• 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

dixon01767 said:
Same reason they were excluded from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century. Only men and women have the potential of procreation. And they all had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

Why would an LGBT person want to marry someone of the opposite sex, when that would be entering into a contract under false pretenses? That is the same intellectually dishonest claim as saying the black and white people could have married a person of the same race, and as such interracial marriage bans should not have been overturned in Loving v. Virginia. Do you want to ban interfaith marriages because they can marry someone of the same religion?

It is a waste of time trying to have a conversation with you because of your intellectual dishonesty.
 
dixon01767 said:
The widowed mother of three and her mother, the grandmother of the children down the street from me have been together for over a decade raising the children together. Grandmother has adopted the kids, they own the house in a joint tenancy, have mutual wills. If closely related marriage were made legal I suspect that would be the most common form. And do you honestly think there are closely related couples out there refraining from having sex with each other because they cant get married? And would do so only if they were allowed to marry? Absurd. Withholding marriage from gays for 100s of years of our history didn't stop them from engaging in sex. And I don't think any more are engaged in sexual relations now that they can get married. MARK
Click to expand...

Why should those relationships be considered a marriage? You are arguing from 3 different points of view and none of them are consistent.
 
dixon01767 said:
Same age limit as to any marriage.Whats your issue with two younger sisters marrying? And what train wreck do you imagine? Same sex marriages are something like 1/2 of 1% of all marriages and suspect closely related marriages would be about the same small rate. States would simply stop denying marriages of closely related couples just as state simply stopped denying same sex marriages.
Click to expand...

Precedent.

Once you allow two sisters to marry, what's to stop siblings of different genders?

Ah you say limit the rule/law to two siblings of the same gender and right away your law contradicts sexual equality legislation and lawyers have a field day and there's your bureaucratic train wreck.
 
dixon01767 said:
I dont think you suggested any such thing. You are the one clinging to the old testament prohibition against the closely related marrying. Im the one who thinks it should be eliminated from our secular law.
Click to expand...

no, it's not a religious objection, merely a practical and legal one.
 
I struggle to understand why straight people have such an issue with this. If you put your (key word your) word of god down, and spent any time with gay people, youd realize its just like anything else. We all have these abstract ideals overhead but we all share the same day to day life, and can connect over that. I promise you of all the traits and qualities i have, not one person im acquainted with would cherrypick my "gayness" as my signature characteristic. Im a daughter, a sister, a lover, a friend, a taxpayer, a military member, an advocate for children in the systrm, a productive member of society, the list goes on. I dont know anyone who simply bonds over their choice of sexual partner, that would be absurd. So whether youre for gay marriage or not, please remember that we all work hard, deserve love, and make powerful impressions on those around us.
 
whatisanopinion said:
I struggle to understand why straight people have such an issue with this. If you put your (key word your) word of god down, and spent any time with gay people, youd realize its just like anything else. We all have these abstract ideals overhead but we all share the same day to day life, and can connect over that. I promise you of all the traits and qualities i have, not one person im acquainted with would cherrypick my "gayness" as my signature characteristic. Im a daughter, a sister, a lover, a friend, a taxpayer, a military member, an advocate for children in the systrm, a productive member of society, the list goes on. I dont know anyone who simply bonds over their choice of sexual partner, that would be absurd. So whether youre for gay marriage or not, please remember that we all work hard, deserve love, and make powerful impressions on those around us.
Click to expand...
If you wish to avoid the very thing you criticize, you'll want to say simply "some people," not "straight people," yes?
Welcome to the forum.
 
Lisa said:
Why would an LGBT person want to marry someone of the opposite sex, ....
Click to expand...


Dont know many gay guys but of the handful I do know in their 40s -50s most all used to be married to a woman and had kids. Id theorize that for a younger man, starting a family takes precedence over sexual gratification. Once the kids are raised sexual gratification takes precedence.
 
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...

1. I do not think it needs a new definition of marriage, it just needs religious and conservatives to agree that marriage is more than just a religious construct but also a civil/societal construct under which 2 loving adults who are free to choose and both freely willing to enter in a union of 2 people, get hitched and live as a married couple.

2. it may not be exactly the same as banning mixed race marriages, but it still was used to keep 2 loving people from getting hitched.

3. if marriage is only meant to increase the population, it would mean no elderly couple have the knot tied because they cannot have children. I think this claim that it is meant to increase population is religious claptrap.

4. and why exactly would it infringe on religious freedom? Nobody is being forced to marry into a gay relationship and no church can be forced to hold such unions.

5. ooh come on, rights are granted by constitutions and laws, not by imaginary sky creatures. We make our laws, not gods.

6. You do know that incest and pedophiles are rampant, and as a lot of incest and pedophiles are straight and abusing someone of the other sex, this reason is total nonsense.

7. homosexuals are not unhealthy. Most gays will never have the whole "aids" thing.

8. gay marriage in the Netherlands has now been going strong for 18 years since 2001, and last time I checked our society is going strong.

All the reasons on the internet are totally far fetched nonsense.
 
Lisa said:
Why should those relationships be considered a marriage? .
Click to expand...

Well, now that marriage has been declared to be unrelated to procreation and is now instead to help form stable homes, and since there are probably 10 times as many households made up of a single adult parent and a single grandparent, than there are homes made up of a gay couple, what possible justification would there be to exclude them? Cant selectively hold on to your silly, old testament prohibitions.
 
Lisa said:
You have danced around like Fred Astaire for the past 20 pages while not making any legally sufficient arguments.

Just once why don't you come out and say that in 15-20 years time, what will be the negative aspect of LGBT marriage that would be sufficient to repeal it or modify it? I understand that some people e are resistant to change because they don't understand it and that there are some people who ignorantly want the state to ignore the First Amendment and enforce Christian dogma beliefs as secular law.
Click to expand...

That would be you clinging to your silly old testament prohibition against the closely related marrying. Im the atheist arguing that marriage should be extended to any two consenting adults.
 
dixon01767 said:
Well, now that marriage has been declared to be unrelated to procreation and is now instead to help form stable homes, and since there are probably 10 times as many households made up of a single adult parent and a single grandparent, than there are homes made up of a gay couple, what possible justification would there be to exclude them? Cant selectively hold on to your silly, old testament prohibitions.
Click to expand...

Marriage has not "now" been declared to be unrelated to procreation. Procreation was never a prerequisite of marriage
 
dixon01767 said:
Well, now that marriage has been declared to be unrelated to procreation and is now instead to help form stable homes, and since there are probably 10 times as many households made up of a single adult parent and a single grandparent, than there are homes made up of a gay couple, what possible justification would there be to exclude them? Cant selectively hold on to your silly, old testament prohibitions.
Click to expand...

Well, that is nonsense, marriage is a bond between 2 humans that gives the tax deductions, gives them security upon death, in case of sickness they can make medical decisions, etc. etc. etc.

Having children is never the goal of marriage, at least not for regular people or else people who cannot have children (due to age, not able to procreate) would not have a valid reason to marry and that is ridiculous.
 
Rich2018 said:
Precedent.

Once you allow two sisters to marry, what's to stop siblings of different genders?

Ah you say limit the rule/law to two siblings of the same gender and right away your law contradicts sexual equality legislation and lawyers have a field day and there's your bureaucratic train wreck.
Click to expand...

Sisters are not eligible to marry, just like brothers and sisters are not allowed to marry. So I am not sure why you think this will be a precedent.

The only good thing a gay sibling marriage would have is no chance of offspring. But as siblings are not allowed to marry each other anyway, this is not an issue that has anything to do with gay marriage IMO.
 
Quag said:
Marriage has not "now" been declared to be unrelated to procreation. Procreation was never a prerequisite of marriage
Click to expand...

Read the windsor and obergefell decisions. It is the basis of their decision. Marriage limited to men and women because only men and women procreate was upheld by the courts dozens of times. What was declared unconstitutional was marriage limited to men and women intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.
 
Peter King said:
Well, that is nonsense, marriage is a bond between 2 humans that gives the tax deductions, gives them security upon death, in case of sickness they can make medical decisions, etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Youll need contradict something Ive said in order to show what you believe is nonsense.

Peter King said:
Having children is never the goal of marriage, at least not for regular people or else people who cannot have children (due to age, not able to procreate) would not have a valid reason to marry and that is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Never said it is. Im the one who just stated that marriage is unrelated to procreation.
 
dixon01767 said:
Youll need contradict something Ive said in order to show what you believe is nonsense.
Click to expand...

You are right, I misread your comment and I agree with you fully, to call it only for procreating is the nonsense that I was talking about and as you disagree with that I agree with you, my apologies.

dixon01767 said:
Never said it is. Im the one who just stated that marriage is unrelated to procreation.
Click to expand...

Read above statement.
 
dixon01767 said:
Read the windsor and obergefell decisions. It is the basis of their decision. Marriage limited to men and women because only men and women procreate was upheld by the courts dozens of times. What was declared unconstitutional was marriage limited to men and women intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Point stands procreation has NEVER been a prerequisite for marriage
 
Peter King said:
You are right, I misread your comment and I agree with you fully, to call it only for procreating is the nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, your strawman is nonsense. No one "call it only for procreating".
 
dixon01767 said:
You kicked the **** outta that strawman. Impressive.
Click to expand...

I havent attacked nay strawmen

Still waiting for you to make this mythical argument against SSM
All I have see is the beginning of a weak argument FOR incestuous marriage
 
dixon01767 said:
Yeah, your strawman is nonsense. No one "call it only for procreating".
Click to expand...

Good so yo can drop any mention of it ever again as it is cannot be relevant in any way to any argument against SSM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom