• 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

dixon01767 said:
Why dont you copy and paste my post where I did so to show us you are not full of ****.
Click to expand...

How can I do that since you have never made an actual argument against SSM
It is obvious you are just full of crap and incapable of makng any argument let alone one against SSM
 
dixon01767 said:
50 states CURRENTLY have laws similiar to-

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;
Click to expand...
This still does not show as a basis that marriage is about procreation. All this does is place legalization on the odds that a man married to the mother will be the father. Marriage still does not require offsprings and thus the potential of offspring is not sufficient grounds for denying the legal institution of marriage to any couple.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
bergignon said:
Marriage is a religious thing

Homosexual marriage is just another way to soil the definition of marriage and put crap in the head of younger generations
Click to expand...
Marriage has never been solely a religious thing, and even among the religions never universal in who could marry whom. Unless you plan to dismiss any religion other than Christianity as not a religion. Marriage also occurs socially even absent religion, and legally. And especially for the legal form, since religion cannot be the basis of law, neither can religion be the basis of restriction of law.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
bergignon said:
Yes. I know there is. I just think same-sex marriage soils the real definition of marriage, what it is, and what it represents.
Click to expand...
The real and most universal definition of marriage summing up all of history and culture:

The joining of two or more individuals in a union for emotional, financial and/or political purposes.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Carjosse said:
Minus everything from the dawn of time till the rise of Christianity and it continued in other parts of the world. Have you never looked at Roman or Greek history?
Click to expand...
There is a culture that has and still practices polyandry to this day.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
The Bible not only accepted polygamy, it also accepted the use of concubines while in marriage.
 
Can't think of a single reason to be against it except 'I don't like it' which is not good enough. Plenty of 'nice' blonde midwestern girls take it up the butt from their husbands, yet somehow men aren't allowed to? Kills the 'unnatural' argument. The rest - tradition, religion, 'morality' are highly subjective and should not infringe upon personal liberty.
 
maquiscat said:
There is a culture that has and still practices polyandry to this day.

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

Multiple marriages, each and every one of them between a man and a woman. Not sure of your point.
 
maquiscat said:
The real and most universal definition of marriage summing up all of history and culture:

The joining of two or more individuals in a union for emotional, financial and/or political purposes.

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

And from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century you can add the characteristic of being between a man and a woman.
 
maquiscat said:
Marriage has never been solely a religious thing, and even among the religions never universal in who could marry whom.
Click to expand...

Until this century all were limited to men and women
 
maquiscat said:
This still does not show as a basis that marriage is about procreation. All this does is place legalization on the odds that a man married to the mother will be the father. Marriage still does not require offsprings and thus the potential of offspring is not sufficient grounds for denying the legal institution of marriage to any couple.
Click to expand...

No one claimed "Marriage is about procreation". No one claimed marriage "required offspring". The assertion is that procreation is a "basis for matrimony" Latin root of the word, MATER, MOTHER.
 
dixon01767 said:
No one claimed "Marriage is about procreation". No one claimed marriage "required offspring". The assertion is that procreation is a "basis for matrimony" Latin root of the word, MATER, MOTHER.
Click to expand...
Let's back up a bit and get some clarity.

Are you claiming that marriage and matrimony are the same or two separate things?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Let's back up a bit and get some clarity.

Are you claiming that marriage and matrimony are the same or two separate things?

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

Dawn of civilization through the 20th century they were.

whatisanopinion said:
The issue is we.all get emotional over this word "marriage". Fine. Change the lrgal term.for heteros and homos something else, whatever.
Click to expand...

dixon01767 said:
Matrimony for the heteros. Latin root of the word, Mater. MOTHER. Only a man can make a woman a mother. Although, I dont really like the idea of altering the english language to avoid offending the gays.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Damn, you beat me to it.
Click to expand...

This lie has been debunked so many times it is a wonder anyone even tries to use it anymore

But then those opposing SSM dont have any actual argument so they have to make up BS
 
Quag said:
This lie has been debunked so many times it is a wonder anyone even tries to use it anymore

But then those opposing SSM dont have any actual argument so they have to make up BS
Click to expand...

Somewhat similar to their arguments for banning a woman's right to choose.
 
Quag said:
As I suspected no attempt on your part to make an actual argument against SSM, just insults.
Click to expand...

Ive presented my argument to which you had no relevant reply. But here I was disputing your assertion that I was "claiming SSM shouldnt be allowed" because I made no such claim. You couldnt produce the post of mine where I had, and now we know you are full of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom