• 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

CLAX1911 said:
yes the government says who's capable of entering a contract.

You can't enter contact if your under the age of 18. Are mentally incapable due to age or severe mental defect. Those laws were put into place to protect people from predatory conduct.

You will have to explain how my arguments are based on emotion for me to answer. Currently I doubt that claim.
Click to expand...

Emotion is all Im getting from you.
But please tell me who is the govt preventing from getting married aside from those cases I mentioned?
 
dixon01767 said:
Simple and didnt cost a dime here in Texas as we havent changed our laws, they simply arent enforced. Likely would be the same if some court case held the exclusion of closely related couples to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

In what universe is not changing or not enforcing a law the same as creating a law?
 
dixon01767 said:
Lovely family down the street from me made up of widowed mother, three kids and her mother, the childrens grandmother. Been living together for over a decade. Grandma is the stay at home parent and contributes to monthly expenses. Own their house jointly. Have complimentary wills, grandmother has adopted the kids. How would them being married for the benefit of the kids be abuse?
Click to expand...

What benefit is there in marriage in that scenario?
The children already have legal status
Now if you go back and read what I said didn't say they should never be allowed but that they must prove that thee is no abuse. I think for the number of cases that are involved (virtually zero) that is not asking too much

Still waiting for you tio make an actual augment against SSM
 
dixon01767 said:
Im asking the others since you can't seem to come up with an answer. How would extend marriage to any "two consenting adults" be paying lip service to people who think the word marriage is magic? Would seem to be precisely the opposite.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't marriage be extended to two consenting adults instead of just heterosexuals? If you disagree with Obergfell v. Hodges then what is either the person or social downside to LGBT marriage equality? Why do you care that 2 consenting adults get married?

Did you also have a problem when marriage was extended to people of different races in the Loving v. Virginia decision?

Conservatives claim to support personal freedom but they want to give corporations and lobbyists a pass but they have no problem enforcing their own religious beliefs in the bedrooms and reproductive tracts of adults. Are you jealous of LGBT couples? Why does it seem that corporations have more rights than people do in the GOP?
 
dixon01767 said:
Im asking the others since you cant seem to come up with an answer. How would extending marriage to any "two consenting adults" be paying lip service to people who thinks the word marriage is magic? Would seem to be precisely the opposite.
Click to expand...

and I'm telling you you have to follow the conversation to know what people are talking about.
 
Quag said:
Emotion is all Im getting from you.
Click to expand...
so it's an emotion and not a fact that the government discriminated against people in marriag? Really?
But please tell me who is the govt preventing from getting married aside from those cases I mentioned?
Click to expand...
interracial couples same-sex couples, polygamist groups what business does the government have with this?
 
CLAX1911 said:
so it's an emotion and not a fact that the government discriminated against people in marriag? Really?
interracial couples same-sex couples, polygamist groups what business does the government have with this?
Click to expand...

Government doesn't stop interracial marriage or SSM. As to polygamy that is another kettle of fish. Marriage is between 2 people add more and it gets more complex, the more you add the more complex it becomes. Current laws cannot accommodate polygamy, we would need new laws and I think the complexity would be far beyond any current lawmakers to even come close to doing.
Ex. power of attorney if there is a disagreement who decides? Who gets the SS benefits? etc etc.
 
Quag said:
Government doesn't stop interracial marriage or SSM.
Click to expand...
Yes they did.
As to polygamy that is another kettle of fish. Marriage is between 2 people add more and it gets more complex, the more you add the more complex it becomes.
Click to expand...
no it's just another group of people they discriminate against.

Current laws cannot accommodate polygamy, we would need new laws and I think the complexity would be far beyond any current lawmakers to even come close to doing.
Click to expand...
remove the caveat of asking the government permission and then all the complexities and the needs for laws disappear.
Ex. power of attorney if there is a disagreement who decides? Who gets the SS benefits? etc etc.
Click to expand...
Courts decide, and the rest of the people involved in the group marriage would get the SS benefits. That is not a problem.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Yes they did.
Click to expand...
DID is past tense. the govt doesnt present tense (hence my claim of emotion not argument)


no it's just another group of people they discriminate against.

remove the caveat of asking the government permission and then all the complexities and the needs for laws disappear.

Courts decide, and the rest of the people involved in the group marriage would get the SS benefits. That is not a problem.
Click to expand...

Again you insanity doenst work there is no legal mechanism to confer those rights given by the state despite your incessant and false claim that they can
remove govt then marriage is meaningless legally speaking and anyone can claim to be married to the moon and be as legally factual as anyone couple married by the Pope.

You are advocating the end of marriage as anything meaningful because it doesn't accommodate polygamy when what you should be advocating for is that it include polygamy but IO have no doubt you will find that very difficult to sort out.
 
Quag said:
DID is past tense.
Click to expand...
so what? They were the ones responsible. They proved they couldn't handle this for 200 years. Why do you insist they stay in charge?

the govt doesnt present tense (hence my claim of emotion not argument)
Click to expand...
they only stopped because the federal government forced them to. and all it takes is the right Supreme Court justices to force it back. That's not an emotion that's reality.

you are saying my argument is emotional because you can't argue against it.




Again you insanity doenst work there is no legal mechanism to confer those rights given by the state
Click to expand...
rights aren't given by the state.

despite your incessant and false claim that they can
remove govt then marriage is meaningless legally speaking
Click to expand...
just like loans or mortgages. those are completely meaningless because you don't have to ask the government for permission to enter into a loan contract with anyone else.

They're completely unenforceable that's why there's absolutely no civil law.

You can't be this ridiculous.

and anyone can claim to be married to the moon and be as legally factual as anyone couple married by the Pope.
Click to expand...
how many bank loans are granted to the Moon? How many cell phone contacts has the moon signed?

I don't remember having to ask the government permission to enter in a contract with T-Mobile.

You are advocating the end of marriage as anything meaningful
Click to expand...
this is the stupidest argument you keep trying to pull over on me you are wrong.

I'm advocating for marriage to be a contract without the necessity for government permission just like a loanor a mortgage or the contract you signed with your cell phone company.

Are all those meaningless?

because it doesn't accommodate polygamy when what you should be advocating for is that it include polygamy but IO have no doubt you will find that very difficult to sort out.
Click to expand...
I'm advocating that the government no longer have the power to discriminate. advocating for them to have the power to discriminate As You Are would it be the opposite of what I'm advocating for.

So I can gather three things from this discussion with you you have no idea what a contact does and how they're enforced. you haven't an earthly clue what my argument is. And you insist that you do know despite the fact that you consistently get it wrong.

It's like talking to a brick wall.
 
Angel said:
Eighteen months in Belief and Skepticism followed by six months in Abortion prompt a weary "hear, hear" from this member.
Click to expand...

He won't acknowledge the argument he keeps saying the argument is something that it's not. And he makes ridiculous arguments against point I didn't make
 
dixon01767 said:
Marriage ONLY obligates a man who is married to the woman who gives birth.
Click to expand...

Quag said:
WTF does that even mean?
Click to expand...

What part dont you understand. Every state has laws similiar to this.

Sec. 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;

It doesnt obligate a woman to provide and care for a child, doesnt obligate a man married to a man. It ONLY obligates a man, married to the woman who gives birth.
 
Quag said:
In what universe is not changing or not enforcing a law the same as creating a law?
Click to expand...

Im demonstrating there is no need to create new law so its simple and no cost.
 
Quag said:
What benefit is there in marriage in that scenario?
Click to expand...

One would be the same as in the Windsor case that ruled DOMA unconstitutional. Exemption from estate taxes when one dies. And it would have eliminated the need for the mutual wills and joint ownership of the house.
 
Lisa said:
Why shouldn't marriage be extended to two consenting adults instead of just heterosexuals?
Click to expand...

I am the one suggesting that marriage be extended to ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS as opposed to only extending it to homosexual couples.
 
CLAX1911 said:
and I'm telling you you have to follow the conversation to know what people are talking about.
Click to expand...

I know what people are talking about and still no one is talking about How would extending marriage to any "two consenting adults" be paying lip service to people who thinks the word marriage is magic? Would seem to be precisely the opposite.

Whats that now, three times youve taken the time to respond to my question without answering the question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom