• 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

SDET said:
Destroying the nuclear family will facilitate making the state become the guardian of children.
Click to expand...
Most of the GBLTQIAFS community don't have children except for those they adopt, who were probably in the foster system to start with.
 
Crusader13 said:
The problem most rational people have with gay marriage is that it has and will continue to tread dangerously on religious rights. This was initially washed away as a "slippery-slope" or "fear-mongering" argument, but nobody can deny many of them haven't come to fruition.

First and foremost is that a morally grounded society cannot encourage or facilitate homosexuality. The medical data is clear on this. It's a dangerously unhealthy lifestyle for the individual and carries a high risk of depression, STD, HIV, among other things. To counter the usual explanation for this, there is no clear link between treatment of gays and overall mental health of said gays (otherwise, gays in ultra-liberal places would in a constant state of euphoria given how much homosexuality is glorified in these places). To add to this, there is the tendency of gay individuals to act in a very certain way (upright posture, strutting buttock, forced accent and lisp etc), as well as for gay couples to often delegate the role of dedicated male and female among each partner, indicating that there is more here than simply a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a state of confusion and embodiment of mental tendencies which should be addressed and controlled, not celebrated.

Further, the bigger issue with this is that almost all major religions (which, like it or not are here to stay) condemn homosexuality. Followers of said religions should have the right to uphold these religious beliefs. That means if I choose not to take part in a gay wedding, the government should not be able to force me to do so, anymore than the government cannot force an atheist to attend mass or a Muslim to eat pork. That's a violation of religious freedom. So while I don't directly have a problem with what gays do in their own personal lives, I do have a problem when they try to destroy my livelihood because what I do in my own personal life. What ever happened to live and let live or tolerance, the staples of the gay movement? They went out the window as soon as gays gained a voice.

Then there's the issue of gay adoption, which is clear-cut child abuse. Should I pass away tomorrow and have nobody but the State to care for my children, I should have the right to mandate that my kids, born of a religious bond between a man and a woman, are not put into the care of a gay couple. Given the blatantly extreme hostility the gay movement has taken against religious people and their views, you cannot convince me that a gay couple would accept my 12 year old religious son. They would convince him that his views are wrong and that there's something wrong with him and needs to change, which ironically is the exact same thing gays have claimed makes them depressed when their own family does.

All of these moral dilemmas, which clearly impede on the rights of religious people, have been destroyed in favour of glorifying homosexuality. Excuse my willingness to think that more of my rights will be impeded as gays continue to dominate the mainstream political spaces. When the government has resorted to holding Christian businesses at gunpoint to make a gay marriage their business, I have little faith left that this movement has anything to do with love, tolerance, acceptance, diversity, or any of the other words adopted by the gay movement.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but youre putting alot of opinion out here without any basis or facts. As a gay person im in shock at the amount of stereotyping being done. All of your statements are VERY old and outdated. Assigning a man and woman in the relationship? Some people choose that, but most now have become comfortable enough to say we are just how we like each other. Right and wrong, black or white, theres always a blurry line between our opinions on how to be a good human. But deep down, you KNOW if youve lived up to being a good human, and it has nothing to do with your sexuality. How about compassion, respect, community involvement, mentorship? I hope you are doing everything you possibly can to contribute to this earth and its inhabitants.
 
Rich2018 said:
So basically thee aren't any.
Click to expand...

Correct there were no good reasons against "gay marriage" and there were no laws against "gay marriage". The law didnt concern itself with the sexual orientation of the parties.
 
dixon01767 said:
Correct there were no good reasons against "gay marriage" and there were no laws against "gay marriage". The law didn't concern itself with the sexual orientation of the parties.
Click to expand...

Did you forget about DOMA?
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

The act's provisions were ruled unconstitutional or left effectively unenforceable by Supreme Court decisions in the cases of United States v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).
Click to expand...
 
Lisa said:
Did you forget about DOMA?
Click to expand...

DOMA was not a law against "gay marriage". Even when it was in force, gays were marrying because there was no law against gay marriage.
 
dixon01767 said:
DOMA was not a law against "gay marriage". Even when it was in force, gays were marrying because there was no law against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

It prohibited them from receiving the equal benefits that us heterosexuals enjoyed. There were also state-level DOMA laws the prohibited LGBT marriage. Thre Ohio DOMA law was the subject of Jim Oberfgells suit that ultimately went to the SCOTUS and overturned them nationwide.

What is it about LGBT marriage or equal rights for LGBT people that bother you? Should they be forced to remain, second class citizens, because some people are ignorant homophobic bigots who hide behind their hypocritical religious beliefs?
The term "white evangelicals" is just a 20th-century euphemism for Dixiecrats. These bigots are still trying to fight both the US Civil War and the inquisition.
 
Lisa said:
It prohibited them from receiving the equal benefits that us heterosexuals enjoyed. .
Click to expand...

Yes. Limiting Federal benefits to opposite sex couples. The intent was to include all opposite sex couples, not exlude gays.
 
dixon01767 said:
Yes. Limiting Federal benefits to opposite-sex couples. The intent was to include all opposite-sex couples, not exclude gays.
Click to expand...

Limiting benefits to heteros couples automatically excludes LGBT people, or don't you see that obvious fact? Why should LGBT people be treated differently, despite the 14th Amendment?
 
Lisa said:
Limiting benefits to heteros couples automatically excludes LGBT people, or don't you see that obvious fact? .......
Click to expand...

There was no limitation to heteros and there was no exclusion of gays. The law was unconcerned with the sexual orientation of either of the individuals. AND of the handful of gay men I know in their 50s and 60s, MOST were previously married and have several kids. Nothing excluded them.
 
dixon01767 said:
There was no limitation to heteros and there was no exclusion of gays. The law was unconcerned with the sexual orientation of either of the individuals. AND of the handful of gay men I know in their 50s and 60s, MOST were previously married and have several kids. Nothing excluded them.
Click to expand...

DOMA laws did discriminate against LGBT couples. If it limited benefits to married hetero couples then is absolutely discriminated against LGBT couples because they are not being treated equally by the government where marriage is concerned. This is not permitted by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
If they were previously married as heteros then the law discriminated against LGBT couples because they lost those benefits when they were not heterosexuals. How do you not see this very obvious idea, unless you don't want to admit what is staring you in the face because you don't think that LGBT couples deserve the same secular rights as heterosexuals?
 
Trident said:
Most of the GBLTQIAFS community don't have children except for those they adopt, who were probably in the foster system to start with.
Click to expand...
Actually many have them quite naturally, before looking at IVF. Keep in mind that because one is sexually attracted to a given gender, it doesn't automatically mean they are repulsed by sex with the other. So of course bi's having no problem having kids, but many gays will hook up with opposite sexed people, usually ones they know and trust, for the purpose of having kids. Not to mention those who lie to themselves and try to make a heterosexual relationship work and have kids that way.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Lisa said:
DOMA laws did discriminate against LGBT couples. If it limited benefits to married hetero couples .....
Click to expand...

Limited to opposite sex couples. The law was unconcerned with the sexual orientation of the individuals. The millions of self identified "homosexuals" who used to be married to someone of the opposite sex evidences this.
 
maquiscat said:
Actually many have them quite naturally, before looking at IVF. Keep in mind that because one is sexually attracted to a given gender, it doesn't automatically mean they are repulsed by sex with the other. So of course bi's having no problem having kids, but many gays will hook up with opposite sexed people, usually ones they know and trust, for the purpose of having kids. Not to mention those who lie to themselves and try to make a heterosexual relationship work and have kids that way.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh I dont think they lie to themselves. I think in earlier life starting a family takes precedence over sexual gratification. After that, sexual gratification becomes top priority. .
 
dixon01767 said:
Limited to opposite-sex couples. The law was unconcerned with the sexual orientation of the individuals. The millions of self-identified "homosexuals" who used to be married to someone of the opposite sex evidence this.
Click to expand...
Those people were in the closet.

If the benefits are limited to opposite-sex couples then LGBT people are being discriminated against because they do not receive the same benefits. How many times does this need to be explained to you? The government cannot treat married couples differently because of their creed, gender race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. This is the basis of the 14th's Equal Protection Clause that mandates equal treatment for all under the law.

Why do you support hetero couples enjoying a benefit that was denied to them until the Windsor or Oberfgell decisions?
 
Lisa said:
Those people were in the closet.

If the benefits are limited to opposite-sex couples then LGBT people are being discriminated against because they do not receive the same benefits.
Click to expand...

Actually its discrimination against any two people who would choose to marry someone of the same sex. Two heterosexual of the same sex would equally be excluded. I know, youve convinced your self that this whole husband/wife, Father/Mother thing is a nefarious plot to exclude homosexuals, to "disparage and injure" homosexuals, but it was never any such thing. Do you think marriages limitation to just one per person is all a nefarious plot to disparage and injure Mormons? or is it discrimination against ANY TWO PEOPLE who might choose to have more than one marriage?
 
Lisa said:
Why do you support hetero couples enjoying a benefit that was denied to them until the Windsor or Oberfgell decisions?
Click to expand...

As a small government Republican, I could tolerate government discrimination between the married and unmarried, to improve the wellbeing of children that only opposite sex couplings produce. I do have a problem discriminating between the married and unmarried so gays can feel better about their homosexuality.
 
dixon01767 said:
As a small government Republican, I could tolerate government discrimination between the married and unmarried, to improve the wellbeing of children that only opposite sex couplings produce. I do have a problem discriminating between the married and unmarried so gays can feel better about their homosexuality.
Click to expand...
I will give you this. If marriage was legally define as being about children, AND those incapable of having children were denied marriage, including elderly and sterile people, then it would indeed be legitimate under the equal protection clause. But without that, then legal marriage denied to any two adults violated that clause.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
I will give you this. If marriage was legally define as being about children, AND those incapable of having children were denied marriage, including elderly and sterile people, then it would indeed be legitimate under the equal protection clause. But without that, then legal marriage denied to any two adults violated that clause.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Marriage was concerned with including ALL who might produce a child and had no concern for excluding anyone. We dont know which couples will procreate. We do know that all who do will be couples of the opposite sex. Its over inclusive because we dont know which couples will procreate and would be intrusive and expensive for government to try to determine who does have the potential. The concern wasnt married people not procreating. The only concern was unmarried couples doing so.
And then you have the additional problem of 1000s of years of religious and societal prohibitions of sex outside of marriage and your government denying marriage to those couples who are too old or infertile to procreate. There was a time where many states criminalized sex outside of marriage or cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex that you arent married to. The law required mariage fo people of the opposite sex and never did so for the same sex.
 
dixon01767 said:
Marriage was concerned with including ALL who might produce a child and had no concern for excluding anyone.
Click to expand...
Nope, marriage isn't about having children, there are provisions if children occur but that isn't the reason for marriage
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
Nope, marriage isn't about having children, there are provisions if children occur but that isn't the reason for marriage
Click to expand...

Agreed. But it also proves that the main reason close relatives were refused marriage privileges was due to reproductive concerns and not some imagined inequality leading to discrimination. (his stance in previous posts).

Those reproductive concerns may not be valid today, but there were at the time the laws were initiated.
 
dixon01767 said:
Marriage was concerned with including ALL who might produce a child and had no concern for excluding anyone. We don't know which couples will procreate. We do know that all who do will be couples of the opposite sex. It's over-inclusive because we don't know which couples will procreate and would be intrusive and expensive for the government to try to determine who does have the potential. The concern wasn't married people not procreating. The only concern was unmarried couples doing so.
And then you have the additional problem of 1000s of years of religious and societal prohibitions of sex outside of marriage and your government denying marriage to those couples who are too old or infertile to procreate. There was a time where many states criminalized sex outside of marriage or cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex that you arent married to. The law required Mariage fo people of the opposite sex and never did so for the same sex.
Click to expand...
Change is a constant so what happened in the past is irrelevant. I was married in the later 1980s and we were never asked about whether we were going to have children.


If marriage was about having children then why aren't heterosexual couples asked if they plan to start a family? There would also be a fertility test and women or men who are infertile do not receive the benefit if marriage is about procreation. Do older couples where the woman has experienced menopause still get the same financial benefits that you could d are about having children?
Religious beliefs and marriage do not intertwine in the eyes of the government or what rights we have.
 
Quag said:
Nope, marriage isn't about having children, there are provisions if children occur but that isn't the reason for marriage
Click to expand...

Yes, by judicial declaration marriage now has nothing to do with procreation. Thats why prohibiting two sisters from marying because they might procreate and produce genetic defects is unconstitutiomnal discrimination
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom