[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[Quag]

At a minimum, any distinction used to discriminate, must be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. The exclusion of closely related people doesnt meet those minimums.

Wow!!!!!!!
Instead of just a statement you now have the starting of an argument. Unfortunately it is about letting closely related people marry when you are supposed to be making an argument against SSM

Still waiting for an actual argument against SSM
Also waiting for you to admit that your claim that historically marriage was between a man and a woman was false

 

[dixon01767]

I did read that comment and wasn't sure what to make of it, in part because it missed some of what you added here. It would have been clearer if you just asked people how to rationalize a restriction on marriage among relatives once you give up the point regarding procreation.

Obviously, consent doesn't exclude relatives from getting married. However, that would only be a problem worth your attention if the couple in question could give birth, a reason sufficient to warrant an exception to consent. You don't need to bar homosexuals from being married because one odd person out of a million might which to use that reasoning to marry a cousin. Just bar that last example on the grounds it violates the no harm principle if the people in question can effectively give birth.

I didnt suggest homosexuals be barred and not following your point on exceptions to consent. I never suggested anyone marry without consent.

 

[dixon01767]

Wow!!!!!!!
Instead of just a statement you now have the starting of an argument. Unfortunately it is about letting closely related people marry when you are supposed to be making an argument against SSM

Still waiting for an actual argument against SSM
Also waiting for you to admit that your claim that historically marriage was between a man and a woman was false

???? SSM excludes closely related couples. Unconstitutional discrimination. Of course until a gay closely related couple surfaces you have no concern.

 

[maquiscat]

???? SSM excludes closely related couples. Unconstitutional discrimination. Of course until a gay closely related couple surfaces you have no concern.

Wrong argument. Legal marriage, period, excludes closely related couples. Initially it excluded them, interracial and same sex couple. Two put of three excluded groups are no longer having their rights violated.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Quag]

???? SSM excludes closely related couples. Unconstitutional discrimination. Of course until a gay closely related couple surfaces you have no concern.

????

Instead of just a statement you now have the starting of an argument. Unfortunately it is about letting closely related people marry when you are supposed to be making an argument against SSM

Still waiting for an actual argument against SSM
Also waiting for you to admit that your claim that historically marriage was between a man and a woman was false

I repeated my post because youir reply was at best tangental to it

 

[dixon01767]

Wrong argument. Legal marriage, period, excludes closely related couples. Initially it excluded them, interracial and same sex couple. Two put of three excluded groups are no longer having their rights violated.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Nope. Excluding closely related couples from TRADITIONAL marriage was perfectly Constitutional. It is only the exclusion from this new 21st century same sex marriage that offends the Constitution.

 

[dixon01767]

????

Instead of just a statement you now have the starting of an argument. Unfortunately it is about letting closely related people marry when you are supposed to be making an argument against SSM

Still waiting for an actual argument against SSM

???? SSM excludes closely related couples. Unconstitutional discrimination.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Nope. Excluding closely related couples from TRADITIONAL marriage was perfectly Constitutional. It is only the exclusion from this new 21st century same sex marriage that offends the Constitution.

LOLOL! 231 pages and there's still not been one rational argument against SSM.

This is fun!

 

[dixon01767]

LOLOL! 231 pages and there's still not been one rational argument against SSM.

This is fun!

Other than the one quoted in your post. String together a few words and make your argument.....if you can.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Other than the one quoted in your post. String together a few words and make your argument.....if you can.

That wasn't a rational argument against SSM. It was a lie. As you've already agreed.

 

[Quag]

???? SSM excludes closely related couples. Unconstitutional discrimination.

I asked for an argument against SSM
You are at the very very best starting an argument for marraiges between closely related people

Now will you make an actual argument against SSM or continue to spout gibberish?

 

[dixon01767]

That wasn't a rational argument against SSM. It was a lie. As you've already agreed.

Claiming it isnt rational isnt an arguement. Neither is calling it a lie.

 

[dixon01767]

I asked for an argument against SSM
You are at the very very best starting an argument for marraiges between closely related people

???? SSM excludes closely related couples. Unconstitutional discrimination.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Claiming it isnt rational isnt an arguement. Neither is calling it a lie.

Good of you to admit that neither you nor anyone else here has offered even a single rational argument against SSM.

Do you think that after 232 pages, you might like to try?

I'd be happy to listen!

 

[Quag]

???? SSM excludes closely related couples. Unconstitutional discrimination.

????????
Why do you keep repeating the beggining of an argument for marraige bvetween closely related people?
Are you ever goign to even attempt an argument against SSM or just spew gibbereish?

 

[dixon01767]

Good of you to admit that neither you nor anyone else here has offered even a single rational argument against SSM.

Do you think that after 232 pages, you might like to try?

I'd be happy to listen!

No, I'll be staying with the same argument as your labels assigned to my argument are meaningless. ANY distinction in the law that discriminates must at a minimum, be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. This new 21st century marriage that the courts have declared as unrelated to procreation is now claimed to be in the interest of fostering the formation of stable households. There are likely many more households currently made up of two biologically closely related adults than there are households made up of gay lovers. There is no rational relation between the distinction of being closely related and the governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes. Two elderly sisters living together benefit from the advantages of a stable home equally to two elderly gay lovers. Cant selectively cling to your old testament prohibitions in marriage. If the exclusion of same sex couples is unconstitutional, so to is the exclusion of closely related couples for the same reason. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation ands is instead intended to foster the formation of stable homes.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

No, I'll be staying with the same argument as your labels assigned to my argument are meaningless. ANY distinction in the law that discriminates must at a minimum, be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. This new 21st century marriage that the courts have declared as unrelated to procreation is now claimed to be in the interest of fostering the formation of stable households. There are likely many more households currently made up of two biologically closely related adults than there are households made up of gay lovers. There is no rational relation between the distinction of being closely related and the governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes. Two elderly sisters living together benefit from the advantages of a stable home equally to two elderly gay lovers. Cant selectively cling to your old testament prohibitions in marriage. If the exclusion of same sex couples is unconstitutional, so to is the exclusion of closely related couples for the same reason. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation ands is instead intended to foster the formation of stable homes.

LOL! You still haven't offered any rational argument. Marriage has never been related to procreation. Procreation can take place in a completely marriage-free environment. Biologically closely related adults are prohibited from marrying with straight or SS.

You lose. I win. Again. And the courts are laughing at your nonsense.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

????????
Why do you keep repeating the beggining of an argument for marraige bvetween closely related people?
Are you ever goign to even attempt an argument against SSM or just spew gibbereish?

Some people seem unhealthily obsessed with cousin-humpin'.

 

[dixon01767]

????????
Why do you keep repeating the beggining of an argument for marraige bvetween closely related people?
Are you ever goign to even attempt an argument against SSM or just spew gibbereish?

Because extending marriage to closely related people would eliminate my argument against same sex marriage, of course. What you argue would be like someone 20 years ago saying 'Why do you keep repeating the beggining of an argument for marraige bvetween same sex people?
Are you ever goign to even attempt an argument against traditional marriage or just spew gibbereish?

 

[dixon01767]

Some people seem unhealthily obsessed with cousin-humpin'.

49 states make it a crime to engage in sexual relations with someone closely related. NO ONE but you people have suggested these laws would be eliminated. Ive only suggested marriage between closely related people, NOT sex. Lovely family down the street is made up of the widowed mother, her 3 kids and her mother, the childrens grandmother. They own their home jointly, both have complimentary wills, grandmother has adopted the children and while I never asked, I bet they never even thought of having sex with each other. What possible governmental interest is served by excluding them from the benefits of marriage? You cant argue marriage is unrelated to procreation making the exclusion of same sex couples un justified and unconstituional, and then argue the mother and daughter cant marry because they might procreate with unpleasant genetic effects. Like Ive said, any distinction that discriminates must be RATIONALLY related to serving some legitimate governmental interest.

 

[dixon01767]

LOL! You still haven't offered any rational argument. Marriage has never been related to procreation. Procreation can take place in a completely marriage-free environment. Biologically closely related adults are prohibited from marrying with straight or SS.

You lose. I win. Again. And the courts are laughing at your nonsense.

No, you still havent justified the exclusion of closely related couples from same sex marriage. That would for the first time actually address my argument and defeat it. Revealing that you havent yet done so.

 

[maquiscat]

Nope. Excluding closely related couples from TRADITIONAL marriage was perfectly Constitutional. It is only the exclusion from this new 21st century same sex marriage that offends the Constitution.

It is no more or less constitutional than the bans on interracial or same sex were. Those laws were struck down as unconstitutional and eventually we will see incest follow suit. As noted, because legal marriage does not require love, sex, nor procreation (nor do these require marriage), it is more constitutional to ban consanguineous breeding than consanguineous legal marriage.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

This new 21st century marriage that the courts have declared as unrelated to procreation is now claimed to be in the interest of fostering the formation of stable households.

Legal marriage has always been separate from procreation, at least in the US. Otherwise we would have required procreation to occur and prevented those incapable of procreation from obtaining a legal marriage.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Tanngrisnir]

49 states make it a crime to engage in sexual relations with someone closely related. NO ONE but you people have suggested these laws would be eliminated. Ive only suggested marriage between closely related people, NOT sex. Lovely family down the street is made up of the widowed mother, her 3 kids and her mother, the childrens grandmother. They own their home jointly, both have complimentary wills, grandmother has adopted the children and while I never asked, I bet they never even thought of having sex with each other. What possible governmental interest is served by excluding them from the benefits of marriage? You cant argue marriage is unrelated to procreation making the exclusion of same sex couples un justified and unconstituional, and then argue the mother and daughter cant marry because they might procreate with unpleasant genetic effects. Like Ive said, any distinction that discriminates must be RATIONALLY related to serving some legitimate governmental interest.

So, again, you've wasted a lot of time NOT submitting any rational argument. OK.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

No, you still havent justified the exclusion of closely related couples from same sex marriage. That would for the first time actually address my argument and defeat it. Revealing that you havent yet done so.

So still no rational argument, eh? Just breathless fantasies about closely related adults marrying, which are utterly irrelevant to SSM.

Bummer for you.