[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[maquiscat]

What are you going on about?

The argument that you gave, hypothetical or not, is that matrimony is for heterosexuals because the basis of the word is Mater, meaning Mother. If this is not what you are trying to say, then you need to reword your argument since that is the impression you give.

The institution that we call matrimony in English, is an institution that exists in other cultures regardless of language. In order for the argument that Mater or Mother as the basis of the word matrimony indicates that the institution is for heterosexuals only to be valid, then that basis would have to be consistent across all languages. That regardless of what language was used, they would ALL be based on a word that mean Mother. Such is not the case. Thus the argument that matrimony is for heterosexuals only because of the base word Mater is wrong and false.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well you seem to have collected them all. What do you intend to with your collection? Scotus threw theirs in the dumpster several years back . Nobody else has dived in after them.

Oh but apparently some ARE indeed diving after them, with the intention of stacking SCOTUS repeatedly UNTIL they reverse that decision.

 

[maquiscat]

Apparently anything BUT gay marriage, and some of the biblical choices are whoppers.

View attachment 67258034

I don't know how many time I going to have to repeat this. When I made that response, for some reason, through Tapatalk, there was nothing showing for number 1. Later, when using my laptop and going through the website, it was filled in. I still don't have any idea why that happened.

Just now I went back via Tapatalk and this is what shows for the first two on the list, copied and pasted:

1.

2. It requires a new definition of marriage.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I don't know how many time I going to have to repeat this. When I made that response, for some reason, through Tapatalk, there was nothing showing for number 1. Later, when using my laptop and going through the website, it was filled in. I still don't have any idea why that happened.

Just now I went back via Tapatalk and this is what shows for the first two on the list, copied and pasted:

1.

2. It requires a new definition of marriage.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

And I'm simply saying that the religious whackos think that biblical marriage is somehow sacrosanct and pure, which it isn't, as the table above shows.

 

[dixon01767]

Well its been beat to death here over the years, some threads went over 2000 posts and the reality is there is no logical argument against it that matters to rights and legality. Nobody could ever provide one.
Any "argument" is based on meaningless snowflake feelings and or retarded claims that again dont mater to reality rights and legality. :shrug:

Mine is based upon basic equal protection law. 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.

 

[Quag]

Yes, you have kicked the **** out of that strawman. You can let it go now. I said Marriage only transforms a man into a father.

Yes you did say that, perhaps you should put more thought into your sentence structure.
Now back to the your false claim, that marriage was historically only between a man and a woman, even your own link disproves this claim
Will you withdraw the claim or continue to propagate a falsehood?

 

[Quag]

Mine is based upon basic equal protection law. 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.

Is it about the word matrimony? Is it because of closely related people not being able to marry? Is it because of who can become a father?
I mean seriously you are schizophrenic with your non arguments.

 

[maquiscat]

And I'm simply saying that the religious whackos think that biblical marriage is somehow sacrosanct and pure, which it isn't, as the table above shows.

I'm aware of that but of idiocy. My question at the time was looking for what was seemingly missing, so that I all all information before forming a response.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[TheEconomist]

What kind of cast is created by laws that prohibit closely related couples from marrying? All states have laws similiar to the below. Do they continue to create a cast based upon sexual orientation?

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;

Marriage wasn't limited to men and women in order to exclude homosexuals. It was so limited to INCLUDE all those couples with the potential of procreation. For the same reason the above statute is still limited to men and women.

First of all, it's not because consequences are unintended that they become irrelevant and, clearly, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman does exclude some consenting adults. "I didn't mean to" is, frankly, a sad excuse.

Second of all, it doesn't address my core concern, which is that the government has no business promoting some view of the good life. It doesn't matter if a majority would like the government to act on this impulse. It doesn't matter if what is part of the demand of some group of people to whom the majority seeks to impose its views runs against tradition. And it doesn't matter how you or anyone else defines marriage. You may have a right to your opinion and a right to voice that opinion, but you do not have a right to tell consenting adults the contract they would like to sign is void because it doesn't fit your moral views -- especially not when it comes to these sorts of decisions.

Many people underestimate the value of agreeing to let each other do as we please. You can't eternally get away with proposals that require others to let you do as you please while you do not reciprocate. Sooner or later, those chicken are coming home to roost.

 

[dixon01767]

First of all, it's not because consequences are unintended that they become irrelevant and, clearly, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman does exclude some consenting adults. .

No one claimed otherwise. I'll wait here while you dash after the strawman.

 

[dixon01767]

Is it about the word matrimony?

Nope

Is it because of closely related people not being able to marry?

Yep

Is it because of who can become a father?

Nope. Did you have a point or just stupid questions?

 

[Quag]

Nope

Yep

Nope. Did you have a point or just stupid questions?

Im trying to get you to actually make your argument. I geuss that will never happen

 

[TheEconomist]

No one claimed otherwise. I'll wait here while you dash after the strawman.

It might be possible that I reacted more to your wording than to the spirit of your claim in this first reply, though I have a hard time seeing how I misportrayed your views so badly as to warrant the claim I was involved in a fallacious argument. Regardless, I also provided you with a second reply. The essence of my objection is that the majority of people has no right to tell by law a minority with whom they get to marry or not. Your comment did nothing to address that concern, even though you originally replied to me.

 

[TheEconomist]

They call them "same sex unions" because they were not marriages.

Let me get this straight.

Right now, in the US, homosexuals can sign a marriage contract that will not be nullified by the government, whether state or federal. Your problem is not so much with the content of that contract as with the label: you find it objectionable that the government calls this a marriage contract. If I am correct, I suppose that for the greater part of it, if they signed the exact same contract, but it was called by another name, you would be okay with this sort of policy. This would be much more problematic to reply since the obvious problem (different consequences) would be irrelevant and it would be a matter of wording.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nope

Yep

Nope. Did you have a point or just stupid questions?

So you're blaming other people for your failure to communicate properly?

There would be no questions if you made A cogent argument.

Know anybody that asks you questions they're just stupid.

Fine to end this once and for all, somehow I doubt it will be satisfactory or you'll do your standard thing where you edit out parts of the post, you're right about everything all the time no matter what.

There is no need to post a response to this because you're right you win all the time no matter what we shouldn't have a such thing as school or college or education we should have ask Dixon. I mean people go to college for damn near a decade to get a law degree but it's all worthless because you know better.

 

[dixon01767]

Im trying to get you to actually make your argument. I geuss that will never happen

Mine is based upon basic equal protection law. 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.

..................

 

[dixon01767]

So you're blaming other people for your failure to communicate properly?

There would be no questions if you made A cogent argument.

.

Mine is based upon basic equal protection law. 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.

..............

 

[dixon01767]

Let me get this straight.

Right now, in the US, homosexuals can sign a marriage contract that will not be nullified by the government, whether state or federal. Your problem is not so much with the content of that contract as with the label: you find it objectionable that the government calls this a marriage contract. If I am correct, ......

You are not.

 

[Quag]

..................

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

I suspect you will do neither

 

[TheEconomist]

You are not.

How about instead of having me guess your position, or search through 200 pages of a forum thread to pin it down, you put it clearly in your own words what is your position on same-sex marriage? If you find that this is a misnomer, you can say that as well, as long as we all get a better idea of what you think and give some reasons to support those opinions. If you want to use bullet points, or just point to the right pages, that will also do.

You previously claimed both me and Quag were engaged in strawman arguments. We could be ill-motivated, of course, in which case the accusation is quite justified. However, we could be genuinely at a lost regarding the spirit of your claims. This is not meant to be taken as an insult, or any kind of insinuation that your thoughts are cryptic or confused. I am under the impression that the things you wrote make a lot of sense to you in large part because you benefit from background information that we, unfortunately, do not have. It's what psychologists call the curse of knowledge -- when you know something, it can be hard to figure out how to help someone trying to make sense of it because you're not in that position anymore.

Can you please make your thoughts more explicit? Like, stating clearly your positions and perhaps outline the essence of your arguments so we all have a leg to stand on?

 

[CLAX1911]

..............

Dddddddddd

 

[CLAX1911]

You are not.

Isn't it funny how nobody understands your argument? The whole world must be idiots huh?

 

[dixon01767]

Still waiting for an actual argument.

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.

 

[dixon01767]

How about instead of having me guess your position, or search through 200 pages of a forum thread to pin it down, you put it clearly in your own words what is your position on same-sex marriage? If you find that this is a misnomer, you can say that as well, as long as we all get a better idea of what you think and give some reasons to support those opinions. If you want to use bullet points, or just point to the right pages, that will also do.

You previously claimed both me and Quag were engaged in strawman arguments. We could be ill-motivated, of course, in which case the accusation is quite justified. However, we could be genuinely at a lost regarding the spirit of your claims. This is not meant to be taken as an insult, or any kind of insinuation that your thoughts are cryptic or confused. I am under the impression that the things you wrote make a lot of sense to you in large part because you benefit from background information that we, unfortunately, do not have. It's what psychologists call the curse of knowledge -- when you know something, it can be hard to figure out how to help someone trying to make sense of it because you're not in that position anymore.

Can you please make your thoughts more explicit? Like, stating clearly your positions and perhaps outline the essence of your arguments so we all have a leg to stand on?

You could of just gone through the page you were reading.

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. While under traditional marriage limited to men and women because only men and women procreate, the exclusion was rational and therefore constitutional. It no longer is so.

 

[TheEconomist]

You could of just gone through the page you were reading.

At a minimum, any distinction used to discriminate must be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. The exclusion of closely related people doesn't meet those minimums. While under traditional marriage limited to men and women because only men and women procreate, the exclusion was rational and therefore constitutional. It no longer is so.

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.