• 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

And what reason would that be? Why must the mother and grandmother down the street, joined together for over a decade to provide and care for their 3 children/grandchildren be denied the benefits of marriage? Can someone share with us the reason why?

Because the society said no.
 
Of course you can. You just dont get the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that they want. Even here in conservative Central Texas I know of two churches who have been conducting same sex wedding ceremonies since the late 90s.

That isn't a marriage. It is a religious commitment ceremony that is not recognized by the state as legitimate. The FLDS church conducts polygamous marriage ceremonies that are also no recognized by the state as legitimate.
 
Which is logical, I would even include the marriage between a stepparent who was at least for about 10 years her actual parent, and a stepchild. And that cannot last for ever, but let us say a stepfather was the father of a stepchild for 14 years (from age 4 to age 18) then the young woman should not be allowed to marry him until she is 32 (14 years). Same goes for male children of course.

Yes, I would agree with that.

I would make it illegal for an adoptive father to marry his adopted daughter (or son) like Woody Allen did.
 
JFCoaS! You are ignorant. A person who is heterosexual or homosexual is not bisexual.

Its an identity. You can identify as whatever you like. No one has a gay meter to tell them they are wrong.
 
That isn't a marriage. It is a religious commitment ceremony that is not recognized by the state as legitimate. The FLDS church conducts polygamous marriage ceremonies that are also no recognized by the state as legitimate.

Same same sex marriages have been conducted outside of churches, officiated by other than clergy. When its a captain of a ship, it is not religious.
 
Because the society said no.

Thats not a justification that would withstand constitutional scrutiny. Society said no from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century regarding same sex marriages.
 
Marriage is not fundamental procreation is. Even if the statement was made it's a misnomer.

Actually, at the time in Oklahoma it was against the law for a man to engage in sexual relations with a woman that is not his wife. Making marriage fundamental.
 
That isn't a marriage. It is a religious commitment ceremony that is not recognized by the state as legitimate. The FLDS church conducts polygamous marriage ceremonies that are also no recognized by the state as legitimate.

I always posted that those who objected to gay marriage on religious grounds were welcome to forego the "tainted" legal marriage that recognizes gays. They are all welcome to be joined, in a marriage ceremony, in front of their god, in their holy places. According to them, that's what actually matters, that the 'institution' be confirmed by god.

And they can have that, all of them.

And they can have the govt-sanctioned version too, if they want. It's up to them but they are the ones still marrying under that 'tainted' institution. Why?

For the benefits and privileges conferred by govt recognition.

Here in America, what would make them entitled to those benefits and privileges and not gay couples?
 
Thats not a justification that would withstand constitutional scrutiny. Society said no from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century regarding same sex marriages.

This statement has repeatedly been shown to be false
if you cant make an argument without lying then you dont have an argument
 
Thats not a justification that would withstand constitutional scrutiny.
then file a federal case I wish you luck.

Society said no from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century regarding same sex marriages.
now it doesn't.
 
Thats not a justification that would withstand constitutional scrutiny. Society said no from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century regarding same sex marriages.

You didn't ask for justification you asked for a reason that is the reason.

Does far as whether it's justified or not that's up to the courts to decide. I'm willing to bet you don't make a case out of this because you don't care.

This is a false dichotomy.
 
...society said no from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century regarding same sex marriages.

Are you talking about US society?

I wasn't aware of a global "society"


"Society" condoned slavery from the dawn of time...until it was banned.

The popular argument is hardly a good one.
 
(snip). Society said no from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century regarding same sex marriages.

Those who have studied history have a different opinion
Same-sex marriage, the practice of marriage between two men or between two women.

Perhaps the earliest systematic analyses of marriage and kinship were conducted by the Swiss legal historian Johann Jakob Bachofen (1861) and the American ethnologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1871); by the mid-20th century an enormous variety of marriage and sexual customs across cultures had been documented by such scholars. Notably, they found that most cultures expressed an ideal form of marriage and an ideal set of marriage partners, while also practicing flexibility in the application of those ideals.

Among the more common forms so documented were common-law marriage; morganatic marriage, in which titles and property do not pass to children; exchange marriage, in which a sister and a brother from one family marry a brother and a sister from another; and group marriages based on polygyny (co-wives) or polyandry (co-husbands). Ideal matches have included those between cross-cousins, between parallel cousins, to a group of sisters (in polygyny) or brothers (in polyandry), or between different age sets. In many cultures the exchange of some form of surety, such as bride service, bridewealth, or dowry, has been a traditional part of the marriage contract.

Cultures that openly accepted homosexuality, of which there were many, generally had nonmarital categories of partnership through which such bonds could be expressed and socially regulated. Conversely, other cultures essentially denied the existence of same-sex intimacy, or at least deemed it an unseemly topic for discussion of any sort.

Same-Sex Marriage in History
 
Are you talking about US society?

I wasn't aware of a global "society"


"Society" condoned slavery from the dawn of time...until it was banned.

The popular argument is hardly a good one.

In all fairness, I said that society doesn't condone incestuous marriage.

He was trying to turn it around on me. It didn't work.
 
In all fairness, I said that society doesn't condone incestuous marriage.

He was trying to turn it around on me. It didn't work.

No it doesn't really. I stand by my earlier statement that there are no good, non religious, arguments against same sex marriage.

And the fact that SSM was opposed in the past is no good reason.
 
No it doesn't really. I stand by my earlier statement that there are no good, non religious, arguments against same sex marriage.

And the fact that SSM was opposed in the past is no good reason.

Yep! When God is taken out, then sin abounds. No law. No punishment and no requiring a Savior to atone for our sins. Instead, anarchy prevails and Satan wins destroying freedom of thought, agency and liberty.
 
No it doesn't really. I stand by my earlier statement that there are no good, non religious, arguments against same sex marriage.

And the fact that SSM was opposed in the past is no good reason.

Agreed. I find any argument against it is likely personal and to wit I often respond that if said person doesn't want same sex marriage, don't enter marriage with a same sex partner
 
Yep! When God is taken out, then sin abounds. No law. No punishment and no requiring a Savior to atone for our sins. Instead, anarchy prevails and Satan wins destroying freedom of thought, agency and liberty.

Well then it seems you are in favor of repealing the Constitution since it established a secular government.
 
Yep! When God is taken out, then sin abounds. No law. No punishment and no requiring a Savior to atone for our sins. Instead, anarchy prevails and Satan wins destroying freedom of thought, agency, and liberty.

Are you are that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights that creates a strict separation between religion and the secular government? Jefferson and madison were adamant that religion and law must be kept absolutely separate for social stability and both secular and religious freedom of all people. The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st mandates equal religious freedom for all people and not just religious freedom for your branch of Christianity.
God was never part of the US government and sin is not part of our laws, so take your plagiarized bronze aged myths back where they came from.
 
Yes, I would agree with that.

I would make it illegal for an adoptive father to marry his adopted daughter (or son) like Woody Allen did.

I agree, no adoptive parent should be allowed to marry their adoptive child.
 
This statement has repeatedly been shown to be false
if you cant make an argument without lying then you dont have an argument

Never been shown to be false. Your poster boy Nero doesnt count because his wasnt marriage under the law which excluded sames sex marriages.

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
 
Are you are that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights that creates a strict separation between religion and the secular government? Jefferson and madison were adamant that religion and law must be kept absolutely separate for social stability and both secular and religious freedom of all people. The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st mandates equal religious freedom for all people and not just religious freedom for your branch of Christianity.
God was never part of the US government and sin is not part of our laws, so take your plagiarized bronze aged myths back where they came from.

Biology limited marriage to men and women, not religion.
 
Back
Top Bottom