[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[Rich2018]

You're going to need more words than that for a decent reply.

The answer of more words was spelled out in post #3053

 

[Rich2018]

Nothing

My point exactly - see post #3053

So two elderly, biological, sisters should not be allowed to marry.

 

[Peter King]

Yeah, your strawman is nonsense. No one "call it only for procreating".

So I apologized for having misunderstood your comment ABOUT PROCREATING AND MARRIAGE and still the complaining goes on, classy.

I haven't made a strawman, it is a sad state of affair that you cannot accept a simple apology.

 

[Rich2018]

So we have over 300 pages of posts.

Do anyone have any good, non religious, objections to same sex marriage?

 

[Peter King]

So we have over 300 pages of posts.

Do anyone have any good, non religious, objections to same sex marriage?

In my opinion there is no good reason to object to same sex marriage.

 

[dixon01767]

My point exactly - see post #3053

So two elderly, biological, sisters should not be allowed to marry.

Of course they should. If you are going to let two lesbians marry, you dont have any justification for excluding two sisters. What possible justification could there be?

 

[dixon01767]

Good so yo can drop any mention of it ever again as it is cannot be relevant in any way to any argument against SSM

To quote the courts

"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

 

[CLAX1911]

Well, now that marriage has been declared to be unrelated to procreation and is now instead to help form stable homes, and since there are probably 10 times as many households made up of a single adult parent and a single grandparent, than there are homes made up of a gay couple, what possible justification would there be to exclude them? Cant selectively hold on to your silly, old testament prohibitions.

Marriage was never in the history of the United States declared to be related to procreation.

 

[Lisa]

Dont know many gay guys but of the handful I do know in their 40s -50s most all used to be married to a woman and had kids. Id theorizes that for a younger man, starting a family takes precedence over sexual gratification. Once the kids are raised sexual gratification takes precedence.

Once again your theorizing is very wrong. That is what is so predictable about you. They married people of the opposite sex because they were in the closet because of social or religious opposition to being open and public about their sexuality. It wasnt that they wanted kids. It was because they tried to be someone who they were not.

 

[Lisa]

To quote the courts

"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 the 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

Publicly available sperm banks and surrogacy didn't widely exist at the time of the Skinner decision. The fact that you don't need to be married to procreate is also obvious, especially teens. Obviously, they do exist now and marriage is completely unrelated to procreation. The fact that LGBT people exist isn't a threat to the survival of the species because the earth is overpopulated. Many people are also choosing not to have kids because of the economic situation.

 

[Lisa]

Of course they should. If you are going to let two lesbians marry, you dont have any justification for excluding two sisters. What possible justification could there be?

Incest is not permitted, so banning 2 closely related people from marrying is expected.

 

[Quag]

To quote the courts

"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

To quote Dixon

Yeah, your strawman is nonsense. No one "call it only for procreating".

Post menopausal women have been allowed to marry proving that it is not a prerequisite for marriage and thus has no bearing on whether SS coupels can marry

Now do you have an actual arguement?

 

[Lisa]

To quote Dixon

Post menopausal women have been allowed to marry proving that it is not a prerequisite for marriage and thus has no bearing on whether SS coupels can marry

Now do you have an actual arguement?

If procreation was a basis of marriage then a fertility test and a sworn pledge to have children or the marriage would be annulled would be required as part of obtaining the marriage license. Obviously that is not the situation.

 

[Rich2018]

Of course they should. If you are going to let two lesbians marry, you dont have any justification for excluding two sisters. What possible justification could there be?

And you don't see the legal issues with such an open stand?

 

[Frigidweirdo]

The answer of more words was spelled out in post #3053

And you think this is going to lead to a great discussion? I don't.

 

[roguenuke]

They arent the same. Marriage only transforms a man into a father.

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;

So then if a woman has a baby using sperm donation, does that not make her spouse the child's other parent? What if they adopt? What if they don't have children or are in fact not allowed to marry if they can procreate?

 

[roguenuke]

It excludes closely related couples of the same sex with no rational justification and therefore unconstitutional discrimination.

Then go start fighting for those couples' right to marry. No one is stopping you nor anyone else from starting that argument, taking it to the court and/or the laws of any state (Rhode Island is ahead of you, they actually allow certain/many closely related couples, of any sex, to marry).

 

[roguenuke]

Nonsense. Physical impossibility for two people of the same sex to procreate or even give rise to any genetic conditions.

There is also the legitimate question of manipulation within the relationship, especially if the two people are of different ages/generations (either had authority over the other at any point in their upbringing). Which is why teachers aren't generally allowed to date their students, or therapists to date their patients, unfair influence in the relationship.

That being said, you are perfectly free to fight for them to have marriage rights in court or within our laws themselves. I'll support certain changes (1st cousins of either sex should be allowed to marry, and siblings who were not raised together should also be allowed to marry, although I think some genetic counseling would definitely be warranted for those of the opposite sex since most are so ignorant on how likely it is for offspring of these two types of relationships to each have genetic defaults/diseases (one is a lot greater than the other).

 

[roguenuke]

To quote Dixon

Post menopausal women have been allowed to marry proving that it is not a prerequisite for marriage and thus has no bearing on whether SS coupels can marry

Now do you have an actual arguement?

Women with no uteruses (uteri?) are allowed to marry. Men who have had vasectomies are allowed to marry.

 

[roguenuke]

Read the windsor and obergefell decisions. It is the basis of their decision. Marriage limited to men and women because only men and women procreate was upheld by the courts dozens of times. What was declared unconstitutional was marriage limited to men and women intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.

Laws that limit cousins getting married only if they cannot procreate already contradict those decisions. Those laws existed long before same sex marriages in the US.

 

[Quag]

Women with no uteruses (uteri?) are allowed to marry. Men who have had vasectomies are allowed to marry.

Of course which is why this line of reasoning is a compelte failure in Dixons part.

 

[Overitall]

Unless the basic tenant of evolution -- "survival of the fittest" -- is proven wrong on it's face, homosexuality must be wrong since it doesn't promote reproduction of the species.

 

[Angel]

Unless the basic tenant of evolution -- "survival of the fittest" -- is proven wrong on it's face, homosexuality must be wrong since it doesn't promote reproduction of the species.

The basic "tenant" of evolution is typically one deprived of a background in the humanities.
The basic tenet of evolution is a tautology -- it cannot be falsified, but isn't worth a damn as a truth.
The topic of this thread is "same-sex marriage," not the morality of homosexuality.
Welcome to DP.

 

[enderpotato00]

Who the hell is still against same-sex marriage? I'm conservative, and quite frankly don't care about gay people marrying each other. This is America, they should be allowed to do what they want.

 

[Overitall]

The basic "tenant" of evolution is typically one deprived of a background in the humanities.
The basic tenet of evolution is a tautology -- it cannot be falsified, but isn't worth a damn as a truth.
The topic of this thread is "same-sex marriage," not the morality of homosexuality.
Welcome to DP.

Oops. Thanks for the correction and the welcome.

Didn't think the argument I was presenting had anything to do with morality. Evolution doesn't care about your morality.