• 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

Rich2018 said:
And that's it ?

Your entire argument against same sex marriage is that it hadn't happened in the past.
Click to expand...

??? Uhhhh, no. My argument against same sex marriage is that it excludes closely related couples with no rational justification for doing so. That makes it unconstitutional discrimination. I just find it odd to see libertarians insisting that the government license and regulate personal relationships.
 
Lisa said:
Banning a relationship as criminal before Lawernce v. Texas, and then denying them equal rights is proof that it is very regulated, despite what Dixon claimed.
Click to expand...

Try to grasp the meaning of "license AND regulate"
 
Lisa said:
How much more regulated does it get than being banned?
Click to expand...

Evidently the meaning of "and" escapes you. Had I said licensed OR regulated you might have a relevant point. I didn't, you don't.
 
dixon01767 said:
Evidently the meaning of "and" escapes you. Had I said licensed OR regulated you might have a relevant point. I didn't, you don't.
Click to expand...
Don't try to be any more obtuse than you already are.

Do you deny than banning something is a form of regulation? If they were not banned then they would not be regulated.

Making marijuana a schedule one drug and its possession a felony are examples of highly regulating it. Banning LGBT couples from the rights and privileges of marriage and denying them a marriage license are examples of negatively regulating their relationships. The current regulation of LGBT marriage is the very same regulation that heteros couple have always had. Its called equality in the eyes of the law. Nobody is saying that LGBT couples must get married, just as heteros are not required to get married, but now they are not denied from getting married and enjoying the rights that others enjoy
 
Last edited:
dixon01767 said:
...my argument against same sex marriage is that it excludes closely related couples with no rational justification for doing so. That makes it unconstitutional discrimination. I just find it odd to see libertarians insisting that the government license and regulate personal relationships.
Click to expand...

Then you don't object to SSM you object to all marriage.

To you all marriage laws are unconstitutional. You object to ALL marriage not specifically SSM

By that score all age of consent, laws allowing the ownership of firearms, consuming alcohol, legal driving limits etc are unconstitutional


I think we can rule out that argument on the grounds of "good"



Once again; There are no good, non religious arguments against same sex marriage.
 
SDET said:
Destroying the nuclear family will facilitate making the state become the guardian of children.
Click to expand...
Is your marriage being destroyed or weakened because 2 other adults get married? How does that work? Do you read the wedding announcements or the engagements in the local paper before you decide if your marriage is weakened that week? Is your marriage weakened when people of a different race or different religion gett married or is it just those nasty LGBT people who weaken your marriage? I'm an atheist so would it weaken your marriage if I marry a marry an atheist man?

How does the state become the guardian of the children when any 2 people get married? Your logical leap could cross the Grand Canyon.
 
Lisa said:
Is your marriage being destroyed or weakened because 2 other adults get married? How does that work? Do you read the wedding announcements or the engagements in the local paper before you decide if your marriage is weakened that week? Is your marriage weakened when people of a different race or different religion gett married or is it just those nasty LGBT people who weaken your marriage? I'm an atheist so would it weaken your marriage if I marry a marry an atheist man?

How does the state become the guardian of the children when any 2 people get married? Your logical leap could cross the Grand Canyon.
Click to expand...

A child raised in a family with two same sex adults in a loving, long term relationship will probably have a more stable upbringing than a child raised by a single parent.
 
Rich2018 said:
Then you don't object to SSM you object to all marriage.
Click to expand...

Nope. The exclusion of closely related couples from traditional marriage, limited to men and women because only men and women have the potential of procreation was perfectly constitutional. It is the inclusion of same sex couples that makes the exclusion of closely related couples unconstitutional
 
Rich2018 said:
A child raised in a family with two same sex adults in a loving, long term relationship will probably have a more stable upbringing than a child raised by a single parent.
Click to expand...

A child raised in a family with two closely related adults in a loving, long term relationship will probably have a more stable upbringing than a child raised by a single parent.
 
dixon01767 said:
Nope. The exclusion of closely related couples from traditional marriage, limited to men and women because only men and women have the potential of procreation was perfectly constitutional. It is the inclusion of same sex couples that makes the exclusion of closely related couples unconstitutional
Click to expand...

How can closely related couple being prevented from getting married be constitutional in an opposite sex marriage but unconstitutional in a same sex marriage ?
 
dixon01767 said:
A child raised in a family with two closely related adults in a loving, long term relationship will probably have a more stable upbringing than a child raised by a single parent.
Click to expand...

Yes

But two closely related adults getting married is banned for non-beneficial genetic problems.
 
Rich2018 said:
How can closely related couple being prevented from getting married be constitutional in an opposite sex marriage but unconstitutional in a same sex marriage ?
Click to expand...

I would argue its unconstitutional in either case
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes

But two closely related adults getting married is banned for non-beneficial genetic problems.
Click to expand...

An impossibility when its two people of the same sex. Demonstrates the illegitimacy of the arguments made to justify same sex marriage. They argued marriage has nothing to do with procreation because we let old infertile people marry so there is no justification for excluding same sex couples...…… but we must prohibit two elderly sisters from marrying because of non-beneficial genetic problems. ABSURD hypocrisy
 
dixon01767 said:
An impossibility when its two people of the same sex. Demonstrates the illegitimacy of the arguments made to justify same sex marriage. They argued marriage has nothing to do with procreation because we let old infertile people marry so there is no justification for excluding same sex couples...…… but we must prohibit two elderly sisters from marrying because of non-beneficial genetic problems. ABSURD hypocrisy
Click to expand...

Incest is not legal.
 
dixon01767 said:
??? Uhhhh, no. My argument against same sex marriage is that it excludes closely related couples with no rational justification for doing so. That makes it unconstitutional discrimination. I just find it odd to see libertarians insisting that the government license and regulate personal relationships.
Click to expand...

Not this again? :doh This specific argument of yours has been refuted.

Lursa said:
We've been thru this before and you refused to acknowledge it. But I'll repost it for some of the newer participants.

The key reason closely related couples were refused marriage was because of medical reasons, concerns over genetic issues. Those public health concerns were real at the time, as there were individuals of such couplings that had mental and physical defects. Do you believe that those 'medical reasons' are the same as discrimination? Is public health concern the same as discrimination? (And I am using 'discrimination in the context that it has been used by yourself and others here in the discussion)

That was a decision made long in the past before there was a better understanding of genetics and the means to test people.

Why arent we re-examining closely-related couples marrying today? We did it for interracial couples. We did it for gay couples. Why is there no movement for relatives? Where are 'closely-related couples' a protected class?

Because there is no interest in it. There is no such movement. At least not one that rises to the level of any state's interest.

So, where is the 'discrimination?' Altho the reason for the decision in the past may no longer be valid, it was not based on discrimination, and it seems there is no "protected class" demanding marriage for relatives today.

If you are going to respond, please answer the questions before presenting your arguments.

Edit: for others, the reason that this was discussed earlier was because Dixon claimed that it was 'not' discrimination to refuse gays marriage. His reason: because there are other couples that we do not allow to marry. And when I asked 'what other couples?' the only other example was closely-related couples. And so then he had to try and prove the reason they were denied marriage was 'discrimination.' Which is of course, not true.
Click to expand...
 
dixon01767 said:
I would argue its unconstitutional in either case
Click to expand...

You said:

"The exclusion of closely related couples from traditional marriage, limited to men and women because only men and women have the potential of procreation was perfectly constitutional. It is the inclusion of same sex couples that makes the exclusion of closely related couples unconstitutional..."


So one case is constitutional and the other is unconstitutional ?

Make your mind up - which is which and why.

(I bolded you comment to make it easy to read)
 
dixon01767 said:
An impossibility when its two people of the same sex. Demonstrates the illegitimacy of the arguments made to justify same sex marriage. They argued marriage has nothing to do with procreation because we let old infertile people marry so there is no justification for excluding same sex couples...…… but we must prohibit two elderly sisters from marrying because of non-beneficial genetic problems. ABSURD hypocrisy
Click to expand...

So what, it is most definitely possible if of opposite gender.

Marriage is not for procreation

We ban closely related people from marrying because of biological concerns (opposite sex) if two elderly sisters are allowed to marry the it sets a precedent that siblings can marry.
That is unconstitutional because one set of siblings, regardless of age and sex, cannot be subject to the law when another pair are not.

Do you get it this time ?
 
dixon01767 said:
??? Uhhhh, no. My argument against same sex marriage is that it excludes closely related couples with no rational justification for doing so. That makes it unconstitutional discrimination. I just find it odd to see libertarians insisting that the government license and regulate personal relationships.
Click to expand...
That same argument could be applied to at least some opposite sex marriages too. If you feel this is truly an injustice though, you can find people in a position to challenge laws against closely related persons getting married or just push to change the laws.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
An impossibility when its two people of the same sex. Demonstrates the illegitimacy of the arguments made to justify same sex marriage. They argued marriage has nothing to do with procreation because we let old infertile people marry so there is no justification for excluding same sex couples...…… but we must prohibit two elderly sisters from marrying because of non-beneficial genetic problems. ABSURD hypocrisy
Click to expand...
Then there was also no legitimate justification for banning old opposite sex siblings or infertile opposite sex siblings from getting married. Don't like it, challenge it through legislation or the court. You're not presenting a valid argument against same sex marriage. You are inadvertently presenting a rather weak argument but still with potential for allowing siblings to marry of any sex combination so long as they can't have kids.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Then there was also no legitimate justification for banning old opposite sex siblings or infertile opposite sex siblings from getting married. Don't like it, challenge it through legislation or the court.
Click to expand...

This is a debate forum. Not a court of law or legislature.
 
Rich2018 said:
So what, it is most definitely possible if of opposite gender.

Marriage is not for procreation
Click to expand...

And yet you want to ban two elderly sisters from marrying because they might procreate
 
dixon01767 said:
I would argue its unconstitutional in either case
Click to expand...

Rich2018 said:
You said:

"The exclusion of closely related couples from traditional marriage, limited to men and women because only men and women have the potential of procreation was perfectly constitutional. It is the inclusion of same sex couples that makes the exclusion of closely related couples unconstitutional..."


So one case is constitutional and the other is unconstitutional ?
Click to expand...

dixon01767 said:
I would argue its unconstitutional in either case
Click to expand...

.....……..
 
Lursa said:
Not this again? :doh This specific argument of yours has been refuted.
Click to expand...

We know why "closely related couples were refused marriage". We were discussing the present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom