[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[PoppyCock]

I would say nobody gets off to seeing a woman and a cow scissor one another but rule 34

Some are very strange!

 

[CLAX1911]

Some are very strange!

Indeed.

 

[dixon01767]

I answered your post.

My post was a statement and didnt ask any questions.

 

[dixon01767]

no matter how many times you state this retarded claim biology is meaningless to legal marriage LMAO

Thats not what we are discussing. Ill wait here while you bat your strawman about.

 

[dixon01767]

The same was said about interracial marriages.

????? Actually, the biology is the same regardless of race. THATS WHY its illegal discrimination. Children with parents of different races benefit equally to children with parents of the same race from marriage. And can suffer the same detriment without it

 

[dixon01767]

Thanks for your feelings but again nobody cares about your feelings.
Ill be sticking with the law and facts, thanks!

These are facts. Notice you havent yet refuted them.

 

[dixon01767]

DO you want them to have equal rights?

Gays have always had equal rights. No law ever treated gays and straits unequally. I cant think of ANY law that even mentions a persons sexual orientation.

 

[Quag]

Gays have always had equal rights. No law ever treated gays and straits unequally. I cant think of ANY law that even mentions a persons sexual orientation.

Sodomy laws in the United States - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every state law made sodomy between homosexual couples illegal

 

[dixon01767]

So only one other group then, one with legitimate genetic concerns? Since there are legitimate medical reasons, why do you believe it's discrimination?

There are no medical reasons and Equal protection laws dont vary with the number of groups or people.

 

[dixon01767]

Sodomy laws in the United States - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

???? Those laws applied to gays straights bisexuals. No mention of sexuality in the statutes. Thats like saying laws against heroin is discrimination against those who prefer heroin. Absurd.

 

[Quag]

???? Those laws applied to gays straights bisexuals. No mention of sexuality in the statutes. Thats like saying laws against heroin is discrimination against those who prefer heroin. Absurd.

Some yes some no
Try reading the article

 

[blarg]

???? Those laws applied to gays straights bisexuals. No mention of sexuality in the statutes. Thats like saying laws against heroin is discrimination against those who prefer heroin. Absurd.

like laws against interracial marriage

stop with the jokes we know your not so foolish

if a woman can marry you and i cant thats not equality now is it

but you know that oh you had me going for a second how naughty

 

[dixon01767]

Some yes some no
Try reading the article

No, NONE of them as much as mentioned sexual orientatio. YOU need to read Lawrence v Texas. No equal protection even involved.

Heres a good summary

Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled?

Conclusion
No, yes, and yes.
{{meta.fullTitle}}

 

[dixon01767]

like laws against interracial marriage

???? uh, NO. They were ruled as unconstitutional discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause. Discrimination on the basis of race

 

[Lursa]

There are no medical reasons and Equal protection laws dont vary with the number of groups or people.

A common justification for prohibiting incest is avoiding inbreeding: a collection of genetic disorders suffered by the children of parents with a close genetic relationship.[9] Such children are at greater risk for congenital disorders, death, and developmental and physical disability, and that risk is proportional to their parents' coefficient of relationship—a measure of how closely the parents are related genetically.[9][10]

Incest - Wikipedia

Are you saying that genetic disorders that may arise from inbreeding (incest) are not medical in nature? :doh Facts would prove this true.


OTOH as I wrote, I dont believe that's a reason to keep the closely related from marrying, but you just claimed there are no medical reasons and I just proved you're wrong (as if you didnt already know. Why you would post something so easily demonstrated is very odd.)

Whether or not I agree with laws restricting relatives from marrying doesnt change the fact that the main reason behind it being restricted is because of medical (genetic) reasons.

 

[bomberfox]

The more i hear about “natural law” or laws conforming to nature, the more i think it is a pseudo scientific copout to avoid Hume’s is-aught distinction. You cant legislate a law of nature because the “laws” of nature (general theories) are purely descriptive. They describe natural phenomena in very precise terms. These are not things we choose to obey or not. “It aint natural” is a fallacious argument.

 

[Lursa]

The more i hear about “natural law” or laws conforming to nature, the more i think it is a pseudo scientific copout to avoid Hume’s is-aught distinction. You cant legislate a law of nature because the “laws” of nature (general theories) are purely descriptive. They describe natural phenomena in very precise terms. These are not things we choose to obey or not.

I dont believe in 'natural law' philosophy. Many religious people will use it as a workaround in discussions when they know that religious beliefs or premises wont be accepted. It's still an appeal to a higher authority.

All rights are man-made concepts....there's nothing natural, inherent, or genetic about 'natural law,' it's just another philosophy examining the state of man.

 

[bomberfox]

????? Actually, the biology is the same regardless of race. THATS WHY its illegal discrimination. Children with parents of different races benefit equally to children with parents of the same race from marriage. And can suffer the same detriment without it

Children without parents suffer regardless the orientation. Laws against miscegenation were justified by the exact same argument you use despite the fact they were designed maliciously to reaffirm the ownership of women by the dominant class (WASP men in power) among other things

 

[Wan]

Children without parents suffer regardless the orientation. Laws against miscegenation were justified by the exact same argument you use despite the fact they were designed maliciously to reaffirm the ownership of women by the dominant class (WASP men in power) among other things

Some feel that anti-miscegenation laws were a good thing. I am one of them. It's too bad they were unconstitutional.

 

[bomberfox]

Some feel that anti-miscegenation laws were a good thing. I am one of them. It's too bad they were unconstitutional.

And the rest of society is entitled to not care about racial separatists .

 

[Wan]

And the rest of society is entitled to not care about racial separatists .

More people than you realize are "racial separatists". They might not say anything in public but in private they only want to associate with other white people.

 

[Lursa]

Some feel that anti-miscegenation laws were a good thing. I am one of them. It's too bad they were unconstitutional.

At least you admit you are a racist.

And that's why our Constitution is so important...to protect everyone's rights, even the racists. There's no rational reason to keep people of different races or ethnicities from marrying or "mixing socially" or in public places....just fear and hate and intolerance...the opposite of good Christian values.

 

[dixon01767]

Are you saying that genetic disorders that may arise from inbreeding (incest) are not medical in nature? :doh Facts would prove this true.

Well, first, we were talking about marriage, not incest. Second, incest is against the law in 49 states and if Rhode Island doesnt have a problem with a father banging his daughter as soon as she reaches the age of consent, I cant imagine they would have a problem with them banging with a marriage license. Third, if it was two elderly brothers or two elderly sisters, it really isnt going to be an issue. And finally it is the heights of hypocrisy to argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, which makes excluding gay couples unconstitutional discrimination, while insisting that we cant let two brothers in their 70s marry because they might procreate with unpleasant genetic effects. Yeah, NO MEDICAL REASONS.

OTOH as I wrote, I dont believe that's a reason to keep the closely related from marrying, but you just claimed there are no medical reasons and I just proved you're wrong (as if you didnt already know. Why you would post something so easily demonstrated is very odd.)

LOLOL

 

[Lursa]

Well, first, we were talking about marriage, not incest. Second, incest is against the law in 49 states and if Rhode Island doesnt have a problem with a father banging his daughter as soon as she reaches the age of consent, I cant imagine they would have a problem with them banging with a marriage license. Third, if it was two elderly brothers or two elderly sisters, it really isnt going to be an issue. And finally it is the heights of hypocrisy to argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, which makes excluding gay couples unconstitutional discrimination, while insisting that we cant let two brothers in their 70s marry because they might procreate with unpleasant genetic effects. Yeah, NO MEDICAL REASONS.

LOLOL

I did not legitimize the law. I wrote that they were mostly based on medical reasons...which they are/were.

Take up your ridicule with them...you're still wrong even if you disagree with their reasoning.

It's even more amusing to see you pretend that our discussion on the groups you believe are being discriminated against with current marriage laws has been reduced to a conversation on incest. *snicker* Do you believe that a marriage between closely related consenting adults would include less sex than other marriages? :roll:

 

[dixon01767]

Some feel that anti-miscegenation laws were a good thing. I am one of them. It's too bad they were unconstitutional.

Genetic diversity is healthy for the human race and this is just my personal taste but half white half black women have a high frequency of extreme hotness. Isnt any biblical issue with race mixing purely in the old testament?