[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[dixon01767]

Why should an incestuous couple be permitted to marry ?

No one suggested any such thing. Incestuous sexual relations are against the law in 49 states and will continue to be. And if Rhode Island doesnt have a problem with a father boning his daughter when she comes of age I cant imagine them having a problem with them being married when they do so.

 

[dixon01767]

Which post number?

To quote the courts......#3082 .

.............

 

[dixon01767]

Who the hell is still against same-sex marriage? I'm conservative, and quite frankly don't care about gay people marrying each other. This is America, they should be allowed to do what they want.

What they want is the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage. They were always free to marry without the governments endorsement. No law prevented them from doing what they want.

 

[dixon01767]

Once again your theorizing is very wrong. That is what is so predictable about you. They married people of the opposite sex because they were in the closet because of social or religious opposition to being open and public about their sexuality. It wasnt that they wanted kids. It was because they tried to be someone who they were not.

Have to be pretty full of yourself to declare what is in the mind of the millions of self identified gays who used to be married to someone of the opposite sex.

 

[Lisa]

Have to be pretty full of yourself to declare what is in the mind of the millions of self-identified gays who used to be married to someone of the opposite sex.

You are Dunning-Kruger personified.


Why would a gay person marry a heterosexual if they weren't in the closet? An LGBT couple can use a surrogate or adopt if they want children. It is also very emotional destructive to yourself, your spouse and children to marry someone in a hetero marriage if you know that you will get divorced in 20 years and marry someone of the same gender/sex.
Many older people were raised to think that being LGBT was wrong and were shamed for their feelings by society and religion, so they tried to be heterosexual. Thankfully younger people do not commonly face the obstacle either by their parents, religion or society because we know that being LGBT isn't a choice.

Many trans females tried to be very male, thinking that it would cure them of their transgendered feelings. They were very miserable. when they did so.

 

[CLAX1911]

.............

I'm sorry nothing in there is declaring that marriage is linked to procreation it's declaring that heterosexuality is linked to procreation which is obvious.

 

[Lisa]

What they want is the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage. They were always free to marry without the government's endorsement. No law prevented them from doing what they want.

You cannot be married without the government acknowledging the relationship. marriage is a secular contract between 2 people and the government. Holy matrimony is the religious act of joining 2 people. People were taking part in religious commitment ceremonies before Oberghfell v. Hodges but those couples were not acknowledged by the government and they did not receive the same rights as married hetero couples. There is more to marriage then just fiscal benefits. You also have the legal benefits of the 5th amendment, inheritance and visitation rights.

Why should they be denied equal rights because of their sexual or gender? You have a deeper opposition to LGBT people that you refuse to discuss or admit.

 

[Lisa]

No one suggested any such thing. Incestuous sexual relations are against the law in 49 states and will continue to be. And if Rhode Island doesn't have a problem with a father boning his daughter when she comes of age I cant imagine them having a problem with them being married when they do so.

You did suggest that closely rated people should be permitted to marry.

 

[CLAX1911]

You did suggest that closely rated people should be permitted to marry.

It's basically a slippery slope that he wants to force. I don't think he's going to get anywhere because most people can understand why it should be okay for people of the same sex to marry each other but not for people who are closely related to marry each other.

 

[Rich2018]

This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend....

To which I could reply that slavery was a "deeply founded" institution. Did longevity make it right?

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .
It would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.

True for both opposite and same sex couples

...limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation...

No it doesn't unless you plan to force same sex couple to get impregnated in an opposite sex marriage

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

So what? We're talking about personal liberty here

Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

Modern science and social procedure would disagree

The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis.

Yes it does

 

[Rich2018]

Of course they should. If you are going to let two lesbians marry, you dont have any justification for excluding two sisters. What possible justification could there be?

I've answered this several times already:

Legal precedent

If you allow two elderly sisters to marry, why not an elderly brother and sister?


Then at what age would you impose a cut off?

 

[Peter King]

I've answered this several times already:

Legal precedent

If you allow two elderly sisters to marry, why not an elderly brother and sister?


Then at what age would you impose a cut off?

You are right, there is no logical reason for siblings to marry, it simply is not allowed.

The world is not France for goodness sake where you can marry dead people or other things. And yes, I understand the tragedy of a groom dying just before his marriage but marriage is between 2 consenting adults who say I do and sign the wedding certificate, not a lady and a dead husband being married, that is just strange and should not be allowed.

 

[Overitall]

It can in fact promote survival of certain families to be more likely to reach reproductive age and therefore pass on their genes.

And no, the existence of homosexuality does not prove "survival of the fittest" wrong at all.

You seem to agree with me in that you point out the importance of reproduction, so I'm not sure what "It can" refers to. If to homosexuality there is no reproduction possible and thus I consider it an abnormality. I'm not sure why we should support a lifestyle that doesn't contribute to the continuance of the species. Cancer is a mutation of the cells, but we don't try to promote them as being anything but unhealthy for the body.

 

[Angel]

Thanx for showing, yet again you have absolutely no clue w3hat evolution is

Props, Quag. 800 posts, 800 proofs of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[Quag]

Props, Quag. 800 posts, 800 proofs of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

11,278 posts and you have yet to make any reasonable logical argument or show that you have the basic understanding of any science

P.S. you have been busted in this thread why are you still posting?

 

[dixon01767]

You are Dunning-Kruger personified.


Why would a gay person marry a heterosexual if they weren't in the closet? An LGBT couple can use a surrogate or adopt if they want children. It is also very emotional destructive to yourself, your spouse and children to marry someone in a hetero marriage if you know that you will get divorced in 20 years and marry someone of the same gender/sex.
Many older people were raised to think that being LGBT was wrong and were shamed for their feelings by society and religion, so they tried to be heterosexual. Thankfully younger people do not commonly face the obstacle either by their parents, religion or society because we know that being LGBT isn't a choice.

Many trans females tried to be very male, thinking that it would cure them of their transgendered feelings. They were very miserable. when they did so.

You are not contradicting anything Ive said. And youve left out what is likely the most prevalent situation. A bisexual who chooses to identify as a heterosexual, marries and has children in his younger days and then later in life choosing to identify as a homosexual.

 

[dixon01767]

I'm sorry nothing in there is declaring that marriage is linked to procreation it's declaring that heterosexuality is linked to procreation which is obvious.

What nonsense. the statement "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race". isnt linking heteroseuality with procreation.

 

[dixon01767]

You cannot be married without the government acknowledging the relationship. .

Of course you can. You just dont get the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that they want. Even here in conservative Central Texas I know of two churches who have been conducting same sex wedding ceremonies since the late 90s.

 

[dixon01767]

You did suggest that closely rated people should be permitted to marry.

Correct, marriage not sexual relations. 49 states make that a crime and presumably would continue to do so even after extending marriage to closely related couples. Revealing how the strongest supporters of gay marriage are the loudestl opponents of extending marriage to closely related couples.

 

[dixon01767]

It's basically a slippery slope that he wants to force. I don't think he's going to get anywhere because most people can understand why it should be okay for people of the same sex to marry each other but not for people who are closely related to marry each other.

And what reason would that be? Why must the mother and grandmother down the street, joined together for over a decade to provide and care for their 3 children/grandchildren be denied the benefits of marriage? Can someone share with us the reason why?

 

[Rich2018]

You are right, there is no logical reason for siblings to marry, it simply is not allowed.

The world is not France for goodness sake where you can marry dead people or other things. And yes, I understand the tragedy of a groom dying just before his marriage but marriage is between 2 consenting adults who say I do and sign the wedding certificate, not a lady and a dead husband being married, that is just strange and should not be allowed.

Well yes I would agree with that.

A legal union should be between consenting adults who are not too closely related.

Siblings, parent and child etc.

 

[Peter King]

Well yes I would agree with that.

A legal union should be between consenting adults who are not too closely related.

Siblings, parent and child etc.

Which is logical, I would even include the marriage between a stepparent who was at least for about 10 years her actual parent, and a stepchild. And that cannot last for ever, but let us say a stepfather was the father of a stepchild for 14 years (from age 4 to age 18) then the young woman should not be allowed to marry him until she is 32 (14 years). Same goes for male children of course.

 

[Lisa]

You are not contradicting anything I've said. And you've left out what is likely the most prevalent situation. A bisexual who chooses to identify as a heterosexual, marries and has children in his younger days and then later in life choosing to identify as a homosexual.

JFCoaS! You are ignorant. A person who is heterosexual or homosexual is not bisexual.

A bisexual was never heterosexual. They are always bisexual because our sexual orientation is determined at birth.

 

[Lisa]

Correct, marriage not sexual relations. 49 states make that a crime and presumably would continue to do so even after extending marriage to closely related couples. Revealing how the strongest supporters of gay marriage are the loudestl opponents of extending marriage to closely related couples.

Why should LGBT people support incest? LGBT also do not support polygamous marriage.

 

[CLAX1911]

What nonsense. the statement "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race". isnt linking heteroseuality with procreation.

Marriage is not fundamental procreation is. Even if the statement was made it's a misnomer.