[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[dixon01767]

What government intervention are you talking about? Specifically?

20th century and prior marriage. And this new marriage that is all about winning more respect and dignity for gays.

 

[dixon01767]

That's delusional...:roll:

String together a few words and present an arguement, IF YOU CAN.

 

[dixon01767]

And if it's all about children, we should condition the unspecified interventions on having children, but we do not.

Its not. Procreation would continue just fine, with or without marriage. The concern is reducing procreation among single women on their own with absent or unknown fathers.

 

[JasperL]

Two brothers are of the same sex and prohibited from marriage in 50 states because gay marriage is about winning more "respect and dignity" for the gays

Why are you insisting we address your closely related red herring? If you want to discuss it, start another thread, because it has nothing to do with SSM.

It's a diversion. If we were discussing legalizing pot, and all you talked about was, BUT WHAT ABOUT CRACK AND METH!!!?????? it would be the same BS debate tactic.

And you quoted me, then ignored the quote. I'll embiggen the key point for you:

"So if you want to be technical, it's about equal access for same sex couples to the "inequality" of marriage.

The courts didn't deal with brothers or sisters because AFAIK, brothers and sisters haven't sued to marry, but even if they did sue, the arguments for and against would be different and so wouldn't be handled in the same lawsuit, and there is no obligation for plaintiffs or defendants to make arguments for or against OTHER groups who also might theoretically want access to "marriage" in a lawsuit dealing with same sex couples. Maybe someone wants to marry their pet - fine, file a lawsuit and make the argument. It will have as much to do with SSM as your brother/brother red herring.

 

[AGENT J]

From the gay California Judge. All about respect and dignity for gays.

the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation….

entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage...

couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families,...

designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect....

same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple....

gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect {Page 43 Cal.4th 822} and dignity afforded all other individuals...


the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships....

by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership -- pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry....

right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of other couples....

the state's assignment of a different name to the couple's relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple's relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled....

the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples....

fundamental interest of same-sex {Page 43 Cal.4th 847} couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples....

LMAO so happy you posted this.... it further proves you wrong . ." respect" etc are SUBJECTIVE therefore OPINION and NOT fact... this isnt rockect science and the respect ebign discussed here is for MARRIAGE.

what is FACT though are EQUAL LEGAL RIGHTS and removing ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION thats what its about . . factually and thats not subjective.

fact remains your statement will never be true hence why it cant be proven
youre welcome, let me know if i can help you with any other of your factual mistakes.

 

[AGENT J]

String together a few words and present an arguement, IF YOU CAN.

wrong again its YOUR job to defend YOUR statement and make it factual. you cant . . the best you will have are lies and your subjective wittle fweelings

 

[JasperL]

String together a few words and present an arguement, IF YOU CAN.

Why? You presented no argument - just made an IMO laughable baseless assertion. If you'd like to defend your position, that's fine.

 

[AGENT J]

That's delusional...:roll:

thats being kind

 

[AGENT J]

Why are you insisting we address your closely related red herring? If you want to discuss it, start another thread, because it has nothing to do with SSM.

It's a diversion. If we were discussing legalizing pot, and all you talked about was, BUT WHAT ABOUT CRACK AND METH!!!?????? it would be the same BS debate tactic.

ding ding ding

winner winner chicken dinner!

 

[JasperL]

20th century and prior marriage. And this new marriage that is all about winning more respect and dignity for gays.

That's not saying anything. What about the "20th century" and "prior marriage"? We're in the 21st century now. What's a "prior marriage." I've been married since 1991, which was in the 20th century, and my marriage didn't change when teh gays were allowed to marry. Did yours change? Explain!

And you keep hammering the "respect and dignity" argument which isn't really about SSM but about a narrow case in front of the CA Supreme Court. That's not the case that made the argument for same sex marriage nationwide.

But even if it was the only relevant case, again, so what? Why do you care and why should we care if marriage is just about affording more dignity and respect to same sex relationships? It's more than that, obviously but accepting the premise, how does doing so harm you? What is the cost to you of affording those relationships more dignity and respect? Why would you want dignity and respect denied them?

 

[RAMOSS]

Biology. Marriage WAS about improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couplings produce. I can tolerate governmenmt intervention to improve the well being of children. I have a problem with government intervening to help gays feel better about their homosexuality.

Please prove that marriage 'was about the well being' of children. PRovei t.

 

[JasperL]

Its not. Procreation would continue just fine, with or without marriage. The concern is reducing procreation among single women on their own with absent or unknown fathers.

Why are you denying your own arguments?

You: "Marriage WAS about improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couplings produce. I can tolerate governmenmt intervention to improve the well being of children. "

 

[dixon01767]

Why? You presented no argument - just made an IMO laughable baseless assertion. If you'd like to defend your position, that's fine.

Just as soon as someone strings together a few words and presents a rational arguement stating why it is "delusional"

 

[dixon01767]

Why are you denying your own arguments?

I am not. You couldnt understand.

 

[dixon01767]

And you keep hammering the "respect and dignity" argument which isn't really about SSM but about a narrow case in front of the CA Supreme Court.

The quotes were from a FEDERAL judge in California.

 

[dixon01767]

Why are you insisting we address your closely related red herring? If you want to discuss it, start another thread, because it has nothing to do with SSM..

Dont confuse your inability to comprehend the connection with there being no connection.

 

[JasperL]

I am not. You couldnt understand.

It would help if your arguments were coherent from one post to the next. :shrug:

 

[wolfsgirl]

Since the federal government ALSO didnt recognize California same sex marriages, they were identical. I DIDNT SAY California Unions were identical to California opposite sex marriages, I said they were identical to California SAME SEX MARRIAGES. A distiction narrower than the wide side of the barn, so probably invisible to you.

Dixon your tired arguments didn't work on that other site, and they won't work here.

Most gays are not in CA, so the distinction between civil unions, where they were available, and a federally recognized marriage was vastly different. In many states we couldn't even get civil unions.

Sorry that my marriage bothers you so much. I suggest worrying about your own relationships and leave mine to me.

 

[ecofarm]

Biology. Marriage WAS about improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couplings produce. I can tolerate governmenmt intervention to improve the well being of children. I have a problem with government intervening to help gays feel better about their homosexuality.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality and our authority is obligated to observe equal rights. Your personal issues are not a concern of those with power.

 

[JasperL]

The quotes were from a FEDERAL judge in California.

That's false, actually. Here's the case: In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 | Casetext

That's a case decided by the Supreme Court of California. They are not FEDERAL judges....

And once again, you clip and ignore my point.

"But even if it was the only relevant case, again, so what? Why do you care and why should we care if marriage is just about affording more dignity and respect to same sex relationships? It's more than that, obviously but accepting the premise, how does doing so harm you? What is the cost to you of affording those relationships more dignity and respect? Why would you want dignity and respect denied them?"

 

[JasperL]

Dont confuse your inability to comprehend the connection with there being no connection.

And don't confuse, paraphrased, "You're too dumb to understand my brilliant point" as a coherent argument for your position. If the connection is obvious, explain the connection.

The arguments for and against SSM are DIFFERENT than the arguments for and against brother/brother or brother/sister marriage. The latter were NOT addressed in any of the cases, because they are different issues, and no brother/brother plaintiffs that I know of have sued for the right to marry, and so those fictional cases weren't addressed in a series of cases about something else - same sex marriage between unrelated individuals.

If there have been brother/brother or brother/sister plaintiffs who sued for the right to marry, cite the cases in another thread and we can discuss. But THIS thread is about, and I'll quote the title, "Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage."

 

[Lursa]

Yeah, thats the part that was in the first half of my post that you took the time to edit out so you could pretend you had a relevant point.

Not at all...it was still 300 posts in....as I wrote.

 

[Lursa]

Equal protection under the law. I know you deny it but ANY discrimination at a minimum must be rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest.

Are you claiming that there's no legitimate govt interest in couples being married?

 

[Lursa]

this statement will never be true :shrug:

Inorite? I never heard or read such a thing. Is that what straight marriage is all about? Certainly not from the way many conduct themselves.

 

[AGENT J]

Inorite? I never heard or read such a thing. Is that what straight marriage is all about? Certainly not from the way many conduct themselves.

no no no

you cant take the honest, logical and rational approach and look at what marriage is

we are talking about (dun dun dun) GAY marriage . . . its magically DIFFERENT