[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[maquiscat]

No, I think the unconstitutional discrimination should be corrected.

So then you have no argument against same sex marriage?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

So then you have no argument against same sex marriage?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

It is same sex marriage that excludes the closely related. Your argument would be like saying you have no argument against traditional marriage, just an agrgument to include homosexuals. When it was traditional marriage that excluded the gays.

 

[maquiscat]

It is same sex marriage that excludes the closely related. Your argument would be like saying you have no argument against traditional marriage, just an agrgument to include homosexuals. When it was traditional marriage that excluded the gays.

It is legal marriage period that excludes closely related. You keep making your argument as if it were only same sex marriage that does so. That said, the thread is arguments against same sex marriage. If there had been a thread that was asking for arguments against interracial marriage or even against opposite sex marriage, making arguments for same sex marriage would fail on that thread as much as your arguments for consanguineous marriage is failing here.

Do you have any actual arguments against same sex marriage?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

It is same sex marriage that excludes the closely related.

Does interracial marriage exclude closely related?

 

[dixon01767]

It is legal marriage period that excludes closely related. You keep making your argument as if it were only same sex marriage that does so.

Thats because the exclusion of closely related couples from traditional marriage was not a violation of the constitution. It is the inclusion of same sex couples that makes the exclusion of the closely related unconstitutional.

 

[maquiscat]

Thats because the exclusion of closely related couples from traditional marriage was not a violation of the constitution. It is the inclusion of same sex couples that makes the exclusion of the closely related unconstitutional.

Keep in mind that we have had unconstitutional laws remain on the books for long periods of time in the past. As such, indeed these laws were unconstitutional even then. The legal inability of women to vote was unconstitutional the whole time.

Mind you, if marriage was legally defined as needing procreation to occur or have potential to occur, then it would be constitutionally valid to prohibit consanguineous marriage, just as it would be currently constitutionally valid to have consanguineous breeding prohibited now. It would also mean prohibiting marriage to sterile and same sex couples. But since marriage is not about procreation and never had been, within US law, any restriction outside of ability to give consent is unconstitutional. What must also be kept in mind is that marriage does not have to be a legal institution. There is no requirement for it within the Constitution. It is only because it does exist as a legal institution, that any restriction outside consent is in violation of the Constitution and Amendment 14.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

Keep in mind that we have had unconstitutional laws remain on the books for long periods of time in the past. As such, indeed these laws were unconstitutional even then. The legal inability of women to vote was unconstitutional the whole time.

And if they were to extend the vote to illegal immigrant men, that would make the exclusion of illegal immigrant women unconstitutional. While currently the exclusion of illegal immigrant women from voting is perfectly constitutional.

 

[CLAX1911]

Thats because the exclusion of closely related couples from traditional marriage was not a violation of the constitution. It is the inclusion of same sex couples that makes the exclusion of the closely related unconstitutional.

How so? Explain please?

 

[CLAX1911]

And if they were to extend the vote to illegal immigrant men, that would make the exclusion of illegal immigrant women unconstitutional. While currently the exclusion of illegal immigrant women from voting is perfectly constitutional.

So is it your contention that the difference between men and women is no different than the difference between a same sex couple and a couple that is closely related?

 

[dixon01767]

So is it your contention that the difference between men and women is no different than the difference between a same sex couple and a couple that is closely related?

Nope. Move onto the next strawman.

 

[maquiscat]

Nope. Move onto the next strawman.

It's not a strawman if it is an attempt to clarify. A strawman is where a different argument is substituted for one given, and then the substitute is counter argued. Since only a question was asked to try to figure out what you are actually arguing, with no counter given, it's not a strawman.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

Nope. Move onto the next strawman.

So what exactly is the difference between same-sex marriage and incestuous marriage? Are you aware of that?

 

[Lisa]

So what exactly is the difference between same-sex marriage and incestuous marriage? Are you aware of that?

If I may jump into this discussion, I'd like to answer this question. A same sex marriage differs from incest because the two adult partners of the same gender are not closely related. Why are you trying to argue that same sex marriage and incest are even remotely the same or similar?

What do you see the problem is or might be with two adults of the same gender marrying?

There are known biological problems that occur from the offspring of incest marriage.

 

[Wayne Jr]

With the recent news from Brunei about imposing the death penalty on gays and adulterers, I've been wondering just what is the justification fo opposing gay marriage. Why do some people really hate homosexuals, whether male or female?

Here's a list of arguments against same sex marriage that I found on the internets:

2. It requires a new definition of marriage
3. Not the same as laws that prohibited mixed race marriages
4. Marriage is meant to increase population
5. Infringes upon some peoples' religion freedom
6. Rights are granted by God and He doesn't like gay marriage
7. Morality comes from God and He doesn't like the gays
8. Acceptance of gay marriage will lead to incest and paedophilia
9. Homosexuals are unhealthy – that whole AIDS thing, you know.
10. Allowing gay marriage will cause societal collapse, as other immoral behaviour becomes more accepted.

Opposing SSM is like opposing ramps installed for the disabled. No, I did not just call gays disabled, calm your tits. I'm saying 'public access' should be universal. Same-sex relationships aren't otherwise harmful to society and thus should be afforded all the same rights and protections.

 

[maquiscat]

If I may jump into this discussion, I'd like to answer this question. A same sex marriage differs from incest because the two adult partners of the same gender are not closely related. Why are you trying to argue that same sex marriage and incest are even remotely the same or similar?

What do you see the problem is or might be with two adults of the same gender marrying?

There are known biological problems that occur from the offspring of incest marriage.

He's not. The argument is coming from Dixon on one aspect and myself from a completely different vector, and a couple.of others I can't think of without scrolling through the whole thread.

Dixon, I'm pretty sure, is attempting to argue by absurdity against SSM via consanguineous marriage

I, on the other hand, point out the fact that legal marriage does not require sex, children, or even love to be granted and maintained, nor does the lack of marriage prevent sex from occuring. Legal marriage is only about the benefits and rights of those obtaining that legal status. It is not permission to have sex. Therefore, it is as unconstitutional to restrict it from consanguineous couples, especially those of same sex couplings or sterile, as it is to restrict it from same sex couples. All of the arguments that counter why same sex couples should be able to get a legal marriage also apply to consanguineous couples.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

If I may jump into this discussion, I'd like to answer this question. A same sex marriage differs from incest because the two adult partners of the same gender are not closely related. Why are you trying to argue that same sex marriage and incest are even remotely the same or similar?

My apologies for the confusion. I'm trying to argue that same sex couples and incestuous couples are dissimilar. The poster I was responding to seems to think otherwise and I'm trying to snare him in a logic trap.

What do you see the problem is or might be with two adults of the same gender marrying?

I am married to a man I am also a man, I married him a few weeks after the oberfell decision was reached. Before that I was in a committed relationship with him for nine years.

My apologies again for the confusion.

There are known biological problems that occur from the offspring of incest marriage.

Precisely the point I've been hammering in this discussion.

You seem new, I haven't met you before, welcome to the forum if that is the case.

 

[maquiscat]

There are known biological problems that occur from the offspring of incest marriage.

Had to address this separately. This is absolutely false, on two different levels. On one hand, as far as the laws go, there are many non consanguineous relationships which are prevented from marrying, the relationship being legal and not by blood (laws vary by state). There is not a single biological issue that comes from this kind of marriage, at least no more than any other couple not blood related.

On the other hand, as noted earlier, marriage does not cause sex. Sex occurs quite frequently outside of the legal state of marriage. If an opposite sexed consanguineous couple were going to have sex, do you really think they would bother to wait for a legal marriage certificate? As I have said before, the only reason to seek a legal marriage is to obtain the benefits of the legal institution. It is not to obtain permission for sex.

Furthermore, your argument also fails due to the fact that a same sex consanguineous couple or an opposite sexed consanguineous couple where one or both are sterile, could be married AND having sex and would never produce a single biological problem, as you put it.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

Had to address this separately. This is absolutely false, on two different levels. On one hand, as far as the laws go, there are many non consanguineous relationships which are prevented from marrying, the relationship being legal and not by blood (laws vary by state). There is not a single biological issue that comes from this kind of marriage, at least no more than any other couple not blood related.

On the other hand, as noted earlier, marriage does not cause sex. Sex occurs quite frequently outside of the legal state of marriage. If an opposite sexed consanguineous couple were going to have sex, do you really think they would bother to wait for a legal marriage certificate? As I have said before, the only reason to seek a legal marriage is to obtain the benefits of the legal institution. It is not to obtain permission for sex.

Furthermore, your argument also fails due to the fact that a same sex consanguineous couple or an opposite sexed consanguineous couple where one or both are sterile, could be married AND having sex and would never produce a single biological problem, as you put it.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

nonconsanguineous would be a hell of a scrabble play.

 

[maquiscat]

nonconsanguineous would be a hell of a scrabble play.

That one word could win the get by itself

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lisa]

My apologies for the confusion.


You seem new, I haven't met you before, welcome to the forum if that is the case.

I registered Tuesday evening and I have fewer than 15 posts, so yes I am a forum rookie.
Thank you.

 

[maquiscat]

I registered Tuesday evening and I have fewer than 15 posts, so yes I am a forum rookie.
Thank you.

Welcome and well met. Hope you enjoy it.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[LittleNipper]

Let me take a swing at some of these arguments you found.



The legal definition is often different from the dictionary or your religion's definition. How will changing the legal definition of this word have real-world harmful consequences?



Not really an argument against gay marriage.



Marriage also exists to make people more monogamous and create stable relationships and lives. Gay marriages can also be stable environments for caring for adopted children. Also, the planet has an over-population problem, not an under-population problem, so maybe marriages aren't needed for population increase like they used to be.



Only if you require businesses to serve gay people. And I think this still would be a problem if gays were in unmarried relationships anyway. That is a separate debate.



No evidence for any of that.



No evidence of that. How will gay people being married rather than unmarried relationships increase incest and paedophilia?



AIDS is quickly becoming a very treatable disease that don't take many years off life expectancy if properly treated. Gays do have higher rates of STDs but straight people also have shockingly high rates of STDs, so does that mean all sex is bad because of STDs? The reality is that having a fulfilling relationship with someone you are attracted to is worth the risk. The real problem is unsafe sex and non-monogamy whether straight or gay. Gay people who practice safe sex and monogomy won't get STDs and the best way to encourage this is by establishing gay marriage. Lesbians have much lower rates of STDs so this argument doesn't even apply to them.

More evidence and clarification is needed. Also this "immoral behavior" has to be established as actually harmful. Many nations including the US have gay marriage and their societies are doing better than most nations in the world.

Homosexual "marriage" is a new "phenomenon" in the "civilized" world, and so it is very hard to judge what this will do in the long term to those nations involved; however, here in the US we are already seeing petty lawsuits (in an effort to force religious minorities to capitulate to the whims of the Federal Government) going clear up the the Supreme Court, as well as, impressionable children being exposed to drag queens promoting alternative lifestyles through innocent seeming literature...

It seems odd to me that the Bible is often excluded, because it is believed that reading it might have an undue influence on immature minds, and yet any similar accusation towards "Gay" inspired children's books is deemed hateful and oppression of one's freedom of speech...

AIDS is somewhat treatable; however, it is still incurable. And as one ages, one's immune system is less and less likely to fight the various assaults caused by age related immune deficiencies... STDs are the direct result of sexual improprieties. ONLY sex with one's spouse AFTER marriage is THE surefire preventative of acquiring any sexually transmitted disease through sexual contact. HOWEVER, serious rips and tears to the colon from sexual interaction other than natural activities involved in fertilization are not uncommon, and are the highlight of male homosexual activity, as is throat cancer.

From ANY religious standpoint, GOD HIMSELF defines marriage and not any governmental institutions which cannot even define one's gender without reaching a convoluted impasse! It is ludicrous to speculate that the only desire in awarding marriage status to those who (even in ancient societies were not given inherited legitimacy) is anything other than a means to appease and gain votes!

 

[ecofarm]

Homosexual "marriage" is a new "phenomenon" in the "civilized" world

Homosexual couples is not new. There have been gay couples since the dawn of man and before that.

 

[Lisa]

Homosexual "marriage" is a new "phenomenon" in the "civilized" world, and so it is very hard to judge what this will do in the long term to those nations involved; however, here in the US we are already seeing petty lawsuits (in an effort to force religious minorities to capitulate to the whims of the Federal Government) going clear up the Supreme Court, as well as, impressionable children being exposed to drag queens promoting alternative lifestyles...

The state cannot force any religion to marry anyone, even if they are white Christian, heterosexual, and members of the religion in question because a religious ritual such as marriage is not a secular right. Obergfell v. Hodges only mandated that anyone couple, heteros or LGBT, can take part in a civil marriage that is recognized by the government. What religions do is outside of the scope of the Constitution, until they violate secular law. Before the LGBT marriage decision, many religions would have a religious union commitment ceremony that conveyed no secular civil rights.

In the case of the cake bakers and others, a person's religious beliefs do not exempt them from obeying secular law such as the public accommodation protections of any state or the federal government. If our religious beliefs exempted us from obeying secular law then anyone could do anything they wanted and they would only have to claim that their religious beliefs supersede the Constitution and as such, they cannot be held accountable for their actions. It would be religious anarchy, with people creating their own religions as a way to legitimize their actions. It is obvious that cannot be permitted to happen on the Constitution and our laws would be void.

 

[LittleNipper]

Homosexual couples is not new. There have been gay couples since the dawn of man and before that.

Marriage of such is very new. Even Lot's daughters were married to men (husbands) in Sodom --- though that society had become engrossed in sexual behavior of the worst kind. And even the husbands of Lots's daughters (though warned) died in the destruction of the cities of the plain. All societies regarded marriage as the means to create an heir (usually the eldest male, but not always). Two gay men cannot sexually produce an offspring within the confines of their own sexual frivolity.