[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[dixon01767]

Nope, marriage isn't about having children, there are provisions if children occur but that isn't the reason for marriage

Yes, by judicial declaration marriage now has nothing to do with procreation. Thats why prohibiting two sisters from marying because they might procreate and produce genetic defects is unconstitutiomnal discrimination

 

[Quag]

Yes, by judicial declaration marriage now has nothing to do with procreation. Thats why prohibiting two sisters from marying because they might procreate and produce genetic defects is unconstitutiomnal discrimination

It didn't in the past as has already been shown to you SSM existed in many cultures throughout history.

 

[Quag]

Change is a constant so what happened in the past is irrelevant. I was married in the later 1980s and we were never asked about whether we were going to have children.


If marriage was about having children then why aren't heterosexual couples asked if they plan to start a family? There would also be a fertility test and women or men who are infertile do not receive the benefit if marriage is about procreation. Do older couples where the woman has experienced menopause still get the same financial benefits that you could d are about having children?
Religious beliefs and marriage do not intertwine in the eyes of the government or what rights we have.

I have already shown Dixon repeatedly I may add that SS has existed in different cultures throughout history He cannot use the claim that it was conceived around marriage or it was historically between a man and a woman. They are bogus claims any attempt to make an argument based on them (something he has not actually done) will be flawed.

 

[dixon01767]

Change is a constant so what happened in the past is irrelevant. I was married in the later 1980s and we were never asked about whether we were going to have children..

Most pregnancies are unplanned. You wouldnt limit condoms to just those who plan on becoming pregnant while denying them to those who have no such plans. Again, the purpose was INCLUDING all with the potential of procreation and there was no concern for excluding anyone. My ex wife took bith control pills for 6 years, only to find out in her 2nd marriage that she never had the ability to procreate. AND STILL, the potential of procreation is why drs prescribe birth control to women who engage in sex with people of the opposite sex and dont prescribe them to women who only engage in sexual relations with the same sex

 

[dixon01767]

I have already shown Dixon repeatedly I may add that SS has existed in different cultures.

Same Sex exists in all cultures. Legal Marriage was limited to men and women in all cultures.

 

[dixon01767]

It didn't in the past as has already been shown to you SSM existed in many cultures throughout history.

Nope. from the dawn of civilization through the 19th century legal marriage was limited to men and women. Someone was making a big deal how the japanese culture views homosexual and heterosexual love as equal, and yet, STILL marriage is limited to men and women in Japan.

 

[Quag]

Same Sex exists in all cultures. Legal Marriage was limited to men and women in all cultures.

This statement has already been shown to be false

 

[Lisa]

Most pregnancies are unplanned. You wouldn't limit condoms too just those who plan on becoming pregnant while denying them to those who have no such plans. Again, the purpose was INCLUDING all with the potential of procreation and there was no concern for excluding anyone. My ex-wife took birth control pills for 6 years, only to find out in her 2nd marriage that she never had the ability to procreate. AND STILL, the potential of procreation is why Drs prescribe birth control to women who engage in sex with people of the opposite sex and don't prescribe them to women who only engage in sexual relations with the same sex

Procreation is irrelevant to marriage. There was never anything in US law that linked either of them. Marriage in the US is not religious. Matrimony is the religious action that the state has no voice in because of the separation of church and state.

Drs prescribe BCPs because the patients ask for them and not because of something that the Dr thinks should be treated. I know this for a fact because I take them. Obviously, there are other effective and semi-effective means of birth control.
What is it going to take for you to understand that marriage and procreation are not linked? Do you also want to deny marriage rights to heteros who cannot and don't want to have children because of your instance that marriage is about procreation? What happens when one of the partners is intersexxed? What about a trans woman who wants to have children but medically she cannot? Should she be denied the ability to marry, even if they choose to adopt?

 

[Quag]

Nope. from the dawn of civilization through the 19th century legal marriage was limited to men and women. Someone was making a big deal how the japanese culture views homosexual and heterosexual love as equal, and yet, STILL marriage is limited to men and women in Japan.

Nope SSM existe din many cultures throughout history
Timeline of same-sex marriage - Wikipedia
History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[6]

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions.

Note the term marriage is used not just union

You have been shown this before and are now just being dishonest

 

[Lisa]

Nope. from the dawn of civilization through the 19th-century legal marriage was limited to men and women. Someone was making a big deal how the Japanese culture views homosexual and heterosexual love as equal, and yet, STILL, marriage is limited to men and women in Japan.

That claim is very wrong. Same-sex marriage was banned by the Christian church in the 342 AD, which means that it previously existed.

Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

What is it about same-sex marriage that bothers you? How are you affected if 2 consenting adults of the same gender are married?

 

[dixon01767]

Procreation is irrelevant to marriage. There was never anything in US law that linked either of them.

nonsense. Quotes from 20th century court decisions


"Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple."
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race".
SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON | FindLaw

"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation"
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

i]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

It would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL | FindLaw

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

 

[dixon01767]

That claim is very wrong. Same-sex marriage was banned by the Christian church in the 342 AD, which means that it previously existed. ?

No. Just like DOMA limited marriage to men and women even though, nowhere in the US was same sex marriage allowed when it was enacted. Before Constantine marriage was limited to men and women, Constantine made it a crime to depart from that limitation. .

 

[dixon01767]

What is it about same-sex marriage that bothers you? How are you affected if 2 consenting adults of the same gender are married?

Im the one advocating that marriage be extended to any two consenting adults who wish to be married instead of just extending it to gays.

 

[Lisa]

nonsense. Quotes from 20th century court decisions


"Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple."
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race".
SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON | FindLaw

"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation"
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

i]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child-rearing, and family relationships. . . .

It would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL | FindLaw

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

Your entire argument ignores logic and biology.

Heterosexuals aren't turning gay just to marry people of the same gender, so homosexuality of LGBT marriage does not in any way threaten the existence of the human species. The earth is already overcrowded so we do not need the state to endorse people to procreate.

LGBT couples can have heterosexual sex just to conceive a child that is later adopted by their partner. This also ignores the ability of sperm banks, surrogates and IVF.

At the time of the Skinner decision, interracial heterosexual marriage was illegal in many states.

 

[dixon01767]

Nope SSM existe din many cultures throughout history
Timeline of same-sex marriage - Wikipedia
History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia


Note the term marriage is used not just union

You have been shown this before and are now just being dishonest

And notice the one place where they use the term marriage for same sex unions was the emperor. BUT

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[130] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[131]
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia

I did say LEGAL marriage was limited to men and women. We can see where the dishonesty resides. There was an entire order of Monks at one time who commonly married each other. And the authorities executed them all for doing so because legal marriage was limited to men and women

 

[Lisa]

No. Just like DOMA limited marriage to men and women even though, nowhere in the US was same-sex marriage allowed when it was enacted. Before Constantine marriage was limited to men and women, Constantine made it a crime to depart from that limitation. .

Gay marriage was well known in Greek and Roman cultures. Constantine tried to change that.

 

[dixon01767]

Your entire argument ignores logic and biology.
.

That is all arguments and logic of the courts. All were quotes from court cases. And you are evidently not able to follow their logic. Procreation continues just fine with or without marriage. Only need to look at the current African American population in the US. They have lower rates of marriage and yet have HIGHER birth rates than whites. Marriage INHIBITED procreation. Procreation wasn't the goal. PREVENTING procreation outside of marriage was the purpose. States didn't make it a crime to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage to encourage procreation. They did so to discourage procreation outside of marriage.

 

[dixon01767]

Gay marriage was well known in Greek and Roman cultures. Constantine tried to change that.

Nope, the Greeks and Romans liked to diddle little boys but they still married and procreated with women.

 

[Quag]

And notice the one place where they use the term marriage for same sex unions was the emperor. BUT


I did say LEGAL marriage was limited to men and women. We can see where the dishonesty resides. There was an entire order of Monks at one time who commonly married each other. And the authorities executed them all for doing so because legal marriage was limited to men and women

So did I
Legal SSM existed in Rome as in other cultures
It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[130] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[131]
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia
So you fail yet again and once gain only deal with Rome as if it is the only place where marriage ever occurred

 

[Lisa]

That is all arguments and logic of the courts. All were quotes from court cases. And you are evidently not able to follow their logic. Procreation continues just fine with or without marriage. Only need to look at the current African American population on the US. They have lower rates of marriage and yet have HIGHER birth rates than whites. Marriage INHIBITED procreation. Procreation wasn't the goal. PREVENTING procreation outside of marriage was the purpose. States didn't make it a crime to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage to encourage procreation. They did so to discourage procreation outside of marriage.

The SCOTUS often gets it very wrong. This is why we have Lochner, Korematsu, Citizens United and Dred Scott, among many others

 

[dixon01767]

So did I
Legal SSM existed in Rome as in other cultures
It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[130] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[131]
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia
So you fail yet again and once gain only deal with Rome as if it is the only place where marriage ever occurred

Legal marriage didnt occur in Rome because when same sex marriage did occur, "conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law"

 

[Lisa]

Legal marriage didnt occur in Rome because when same-sex marriage did occur, "conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law"

Why do you always try to misrepresent the facts? Same-sex unions were common in Rome, Greece and even the Egyptian empire.

14. Ancient Greece. The aristocratic ideal of homosexual love in fifth-century Athens emphasized romantic relationships between an older man and a post-pubescent youth. This ideal is reflected in a great deal of classical literature: but as an ideal, it has also misled many modern writers into assertions that homosexuality was mostly an Athenian aristocratic pursuit based on short term and private affaires.715. In fact there has long been ample evidence of long term relationships, recognized by contemporaries. For instance Plato's Symposiumcontains one long-term couple -Agathon and Pausanias,8and Aristotle discusses another couple, Philolaus and Diocles who capped a lifetime commitment by being buried together.9The long term existence of male brothels in Athens should also give pause to anyone who wishes to claim that homosexuality only involved upper class men at the gymnasia.16. It is somewhat difficult to establish, for Athens, that even these long term relationships were comparable to marriage. Outside Athens, however, there is rather strong evidence of public ceremonial couplings of same-sex lovers.

Emperor Nero was also in a gay marriage,
Sporus - Wikipedia

 

[Quag]

Legal marriage didnt occur in Rome because when same sex marriage did occur, "conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law"

Your claim has already been shown to be false
Not that it matters as you havent actually made an argument just a statement

 

[TheEconomist]

Nope, the Greeks, and Romans liked to diddle little boys but they still married and procreated with women.

In his commentary on the ten commandments, Denis Prager made a point regarding the commandment against adultery. He said that throughout history, it was common for older men to seek younger men for pleasure and to keep their wives for procreation. Part of the innovation behind this commandment is the absence of an exception for such things. Irrespective of what a married couple agreed to do, to be married and to have sex with someone else than your spouse was deemed sinful, meaning the only morally acceptable way to seek such pleasures would be with your spouse. The commandment against adultery, to paraphrase Prager, enjoined people to make the marital bed erotic.

Of course, all of that admittedly speaks to a peculiar view on how marriage and sexuality ought to be lived which is precisely why I would say that backing up this view with the force of law is problematic. From the point of view of the government, irrespective of what you think, marriage can only be called a contract. The only way you can turn Prager's view from potentially morally valuable advice into law is by granting the State the power to enforce the preferred moral views of some people on others. Considering the very good point made by Lisa that homosexuals whether married or not do not have any impact on your life and that they obviously consent to the duties tied to marriage, I don't think anyone has a legitimate claim against them signing that contract.

Historically, if you can find instances where same-sex marriage was sanctioned, it seems like you have to dig back well over 1500 years in the past. So, it is true that when people argued same-sex marriage should be recognized everywhere in the US, they were asking for a big change. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like that long-standing tradition could have been upheld without impeding on individual autonomy. I don't know if the SCOTUS did the right thing recently with regards to same-sex marriage. The word of the law as it was publicly understood when each law was ratified should be the criterion by which we judge the merit of their judgment and the SCOTUS has often engaged in heroic re-interpretation of historical documents. Moreover, there might be something to be said for my position to not be as compelling as it sounds to me since it took a court ruling to strike bans on same-sex marriage out of existence.

 

[TheEconomist]

That's why prohibiting two sisters from marrying because they might procreate and produce genetic defects is unconstitutional discrimination.

Just in case you didn't notice, two sisters cannot procreate with one another even if they wanted.