• 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

Deuce said:
SCOTUS explicitly rejected this, so legally you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Nope, they ruled that marriage limited to men and women, in order to exclude homosexuals is unconstitutional.
 
dixon01767 said:
Because excluding them is unconstitutional discrimination with no rational relation between the governmental interest and distinction of being closely related, of course.
Click to expand...

Lessening the likelihood of inbreeding is absolutely a government interest.
 
CLAX1911 said:
This argument is absurd. what closely related to people get married because they would have sex anyway?
Click to expand...

There is only one reason to obtain a legal marriage. That is to receive the legal benefits. If you don't care about the legal benefits, what point is there to obtaining legal marriage?

There is still a taboo on it and it should remain you haven't given me any reason to remove it.
Click to expand...

Same sex marriage and even interracial marriage are still a taboo to a good, albeit dwindling, number of people, who have yet to be given any good reason as to why we made them legal. I've provided a good number of reasons, all as equally good as the reasons to remove the bans on interracial and same sex marriage. Just because you don't want to accept them, doesn't make them any less valid.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
CLAX1911 said:
Laws against incest forbid incestuous marriage aren't those the laws you are arguing are unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Hes not actually making any arguent but he does seem to be in favor of being able to marry his own sister or brother
 
CLAX1911 said:
Permission removes taboos.
Click to expand...
Given that marriage as permission for sex has long since been removed, this argument holds no water. Given also that sex is not a requirement for legal marriage puts more holes in the bucket.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Given that marriage as permission for sex has long since been removed, this argument holds no water. Given also that sex is not a requirement for legal marriage puts more holes in the bucket.

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

So we are left where we are. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation and therefore the exclusion of gay couples is unconstitutional, but we must not allow two elderly sisters to marry because they might procreate. The tortuous twisting of facts and law to arrive at the desired outcome.
 
CLAX1911 said:
allowing them to get married is.
Click to expand...

No, that would of been the case back when it was against the law for a man to have sexual relations with a woman that is not his wife. Against the law to even cohabitate in the same home. Back then marriage was permission to have sex. Now its about helping gays to feel better about themselves and just giving out marriages to just any two consenting adults who want one would diminish that effect.
 
maquiscat said:
There is only one reason to obtain a legal marriage. That is to receive the legal benefits. If you don't care about the legal benefits, what point is there to obtaining legal marriage?



Same sex marriage and even interracial marriage are still a taboo to a good, albeit dwindling, number of people, who have yet to be given any good reason as to why we made them legal. I've provided a good number of reasons, all as equally good as the reasons to remove the bans on interracial and same sex marriage. Just because you don't want to accept them, doesn't make them any less valid.

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

So why should we extend marriage benefits to closely related couples?
 
dixon01767 said:
No, that would of been the case back when it was against the law for a man to have sexual relations with a woman that is not his wife. Against the law to even cohabitate in the same home. Back then marriage was permission to have sex. Now its about helping gays to feel better about themselves and just giving out marriages to just any two consenting adults who want one would diminish that effect.
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't permission to have sex it is society approving the sexual intercourse you have. We don't let people marry children because we don't approve of the sexes you would have. We don't let people marry dogs because we don't approve of the sexes you would have.

we do let two men marry one another because we do approve the sex that they have.
 
maquiscat said:
Given that marriage as permission for sex has long since been removed, this argument holds no water. Given also that sex is not a requirement for legal marriage puts more holes in the bucket.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Fair enough I accept that marriage is not permission to have sex it is approval of your sexual relationship.
 
dixon01767 said:
So we are left where we are. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation and therefore the exclusion of gay couples is unconstitutional, but we must not allow two elderly sisters to marry because they might procreate. The tortuous twisting of facts and law to arrive at the desired outcome.
Click to expand...
I think you're the one twisting facts. You're so dedicated to this incest argument that you don't realize the discrepancy.

When you assault someone you're closely related to we call it domestic abuse. We call the rape of your child incest as well as child abuse and we don't call child abuse that does not occur between closely related to people incest.

Pointing out these things underscores a legal precedent for treating the relationship between family members differently than a relationship between people who are not family members.

Basically put all men are not Brothers all women are not sisters therefore it's not similar for two women to marry each other is it is for two sisters to marry each other.

Recognition of consanguinity is not congruent to recognition of sex.
 
dixon01767 said:
Nope, they ruled that marriage limited to men and women, in order to exclude homosexuals is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I'm unable to parse this statement. Obergerfell v Hodges rejected the idea that "only men and women can procreate" is justification for defining marriage as between a male and a female. I'm not sure what part of that you disagree with.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So why should we extend marriage benefits to closely related couples?
Click to expand...
Why should we have extended it to interracial and then to same sex couples? What legitimate reason do we have to exclude closely related couples? The base principle that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into this legal institution would naturally include closely related couples, especially since there is a lack of requirement for sex or procreation.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
CLAX1911 said:
Fair enough I accept that marriage is not permission to have sex it is approval of your sexual relationship.
Click to expand...
Given that there have been people who have gotten married strictly for the legal benefits and do not engage in sex, this argument also holds no water. There was a whole episode of Boston Legal (or whatever the show with Shatner and Spayder as lawyers) where those two characters wanted to get the legal marriage for the legal benefits, and they were not having sex. There are asexual individuals who want to be in marriages, and people who are incapable of sex wanting marriage. The ability or desire to have sex or not does not automatically indicate the desire to be married, especially with regards to the legal institution.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Why should we have extended it to interracial and then to same sex couples?
Click to expand...
because if they're not closely related they're not going to be inbreeding.

What legitimate reason do we have to exclude closely related couples?
Click to expand...
Inbreeding.

The base principle that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into this legal institution would naturally include closely related couples, especially since there is a lack of requirement for sex or procreation.
Click to expand...
the basic principle is that any two consenting adults that aren't related should be able to enter this institution.

So it naturally excludes closely related couples.
 
maquiscat said:
Given that there have been people who have gotten married strictly for the legal benefits and do not engage in sex, this argument also holds no water.
Click to expand...
people entering a marriage strictly for the legal status is not the rule it is the exception and the exception does not render my argument void. I would say probably 99% or more of married couples engage in sex I would say it's naive to think that they don't. That means my argument holds water wonderfully.

There was a whole episode of Boston Legal (or whatever the show with Shatner and Spayder as lawyers) where those two characters wanted to get the legal marriage for the legal benefits, and they were not having sex. There are asexual individuals who want to be in marriages, and people who are incapable of sex wanting marriage. The ability or desire to have sex or not does not automatically indicate the desire to be married, especially with regards to the legal institution.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Exceptions are not the rule sorry.
 
CLAX1911 said:
because if they're not closely related they're not going to be inbreeding.

Inbreeding.

the basic principle is that any two consenting adults that aren't related should be able to enter this institution.

So it naturally excludes closely related couples.
Click to expand...

You keep coming back to this idea that sex is part of the legal marriage institution. And while indeed many who obtain a legal marriage have sex, there is no requirement to do so. Therefore, a consanguineous couple should be able to obtain the legal status purely for the benefits. Especially since any non-consanguineous couple can obtain it purely for the benefits without engaging in sex.

The inbreeding argument fails completely simply because sex can occur without the legal institution of marriage. What evidence is there that a consanguineous couple is more likely to engage in sex if married, than if not married?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
You keep coming back to this idea that sex is part of the legal marriage institution. And while indeed many who obtain a legal marriage have sex, there is no requirement to do so. Therefore, a consanguineous couple should be able to obtain the legal status purely for the benefits. Especially since any non-consanguineous couple can obtain it purely for the benefits without engaging in sex.

The inbreeding argument fails completely simply because sex can occur without the legal institution of marriage. What evidence is there that a consanguineous couple is more likely to engage in sex if married, than if not married?

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

You say the inbreeding argument doesn't hold water we are just insisting on that you're not providing evidence for them.

I keep coming back to the sex part of marriage because that's what marriage is about maybe not legally but marriage is a more than just legal.

When you allow marriage between a couple you are a proving of sex between that couple.

until you show that all forms of marriage but no matter what equate to no expectation of sexual behavior between the participants the argument holds water.

You can assert that it doesn't until time stops without first showing the above there is no credibility to that assertion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom