• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

CLAX1911 said:
You say the inbreeding argument doesn't hold water we are just insisting on that you're not providing evidence for them.
Click to expand...

Physical impossibility for two people of the same sex to breed.
 
maquiscat said:
Given that there have been people who have gotten married strictly for the legal benefits and do not engage in sex, this argument also holds no water. There was a whole episode of Boston Legal (or whatever the show with Shatner and Spayder as lawyers) where those two characters wanted to get the legal marriage for the legal benefits, and they were not having sex. There are asexual individuals who want to be in marriages, and people who are incapable of sex wanting marriage. The ability or desire to have sex or not does not automatically indicate the desire to be married, especially with regards to the legal institution.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Or Mrs Windsor in the case that struck down DOMA. Her spouse was dead. No sex occuring. She just wanted the $300,000 plus refund of estate taxes.
 
dixon01767 said:
Physical impossibility for two people of the same sex to breed.
Click to expand...
Or sterile people, especially women who have had a hysterectomy.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
Or Mrs Windsor in the case that struck down DOMA. Her spouse was dead. No sex occuring. She just wanted the $300,000 plus refund of estate taxes.
Click to expand...
Link? I am not familiar with this.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Deuce said:
I'm sorry, I'm unable to parse this statement. Obergerfell v Hodges rejected the idea that "only men and women can procreate" is justification for defining marriage as between a male and a female. I'm not sure what part of that you disagree with.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree and you didnt contradict anything in my statement you quoted.
 
dixon01767 said:
Thats what I said.
Click to expand...

You edited the post. It is societal approval of your sex. Society does not approve of incest so therefore you can't marry people who are closely related to you.

Nice of you to dishonestly edit my post. I guess I've broken you down to where now you have to be dishonest. Your argument is weakening.
 
Last edited:
dixon01767 said:
I dont disagree and you didnt contradict anything in my statement you quoted.
Click to expand...

Then I'm not sure why you're claiming that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is "perfectly constitutional" when the Supreme Court rather sternly said that's not true.
 
Deuce said:
Then I'm not sure why you're claiming that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is "perfectly constitutional" when the Supreme Court rather sternly said that's not true.
Click to expand...

Because its somehow important to the argument he refuses to make
 
dixon01767 said:
Nope. Dawn of civilization marriage thru the 20th century, limited to men and women because only men and women procreate,
Click to expand...

By this argument, sterile people should not be allowed to marry.
 
Hamish Howl said:
By this argument, sterile people should not be allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

He made a claim not an argument.
But it is a claim that has been proven false as homosexual marriage has existed in many civilizations throughout history
 
CLAX1911 said:
Inbreeding.
Click to expand...

Actually, breeding is an impossibility between two people of the same sex. Like I said-

dixon01767 said:
So we are left where we are. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation and therefore the exclusion of gay couples is unconstitutional, but we must not allow two elderly sisters to marry because they might procreate. The tortuous twisting of facts and law to arrive at the desired outcome.
Click to expand...
 
Quag said:
And completely irrelevant to marriage
Click to expand...

Relevant to those like Clax who insist thet two elderly sisters be prohibited from marriage because of the potential effects of inbreeding
 
dixon01767 said:
Relevant to those like Clax who insist thet two elderly sisters be prohibited from marriage because of the potential effects of inbreeding
Click to expand...

Not relevant to any attempt at making an argument against SSM
 
dixon01767 said:
SSM excludes those two elderly sisters.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you understand the difference between an argument against and an argument for?

Is your argument that since SSM excludes consanguineous couples that SSM should be illegal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Are you sure you understand the difference between an argument against and an argument for?

Is your argument that since SSM excludes consanguineous couples that SSM should be illegal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


No, I think the unconstitutional discrimination should be corrected.
 
dixon01767 said:
SSM excludes those two elderly sisters.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Laws restricting siblings from marrying prevent that. It doesn't matter if they are sisters or brother and sister.
 
maquiscat said:
Are you sure you understand the difference between an argument against and an argument for?

Is your argument that since SSM excludes consanguineous couples that SSM should be illegal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He wont make an argument and when I tried to guess at what his argument was he accused me of making a strawman so until he actually makes one dont play his silly game and try to guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom