[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[dixon01767]

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

That would be the biological parents procreating in the case of adoption and at most one of the same sex couple and a third person doing the procreating in the case of artificial insemination. So not sure of the relevance of your point.

 

[Rich2018]

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

I guess it sets a legal precedent.

 

[Rich2018]

That would be the biological parents procreating in the case of adoption and at most one of the same sex couple and a third person doing the procreating in the case of artificial insemination. So not sure of the relevance of your point.

The point is that SSm is not a barrier to birth nor parenthood.

So one again, there is no good, non-religious, arguments against same sex marriage.

 

[dixon01767]

I guess it sets a legal precedent.

Do you view legal precedents as harmful? Or just the ones you disagree with?

 

[dixon01767]

The point is that SSm is not a barrier to birth nor parenthood.

No one claimed it was, so not sure of the relevance of your point.

So one again, there is no good, non-religious, arguments against same sex marriage.

My argument doesnt involve religion. Its the old testament prohibition against closely related people marrying, mirrored in all state marriage laws that involves religion. Soooo not sure of the relevance of your point.

 

[Rich2018]

Do you view legal precedents as harmful? Or just the ones you disagree with?

I have no ethical problem between two elderly sisters getting married..until an elderly male and female set of siblings try it.
Then younger pairs...where do you draw the age limit?

The precedent would set up a bureaucratical train wreck.

 

[Rich2018]

No one claimed it was, so not sure of the relevance of your point...

I thought Angel's objection to marriage was exactly that. The marriage promotes monogamy an monogamy leads to a lower birth rate.

But he declined to clarify his argument.

...my argument doesnt involve religion. Its the old testament prohibition against closely related people marrying, mirrored in all state marriage laws that involves religion. Soooo not sure of the relevance of your point.

Closely related people shouldn't marry. I'm not sure why you think I suggested that they should be allowed to.

 

[Lursa]

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

That conversation did not extend to same sex closely related couples.

It also didnt apply to Martians marrying, or Jovians....you know, other things that (probably) dont exist.

 

[dixon01767]

I have no ethical problem between two elderly sisters getting married..until an elderly male and female set of siblings try it.
Then younger pairs...where do you draw the age limit?

The precedent would set up a bureaucratical train wreck.

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.

 

[dixon01767]

That conversation did not extend to same sex closely related couples.

It also didnt apply to Martians marrying, or Jovians....you know, other things that (probably) dont exist.

Sooooo full of it. Do you understand that the forum records all your post? To review

I hadnt realized that he had *just introduced* "same sex" to the closely-related couple description. ...........

OK

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

 

[Lursa]

Sooooo full of it. Do you understand that the forum records all your post? To review

I was discussing medical and genetic repercussions, it was a continuing conversation with that poster. Those comments were not related to your fantasy example. And I had clarified that that was invalid previously. I had made it very clear that that scenario was not worth discussion.

So...nice try. And it's telling...you are posting defensively...not arguing.

LOL, here's the quote that you clipped conveniently to hide what I just described above:

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.

 

[dixon01767]

Closely related people shouldn't marry. I'm not sure why you think I suggested that they should be allowed to.

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.

 

[dixon01767]

I was discussing medical and genetic repercussions, it was a continuing conversation with that poster. Those comments were not related to your fantasy example. And I had clarified that that was invalid previously. I had made it very clear that that scenario was not worth discussion.

So...nice try. And it's telling...you are posting defensively...not arguing.

LOL, here's the quote that you clipped conveniently to hide what I just described above:

Soooo full of it. Little earlier in the same debate

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....

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.

THE FRIGGIN THREAD is about SAME SEX marriage and you were responding to my post regarding closely related couples of the same sex

 

[Lisa]

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

What is the possible reason to deny LGBT equal marriage rights? The basic concept of freedom is that we have the right to act as we choose until the state has a compelling legal interest to say that we cannot act as we choose. What is that compelling reason to deny LGBT equal marriage rights, in the say, was an what was the compelling interest to deny interracial marriage? The bar for the state is intentionally set very high on what that compelling reason is so as to protect the freedom and autonomy of the people.

 

[Lisa]

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

How is a closely related relationship not incest? Marriage is innately a sexual relationship, so I am beginning to think that this is a semantic game that you are playing. You cannot possibly ban a married couple for having sexual relations.

 

[Lisa]

Nothing religious about matrimony. The 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

That argument allows lesbians and trans people to marry but not gay men. That would be unconstitutional. It would also ban postmenopausal and infertile women from marrying.

Do you ever get tired of moving the goalposts and then sticking your foot in your mouth?

 

[Lursa]

Soooo full of it. Little earlier in the same debate

THE FRIGGIN THREAD is about SAME SEX marriage and you were responding to my post regarding closely related couples of the same sex

Sorry, I never ever saw you post that the closely related couples also included those of same sex. Feel free to show that you ever posted that before I posted post 2838. If you had, it wasnt to me and I wasnt aware of it.

And then I just showed you, in bold, that I was not bothering to discuss that desperate, imaginary combination.

Your desperation is clear and all you post is defense defense defense! LOL, this isnt a football field. The desperate dodging wont work.

You've got quite the track record:

Do you ever get tired of moving the goalposts and then sticking your foot in your mouth?

 

[Lisa]

I don't think you suggested any such thing. You are the one clinging to the old testament prohibition against the closely related marrying. I'm the one who thinks it should be eliminated from our secular law.

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.

 

[dixon01767]

What is the possible reason to deny LGBT equal marriage rights?

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.

The basic concept of freedom is that we have the right to act as we choose until the state has a compelling legal interest to say that we cannot act as we choose. What is that compelling reason to deny LGBT equal marriage rights, in the say, was an what was the compelling interest to deny interracial marriage? The bar for the state is intentionally set very high on what that compelling reason is so as to protect the freedom and autonomy of the people.

We are talking about tax breaks and governmental entitlements, not freedoms. No law prevented same sex couples from marrying without the governments licensing and endorsement.

 

[dixon01767]

How is a closely related relationship not incest?.

They dont engage in sex. Of course. Thats against the law in 49 states.

 

[Lisa]

They dont engage in sex. Of course. Thats against the law in 49 states.

Why would they be in a relationship that is non-sexual? The fact that the act might be illegal doesn't mean that it does not happen.

 

[Lisa]

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.




We are talking about tax breaks and governmental entitlements, not freedoms. No law prevented same sex couples from marrying without the governments licensing and endorsement.

Don't be obtuse. If it doesn't have the state license and sanction then it isn't a marriage. Is this idea what currently passes as conservative thought?

 

[dixon01767]

That argument allows lesbians and trans people to marry but not gay men. That would be unconstitutional.

We were talking about the word "matrimony". Words are not unconstitutional.

 

[dixon01767]

Don't be obtuse. If it doesn't have the state license and sanction then it isn't a marriage. Is this idea what currently passes as conservative thought?

Actually, for most of our nations history, common law marriages without the state license were the same as marriages with the license.

 

[dixon01767]

Why would they be in a relationship that is non-sexual? The fact that the act might be illegal doesn't mean that it does not happen.

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 tennancy, 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. Witholding marriage from gays for 100s of years of our history didnt stop them from engaging in sex. And I dont think any more are engaed in sexual relations now that they can ge married. MARK