[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[Lisa]

How about "I'm for smaller government, and I want to tell everyone else what to do, because it's my religious right which trumps any rights you have"?????

Who is telling anyone what to do? There is nothing religious about marriage. Matrimony is the religious action and just because you are married doesn't mean that you took part in a religious matrimony ceremony.

Did you feel the same about marriage before the Windsor and Obergfell decisions or is this the response of supposed conservtive libertarians after they lost in court?

 

[Lursa]

It excludes closely related couples of the same sex with no rational justification and therefore unconstitutional discrimination.

Nope. Still wrong. (see post 2838 for those just joining us)

There were medical/public health reasons initially, which was completely rational justification at the time...and no current interest or movement to support that type of marriage now.

The original reasons still exist, btw. Not all genetic conditions can be detected by testing. And they tend to accumulate over generations and become a more serious issue. That may still remain as a legitimate public health concern.

 

[Rich2018]

All 50 states exclude both same and opposite sex people who are closely related from marrying. Pretty much the opposite of "condone". I limited my argument to closely related people of the same sex so I didnt again have to hear about genetic effects of closely related couples breeding.

I meant "contain"

Brain fart.

There is no good, non religious, arguments against same sex marriage.

 

[Rich2018]

Nope. Still wrong. (see post 2838 for those just joining us)

There were medical/public health reasons initially, which was completely rational justification at the time...and no current interest or movement to support that type of marriage now.

The original reasons still exist, btw. Not all genetic conditions can be detected by testing. And they tend to accumulate over generations and become a more serious issue. That may still remain as a legitimate public health concern.

There are no medical or public health issues with same sex marriages.

 

[Lursa]

There are no medical or public health issues with same sex marriages.

Agreed.

We were discussing closely-related people marrying.

See post 2838 for background if you are interested.

 

[Rich2018]

Agreed.

We were discussing closely-related people marrying.

See post 2838 for background if you are interested.

Agreed closely related people shouldn't marry

In my youth I thought pre-marriage blood tests were for that and they did some kind of DNA test.

 

[Lursa]

Agreed closely related people shouldn't marry

In my youth I thought pre-marriage blood tests were for that and they did some kind of DNA test.

I hadnt realized that he had *just introduced* "same sex" to the closely-related couple description. I've never even heard of such a request. The level of his desperation is astounding and beyond anything realistic.

Sometimes, being 'right on the Internetz' is very important to people. Moreso than reality apparently. It's gotten to the point where we're arguing with someone that insists the moon is made of green cheese. And that one isnt worth pursuing. The Internet and the 1A enable people to claim unicorns exist. That doesnt make it a worthwhile, legitimate argument.

 

[Rich2018]

I hadnt realized that he had *just introduced* "same sex" to the closely-related couple description. I've never even heard of such a request. The level of his desperation is astounding and beyond anything realistic.

Sometimes, being 'right on the Internetz' is very important to people. Moreso than reality apparently. It's gotten to the point where we're arguing with someone that insists the moon is made of green cheese. And that one isnt worth pursuing. The Internet and the 1A enable people to claim unicorns exist. That doesnt make it a worthwhile, legitimate argument.

OK

The more I think of it, maybe blood tests should include a DNA test?

 

[Lursa]

OK

The more I think of it, maybe blood tests should include a DNA test?

Not sure why this needs to be explored here. Not of interest to me or particularly relevant at this time.

A DNA test doesnt do what perhaps, you believe it does? Nor can it predict how recessive genes are accumulated in the next and future generations.

 

[dixon01767]

Nope. Still wrong. (see post 2838 for those just joining us)

There were medical/public health reasons initially, which was completely rational justification at the time...and no current interest or movement to support that type of marriage now.

The original reasons still exist, btw. Not all genetic conditions can be detected by testing. And they tend to accumulate over generations and become a more serious issue. That may still remain as a legitimate public health concern.

Nonsense. Physical impossibility for two people of the same sex to procreate or even give rise to any genetic conditions.

 

[Lursa]

Nonsense. Physical impossibility for two people of the same sex to procreate or even give rise to any genetic conditions.

..

I hadnt realized that he had *just introduced* "same sex" to the closely-related couple description. I've never even heard of such a request. The level of his desperation is astounding and beyond anything realistic.

Sometimes, being 'right on the Internetz' is very important to people. Moreso than reality apparently. It's gotten to the point where we're arguing with someone that insists the moon is made of green cheese. And that one isnt worth pursuing. The Internet and the 1A enable people to claim unicorns exist. That doesnt make it a worthwhile, legitimate argument.

...

 

[Lisa]

Nonsense. Physical impossibility for two people of the same sex to procreate or even give rise to any genetic conditions.

Does this mean that you support marriage equality for same-sex couples in an incestuous relationship?

 

[Rich2018]

Not sure why this needs to be explored here. Not of interest to me or particularly relevant at this time.

A DNA test doesnt do what perhaps, you believe it does? Nor can it predict how recessive genes are accumulated in the next and future generations.

I'm not a biologist so I don't know but wouldn't a DNA test show if two people were too closely related?

 

[Rich2018]

Nonsense. Physical impossibility for two people of the same sex to procreate or even give rise to any genetic conditions.

So you've never heard of adoption or artificial insemination?

 

[Lursa]

I'm not a biologist so I don't know but wouldn't a DNA test show if two people were too closely related?

Yes but it wouldnt provide the detail to identify all defects/dangerous recessive traits. And it cant predict how they'd recombine in a new individual.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes but it wouldnt provide the detail to identify all defects/dangerous recessive traits. And it cant predict how they'd recombine in a new individual.

I guess the couple takes its chances then.

I don't know any test that can predict say a baby born with Down's Syndrome.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Who is telling anyone what to do? There is nothing religious about marriage. Matrimony is the religious action and just because you are married doesn't mean that you took part in a religious matrimony ceremony.

Did you feel the same about marriage before the Windsor and Obergfell decisions or is this the response of supposed conservtive libertarians after they lost in court?

Who is telling anyone what to do?

Er.... lots of people. Well they're trying. They're trying to get same sex marriage banned in the US. If that's not telling people what to do, then nothing is.

Not really sure what you mean by your last sentence. This isn't based on libertarians or a court case. This is based on my view of the world that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others. Gay marriage doesn't hurt or harm others (any more than heterosexual marriage does, at least).

 

[Lisa]

Who is telling anyone what to do?

Er.... lots of people. Well, they're trying. They're trying to get same-sex marriage banned in the US. If that's not telling people what to do, then nothing is.

Not really sure what you mean by your last sentence. This isn't based on libertarians or a court case. This is based on my view of the world that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others. Gay marriage doesn't hurt or harm others (any more than heterosexual marriage does, at least).

I don't know anyone who has seriously attempted to overturn that decision because there are no questionable legal precedents involved. It is only the evangelical Christians who are desperate to find a loophole so as to claim that they have a religious exemption to the public accommodation protections where LGBT people in the US are concerned. They did the same thing as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Loving v. Virginia, so their discriminatory claims are expected.

 

[dixon01767]

Does this mean that you support marriage equality for same-sex couples in an incestuous relationship?

I would support marriage equality for any two people in a closely related relationship. Incestuous sexual relationships are against the law in 49 states.

 

[dixon01767]

Who is telling anyone what to do? There is nothing religious about marriage. Matrimony is the religious action and just because you are married doesn't mean that you took part in a religious matrimony ceremony.

Nothing religious about matrimony. Latin root of the word, Mater, MOTHER. Matrimony involves a woman, not religion. It is biology that dictates that only a woman becomes a mother. Not religion.


matrimony noun
mat·​ri·​mo·​ny | \ ˈma-trə-ˌmō-nē

Definition of matrimony
: the state of being married : marriage
Matrimony | Definition of Matrimony by Merriam-Webster

 

[dixon01767]

Yes but it wouldnt provide the detail to identify all defects/dangerous recessive traits. And it cant predict how they'd recombine in a new individual.

Rather silly charade to go through in the case of two people of the same sex marrying.

 

[dixon01767]

Not really sure what you mean by your last sentence. This isn't based on libertarians or a court case. This is based on my view of the world that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others. Gay marriage doesn't hurt or harm others (any more than heterosexual marriage does, at least).

And what harm do you see in two elderly sisters marrying?

 

[dixon01767]

I don't know anyone who has seriously attempted to overturn that decision because there are no questionable legal precedents involved.

They were both 5-4 rulings and they both would likely go the other way with the current court members.

 

[dixon01767]

I meant "contain"

Brain fart.

There is no good, non religious, arguments against same sex marriage.

So your question is
How would same sex marriage contain "closely related couples" ?
Simple, by eliminating the laws that prohibit it in 50 states. And the argument against same sex marriage is that it excludes closely related couples with no rational justification which is unconstitutional discrimination.

 

[dixon01767]

There are no medical or public health issues with same sex marriages.

There are no medical or public health issues with same sex marriages of closely related couples.