/mother from marrying their child.
Click to expand...
No, there is no government interest in marriage what so ever anymore. Their involvement only fabricates problems and loopholes that vanish the second they butt out.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No it's because of government dictation of who you can and can't enter this one type of contract with.

This underscores my point. If the government has no say they wouldn't get to say and miraculously all discrimination evaporates.
Click to expand...
As I said the goct can have good reason to say who can and cant enter a marriage contract. The govt also has a say in non marriage contracts. Try to make a contract where you will give someone your liver if you dont repay a loan by a certain date. It will not be unpheld in court.


False, the contact does that. All the government does is pick and choose who gets to enter into this particular contract based on their moral view at that point and time.
Click to expand...
As shown it isn't just about any morality there are non moral reasons to restrict marriage. The racist and anti-gay ones have been removed.

understand how you can argue for discrimination.
Click to expand...
I am not, dont understand how you can ague against something that is beneficial and makes life easier for so many.



but out of the marriage contract, it doesn't effect immigration status, and the loop hole ceases to exist.

Government interference created that loop hole.
Click to expand...
Which makes life more difficult for those who marry foreigners and want to spend their life together in the USA.

re is no government interest in marriage what so ever anymore. Their involvement only fabricates problems and loopholes that vanish the second they butt out.
Click to expand...

Yes there is it is absurd and frankly requires willful ignorance to claim otherwise

But hey if you dont want to get married dont get married but dont s*** on everyone else because you are all butthurt about something that has no affect on your life whatsoever if you dont engage in it


There is no logical or even remotely decent emotional argument against legal marriage
 
Quag said:
As I said the goct can have good reason to say who can and cant enter a marriage contract.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying they can't.

The govt also has a say in non marriage contracts. Try to make a contract where you will give someone your liver if you dont repay a loan by a certain date. It will not be unpheld in court.
Click to expand...
But I still don't have to go to the government and say "Mommy may I please get a lone from this bank." I don't need a loan license to get a loan.





As shown it isn't just about any morality there are non moral reasons to restrict marriage. The racist and anti-gay ones have been removed.
Click to expand...
No they haven't been shown. You mentioned a loophole that only exists because of government interference. if they quit interfering that loophole would vanish.


I am not
Click to expand...
if you are arguing for government interference and marriage yes you are.

The only entity that was ever capable of discriminating against same-sex couples or interracial couples was the government.

They did it for decades. you are arguing for them to continue to have that power.

dont understand how you can ague against something that is beneficial and makes life easier for so many.
Click to expand...
I not. I never once argued against marriage contracts. I'm arguing against the requirement that you have to get the government stamp of approval. You don't have to for any other contract that doesn't involve the government as a contractor or contract holder.




Which makes life more difficult for those who marry foreigners and want to spend their life together in the USA.
Click to expand...
I don't think you need to ask Mommy to marry a foreigner. You just say you're married the way it should be for everyone.



Yes there is it is absurd and frankly requires willful ignorance to claim otherwise
Click to expand...
why because you insist? You go on and tell me the benefit to the people I'm having to ask Mommy if you can enter a contract that doesn't involve them.


You keep referencing the marriage contract which doesn't require me to get permission. I don't have to go ask Mommy to get a loan for a car.

But hey if you dont want to get married dont get married but dont s*** on everyone else because you are all butthurt about something that has no affect on your life whatsoever if you dont engage in it
Click to expand...
this statement means you don't understand the argument.

I am not arguing against marriage. For the ninth ****ing time. I'm arguing against having to go get Mommy's permission. I don't have to do that with any other contract.

if I say I shouldn't have to have a car loan license to get a loan for a car I want to buy that's not saying nobody should buy cars. That saying I should be able to do it on my own without having to ask the government for.

The only reason you would have to ask the government for permission to marry somebody it's still they can tell you no.


There is no logical or even remotely decent emotional argument against legal marriage
Click to expand...
full and 100% agreement from me that's why I'm not arguing against illegal marriage.

If I enter a marriage contract with someone whether I ask mommy's permission or not it's still illegal contract just like a ****ing loan. and I can't believe I'm having to say this again but I know you're going to ignore it unless I repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over because you have up to this point.

I don't have to go get from the government a loan license to enter a loan agreement. if I get a loan to buy a car from the Bank of America that's a legal agreement and it's binding.

The only difference is I didn't have to go up to the magistrate and beg for them to let me please please please please please marry my spouse.

It was that threshold alone that caused every single bit of discrimination throughout the United States history.

But I have to go to Mommy and say mommy may I. And then pay them for the pleasure, that is designed to discriminate that's all it was ever for. can make sure them damn whites and blacks weren't marrying each other, because that's a sin unto the Lord. And once that was changed to keep them damn homos from marrying.

that's the only reason it ever existed you can't list another one.
 
Somerville said:
With the recent news from Brunei about imposing the death penalty on gays and adulterers, I've been wondering just what is the justification fo opposing gay marriage. Why do some people really hate homosexuals, whether male or female?

Here's a list of arguments against same sex marriage that I found on the internets:
  2. It requires a new definition of marriage
  3. Not the same as laws that prohibited mixed race marriages
  4. Marriage is meant to increase population
  5. Infringes upon some peoples' religion freedom
  6. Rights are granted by God and He doesn't like gay marriage
  7. Morality comes from God and He doesn't like the gays
  8. Acceptance of gay marriage will lead to incest and paedophilia
  9. Homosexuals are unhealthy – that whole AIDS thing, you know.
  10. Allowing gay marriage will cause societal collapse, as other immoral behaviour becomes more accepted.
Click to expand...

GLBT are mental illnesses
 
Elvira said:
Makes no difference to me what other people do or how they live...I abide by God's laws regardless...
Click to expand...

Bingo!!!!

Canada has had gay marriage for more than 15 years now. It's had no impact on us straight folks at all.

It requires a new definition of marriage

Replace "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman . . . " to "Marriage is the union between two consenting adults". Whew, that was hard!

Not the same as laws that prohibited mixed race marriages

Two people who love each other can't get married because some religious people object. Can you see a difference? Looks exactly the same to me.

Marriage is meant to increase population

So why are people who are sterile or infertile allowed to marry? I'm 70 years old and I'm long past the age of having children, but I can get married.

Infringes upon some peoples' religion freedom

No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, if you believe it's wrong. No one is forcing your church to marry gays if your faith prohibits gay marriage. Gay marriage is absolutely no infringment whatsoever on your religious freedom. You are free to marry or not, according to your beliefs.

Rights are granted by God and He doesn't like gay marriage

Marriage is a legal concept which ascribes rights and privileges to married couples, which are denied unmarried couples. Your legal spouse, is considered to be your "next of kin" in all family related business and legal matters. Your spouse cannot be forced to testify against you in a court of law. Your spouse is your primary beneficiary if you die without a will, and if you are incapable of making medical decisions on your own behalf, your spouse is the first person to be consulted. If you are unmarried, your parents are your rightful heirs and decision makers, and therein is the biggest reason why gay marriage is necessary.

Before gay marriage, it was not uncommon for the parents of gays or lesbians to turn up at the hospital as their child lay dying, claim parental authority over their care, and banish their partner and friends from the hospital. There are cases where the lesbian mother of young children has died of cancer, and the woman's parents have taken the child away from the non-biological mother, and banned her from contact with the children. The children lose both their parents. Marriage places the spouse in the decision making position, in a way that no co-habitation agreement could ever do. It ensures that any children the couple has or adopts, will remain with their surviving parent, if that is their biological parents' desire.

Morality comes from God and He doesn't like the gays

If God doesn't like gays, why did he create them? There are same sex relationships in all races and cultures, and right across the animal kingdom as well. Why would God make so many of something he doesn't like?

Acceptance of gay marriage will lead to incest and paedophilia

It hasn't happened in Canada, or anywhere else where gay marriage has been legalized.

Homosexuals are unhealthy – that whole AIDS thing, you know.

In Africa, AIDS killed the straight people. Entire villages filled with elderly people and children. All of the sexually active people were dead from AIDS. In North America, it started in the gay population, with one very promisculous gay fight attendant, who flew from city to city where he had sex with as many men as possible. The first 50 cases of AIDS in North America can be traced back to this one man. Patient Zero.

Fear and homophobia kept health officials from doing anything about this strange new disease which seemed to be affecting gay men. The US goverment spent millions on the causes of and a cure for Legionaires' disease which killed 221 veterans in Philadelphia - a 1-time outbreak. It spent almost nothing on the nearly 1000 deaths of young gay men across the nation. Even when epidemiologists were convinced that the disease was transferred through an exchange of bodily fluids during sex, they didn't warn gars to wear condoms because that would be seen as the government condoning gay sex.

The whole AIDS epidemic could have been contained very quickly if the government and the CDC had spent any amount of money on the disease when gay men first started dying, and had been able to have an open, honest and frank conversation infections, transmission and how to prevent it, simply as a matter of public health.

Allowing gay marriage will cause societal collapse, as other immoral behaviour becomes more accepted.

Canada is still standing. If anything, our society is stronger because our gay friends and famiy members are no longer hiding in the shadows, afraid of being outed, or fired, or shunned or disowned.
 
jondo said:
GLBT are mental illnesses
Click to expand...

Medical/psych professionals say otherwise. It would be in their financial interest to say it is a mental illness because they could bill people many hours on the couch and prescribe them meds to treat it but there is nothing to suggest that LGBT people are mentally ill so that diagnosis is both unethical and not scientifically supported.

Religious belief is a psychological delusion because there is zero empirical evidence that any sentient religious creator has ever existed.
 
Angel said:
Whatever arguments there are against marriage itself must apply to same-sex marriage, one would suppose.
Are there arguments against marriage itself?
Divorce rates being what they are, I would be surprised if there weren't cogent arguments against marriage itself.
Click to expand...
Just remember, overall divorce rates can never exceed marriage rate. We can only get that by looking at a small moment of time. After all to get divorced one must first get married. And since there are plenty of people staying married for life, or at least till death of one, marriage will always exceed divorce.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom