• 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

I prefer the term closely related as incestuous implies a sexual relationship. 49 states make that a crime and would continue to do so even with marriage extended to the closely related. Coincidently, Rhode Island who doesnt prohibit a father banging his daughter soon as she comes of age, did go to the effort to ban and criminalize same sex marriages between closely related people when they legalized gay marriage, as their marriage laws in place prior only banned closely related marriages to the opposite sex.

Still no argument against SSM
 
Same sex marriage excludes closely related people with no rational justification for doing so making it unconstitutional discrimination.
there is rational justification. Allowing closely related couples to get married encourages incest.

A legitimate arguement the peanut gallery cant even begin to address.
I just presented one.
 
Same-sex couples shouldn't get married because you can't marry your brother?
.

No, Closely related couples should be able to marry because same sex marriage excludes them.
 
there is rational justification. Allowing closely related couples to get married encourages incest.

I just presented one.
Since marriage in general doesn't encourage sex in general, i.e. sex happens outside of marriage with frequency, then how does marriage between consanguineous couples encourage incest any further than it already occurs? This assumes the use of incest as sex and not marriage as written in some states' laws.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
No, Closely related couples should be able to marry because same sex marriage excludes them.

Still not an argument agsinst SSM
You really seem clueless on how this line of thought is never going to help you in any way
 
Same sex marriage excludes closely related people with no rational justification for doing so making it unconstitutional discrimination. A legitimate arguement the peanut gallery cant even begin to address.

The reason nobody is addressing it is because you're using bizarre phraseology and it's confusing people.

Two dudes in Ohio getting married is not the reason you can't marry your sister. The reason you can't marry your sister is a law preventing you from doing so. Same-sex marriage is irrelevant to the question, one form of marriage does not justify another. You never argued "interracial marriage excludes same sex couples," right? So why this?

If you challenge that law stopping you from marrying your sister in court, the burden will be on the state to justify that law with a rational basis. Personally, I don't think "slightly elevated risk of birth defects" would hold up, because lots of things cause an elevated risk of birth defects. We don't annul marriages of women who drink while pregnant, or smoke. Or live in an area with higher radon levels.

"I morally disapprove of it" or "my holy book says it's wrong" are also not sufficient to pass a rational basis.
 
Last edited:
Still not an argument agsinst SSM

Of course it is. Imagine 20 years ago in response to advocates for gay marriage claiming its not an argument against traditional marriage.
 
The reason nobody is addressing it is because you're using bizarre phraseology and it's confusing people.

Two dudes in Ohio getting married is not the reason you can't marry your sister..

But IT IS the reason that excluding the closely related is unconstitutional. Excluding the closely related from marriage limited to men and women because only men and women procreate was perfectly constitutional.
 
I just believe you do not care to recognize Democrats who voted for Trump
 
Of course it is. Imagine 20 years ago in response to advocates for gay marriage claiming its not an argument against traditional marriage.

Of course it is. Imagine 20 years ago in response to advocates for gay marriage claiming its not an argument against traditional marriage.

I cannot imagine anyone making your non argument 20 years ago.
Still waiting for you to make an actual argument
Why are you so reticent? Is it because dont actually have one?
 
Since marriage in general doesn't encourage sex in general, i.e. sex happens outside of marriage with frequency, then how does marriage between consanguineous couples encourage incest any further than it already occurs? This assumes the use of incest as sex and not marriage as written in some states' laws.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
So you really are questioning me on how marriage encourages sex and procreation? Seriously?
 
So you really are questioning me on how marriage encourages sex and procreation? Seriously?
In this day and age, yes. Sex occurs frequently outside of marriage, and IIRC, there are studies that show how sex declines in frequency after a period of being married. I'll leave that latter as tentative, as I am not in a position to look for such right now, but I do know it is a common complaint, especially among men, of how there is less sex the further along a marriage goes.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
So if the act of incest is illegal why should we let closely related to people getting married?
Because legal marriage does not require sex to occur, so a consanguineous couple can obtain that legal status, with all benefits thereof, without violating any ban against sex between blood related individuals.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
In this day and age, yes. Sex occurs frequently outside of marriage, and IIRC, there are studies that show how sex declines in frequency after a period of being married. I'll leave that latter as tentative, as I am not in a position to look for such right now, but I do know it is a common complaint, especially among men, of how there is less sex the further along a marriage goes.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I'm pretty certain sex occurs frequently within marriage too.
 
Because legal marriage does not require sex to occur, so a consanguineous couple can obtain that legal status, with all benefits thereof, without violating any ban against sex between blood related individuals.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

This argument is absurd. what closely related to people get married because they would have sex anyway?

There is still a taboo on it and it should remain you haven't given me any reason to remove it.
 
I'm pretty certain sex occurs frequently within marriage too.
No doubt. But that doesn't show that marriage encourages sex, especially with the frequency it occurs outside of marriage, which was your argument.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
But IT IS the reason that excluding the closely related is unconstitutional.
No it isn't.

Excluding the closely related from marriage limited to men and women because only men and women procreate was perfectly constitutional.

SCOTUS explicitly rejected this, so legally you are wrong.
 
So if the act of incest is illegal why should we let closely related to people getting married?

Because excluding them is unconstitutional discrimination with no rational relation between the governmental interest and distinction of being closely related, of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom