• 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:
No one was suggesting anyone engage in incest except you.
Click to expand...

If there is nothing sexual in the relationship then it isn't a marriage. It used to be that the marriage didn't actually exist until it was consummated by having sex.
 
dixon01767 said:
This is a debate forum. Not a court of law or legislature.
Click to expand...
But we are discussing a law. And you are attempting to make an argument that something (same sex marriage) is unconstitutional because certain same sex couples aren't allowed to legally marry. That argument is ridiculous.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
And yet you want to ban two elderly sisters from marrying because they might procreate
Click to expand...
No. We already restrict those two sisters from getting married because a brother cannot marry those sisters. Constitutionality of a law is not based on whether others may be unconstitutionally left out. If that is the case, you or others can and usually do just fight to change those unconstitutional laws. You don't double down on the unconstitutional laws, reinstate one because someone like you doesn't really care about people's rights.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
We know why "closely related couples were refused marriage". We were discussing the present.
Click to expand...

Read better, I addressed that as well.

Where is anyone proposing such legislation?

In any case, you said the reason was discrimination like against SSM...which was proven incorrect.
 
Lisa said:
If there is nothing sexual in the relationship then it isn't a marriage. It used to be that the marriage didn't actually exist until it was consummated by having sex.
Click to expand...

Actually consumation required penetration of the vagina by the penis and-

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

Kentucky statutes do not specifically prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex1 nor do they authorize the issuance of a marriage license to such persons.

1
KRS 402.020(5) and KRS 402.210 do contain references to the male and female of the species.

Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose. For a time the records of marriage were kept by the church. Some states even now recognize a common-law marriage which has neither the benefit of license nor clergy. In all cases, however, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary.

It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined.

A license to enter into a status or a relationship which the parties are incapable of achieving is a nullity. If the appellants had concealed from the clerk the fact that they were of the same sex and he had issued a license to them and a ceremony had been performed, the resulting relationship would not constitute a marriage.
Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 | Casetext
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Read better, I addressed that as well.

Where is anyone proposing such legislation?

In any case, you said the reason was discrimination like against SSM...which was proven incorrect.
Click to expand...

You didnt prove anything to be incorrect and instead suggested I take it to court because you couldnt.
 
roguenuke said:
But we are discussing a law. And you are attempting to make an argument that something (same sex marriage) is unconstitutional because certain same sex couples aren't allowed to legally marry. That argument is ridiculous.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


String together a few words and make an arguement if you can because your label of being ridiculous is meaningless.
 
dixon01767 said:
String together a few words and make an arguement if you can because your label of being ridiculous is meaningless.
Click to expand...
I already made a very valid argument that you choose to ignore because yours is ridiculous. If it is unconstitutional to prevent same sex siblings from getting married (as your argument claims) then it would also be unconstitutional to prevent old or infertile opposite sex couples from getting married for the same reasons you stated.

There is no precedent for taking rights away from more people because some groups are shown by recognition of rights to be being treated unfairly, even unconstitutionally. You don't deny more rights, but rather fight to expand rights, so long as you can establish that they should have those rights granted.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
I already made a very valid argument that you choose to ignore because yours is ridiculous. If it is unconstitutional to prevent same sex siblings from getting married (as your argument claims) then it would also be unconstitutional to prevent old or infertile opposite sex couples from getting married for the same reasons you stated.
Click to expand...

Yes it would. But we don't and never have prevented old or infertile opposite sex couples from getting married. What silly irrelevancy you label a valid argument
 
dixon01767 said:
Yes it would. But we don't and never have prevented old or infertile opposite sex couples from getting married. What silly irrelevancy you label a valid argument
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter when it comes to constitutionality whether we have or haven't done it banned something in the past. That isn't how constitutionality works.

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...

Marriage is not allowed under siblings, the establishment of the SSM has nothing to do with this. It does not change that rule even if it is between 2 men or 2 women. Brothers are not allowed to marry as they are siblings, sisters aren't allowed to get married because they are siblings. It is that easy.

And marriage has nothing to do with procreation. You can have children all of your adult fertile life without being married. We ban siblings because it is not morally right. SSM does not change that fact.
 
dixon01767 said:
Yes it would. But we don't and never have prevented old or infertile opposite sex couples from getting married. What silly irrelevancy you label a valid argument
Click to expand...
I apologize, that was supposed to say opposite sex siblings. Should have been obvious and yes we have and still do prevent them from getting married.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
Actually consumation required penetration of the vagina by the penis and-
Click to expand...

Jones vs Hallahan was in 1973 there it is made irrelevant by Obergfell v. Hodges. Kentucky must follow current federal law.

BTW siblings or other relations who seek to have a legal relationship would be eligible for a domestic partnership.
 
roguenuke said:
It doesn't matter when it comes to constitutionality whether we have or haven't done it banned something in the past. That isn't how constitutionality works.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The fact that excluding the old or infertile from marriage would also be unconstitutional has no bearing whatsoever on my claim that excluding the closely related is unconstitutional and does nothing for your argument that it is constitutional. Silly irrelevancy.
 
Lisa said:
Jones vs Hallahan was in 1973 there it is made irrelevant by Obergfell v. Hodges...…..
Click to expand...


That was the relevancy of me quoting Jones v flying 10,000 ft over your head.
 
Lisa said:
BTW siblings or other relations who seek to have a legal relationship would be eligible for a domestic partnership.
Click to expand...

In California Domestic partnerships are limited to same sex couples AND exclude the closely related. Likely so in other states as well.
 
dixon01767 said:
You didnt prove anything to be incorrect and instead suggested I take it to court because you couldnt.
Click to expand...

I suggested no such thing, dont lie.

And I did prove you wrong. It's all there in black and white for anyone to read, idiotic to deny it.

Post 2838. I've got it memorized :)
 
dixon01767 said:
That was the relevancy of me quoting Jones v flying 10,000 ft over your head.
Click to expand...

Kentucky must follow federal law because of the US Constitution's supremacy clause, and Obergfell v. Hodges is the ruling statute.
 
dixon01767 said:
In California Domestic partnerships are limited to same sex couples AND exclude the closely related. Likely so in other states as well.
Click to expand...


There is no link between these two unless you are trying to make the silly clam that because one isnt allowed the other shouldn't be which you have stated is not your "argument"
 
dixon01767 said:
.....……..
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 ?


Now you're saying its unconstitutional in either case - the above contradictory statement is a direct quote from you.


How is banning siblings (or otherwise closely related people) from marrying UN-constitutional ?
 
Lursa said:
I suggested no such thing, dont lie.

And I did prove you wrong. It's all there in black and white for anyone to read, idiotic to deny it.

Post 2838. I've got it memorized :)
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Claiming "Because there is no interest in it. There is no such movement." is irrelevant to Constitutional law.

.
 
Last edited:
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 ?


Now you're saying its unconstitutional in either case - the above contradictory statement is a direct quote from you.
Click to expand...


NOW, in the present tense its unconstitutional in either case. Previously, from dawn of civilization through the 20th century, it was perfectly constitutional. THE INCLUSION of same sex couples is what makes the exclusion of closely related couples unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom